kelebihan systematic literature review

• In the News
• Publications

• Research Methodology

Related Posts

• Teknik Pengukuran Kualitas Perangkat Lunak
• Ciyus, Cumpah, Ngeblog itu Wow Banget!
• Bagaimana Melakukan Penelitian Yang Baik?
• Meluruskan Salah Kaprah Tentang Hacker

Systematic Literature Review: Pengantar, Tahapan dan Studi Kasus

Posted by Romi Satria Wahono on 15 May, 2016 in Research Methodology | 37 comments

Systematic literature review atau sering disingkat SLR atau dalam bahasa indonesia disebut tinjauan pustaka sistematis adalah metode literature review yang mengidentifikasi, menilai, dan menginterpretasi seluruh temuan-temuan pada suatu topik penelitian, untuk menjawab pertanyaan penelitian ( research question ) yang telah ditetapkan sebelumnya (Kitchenham & Charters, 2007). Metode SLR dilakukan secara sistematis dengan mengikuti tahapan dan protokol yang memungkinkan proses literature review terhindar dari bias dan pemahaman yang bersifat subyektif dari penelitinya. SLR adalah metode literature review yang biasa dilakukan peneliti di bidang farmasi dan kedokteran, meskipun boleh dikatakan baru mulai dibawa ke dunia computing  wa bil khusus software engineering pada tahun 2007 oleh Barbara Kitchenham lewat papernya berjudul Guidelines in performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering .

Pengantar dan metode-metode yang ada untuk melakukan literature review sudah dibahas pada artikel sebelumnya tentang Literature Review: Pengantar dan Metode . Pada artikel ini, akan dibahas secara khusus dan mendetail tentang systematic literature review (SLR), beserta tahapan dan studi kasusnya. Untuk bisa memahami artikel ini dengan baik, direkomendasikan untuk mendownload dua dokumen di bawah:

• Systematic Literature Review (SLR) . Penjelasan komprehensif tentang metodologi penelitian dan systematic literature review. Contoh kasus utama mengikuti artikel ini, tapi ada contoh-contoh kasus bidang non computing.
• Systematic Literature Review: Pengantar, Tahapan dan Studi Kasus . Penjelasan komprehensif dari artikel ini, termasuk studi kasus tentang SLR mengikuti paper di bawah
• Romi Satria Wahono, A Systematic Literature Review of Software Defect Prediction: Research Trends, Datasets, Methods and Frameworks , Journal of Software Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 1, April 2015

Secara umum tahapan melakukan SLR terdiri dari 3 bagian besar: Planning , Conducting dan Reporting . Detail tiap tahapan seperti pada gambar di bawah.

Research Question (RQ) adalah bagian awal dan dasar berjalannya SLR. RQ digunakan untuk menuntun proses pencarian dan ekstraksi literatur. Analisis dan sintesis data, sebagai hasil dari SLR, adalah jawaban dari RQ yang kita tentukan di depan. RQ yang baik adalah yang bermanfaat, terukur, arahnya ke pemahaman terhadap state-of-the-art research dari suatu topik penelitian.

Formulasi RQ harus didasarkan pada lima elemen yang terkenal dengan sebutan PICOC:

• Population (P) : Target group dari investigasi
• Intervention (I) : Aspek detail dari investigasi, atau isu yang menarik bagi peneliti
• Comparison (C) : Aspek dari investigasi dimana Intervention (I) akan dibandingkan
• Outcomes (O) : Efek dan hasil dari Intervention (I)
• Context (C) : Setting dan lingkungan dari investigasi

Contoh PICOC dari paper SLR saya (Wahono, 2015) adalah seperti gambar di bawah.

Langkah berikutnya yang perlu kita lakukan adalah menyusun protokol SLR ( SLR Protocol ). Protokol SLR adalah rencana yang berisi prosedur dan metode yang kita pilih dalam melakukan SLR. Secara umum Protokol SLR biasanya memuat 7 elemen di bawah:

• Research Questions
• Search terms
• Selection criteria
• Quality checklist and procedures
• Data extraction strategy
• Data synthesis strategy

2. CONDUCTING

Tahapan conduting adalah tahapan yang berisi pelaksanaan dari SLR, dimana seharusnya sesuai dengan Protokol SLR yang telah kita tentukan. Dimulai dari penentuan keyword  pencarian literatur ( search string ) yang basisnya adalah dari PICOC yang telah kita desain di depan. Pemahaman terhadap sinonim dan alternatif pengganti kata akan menentukan akurasi pencarian literatur kita. Kemudian langkah berikutnya adalah penentuan sumber ( digital library ) dari pencarian literatur.  Karena literatur yang kita kumpulkan akan sangat banyak, mungkin ratusan atau ribuan paper, maka disarankan untuk menggunakan tool software untuk mempermudah kita mengelola literatur seperti Mendeley, Zotero, EndNote, dsb. Contoh strategi pemilihan literatur adalah seperti gambar di bawah.

Setelah semua literatur didapatkan, langkah berikutnya adalah memilih literatur yang sesuai. Untuk mempermudah proses ini kita direkomendasikan membuat kriteria yang berfungsi sebagai filter dalam pemilihan dan penolakan suatu literatur ( inclusion and exclusion criteria ). Contoh inclusion and exclusion criteria adalah seperti pada gambar di bawah.

Masih melanjutkan proses filtering dari literatur, selain inclusion and exclusion criteria , kita juga harus melakukan penilaian kualitas  ( quality assesment ) dari ratusan literatur yang kita temukan. Kitchenham et al. (2007) memberi rekomendasi bahwa penilaian kualitas literatur sebaiknya berdasarkan lima parameter di bawah:

• Apakah proses analisis data sudah tepat dilakukan?
• Apakah juga dilakukan analisis residual dan sensitifitas?
• Apakah akurasi statistik diambil dari data mentah?
• Seberapa baik komparasi metode yang dilakukan?
• Seberapa besar ukuran dari dataset yang digunakan dalam penelitian

Selain usulan Kitchengam di atas, peneliti lain menambahkan parameter penilaian kualitas supaya lebih akurat memfilter literatur. Misalnya (Salleh et al., 2011) menyatakan bahwa parameter yang sebaiknya digunakan untuk penilaian kualitas dari literatur adalah seperti pada gambar di bawah.

Langkah terakhir setelah kita mendapatkan literatur yang kita inginkan, adalah ekstraksi data ( data extraction ), kemudian melakukan sintesis berbagai hal yang kita temukan dari literatur-literatur yang sudah kita pilih ( synthesis of evidence ). Tujuan utama dari sintesis data adalah untuk menganalisis dan mengevaluasi berbagai hasil penelitian dari berbagai literatur, dan untuk memilih metode yang paling tepat untuk mengintegrasikan penjelasan dan interpretasi dari berbagai temuan tersebut (Cruzes & Dyba, 2011). Sintesis yang kita lakukan bisa berbentuk naratif atau kuantitatif ( meta analysis ). Langkah terakhir ini adalah langkah penting yang harus kita lakukan dengan detail dan hati-hati, karena kualitas SLR kita akan ditentukan dari hasil sintesis dan analisis yang kita lakukan.

3. REPORTING

Reporting  adalah tahapan penulisan hasil SLR dalam bentuk tulisan, baik untuk dipublikasikan dalam bentuk paper ke jurnal ilmiah atau untuk menyusun Bab 2 tentang Literature Review dari skripsi/tesis/disertasi kita. Struktur penulisan dari SLR biasanya terdiri dari 3 bagian besar, yaitu: Pendahuluan ( Introduction ), Utama ( Main Body ) dan Kesimpulan ( Conclusion ).  Bagian Pendahuluan akan berisi latar belakang dan landasan mengapa SLR pada suatu topik itu penting dan harus dilakukan. Sedangkan Bagian Utama akan berisi protokol SLR, hasil analisis dan sintesis temuan, serta diakhiri dengan diskusi yang membahas implikasi dari hasil SLR. Bagian Kesimpulan akan berisi rangkuman dari temuan yang kita dapatkan, sesuai dengan RQ yang kita tetapkan di depan.

Apabila SLR yang kita tulis akan dikirimkan dalam bentuk paper untuk suatu jurnal ilmiah, kita harus benar-benar menganalisis jurnal apa saja yang tepat untuk paper SLR kita. Tepat disini bisa bermakna dua, tepat dalam arti topiknya sesuai, dan juga tepat dalam arti bahwa kualitas temuan yang kita hasilkan dari SLR kita memang sesuai dengan level dari jurnal ilmiah yang akan kita pilih. Saya biasanya membuat list dari jurnal ilmiah yang saya targetkan untuk tempat publikasi, dan saya urutkan berdasarkan nilai SJR atau JIF dari jurnal tersebut. Saya juga berusaha mempelajari beberapa SLR yang sebelumnya dimuat pada jurnal-jurnal tersebut. Kemudian saya melakukan self-assesment apakah kualitas dari paper SLR saya sepadan dengan yang selama ini muncul di jurnal-jurnal tersebut. Gambar di bawah adalah contoh list jurnal-jurnal di bidang software engineering yang banyak memuat topik tentang SLR yang saya tulis yaitu software defect prediction. Kita akan lebih mudah mendapatkan list jurnal ini, karena proses SLR akan membawa kita ke paper-paper terbaik yang ada dalam suatu topik. Tinggal dilist saja di jurnal apa paper-paper pilihan kita itu diterbitkan.

