If you have an exact title add ti= (eg. ti=Emergency Medicine)
Search for existing evidence and protocols
Before commencing a systematic review, you must do a preliminary investigation of the evidence base and existing protocols to:
Duplication should be avoided considering the time and effort invested into a systematic review. Duplicate reviews need to be justified in the research protocol.
Recommended search tools for existing or in progress reviews:
This investigation will help you decide whether to proceed with your planned systematic review, re-think the project, or amend the question.
Do you need to undertake a scoping review?
If there is a wide range of evidence on your topic, it may be more appropriate to conduct a scoping review firstly to analyse the existing evidence base and identify potential gaps in knowledge. This will help determine if there is enough existing evidence for a systematic review.
A good question is the first step in any review. Your systematic review must be based on a research question that:
Focused & Answerable
Use a model question framework such as PICO to identify key concepts and clearly state your question. In addition, gathering a gold set of exemplar articles from preliminary literature searching will provide examples of the literature you plan to synthesize and proof that your question is answerable.
Visit formulating a research question in the Research Toolkit for detailed guidance on PICO, question frameworks and building a gold set.
This process helps you identify concepts and terms that will be used to develop a search strategy.
Adds new research on a topic
Conduct a preliminary literature search to ensure you are filling a gap in the evidence. For projects involving evidence synthesis such as systematic reviews and meta-analysis the aim is to create new knowledge by increasing the power of the analysis.
If a review does not create new knowledge - you may inadvertently spend a great deal of time achieving what Chevret, Ferguson, and Bellomo (2018) concluded… “Are systematic reviews and meta-analyses still useful research? No".
Study designs
Consider which study designs are best matched to your question. Different types of clinical questions are best answered by the following study designs.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Inclusion and exclusion criteria sets boundaries for your review by determining which studies will be selected for evidence synthesis. This eligibility cannot be decided as you go. A key feature of systematic reviews is pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Inclusion criteria indicates what you want to investigate
Exclusion criteria indicates what does not need to be included
This criteria is determined after developing the research question and before the final search is conducted, although it should be informed by test literature searches and background research.
Clear eligibility criteria will make it easier for the team to work through the screening process.
| Common | |
| Criteria | Examples of inclusion/exclusion criteria |
| Date | Limit to most recent 10 years |
| Patient group | Child, Adult, Older adults only, a condition group |
| Study designs | RCTs or observational studies only |
| Language | English language only |
| Publication type | Primary research, only peer reviewed studies, news and opinion. |
| Setting | Acute, primary or secondary care. |
| Location | Geography, developing or developed countries. |
| Other | Confounding factors that would skew or negate the results. |
Before you start a systematic review, you need a protocol document that outlines how the research will be conducted. It is an important planning document that will guide work throughout the project. In essence, a protocol:
What to include in your protocol
The protocol document must include:
Online templates for system review protocols include the JBI Systematic Review Title Registration Form and PROSPERO Systematic Review Protocol & Support Template.
The following reporting standards from Cochrane, Joanna Briggs Insitute (JBI) and PRISMA are important to consider.
Cochrane Handbook, Chapter 1, section 1.5
Provides guidance on protocol development, expectations, data management and quality assurance.
JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis, Chapter 1, section 1.3
Registering a review title and protocol.
PRISMA for systematic review protocols (PRISMA-P)
Statement paper, explanation and elaboration paper and key documents including the checklist.
Making your protocol publicly available
Protocols should be made publicly available in a registry or journal before you undertake your systematic review. In fact many journals require registered protocols to consider systematic review manuscripts. At a minimum, journals will ask where the protocol is registered.
Registries:
Some journals also publish systematic review protocols. Check the instructions to authors in the journal/s you plan to publish with. They may have directions about protocol registration. Or you can submit to one of the below journals:
Monash Health acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of the land, the Wurundjeri and Boonwurrung peoples, and we pay our respects to them, their culture and their Elders past, present and future.
We are committed to creating a safe and welcoming environment that embraces all backgrounds, cultures, sexualities, genders and abilities.