Definition of a systematic review used in overviews of systematic reviews, meta-epidemiological studies and textbooks

Abstract

BackgroundA standard or consensus definition of a systematic review does not exist. Therefore, if there is no definition about a systematic review in secondary studies that analyse them or the definition is too broad, inappropriate studies might be included in such evidence synthesis. The aim of this study was to analyse the definition of a systematic review (SR) in health care literature, elements of the definitions that are used and to propose a starting point for an explicit and non-ambiguous SR definition.MethodsWe included overviews of systematic reviews (OSRs), meta-epidemiological studies and epidemiology textbooks. We extracted the definitions of SRs, as well as the inclusion and exclusion criteria that could indicate which definition of a SR the authors used. We extracted individual elements of SR definitions, categorised and quantified them.ResultsAmong the 535 analysed sources of information, 188 (35%) provided a definition of a SR. The most commonly used reference points for the definitions of SRs were Cochrane and the PRISMA statement. We found 188 different elements of SR definitions and divided them into 14 categories. The highest number of SR definition elements was found in categories related to searching (N = 51), analysis/synthesis (N = 23), overall methods (N = 22), quality/bias/appraisal/validity (N = 22) and aim/question (N = 13). The same five categories were also the most commonly used combination of categories in the SR definitions.ConclusionCurrently used definitions of SRs are vague and ambiguous, often using terms such as clear, explicit and systematic, without further elaboration. In this manuscript we propose a more specific definition of a systematic review, with the ultimate aim of motivating the research community to establish a clear and unambiguous definition of this type of research.

Non-genetic risk and protective factors and biomarkers for neurological disorders: a meta-umbrella systematic review of umbrella reviews

“…Moreover, an a posteriori search strategy using similar search strings revealed only one study with potential applicability (i.e., [ 217 ]). Under all circumstances, a call for uniform terminology in the field of meta-research could be made, in alignment with previously expressed opinions [ 207 ], in particular those arguing that the definitions of systematic reviews is surrounded by ambiguity and lack of clarity [ 218 ].…”

Development, testing and use of data extraction forms in systematic reviews: a review of methodological guidance

“…The list of textbooks was based on a recently published article that reviewed systematic review definitions used in textbooks and other sources [ 9 ]. The authors did not carry out a systematic search for textbooks, but included textbooks from a broad range of disciplines including medicine, nursing, education, health library specialties and the social sciences published between 1998 and 2017.…”

A tutorial on methodological studies: the what, when, how and why

“… Methodological studies that investigate nomenclature and terminology Some methodological studies may investigate the use of names and terms in health research. For example, Martinic et al investigated the definitions of systematic reviews used in overviews of systematic reviews (OSRs), meta-epidemiological studies and epidemiology textbooks [ 88 ]. Other types of methodological studies In addition to the previously mentioned experimental methodological studies, there may exist other types of methodological studies not captured here.…”

“…Some methodological studies may investigate the use of names and terms in health research. For example, Martinic et al investigated the definitions of systematic reviews used in overviews of systematic reviews (OSRs), meta-epidemiological studies and epidemiology textbooks [ 88 ].…”