Jujur tidak mudah melakukan tinjauan pustaka dan menulis paper dengan metode SLR. Disamping butuh waktu lama, juga butuh ketelatenan supaya kita bisa melakukan sintesis terhadap berbagai temuan dengan baik. Tapi paling tidak artikel ini dapat digunakan sebagai panduan praktis bagaimana tahapan melakukan SLR.

Sekali lagi Untuk bisa memahami artikel ini dengan baik, direkomendasikan untuk mendownload dua dokumen di bawah:

Tetap dalam perdjoeangan!

37 Comments

Mantab, pa…

Mohon izin menerapkan ilmu ini di penelitian tesis sy.

Monggo mas zaenal

menarik pak Romi, saya sedang proses untuk membuat SLR ini, saya dari ilmu-ilmu sosial meskipun demikian proses yang bapak jelaskan sepertinya bersifat umum artinya bisa digunakan untuk ilmu2 sosial dan eksak. Pertanyaan saya untuk tahap conducting apakah ada program software yang harus diinstal untuk bisa memilah jurnal yang kita inginkan secara otomatis? klo ada mohon petunjuk untuk mendapatkannya seperti apa ya? terimakasih.

Kayaknya SLR lebih rumit ya Pak

Lengkap nih penjelasannya, makasih pak

Perdjoeangan yang sesungguhnya akan segera dimulai 😀

Perdjoeangan yang sesungguhnya akan segera dimulai.

Nunut sinau pak.

Terimakasih pak..sangat mencerahkan saya yg sedang galau ^_^

Berapa lama waktu yang dibutuhkan untuk membuat sebuah paper dengan metode SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW, Pak?

terima kasih banyak semoga bermanfaat

Terima kasih banyak atas penjelasannya. Alhamdulillah sudah ada bayangan mengenai SLR ini.

Assalamualaikum pak, saya mau tanya apakah pembuatan RQ itu boleh sedikit atau harus banyak?

terimakasih pak atas ilmu yang di berikan bapak sangat bermanfaat

maksasih pak, sangat membantu sekali berhubung skripsi saya harus ganti bikin slr karena sedang ada corona

terima kasih pak romi, izin copas yaaa 🙂

Terima kasih Pak… bermanfaat banget buat tugas review jurnal…

Semoga berkah ilmunya pak Romi, sangat membantu saya mengobati galau karena skripsi

Terima Kasih Banyak sharingnya, sangat bermanfaat dan saya ijin untuk mendownload. Tabarokallahu.

Terimakasih Ilmunya sangat bermanfaat di era Pandemi. Di tempat Saya Poltekkes Kemenkes menggunakan Meta analisis. Hampi mirip pak Ya. Mohon komentarnya…

Izin save pak. Thank you.

wah,, terimakasih pak artikelnya. bagi yang berminat membuat SLR Bersama sama, dibidang kesehatan, silahkan hubungi saya di email [email protected] ya,, terimakasih

Salam, selamat pagi Bapak. Terima kasih atas sharing ilmunya yang sangat mencerahkan. Semoga selalu diberkati dan bermanfaat. Aamiin.

Terima kasih ilmunya Pak, sangat membantu. Pengalaman pertama saya menyusun tugas akhir sebagai mahasiswa farmasi tanpa eksperimen lab, ini cukup menantang dan memberikan hikmah ilmu tersendiri buat saya.

selamat pagi, ijin bertanya…apakah sy bisa tahu perbedaan mendasar secara singkat antara scoping jurnal, sistematik review dan sistematika literatur review

kirim ke [email protected] terimakasih

sudah ada di materi mas .. monggo disimak dulu ya .. youtubenya juga ada

Good Articel, izin save ya pak

Mohon ijin save pak.Terima kash sangat membantu

Terima kasih penjelasannya pak. Sangat membantu dalam penulisan ilmiah, saya sedang mencoba menulis topik SLR menggunakan metode Prisma.

izin bertanya pak, untuk melakukan quality assessment terhadap jurnal yang kita teliti dengan menggunakan kriteria new castle ottawa scale, apakah hasil akhirnya dapat digabung dan ditambahkan kemudian dibagi dua? seperti misalnya jurnal A mendapatkan nilai 7 dari reviewer 1 dan mendapatkan nilai 5 dari reviewer 2. apakah hasil tersebut dapat digabung dan dibagi 2 pak? terima kasih banyak pak mohon bantuannya…

Apakah kantor brainmatics masih di menara Bidakara?

terimakasih pak

saya pernah membaca dalam proses SLR harus melibatkan reviewer lain untuk menyortir paper, apakah itu harus dilakukan atau boleh untuk tidak dilakukan? misalnya dalam rangka menulis skripsi atau tesis begitu

Terima kasih banyak Pak Romi ilmunya. Saya dapat banyak ilmu dari channel Pak Romi termasuk tentang SLR ini

Terima Kasih pak, saya sedang melakukan penelitian skripsi dengan menggunakan metode literature review/SLR dan diagram PRISMA, Atas informasi dan ilmu yang diberikan, saya menjadi tercerahkan.

Apakah benar bahwa dengan SLR pada akhirnya kita akan mendapatkan research gap, yang nantinya pada saat penulisan thesis/desertasi akan ditindak-lanjuti dengan mem-propose suatu metoda tertentu untuk mengatasinya ? Jika iya, apakah untuk mempertahankan research gap diharuskan menggunakan data empiris ? Demikian juga dengan hasil dari solusi yang di-propose ?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

My Categories

My schedule.

Copyright © 2004-2024 RomiSatriaWahono.Net. All rights reserved.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• Systematic Review | Definition, Example, & Guide

Systematic Review | Definition, Example & Guide

Published on June 15, 2022 by Shaun Turney . Revised on November 20, 2023.

A systematic review is a type of review that uses repeatable methods to find, select, and synthesize all available evidence. It answers a clearly formulated research question and explicitly states the methods used to arrive at the answer.

They answered the question “What is the effectiveness of probiotics in reducing eczema symptoms and improving quality of life in patients with eczema?”

In this context, a probiotic is a health product that contains live microorganisms and is taken by mouth. Eczema is a common skin condition that causes red, itchy skin.

Table of contents

What is a systematic review, systematic review vs. meta-analysis, systematic review vs. literature review, systematic review vs. scoping review, when to conduct a systematic review, pros and cons of systematic reviews, step-by-step example of a systematic review, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about systematic reviews.

A review is an overview of the research that’s already been completed on a topic.

What makes a systematic review different from other types of reviews is that the research methods are designed to reduce bias . The methods are repeatable, and the approach is formal and systematic:

• Formulate a research question
• Develop a protocol
• Search for all relevant studies
• Apply the selection criteria
• Extract the data
• Synthesize the data
• Write and publish a report

Although multiple sets of guidelines exist, the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews is among the most widely used. It provides detailed guidelines on how to complete each step of the systematic review process.

Systematic reviews are most commonly used in medical and public health research, but they can also be found in other disciplines.

Systematic reviews typically answer their research question by synthesizing all available evidence and evaluating the quality of the evidence. Synthesizing means bringing together different information to tell a single, cohesive story. The synthesis can be narrative ( qualitative ), quantitative , or both.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Systematic reviews often quantitatively synthesize the evidence using a meta-analysis . A meta-analysis is a statistical analysis, not a type of review.

A meta-analysis is a technique to synthesize results from multiple studies. It’s a statistical analysis that combines the results of two or more studies, usually to estimate an effect size .

A literature review is a type of review that uses a less systematic and formal approach than a systematic review. Typically, an expert in a topic will qualitatively summarize and evaluate previous work, without using a formal, explicit method.

Although literature reviews are often less time-consuming and can be insightful or helpful, they have a higher risk of bias and are less transparent than systematic reviews.

Similar to a systematic review, a scoping review is a type of review that tries to minimize bias by using transparent and repeatable methods.

However, a scoping review isn’t a type of systematic review. The most important difference is the goal: rather than answering a specific question, a scoping review explores a topic. The researcher tries to identify the main concepts, theories, and evidence, as well as gaps in the current research.

Sometimes scoping reviews are an exploratory preparation step for a systematic review, and sometimes they are a standalone project.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

A systematic review is a good choice of review if you want to answer a question about the effectiveness of an intervention , such as a medical treatment.

