Systematic reviews seek to systematically search for, appraise, and synthesize all available research evidence on a topic. They also:
Researchers often consider writing systematic reviews because, at first glance, they seem easier to complete than other types of research (this is not the case!), but this perception has led to what is commonly known as "the systematic reviews" or "evidence synthesis crisis". Following guidelines is voluntary, and so many low-quality reviews are carried out and published.
uncover the international evidence
confirm current, variations on, and new practice
identify and inform areas for future research
identify and investigate conflicting results
produce statements to guide decision-making
identify the types of available evidence in a given field
clarify key concepts and definitions in the literature
examine how research is conducted within a certain topic or field
identify key characteristics or factors related to a concept
as a precursor to a systematic review
identify and analyze knowledge gaps
the above "indications" are from:
Much of the work a librarian does to assist researchers falls under their everyday job responsibilities. However, systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and meta-analyses, often require greater librarian involvement and include the librarian as a partner in the research project. When these levels of assistance lead to a published paper, it is appropriate to credit the librarian, either as a coauthor or acknowledged contributor.
Basic guidelines on what to expect as usual support from your librarian collaborator:
The Institute of Medicine, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (University of York), and other organizations each have their own recommendations on conducting a systematic or scoping review.
Not all systematic reviews are created equal, and even some peer-reviewed, published systematic reviews may have flaws, which make the studies irreproducible. Here are some common mistakes to avoid:
Systematic reviews are expected to follow stringent rules governing their process by following an international protocol, called PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), which requires authors to follow specific steps and also use a specific diagram in their publication to display the results of those steps:
See the Prisma2020 site for more information including all available downloads for Statement and Flow Diagram.
PRISMA Flow Diagram is the template used by authors of systematic reviews to illustrate their article search process
The steps for conducting a systematic review are the same as that of a scoping review. The difference is in your scope, you aren't gathering all of the research, only enough to analyze its scope:
Read guidelines for your review:
The Institute of Medicine Guidelines
The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (University of York) Guidelines
Check registers of protocols of currently underway reviews to be sure that another team is not currently working on a review on your same research question
PROSPERO - International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews
here is an article analyzing PROSPERO: Booth A, Mitchell AS, Mott A, James S, Cockayne S, Gascoyne S, McDaid C. An assessment of the extent to which the contents of PROSPERO records meet the systematic review protocol reporting items in PRISMA-P. F1000Res. 2020 Jul 27;9:773. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.25181.2.
Open Science Framework (OSF)
PRISMA is a checklist that helps you ensure that you report the correct info when you write up your review. It is important to consult PRISMA from the start to ensure that you are gathering data in the correct way to facilitate accurate reporting in your publication later.
PRISMA Flow Diagram is the template used by authors of scoping reviews to illustrate their article search process
Hand-searching is a manual method of scanning select journals from cover to cover, page-for-page for relevant articles in case they were missed during indexing. According to the Cochrane Handbook, "...involves a manual page-by-page examination of the entire contents of a journal issue or conference proceedings to identify all eligible reports of trials.
"Handsearching may include checking the reference lists of journal articles, a technique called snowballing. In 2013, Craane et al found that "...hand search[ing] plays a valuable role in identifying randomised controlled trials" beyond Medline and Embase.
Craane B., Dikstra PU. (2012 Feb) Methodological quality of a systematic review on physical therapy for temporomandibular disorders: influence of hand search and quality scales. Clinical Oral Investigations 16(1) 295-303
Some researchers also place a search of google scholar or non-profit websites under the conceptual heading of their hand search within their methodology, even though they use a structured search phrase to search those websites. This is because, unlike academic article databases, Google does not support article exporting, and it is not often feasible to manually copy-paste all google results into your article database. Instead, articles will need to be hand-selected by the researchers, which is the traditional hand search methodology.