Skip to Main Content
It looks like you're using Internet Explorer 11 or older. This website works best with modern browsers such as the latest versions of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge. If you continue with this browser, you may see unexpected results.
University Library Research Guides Synthesis Review Synthesis Review Toolkit Introduction All Resources
Step 1: How to Formulate a Research Question
List of several types of question formats used to formulate a research question by the Virginia Commonwealth University
Clear and present questions: formulating questions for evidence based practice: Booth, A. (2006). Library hi tech, 24(3), 355-368.
Beyond PICO: The SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis: Cooke, A., Smith, D., & Booth, A. (2012). Qualitative Health Research, 22(10), 1435-1443.
Formulating the evidence based practice question: a review of the frameworks: Davies, K. S. (2011). Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 6(2), 75-80.
Step 2: What Type of Review to Conduct
Step 3: Where Can I Find Reviews
Scoping Reviews
Realist Reviews
Ramesesproject.org/ : Realist Review standards and training materials
Step 4: Who to Include on the Research Team
Step 5: How to Write/Register a Review Protocol
Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: A review of possible methods. Dixon-Woods, M., Agarwal, S., Jones, D., Young, B., & Sutton, A. (2005). Journal of Health Services Research & Policy,10(1), 45–53.
How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? Dixon-Woods, M., Bonas, S., Booth, A., Jones, D. R., Miller, T., Sutton, A. J., . . . Young, B. (2006). Qualitative Research,6 (1), 27–44.
A mixed-methods approach to systematic reviews. Pearson, A, White, H, Bath-Hextall, F, Salmond, S, Apostolo, J, & Kirkpatrick, P. 2015. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 13(3), 121-131.
Rapid Review Guidebook: Steps for Conducting a Rapid Review.The National Collaboration Centre for Methods and Tools.
Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8, 45–45.
Meta-synthesis method for qualitative research: a literature review. Walsh, D. and Downe, S. (2005). Journal of Advanced Nursing, 50, 204–211.
Protocol Template: Systematic Review (University of Warwick)
Template for a Systematic Literature Review Protocol (Durham University)
Step 1: What to Search
Organizing Terminology
Pubvenn - Website with tool to help you practice boolean logic Database reference guide - A quick reference page which indicates database-specific information (e.g., truncating in OVID vs CINAHL) Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: a systematic review of current approaches: O’Mara-Eves, A., Thomas, J., McNaught, J., Miwa, M., & Ananiadou, S. (2015). Systematic reviews, 4(1).
Search Filters
Tutorial from Yale on Filters and Hedges
Step 2: Where to Search
Grey Literature
Hand Searching
Searching Trial Registries
Searching ClinicalTrials.gov and the international clinical trials registry platform to inform systematic reviews: What are the optimal search approaches?*: Glanville, J. M., M.Sc, Duffy, S., PgDip, McCool, R., B.Sc, & Varley, D., M.Sc. (2014). Journal of the Medical Library Association, 102(3), 177-83.
Contacting Authors
Step 3: How to Create a Search Strategy
Tools for Finding Syntax and Subject Headings for Common Databases
Validating the Search
PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statement. McGowan, J., Sampson, M., Salzwedel, D. M., Cogo, E., Foerster, V., & Lefebvre, C. (2016). Journal of clinical epidemiology, 75, 40-46. PRESS – Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Explanation and Elaboration (PRESS E&E). Ottawa: CADTH; 2016 Jan.
Action: Run your Search
Search Strategy Example from Scoping Review. From the article: Social media use among patients and caregivers: a scoping review. Hamm, M. et al. (2013). BMJ open, 3 (5), e002819.
Training for Citation Management Tools
Step 1: How to Plan Screening Process
Step 2: How to Screen
Step 3: How to Report Screening Process
PRISMA's Flow Diagram Generator The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P., ... & Moher, D. (2009). PLoS medicine, 6(7), e1000100. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., ... & Stewart, L. A. (2015). Systematic Reviews, 4(1), 1. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations: Hutton, B., Salanti, G., Caldwell, D. M., Chaimani, A., Schmid, C. H., Cameron, C., ... & Mulrow, C. (2015). Annals of internal medicine, 162(11), 777-784.
Step 1: How to Plan Data Extraction
Data extraction forms that may be able to be adapted to your review (provided by the University of Ottawa):
Step 1: How to Identify Appraisal Criteria
Step 2: How to Assess Quality of Included Studies
Step 3: Assessing the Confidence in Cumulative Evidence
GRADE Resources (from Cochrane; Handbook, software, introduction to using GRADE, common errors in GRADE) GRADE-CERQual: An introduction for qualitative evidence synthesis [Cochrane webinar) GRADE-CERQual: Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings–paper 6: how to assess relevance of the data. Noyes, J., Booth, A., Lewin, S., Carlsen, B., Glenton, C., Colvin, C. J., ... & Tunςalp, Ö. (2018). Implementation Science, 13(1), 4. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence—study limitations (risk of bias) GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence—publication bias GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence—imprecision GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence—inconsistency GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence—indirectness
Step 1:
Cochrane Handbook, Chapter 9 "Analyzing data and undertaking meta-analyses" Realist Synthesis, Rameses Training Materials (July 2013) by G Wong, G. Westthorp, R. Pawson & T. Greenhalgh. See Section 7. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O'Brien, K. K. (2010). Implementation science, 5(1), 69.
Step 1: How to Write your Review
Reporting standards:
Step 2: How to Publish your Review
Open Access Repositories by Discipline
Full-publications
Preprints
Step 3: Where to Promote your Research
From the Wiley Network Blog:
All Additional Resources
Resources from Stage 1: Getting Started
List of several types of question formats used to formulate a research question by the Virginia Commonwealth University
Protocol Template: Systematic Review (University of Warwick)