To conduct a systematic review, you’ll need the following:

• A precise question , usually about the effectiveness of an intervention. The question needs to be about a topic that’s previously been studied by multiple researchers. If there’s no previous research, there’s nothing to review.
• If you’re doing a systematic review on your own (e.g., for a research paper or thesis ), you should take appropriate measures to ensure the validity and reliability of your research.
• Access to databases and journal archives. Often, your educational institution provides you with access.
• Time. A professional systematic review is a time-consuming process: it will take the lead author about six months of full-time work. If you’re a student, you should narrow the scope of your systematic review and stick to a tight schedule.
• Bibliographic, word-processing, spreadsheet, and statistical software . For example, you could use EndNote, Microsoft Word, Excel, and SPSS.

A systematic review has many pros .

• They minimize research bias by considering all available evidence and evaluating each study for bias.
• Their methods are transparent , so they can be scrutinized by others.
• They’re thorough : they summarize all available evidence.
• They can be replicated and updated by others.

Systematic reviews also have a few cons .

• They’re time-consuming .
• They’re narrow in scope : they only answer the precise research question.

The 7 steps for conducting a systematic review are explained with an example.

Step 1: Formulate a research question

Formulating the research question is probably the most important step of a systematic review. A clear research question will:

• Allow you to more effectively communicate your research to other researchers and practitioners
• Guide your decisions as you plan and conduct your systematic review

A good research question for a systematic review has four components, which you can remember with the acronym PICO :

• Population(s) or problem(s)
• Intervention(s)
• Comparison(s)

You can rearrange these four components to write your research question:

• What is the effectiveness of I versus C for O in P ?

Sometimes, you may want to include a fifth component, the type of study design . In this case, the acronym is PICOT .

• Type of study design(s)
• The population of patients with eczema
• The intervention of probiotics
• In comparison to no treatment, placebo , or non-probiotic treatment
• The outcome of changes in participant-, parent-, and doctor-rated symptoms of eczema and quality of life
• Randomized control trials, a type of study design

Their research question was:

• What is the effectiveness of probiotics versus no treatment, a placebo, or a non-probiotic treatment for reducing eczema symptoms and improving quality of life in patients with eczema?

Step 2: Develop a protocol

A protocol is a document that contains your research plan for the systematic review. This is an important step because having a plan allows you to work more efficiently and reduces bias.

Your protocol should include the following components:

• Background information : Provide the context of the research question, including why it’s important.
• Research objective (s) : Rephrase your research question as an objective.
• Selection criteria: State how you’ll decide which studies to include or exclude from your review.
• Search strategy: Discuss your plan for finding studies.
• Analysis: Explain what information you’ll collect from the studies and how you’ll synthesize the data.

If you’re a professional seeking to publish your review, it’s a good idea to bring together an advisory committee . This is a group of about six people who have experience in the topic you’re researching. They can help you make decisions about your protocol.

It’s highly recommended to register your protocol. Registering your protocol means submitting it to a database such as PROSPERO or ClinicalTrials.gov .

Step 3: Search for all relevant studies

Searching for relevant studies is the most time-consuming step of a systematic review.

To reduce bias, it’s important to search for relevant studies very thoroughly. Your strategy will depend on your field and your research question, but sources generally fall into these four categories:

• Databases: Search multiple databases of peer-reviewed literature, such as PubMed or Scopus . Think carefully about how to phrase your search terms and include multiple synonyms of each word. Use Boolean operators if relevant.
• Handsearching: In addition to searching the primary sources using databases, you’ll also need to search manually. One strategy is to scan relevant journals or conference proceedings. Another strategy is to scan the reference lists of relevant studies.
• Gray literature: Gray literature includes documents produced by governments, universities, and other institutions that aren’t published by traditional publishers. Graduate student theses are an important type of gray literature, which you can search using the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (NDLTD) . In medicine, clinical trial registries are another important type of gray literature.
• Experts: Contact experts in the field to ask if they have unpublished studies that should be included in your review.

At this stage of your review, you won’t read the articles yet. Simply save any potentially relevant citations using bibliographic software, such as Scribbr’s APA or MLA Generator .

• Databases: EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED, LILACS, and ISI Web of Science
• Handsearch: Conference proceedings and reference lists of articles
• Gray literature: The Cochrane Library, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials, and the Ongoing Skin Trials Register
• Experts: Authors of unpublished registered trials, pharmaceutical companies, and manufacturers of probiotics

Step 4: Apply the selection criteria

Applying the selection criteria is a three-person job. Two of you will independently read the studies and decide which to include in your review based on the selection criteria you established in your protocol . The third person’s job is to break any ties.

To increase inter-rater reliability , ensure that everyone thoroughly understands the selection criteria before you begin.

If you’re writing a systematic review as a student for an assignment, you might not have a team. In this case, you’ll have to apply the selection criteria on your own; you can mention this as a limitation in your paper’s discussion.

You should apply the selection criteria in two phases:

• Based on the titles and abstracts : Decide whether each article potentially meets the selection criteria based on the information provided in the abstracts.
• Based on the full texts: Download the articles that weren’t excluded during the first phase. If an article isn’t available online or through your library, you may need to contact the authors to ask for a copy. Read the articles and decide which articles meet the selection criteria.

It’s very important to keep a meticulous record of why you included or excluded each article. When the selection process is complete, you can summarize what you did using a PRISMA flow diagram .

Next, Boyle and colleagues found the full texts for each of the remaining studies. Boyle and Tang read through the articles to decide if any more studies needed to be excluded based on the selection criteria.

When Boyle and Tang disagreed about whether a study should be excluded, they discussed it with Varigos until the three researchers came to an agreement.

Step 5: Extract the data

Extracting the data means collecting information from the selected studies in a systematic way. There are two types of information you need to collect from each study:

• Information about the study’s methods and results . The exact information will depend on your research question, but it might include the year, study design , sample size, context, research findings , and conclusions. If any data are missing, you’ll need to contact the study’s authors.
• Your judgment of the quality of the evidence, including risk of bias .

You should collect this information using forms. You can find sample forms in The Registry of Methods and Tools for Evidence-Informed Decision Making and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations Working Group .

Extracting the data is also a three-person job. Two people should do this step independently, and the third person will resolve any disagreements.

They also collected data about possible sources of bias, such as how the study participants were randomized into the control and treatment groups.

Step 6: Synthesize the data

Synthesizing the data means bringing together the information you collected into a single, cohesive story. There are two main approaches to synthesizing the data:

• Narrative ( qualitative ): Summarize the information in words. You’ll need to discuss the studies and assess their overall quality.
• Quantitative : Use statistical methods to summarize and compare data from different studies. The most common quantitative approach is a meta-analysis , which allows you to combine results from multiple studies into a summary result.

Generally, you should use both approaches together whenever possible. If you don’t have enough data, or the data from different studies aren’t comparable, then you can take just a narrative approach. However, you should justify why a quantitative approach wasn’t possible.

Boyle and colleagues also divided the studies into subgroups, such as studies about babies, children, and adults, and analyzed the effect sizes within each group.

Step 7: Write and publish a report

The purpose of writing a systematic review article is to share the answer to your research question and explain how you arrived at this answer.

Your article should include the following sections:

• Abstract : A summary of the review
• Introduction : Including the rationale and objectives
• Methods : Including the selection criteria, search method, data extraction method, and synthesis method
• Results : Including results of the search and selection process, study characteristics, risk of bias in the studies, and synthesis results
• Discussion : Including interpretation of the results and limitations of the review
• Conclusion : The answer to your research question and implications for practice, policy, or research

To verify that your report includes everything it needs, you can use the PRISMA checklist .

Once your report is written, you can publish it in a systematic review database, such as the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews , and/or in a peer-reviewed journal.

In their report, Boyle and colleagues concluded that probiotics cannot be recommended for reducing eczema symptoms or improving quality of life in patients with eczema. Note Generative AI tools like ChatGPT can be useful at various stages of the writing and research process and can help you to write your systematic review. However, we strongly advise against trying to pass AI-generated text off as your own work.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Student’s  t -distribution
• Normal distribution
• Null and Alternative Hypotheses
• Chi square tests
• Confidence interval
• Quartiles & Quantiles
• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Data cleansing
• Reproducibility vs Replicability
• Peer review
• Prospective cohort study

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Placebo effect
• Hawthorne effect
• Hindsight bias
• Affect heuristic
• Social desirability bias

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.

A literature review is a survey of credible sources on a topic, often used in dissertations , theses, and research papers . Literature reviews give an overview of knowledge on a subject, helping you identify relevant theories and methods, as well as gaps in existing research. Literature reviews are set up similarly to other  academic texts , with an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion .

An  annotated bibliography is a list of  source references that has a short description (called an annotation ) for each of the sources. It is often assigned as part of the research process for a  paper .  

A systematic review is secondary research because it uses existing research. You don’t collect new data yourself.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Turney, S. (2023, November 20). Systematic Review | Definition, Example & Guide. Scribbr. Retrieved March 12, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/systematic-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shaun Turney

Other students also liked, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, what is critical thinking | definition & examples, what is your plagiarism score.

How to Do a Systematic Review: A Best Practice Guide for Conducting and Reporting Narrative Reviews, Meta-Analyses, and Meta-Syntheses

Affiliations.

