Kinesiology: Systematic Reviews

Systematic Review

These types of studies employ a systematic method to analyze and synthesize the results of numerous studies. "Systematic" in this case means following a strict set of steps - as outlined by entities like PRISMA and the Institute of Medicine - so as to make the review more reproducible and less biased. Consistent, thorough documentation is also key. Reviews of this type are not meant to be conducted by an individual but rather a (small) team of researchers. Systematic reviews are widely used in the health sciences, often to find a generalized conclusion from multiple evidence-based studies. 

Meta-Analysis

A systematic method that uses statistics to analyze the data from numerous studies. The researchers combine the data from studies with similar data types and analyze them as a single, expanded dataset. Meta-analyses are a type of systematic review.

Scoping Review

A scoping review employs the systematic review methodology to explore a broader topic or question rather than a specific and answerable one, as is generally the case with a systematic review. Authors of these types of reviews seek to collect and categorize the existing literature so as to identify any gaps.

Rapid Review

Rapid reviews are systematic reviews conducted under a time constraint. Researchers make use of workarounds to complete the review quickly (e.g., only looking at English-language publications), which can lead to a less thorough and more biased review. 

Narrative Review

A traditional literature review that summarizes and synthesizes the findings of numerous original research articles. The purpose and scope of narrative literature reviews vary widely and do not follow a set protocol. Most literature reviews are narrative reviews. 

Umbrella Review

Umbrella reviews are, essentially, systematic reviews of systematic reviews. These compile evidence from multiple review studies into one usable document. 

Adapted from

Grant, Maria J., and Andrew Booth. “A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies.” Health Information & Libraries Journal, vol. 26, no. 2, 2009, pp. 91-108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.

Organization such as the Institute of Medicine recommend that you consult a librarian when conducting a systematic review. Librarians at the University of Nevada, Reno can help you:

• Understand best practices for conducting systematic reviews and other evidence syntheses in your discipline
• Choose and formulate a research question
• Decide which review type (e.g., systematic, scoping, rapid, etc.) is the best fit for your project
• Determine what to include and where to register a systematic review protocol
• Select search terms and develop a search strategy
• Identify databases and platforms to search
• Find the full text of articles and other sources
• Become familiar with free citation management (e.g., EndNote, Zotero) and article screening (e.g, Rayyan) software

For help with systematic reviews and other evidence syntheses, please send us an email (lib_sys_reviews@lists.unr.edu). 

Steps

1. Plan - This is the project planning stage. You and your team will need to develop a good research question, determine the type of review you will conduct (systematic, scoping, rapid, etc.), and establish the inclusion and exclusion criteria (e.g., you're only going to look at studies that use a certain methodology). All of this information needs to be included in your protocol. You'll also need to ensure that the project is viable - has someone already done a systematic review on this topic? Do some searches and check the various protocol registries to find out. 
2. Identify - Next, a comprehensive search of the literature is undertaken to ensure all studies that meet the predetermined criteria are identified. Each research question is different, so the number and types of databases you'll search - as well as other online publication venues - will vary. Some standards and guidelines specify that certain databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE) should be searched regardless. Your subject librarian can help you select appropriate databases to search and develop search strings for each of those databases.  
3. Evaluate - In this step, retrieved articles are screened and sorted using the predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The risk of bias for each included study is also assessed around this time. It's best if you import search results into a citation management tool (see below) to clean up the citations and remove any duplicates. You can then use a tool like Rayyan (see below) to screen the results. You should begin by screening titles and abstracts only, and then you'll examine the full text of any remaining articles. Each study should be reviewed by a minimum of two people on the project team. 
4. Collect - Each included study is coded and the quantitative or qualitative data contained in these studies is then synthesized. You'll have to either find or develop a coding strategy or form that meets your needs. 
5. Explain - The synthesized results are articulated and contextualized. What do the results mean? How have they answered your research question?
6. Summarize - The final report provides a complete description of the methods and results in a clear, transparent fashion. 

Adapted from

Foster, Margaret J., and Sarah T. Jewell. Assembling the Pieces of a Systematic Review: A Guide for Librarians. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2017.

Systematic reviews require specific, focused, and well-formulated research questions. In the health sciences, researchers often use the PICO format to generate research questions. PICO stands for:

• P - Population/Patient/Problem 
• I - Intervention (or the experimental variable)
• C - Comparison (or the control variable)
• O - Outcome

It's okay if your question does not fit neatly into the PICO format. (Many lines of inquiry may not have a definable C, for instance.) However, you might find that you'd be better served by another framework, especially if you are investigating a social sciences topic or focusing on certain types of qualitative or policy-based research. For example, another well-known option is the SPIDER (sample, phenomenon of interest, design, evaluation, research type) framework. 

A protocol is essentially an "intent to pursue." It's a document outlining the what and how of your proposed systematic review. According to PRISMA, a protocol "describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review. It should be prepared before a review is started and used as a guide to carry out the review."

Your protocol should be made publicly available and registered in a registry. PROSPERO is the registry of choice for the health sciences. The Open Science Framework (OSF) is a good option for those conducting non-clinical systematic reviews.