[h5p id=\"14\"]<\/span><\/h3>\r\nFind Existing Systematic Reviews<\/h1>\r\nPrior to starting your own research, you will want to look at existing systematic reviews - this is especially important so that you don't duplicate existing work. It can also be helpful to look at the approaches taken for systematic reviews similar to your own topic or discipline.\u00a0 You can find existing systematic reviews through a number of ways:\r\n\r\n \t- Search published journal articles.<\/strong> Systematic reviews can be published as journal articles. To identify them, add \"systematic review\" as an additional search term in databases, or look for publication type limits, if available. Here\u2019s an example of a \"systematic review<\/a>\" published as a journal article.<\/li>\r\n \t
- Search \u201cCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews\u201d through your library. <\/strong>This database includes the full text of the regularly updated systematic reviews of the effects of healthcare prepared by The Cochrane Collaboration.<\/li>\r\n \t
- Search different [pb_glossary id=\"140\"]protocol[\/pb_glossary] registries.<\/strong>\u00a0 For example, PROSPERO<\/a> is an international database of prospectively registered systematic reviews in health and social care, welfare, public health, education, crime, justice, and international development, where there is a health related outcome. PROSPERO aims to provide a comprehensive listing of systematic reviews registered at inception to help avoid duplication and reduce opportunity for reporting bias by enabling comparison of completed reviews with what was planned in the protocol.<\/li>\r\n \t
- Search the Campbell Collaboration. <\/strong>The Campbell Collaboration<\/a> is an international network which publishes high quality systematic reviews of social and economic interventions around the world.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n
\r\nKey Takeaways<\/span><\/h2>\r\n<\/header>\r\n\r\n\r\nLooking at published reviews and protocols can give you an idea of what has already been done and will help you ensure that your own research is original.\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\nAssembling Your Research Team<\/h1>\r\nIf you are conducting a systematic review that requires a team these are the typical roles involved:\r\n\r\n \t- Reviewers<\/strong> - You may need at least two reviewers working independently to screen abstracts, with a potential third as a tie-breaker<\/li>\r\n \t
- Subject matter experts<\/strong> - Subject matter experts can clarify issues related to the topic,<\/li>\r\n \t
- Statistician<\/strong> - A statistician can help with data analysis<\/li>\r\n \t
- Project leader<\/strong> - A project leader can coordinate and write the final report<\/li>\r\n \t
- Librarians<\/strong> - Librarian(s) can develop comprehensive search strategies and identify appropriate databases<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n
Formulate Your Research Question<\/h1>\r\nIn general, your research question will tackle the problem you are trying to address by conducting the review. Since constructing a research question can be an in-depth process,\u00a0 we go over it in more detail in Module 2: Formulating a Research Question and Searching for Sources.<\/span><\/a>\r\nCreate a Review Protocol<\/h1>\r\nReviews like a systematic review require a protocol<\/strong>, which is essentially a planning document that indicates how your review will be carried out. Here is a sample protocol template<\/a> from the Evidence Synthesis Coordinator at the Maritimes Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) Support Unit. This basic form includes all the relevant information needed for a simple protocol.\r\n\r\nYou may wish to register your protocol to avoid the duplication of work and to reduce the potential for bias by enabling a comparison between what was stated in the protocol to the completed review. It is also a way to share your current research interests with the research community at large, and help build your research profile.\r\n\r\nExample<\/span><\/h2>\r\n<\/header>\r\n\r\n\r\nHow to Register your Protocol:\u00a0<\/strong>\r\n\r\nPlease see this guide by the National Institute of Health (an agency of the United States government): Systematic Reviews Protocol and Protocol Registries<\/a>.\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n\r\nKey Takeaways<\/span><\/h2>\r\n<\/header>\r\n\r\n\r\nBy creating a protocol you are creating a document that will guide you through the systematic review process. Always refer to it throughout the process to ensure you are on track.\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\nConducting Your Review Using the SALSA Framework<\/h1>\r\nOnce you have a research question, there are four stages you can follow when conducting your chosen review. These are known as the SALSA Framework<\/a>: s<\/strong>earch, a<\/strong>ppraisal<\/strong>, s<\/strong>ynthesis and a<\/strong>nalysis.\r\n\r\nExample<\/span><\/h2>\r\n<\/header>\r\n\r\n\r\nHere is a quick summary of the SALSA steps.\r\n\r\n[h5p id=\"10\"]<\/span>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\nWait, What Happened to the \u201cL\u201d in SALSA?<\/h2>\r\nDid you notice the missing L? We did too! The authors, Grant and Booth (2009) created\u00a0 a simple analytical framework for conducting reviews: S<\/strong>earch, A<\/strong>ppraisal, S<\/strong>ynthesis and A<\/strong>nalysis. SASA, however, doesn\u2019t make a memorable acronym, and Academics love a good acronym, so they derived the \u201cL\u201d from the last letter of appraisal: \u00a0S<\/strong>earch, A<\/strong>ppraisaL<\/strong>, S<\/strong>ynthesis and A<\/strong>nalysis (SALSA).