What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences

By Z. Munn, Cindy Stern, E. Aromataris, C. Lockwood, Zoe Jordan. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2018

972 citations recorded by the source corpus.

BackgroundSystematic reviews have been considered as the pillar on which evidence-based healthcare rests. Systematic review methodology has evolved and been modified over the years to accommodate the range of questions that may arise in the health and medical sciences. This paper explores a concept still rarely considered by novice authors and in the literature: determining the type of systematic review to undertake based on a research question or priority.ResultsWithin the framework of the evidence-based healthcare paradigm, defining the question and type of systematic review to conduct is a pivotal first step that will guide the rest of the process and has the potential to impact on other aspects of the evidence-based healthcare cycle (evidence generation, transfer and implementation). It is something that novice reviewers (and others not familiar with the range of review types available) need to take account of but frequently overlook. Our aim is to provide a typology of review types and describe key elements that need to be addressed during question development for each type.ConclusionsIn this paper a typology is proposed of various systematic review methodologies. The review types are defined and situated with regard to establishing corresponding questions and inclusion criteria. The ultimate objective is to provide clarified guidance for both novice and experienced reviewers and a unified typology with respect to review types.

Subfields: General Health Professions, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5927f7bf2725c6a52cba846c61d67f2a66ecdc91

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Health Professions

1. M. Peters
2. H. Khalil
3. Andrea C. Tricco
4. P. McInerney
5. Tove Faber Frandsen
6. Z. Munn
7. C. Godfrey
8. M. Eriksen

In Statistics and Probability

1. M. Peters
2. H. Khalil
3. Andrea C. Tricco
4. Tove Faber Frandsen
5. Z. Munn
6. C. Godfrey
7. M. Eriksen

Citations in the corpus

• Undertaking a scoping review: A practical guide for nursing and midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics (2021, methodology): “There are several approaches for conducting evidence synthesis (Grant & Booth, 2009; Munn et al., 2018).”
• The impact of patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) as a search strategy tool on literature search quality: a systematic review (2018, background): “, different conceptualizing models and, thus, different search strategy tools) [19].”
• Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews (2020, background): “Unauthorized rep latest update, the nomenclature has been refined to simply ‘‘scoping reviews’’ to recognize that all types of evidence synthesis should be conducted systematically, as well as to reduce the risk of confusion between different types of review.(19,20) In addition, ‘‘scoping review’’ i”