Welcome!

​

We will begin shortly. Thanks for joining us!

Technology overview��Zoom Webinar Features

​

• Chat
• Q&A
• Speaker View and Gallery View
• Live Transcript/Closed Captions
• Support

For support, please use the chat, or email:

MLibraryRoomSupport@umich.edu

​

​

​

What review type is right for you?

Strategy for the Systematic Approach

​

​

​

​

Gurpreet K. Rana, MLIS (she/her/hers)

Global Health Coordinator & Informationist

​

Jenna Lepczyk, MLIS (she/her/hers)

Informationist

​

Taubman Health Sciences Library, University of Michigan

​

​

�

bit.ly/GHWebinar-14Aug

Global Health Webinar Series, 14 August 2025

Understanding and implementing the evidence synthesis process takes time, review and practice!

​

*Consider our time today as an broad overview and introduction*

Learning objectives

​

• Gain a broad overview of review types
• Understand characteristics of advanced literature searches
• Consideration of information resources for your needs
• Understand what it means to be systematic in approach

​

​

​

​

What we will to cover…

1. Matching methodology to project
2. Evidence synthesis guidelines
3. Resource Selection & Tools to help in the process

​

A lot of information. Consider a post-session review.

​

​

​

​

​

Part 1 |

Matching an evidence synthesis methodology to project need

8

Evidence Synthesis Guide:�https://guides.lib.umich.edu/sysreviews

1. What is the project goal?

• Conducting a search for a grant proposal?
• Gathering evidence to inform a project?
• Seeking to measure the impact of an intervention?
• Looking to understand the range of literature available on a topic?
• Trying to get evidence quickly to policy makers?

2. What resources are available?

(time and team)

more complex / rigorous evidence synthesis = more resourcing

• Team of 2+ OR single author?
• Experience with evidence synthesis OR new to evidence synthesis?
• >12 months to completion OR <6 months to completion?
• Dedicated research time OR In addition to regular duties?

​

​

​

​

​

3. What type of question are you trying to answer?

• Focused, specific clinical question
• "What is the effectiveness of …"
• Broad, exploratory question
• "What's out there on…"
• Emerging topics
• “We need to quickly summarize the evidence on...”

4. What literature is available?

Questions to consider:

​

• Is there a large number of studies addressing the research question?
• Are there different kinds of study designs addressing the research question?
• Is there scarce literature addressing the research question?

​

13

Evidence Synthesis Guide:�https://guides.lib.umich.edu/sysreviews

Part 2 |

Guidelines for Evidence Syntheses

14

Evidence Synthesis Guide:�https://guides.lib.umich.edu/sysreviews

Guidelines by Nick Youngson CC BY-SA 3.0 Alpha Stock Images

Guidelines

1. Reporting Guidelines

​

• PRISMA

(Preferred Reporting Items for

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses)

​

​

​

​

PRISMA expanded checklist

(Preferred Reporting Items for

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses)

​

Elements of transparent reporting

Guidelines

​

​

​

2) Methodological Guidelines

​

• Cochrane (systematic reviews)
• Cochrane (Rapid Reviews)
• JBI (scoping reviews)

Methods and How-To Resources Guide

​

​

JBI Scoping Reviews

Characteristics of Systematic Approaches

Evidence Synthesis Methodologies Fall Along a Spectrum

Narrative Review

Systematic Review

Scoping Review

Rapid Review

Least systematic

Entirely systematic

Characteristics of Systematic Approaches

1. Working with a team
2. Transparency in methodology and presentation
3. Search comprehensiveness
4. Predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria
5. Quality assessment

​

Note! Even if your methodology does not require all elements above, your project will be more robust if you include some of these hallmarks of a systematic review.

