Do I have a clearly defined clinical question with established inclusion and exclusion criteria?
Do I have a team of at least 3 people?
Do I have time to go through as many search results as we might find?
Do I have resources to get foreign-language articles appropriately translated?
Do I have the statistical resources to analyse the pool data?
If you answered 'No' to any of the first 4 questions, a traditional literature review will be more appropriate. If you answered 'No' to the last question, a meta-analysis will not be an appropriate methodology for your review.
If a Systematic Review is not appropriate for your project, we can still support you with a systematic search for a literature review or some other form of review*. To request this please follow this link to access our literature search request form.
Systematic Review vs Literature Review**
|
Criteria |
Systematic Reviews |
Literature Reviews |
|
Question |
Focused on a single question (often PICO based) |
Not necessarily focused on a single question - may describe an overview |
|
Protocol |
Includes peer review protocol or plan |
No protocol included |
|
Background |
Provides summaries of the available literature on a topic |
Summarises the available literature |
|
Objectives |
Clear objectives are identified |
Objectives may or may not be identified |
|
Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria |
Criteria is stated before review is conducted |
Criteria not always stated |
|
Search Strategy |
Comprehensive and systematic (stated in the document) |
Strategy not explicitly stated (not always comprehensive or systematic) |
|
Process of Selecting Articles |
Usually clear and explicit |
Not always described in a literature review |
|
Process of Evaluating Articles |
Comprehensive evaluation of study quality |
Evaluation of study quality may or may not be included |
|
Process of Extracting Information |
Usually clear and specific |
Not always clear or explicit |
|
Results & Data Synthesis |
Clear summaries of studies based on high quality evidence |
Summary based on studies where the quality of the articles may not be specified. May also be influenced by the reviewer's theories, needs and beliefs. |
|
Discussion |
Written by an expert or group of experts with a detailed and well grounded knowledge of the issues |
Written by an expert or group of experts with a detailed and well grounded knowledge of the issues |
*Note: there are many types of reviews. Please follow this link to access this reference: Grant, M.J. and Booth, A. (2009), A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26: 91-108.
**Produced by Curtin University Library. Follow this link to for their Systematic Review Guide for comparison with other kinds of reviews