\r\n\r\nExample<\/span><\/h2>\r\n<\/header>\r\n\r\n\r\nApplying the SALSA Framework to Your Specific Review<\/strong>\r\n\r\nWe\u2019ve provided a quick summary of the framework, and once you have chosen your specific type of review you should consult the following chart by Grant and Booth (2009) for a deep dive into each stage of the SALSA framework for your specific review.\r\n\u00a0<\/strong>A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies.<\/strong><\/a> [footnote]Citation: Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-108. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x [\/footnote]<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\nPRISMA: The Systematic Review Checklist<\/h1>\r\nPRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) is an evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. PRISMA is the recognized standard for reporting evidence in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The standards are endorsed by organizations and journals in the health sciences. It allows other researchers to assess strengths and weaknesses of the review and assists with future replication of the review methods. The 2020 PRISMA statement<\/a> consists of a 27-item checklist and a 4-phase flow diagram.\r\n\r\nExample<\/span><\/h2>\r\n<\/header>\r\n\r\n\r\nFor more information, consult the PRISMA Explanation and Elaboration document.<\/a>\r\n\r\nIf you are conducting a scoping review, see The PRISMA-ScR (PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews)<\/a>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n\r\nKey Takeaways<\/span><\/h2>\r\n<\/header>\r\n\r\n\r\nA large amount of time and resources go into conducting a systematic review. To make sure you are ready to carry out a review, use the Knowledge Synthesis Readiness Checklist<\/a> from Unity Health Toronto.\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>","rendered":"This section is a quick summary of the main steps involved in conducting systematic reviews. By the end of this section you should have a better idea of the time and resources needed to conduct a successful review.<\/p>\n
All reviews follow a familiar process as seen in Figure 1.1 below.<\/p>\n![\"Infographic](\"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/graduatereivews2\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/372\/2023\/02\/What-authors-do-4-12-15-scaled.jpg\")
Figure 1.1\u00a0What Authors Do: Systematic Reviews.<\/a><\/strong> Designed by Jessica Kaufman, Cochrane Consumers & Communication Review Group, Centre for Health Communication & Participation, La Trobe University, 2011. Licensed under Creative Commons CC BY 4.0<\/a>.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/p>\n\n
- \r\n \t
- Search published journal articles.<\/strong> Systematic reviews can be published as journal articles. To identify them, add \"systematic review\" as an additional search term in databases, or look for publication type limits, if available. Here\u2019s an example of a \"systematic review<\/a>\" published as a journal article.<\/li>\r\n \t
- Search \u201cCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews\u201d through your library. <\/strong>This database includes the full text of the regularly updated systematic reviews of the effects of healthcare prepared by The Cochrane Collaboration.<\/li>\r\n \t
- Search different [pb_glossary id=\"140\"]protocol[\/pb_glossary] registries.<\/strong>\u00a0 For example, PROSPERO<\/a> is an international database of prospectively registered systematic reviews in health and social care, welfare, public health, education, crime, justice, and international development, where there is a health related outcome. PROSPERO aims to provide a comprehensive listing of systematic reviews registered at inception to help avoid duplication and reduce opportunity for reporting bias by enabling comparison of completed reviews with what was planned in the protocol.<\/li>\r\n \t
- Search the Campbell Collaboration. <\/strong>The Campbell Collaboration<\/a> is an international network which publishes high quality systematic reviews of social and economic interventions around the world.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n
\r\n Key Takeaways<\/span><\/h2>\r\n<\/header>\r\n
\r\n\r\nLooking at published reviews and protocols can give you an idea of what has already been done and will help you ensure that your own research is original.\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\nAssembling Your Research Team<\/h1>\r\nIf you are conducting a systematic review that requires a team these are the typical roles involved:\r\n
- \r\n \t
- Reviewers<\/strong> - You may need at least two reviewers working independently to screen abstracts, with a potential third as a tie-breaker<\/li>\r\n \t
- Subject matter experts<\/strong> - Subject matter experts can clarify issues related to the topic,<\/li>\r\n \t
- Statistician<\/strong> - A statistician can help with data analysis<\/li>\r\n \t
- Project leader<\/strong> - A project leader can coordinate and write the final report<\/li>\r\n \t
- Librarians<\/strong> - Librarian(s) can develop comprehensive search strategies and identify appropriate databases<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n
