The rationale behind systematic reviews in clinical medicine: a conceptual framework

Abstract

A systematic review (SR) is a type of review that uses a systematic method to provide a valid summary of existing literature addressing a clear and specific question. In clinical medicine (CM), the concept of SR is well recognized, especially after the introduction of evidence-based medicine; The SR of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is considered the highest level of evidence on therapeutic effectiveness. Despite the popularity of the SRs and the increasing publication rate of SRs in CM and other healthcare literature, the concept has raised criticisms. Many of proper criticisms can be due to the deviation of some existing SRs from the original philosophy and well-established rationale behind the concept of SR. On the other hand, many criticisms are misconceptions about SRs which still exist even several decades after introducing the concept. This article presents a conceptual framework for clarifying the rationale behind SR in CM by providing the relevant concepts and their inter-relations, explaining how methodological standards of an SR and its rationale are connected, and discussing the rationale under the three-section: SR as a type of synthetic research, SR as a more informed and less biased review, and SR as an efficient scientific tool.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  1. 1.

    Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews. The Cochrane collaboration. 2008;5(0).

  2. 2.

    Hayward RS, Wilson MC, Tunis SR, Bass EB, Guyatt G. Users' guides to the medical literature. JAMA. 1995;274(7):570–4.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Ioannidis JP. The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q. 2016;94(3):485–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Greenhalgh T, Thorne S, Malterud K. Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? Eur J Clin Invest. 2018;48(6).

  5. 5.

    Petticrew M, Roberts H. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide: John Wiley & Sons 2008.

  6. 6.

    Petticrew M. Why certain systematic reviews reach uncertain conclusions. BMJ. 2003;326(7392):756–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Petticrew M. Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: myths and misconceptions. BMJ. 2001;322:98–101.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Haddaway NR, Bilotta GS. Systematic reviews: separating fact from fiction. Environ Int. 2016;92:578–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Sofaer N, Strech D. The need for systematic reviews of reasons. Bioethics. 2011;26(6):315–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Strech D, Sofaer N. How to write a systematic review of reasons. J Med Ethics. 2012;38(2):121–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Oliver S, Dickson K. Policy-relevant systematic reviews to strengthen health systems: models and mechanisms to support their production. Evid Policy. 2016;12(2):235–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Mullen PD, Ramírez G. The promise and pitfalls of systematic reviews. Annu Rev Public Health. 2006;27:81–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Morrison J. The challenges of systematic reviews of educational research. BMJ. 2005;331(7513):391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Mulrow CD. Rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ. 1994;309:597–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Daley BJ, Durning SJ, Torre DM. Using concept maps to create meaningful learning in medical education. MedEdPublish. 2016 10;5.

  16. 16.

    Me D. The Joanna Briggs institute: its contribution to evidence-based practice. Clin Nurse Spec. 2005;19(4):184–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Leeuw FL. Institutionalization of Second-Order Evidence-Producing Organizations. In The Evidence Book Routledge 2017 (pp. 35–58).

  18. 18.

    Cook DA, West CP. Conducting systematic reviews in medical education: a stepwise approach. Med Educ. 2012;46(10):943–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Tsafnat G, Dunn A, Glasziou P, Coiera E. The automation of systematic reviews. (2013): f139.

  20. 20.

    Densen P. Challenges and opportunities facing medical education. Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc. 2011;122:48.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Ely JW, Osheroff JA, Ebell MH, Bergus GR, Levy BT, Chambliss ML, et al. Analysis of questions asked by family doctors regarding patient care. BMJ. 1999;319(7206):358–61.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126(5):376–80.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Pae CU. Why systematic review rather than narrative review? Psychiatry Investig. 2015;12(3):417–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Cipriani A, Geddes J. Comparison of systematic and narrative reviews: the example of the atypical antipsychotics. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2003;12(3):146–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inf Libr J. 2009;26:91–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Sugimoto CR, Larivière V. Measuring research: what everyone needs to know. Oxford University Press; 2018.

  27. 27.