• 1 Behavioural Science Centre, Stirling Management School, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, United Kingdom; email: [email protected].
• 2 Department of Psychological and Behavioural Science, London School of Economics and Political Science, London WC2A 2AE, United Kingdom.
• 3 Department of Statistics, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208, USA; email: [email protected].
• PMID: 30089228
• DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803

Systematic reviews are characterized by a methodical and replicable methodology and presentation. They involve a comprehensive search to locate all relevant published and unpublished work on a subject; a systematic integration of search results; and a critique of the extent, nature, and quality of evidence in relation to a particular research question. The best reviews synthesize studies to draw broad theoretical conclusions about what a literature means, linking theory to evidence and evidence to theory. This guide describes how to plan, conduct, organize, and present a systematic review of quantitative (meta-analysis) or qualitative (narrative review, meta-synthesis) information. We outline core standards and principles and describe commonly encountered problems. Although this guide targets psychological scientists, its high level of abstraction makes it potentially relevant to any subject area or discipline. We argue that systematic reviews are a key methodology for clarifying whether and how research findings replicate and for explaining possible inconsistencies, and we call for researchers to conduct systematic reviews to help elucidate whether there is a replication crisis.

Keywords: evidence; guide; meta-analysis; meta-synthesis; narrative; systematic review; theory.

• Guidelines as Topic
• Meta-Analysis as Topic*
• Publication Bias
• Review Literature as Topic
• Systematic Reviews as Topic*

• En español – ExME
• Em português – EME

Traditional reviews vs. systematic reviews

Posted on 3rd February 2016 by Weyinmi Demeyin

Millions of articles are published yearly (1) , making it difficult for clinicians to keep abreast of the literature. Reviews of literature are necessary in order to provide clinicians with accurate, up to date information to ensure appropriate management of their patients. Reviews usually involve summaries and synthesis of primary research findings on a particular topic of interest and can be grouped into 2 main categories; the ‘traditional’ review and the ‘systematic’ review with major differences between them.

Traditional reviews provide a broad overview of a research topic with no clear methodological approach (2) . Information is collected and interpreted unsystematically with subjective summaries of findings. Authors aim to describe and discuss the literature from a contextual or theoretical point of view. Although the reviews may be conducted by topic experts, due to preconceived ideas or conclusions, they could be subject to bias.

Systematic reviews are overviews of the literature undertaken by identifying, critically appraising and synthesising results of primary research studies using an explicit, methodological approach(3). They aim to summarise the best available evidence on a particular research topic.

The main differences between traditional reviews and systematic reviews are summarised below in terms of the following characteristics: Authors, Study protocol, Research question, Search strategy, Sources of literature, Selection criteria, Critical appraisal, Synthesis, Conclusions, Reproducibility, and Update.

Traditional reviews

• Authors: One or more authors usually experts in the topic of interest
• Study protocol: No study protocol
• Research question: Broad to specific question, hypothesis not stated
• Search strategy: No detailed search strategy, search is probably conducted using keywords
• Sources of literature: Not usually stated and non-exhaustive, usually well-known articles. Prone to publication bias
• Selection criteria: No specific selection criteria, usually subjective. Prone to selection bias
• Critical appraisal: Variable evaluation of study quality or method
• Synthesis: Often qualitative synthesis of evidence
• Conclusions: Sometimes evidence based but can be influenced by author’s personal belief
• Reproducibility: Findings cannot be reproduced independently as conclusions may be subjective
• Update: Cannot be continuously updated

Systematic reviews

• Authors: Two or more authors are involved in good quality systematic reviews, may comprise experts in the different stages of the review
• Study protocol: Written study protocol which includes details of the methods to be used
• Research question: Specific question which may have all or some of PICO components (Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome). Hypothesis is stated
• Search strategy: Detailed and comprehensive search strategy is developed
• Sources of literature: List of databases, websites and other sources of included studies are listed. Both published and unpublished literature are considered
• Selection criteria: Specific inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Critical appraisal: Rigorous appraisal of study quality
• Synthesis: Narrative, quantitative or qualitative synthesis
• Conclusions: Conclusions drawn are evidence based
• Reproducibility: Accurate documentation of method means results can be reproduced
• Update: Systematic reviews can be periodically updated to include new evidence

Decisions and health policies about patient care should be evidence based in order to provide the best treatment for patients. Systematic reviews provide a means of systematically identifying and synthesising the evidence, making it easier for policy makers and practitioners to assess such relevant information and hopefully improve patient outcomes.

• Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. Evidence-Based Approach to the Medical Literature. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 1997; 12(Suppl 2):S5-S14. doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.12.s2.1.x. Available from:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1497222/
• Rother ET. Systematic literature review X narrative review. Acta paul. enferm. [Internet]. 2007 June [cited 2015 Dec 25]; 20(2): v-vi. Available from: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-21002007000200001&lng=en. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0103-21002007000200001
• Khan KS, Ter Riet G, Glanville J, Sowden AJ, Kleijnen J. Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness: CRD’s guidance for carrying out or commissioning reviews. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination; 2001.

Weyinmi Demeyin

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

No Comments on Traditional reviews vs. systematic reviews

Thank you very much for the information here. My question is : Is it possible for me to do a systematic review which is not directed toward patients but just a specific population? To be specific can I do a systematic review on the mental health needs of students?

Hi Rosemary, I wonder whether it would be useful for you to look at Module 1 of the Cochrane Interactive Learning modules. This is a free module, open to everyone (you will just need to register for a Cochrane account if you don’t already have one). This guides you through conducting a systematic review, with a section specifically around defining your research question, which I feel will help you in understanding your question further. Head to this link for more details: https://training.cochrane.org/interactivelearning

I wonder if you have had a search on the Cochrane Library as yet, to see what Cochrane systematic reviews already exist? There is one review, titled “Psychological interventions to foster resilience in healthcare students” which may be of interest: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD013684/full You can run searches on the library by the population and intervention you are interested in.

I hope these help you start in your investigations. Best wishes. Emma.

La revisión sistemática vale si hay solo un autor?

HI Alex, so sorry for the delay in replying to you. Yes, that is a very good point. I have copied a paragraph from the Cochrane Handbook, here, which does say that for a Cochrane Review, you should have more than one author.

“Cochrane Reviews should be undertaken by more than one person. In putting together a team, authors should consider the need for clinical and methodological expertise for the review, as well as the perspectives of stakeholders. Cochrane author teams are encouraged to seek and incorporate the views of users, including consumers, clinicians and those from varying regions and settings to develop protocols and reviews. Author teams for reviews relevant to particular settings (e.g. neglected tropical diseases) should involve contributors experienced in those settings”.

Thank you for the discussion point, much appreciated.

Hello, I’d like to ask you a question: what’s the difference between systematic review and systematized review? In addition, if the screening process of the review was made by only one author, is still a systematic or is a systematized review? Thanks

Hi. This article from Grant & Booth is a really good one to look at explaining different types of reviews: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x It includes Systematic Reviews and Systematized Reviews. In answer to your second question, have a look at this Chapter from the Cochrane handbook. It covers the question about ‘Who should do a systematic review’. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-01

A really relevant part of this chapter is this: “Systematic reviews should be undertaken by a team. Indeed, Cochrane will not publish a review that is proposed to be undertaken by a single person. Working as a team not only spreads the effort, but ensures that tasks such as the selection of studies for eligibility, data extraction and rating the certainty of the evidence will be performed by at least two people independently, minimizing the likelihood of errors.”

I hope this helps with the question. Best wishes. Emma.

Subscribe to our newsletter

You will receive our monthly newsletter and free access to Trip Premium.

Related Articles

What do trialists do about participants who are ‘lost to follow-up’?

Participants in clinical trials may exit the study prior to having their results collated; in this case, what do we do with their results?

Family Therapy approaches for Anorexia Nervosa

Is Family Therapy effective in the treatment of Anorexia Nervosa? Emily summarises a recent Cochrane Review in this blog and examines the evidence.

Antihypertensive drugs for primary prevention – at what blood pressure do we start treatment?

In this blog, Giorgio Karam examines the evidence on antihypertensive drugs for primary prevention – when do we start treatment?

Literature Review vs Systematic Review

• Literature Review vs. Systematic Review
• Primary vs. Secondary Sources
• Databases and Articles
• Specific Journal or Article

Subject Guide

Definitions

It’s common to confuse systematic and literature reviews because both are used to provide a summary of the existent literature or research on a specific topic. Regardless of this commonality, both types of review vary significantly. The following table provides a detailed explanation as well as the differences between systematic and literature reviews. 

Kysh, Lynn (2013): Difference between a systematic review and a literature review. [figshare]. Available at:  http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.766364

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Primary vs. Secondary Sources >>
• Last Updated: Dec 15, 2023 10:19 AM
• URL: https://libguides.sjsu.edu/LitRevVSSysRev

2.6.4 Kelebihan Dan Kekurangan: 2.6 Systematic Review

• Uploaded by: Minhalina Mazlan
• January 2021

This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA

More details

Related documents.

