Look for existing systematic reviews within your topic to make sure you aren't duplicating existing work. Reviewing existing systematic reviews also gives you the opportunity to review approaches and methodologies within your field.
Reviewers – You may need at least two reviewers working independently to screen abstracts, with a potential third as a tie-breaker
Subject matter experts – Subject matter experts can clarify issues related to the topic
Statistician – A statistician can help with data analysis
Project leader – A project leader can coordinate and write the final report
Librarians – Librarian(s) can develop comprehensive search strategies and identify appropriate databases
Proposed by Foster and Jewell (2017), the PIECES framework is a useful tool for researchers in guiding them through the overarching phases of a review.
Source: Foster, M. J., & Jewell, S. T. (Eds.). (2017). Assembling the pieces of a systematic review: A guide for librarians. Rowman & Littlefield.
Learn more: Parker, R., & Sikora, L. (2022). Literature reviews: Key considerations and tips from knowledge synthesis librarians. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 14(1), 32-35. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-21-01114.1
Conducting guidelines are essentially the playbook researchers use when conducting a systematic review or other type of evidence synthesis. These guidelines include guidance on aspects such as:
See the Guidelines & Standards section for more information on reporting guidelines.
| Conducting Guideline | Description | Discipline(s) |
|---|---|---|
| Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Manuals | JBI is an international non-profit research and development organization based in Australia. They provide resources on how to best conduct JBI systematic reviews and scoping reviews. These reviews are typically done in the health sciences but could be applied to similar disciplines. | Health sciences |
| AHRQ Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews | The Methods Guide for Comparative Effectiveness Reviews is a living document published by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, primarily focused on medical treatments and interventions. | Health sciences |
| Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR) Manual | The MECIR Manual provides standards for the conduct of new Cochrane Intervention Reviews. | Health sciences |
| Methodological Expectations of Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews (MECCIR) Conduct Standards | The MECCIR guides the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews of intervention effectiveness. It's two documents (both conducting and reporting guidelines) in one. | Education, social sciences, behavioral sciences |
| Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) Guidelines and Standards for Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Management | CEE Guidelines were developed from health sciences methodologies and translated for application in environmental management and other types of environmental research. | Environmental sciences |
| Conduct of Systematic Reviews in Toxicology and Environmental Health Research (COSTER) | COSTER provides a set of recommendations that should facilitate the production of credible, high-value systematic reviews of environmental health evidence. | Environmental sciences, health sciences |
| EPPI-Centre | Based in the U.K. at the University College London, the center offers guidance on conducting systematic reviews across many areas of social science policy, such as: education, health, social work, economics, environment, and crime. | Education, social sciences, behavioral sciences |
Systematic reviews are time-consuming. According to Glasziou and colleagues (2001), the average (health sciences) systematic review takes 1,139 hours to complete (that's 30 full-time weeks!). Wondering how this time is spent?
So, before you decide on taking on a systematic review, make sure you have the time.
One person cannot take on a systematic review by themselves. A team of at least three people is needed.
Glasziou, P., Irwig, L., Bain, C., & Colditz, G. (2001). Systematic reviews in health care: A practical guide. Cambridge University Press.
