LibGuides: Systematic Reviews: Home

What is a Systematic Review

"A systematic review attempts to identify, appraise and synthesize all the empirical evidence that meets pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a specific research question. Researchers conducting systematic reviews use explicit, systematic methods that are selected with a view aimed at minimizing bias, to produce more reliable findings to inform decision making."

Source: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/about/about-cochrane-reviews

Required elements of a Systematic Review:

A team to ensure unbiased screening
Conducted according to Cochrane OR JBI guidelines
Reported according to the PRISMA standards
File a protoco l a priori
Reproducible and transparent search strategies of multiple applicable databases and grey literature resources
Two phases of screening: Title/Abstract and Full Text by at least 2 screeners
Documentation of included and excluded studies according to the PRISMA flow diagram
Critical Appraisal of all included studies
Documentation of data extraction process per protocol
Citation of included studies, guidelines and tools utilized

The purpose of a systematic review is provide a synthesized, comprehensive view of the available literature on a specific topic. The systematic review methodology must be transparent, reproducible with strong validity and low risk of bias.

Request Form for Research Assistance and Review Consultation

This is a required planning step performed a priori to a review or systematic review. This form follows a modified version of the PRISMA 2020 statement. This protocol will be used solely for library purposes to help with consultation services or in construction of the literature search. All information shared is strictly held confidential. We will respond to your request within 2-3 business days. Please be aware that due to the volume of requests, we may not be able to complete your search immediately. For questions about this form, please contact the library at l ibmo@atsu.edu or libaz@atsu.edu.

The JBI manual strongly recommends that a librarian be involved with the creation of systematic review search strategies. We recommend working with a librarian during the planning and searching phases of your scoping review. The A.T. Still Memorial Library provides three levels of assistance for systematic and scoping reviews.

Consultant	Education with Co-Author	Co-Author
Assist in determining which type of Evidence Synthesis review best fits your question and research needs Provide education on the systematic or scoping (or other types) review methodology Assist with refining the research topic Recommend databases and grey literature sources Provide training on citation management and review software like Covidence Recommend protocol registration platforms Suggest edits for your search strategy Provide education on developing comprehensive search strategies Provide education on translating your search strategy between different databases	Assist in determining which type of Evidence Synthesis review best fits your question and research needs Provide education on the systematic or scoping (or other types) review methodology Assist with refining the research topic Recommend databases and grey literature sources Provide training on citation management and review software like Covidence Recommend protocol registration platforms Share tools for database translation and split up the work of translating, including grey literature Provide education and assist with developing comprehensive search strategies Help to write the search strategy section of the protocol and manuscript Advice on writing article according to PRISMA guidelines Provide editiorial feedback on the manuscript	Assist in determining which type of Evidence Synthesis review best fits your question and research needs Provide education on the systematic or scoping (or other types) review methodology Assist with the refinement of the research question Select databases and grey literature sources Create the search strategy Translate the search strategy into the syntax of all databases Perform searching and export them in citation management/systematic review software Provide training on citation management and review sofware like Covidence Write the search strategy section of the protocol < Help to write the search strategy section of the protocol and manuscript Advice on writing article according to PRISMA guidelines Provide editiorial feedback on the manuscript

Systematic Review Process Map

Systematic Review Timeline

This table is an estimate of time to complete based on a team of 4-6 FTE researchers working with an experienced librarian.

With 5 team members, an average systematic review takes approximately 62 - 67 weeks (Borah, et. al. , 2016)

Getting Started	Assemble team and member roles, develop & refine research question, determine inclusion & exclusion criteria, acquire exemplar articles, meet with a librarian to develop search strategy, begin the protocol application	4-6 weeks
Primary Search Design	Determine applicable databases, grey literature sources and develop pilot search strategy. Complete pilot screening process. Confirm changes for final search strategy	6-8 weeks
Finalize search strategy	Adapt search strategy according to pilot screening feedback, peer review of finalized search strategy, run final search and begin title/abstract screening.	6-8 weeks
Screening	Phase 1: Title and abstract screening. Phase 2: Full text screening	8-12 weeks
Critical appraisal of included studies	Dependent upon quantity of included studies	8-12 weeks
Data extraction from included studies	Dependent upon quantity of included studies	8-12 weeks
Write the review	Refer to reporting standards and guidelines: PRISMA 2020	8-12 weeks

PredicTER
PredicTER is a software tool to help researchers and practitioners estimate the length of time necessary to complete a systematic review (SR) or systematic map (SM). All stages of the SR and SM processes are included by default, as listed in the guidelines of the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE). Default values for each input are taken from a survey of environmental evidence synthesis practitioners conducted by Neal Haddaway.