Advertisement

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

  • Elizabeth A. KrupinskiEmail author
EDITORIAL
  • 21 Downloads

Editorial

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...

Keywords

Systematic reviews 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. http://training.cochrane.org/handbook. Last accessed December 27, 2017.
  2. 2.
    Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. http://www.prisma-statement.org/. 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, 2009CrossRefGoogle 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, 2009CrossRefGoogle 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, 2011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    STROBE: Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology. https://www.strobe-statement.org/index.php?id=strobe-home. 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. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp. Last accessed December 27, 2017.
  8. 8.
    NIH Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-pro/guidelines/in-develop/cardiovascular-risk-reduction/tools/cohort. Last accessed December 27, 2017.
  9. 9.
    Cochrane’s Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I). http://methods.cochrane.org/bias/risk-bias-non-randomized-studies-interventions. Last accessed December 27, 2017.
  10. 10.
    Cochrane’s Risk of Bias in Randomized Studies of Interventions (RoB 2.0). http://training.cochrane.org/resource/rob-20-webinar. 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