Systematic & scoping reviews Searching Systematic & scoping reviews Review types Review types Systematic reviews Scoping reviews Steps in a systematic review Comparison of different types of reviews Check for existing reviews/protocols Formulate a specific question Develop and register your protocol Find sources to search Find grey literature Design your search strategy Advanced searching Document your search and manage your search results Select and critically appraise studies Handbooks and manuals Systematic review tools Reviews in non-health disciplines Help & support Systematic reviews From Munn et al (2018): “Systematic reviews can be broadly defined as a type of research synthesis that are conducted by review groups with specialized skills, who set out to identify and retrieve international evidence that is relevant to a particular question or questions and to appraise and synthesize the results of this search to inform practice, policy and in some cases, further research. .. Systematic reviews follow a structured and pre-defined process that requires rigorous methods to ensure that the results are both reliable and meaningful to end users. .. A systematic review may be undertaken to confirm or refute whether or not current practice is based on relevant evidence, to establish the quality of that evidence, and to address any uncertainty or variation in practice that may be occurring. .. Conducting a systematic review may also identify gaps, deficiencies, and trends in the current evidence and can help underpin and inform future research in the area. .. Indications for systematic reviews are: Uncover the international evidence Confirm current practice/ address any variation/ identify new practices Identify and inform areas for future research Identify and investigate conflicting results Produce statements to guide decision-making” Scoping reviews From Munn et al (2018): “Scoping reviews are an ideal tool to determine the scope or coverage of a body of literature on a given topic and give clear indication of the volume of literature and studies available as well as an overview (broad or detailed) of its focus. Scoping reviews are useful for examining emerging evidence when it is still unclear what other, more specific questions can be posed and valuably addressed by a more precise systematic review. They can report on the types of evidence that address and inform practice in the field and the way the research has been conducted. The general purpose for conducting scoping reviews is to identify and map the available evidence. Purposes for conducting a scoping review: To identify the types of available evidence in a given field To clarify key concepts/ definitions in the literature To examine how research is conducted on a certain topic or field To identify key characteristics or factors related to a concept As a precursor to a systematic review To identify and analyse knowledge gaps” Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x Reviews can be quantitative or qualitative A quantitative review will include studies that have numerical data. A qualitative review derives data from observation, interviews, or verbal interactions and focuses on the meanings and interpretations of the participants. It will include focus groups, interviews, observations and diaries. See the qualitative research section for more information. PRISMA Statement PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses is an evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The PRISMA 2020 statement was published in 2021 and comprises a 27-item checklist addressing the introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of a systematic review report. It is intended to be accompanied by the PRISMA 2020 Explanation and Elaboration document. The PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) was published in 2018. The checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items to include when completing a scoping review. Steps in a systematic review A systematic review involves the following steps: Check for existing reviews/protocols. If a systematic review answering your question has been conducted, or is being undertaken, you may need to amend or refine your question Formulate a specific research question that is clear and focused. Use the PICO tool (for quantitative reviews) or PICo (for qualitative reviews) Develop and register your protocol, including the rationale for the review, and eligibility criteria Design a robust search strategy that is explicit and reproducible Conduct a comprehensive search of the literature by searching the relevant databases and other sources Select and critically appraise the quality of included studies Extract relevant data from individual studies and use established methods to synthesise the data Interpret your results and prepare a comprehensive report on all aspects of your systematic review. Present your findings so that they can be translated into clinical practice. Comparison of different types of reviews Literature review Scoping review Rapid review Examples of different types of reviews This table outlines the differences between a systematic review and a literature review:   Systematic Review Literature Review Question Focused on a single question Not necessarily focused on a single question, but may describe an overview Protocol Includes a peer review protocol or plan No protocol is included Background Provides summaries of the available literature on a topic Provides summaries of the available literature on a topic Objectives Clear objectives are identified Objectives may or may not be identified Inclusion/exclusion criteria Criteria is stated before review is conducted Criteria is not specified Search strategy Comprehensive search conducted in a systematic way Strategy not explicitly stated Process of selecting articles Process usually clear and explicit Not described in a literature review Process of evaluating articles Comprehensive evaluation of study quality Evaluation of study quality may or may not be included Results and data synthesis Clear summaries based on high quality evidence Summary based on studies where the quality of the articles may not be specified. May also be influenced by the reviewer’s theories, needs and beliefs Discussion Written by an expert or group of experts with a detailed and well grounded knowledge of the issues Written by an expert or group of experts with a well grounded knowledge of the issues Adapted from: University of Newcastle Australia Library A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies (2009) https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x Library academic support suite UniSkills Makerspace 23 Things Copyright toolkit About Research Toolkit Research Toolkit site map Library Home Help News Campuses Australia Dubai Malaysia Mauritius Singapore Teaching areas Centre for Aboriginal Studies Business and Law Health Sciences Humanities Science and Engineering Copyright Disclaimer Privacy UGC Statement Popular Courses Accessibility Contact ABN 99 143 842 569. CRICOS Provider Code 00301J. TEQSA PRV12158 Curtin University acknowledges all First Nations of this place we call Australia and recognises the many nations who have looked after Country for more than 60,000 years. We are honoured and grateful for the privilege to maintain campuses operating in Boorloo (Perth) and Karlkurla (Kalgoorlie) in Australia. We pay our respects to Elders past and present as Custodians and Owners of these lands. We recognise their deep knowledge and their cultural, spiritual and educational practices, and aspire to learn and teach in partnership with them. Curtin also acknowledges First Nations peoples connected with our global campuses. We are committed to working in partnership with all Custodians and Owners to strengthen and embed First Nations' voices and perspectives in our decision-making, now and into the future.