Systematic Reviews Consultation
Interested in consulting with a USC Librarian regarding your systematic review? Fill out our online consultation request form or contact jadewinn@usc.edu
1. Assemble a Research Team
The review team is responsible for managing and conducting the SR. In order to minimize bias and produce a high quality SR, multidisciplinary teams of two or more qualified individuals should be organized.
First time reviewers should work with others who are experienced in the process.
The team should consist of the following:
- clinical content experts
- experts in SR methodology, with knowledge in reducing risk of bias, study design, data collection, management & analysis, and statistical analys
- librarians or information specialists for database searching
- other relevant users and stakeholders (as feasible) - i.e. consumers, individuals skilled in project management, writing, editing
Potential conflicts of interest (COI) should be disclosed for each team member, including financial, professional or intellectual bias. Consideration for exclusion should be given for individuals whose COI may diminish credibility of the review.
2. Create a Focused and Answerable Research Question
It is important to develop a focused, answerable, well-formulated question as this will determine many other components of the review, including the search for studies, data extraction, synthesis, and presentation of findings.
The following factors should be considered when formulating a research question:
- is this a new or novel topic
- does the question focus on uncertainties that underlie disagreement in practice
- are the outcomes and interventions of interest to patients and clinicians
Formulating a precise question can be difficult. The PICO mnemonic is a structured format used to improve the scientific rigor of a SR.
Image Source: https://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13059&page=68
3. Has a systematic review been published or registered?
Conducting a SR is an expensive and time consuming process. Before embarking in the process the team should ensure that another SR does not already exist. It is useful to search the following databases for completed SRs or protocols for those in progress.
- Cochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsThe Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews provides access to full-text systematic reviews.
- PROSPEROPROSPERO is an international database of prospectively registered systematic reviews in health and social care.
- PubMed@USC This link opens in a new windowPubMed provides access to millions of citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science journals, and online books. This version is customized for USC users to find the full-text of articles.
- Open Science FrameworkRegister research and data management software for open science. Public/Private workflows. Free and open source. Promotes collaboration. Seamlesss integrations. Amenities: Storage, Upload datasets, Share research.
4. Develop a Research Protocol
Once it has been determined that a SR should be conducted the next step is to prepare a protocol. A protocol is a detailed description of the objectives and methods of the review. It is important for several reasons:
- allows for careful planning and anticipation of potential problems
- explicit documentation allows for comparison and replication of the protocol and completed review
- the validity of planned methods can be judged
- prevents arbitrary decision making regarding inclusion criteria and extraction of data
- may reduce duplication of efforts
Source: Shamseer (2015)
It is common to amend protocols after the review has started. Common reasons include extending the period of search to include older and newer studies, broadening eligibility criteria, and adding new analyses suggested by the primary analysis. Researchers should not modify the protocol based on knowledge of the results of analyses. IOM - standards for SR paper
The PRISMA-P checklist (below) can be used to develop protocols:
- Shamseer, Larissa (2015). "Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation". BMJ. British medical journal (Clinical research ed.) (0959-8138), 349, p. g7647.This paper provides the checklist of the 17 items considered to be essential components of a SR protocol. This paper should be read together with the PRISMA-P 2015 statement:
5. Set a Realistic Timeline
Conducting a SR takes time - anywhere from 6 to 18 months!
A SR has a fixed component and a variable component that increases with the number of citations that must be reviewed. An analysis of time spent showed that it took on average 1,139 hours to conduct a SR. Hours were broken down into the following:
- 588 hours - protocol development, searching and retrieval
- 144 hours - statistical analysis
- 206 hours - report writing
- 201 hours - administration
Source: Glasziou et. al. (2001) Systematic reviews in health care: A practical guide
6. Register your Review
- Pre-register at Center for Open Science/ Open Science FrameworkWhen you preregister your research, you're simply specifying your research plan in advance of your study and submitting it to a registry.
Preregistration separates hypothesis-generating (exploratory) from hypothesis-testing (confirmatory) research. Both are important. But the same data cannot be used to generate and test a hypothesis, which can happen unintentionally and reduce the credibility of your results. Addressing this problem through planning improves the quality and transparency of your research. This helps you clearly report your study and helps others who may wish to build on it. For instructions on how to submit a preregistration on OSF, please visit our help guides.
For additional insight and context, you can read The Preregistration Revolution. (preprint) - Register with PROSPEROPROSPERO accepts registrations for systematic reviews, rapid reviews and umbrella reviews. PROSPERO does not accept scoping reviews or literature scans. Sibling PROSPERO sites registers systematic reviews of human studies and systematic reviews of animal studies.
Please read the guidance notes for registering a systematic review on human studies or for registering a review of animal studies relevant to human health on PROSPERO.
Before completing a registration form, please check that your review is eligible for inclusion in PROSPERO
Registration should take place once the systematic review protocol has been finalised, but ideally before screening studies for inclusion begins. However, reviews are currently accepted for registration as long as they have not progressed beyond the completion of data extraction.
Completed reviews should not be registered.
PROSPERO only accepts registration of systematic reviews with a health related outcome.
Cochrane reviews should not be registered individually (we are working towards uploading these electronically) - Register with Joanna Briggs InstitutePlease note: this register is for the use of JBI affiliated entities ONLY. Registration of a systematic review title on the JBI website is to promote collaboration between affiliated entities via highlighting current work to other JBI review authors and to recognise that the registered topic is currently in development to avoid any unintended and/or unnecessary duplication of research effort.
Registered systematic reviews that are currently underway are listed below. Protocols for these reviews may already be published or in preparation for publication within six months of initial registration. To avoid duplication, titles in this list should not be replicated by other review authors. Please contact the listed Primary Reviewer or the JBI Synthesis Science Unit if you would like further information about any of these registered reviews.JBI is an international research organisation based in the Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences at the University of Adelaide, South Australia. JBI develops and delivers unique evidence-based information, software, education and training designed to improve healthcare practice and health outcomes.
At its core, JBI is concerned with improving health outcomes in communities globally by promoting and supporting the use of the best available evidence to inform decisions made at the point of care. This work begins and ends with the needs of those working in and using healthcare services. We seek to respond to their questions and provide high quality, reliable information that is pragmatic and useful where it counts.
To achieve this, we work with universities and hospitals from across the globe through the JBI Collaboration. In doing so we ensure that the research evidence we seek to synthesise, transfer and implement is culturally inclusive and relevant across the diversity of healthcare internationally. This also includes consideration of types of evidence as it relates to the feasibility, appropriateness, meaningfulness and effectiveness of healthcare interventions.
In addition to this important collaborative work we offer a range of evidence-based practice tools and resources such as systematic review and clinical audit tools, evidence-based point of care resources and we offer varied educational programs to further support those who seek to access, appraise or use research evidence.