Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29316881›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2018

What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences.

Zachary Munn, Cindy Stern, Edoardo Aromataris, Craig Lockwood, Zoe Jordan

Registry-linked trialAbstract readLetter
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06525805 (Readers' Attention of Shorter Versus Longer Abstracts of Systematic Reviews), which is not on this map. Cited by 459 papers, 81 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
459citing papers in PubMed, 81 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT06525805 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Readers' Attention of Shorter Versus Longer Abstracts of Systematic Reviews: A Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of OldenburgRan2024 to 2024Enrolled1,941ConditionsResearchers AttentionArmsLong Abstract, Short Abstract
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

459 citing papers in PubMed, 81 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Exploring Toothbrushing Duration Among Adults: A Systematic Review.International journal of dental hygiene · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Assessing running stability: a systematic review of methods.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2026
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

399 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Zachary MunnThe Joanna Briggs Institute, The University of Adelaide, 55 King William Road, North Adelaide, Soueth Australia, 5005, Australia. Zachary.Munn@adelaide.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-7091-5842
Cindy SternThe Joanna Briggs Institute, The University of Adelaide, 55 King William Road, North Adelaide, Soueth Australia, 5005, Australia.
Edoardo AromatarisThe Joanna Briggs Institute, The University of Adelaide, 55 King William Road, North Adelaide, Soueth Australia, 5005, Australia.
Craig LockwoodThe Joanna Briggs Institute, The University of Adelaide, 55 King William Road, North Adelaide, Soueth Australia, 5005, Australia.
Zoe JordanThe Joanna Briggs Institute, The University of Adelaide, 55 King William Road, North Adelaide, Soueth Australia, 5005, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSystematic reviews have been considered as the pillar on which evidence-based healthcare rests. Systematic review methodology has evolved and been modified over the years to accommodate the range of questions that may arise in the health and medical sciences. This paper explores a concept still rarely considered by novice authors and in the literature: determining the type of systematic review to undertake based on a research question or priority.

resultsWithin the framework of the evidence-based healthcare paradigm, defining the question and type of systematic review to conduct is a pivotal first step that will guide the rest of the process and has the potential to impact on other aspects of the evidence-based healthcare cycle (evidence generation, transfer and implementation). It is something that novice reviewers (and others not familiar with the range of review types available) need to take account of but frequently overlook. Our aim is to provide a typology of review types and describe key elements that need to be addressed during question development for each type.

conclusionsIn this paper a typology is proposed of various systematic review methodologies. The review types are defined and situated with regard to establishing corresponding questions and inclusion criteria. The ultimate objective is to provide clarified guidance for both novice and experienced reviewers and a unified typology with respect to review types.

Indexed as

Research DesignSystematic Reviews as TopicEvidence-Based MedicineEvidence-Based PracticeGuidelines as TopicHumansEvidence-based healthcareQuestion developmentSystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID29316881
PMCPMC5761190

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.