Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Systematic and Nonsystematic Reviews: Choosing an Approach

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Healthcare Simulation Research

Abstract

Systematic reviews and purposive (nonsystematic) reviews serve valuable and complementary roles in synthesizing the results of original research studies. Systematic reviews use rigorous methods of article selection and data extraction to shed focused, deep light on a relatively narrow body of research, yet of necessity may exclude potentially insightful works that fall outside the predefined scope. Purposive reviews offer flexibility to address more far-reaching questions and pursue novel insights, yet offer little assurance of a balanced perspective on the issue. This chapter reviews the strengths and weaknesses of each approach, and suggests specific questions to help researchers select among these approaches. Different approaches to quantitative and narrative research synthesis, including meta-analysis, are also described.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. 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 

  2. Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, Walshe K. Realist review – a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10(Suppl 1):21–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8:19–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5:69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cook DA. Narrowing the focus and broadening horizons: complementary roles for nonsystematic and systematic reviews. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2008;13:391–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cook DA. Randomized controlled trials and meta-analysis in medical education: what role do they play? Med Teach. 2012;34:468–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Eva KW. On the limits of systematicity. Med Educ. 2008;42:852–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cook DA. Tips for a great review article: crossing methodological boundaries. Med Educ. 2016;50:384–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cook DA, Bordage G, Schmidt HG. Description, justification, and clarification: a framework for classifying the purposes of research in medical education. Med Educ. 2008;42:128–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine JC. The handbook of research synthesis. 2nd ed. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2008.

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. Available at: http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/. Accessed 31 May 2018.

  15. Campbell Collaboration. Campbell Collaboration Resource Center. Available at: https://campbellcollaboration.org/research-resources/research-for-resources.html. Accessed 31 May 2018.

  16. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:264–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Buckingham J, Pawson R. RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses. BMC Med. 2013;11:21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Montori VM, Swiontkowski MF, Cook DJ. Methodologic issues in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;413:43–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mayo Clinic Multidisciplinary Simulation Center, Office of Applied Scholarship and Education Science, and Division of General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Rochester, MN, USA

    David A. Cook

Authors
  1. David A. Cook
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David A. Cook .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Monash Institute for Health and Clinical Education, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia

    Debra Nestel

  2. Emergency Medicine, Kaiser Permanente, Los Angeles Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Joshua Hui

  3. Department of Surgery, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Kevin Kunkler

  4. Department of Psychology, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA

    Mark W. Scerbo

  5. Department of Pediatrics, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, KY, USA

    Aaron W. Calhoun

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Cook, D.A. (2019). Systematic and Nonsystematic Reviews: Choosing an Approach. In: Nestel, D., Hui, J., Kunkler, K., Scerbo, M., Calhoun, A. (eds) Healthcare Simulation Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26837-4_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation