Systematic Review Program: Methodology & Reporting
Six steps to a systematic review
Step 1: Initiate the process, organize the review team, develop a process for gathering user and stakeholder input, formulate the research question, and implement procedures for minimizing the impact of bias and conflict of interests (see standards in Chapter 2).
Step 2: Develop the review protocol, including the context and rationale for the review and the specific procedures for the search strategy, data collection and extraction, qualitative synthesis and quantitative data synthesis (if a meta-analysis is done), reporting, and peer review (see standards in Chapter 2).
Step 3: Systematically locate, screen, and select the studies for review (see standards in Chapter 3).
Step 4: Appraise the risk of bias in the individual studies and extract the data for analysis (see standards in Chapter 3).
Step 5: Synthesize the findings and assess the overall quality of the body of evidence (see standards in Chapter 4).
Step 6: Prepare a final report and have the report undergo peer review (see standards in Chapter 5)."
Conceptual Framework. Fundamentals of Systematic Reviews. IN: Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews (full report). Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, The National Academy Press. pp. 26-27
For graphical representation of the steps see The Process
Book cover reprinted with permission from Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews, 2011 by the National Academy of Sciences, Courtesy of the National Academies Press, Washington, D.C
Librarians can provide resources on developing protocols and assist in developing the literature search section of the protocol.
Investigators should consider registering their protocols.
For more information on Protocols see our guide
Getting Ready for a Systematic Review: Things to Consider
PRISMA Transparent Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA Statement Website)
The above site Includes:
- Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(6): e1000097.doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097
- Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, et al. (2009) The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration. PLoS Med 6(7): e1000100. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100
- The PRISMA Checklist
- The PRISMA Flow Diagram
- Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
Additional standards & guidelines
EQUATOR Network is an international initiative that seeks to improve the reliability and value of published health research literature by promoting transparent and accurate reporting and wider use of robust reporting guidelines. EQUATOR organises courses and workshops and provides freely available resources including the following:
- Search for Reporting Guidelines
- Toolkit for Authors
- Library for health research reporting "up-to-date collection of guidelines and policy documents related to health research reporting.
Image used with permission by the EQUATOR Network.
Request systematic review help
To request a systematic review consultation:
What consultation services can be provided? see HSLS Support
- University of Pittsburgh faculty, staff and students
- UPMC Residents and Fellows
- UPMC physicians with University of Pittsburgh faculty appointments