reviewJournal of the Royal Society of MedicineMar 1, 2003GREEN OA

Five steps to conducting a systematic review

Birmingham Women's Hospital · Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · +2 more institutions

PubMed
Indexed incrossrefpubmed

Abstract

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are a key element of evidence-based healthcare, yet they remain in some ways mysterious. Why did the authors select certain studies and reject others? What did they do to pool results? How did a bunch of insignificant findings suddenly become significant? This paper, along with a book1 that goes into more detail, demystifies these and other related intrigues. A review earns the adjective systematic if it is based on a clearly formulated question, identifies relevant studies, appraises their quality and summarizes the evidence by use of explicit methodology. It is the explicit and systematic approach that distinguishes systematic reviews from traditional reviews and…

Citation impact

1,000
total citations
FWCI
4.01
Percentile
100%
References
2
Citations per year

Authors

4

Topics & keywords

Keywords
  • Data science
  • Computer science
  • Systematic review
  • Information retrieval
  • World Wide Web
  • MEDLINE
  • Medicine
  • Biology
UN Sustainable Development Goals
  • Clean water and sanitation
No related works found for this paper.