We welcome feedback and additions to our Library Guides. You can contact a member of our friendly staff via phone or email if you need assistance.
Ask a Librarian is staffed from
9am to 5pm AEST Monday - Friday.
Systematic reviews are just one type of review within a larger 'family' of reviews and evidence syntheses. While most systematic reviews are undertaken in the medical and health fields, they can also be used in many other disciplines. Before starting a systematic review, you should consider whether it's the best fit for your purpose.
We would always encourage staff to have a clear process in mind when undertaking any review or evidence/knowledge synthesis. However, it is important to note that the particular steps and methodologies of a systematic review are different to other types of reviews and evidence/knowledge syntheses. In addition, there are different types of systematic reviews that are tailored to different types of evidence or areas of knowledge.
There are several review 'families' and many types of reviews as identified by Sutton et al. Each type of review serves a different purpose and involves different timeline and methodology requirements[1]. See the table below.
| Type of Review | Purpose/Definition | Timeline/Requirements |
Literature/Narrative Review |
A qualitative investigation that summarises evidence on a topic. Will mostly use informal/subjective methods to collect and analyse material. | Weeks to months of work. May involve more than one author. Requirements and reporting on searching are not standardised. The level of searching and reporting of search strategies and process will vary. |
| Scoping Review | A protocol-driven research paper using transparent methodology to map or chart literature/research question. Can be focused on a specific question or have a wider scope. | Will usually take one or more authors many months of work, possibly a year or more. Search strategy will be expected to be comprehensive and reported and involved searching multiple sources. |
| Rapid Review | A focused review, looking for an answer to a protocol-driven specific research question expected to be completed in a short time frame. | Authors will be expected to register a protocol with predetermined eligibility criteria. The search process is expected to be systematic, thoroughly documented and replicable. One or more authors will usually take several weeks to a few months to provide timely evidence for decision-making purposes. |
| Systematic Review |
A protocol-driven academic research paper aimed at answering a specific research question. Expected to be transparent and reproducible | In order to eliminate bias, formal systematic reviews will usually required 3 or more authors working for up to a year. A systematic, replicable, well documented and reported search process is required, with supplementary searching often recommended. Assessment of the quality of and validity of included studies and findings is required and data extraction and statistical analysis may be included depending on the discipline/research area. |
| Umbrella Review | A review of previously published systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses regarding a clearly defined topic or question. | One or more authors will need to carry out a systematic and replicable search strategy, searching multiple databases, repositories of systematic reviews as well as hand searching subject specific repositories, journals and other sources. Generally faster than a stand alone systematic review. |
| Metaanalysis | A method which synthesises quantitative (or in some cases qualitative) findings of multiple studies via the use of statistical methods | Similar to a systematic review, which it often follows, authors will need to take a systematic approach for searching and evaluating studies to be included in the meta-analysis, including how to make study selections with a mind to how the data in each study will be pooled. |
If you are unsure which approach best suits the work you would like to undertake, consider using Right Review, a tool designed to provide guidance and supporting material to reviewers on methods for the conduct and reporting of knowledge synthesis.
1. Anthea Sutton, Mark Clowes, Louise Preston, Andrew Booth, Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements, Health Information and Libraries Journal, Volume 36, issue 3, September 2019, pp. 202-222
When conducting a review, it's important to consider whether you have a clear question that you want to answer. If you find that you have multiple questions, you may need to either clarify or restrict your question, or consider doing a scoping review. You could also plan to do multiple reviews or carry out a scoping search to arrive at a question that can be answered by a systematic review.
Performing a systematic review can be a demanding and time-consuming task. It is important to focus your research question to make the process more efficient. We recommend that you search various protocol registries such as PROSPERO, protocols.io, Research Registry, INPLASY as well as the JBI and Cochrane databases, to see if there are any registered protocols that may already address the question you are looking to answer.
If you have a specific question in mind, it's beneficial to develop a protocol for your review. If your work isn't commercial-in-confidence, you can register or publish your protocol in any of the registries mentioned earlier.
Your protocol should include items such as:
There are several organisations that have developed guidelines for carrying out systematic reviews. The Cochrane Collaboration and JBI (formerly known as the Joanna Briggs Institute) cover Health and Medicine, while the Campbell Collaboration, a sister initiative of Cochrane covers social science areas.
You may benefit from using a framework to formulate your review question and search strategy. These frameworks should be treated as a guide to formulating a question and/or search strategy. You should also consider whether the chosen framework is applicable to your question or whether another is better suited. When creating a search strategy your approach may be benefit from modifying a framework or using an entirely different conceptual schema.
| Name | Framework Concepts | Example |
| PICO | Population/patient problem, Intervention, Comparison/Control, Outcome | Patient - Adolescents, Intervention - Mobile app promoting healthy eating, Comparison/Control - In-person attendance at health promotion, Outcome - Improved health biomarkers |
| PICo | Population, Interest, Context | Population - Nurses, Interest - Experience of lateral or horizontal violence, Context - Tertiary care or health system participation in Australia |
| SPICE | Setting, Perspective/Ppulation, Interest, Comparison, Evaluation | Setting - Nursing Home, Perspective/Population - Older people, Intervention - Provision of strength training, Comparison - Dancing classes, Evaluation - Rates of falls and severity of falls |
| PerSPE(c)TiF | Perspective, Setting, Phenomenon of interest/problem, Environment, (comparison), Time/timing, Findings | Perspective - From the perspective of a pregnant woman, Setting - In rural areas, Phenomenon - Facility-based care, Environment - Within an environment with poor transport infrastructure and low population density , (comparison) - Compare with traditional birth attendants at home, Time/Timing - Up to and including delivery, Findings - In relation to the woman's perceptions and experiences? |
Further reading: Andrew Booth, Anthea Sutton, Mark Clowes, Marissa Martyn-St James, Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review (Sage, 2022)
Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review by