Kelebihan Dan Kekurangan Mendeley

Kelebihan Dan Kekurangan Smart City

Kelebihan Dan Kelemahan Ujian Subjektif

Unger-ethics-review-copy-26-sep-2017

More documents from "abhigyan prakash".

Teh Tarik Place

Copyright © 2024 VBOOK.PUB.

• Locations and Hours
• UCLA Library
• Research Guides
• Biomedical Library Guides

Systematic Reviews

• Types of Literature Reviews

What Makes a Systematic Review Different from Other Types of Reviews?

• Planning Your Systematic Review
• Database Searching
• Creating the Search
• Search Filters & Hedges
• Grey Literature
• Managing & Appraising Results
• Further Resources

Reproduced from Grant, M. J. and Booth, A. (2009), A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26: 91–108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Planning Your Systematic Review >>
• Last Updated: Mar 1, 2024 10:55 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.ucla.edu/systematicreviews

Home » Penelitian » Literature Review : Pengertian, Metode, Manfaat, dan Cara Membuat

Literature Review : Pengertian, Metode, Manfaat, dan Cara Membuat

Dalam dunia penelitian terutama karya ilmiah, tidak bisa dilepaskan dari literature atau dalam bahasa Indonesia literatur. Literatur merupakan sumber atau referensi atau acuan bagi para peneliti karya ilmiah, sehingga tidak bisa dilepaskan begitu saja. Dengan kata lain, melalui literatur, seseorang atau peneliti bisa memperoleh informasi serta data-data yang valid dan dapat dipertanggungjawabkan yang kemudian dijadikan sebagai rujukan untuk membuat karya tulis ilmiah.  Salah satu penelitian yang berkaitan dengan literatur adalah literature review.

Literatur yang sering dijadikan sebagai rujukan atau referensi dalam membuat karya tulis ilmiah, sehingga literatur sangat sulit dilepaskan dari dunia pendidikan. Oleh karena itu, literatur seringkali digunakan oleh mahasiswa untuk menyelesaikan tugas akhirnya atau skripsi. Bahkan, literatur juga dibutuhkan oleh para dosen yang sedang melakukan penelitian atau membuat jurnal.

Literatur ini bentuknya sangatlah beragam atau bisa dibilang bukan hanya buku saja, tetapi juga ada yang dalam bentuk jurnal ilmiah, disertasi, tesis, dan sebagainya. Semakin banyak literatur yang dijadikan sebagai referensi atau rujukan untuk membuat karya tulis ilmiah, maka karya tulis ilmiah yang dihasilkan menjadi optimal. Karya tulis ilmiah yang dikerjakan dengan optimal, biasanya isinya akan lebih kompleks dan tetap mudah dipahami.

Meskipun banyak literatur yang digunakan, tetapi tidak bisa menjamin akan menghasilkan karya ilmiah yang berkualitas. Oleh karena itu, dalam membuat karya ilmiah, sebaiknya pilih data yang berkualitas atau pilihlah data yang berkaitan langsung dengan topik karya ilmiah yang sedang dibuat.

Untuk bisa mendapatkan data-data yang valid dari literatur, maka pembuat karya ilmiah, sebaiknya melakukan kegiatan literature review terlebih dahulu. Hal ini perlu dilakukan agar penulis karya ilmiah mengetahui data penelitian yang sudah dilakukan sebelumnya dan bisa dijadikan sebagai referensi. Selain itu, literature review bisa juga digunakan untuk mengetahui pendekatan apa yang sudah dipilih oleh peneliti sebelumnya.

Literature review terdiri dari dua kata, yang pertama literature dan kata kedua yaitu review. Oleh karena itu, sebelum membahas lebih jauh tentang literature review, maka dalam artikel ini akan membahas pengertian literature dan pengertian review.

Pengertian Literature

Literature adalah semua karya tulis yang bisa dijadikan sebagai bahan rujukan atau referensi dalam melakukan berbagai macam bidang penelitian atau karya tulis ilmiah. Dalam bahasa Indonesia, literature lebih dikenal dengan sebutan literatur. Dalam Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia, (KBBI), literatur adalah bahan bacaan yang digunakan dalam berbagai aktivitas, baik secara intelektual maupun rekreasi.

Literature dijadikan sebagai referensi dikarenakan dianggap bahwa dalam literature terdapat banyak sekali data-data yang valid. Selain itu, literatur juga dianggap mempunyai banyak sekali manfaat yang sifatnya abadi. Dengan kata lain, literature tidak akan pernah mati dan akan terus ada dan akan terus berkembang.

Dalam hal ini, berbagai macam karya tulis termasuk dalam bagian literature selama masih berkaitan dengan topik pembahasan yang akan digunakan dalam membuat karya tulis ilmiah. Meskipun bisa digunakan untuk bahan referensi dalam membuat karya ilmiah, tetapi data-data yang ada pada literature harus dicek terlebih dahulu, apakah data-datanya valid atau tidak. Selain itu, bisa juga dicek melalui penulis literature, editor, hingga siapa yang menerbitkan literature tersebut.

Pengertian Review

Seperti yang sudah dijelaskan sebelumnya bahwa literature review terdiri dari dua kata, setelah membahas pengertian literature, maka pengertian review adalah suatu ringkasan atau juga ulasan yang berasal dari beberapa sumber, seperti film, buku, berita, dan jurnal. Selain itu, review bisa juga berasal dari beberapa produk yang biasanya kita lakukan setelah selesai belanja online .

Review yang dilakukan setelah menyelesaikan belanja online sangat bermanfaat bagi tokonya karena bisa mengetahui hal-hal apa yang perlu ditingkatkan dan hal-hal apa yang perlu dipertahankan. Oleh karena itu, toko online sangat mengharapkan review dari para pembelinya. Dengan begitu, pemilik toko bisa memperbaiki kualitas pelayanan atau kualitas dari produk itu sendiri, sehingga bisa meningkatkan omset penjualan.

Pada dasarnya, hampir sama dengan review produk, arti kata review pada literature review berarti suatu penilaian seseorang terhadap kualitas dari sebuah karya tulis. Dalam hal ini, karya tulis yang dimaksud sangatlah beragam, seperti karya tulis jurnal, novel, buku, dan lain-lain.

Dengan adanya literature review, maka sebuah seseorang akan mengetahui apakah karya tulis tersebut bisa dijadikan referensi untuk penelitian (karya ilmiah) atau tidak. Literature review juga bermanfaat bagi pembuat karya tulisnya karena mengetahui hal-hal yang perlu dilakukan untuk meningkatkan kualitas karya tulisnya.

Tidak hanya itu, literature review bisa juga bermanfaat bagi orang lain dalam membantu untuk menemukan karya tulis yang memiliki kualitas bagus dan bisa dijadikan sebagai rujukan dalam melakukan penelitian. Dikarenakan cakupan review sangatlah luas, maka review itu sendiri dibagi menjadi beberapa jenis, seperti review jurnal, review, buku, review, artikel, dan masih banyak lagi.

Apa Itu Literature Review?

Meskipun literature review terdiri dari dua kata, tetapi sebenarnya arti dari literature review berbeda tidak sama dengan arti gabungan dua kata tersebut. Dalam bidang penelitian terutama pembuatan karya ilmiah, literature review lebih dikenal dengan istilah tinjauan Pustaka. Oleh karena itu, dapat dikatakan bahwa literature review adalah suatu kegiatan menganalisis yang dapat berupa kritikan dari suatu penelitian yang sedang dilakukan terhadap suatu topik khusus yang merupakan bagian dari bidang keilmuan.

Isi yang ada di dalam literature review ini berupa penjelasan atau pembahasan tentang teori dari suatu temuan atau topik penelitian. Dari penjelasan teori-teori tersebut dapat dijadikan sebagai landasan teori dalam membuat karya ilmiah atau dalam melakukan kegiatan penelitian. Selain itu, penelitian yang sedang melakukan ini bisa berupa pengembangan dari penelitian sebelumnya atau bisa juga penelitian yang baru pertama kali dilakukan.

Untuk membuat literature review ini, seseorang perlu melakukan beberapa hal terlebih dahulu, seperti membaca sekaligus memahami karya tulis yang ingin dianalisis, mengkritik karya tulis tersebut, dan memberikan ulasan atau tanggapan terhadap karya tulis atau literature tersebut. Maka dari itu, kegiatan literature review ini sangat identik dengan mahasiswa atau dosen. Hal ini dikarenakan mahasiswa atau dosen biasanya akan mendapatkan pekerjaan untuk melakukan literature review.

Pada umumnya, kegiatan membuat literature review ini memang sering dilakukan oleh mahasiswa atau dosen. Adapun beberapa jenis literatur yang sering dikaji ketika melakukan kegiatan literature review, seperti artikel ilmiah yang berasal dari jurnal ilmiah, tesis, disertasi, paper atau makalah yang berasal dari seminal, buku teks (novel, cerpen, buku non fiksi, dan sebagainya), dan laporan dari suatu organisasi yang memiliki tingkat kepercayaan cukup tinggi.