1. Working with a team

• Establishing a team with multiple types of expertise is one way of reducing bias
• Minimum of two people (e.g., two subject experts)
• All team members are co-authors and are responsible for the final manuscript
• see ICMJE authorship guidelines

B. Transparency in methodology and presentation

• Clear reporting practices involves being explicit in every aspect of the review, starting with a protocol (provides your content and plan of action)
• Clarity in reporting increases the accountability of your scholarship
• Transparency enables others to reproduce your work
• Suggestions for understanding transparency:
• Look at sample protocols in PROSPERO
• Look at systematic reviews in Cochrane Library
• Look at PRISMA flow diagram information

B. Transparency Requires Tracking Throughout Your Project

• Level of transparency depends on type of literature review
• However...prepare for current and future use�
• What to track:
• Resources searched
• Number of results
• Date searched
• Filters
• Years
• Types of studies
• Inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Screening process

C. Search comprehensiveness

• Complete comprehensiveness requires finding all published studies regardless of geographic location
• Searching multiple databases of peer-reviewed literature
• Searching grey literature (e.g., research institute reports, government documents)
• Hand searching, reference lists, citation tracking

D. Predefined Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

• Entails deciding prior to searching the set “rules” for the types of studies to include in the review
• In a systematic approach, the inclusion and exclusion criteria do not change in the course of the review
• Considerations for inclusion:
• Date
• Language
• Study Design
• Outcomes
• Populations

​

​

​

​

E. Quality assessment

• Assessment of individual studies that meet inclusion criteria
• Critically examining each studies methodology and findings—strengths and flaws
• Tools exist to help with this process
• (e.g., Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, Latitudes Network)

​

Importance of Systematic Approach

• Enhance trust in your message
• Make your results reproducible
• Increase chances of not missing important literature
• Overcome biases in peer-review process

​

​

Haffar S, Bazerbachi F, Murad MH. Peer review bias: a critical review. InMayo Clinic Proceedings 2019 Apr 1 (Vol. 94, No. 4, pp. 670-676). Elsevier.

Choosing a Methodology:

Match to Purpose of Your Project

​

Families of reviews

• Examined published typologies
• Grouped results into families of reviews
• Results
• 48 review types identified
• 7 families of reviews

​

�

Sutton A, Clowes M, Preston L, Booth A. Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Info Libr J. 2019 Sep;36(3):202-222. doi: 10.1111/hir.12276. Review. PubMed PMID: 31541534.��Extracted data on search approach, types of literature required, evidence identification methods and guidance type:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/downloadSupplement?doi=10.1111%2Fhir.12276&file=hir12276-sup-0001-TableS1.docx�

Systematic Review Family

Why choose this methodology?

• Answer a precise question and identify clear or unclear research findings
• Demonstrate extensive research and critical evaluation on a topic
• Identify contested findings or future areas of research

​

Sample question: "Are antidepressants more effective than aromatherapy at reducing agitation in patients with dementia?"

​

Project Type: Systematic Review

​

​

Systematic Reviews Potential Objectives

​

​

1. Uncover the international evidence
2. Confirm current practice/ address any variation/ identify new practices
3. Identify and inform areas for future research
4. Identify and investigate conflicting results
5. Produce statements to guide decision-making (clinical/policy)

(Munn, et al)

35

Scoping Review

Why choose this methodology?

• To understand and map the extent and scope of research on a topic
• To identify key characteristics or factors related to a concept
• To inform primary research or a future systematic review

​

Sample question : "What interventions are used to reduce agitation in patients with dementia?"

Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Nov 19;18(1):143. doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x. PMID: 30453902; PMCID: PMC6245623.

Project Type: Scoping Review

Scoping Reviews Potential Objectives

1. To identify the types of available evidence in a given field
2. To clarify key concepts/ definitions in the literature
3. To examine how research is conducted on a certain topic or field
4. To identify key characteristics or factors related to a concept
5. As a precursor to a systematic review
6. To identify and analyse knowledge gaps

Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Nov 19;18(1):143. doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x. PMID: 30453902; PMCID: PMC6245623.

Rapid Review Family

Why might you choose this methodology?