Formulate Your Research Question<\/h1>\r\nIn general, your research question will tackle the problem you are trying to address by conducting the review. Since constructing a research question can be an in-depth process,\u00a0 we go over it in more detail in Module 2: Formulating a Research Question and Searching for Sources.<\/span><\/a>\r\n
Create a Review Protocol<\/h1>\r\nReviews like a systematic review require a protocol<\/strong>, which is essentially a planning document that indicates how your review will be carried out. Here is a sample protocol template<\/a> from the Evidence Synthesis Coordinator at the Maritimes Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) Support Unit. This basic form includes all the relevant information needed for a simple protocol.\r\n\r\nYou may wish to register your protocol to avoid the duplication of work and to reduce the potential for bias by enabling a comparison between what was stated in the protocol to the completed review. It is also a way to share your current research interests with the research community at large, and help build your research profile.\r\n
\r\n Example<\/span><\/h2>\r\n<\/header>\r\n
\r\n\r\nHow to Register your Protocol:\u00a0<\/strong>\r\n\r\nPlease see this guide by the National Institute of Health (an agency of the United States government): Systematic Reviews Protocol and Protocol Registries<\/a>.\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n Key Takeaways<\/span><\/h2>\r\n<\/header>\r\n
\r\n\r\nBy creating a protocol you are creating a document that will guide you through the systematic review process. Always refer to it throughout the process to ensure you are on track.\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\nConducting Your Review Using the SALSA Framework<\/h1>\r\nOnce you have a research question, there are four stages you can follow when conducting your chosen review. These are known as the SALSA Framework<\/a>: s<\/strong>earch, a<\/strong>ppraisal<\/strong>, s<\/strong>ynthesis and a<\/strong>nalysis.\r\n
\r\n Example<\/span><\/h2>\r\n<\/header>\r\n
\r\n\r\nHere is a quick summary of the SALSA steps.\r\n\r\n[h5p id=\"10\"]<\/span>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\nWait, What Happened to the \u201cL\u201d in SALSA?<\/h2>\r\nDid you notice the missing L? We did too! The authors, Grant and Booth (2009) created\u00a0 a simple analytical framework for conducting reviews: S<\/strong>earch, A<\/strong>ppraisal, S<\/strong>ynthesis and A<\/strong>nalysis. SASA, however, doesn\u2019t make a memorable acronym, and Academics love a good acronym, so they derived the \u201cL\u201d from the last letter of appraisal: \u00a0S<\/strong>earch, A<\/strong>ppraisaL<\/strong>, S<\/strong>ynthesis and A<\/strong>nalysis (SALSA).\r\n
\r\n Example<\/span><\/h2>\r\n<\/header>\r\n
\r\n\r\nApplying the SALSA Framework to Your Specific Review<\/strong>\r\n\r\nWe\u2019ve provided a quick summary of the framework, and once you have chosen your specific type of review you should consult the following chart by Grant and Booth (2009) for a deep dive into each stage of the SALSA framework for your specific review.\r\n\u00a0<\/strong>A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies.<\/strong><\/a> [footnote]Citation: Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-108. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x [\/footnote]<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n
PRISMA: The Systematic Review Checklist<\/h1>\r\nPRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) is an evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. PRISMA is the recognized standard for reporting evidence in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The standards are endorsed by organizations and journals in the health sciences. It allows other researchers to assess strengths and weaknesses of the review and assists with future replication of the review methods. The 2020 PRISMA statement<\/a> consists of a 27-item checklist and a 4-phase flow diagram.\r\n
\r\n Example<\/span><\/h2>\r\n<\/header>\r\n
\r\n\r\nFor more information, consult the PRISMA Explanation and Elaboration document.<\/a>\r\n\r\nIf you are conducting a scoping review, see The PRISMA-ScR (PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews)<\/a>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n Key Takeaways<\/span><\/h2>\r\n<\/header>\r\n
\r\n\r\nA large amount of time and resources go into conducting a systematic review. To make sure you are ready to carry out a review, use the Knowledge Synthesis Readiness Checklist<\/a> from Unity Health Toronto.\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>","rendered":"This section is a quick summary of the main steps involved in conducting systematic reviews. By the end of this section you should have a better idea of the time and resources needed to conduct a successful review.<\/p>\n
All reviews follow a familiar process as seen in Figure 1.1 below.<\/p>\n
Figure 1.1\u00a0What Authors Do: Systematic Reviews.<\/a><\/strong> Designed by Jessica Kaufman, Cochrane Consumers & Communication Review Group, Centre for Health Communication & Participation, La Trobe University, 2011. Licensed under Creative Commons CC BY 4.0<\/a>.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n <\/p>\n
\n - Subject matter experts<\/strong> - Subject matter experts can clarify issues related to the topic,<\/li>\r\n \t
- Search \u201cCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews\u201d through your library. <\/strong>This database includes the full text of the regularly updated systematic reviews of the effects of healthcare prepared by The Cochrane Collaboration.<\/li>\r\n \t