![]() PRISMA-S offers a standard for the details systematic review searches need to describe to be reproducible. In 2021, PRISMA-S, an extension of PRISMA, a guideline for reporting systematic reviews, was designed to help systematic review teams report their searches for maximum transparency and reproducibility. Estimates of systematic review search reproducibility vary widely, in part because many researchers have developed their own criteria for estimating reproducibility. Systematic review searches are particularly vulnerable to incomplete reporting. Systematic reviews are often poorly reported, which impacts reproducibility and leaves readers unable to assess potential biases. It should be possible to reproduce the search and to assess whether this leads to similar results. The search must be transparently and completely reported. A sensitive literature search encompassing multiple information sources is central to the methodology of systematic reviews. Transparent reporting is essential because it enables readers to evaluate the value of systematic reviews and to identify potential sources of bias that impact the review’s findings. See also the Library's Literature Review guide.Systematic reviews provide synthesized evidence using robust, pre-specified methods to reduce bias and enable better decision-making by health care professionals, patients, and policy makers. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-108. A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Summarises and compiles results from multiple systematic reviews into one accessible and reusable document - also known as a review of reviews. Can vary in approach, and is often specific to the type of study, which include studies of effectiveness, qualitative research, economic evaluation, prevalence, aetiology, or diagnostic test accuracy. ![]() Seeks to systematically search for, appraise, and synthesise research evidence so as to aid decision-making and determine best practice. (See the page in this guide on Scoping reviews.) Can include a wide range of related subjects.Īssesses what is known about an issue by using a systematic review method to search and appraise research and determine best practice.Īssesses the potential scope of the research literature on a particular topic. Typically employs a narrative approach to reporting the review findings. ![]() ![]() Identifies and reviews published literature on a topic, which may be broad. Traditional (narrative) literature review The table below lists five types of review, as adapted from a widely used typology of fourteen types of reviews (Grant & Booth, 2009).Critically Appraised Topics (CATs) in veterinary medicine: Applying evidence in clinical practice. P., Belshaw, Z., Buckley, L., Corah, L., Doit, H., Fajt, V. "Schematic of the main differences between the types of literature review" by Brennan, M. The image below describes common review types in terms of speed, detail, risk of bias, and comprehensiveness:.Here are a couple of simple explanations. Researchers, academics, and librarians all use various terms to describe different types of literature reviews, and there is often inconsistency in the ways the types are discussed. But even a narrative review should be undertaken with systematic rigour, so parts of this guide should still be useful depending on the level and extent of your review. It might be that a systematic review is not appropriate for your situation, and a Critically Appraised Topic (CAT), a scoping review, or a traditional narrative review might be more relevant to your purpose (see table below). Note that every meta-analysis has a systematic review behind it, but not every systematic review includes a meta-analysis! a synthesis and systematic presentation of the findings of the included studies.Ī systematic review might also include a meta-analysis: a statistical way to combine quantitative data extracted from a systematic review.the critical appraisal of included studies.a systematic and reproducible search strategy.a clearly defined topic, with pre-defined criteria for inclusion and exclusion of studies.Key characteristics of a systematic review include: They aim to minimize bias by using explicit, systematic methods documented in advance with a protocol." ( Cochrane Handbook Version 6.3, 2020) "Systematic reviews seek to collate evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a specific research question.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |