Skip to main content
Intended for healthcare professionals
Restricted access
Article commentary
First published online February 9, 2022

Systematic reviews: A glossary for public health

Abstract

Literature reviews are conducted for a range of purposes, from providing an overview or primer of a novel topic, to providing a comprehensive, precise, and accurate estimate of an effect estimate. There is much confusion over nomenclature related to literature reviews, with the term ‘systematic review’ often used to mean any review based on some form of explicit methodology. However, guidance and minimum standards exist for these kinds of robust reviews that are intended to support evidence-informed decision-making, and reviewers must carefully ensure their syntheses are conducted and reported to a high standard if this is their objective. The diversity of names given to reviews is reflected in the diversity of methods used for these evidence syntheses: the result is a general confusion about what is important to ensure a review is fit-for-purpose, and many reviews are labelled as ‘systematic reviews’ when they do not follow standardised or replicable approaches. Here, we provide a glossary or typology that aims to highlight the importance of the reviewers’ objectives in choosing and naming their review method. We focus on reviews in public health and provide guidance on selecting an objective, methodological guidance to follow, justifying and reporting the methods chosen, and attempting to ensure consistent and clear nomenclature. We hope this will help review authors, editors, peer-reviewers, and readers understand, interpret, and critique a review depending on its intended use.

Get full access to this article

View all access and purchase options for this article.

References

[1]. Evidence Synthesis International. What is evidence synthesis?, https://evidencesynthesis.org/what-is-evidence-synthesis/ (2021, accessed 1 June 2021).
[2]. Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J 2009;26:91–108.
[3]. Meltzer MI. Introduction to health economics for physicians. Lancet 2001;358:993–8.
[4]. Wikelski M, Cooke SJ. Conservation physiology. Trends Ecol Evol 2006;21:38–46.
[5]. McKinnon MC, Cheng SH, Dupre S, et al. What are the effects of nature conservation on human well-being? A systematic map of empirical evidence from developing countries. Environ Evid 2016;5:1–25.
[6]. Akl EA, El-Jardali F, Bou Karroum L, et al. Effectiveness of mechanisms and models of coordination between organizations, agencies and bodies providing or financing health services in humanitarian crises: a systematic review. PLoS One 2015;10:e0137159.
[7]. Kohl C, Craig W, Frampton G, et al., editors. Developing a good practice for the review of evidence relevant to GMO risk assessment. In: GMOs in integrated plant production (eds Meissle M, Romeis J), Berlin, Germany, 3–5 June 2013, Vol. 97, pp. 55–62. INRA. https://research.wur.nl/en/publications/developing-a-good-practice-for-the-review-of-evidence-relevant-to
[8]. Dighe S, Purkayastha S, Swift I, et al. Diagnostic precision of CT in local staging of colon cancers: a meta-analysis. Clin Radiol 2010;65:708–19.
[9]. Macdonald V, Mbuagbaw L, Jordan MR, et al. Prevalence of pretreatment HIV drug resistance in key populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Int AIDS Soc 2020;23:e25656.
[10]. Haddaway NR, Hedlund K, Jackson LE, et al. How does tillage intensity affect soil organic carbon? A systematic review. Environ Evid 2017;6:1–48.
[11]. Coulter ID, Crawford C, Hurwitz EL, et al. Manipulation and mobilization for treating chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine J 2018;18:866–79.
[12]. Burchett H, Umoquit M, Dobrow M. How do we know when research from one setting can be useful in another? A review of external validity, applicability and transferability frameworks. J Health Serv Res Policy 2011;16:238–44.
[13]. Petrosino A, Turpin-Petrosino C, Hollis-Peel ME, et al. ‘Scared Straight’ and other juvenile awareness programs for preventing juvenile delinquency. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;30:CD002796.
[14]. Haddaway NR, Pullin AS. The policy role of systematic reviews: past, present and future. Springer Sci Rev 2014;2:179–83.
[15]. Yu Y, Shi Q, Zheng P, et al. Assessment of the quality of systematic reviews on COVID-19: a comparative study of previous coronavirus outbreaks. J Med Virol 2020;92:883–90.
[16]. Atienzo de la Cruz EE. Exploring awareness and use of evidence synthesis in public decision-making in Mexico. Thesis, University of Sheffield, UK, 2017.
[17]. Brownson RC, Baker EA, Deshpande AD, et al. Evidence-based public health. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2017.
[18]. Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, 2019.
[19]. Haddaway NR, Macura B. The role of reporting standards in producing robust literature reviews. Nat Clim Change 2018;8:444–7.
[20]. Pham MT, Rajić A, Greig JD, et al. A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res Synth Methods 2014;5:371–85.
[21]. James KL, Randall NP, Haddaway NR. A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences. Environ Evid 2016;5:1–13.
[22]. Tricco AC, Antony J, Zarin W, et al. A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Med 2015;13:1–15.
[23]. Haddaway NR, Bethel A, Dicks LV, et al. Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them. Nat Ecol Evol 2020;4:1582–9.
[24]. Greenhalgh T, Wong G, Westhorp G, et al. Protocol – realist and meta narrative evidence synthesis: Evolving standards (RAMESES). BMC Med Res Methodol 2011;11:115.
[25]. Rycroft-Malone J, McCormack B, Hutchinson AM, et al. Realist synthesis: illustrating the method for implementation research. Implement Sci 2012;7:1–10.
[26]. Pollock M, Fernandes RM, Becker LA, et al. Chapter V: overviews of reviews. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 6. 2018.
[27]. Collins A, Coughlin D, Miller J, et al. The production of quick scoping reviews and rapid evidence assessments: a how to guide. Defra, London, UK, 2015.
[28]. Munn Z, Peters MD, Stern C, et al. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol 2018;18:1–7.
[29]. Garritty C, Gartlehner G, Kamel C, et al. Cochrane rapid reviews interim guidance from the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group 2020. Cochrane, 2020. https://methods.cochrane.org/rapidreviews/sites/methods.cochrane.org.rapidreviews/files/public/uploads/cochrane_rr_-_guidance-23mar2020-final.pdf
[30]. Jackson N, Waters E. Criteria for the systematic review of health promotion and public health interventions. Health Promot Int 2005;20:367–74.
[31]. Harden A, Garcia J, Oliver S, et al. Applying systematic review methods to studies of people’s views: an example from public health research. J Epidemiol Community Health 2004;58:794–800.
[32]. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372: 8.
[33]. Haddaway NR, Macura B, Whaley P, et al. ROSES RepOrting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses: pro forma, flow-diagram and descriptive summary of the plan and conduct of environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps. Environ Evid 2018;7:1–8.
[34]. Lugassy L, Amdouni-Boursier L, Alout H, et al. What evidence exists on the impact of specific ecosystem components and functions on infectious diseases? A systematic map. Environ Evid 2021;10:1–31.
[35]. Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 2017;358. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008
[36]. Woodcock P, Pullin AS, Kaiser MJ. Evaluating and improving the reliability of evidence syntheses in conservation and environmental science: a methodology. Biol Conserv 2014;176:54–62.

