"Systematic reviews seek to collate evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a specific research question. They aim to minimize bias by using explicit, systematic methods documented in advance with a protocol."
(Chapter 1: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021). Cochrane, 2021. Available from wwww.training.cochrane.org/handbook)
There are many different review types that can be used depending on your research question, disciplines, and the amount of time and resources you have.
Literature Review: An account of what has been published on a topic. They are written primarily by researchers working in the topic's area of study. A literature review illustrates what knowledge and ideas have been established on a particular topic, what the strengths and weaknesses are, and to identify controversies in the literature. Literature reviews also formulate questions for further research and inquiry.
Systematic Review: A study of studies. These reviews aim to collect all existing evidence to address a specific research question. The criteria used to select included evidence is pre-defined and responds precisely to the research question. Explicit methods to minimize bias and increase transparency are used to produce reliable synthesis of information. The purpose of this synthesized information is to create strong evidence to inform clinical decision-making, policy and research.
Scoping Review: Also known as mapping reviews, scoping reviews are exploratory research projects that systematically map the literature on a topic by identifying key concepts, theories and sources of evidence that inform practice in the field. The main objectives of scoping reviews are to identify gaps in the current research and highlight areas that require further inquiry. They aim to assess the potential size and scope of available research literature (often including ongoing research) and the current level of synthesis available.
Rapid Review: A (condensed) study of studies. Rapid reviews are conducted using the same methods as in a systematic review. Rapid reviews differ from other review types because decisions about the process of conducting the review are centred on the time allotted for the completion of the review. For example, the completeness of the initial search is determined by time constraints and/or the formal quality assessment is time-limited.
Umbrella Review: An umbrella review is a review of reviews. It compiles all the evidence from existing reviews on a topic to give a high level overview. An umbrella review is commonly conducted when there are multiple competing interventions for a condition. An overview of reviews about each of these interventions can be useful in determining how to best translate the evidence into practice. Like many other reviews, the aim of an umbrella study is to determine what is known on a topic, what remains unknown, and recommendations are made for what requires further research.
Critical Reviews: A critical review describes an author’s hypothesis or conceptual model based on key literature in their field of study. One of the aims of the critical review is to demonstrate that the reviewer has a commanding understanding of the literature to the point where they can extrapolate hypotheses on the topic of review. This type of review goes beyond the level of detailed description of the existing literature. While conducting a critical review, the reviewer identifies the most significant research in the field and evaluates the literature based on its contribution to the field (as opposed to a formal quality assessment). This review type is usually narrative or conceptual.
A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies
Step 1: Determine the Need for a Systematic Review
Step 4: Determine Your Eligibility Criteria
A key piece of the process is the review protocol. A systematic review protocol should describe the proposed approach for the review and the details for how the review will be conducted. The protocol should:
Step 6: Developing Your Search
Step 9: Assess Selected Studies
Step 11. Write the Review
Step 12: Update the Search
Have you spotted an error on this page? Please contact Library.Reviews@umanitoba.ca with details. Thank you.