The systematic literature review process: a simple guide for public health and allied health students
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20232496Keywords:
Systematic review, Stages, Students, Public health, Allied healthAbstract
A literature review is a key part of all academic research that informs researchers of the existing body of knowledge. Reviews conducted systematically are becoming more appealing to the researcher about two reasons. Firstly, they are robust, strong, comprehensive and reproducible and can appropriately serve the background review of any primary research. Secondly, they are qualified to be a stand-alone piece of academic work that contributes to the scientific body of knowledge. Although researchers and students in higher education who wish to write their dissertations are informed about the need for generating a literature review for primary research, when it comes to conducting a full systematic review, they may have some confusion and doubt on the distinction between a traditional literature review and a systematic review. This paper aims to clarify what a systematic review entails and take the readers' attention through the practical steps in conducting a systematic review. So, more of a practical step-by-step guide, rather than theoretical discussion of content, has been included. This paper would benefit early-career researchers, undergraduate students and many post-graduate students who wish to write their papers or dissertations based on a systematic review.
References
Xiao Y, Watson M. Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Literature Review. J Plan Educ Res. 2019;39(1):93-112.
Oliver K, Cairney P. The dos and don’ts of influencing policy: a systematic review of advice to academics. Palgrave Commun. 2019;5(1):21.
Siddaway AP, Wood AM, Hedges LV. How to Do a Systematic Review: A Best Practice Guide for Conducting and Reporting Narrative Reviews, Meta-Analyses, and Meta-Syntheses. Annu Rev Psychol. 2019;70(1):747-70.
Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18(10):2119-26.
Baethge C, Goldbeck-Wood S, Mertens S. SANRA—a scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019;4(1):5.
Wildridge V, Bell L. How CLIP became ECLIPSE: a mnemonic to assist in searching for health policy/management information. Health Info Libr J. 2002;19(2):113-5.
Munn Z, Stern C, Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Jordan Z. What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):5.
Ahn E, Kang H. Introduction to systematic review and meta-analysis. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2018;71(2):103-12.
Garner P, Hopewell S, Chandler J, MacLehose H, Akl EA, Beyene J, et al. When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist. BMJ. 2016;354.
Aslam S, Emmanuel P. Formulating a researchable question: A critical step for facilitating good clinical research. Indian J Sex Transm Dis AIDS. 2010;31(1):47.
Atkinson LZ, Cipriani A. How to carry out a literature search for a systematic review: a practical guide. BJPsych Adv. 2018;24(2):74-82.
Turin TC, Abedin T, Chowdhury N, Ferdous M, Vaska M, Rumana N, et al. Community engagement with immigrant communities involving health and wellness research: a systematic review protocol towards developing a taxonomy of community engagement definitions, frameworks, and methods. BMJ Open. 2020;10(4):e035649.
Kazi M, Chowdhury N, Chowdhury M, Turin T. Conducting comprehensive scoping reviews to systematically capture the landscape of a subject matter. Popul Med. 2021;3:1-9.
Crowther M, Lim W, Crowther MA. Systematic review and meta-analysis methodology. Blood. 2010;116(17):3140-6.
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;n71.
Thomas BH, Ciliska D, Dobbins M, Micucci S. A process for systematically reviewing the literature: providing the research evidence for public health nursing interventions. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2004;1(3):176-84.
CASP. CASP Checklists. 2023. Available at: https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/. Accessed on 25 June 2023.
O’Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research. Academic Medicine. 2014;89(9):1245-51.
Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Quality in Health Care. 2007;19(6):349-57.
Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;i4919.
JBI Global. Critical Appraisal Tools. 2020. Available at: https://synthesismanual.jbi.global. Accessed on 25 June 2023.
Downes MJ, Brennan ML, Williams HC, Dean RS. Development of a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of cross-sectional studies (AXIS). BMJ Open. 2016;6(12).
Nha HONG Q, Pluye P, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, et al. Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) Version 2018 User guide. 2018. Available at: http://mixedmethodsappraisal toolpublic.pbworks.com/. Accessed on 25 June 2023.
Greig A, Kabir R. Assessing the Risk Factors for Suicide and Appropriate Intervention as a Prevention Method Among Older Adults. Interações: Sociedade e as novas modernidades. 2022;(42):70-89.
Sathian B, Banerjee I, Mekkodathil AA, Van Teijlingen E, Pizarro AB, Asim M, et al. Epidemiologic characteristics, clinical management and Public Health Implications of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Pregnancy: A Systematic Review and meta-analysis. Nepal J Epidemiol. 2021;11(4):1103-25.
Tawfik GM, Dila KAS, Mohamed MYF, Tam DNH, Kien ND, Ahmed AM, et al. A step by step guide for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis with simulation data. Trop Med Health. 2019;47(1):46.
