Systematic and scoping reviews have a lot in common. Their main difference is the kind of question they are trying to answer, but the methodologies they use are extremely similar.

This guide uses the phrase "systematic review" throughout the various steps, but unless noted otherwise, all steps also apply to scoping reviews.

• Is a systematic review necessary?   Search for existing reviews on the topic to ensure that a new review is needed.

• Do you have the time and the resources needed to complete a systematic review?

• Are you prepared to complete all the elements in the PRISMA Checklist?

"A systematic review (SR) attempts to collate all empirical evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a specific research question.  It uses explicit, systematic methods that are selected with a view to minimizing bias, thus providing more reliable findings from which conclusions can be drawn and decisions made.

Key characteristics of a systematic review are:

• a clearly defined topic, with pre-defined eligibility criteria for studies
• a systematic and reproducible search strategy
• a critical appraisal of included studies
• data extraction and processing
• analysis and interpretation of results"

Higgins, Julian. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, 2009. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/archive/v5.0.2/.

Note: The full systematic review methodology is outside the scope of almost all class assignments or dissertation/thesis. If you are considering assigning one, please meet with a librarian about a modified version that will fit your course's needs and limits.

1. Define the question

2. Check for recent systematic reviews and protocols

3. Create a review protocol, and register it if appropriate

4. Design and conduct reproducible, comprehensive searches

5. Organize and screen search results

6. Appraise the quality of the studies

7. Extract data

8. Analyze / synthesize data

9. Write the review

Recommended viewing:

• Conducting a systematic review, a short video from Yale's Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library.
• Carrie Price's Systematic Reviews YouTube playlist

For a more thorough introduction, consider this free, asynchronous training course on conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses from Johns Hopkins University through Coursera. (~13 hours)

Multiple guidelines and standards exist to aid researchers in the creation of high quality systematic reviews and other evidence syntheses.

Reviews may be conducted in accordance to specific internationally-established guidelines, such as Cochrane, the Joanna Briggs Institute, the Institute of Medicine, and the Campbell Collaboration. You do not need to read all of these guidelines, but it's a good idea to familiarize yourself with at least one of them.

• Cochrane Collaboration Handbook
  Official document that describes in detail the process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of healthcare interventions.

• JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis
  Official document that describes in detail the process of preparing a JBI systematic or scoping review. Includes instructions for reviews focusing on different types of evidence, such as effectiveness, prevalence, and qualitative evidence. 

• Institute of Medicine: Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews
  Institute of Medicine (IOM)'s standards focus on the development and reporting of comprehensive, publicly funded SRs of the comparative effectiveness of therapeutic medical or surgical interventions.

• Campbell Collaboration
  Systematic reviews of research evidence on the effectiveness of social programs, policies, and practices, including crime and justice, education, international development, and social welfare.

Reviews may also adhere to reporting standards, such as PRISMA, for systematic or scoping reviews, or MOOSE, for meta-analyses. These are essential tools for planning your review.

• The PRISMA Statement: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
  Evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Although it was designed for use with studies of randomized trials, PRISMA can also be used for reporting systematic reviews of other types of research.

• Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE): a proposal for reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology, including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion.
  JAMA. 2000 Apr 19;283(15):2008-12.