Brief overview of what characterises Systematic Reviews and why we should care.

1. “One of the biggest challenges within scientific research is to interpret the
results of individual studies in the context of other research that has been
done.” (Lane 2009)!
Systematic reviews: Other kinds of literature review:
…are pieces of research in their own right, using
explicit and transparent methods and follow a
standard set of stages.!
…are not always clear about the way they have
been conducted.
…systematically locate, appraise and synthesise the
best evidence relating to a specific research
question.
…do not always specify how studies have been
selected, and thus invite scepticism over the
objectivity of inclusion criteria.
…are exhaustive in their search for relevant
research (including, for example, grey literature and
unpublished studies, and are not language-restricted).
…are not exhaustive, and in some cases may draw
from a very narrow pool (e.g. only peer reviewed
journals).
… systematically aggregate or configure findings of
many studies, which can reveal trends undetected
in single studies.
…use a non-systematic, narrative structure to assert
relationships between the findings of different
studies.
…reveal genuine gaps in the evidence, and reveal
when enough evidence exists to help support
confident inferences.
…due to all of the above, cannot be relied on to
have adequately resolved uncertainties.
…can be done well and can be done badly. …can be done well and can be done badly.

2. Systematic Reviews vary in ways similar to the variations found in primary
research. This variation can be informed by:
Ontological assumptions
of the authors.!
What is reality? How is it made
manifest?
Epistemological preferences
of the authors.!
Quantitative, Qualitative or Mixed
Approaches
A Systematic Review can
aggregate findings of
primary studies
or it can can
configure findings of
primary studies
and/or
or it can can do both

3. What are some of the possible benefits of conducting and using
Systematic Reviews for policy and practice?
Reveals gaps in the evidence!
Helps to set new research agendas
and focus energy where it’s needed
Informs when we have enough
evidence to make confident
inferences!
Helps to prevent needless, unethical,
duplication of research
Helps to reveal the
whole picture!
The constituent parts, as in
this photomosiac, all tell
individual stories. Only
when they are systematically
combined do we see the
whole picture
Makes confident
appraisal of
research evidence
manageable for
practitioners

4. References
Lane S (2009) Systematic Reviews. Available online at http://
www.senseaboutscience.org/resources.php/52/sense-about-systematic-reviews
[Accessed 2.10.14]
Gough D, Oliver S and Thomas A (2012) An Introduction to Systematic Reviews.
London: SAGE
Boland A, Cherry G and Dickson R (2014) Doing a Systematic Review A students
guide. London: SAGE
Campbell Collaboration (no date) What is a systematic review? Available online at
http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/what_is_a_systematic_review/index.php
[Accessed 2.10.14]