A young researcher's guide to a systematic review Series: Part04 - Types of articles: A guide for young researchers Key takeaways: A systematic review is a thorough and detailed review of existing literature on a particular topic, designed to address a specific question.
When clinicians want to update their knowledge and generate guidelines about a topic, they frequently use reviews as a starting point.
The value of a review is associated with what has been done, what has been found and how these findings are presented. The main and fundamental purpose of writing a review is to create a readable synthesis of the best resources available in the literature for an important research question or a current area of research.
Although the idea of writing a review is attractive, it is important to spend time identifying the important questions. Good review methods are critical because they provide an unbiased point of view for the reader regarding the current how to write a systematic review methodology meaning.
There is a consensus that a review should be written in a systematic fashion, a notion that is usually followed. In a systematic review with a focused question, the research methods must be clearly described. An essential part of the review process is differentiating good research from bad and leaning on the results of the better studies.
The ideal way to synthesize studies is to perform a meta-analysis. In conclusion, when writing a review, it is best to clearly focus on fixed ideas, to use a procedural and critical approach to the literature and to express your findings in an attractive way.
How to write, review, writing The importance of review articles in health sciences is increasing day by day. Clinicians frequently benefit from review articles to update their knowledge in their field of specialization, and use these articles as a starting point for formulating guidelines.
A few studies have evaluated the quality of review articles. Murlow evaluated 50 review articles published inandand revealed that none of them had complied with clear-cut scientific criteria. Narrative reviews are written in an easily readable format, and allow consideration of the subject matter within a large spectrum.
However in a systematic review, a very detailed, and comprehensive literature surveying is performed on the selected topic.
Systematic reviews can be diivded into qualitative, and quantitative reviews. In both of them detailed literature surveying is performed. However in quantitative reviews, study data are collected, and statistically evaluated ie. The fundamental rationale of writing a review article is to make a readable synthesis of the best literature sources on an important research inquiry or a topic.
This simple definition of a review article contains the following key elements: The question s to be dealt with Methods used to find out, and select the best quality researches so as to respond to these questions.
To synthetize available, but quite different researches For the specification of important questions to be answered, number of literature references to be consulted should be more or less determined.
Discussions should be conducted with colleagues in the same area of interest, and time should be reserved for the solution of the problem s. It will be reasonable to fulfill the requirements of these items during preparation of a review article or a meta-analysis.
Thus preparation of a comprehensible article with a high-quality scientific content can be feasible. Additional analyses 16 Describe methods of additional analyses such as sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regressionif done, indicating which were pre-specified. Results Study selection 17 Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
Study characteristics 18 For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted such as study size, PICOS, follow-up period and provide the citation.
Risk of bias within studies 19 Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome-level assessment see item 12 Results of individual studies 20 For all outcomes considered benefits and harmspresent, for each study, simple summary data for each intervention group and effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot a type of graph used in meta-analyses which demonstrates relat, ve success rates of treatment outcomes of multiple scientific studies analyzing the same topic Syntheses of resxults 21 Present the results of each meta-analyses including confidence intervals and measures of consistency Risk of bias across studies 22 Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies see item A non-systematic review means use of articles collected for years with the recommendations of your colleagues, while systematic review is based on struggles to search for, and find the best possible researches which will respond to the questions predetermined at the start of the review.
Though a consensus has been reached about the systematic design of the review articles, studies revealed that most of them had not been written in a systematic format.
We can confront two problems while we are using data from researches in order to answer certain questions. Firstly, we can be prejudiced during selection of research articles or these articles might be biased. To minimize this risk, methodologies used in our reviews should allow us to define, and use researches with minimal degree of bias.
The second problem is that, most of the researches have been performed with small sample sizes. In statistical methods in meta-analyses, available researches are combined to increase the statistical power of the study.
The problematic aspect of a non-systematic review is that our tendency to give biased responses to the questions, in other words we apt to select the studies with known or favourite results, rather than the best quality investigations among them.
As is the case with many research articles, general format of a systematic review on a single subject includes sections of Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion Table 2.PROSPERO: An international database of prospectively registered systematic reviews in health and social care.
Key features from the review protocol are recorded and maintained as a permanent record. Open Science Framework: An open source web application that connects and supports the research workflow.
Researchers use the OSF to collaborate, document, archive, share, and register research .
The steps necessary to perform a systematic review are fully explained, including the study purpose, search methodology, data extraction, reporting . Mar 06, · In a systematic review with a focused question, the research methods must be clearly described.
A ‘methodological filter’ is the best method for identifying the best working style for a research question, and this method reduces the workload when surveying the literature. A systematic review aims to provide a complete, exhaustive summary of current literature relevant to a research question.
The first step in conducting a systematic review is to create a structured question to guide the review. The second step is to perform a thorough search of the literature for relevant papers. A systematic literature review attempts ‘to identify, appraise and synthesize all the empirical evidence that meets pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a given research question’ (Cochrane definition.
Following this, the methods in conducting a systematic review of reviews require consideration of the following aspects, akin to the planning for a systematic review of individual studies: sources, review selection, quality assessment of reviews, presentation of results and implications for .