LibGuides: Systematic Reviews: Types of Systematic Reviews

Overview

Systematic Reviews are a family of review types that include:

Traditional Systematic Reviews
Scoping Reviews
Rapid Reviews
Meta-Analyses
Umbrella Reviews
and more

This page provides information about the most common types of systematic reviews, important resources and references for conducting them, and some tools for choosing the best type for your research question.

Additional Information

A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies
This classic article is a valuable reference point for those commissioning, conducting, supporting or interpreting reviews.

Traditional Systematic Reviews

Overview

Traditional Systematic Reviews follow a rigorous and well-defined methodology to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant research articles on a specific topic and within a specified population of subjects
The primary goal of this type of study is to comprehensively find the empirical data available on a topic, identify relevant articles, synthesize their findings and draw evidence-based conclusions to answer a clinical question

Methods

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions provides direction on the standard methods involved in conducting a systematic review. It is the official guide to the process involved in preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of healthcare interventions.
JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis
The JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis is designed to provide authors with a comprehensive guide to conducting JBI systematic reviews. It describes in detail the process of planning, undertaking and writing up a systematic review using JBI methods. The JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis should be used in conjunction with the support and tutorials offered at the JBI SUMARI Knowledge Base.

Protocols

These are some places where protocols for systematic reviews might be published.

PROSPERO: International prospective register of systematic reviews
PROSPERO is an international database of prospectively registered systematic reviews in health and social care, welfare, public health, education, crime, justice, and international development, where there is a health related outcome. Key features from the review protocol are recorded and maintained as a permanent record. PROSPERO aims to provide a comprehensive listing of systematic reviews registered at inception to help avoid duplication and reduce opportunity for reporting bias by enabling comparison of the completed review with what was planned in the protocol.
Guidance Notes for Registering A Systematic Review Protocol with PROSPERO
OSF Registries
Open Science Framework (OSF) Registries is an open network of study registgrations and pre-registrations. It can be used to pre-register a systematic review protocol. Note that OSF pre-registrations are not reviewed.
OSF Preregistration Initiative
This page explains the motivation behind preregistrations and best practices for doing so.
Protocols.io
A secure platform for developing and sharing reproducible methods, including protocols for systematic reviews.

Reporting

PRISMA 2020 Statement
The PRISMA 2020 Statement was published in 2021. It consists of a checklist and a flow diagram, and is intended to be accompanied by the PRISMA 2020 Explanation and Elaboration document.

Meta-Analyses

Overview

Meta-analysis is a statistical method that can be applied during a systematic review to extract and combine the results from multiple studies
This pooling of data from compatible studies increases the statistical power and precision of the conclusions made by the systematic review
Systematic reviews can be done without doing a meta-analysis, but a meta-analysis must be done in connection with a systematic review

Scoping Reviews

Overview

Scoping reviews identify the existing literature available on a topic to help identify key concepts, the type and amount of evidence available on a subject, and what research gaps exist in a specific area of study
They are particularly useful when a research question is broad and the goal is to provide an understanding of the available evidence on a topic rather than providing a focused synthesis on a narrow question

Methods

JBI Manual Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews
Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews
The objective of this paper is to describe the updated methodological guidance for conducting a JBI scoping review, with a focus on new updates to the approach and development of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (the PRISMA-ScR).
Steps for Conducting a Scoping Review
This article in the Journal of Graduate Medical Education provides a comprehensive yet brief overview of the scoping review process.

Protocols

Note: Protocols for scoping reviews can be published in all the same places as traditional systematic reviews except PROSPERO.

Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols
The purpose of this article is to clearly describe how to develop a robust and detailed scoping review protocol, which is the first stage of the scoping review process. This paper provides detailed guidance and a checklist for prospective authors to ensure that their protocols adequately inform both the conduct of the ensuing review and their readership.

Reporting

PRISMA for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR)
The PRISMA extension for scoping reviews was published in 2018. The checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items to include when completing a scoping review. Scoping reviews serve to synthesize evidence and assess the scope of literature on a topic. Among other objectives, scoping reviews help determine whether a systematic review of the literature is warranted.

Additional Information

Touro College: What is a Scoping Review?
This page describes scoping reviews, including their limitations, alternate names, and how they differ from traditional systematic reviews.
What are scoping reviews? Providing a formal definition of scoping reviews as a type of evidence synthesis
This article from JBI Evidence Synthesis provides a thorough definition of what scoping reviews are and what they are for.
The role of scoping reviews in reducing research waste
This article from the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology looks at how scoping reviews can reduce research waste.

Rapid Reviews

Overview

Rapid reviews streamline the systematic review process by omitting certain steps or accelerating the timeline
They are useful when there is a need for timely evidence synthesis, such as in response to questions concerning an urgent policy or clinical situation such as the COVID-19 pandemic

Methods

Rapid Review Guidebook
This document provides guidance on the process of conducting rapid reviews to use evidence to inform policy and program decision making.
Rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems: a practical guide
This guide from the World Health Organization offers guidance on how to plan, conduct, and promote the use of rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems decisions. The Guide explores different approaches and methods for expedited synthesis of health policy and systems research, and highlights key challenges for this emerging field, including its application in low- and middle-income countries. It touches on the utility of rapid reviews of health systems evidence, and gives insights into applied methods to swiftly conduct knowledge syntheses and foster their use in policy and practice.
Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews
The Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers new, interim guidance to support the conduct of Rapid Reviews.

Additional Information

Touro College: What is a Rapid Review?
This page describes rapid reviews, including their limitations, alternate names, and how they differ from traditional systematic reviews.

Umbrella Reviews

Overview

Umbrella reviews synthesize evidence from multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses on a specific topic
They provide a next-generation level of evidence synthesis, analyzing evidence taken from multiple systematic reviews to offer a broader perspective on a given subject

Methods

JBI Manual Chapter 10: Umbrella reviews

Reporting

Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews (PRIOR)
Overviews of reviews (i.e., overviews) compile information from multiple systematic reviews to provide a single synthesis of relevant evidence for healthcare decision-making. Despite their increasing popularity, there are currently no systematically developed reporting guidelines for overviews. This is problematic because the reporting of published overviews varies considerably and is often substandard. Our objective is to use explicit, systematic, and transparent methods to develop an evidence-based and agreement-based reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions (PRIOR, Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews).

Additional Information

Touro College: What is an Overview of Reviews?
This page describes umbrella reviews, including their limitations, alternate names, and how they differ from traditional systematic reviews.

Selecting A Review Type

Cornell University Systematic Review Decision Tree
This decision tree is designed to assist researchers in choosing a review type.

Right Review
This tool is designed to provide guidance and supporting material to reviewers on methods for the conduct and reporting of knowledge synthesis.