A systematic review uses a rigorous process to answer a specific and narrow research question. It answers the "what" about a phenomenon, but not the "how' and the "why."
A systematic review uses transparent and pre-determined scientific methods to identify, select, and synthesize findings from several similar but separate studies.
The chart below discusses the pluses and minuses of a systematic review.
| Pluses ... |
Minuses ... |
-
Systematic reviews have a rigorous and clear process to identify, critically appraise, and distill information from individual studies to provide recommendations to inform future practice
-
Systematic reviews aim to answer a well-defined question, which helps readers identify if the content is applicable to their situation or context
-
Clear guidance exists for the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews, which facilitates the review process, decreases bias, and increases research transparency and reproducibility
Source: LitR-Ex.com
|
-
Narrow focus of systematic reviews may not capture a comprehensive overview of a topic (narrative or scoping reviews may be better approaches)
-
Systematic reviews do not answer questions about how/why an intervention does or does not work (realist reviews may be a better approach)
-
Systematic reviews include primary studies and do not cover emerging topics published as commentaries or perspectives articles
-
Systematic review require a significant body of evidence about a topic in order to be conducted
-
Systematic reviews are a major undertaking that are resource and time intensive (i.e., 6 months to 2 years to conduct)
|
If you're thinking this sounds very similar to the process of writing the literature review for your Culminating Project ... you may be right!
