The Systematic Review: An Overview
Abstract
In Brief This article is the first in a new series on systematic reviews from the Joanna Briggs Institute, an international collaborative supporting evidence-based practice in nursing, medicine, and allied health fields. The purpose of the series is to show nurses how to conduct a systematic review—one step at a time. This first installment provides a synopsis of the systematic review as a scientific exercise, one that influences health care decisions. This first article in a new series from the Joanna Briggs Institute provides a synopsis of the systematic review as a scientific exercise, and introduces nurses to the steps involved in conducting one.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The systematic review methodology allows researchers to produce more comprehensive and reliable conclusions by integrating diverse findings from previous studies.
“This approach allows researchers to produce more comprehensive and reliable conclusions by integrating diverse findings from previous studies, thereby providing insights for further research and practical applications.”
From Incorporating peer feedback in academic writing: a systematic review of benefits and challenges (2024) · cites this paper as Aromataris and Pearson, 2014
Quality appraisal was not conducted in this review.
“The one step that was not conducted, according to Aromataris and Pearson's (2014) instructions, was that of quality appraisal.”
From Ukrainian Refugees’ Differentiated Treatment: A Critical and Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as Aromataris and Pearson's (2014)
The review did not engage in quality appraisal.
“First, review did not engage in quality appraisal, as is usually one of the steps in conducting a systematic review (Aromataris and Pearson 2014).”
From Ukrainian Refugees’ Differentiated Treatment: A Critical and Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as Aromataris and Pearson 2014
Systematic literature reviews are recognized as the most rigorous form of evidence review and synthesis.
“Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) are recognized as the most rigorous form of evidence review and synthesis (Aromataris and Pearson, 2014; Clarke and Chalmers, 2018; Grant and Booth, 2009; Munn et al., 2018).”
From Analysis of article screening and data extraction performance by an AI systematic literature review platform (2025) · cites this paper as Aromataris and Pearson, 2014
Systematic reviews can be used to produce statements to guide clinical decision-making, the delivery of care, as well as policy development.
“Systematic reviews can be used to produce statements to guide clinical decision-making, the delivery of care, as well as policy development [12].”
From Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach (2018) · cites this paper as [12]
Traditional literature reviews can be considered subjective, due to their substantial reliance on the author's pre-existing knowledge and experience and as they do not normally present an unbiased, exhaustive and systematic summary of a topic.
“These types of reviews can be considered subjective, due to their substantial reliance on the author's pre-exiting knowledge and experience and as they do not normally present an unbiased, exhaustive and systematic summary of a topic [12].”
From Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach (2018) · cites this paper as [12]
There is general acceptance of certain steps being required in a systematic review of any evidence type and these should be used to distinguish between a literature review and a systematic review.
“However, there is general acceptance of certain steps being required in a systematic review of any evidence type [2] and these should be used to distinguish between a literature review and a systematic review.”
From What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences (2018) · cites this paper as [2]
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823 · see citing works
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859 · see citing works
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048 · see citing works
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005 · Cited by 19,575 · see citing works
The integrative review: updated methodology
Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x · Cited by 10,241 · see citing works
Realist review - a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions
Pawson, R., Greenhalgh, T., Harvey, G., & Walshe, K. (2005) · Journal of Health Services Research & Policy · doi:10.1258/1355819054308530 · Cited by 3,190 · see citing works
Systematic Reviews in Health Care : Meta-Analysis in Context
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., & Altman, D. G. (2000) · Cited by 2,312 · see citing works
Introduction to Systematic Reviews
(2013) · Active Learning Exercises · doi:10.21019/ale.2000.252 · Cited by 1,239 · see citing works
Nursing Research: Methods and Critical Appraisal for Evidence-Based Practice
LoBiondo‐Wood, G., & Haber, J. (2014) · Journal of Nursing Regulation · doi:10.1016/s2155-8256(15)30102-2 · Cited by 1,093 · see citing works
Five steps to conducting a systematic review
Khan, K. S., Kunz, R., Kleijnen, J., et al. (2003) · Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · doi:10.1258/jrsm.96.3.118 · Cited by 997 · see citing works
Developing the Review Question and Inclusion Criteria
Stern, C., Jordan, Z., & McArthur, A. (2014) · AJN, American Journal of Nursing · doi:10.1097/01.naj.0000445689.67800.86 · Cited by 629 · see citing works
Popping the (PICO) question in research and evidence-based practice
Stone, P. W. (2002) · Applied Nursing Research · doi:10.1053/apnr.2002.34181 · Cited by 485 · see citing works
The JBI model of evidence-based healthcare
Pearson, A., Wiechula, R., Court, A., & Lockwood, C. (2005) · International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare · doi:10.1111/j.1479-6988.2005.00026.x · Cited by 451 · see citing works
Self-citationSystematic review and meta-analysis methodology
Crowther, M. A., Lim, W., & Crowther, M. A. (2010) · Blood · doi:10.1182/blood-2010-05-280883 · Cited by 308 · see citing works
The art and science of knowledge synthesis
Tricco, A. C., Tetzlaff, J., & Moher, D. (2010) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.11.007 · Cited by 200 · see citing works
