An Introduction to Systematic Reviews
Abstract
This session will discuss the basics of conducting a systematic review and how they are different from traditional literature reviews. Topics will include how to frame a research question, developing a search strategy and searching the social science, scientific, and biomedical literature databases.
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?
Systematic literature reviews give structure to findings of larger amounts of empirical studies and show advantages over standard literature reviews as they investigate clearly defined questions in a highly structured, transparent and reproducible manner, which can help prevent bias.
“Systematic literature reviews give structure to the findings of larger amounts of empirical studies and show advantages over standard literature reviews as they investigate in clearly defined questions in a highly structured, transparent and reproducible manner (see Gough et al., 2017; Zawacki-Richter et al., 2020), which can further help to prevent bias.”
From Collaborative Online Learning in the Cultural Context of South East Asia: A Systematic Review (2020) · cites this paper as Gough et al., 2017
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
Cited by 1,239
- Authors
- Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J.
- Venue
- The American Pharmacists Association eBooks
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications Ltd
- Published
- 2017
- OpenAlex
- W2006585276
- Cited by
- 1,239
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 70 · 2025: 68 · 2024: 86 · 2023: 105 · 2022: 90 · 2021: 114 · 2020: 138 · 2019: 98 · 2018: 91 · 2017: 78 · 2016: 82 · 2015: 76 · 2014: 70 · 2013: 46 · 2012: 19
- FWCI
- 164.61
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The American Pharmacists Association eBooks (publishedVersion)
- SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks (publishedVersion)
- The Research Repository @ WVU (West Virginia University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Methodologies in Health Research and Practice
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
- Keywords
- systematic reviews, evidence-based practice, pharmacy education, pharmacotherapy
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
