Before you begin a systematic review, it is imprtant to understand what goes into the final product. You should at a minimum read one of the following, according to which one is most relevant to your topic.
Siddaway, A. P., Wood, A. M., & Hedges, L. V. (2019). How to do a systematic review: a best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses. Annual review of psychology, 70, 747-770. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803 [For off-campus access, use the MSU VPN.]
Haddaway, N. R., Macura, B., Whaley, P., & Pullin, A. S. (2018). 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. Environmental Evidence, 7(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-018-0121-7
O'Dea, R. E., Lagisz, M., Jennions, M. D., Koricheva, J., Noble, D. W., Parker, T. H., ... & Nakagawa, S. (2021). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses in ecology and evolutionary biology: a PRISMA extension. Biological Reviews, 96(5), 1695-1722. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12721
Page, M. J., Moher, D., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., ... & McKenzie, J. E. (2021). PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. bmj, 372. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160
Rethlefsen, M. L., Kirtley, S., Waffenschmidt, S., Ayala, A. P., Moher, D., Page, M. J., Koffel, J. B., & PRISMA-S Group (2021). PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z
HOW-TO GUIDES
The following guides provide in-depth assistance with conducting a systematic review or related project. They will cover much more guidance than is provided in the PRISMA and other reporting standards.
Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
"... created by the Academy to guide expert workgroup members and evidence analysts to understand and carry out the process of conducting a systematic review. This 106-page guide explains the rigorous 5-step process followed by the Academy."
Center for Environmental Evidence
Guidelines and Standards for Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Management
"The guidelines and standards for CEE Evidence Syntheses (including the planning and review stages) have been adapted from methodologies first developed and established over more than two decades in the health sciences (Higgins & Green 2011). They have been further informed by developments in other sectors such as social sciences and education (Gough et al. 2012) and tested through practice in developing the CEE Library of Evidence Syntheses and the CEE Journal Environmental Evidence."
Campbell Collaborative
Searching for Studies: A Guide to Information Retrieval for Campbell Systematic Reviews
"This guide presents key considerations on the information retrieval process and provides examples of strategies and resources for review authors and Trial Search coordinators (TSC) to reference in the planning and conduct of Campbell Systematic Reviews. The guide provides anoverview of information retrieval principles (Ch.2); covers sources of literature including specific subject databases and bibliographic indexes (Ch. 3); describes steps for planning and executing searches (Ch.4 and 5); reviews tools for managing retrievals (Ch. 6); introduces the role of text mining (Ch. 7); and outlines key elements of the search process and search strategies for documentation (Ch.8)."
Methodological Expectations of Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews (MECCIR)
" ... standards for the conduct and reporting of Campbell systematic reviews of intervention effects. These standards are based on and adapted from Cochrane MECIR conduct and reporting standards. ... Each MECCIR conduct or reporting standard is designated as either "mandatory", "highly desirable" or "optional". There may be variation between or (across reviews) within topic-based Campbell Coordinating Groups (CGs) in the emphasis placed by Editors on compliance with (and/or the need for authors to provide justification for non-compliance with) "highly desirable" MECCIR conduct and reporting standards ("highly desirable" means that this should generally be done but that there are justifiable exceptions). The "optional" designation is reserved for those standards that are done at the authors’ discretion."
Cochrane
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
"Designed to be an accessible resource, the Handbook will also be of interest to anyone undertaking systematic reviews of interventions outside Cochrane, and many of the principles and methods presented are appropriate for systematic reviews addressing research questions other than effects of interventions. This fully updated edition contains extensive new material on systematic review methods addressing a wide-range of topics including network meta-analysis, equity, complex interventions, narrative synthesis, and automation. Also new to this edition, integrated throughout the Handbook, is the set of standards Cochrane expects its reviews to meet."
Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR)
A more concise set of guidelines. Some of the items listed are specific to publishing a paper in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, but most of the information applies to any systematic review as well.
REPORTING STANDARDS
Reporting standards focus on the items that need to be included in a systematic review or meta-analysis. The are not meant to be comprehensive guides on how to conduct a systematic review, though they may provide help in that regard.
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)
"... an evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses." The PRISMA flow diagram is a standard feature in systematic reviews, and the PRISMA Checklist can be helpful in understanding what to include in your write-up of the review.
Useful articles about PRISMA:
Page, M. J., Moher, D., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., ... & McKenzie, J. E. (2021). PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. bmj, 372. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160
Rethlefsen, M. L., Kirtley, S., Waffenschmidt, S., Ayala, A. P., Moher, D., Page, M. J., Koffel, J. B., & PRISMA-S Group (2021). PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z
RepOrting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses (ROSES)
Developed in connection with the Center for Environmental Evidence, "the ROSES initiative is relevant for anyone conducting or reviewing a systematic review or systematic map. ROSES forms will help review authors to ensure that all relevant methodological information is reported in their review, and will help editors and peer-reviewers to critique the reliability and validity of a review."
Useful article about ROSES:
Haddaway, N. R., Macura, B., Whaley, P., & Pullin, A. S. (2018). 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. Environmental Evidence, 7(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-018-0121-7
