Abstract
Much time and effort are spent on designing primary research studies. Similar care must be given to planning systematic reviews. The review should be based on an important, well-focused question that is relevant to patient care. By formulating the question properly, the criteria that primary studies must meet to be included in the review become clear. These criteria, which comprise the types of persons involved, exposure, control group, outcomes, and study designs of interest, can then be refined so that they are clinically relevant, sensible, and workable. Inclusion criteria that are too narrow will limit the amount of data in the review, thereby increasing the risk for chance results and making the review less useful for the reader. Reviews should include studies whose designs offer the least biased answer to the question being asked. To maximize available data and reduce the risk for bias, as many relevant studies as possible need to be identified, regardless of publication status or language. Multiple overlapping search strategies should therefore be used and must be carefully planned. Strategies include searching the many electronic databases available (after careful consideration of which terms to enter), manually searching journals and conference proceedings, searching bibliographies of articles, searching existing registers of studies, and contacting companies or researchers. The time taken to formulate the question adequately and develop appropriate searches will increase the chance of producing a high-quality, meaningful review.
Keywords
Affiliated Institutions
Related Publications
The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers
Introduction: Appraising the quality of studies included in systematic reviews combining qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies is challenging. To address this chal...
A Proposal for More Informative Abstracts of Review Articles
This proposal presents guidelines for preparing informative abstracts of review articles. Six guidelines are proposed: 1. The abstract should begin with a precise statement of t...
The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and tr...
The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and tra...
Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach
BackgroundScoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic re...
Publication Info
- Year
- 1997
- Type
- review
- Volume
- 127
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 380-387
- Citations
- 496
- Access
- Closed
External Links
Social Impact
Social media, news, blog, policy document mentions
Citation Metrics
Cite This
Identifiers
- DOI
- 10.7326/0003-4819-127-5-199709010-00008