• When you need to quickly inform policy decisions
• When you need to conduct a timely review for health system decisions
• Must still include risk of bias

Rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems: a practical guide

Cochrane Methods Rapid Review

Project Type: Rapid Review

Project Type: Narrative / Literature Review

General/Narrative Literature Reviews

• Do not normally present an unbiased, exhaustive and systematic summary of a topic
• Examines research reports in addition to conceptual or theoretical literature that focuses on the history, importance, and collective thinking around a topic, issue or concept
• Primarily subjective
• Regardless of some of these limitations, traditional literature reviews may still have some use in terms of providing an overview of a topic or issue
• May be used to inform something that isn't going to be published, like background information for a project or grant application

(Munn, et al)

THEY ARE ALL PUBLISHABLE

​

Think of them as different tools for different jobs!

Examples of Reviews

Scoping Review�Stephenson R, Riley E, Rogers E, Suarez N, Metheny N, Senda J, Saylor KM, Bauermeister JA. The Sexual Health of Transgender Men: A Scoping Review. J Sex Res. 2017 May-Jun;54(4-5):424-445. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2016.1271863. Epub 2017 Jan 31. PMID: 28140660.�https://libkey.io/libraries/186/pmid/28140660

Rapid Review

Norris HC, Richardson HM, Benoit MC, Shrosbree B, Smith JE, Fendrick AM. Utilization Impact of Cost-Sharing Elimination for Preventive Care Services: A Rapid Review. Med Care Res Rev. 2021 Jun 22:10775587211027372. doi: 10.1177/10775587211027372. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 34157906.�https://libkey.io/libraries/186/pmid/34157906

Narrative Reviews (vary in level of systematic approach)

Gardiner, F. W., Nwose, E. U., Bwititi, P. T., Crockett, J., & Wang, L. (2017). Services aimed at achieving desirable clinical outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease and diabetes mellitus: A narrative review. SAGE Open Medicine, 5, 2050312117740989

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5697580/�

Dickerson SS, Connors LM, Fayad A, Dean GE. Sleep–wake disturbances in cancer patients: narrative review of literature focusing on improving quality of life outcomes. Nature and Science of Sleep. 2014;6:85-100. doi:10.2147/NSS.S34846.

https://www.dovepress.com/sleepndashwake-disturbances-in-cancer-patients-narrative-review-of-lit-peer-reviewed-article-NSS

​

Additional Readings on Review Types

Systematic Review Guide and Review Types�https://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=283340&p=9133330#s-lg-box-28941010

Kastner M, Antony J, Soobiah C, Straus SE, Tricco AC. Conceptual recommendations for selecting the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to answer research questions related to complex evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016.

Munn Z, Stern C, Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Jordan Z. What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Jan 10;18(1):5. doi: 10.1186/s12874-017-0468-4.

Tricco AC, Soobiah C, Antony J, Cogo E, MacDonald H, Lillie E, Tran J, D'Souza J, Hui W, Perrier L, Welch V, Horsley T, Straus SE, Kastner M. A scoping review identifies multiple emerging knowledge synthesis methods, but few studies operationalize the method. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 May;73:19-28. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.030.

Tricco AC, Antony J, Soobiah C, Kastner M, MacDonald H, Cogo E, Lillie E, Tran J, Straus SE. Knowledge synthesis methods for integrating qualitative and quantitative data: a scoping review reveals poor operationalization of the methodological steps. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2016 May 1;73:29-35.

​

​

Part 3 | In brief…

• Resource Selection
• Matching Tool to Need

​

46

CC0 Public Domain

Consider your resources

• Scholarly databases
• Grey Literature Databases (i.e., think tank reports, research institutes, association papers)
• Identifying organizations focused on your area of research
• Access

​

​

​

Tool to Screen Citations (2 commonly used)

​

​

​

https://guides.lib.umich.edu/sysreviews/Covidence

​

May require institutional access or subscription

https://help.rayyan.ai/hc/en-us

​

Free

Capturing, Citing, and Organizing Resources

​

​

​

Additional Resources

Advanced Literature Searching MOOC [free]�https://www.edx.org/course/advanced-literature-searching-in-the-health-scienc��University of Michigan Library's Evidence Synthesis Guide�http://guides.lib.umich.edu/sysreviews

​

​

​

Thank you!