↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#3 of 1,730)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
483 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
150 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
863 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12874-017-0468-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

Abstract

Systematic 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. Within 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. In 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 483 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 863 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 863 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 181 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 96 11%
Researcher 85 10%
Student > Bachelor 65 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 54 6%
Other 193 22%
Unknown 189 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 193 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 163 19%
Psychology 58 7%
Social Sciences 49 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 2%
Other 136 16%
Unknown 243 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 305. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 October 2021.
All research outputs
#68,146
of 19,180,943 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#3
of 1,730 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,586
of 426,361 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#2
of 149 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,180,943 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,730 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 426,361 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 149 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.