Metode Literature Review

Ketika ingin melakukan atau membuat literature review bisa menggunakan beberapa metode, yaitu metode systematic mapping study , systematic literature review, dan traditional review. 

Systematic Mapping Study

Systematic mapping study adalah jenis metode literature review yang di mana dalam penulisannya dilakukan secara sistematis dan memakai langkah-langkah yang sudah ditentukan sebelumnya. Dengan metode literature review ini, maka dalam memilih karya tulis yang akan diteliti tidak bisa dilakukan secara subjektif, sehingga harus dilakukan secara objektif.

Systematic mapping study lebih kompleks dan karya tulis yang dapat digunakan lebih banyak bila dibandingkan dengan traditional review . Selain itu, peneliti yang ingin membuat literature review dengan metode ini biasanya sudah memiliki standar tertentu. Dalam hal ini, standar yang dimaksud adalah standar dalam memilih judul dan jenis karya tulis yang akan digunakan.

Maka dari itu, peneliti yang menggunakan metode ini dalam membuat literature review, biasanya akan mengumpulkan berbagai macam karya tulis. Setelah mengumpulkan karya tulis, maka peneliti akan membaca satu per satu karya tulis tersebut yang kemudikan diulas atau dianalisis dan disesuaikan dengan topik pembahasan yang akan diteliti.

Systematic Literature Review

Systematic literature review biasa disingkat menjadi SLR. Systematic literature review adalah sebuah cara yang secara sistematis yang bertujuan untuk mengumpulkan, kemudian menganalisis secara kritis dengan menyajikan data-data serta temuan yang berasal dari berbagai macam penelitian lainnya.

Membuat literature review dengan metode systematic literature review biasanya dilakukan secara berurutan atau secara sistematis. Dengan kata lain, literature review dibuat mulai dari hal-hal yang paling mendasar kemudian baru mengerjakan hal-hal yang kompleks.

Tahapan-tahapan yang perlu dilalui dengan metode ini memang bisa dibilang cukup panjang. Akan tetapi, literature review yang akan dihasilkan menjadi lebih detail, akurat, dan lebih kompleks. Oleh karena itu, ketika melakukan literature review dengan metode ini, maka penulis bisa memperoleh suatu landasan teori yang lebih tajam dan berkualitas.

Traditional Review

Metode kedua yang digunakan dalam membuat literature review adalah traditional review. Traditional review adalah suatu metode yang biasa digunakan untuk membuat literature review oleh para peneliti. Hasil dengan metode traditional review yang biasa digunakan untuk membuat tinjauan pustaka ini sering kita temukan pada survey paper. Oleh karena itu, literature review yang dihasilkan melalui metode ini lebih dikhususkan fokus terhadap satu topik saja. Selain itu, karya tulis yang dipilih sudah diketahui pembuatnya terlebih dahulu.

Dengan metode traditional review ini, maka karya tulis yang dijadikan referensi masih dalam topik pembahasan yang sama dengan penelitian yang sedang dilakukan. Metode ini memang bisa membuat literature review menjadi lebih khusus, tetapi karya tulis yang dapat dijadikan sebagai referensi menjadi terbatas. Padahal tidak menutup kemungkinan kalau bisa jadi data atau sumber yang bisa digunakan bisa diperoleh dari topik pembahasan yang berbeda.

Bukan hanya terbatas dari segi data dan sumber saja, tetapi metode traditional review juga terbatas pada wawasan dan tingkat pemahaman peneliti. Dengan kata lain, semakin luas wawasan peneliti, maka semakin banyak juga karya tulis atau literatur yang sudah dibaca serta diteliti atau dianalisis oleh peneliti.

Manfaat Literature Review

Banyaknya peneliti yang menggunakan literature review bukan tanpa alasan, karena literature review itu sendiri memiliki beberapa manfaat diantaranya:

1. Mengetahui Perkembangan Ilmu Pengetahuan (Bidang Tertentu)

Manfaat pertama yang bisa diperoleh dengan membuat literature review adalah mengetahui perkembangan ilmu pengetahuan bidang tertentu. Dengan manfaat ini, seorang peneliti bisa terus mendalami ilmu pengetahuan tersebut, bahkan bisa ikut andil dalam perkembangan ilmu pengetahuan tersebut.

2. Mengetahui Metode atau Teknik dalam Membuat Karya Ilmiah

Manfaat kedua dari membuat literature review adalah mengetahui metode atau teknik dalam membuat karya ilmiah. Manfaat ini dapat terjadi karena dalam membuat literature review, langkah-langkahnya hampir sama dengan membuat karya ilmiah. Selain itu, dengan membuat literature review, peneliti bisa juga mengetahui teknik-teknik dalam menyelesaikan suatu permasalahan, sehingga solusi dari permasalahan tersebut bisa digunakan oleh pembaca lainnya.

3. Menambah Ilmu Pengetahuan

Selain mengetahui perkembangan ilmu pengetahuan, membuat literature review bisa juga bermanfaat untuk menambah ilmu pengetahuan. Dengan ilmu pengetahuan yang semakin bertambah, maka wawasannya juga akan ikut bertambah. Hal ini dapat terjadi karena ketika melakukan kegiatan literature review, peneliti akan membaca dan memahami berbagai macam karya tulis, baik yang relevan topik pembahasan atau tidak.

4. Mengetahui Hasil Penelitian yang Saling Berhubungan

Ketika melakukan kegiatan literature review, maka kita akan membaca dan memahami karya tulis yang berupa hasil penelitian sebelumnya. Oleh sebab itu, dengan melakukan literature review, maka peneliti akan mengetahui hasil penelitian yang saling berhubungan dengan topik pembahasan yang akan diteliti.

5. Menentukan Topik Pembahasan dan Permasalahan yang Akan Diteliti

Manfaat kelima dari membuat literature review adalah dapat menentukan suatu topik pembahasan dan permasalahan yang akan diteliti. Hal ini dapat terjadi karena ketika membuat literature review, peneliti akan dengan mudah mencari permasalahan atau topik pembahasan yang dekat dengan kehidupan sehari-hari. Selain itu, literature review bisa juga bermanfaat bagi peneliti agar penelitian yang dilakukan tidak melenceng kemana-mana.

Setiap manfaat literature review umumnya berhubungan dengan kegiatan penelitian atau membuat karya ilmiah karena membuat literature review itu sendiri termasuk bagian dari membuat karya ilmiah.

Cara Membuat Literature Review

Di bawah ini akan dijelaskan beberapa langkah dalam membuat literature review, antara lain:

1. Mencari, Membaca, dan Memahami Karya Tulis yang Relevan

Dalam membuat literature review, maka peneliti harus mencari karya tulis yang akan digunakan pada penelitian nanti. Bukan hanya dicari saja, tetapi juga harus dibaca, dan dipahami agar bisa mendapatkan sumber data yang relevan dengan topik pembahasan.

2. Memilih Sumber Data yang Jelas

Langkah kedua dari membuat literature review adalah memilih sumber data yang jelas. Hal ini perlu dilakukan agar proses penelitian tidak melenceng dan menghasilkan literature review yang detail dan spesifik.

3. Melakukan Identifikasi Secara Mendalam

Langkah selanjutnya adalah melakukan identifikasi secara mendalam. Dalam hal ini yang diidentifikasi adalah semua karya tulis yang akan dijadikan sebagai rujukan dalam membuat literature review. Semakin dalam identifikasi yang dilakukan, maka sumber data yang diperoleh akan semakin bagus.

4. Membuat Kerangka Literature Review

Sebelum membuat langsung literature review, sebaiknya buatlah kerangka literature review terlebih dahulu. Dengan membuat kerangka literature review, maka peneliti akan mengetahui hal-hal yang perlu diperbaiki dan ditambahkan dalam membuat literature review. Dengan begitu, dapat mengurangi kesalahan dalam membuat literature review dan bisa menghasilkan literature review yang berkualitas.

5. Membuat Literature Review

Langkah terakhir, yaitu buatlah literature review dengan sumber data yang sudah diperoleh sebelumnya.

Setelah mengetahui cara membuat literature review, apakah kamu tertarik untuk langsung mencoba membuat literature review?

Literature review sering dikenal dengan sebutan tinjauan pustaka yang sering kita ditemukan oleh mahasiswa dan dosen yang sedang menyelesaikan tugas akhirnya, seperti skripsi, tesis atau disertasi. Dengan literature review, maka peneliti akan lebih mudah dalam menemukan karya tulis yang jenisnya sama dengan topik pembahasan yang akan diteliti.

Meotode literature review ada, tiga yaitu systematic mapping study , systematic literature review , dan traditional review . Setiap metode itu memiliki kelebihan dan kekurangannya masing-masing. Oleh karena itu, sebaiknya gunakanlah metode yang sesuai dengan literature review yang akan dibuat, sehingga bisa menghasilkan literature review yang optimal dan berkualitas.

You may also like

Mengenal Struktur Teks Editorial dan Kaidahnya

Memahami Pengertian Urgensi dan Jenis-Jenisnya

Mengenal Huruf Konsonan dan Perbedaan dengan Huruf...

