Skip to Main Content
QUL logo

Systematic Reviews & Other Syntheses

Introduction

The terms synthesis and research review are often used interchangeably. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research defines synthesis as:

“...the contextualization and integration of research findings of individual research studies within the larger body of knowledge on the topic. A synthesis must be reproducible and transparent in its methods and may synthesize qualitative and/or quantitative results' [1].

Types of Syntheses

When systematic reviews were the first type of synthesis to appear in the health care literature back in the 1970s, the main objective was to synthesize quantitative research studies. Limitations of traditional (quantitative) systematic reviews and meta-analyses led to the adaptation of syntheses to include:

  • qualitative systematic reviews,
  • mixed-methods reviews,
  • rapid reviews,
  • network meta-analyses,
  • scoping reviews,
  • realist reviews,
  • umbrella reviews,
  • and more.

While many syntheses begin with a clear question, their purpose and methodologies can be quite different.

Choosing the Right Type of Synthesis

The following resources can help with determining the most appropriate type of synthesis for your research question and purpose:

Standards and Guides

The standards and guides below describe the process of conducting systematic reviews and other syntheses to help you plan and execute your review.  

Reviews conducted under the auspices of international evidence synthesis collaborations (i.e. Cochrane, JBI, the Campbell Collaboration, and the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence) follow the highest standards for planning, executing and reporting this type of research. Even if you are not conducting a review for one of these organizations, their guidance documents are a great resource. 

Standards

  • PRISMA 2020 (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) [6]:
    The PRISMA website provides guidelines for transparent reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. There are also PRISMA Extensions available to provide guidance for the reporting of different types or aspects of systematic reviews and other types of evidence synthesis (e.g., scoping reviews). More information about PRISMA is provided on the Reporting Standards page of this guide.
     
  • Institute of Medicine (IOM):
    Finding what works in healthcare: standards for systematic reviews [7]. The IOM recommends 21 standards for developing high-quality systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research. The standards address the entire systematic review process from the initial steps of formulating the topic and building the review team to producing a detailed final report.

General Guides

Guides from International Collaborations

Bibliography

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Knowledge translation. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. 2008.
  2. Amog K, Pham B, Courvoisier M, Mak M, Booth A, Godfrey C, Hwee J, Straus SE, Tricco AC. The web-based "Right Review" tool asks reviewers simple questions to suggest methods from 41 knowledge synthesis methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022 Jul;147:42-51. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.03.004. 
  3. Sutton A, Clowes M, Preston L, & Booth A. Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Information & Libraries Journal. 2019; 36(3), 202-222.
  4. 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. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2016; 73, 43-49.
  5. 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 medical research methodology. 2018; 18(1), 5.
  6. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71.
  7. Institute of Medicine. (2011). Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  8. Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009 Jun;26(2):91-108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.
  9. Moher D, Stewart L, Shekelle P. All in the family: systematic reviews, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, realist reviews, and more. Syst Rev. 2015 Dec 22;4:183. doi: 10.1186/s13643-015-0163-7.
  10. Choi, A. R., Cheng, D. L., Greenberg, P. B., Choi, A. R., Cheng, D. L., & Greenberg, P. B. (2018). Twelve tips for medical students to conduct a systematic review. Medical Teacher, 0(0), 1–5. 

Please note:

  
Content on this guide can be reused and adapted under the CC-BY-NC-SA Creative Commons license. 

Training Module

An inter-professional team led by Queen's has set out to develop an open access module series titled The Essentials of Conducting Systematic Reviews to introduce researchers to all stages of the systematic review process.

Check out Module 1: Introduction to Systematic Reviews.

 

Additional Cochrane Resources