    Abramo G. Revisiting the scientometric conceptualization of impact and its measurement. J Inf Secur. 2018;12(3):590–7.

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Ioannidis JP. Meta-research: why research on research matters. PLoS Biol. 2018;16(3):e2005468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Moattar H, Moosapour H, Soltani A, Larijani B. The effect of Chloroquine on pro-inflammatory cytokines levels in graves‘ disease: historical cohort from a pilot randomized controlled trial. Pharmacol & Pharm. 2013;4(4):392–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Chin YH, Ng CH, Lee MH, Koh JW, Kiew J, Yang SP, et al. Prevalence of thyroid eye disease in graves’ disease: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Clin Endocrinol. 2020;93(4):363–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Muñoz-Velandia OM, Fernández-Ávila DG, Patino-Hernandez D, Gómez AM. Metrics of activity in social networks are correlated with traditional metrics of scientific impact in endocrinology journals. Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2019;13(4):2437–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Polit DF, Beck CT. Generalization in quantitative and qualitative research: myths and strategies. Int J Nurs Stud. 2010;47(11):1451–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Nasser M, Van Weel C, Van Binsbergen JJ, van de Laar FA. Generalizability of systematic reviews of the effectiveness of health care interventions to primary health care: concepts, methods, and future research. Fam Pract. 2012;29(suppl_1):i94–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Johnston BC, Supina AL, Vohra S. Probiotics for pediatric antibiotic-associated diarrhea: a meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials. CMAJ. 2006;175(4):377–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Lau J, Antman EM, Jimenez-Silva J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. Cumulative meta-analysis of therapeutic trials for myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1992;327(4):248–54.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Belur J, Tompson L, Thornton A, Simon M. Interrater reliability in systematic review methodology: exploring variation in coder decision-making. Sociol Methods Res 2018:0049124118799372.

  37. 37.

    PLoS Medicine Editors. Best practice in systematic reviews: the importance of protocols and registration. PLoS Med. 2011;8(2):e1001009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Straus S, Moher D. Registering systematic reviews. CMAJ. 2010;182(1):13–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Ge L, Tian JH, Li YN, Pan JX, Li G, Wei D, et al. Association between prospective registration and overall reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;93:45–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Booth A, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, Stewart L. Establishing a minimum dataset for prospective registration of systematic reviews: an international consultation. PLoS One. 2011;6(11):e27319.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Booth A, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, Stewart L. An international registry of systematic-review protocols. Lancet. 2011 Jan 5;377(9760).

  42. 42.

    Beyer F, Wright K. Comprehensive searching for systematic reviews: a comparison of database performance. York: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York. 2011.

  43. 43.

    Moat KA, Lavis JN, Wilson MG, Røttingen JA, Bärnighausen T. Twelve myths about systematic reviews for health system policymaking rebutted. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2013;18(1):44–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This article is a part of Dr. Hamideh Moosapour’s Ph.D. thesis entitled “Theoretical Challenges in Conceptualization of Evidence-Based Islamic Biomedical Ethics: A Comparative Study in Philosophy of Medicine and Medical Ethics”. The project was funded by Evidence Based Medicine Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

HM had substantial contributions to concept and design, drafting, writing, and revising the manuscript critically for important intellectual content and approving the final version to be published. FS had substantial contributions to drafting, writing, and revising the manuscript and approving the final version to be published. MA had contributions to drafting the manuscript and approving the final version to be published. AS had contributions to concept and design, revising the manuscript critically for important intellectual content, and approving the final version to be published. BL had contributions to concept and design, revising the manuscript critically for important intellectual content, and approving the final version to be published.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Akbar Soltani or Bagher Larijani.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declared that they had no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Moosapour, H., Saeidifard, F., Aalaa, M. et al. The rationale behind systematic reviews in clinical medicine: a conceptual framework. J Diabetes Metab Disord (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40200-021-00773-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Systematic review
  • Meta-analysis
  • Rationale
  • Evidence based medicine
  • Synthetic research
  • Conceptual Framework