Ketahui Contoh Kalimat Interogatif

About the author.

Saya menulis sekian banyak tulisan untuk menuangkan apa yang ada di pikiran–tentunya setelah diolah dan diracik sedemikian rupa agar menjadi menarik. Saya pikir, setiap orang bisa menulis tentang apa saja, selama mau belajar memahami.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Family Med Prim Care
• v.2(1); Jan-Mar 2013

Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis: Understanding the Best Evidence in Primary Healthcare

S. gopalakrishnan.

Department of Community Medicine, SRM Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre, Kattankulathur, Tamil Nadu, India

P. Ganeshkumar

Healthcare decisions for individual patients and for public health policies should be informed by the best available research evidence. The practice of evidence-based medicine is the integration of individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research and patient's values and expectations. Primary care physicians need evidence for both clinical practice and for public health decision making. The evidence comes from good reviews which is a state-of-the-art synthesis of current evidence on a given research question. Given the explosion of medical literature, and the fact that time is always scarce, review articles play a vital role in decision making in evidence-based medical practice. Given that most clinicians and public health professionals do not have the time to track down all the original articles, critically read them, and obtain the evidence they need for their questions, systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines may be their best source of evidence. Systematic reviews aim to identify, evaluate, and summarize the findings of all relevant individual studies over a health-related issue, thereby making the available evidence more accessible to decision makers. The objective of this article is to introduce the primary care physicians about the concept of systematic reviews and meta-analysis, outlining why they are important, describing their methods and terminologies used, and thereby helping them with the skills to recognize and understand a reliable review which will be helpful for their day-to-day clinical practice and research activities.

Introduction

Evidence-based healthcare is the integration of best research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values. Green denotes, “Using evidence from reliable research, to inform healthcare decisions, has the potential to ensure best practice and reduce variations in healthcare delivery.” However, incorporating research into practice is time consuming, and so we need methods of facilitating easy access to evidence for busy clinicians.[ 1 ] Ganeshkumar et al . mentioned that nearly half of the private practitioners in India were consulting more than 4 h per day in a locality,[ 2 ] which explains the difficulty of them in spending time in searching evidence during consultation. Ideally, clinical decision making ought to be based on the latest evidence available. However, to keep abreast with the continuously increasing number of publications in health research, a primary healthcare professional would need to read an insurmountable number of articles every day, covered in more than 13 million references and over 4800 biomedical and health journals in Medline alone. With the view to address this challenge, the systematic review method was developed. Systematic reviews aim to inform and facilitate this process through research synthesis of multiple studies, enabling increased and efficient access to evidence.[ 1 , 3 , 4 ]

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become increasingly important in healthcare settings. Clinicians read them to keep up-to-date with their field and they are often used as a starting point for developing clinical practice guidelines. Granting agencies may require a systematic review to ensure there is justification for further research and some healthcare journals are moving in this direction.[ 5 ]

This article is intended to provide an easy guide to understand the concept of systematic reviews and meta-analysis, which has been prepared with the aim of capacity building for general practitioners and other primary healthcare professionals in research methodology and day-to-day clinical practice.

The purpose of this article is to introduce readers to:

• The two approaches of evaluating all the available evidence on an issue i.e., systematic reviews and meta-analysis,
• Discuss the steps in doing a systematic review,
• Introduce the terms used in systematic reviews and meta-analysis,
• Interpret results of a meta-analysis, and
• The advantages and disadvantages of systematic review and meta-analysis.

Application

What is the effect of antiviral treatment in dengue fever? Most often a primary care physician needs to know convincing answers to questions like this in a primary care setting.

To find out the solutions or answers to a clinical question like this, one has to refer textbooks, ask a colleague, or search electronic database for reports of clinical trials. Doctors need reliable information on such problems and on the effectiveness of large number of therapeutic interventions, but the information sources are too many, i.e., nearly 20,000 journals publishing 2 million articles per year with unclear or confusing results. Because no study, regardless of its type, should be interpreted in isolation, a systematic review is generally the best form of evidence.[ 6 ] So, the preferred method is a good summary of research reports, i.e., systematic reviews and meta-analysis, which will give evidence-based answers to clinical situations.

There are two fundamental categories of research: Primary research and secondary research. Primary research is collecting data directly from patients or population, while secondary research is the analysis of data already collected through primary research. A review is an article that summarizes a number of primary studies and may draw conclusions on the topic of interest which can be traditional (unsystematic) or systematic.

Terminologies

Systematic review.

A systematic review is a summary of the medical literature that uses explicit and reproducible methods to systematically search, critically appraise, and synthesize on a specific issue. It synthesizes the results of multiple primary studies related to each other by using strategies that reduce biases and random errors.[ 7 ] To this end, systematic reviews may or may not include a statistical synthesis called meta-analysis, depending on whether the studies are similar enough so that combining their results is meaningful.[ 8 ] Systematic reviews are often called overviews.

The evidence-based practitioner, David Sackett, defines the following terminologies.[ 3 ]

• Review: The general term for all attempts to synthesize the results and conclusions of two or more publications on a given topic.
• Overview: When a review strives to comprehensively identify and track down all the literature on a given topic (also called “systematic literature review”).
• Meta-analysis: A specific statistical strategy for assembling the results of several studies into a single estimate.

Systematic reviews adhere to a strict scientific design based on explicit, pre-specified, and reproducible methods. Because of this, when carried out well, they provide reliable estimates about the effects of interventions so that conclusions are defensible. Systematic reviews can also demonstrate where knowledge is lacking. This can then be used to guide future research. Systematic reviews are usually carried out in the areas of clinical tests (diagnostic, screening, and prognostic), public health interventions, adverse (harm) effects, economic (cost) evaluations, and how and why interventions work.[ 9 ]

Cochrane reviews

Cochrane reviews are systematic reviews undertaken by members of the Cochrane Collaboration which is an international not-for-profit organization that aims to help people to make well-informed decisions about healthcare by preparing, maintaining, and promoting the accessibility of systematic reviews of the effects of healthcare interventions.

Cochrane Primary Health Care Field is a systematic review of primary healthcare research on prevention, treatment, rehabilitation, and diagnostic test accuracy. The overall aim and mission of the Primary Health Care Field is to promote the quality, quantity, dissemination, accessibility, applicability, and impact of Cochrane systematic reviews relevant to people who work in primary care and to ensure proper representation in the interests of primary care clinicians and consumers in Cochrane reviews and review groups, and in other entities. This field would serve to coordinate and promote the mission of the Cochrane Collaboration within the primary healthcare disciplines, as well as ensuring that primary care perspectives are adequately represented within the Collaboration.[ 10 ]

Meta-analysis

A meta-analysis is the combination of data from several independent primary studies that address the same question to produce a single estimate like the effect of treatment or risk factor. It is the statistical analysis of a large collection of analysis and results from individual studies for the purpose of integrating the findings.[ 11 ] The term meta-analysis has been used to denote the full range of quantitative methods for research reviews.[ 12 ] Meta-analyses are studies of studies.[ 13 ] Meta-analysis provides a logical framework to a research review where similar measures from comparable studies are listed systematically and the available effect measures are combined wherever possible.[ 14 ]

The fundamental rationale of meta-analysis is that it reduces the quantity of data by summarizing data from multiple resources and helps to plan research as well as to frame guidelines. It also helps to make efficient use of existing data, ensuring generalizability, helping to check consistency of relationships, explaining data inconsistency, and quantifies the data. It helps to improve the precision in estimating the risk by using explicit methods.

Therefore, “systematic review” will refer to the entire process of collecting, reviewing, and presenting all available evidence, while the term “meta-analysis” will refer to the statistical technique involved in extracting and combining data to produce a summary result.[ 15 ]

Steps in doing systematic reviews/meta-analysis

Following are the six fundamental essential steps while doing systematic review and meta-analysis.[ 16 ]

Define the question

This is the most important part of systematic reviews/meta-analysis. The research question for the systematic reviews may be related to a major public health problem or a controversial clinical situation which requires acceptable intervention as a possible solution to the present healthcare need of the community. This step is most important since the remaining steps will be based on this.

Reviewing the literature

This can be done by going through scientific resources such as electronic database, controlled clinical trials registers, other biomedical databases, non-English literatures, “gray literatures” (thesis, internal reports, non–peer-reviewed journals, pharmaceutical industry files), references listed in primary sources, raw data from published trials and other unpublished sources known to experts in the field. Among the available electronic scientific database, the popular ones are PUBMED, MEDLINE, and EMBASE.

Sift the studies to select relevant ones

To select the relevant studies from the searches, we need to sift through the studies thus identified. The first sift is pre-screening, i.e., to decide which studies to retrieve in full, and the second sift is selection which is to look again at these studies and decide which are to be included in the review. The next step is selecting the eligible studies based on similar study designs, year of publication, language, choice among multiple articles, sample size or follow-up issues, similarity of exposure, and or treatment and completeness of information.

