Skip to Main Content

Engineering and Natural Sciences Student Quick Guide: Systematic Reviews

This LibGuide will introduce you to some of the major research sources available from McFarlin Library in the field of ENS.

Overview of Systematic Reviews

A systematic review has a number of features distinguishing it from merely searching systematically.

It is:

  • comprehensive
  • objective
  • transparent
  • fully documented and reproducible
  • conducted across a range of resources

It aims to identify as many relevant studies as possible, even if some will be later excluded on technical grounds. 

It is also:

  • time-consuming (it may take 8 hours or more),
  • rigorous and exacting (it maps to subject headings and synonyms to be as comprehensive as possible)
  • and it rates wide recall over specificity (it is sensitive to borderline studies, which may need closer examination in terms of inclusion and exclusion criteria).

The inclusion and exclusion criteria may be based on participant recruitment and follow-up, randomisation, sampling or other details of methodology, and validity. In critical appraisal the significance and generalizability of findings are also assessed.

 

The Search Process

Step1: Develop a Research Question and Review Approach
  • Does the question need answers, a decision or the best estimate?
  • If it needs to be fast and authoritative, conduct a rapid review from the best resources.
  • Scoping reviews – or a systematic review – take more time and aim to cover more or all available resources.
  • What will be an acceptable answer?

Step 2: Identify Resources and Build a Search Strategy

  • Use resources selected for coverage and reputation.
  • Every question has angles and contexts.
  • Search with a distinct set of words - concepts - targeting each of the main facets of the question.
  • Adapt the strategy for searching in each resource.
  • Record when, where and how you searched and the results.
  • Save, identify and deduplicate the results for critical appraisal.

Step 3: Analyze and Report the Results

  • The search strategy will not have filtered out all irrelevant results. Refine  the strategy.  Apply exclusion criteria.
  • Screen out inappropriate studies using exclusion criteria, recording what is  excluded and why.
  • A review matrix and summary tables can help with compiling results.
  • A forest plot can visualise statistical results.

Defining the Research Question

The frameworks below can help you clearly define your research question. A clear and focused question will guide you through each stage of your review, from establishing your inclusion and exclusion criteria, developing your search strategy to composing your findings.

PICO

Patient/Population, Intervention, Control Group/Comparison, Outcome (Health-based)

PECO

Population, Exposure, Comparator, Outcomes (Environmental science)

PCS

Problem, Constraints, Systems (Computer Science)

PIFTS

Product/Process, Impact/Interest, Flow, and Type of lifecycle assessment (Lifecyle assessment)

Guidelines and Reporting Standards

Guidelines and standards help to ensure that a systematic review provides results that are valid, transparent, and reproducible. The rise of systematic reviews in disciplines other than health has called for new guidelines to be developed. Some of these guidelines are listed below as well as articles by researchers in different fields who have identified the need for discipline specific systematic review guidelines, and which outline examples.

Protocols

A protocol is a plan for your research which details every stage of your process. Your protocol should then be registered, so that other researchers are advised that someone is already conducting research on the topic. Refer to the guidelines and reporting standards relevant to your research, as they may contain information on how to develop a protocol.

Developing a Protocol
Searching and Registering Protocols

Useful Tools