Cite article

Cite article

Cite article

OR

Download to reference manager

If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice

Share options

Share

Share this article

Share with email
EMAIL ARTICLE LINK
Share on social media

Share access to this article

Sharing links are not relevant where the article is open access and not available if you do not have a subscription.

For more information view the SAGE Journals article sharing page.

Information, rights and permissions

Information

Published In

Article first published online: February 9, 2022

Keywords

  1. Literature review
  2. systematic literature review
  3. evidence review
  4. evidence-based medicine
  5. evidence syntheses

Rights and permissions

© Author(s) 2022.
Request permissions for this article.

History

Manuscript received: September 10, 2021
Revision received: December 3, 2021
Manuscript accepted: January 1, 2022
Published online: February 9, 2022

Authors

Affiliations

Neal R. Haddaway
Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change, Berlin, Germany
Africa Centre for Evidence, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa
Tamara Lotfi
Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Diseases, Research Methods and Recommendations, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Lawrence Mbuagbaw
Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Biostatistics Unit/FSORC, St Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Notes

Neal R. Haddaway, Stockholm Environment Institute, Linnégatan 87D, 11523 Stockholm, Sweden. E-mails: [email protected]

Metrics and citations

Metrics

Journals metrics

This article was published in Scandinavian Journal of Public Health.

VIEW ALL JOURNAL METRICS

Article usage*

Total views and downloads: 861

*Article usage tracking started in December 2016

Articles citing this one

Web of Science: 0

Crossref: 0

    Figures and tables

    Figures & Media

    Tables

    View Options

    Get access

    Access options

    If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:

    DSFF and FHF members can access this journal content using society membership credentials.


    DSFF and FHF members can access this journal content using society membership credentials.



    Alternatively, view purchase options below:

    Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.

    Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.

    View options

    PDF/ePub

    View PDF/ePub

    Full Text

    View Full Text