It is necessary to ensure that the sifting includes all relevant studies like the unpublished studies (desk drawer problem), studies which came with negative conclusions or were published in non-English journals, and studies with small sample size.

Assess the quality of studies

The steps undertaken in evaluating the study quality are early definition of study quality and criteria, setting up a good scoring system, developing a standard form for assessment, calculating quality for each study, and finally using this for sensitivity analysis.

For example, the quality of a randomized controlled trial can be assessed by finding out the answers to the following questions:

• Was the assignment to the treatment groups really random?
• Was the treatment allocation concealed?
• Were the groups similar at baseline in terms of prognostic factors?
• Were the eligibility criteria specified?
• Were the assessors, the care provider, and the patient blinded?
• Were the point estimates and measure of variability presented for the primary outcome measure?
• Did the analyses include intention-to-treat analysis?

Calculate the outcome measures of each study and combine them

We need a standard measure of outcome which can be applied to each study on the basis of its effect size. Based on their type of outcome, following are the measures of outcome: Studies with binary outcomes (cured/not cured) have odds ratio, risk ratio; studies with continuous outcomes (blood pressure) have means, difference in means, standardized difference in means (effect sizes); and survival or time-to-event data have hazard ratios.

Combining studies

Homogeneity of different studies can be estimated at a glance from a forest plot (explained below). For example, if the lower confidence interval of every trial is below the upper of all the others, i.e., the lines all overlap to some extent, then the trials are homogeneous. If some lines do not overlap at all, these trials may be said to be heterogeneous.

The definitive test for assessing the heterogeneity of studies is a variant of Chi-square test (Mantel–Haenszel test). The final step is calculating the common estimate and its confidence interval with the original data or with the summary statistics from all the studies. The best estimate of treatment effect can be derived from the weighted summary statistics of all studies which will be based on weighting to sample size, standard errors, and other summary statistics. Log scale is used to combine the data to estimate the weighting.

Interpret results: Graph

The results of a meta-analysis are usually presented as a graph called forest plot because the typical forest plots appear as forest of lines. It provides a simple visual presentation of individual studies that went into the meta-analysis at a glance. It shows the variation between the studies and an estimate of the overall result of all the studies together.

Forest plot

Meta-analysis graphs can principally be divided into six columns [ Figure 1 ]. Individual study results are displayed in rows. The first column (“study”) lists the individual study IDs included in the meta-analysis; usually the first author and year are displayed. The second column relates to the intervention groups and the third column to the control groups. The fourth column visually displays the study results. The line in the middle is called “the line of no effect.” The weight (in %) in the fifth column indicates the weighting or influence of the study on the overall results of the meta-analysis of all included studies. The higher the percentage weight, the bigger the box, the more influence the study has on the overall results. The sixth column gives the numerical results for each study (e.g., odds ratio or relative risk and 95% confidence interval), which are identical to the graphical display in the fourth column. The diamond in the last row of the graph illustrates the overall result of the meta-analysis.[ 4 ]

Interpretation of meta-analysis[ 4 ]

Thus, the horizontal lines represent individual studies. Length of line is the confidence interval (usually 95%), squares on the line represent effect size (risk ratio) for the study, with area of the square being the study size (proportional to weight given) and position as point estimate (relative risk) of the study.[ 7 ]

For example, the forest plot of the effectiveness of dexamethasone compared with placebo in preventing the recurrence of acute severe migraine headache in adults is shown in Figure 2 .[ 17 ]

Forest plot of the effectiveness of dexamethasone compared with placebo in preventing the recurrence of acute severe migraine headache in adults[ 17 ]

The overall effect is shown as diamond where the position toward the center represents pooled point estimate, the width represents estimated 95% confidence interval for all studies, and the black plain line vertically in the middle of plot is the “line of no effect” (e.g., relative risk = 1).

Therefore, when examining the results of a systematic reviews/meta-analysis, the following questions should be kept in mind:

• Heterogeneity among studies may make any pooled estimate meaningless.
• The quality of a meta-analysis cannot be any better than the quality of the studies it is summarizing.
• An incomplete search of the literature can bias the findings of a meta-analysis.
• Make sure that the meta-analysis quantifies the size of the effect in units that you can understand.

Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis

Subgroup analysis looks at the results of different subgroups of trials, e.g., by considering trials on adults and children separately. This should be planned at the protocol stage itself which is based on good scientific reasoning and is to be kept to a minimum.

Sensitivity analysis is used to determine how results of a systematic review/meta-analysis change by fiddling with data, for example, what is the implication if the exclusion criteria or excluded unpublished studies or weightings are assigned differently. Thus, after the analysis, if changing makes little or no difference to the overall results, the reviewer's conclusions are robust. If the key findings disappear, then the conclusions need to be expressed more cautiously.

Advantages of Systematic Reviews

Systematic reviews have specific advantages because of using explicit methods which limit bias, draw reliable and accurate conclusions, easily deliver required information to healthcare providers, researchers, and policymakers, help to reduce the time delay in the research discoveries to implementation, improve the generalizability and consistency of results, generation of new hypotheses about subgroups of the study population, and overall they increase precision of the results.[ 18 ]

Limitations in Systematic Reviews/Meta-analysis

As with all research, the value of a systematic review depends on what was done, what was found, and the clarity of reporting. As with other publications, the reporting quality of systematic reviews varies, limiting readers’ ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of those reviews.[ 5 ]

Even though systematic review and meta-analysis are considered the best evidence for getting a definitive answer to a research question, there are certain inherent flaws associated with it, such as the location and selection of studies, heterogeneity, loss of information on important outcomes, inappropriate subgroup analyses, conflict with new experimental data, and duplication of publication.

Publication Bias

Publication bias results in it being easier to find studies with a “positive” result.[ 19 ] This occurs particularly due to inappropriate sifting of the studies where there is always a tendency towards the studies with positive (significant) outcomes. This effect occurs more commonly in systematic reviews/meta-analysis which need to be eliminated.

The quality of reporting of systematic reviews is still not optimal. In a recent review of 300 systematic reviews, few authors reported assessing possible publication bias even though there is overwhelming evidence both for its existence and its impact on the results of systematic reviews. Even when the possibility of publication bias is assessed, there is no guarantee that systematic reviewers have assessed or interpreted it appropriately.[ 20 ]

To overcome certain limitations mentioned above, the Cochrane reviews are currently reported in a format where at the end of every review, findings are summarized in the author's point of view and also give an overall picture of the outcome by means of plain language summary. This is found to be much helpful to understand the existing evidence about the topic more easily by the reader.

A systematic review is an overview of primary studies which contains an explicit statement of objectives, materials, and methods, and has been conducted according to explicit and reproducible methodology. A meta-analysis is a mathematical synthesis of the results of two or more primary studies that addressed the same hypothesis in the same way. Although meta-analysis can increase the precision of a result, it is important to ensure that the methods used for the reviews were valid and reliable.

High-quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses take great care to find all relevant studies, critically assess each study, synthesize the findings from individual studies in an unbiased manner, and present balanced important summary of findings with due consideration of any flaws in the evidence. Systematic review and meta-analysis is a way of summarizing research evidence, which is generally the best form of evidence, and hence positioned at the top of the hierarchy of evidence.

Systematic reviews can be very useful decision-making tools for primary care/family physicians. They objectively summarize large amounts of information, identifying gaps in medical research, and identifying beneficial or harmful interventions which will be useful for clinicians, researchers, and even for public and policymakers.

Source of Support: Nil

Conflict of Interest: None declared.

Pi Day is Giving Day: arXiv depends on donations to operate and keep science open for all. Give back to arXiv on 3.14.24!

Help | Advanced Search

Computer Science > Software Engineering

Title: system for systematic literature review using multiple ai agents: concept and an empirical evaluation.

Abstract: Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs) have become the foundation of evidence-based studies, enabling researchers to identify, classify, and combine existing studies based on specific research questions. Conducting an SLR is largely a manual process. Over the previous years, researchers have made significant progress in automating certain phases of the SLR process, aiming to reduce the effort and time needed to carry out high-quality SLRs. However, there is still a lack of AI agent-based models that automate the entire SLR process. To this end, we introduce a novel multi-AI agent model designed to fully automate the process of conducting an SLR. By utilizing the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), our proposed model streamlines the review process, enhancing efficiency and accuracy. The model operates through a user-friendly interface where researchers input their topic, and in response, the model generates a search string used to retrieve relevant academic papers. Subsequently, an inclusive and exclusive filtering process is applied, focusing on titles relevant to the specific research area. The model then autonomously summarizes the abstracts of these papers, retaining only those directly related to the field of study. In the final phase, the model conducts a thorough analysis of the selected papers concerning predefined research questions. We also evaluated the proposed model by sharing it with ten competent software engineering researchers for testing and analysis. The researchers expressed strong satisfaction with the proposed model and provided feedback for further improvement. The code for this project can be found on the GitHub repository at this https URL .

Submission history

Access paper:.

• Download PDF
• HTML (experimental)
• Other Formats

References & Citations

• Google Scholar
• Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

• Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .