Skip to main content

Systematic and Nonsystematic Reviews: Choosing an Approach

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.

Keywords

  • Literature review
  • Systematic review
  • Nonsystematic review
  • Purposive review
  • Meta-analysis
  • Research synthesis

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

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-26837-4_8
  • Chapter length: 6 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-26837-4
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)

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.

    CrossRef  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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

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

    CrossRef  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.

    CrossRef  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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

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

    CrossRef  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.

    CrossRef  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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

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

    CrossRef  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.

    CAS  CrossRef  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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

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

    CrossRef  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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David A. Cook .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

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