Ubbink, D. T., Guyatt, G. H., & Vermeulen, H. (2013) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001881 · Cited by 179 · see citing works
Averis, A. K., & Pearson, A. (2003) · JBI Reports · doi:10.1046/j.1479-6988.2003.00003.x · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Self-citationMares, M. A., & McNally, S. J. (2013) · The JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports · doi:10.11124/jbisrir-2013-1055 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x · Cited by 11,385 · see citing works
Self-citationAromataris, E., Fernandez, R., Godfrey, C. M., Holly, C., Khalil, H., & Tungpunkom, P. (2015) · International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare · doi:10.1097/xeb.0000000000000055 · Cited by 2,587 · see citing works
Self-citationLockwood, C., Munn, Z., & Porritt, K. (2015) · International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare · doi:10.1097/xeb.0000000000000062 · Cited by 2,456 · see citing works
Methodological quality of case series studies: an introduction to the JBI critical appraisal tool
Munn, Z., Barker, T. H., Moola, S., Tufanaru, C., Stern, C., McArthur, A., Stephenson, M., & Aromataris, E. (2019) · JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports · doi:10.11124/jbisrir-d-19-00099 · Cited by 1,581 · see citing works
Self-citationMunn, Z., Stern, C., Aromataris, E., Lockwood, C., & Jordan, Z. (2018) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0468-4 · Cited by 1,164 · see citing works
Self-citationTufanaru, C., Munn, Z., Stephenson, M., & Aromataris, E. (2015) · International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare · doi:10.1097/xeb.0000000000000065 · Cited by 1,057 · see citing works
Self-citationMunn, Z., Aromataris, E., Tufanaru, C., Stern, C., Porritt, K., Farrow, J., Lockwood, C., Stephenson, M., Moola, S., Lizarondo, L., et al. (2019) · International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare · doi:10.1097/xeb.0000000000000152 · Cited by 977 · see citing works
Self-citationBarker, T. H., Habibi, N., Aromataris, E., Stone, J. C., Leonardi-Bee, J., Sears, K., Hasanoff, S., Klugar, M., Tufanaru, C., Moola, S., et al. (2024) · JBI Evidence Synthesis · doi:10.11124/jbies-23-00268 · Cited by 843 · see citing works
Self-citationPollock, D., Davies, E. L., Peters, M. D. J., Tricco, A. C., Alexander, L., McInerney, P., Godfrey, C. M., Khalil, H., & Munn, Z. (2021) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/jan.14743 · Cited by 769 · see citing works
Butler, A., Hall, H., & Copnell, B. (2016) · Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing · doi:10.1111/wvn.12134 · Cited by 539 · see citing works
In search of artificial intelligence (AI) literacy in teacher education: A scoping review
Sperling, K., Stenberg, C.-J., McGrath, C., Åkerfeldt, A., Heintz, F., & Stenliden, L. (2024) · Computers and Education Open · doi:10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100169 · Cited by 498 · see citing works
Healthcare professionals’ competence in digitalisation: A systematic review
Konttila, J., Siira, H., Kyngäs, H., Lahtinen, M., Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kaakinen, P., Oikarinen, A., Yamakawa, M., Fukui, S., et al. (2019) · Journal of Clinical Nursing · doi:10.1111/jocn.14710 · Cited by 444 · see citing works
Lavander, P., Meriläinen, M., & Turkki, L. (2016) · Journal of Nursing Management · doi:10.1111/jonm.12423 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
A Systematic Review on Serious Games in Attention Rehabilitation and Their Effects
Shahmoradi, L., Mohammadian, F., & Rahmani Katigari, M. (2022) · Behavioural Neurology · doi:10.1155/2022/2017975 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Ukrainian Refugees’ Differentiated Treatment: A Critical and Systematic Review
Mickelsson, T. B. (2025) · Global Networks · doi:10.1111/glob.12502 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Incorporating peer feedback in academic writing: a systematic review of benefits and challenges
Wei, Y., & Liu, D. (2024) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1506725 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Rajeev, J., Kumar, K. C. J., Prasad, D. P., & Utpal, D. (2023) · Journal of Resources and Ecology · doi:10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2023.06.011 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Cassell, K., Ologunowa, A., Rastegar-Mojarad, M., Chun, B., Huang, Y.-L., Wang, D., & Cossrow, N. (2025) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2025.1662202 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
“Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) are recognized as the most rigorous form of evidence review and synthesis (Aromataris and Pearson, 2014; Clarke and Chalmers, 2018; Grant and Booth, 2009; Munn et al., 2018).”
Kudrina, I., Puzhko, S., Filion, K. B., Gore, G., Paraskevopoulos, E., Windle, S., Martel, M. O., & Eisenberg, M. J. (2021) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-021-01852-w · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Common issues of systematic reviews in the sports and exercise medicine field.
Memon, A. R., Owen, P. J., Anderson, N., Verhagen, E., Mundell, N. L., & Belavy, D. L. (2024) · BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine · doi:10.1136/bmjsem-2023-001784 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
- Authors
- Aromataris, E., & Pearson, A.
- Affiliations
- The University of Adelaide (AU)
- ORCID
- Aromataris, Edoardo
- Venue
- AJN, American Journal of Nursing
- Published
- 2014-03
- Volume
- 114
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 53-58
- ISSN
- 0002-936X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2067384918
- Cited by
- 598
- References
- 18
- Citations by year
- 2026: 75 · 2025: 91 · 2024: 106 · 2023: 117 · 2022: 66 · 2021: 58 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 2
- FWCI
- 8.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- AJN American Journal of Nursing (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Methodologies in Health Research and Practice
- Keywords
- systematic reviews, evidence-based practice, Joanna Briggs Institute, nursing research, healthcare decision-making, research methodology
- MeSH terms
- Academies and Institutes, Systematic Reviews as Topic, Data Collection, Decision Making, Humans, Nursing Research, Evidence-Based Practice
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
