Resources
Systematic reviews are conducted and reported in a specific way to ensure their quality. Below are just some of the frameworks and guidelines for conducting and reporting.
- Campbell Collaboration
This website provides an overview on conducting and reporting a Campbell Systematic Review. Campbell Systematic Reviews aim to answer questions that can inform social policy and practice. These reviews look at the effectiveness of interventions within the behavioral sciences, social sciences, and humanities.
- Centre for Reviews and Dissemination
This guide is published by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) at the University of York, and contains guidelines for systematic reviews in the health sciences.
-
All rights reserved. Reproduction of this book by photocopying or electronic means for non-commercial purposes is permitted. Otherwise, no part of this book may be reproduced, adapted, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise without the prior written permission of CRD.
-
- Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
Cochrane Reviews are aimed to answer questions about the effectiveness of treatment interventions. This handbook (600+ pages) is freely available online.
- Finding What Works in Health Care; Institute of Medicine (IOM) Standards for Systematic Reviews
This guide contains the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) standards for systematic reviews.
-
Copyright 2011 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Bookshelf ID: NBK209518PMID: 24983062DOI: 10.17226/13059
-
- JBI
JBI Systematic Reviews can be qualitative and quantitative. JBI Reviews approach healthcare questions with respect to feasibility, appropriateness, meaningfulness, and effectiveness.
- PRISMA Checklist
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) is an evidence-based reporting standard of 27 items that includes a flow diagram.
- PRISMA Checklist Explained
An in-depth explanation of the PRISMA Checklist.
-
The PRISMA Statement and the PRISMA Explanation and Elaboration document are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License.
-
- AMSTAR
Useful for evaluating your systematic review before it starts. AMSTAR stands for A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews.
Below is a list of resources to search for clinical trials for your systematic review.
- CenterWatch
- Clinical Trials
- Cochrane Library
- Eli Lilly and Company Clinical Trial Registry
- European Union Clinical Trials
- The International Standard Registered Clinical/Social Study Number (ISRCTN) Registry
- National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials
- The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical Center Trials
- NLM's Health Services Research Projects in Progress
- Open Trials
- TRIP database
- WHO International Clinical Trials Registry
Searching clinical trials in PubMed
Searching for study designs in databases can be conducted via keyword or free text (natural language), control vocabulary, or filters.
For example, in PubMed, by selecting "Article Types" you can view a list of article/study designs. Choosing "Clinical Study" will include Randomized Clinical Trials, Phase I-IV trials, Observational Trials, and Pragmatic Trials. In addition, you can choose Meta-Analysis, Systematic Reviews, Comparative, Evaluative, Twin, or Validation Studies.
This is a two-step process: selecting the types from the list will make them show up as a filter in the list to the left. You must then select them from this list of filters.
Sources for Grey Literature
Grey literature is information not commercially published. Examples include conference proceedings and abstracts, dissertations and theses, white papers, government reports, technical notes and reports, and others. Grey literature can provide valuable information for systematic reviews. Below are some resources for finding grey literature.
Tools to Help Organize the Process
RUSH University Medical Center students, faculty, and staff have access to Covidence through the library. Once a librarian has opened a Covidence review for you, you will have the ability to invite members of your team to the review, even if they are outside the RUSH community. However, if your team decides not to use Covidence, you may find yourself working with other types of screening and organizational software.
There are several tools that help organize the systematic review process. While many researchers use a spreadsheet to do this, others prefer a specialized instrument. Some of these tools require a paid subscription, while others are free of charge. Each product has its own strengths, and as every research project is different, we do not recommend one over the other. All are web-based. The Library of RUSH University Medical Center does not offer technical support for these tools.
Subscription-Based
- Distiller
"DistillerSR is the the world’s most used systematic review software. It was designed from the ground up to give you a better review experience, faster project completion and transparent, audit-ready results." (fee-based)
Free/Open Source
- Rayyan
"Rayyan is a web application to help systematic review authors perform their job in a quick, easy and enjoyable fashion. Authors create systematic reviews, collaborate on them, maintain them over time and get suggestions for article inclusion."
- abstrackr
"abstrackr is a free, open-source tool for facilitating the citation screening process. Upload your abstracts, invite reviewers, and get to screening!"
- airtable
"The all-in-one collaboration platform: part spreadsheet, part database, and entirely flexible... Keep everyone on the same page with everything that matters, all in one place."
- Open Science Framework
"The Open Science Framework (OSF) provides free and open source project management support for researchers across the entire research lifecycle. As a collaboration tool, the OSF helps researchers work on projects privately with a limited number of collaborators."
