Systematic reviews are a rigorous means of summarizing a large amount of evidence from the medical literature.
A systematic review involves several strategies that distinguish it from a regular review article. According to Cook, et al. (1997), these strategies are included to limit bias in the collection, appraisal, and synthesis of relevant studies¹. Meta-analyses take the review process one step further by gathering data from primary articles and performing statistical procedures to summarize and synthesize the evidence².
Systematic reviews and their subset, meta-analysis, are an important source of information in decision-making
Are you looking for something specific for your results, such as ONLY:
Check out Search Filters to see how to filter your results to a specific study type.
Here are a few articles that evaluate search filters:
Glanville, J., Bayliss, S., Booth, A., Dundar, Y., Fernandes, H., Fleeman, N. D., . . . Golder, S. (2008). So many filters, so little time: The development of a search filter appraisal checklist. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 96(4), 356.
Jenkins, M. (2004). Evaluation of methodological search filters—a review. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 21(3), 148-163. (NOTE: article in PDF format)
Wilczynski, N., Walker, C., McKibbon, K., & Haynes, R. (1993). Assessment of methodologic search filters in MEDLINE. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer Application in Medical Care, 601. (NOTE: article in PDF format)
Start by looking for reviews on a similar topic, or if none, take a look at any review to see what their search terms, databases, and methodology looks like.
You need to keep track of:
You can use Excel or Word to keep a working document of your methodology.
University of Toronto Libraries
130 St. George St.,Toronto, ON, M5S 1A5
About web accessibility. Tell us about a web accessibility problem.
About online privacy and data collection.
© University of Toronto. All rights reserved.