Skip to Main Content
QUL logo

Systematic Reviews & Other Syntheses

Welcome!

The purpose of this guide is to connect you with useful information and resources for embarking on a systematic review or other type of synthesis. 

Librarian involvement in systematic reviews is a practice recommendation by the Institute of Medicine and leading sources of evidence-based information including Cochrane and JBI [1-3].

Research has shown that librarian involvement in systematic reviews increases the quality of search strategies and reporting [4-7].

Please not there is a separate research guide for conducting traditional literature reviews.

*NEW* Requirements to Meet with a Librarian

For students to meet with a librarian, you must provide the following materials at least 24 hours or 1 business day in advance:

  • Complete and return the Knowledge Synthesis Work Plan document or share your protocol (a draft is acceptable but the research question and eligibility criteria must be finalized).

  • Your Work Plan should include a preliminary search strategy in Ovid MEDLINE or Ovid Embase (PubMed will not be accepted), and 3-5 key studies that meet your eligibility criteria.

  • Complete the Synthesis Labyrinth: Racing the Outbreak escape room or the basic Syntheses Knowledge Check version and include the code in your Work Plan. (This only needs to be completed one-time.)

Be sure to review this guide and the training modules (particularly, Module 3: Searching for Eligible Studies) and check out our new Systematic and Scoping Reviews Workshop Series for interactive learning!

Advisory Consultation

Librarians provide advisory consultations to all Queen’s University faculty, staff, and students conducting syntheses. 

To meet with a librarian about support for your knowledge synthesis, please book a consultation using our online booking system.

Important notes:

  • It is out of scope for librarians to:
    • Provide step-by-step guidance on how to conduct knowledge syntheses. 
    • Provide guidance on statistical analysis for meta-analyses.
    • Interpret assignment instructions for students or review their assignment outputs (outside of search strategies). 
    • Construct research questions and determine eligibility criteria​.
  • Faculty supervisors should give methodological guidance to students before meeting with a librarian to develop the search.
  • If you would like to name the librarian who provided support for your review in an acknowledgement or the search methods, please discuss with the librarian first.
     

Librarians will advise on how to:

Collaboration

Collaboration with review teams that include faculty members is provided at the discretion of the librarian based on their availability and the review quality considerations in the table below. Librarians follow ICMJE author guidelines where collaboration shall include authorship.

To meet with a librarian about support for your knowledge synthesis, please book a consultation using our online booking system.

As a co-author, a librarian may agree to do the following:

  • Determine if a synthesis or protocol on the topic already exists.
  • Write or review the search methods for the protocol.
  • Develop and execute database/resource-specific search strategies.
  • Engage in Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) to enhance search accuracy, comprehensiveness, and quality.
  • Rerun searches at a later date, when appropriate [8].
  • Import search results into Covidence review software.
  • Advise/assist with search methods for locating grey literature.
  • Write the search methods according to PRISMA-Search.
     

Review characteristics for librarian collaboration consideration: 

 Is the review being conducted under the auspices of a systematic review collaboration (i.e. Cochrane, JBI, Campbell)?

 Has the same review already been published recently?

 Can the researcher(s) clearly describe the research question?

 Has the researcher(s) established inclusion and exclusion criteria?

 Does the research question seem manageable in scope (not likely to yield too many eligible studies)?

 Does the research question seem worthwhile (not likely to yield no or too few eligible studies)?

 Does the review type match the research purpose?

 Can the researcher(s) clearly describe the rationale and planned methods of the review?

 Has a protocol been prepared? Will it be registered (e.g. PROSPERO) or published?

 Does the review team plan to follow best practice standards for conducting and reporting reviews such as PRISMA?

 Does the review team agree to a comprehensive search approach (i.e. searching all key databases, employing comprehensive search strategies etc.)?

 Will the screening process involve the decision of two screeners for each item reviewed (at the citation/abstract level and full-text level)?

 Does the research project seem manageable for the number of review team members?

 Are the review timelines realistic and feasible?

Syntheses as Course Assignments

Systematic and scoping reviews are a type of literature review with a transparent, rigorous and reproducible methodology. Synthesis research intended for publication will benefit from having a full team of experts including but not limited to methodologists, subject experts, librarians, and statisticians and take an average of 1.25 years to complete [9]. 

As such, there are exercises that can be incorporated into assignments to better equip students to undertake evidence syntheses in their future studies/work without the time and resource constraints of a full review. Please contact a librarian for assistance in drafting evidence synthesis assignments.

Bibliography

  1. Institute of Medicine. (2011). Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  2. Lefebvre C, Glanville J, Briscoe S, Featherstone R, et al. Chapter 4: Searching for and selecting studies [last updated March 2025]. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.5.1 Cochrane, 2025. Available from cochrane.org/handbook.
  3. Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Porritt K, Pilla B, Jordan Z, editors. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI; 2024. Available from: https://synthesismanual.jbi.global.
  4. Koffel JB. (2015). Use of recommended search strategies in systematic reviews and the impact of librarian involvement: A cross-sectional survey of recent authors. PLoS ONE, 10(5), 1–13.
  5. Meert D, Torabi N, & Costella J. (2016). Impact of librarians on reporting of the literature searching component of pediatric systematic reviews. Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 104(4), 267–277.
  6. Rethlefsen ML, Farrell AM, Osterhaus Trzasko LC, & Brigham TJ. (2015). Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 68(6), 617–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.025.
  7. Pawliuk C, Cheng S, Zheng A, & Siden HH. (2024). Librarian involvement in systematic reviews was associated with higher quality of reported search methods: a cross-sectional surveyJournal of clinical epidemiology166, 111237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.111237.
  8. McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, & Lefebvre C. (2016). PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statementJournal of clinical epidemiology75, 40-46.
  9. Borah R, Brown AW, Capers PL, Kaiser KA. Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry. BMJ open. 2017 Feb 1;7(2):e012545.