Journal of Digital Imaging

, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp 199–200 | Cite as

Writing Systematic Reviews of the Literature—It Really Is a Systematic Process!

  • Elizabeth A. KrupinskiEmail author


Systematic reviews of the literature represent a very specific type of research paper. Before writing such a review and submitting to a journal, one should consider the rationale for the review and who the audience is. A good definition of a systematic review is one that “attempts to identify, appraise, and synthesize all the empirical evidence that meets pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a given research question. Researchers conducting systematic reviews use explicit methods aimed at minimizing bias, in order to produce more reliable findings that can be used to inform decision making” [1]. Reasons for conducting a systematic review include, but are not limited to determining the extent to which current research has progressed towards addressing a specific problem or area of inquiry; identifying gaps, contradictions, relationships and inconsistencies in the literature; developing an overarching abstraction of the evidence to date; describing directions for...


Systematic reviews 



  1. 1.
    Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Last accessed December 27, 2017.
  2. 2.
    Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. Last accessed December 27, 2017.
  3. 3.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group: 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, 2009CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLos Med 6(7):e1000097, 2009CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    da Costa BR, Cevallos M, Altman DG, Rutjes AW, Egger M: Uses and misuses of the STROBE statement: bibliographic study. BMJ open 1(1):e000048, 2011CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    STROBE: Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology. Last accessed December 27, 2017.
  7. 7.
    Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, Tugwell P: The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Last accessed December 27, 2017.
  8. 8.
    NIH Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies: Last accessed December 27, 2017.
  9. 9.
    Cochrane’s Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I). Last accessed December 27, 2017.
  10. 10.
    Cochrane’s Risk of Bias in Randomized Studies of Interventions (RoB 2.0). Last accessed December 27, 2017.
  11. 11.
    Garner P, Hopewell S, Chandler J, MacLehose H, Schunemann HJ, Aki EA et al.: When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist. Br Med J 354:i3507, 2016CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiology & Imaging SciencesEmory UniversityAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations