Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Systematic Literature Review

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Design Science Research

Abstract

This chapter presents a method that can be applied to perform a Systematic Literature Review. The Systematic Literature Review is a critical step in conducting scientific research. This chapter focuses particularly on the importance of this step for research conducted under the Design Science paradigm.

The knowledge of the world is only to be acquired in the world, and not in the closet.

(Philip Chesterfield)

Maria Isabel Wolf Motta Morandi—UNISINOS—mmorandi@unisinos.br.

Luis Felipe Riehs Camargo—UNISINOS—lfr@unisinos.br.

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 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover 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

  • Abrami, P. C. et al. (2010, August 1). Issues in conducting and disseminating brief reviews of evidence. Evidence and Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 6(3), 371–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adler, M. J., & van Doren, C. (1972). How to read a book. New York: A Touchstone Book Published by Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alturki, A., Gable, G. G., & Bandara, W. (2011). A design science research roadmap DESRIST. Milwaukee: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett-Page, E., & Thomas, J. (2009). Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: A critical review. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 9(59), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayazit, N. (2004). Investigating design : A review of forty years of design research. Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Design Issues, 20(1), 16–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beverley, C. A., Booth, A., & Bath, P. A. (2003). The role of the information specialist in the systematic review process: A health information case study. Health information and libraries journal, 20(2), 65–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunton, G. et al. (2006). A synthesis of research addressing children’s, young people’s and parents’ views of walking and cycling for transport. London: University of London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunton, G., Stansfield, C., & Thomas, J. (2012). Finding relevant studies. In: D. Gough, S. Oliver, & J. Thomas (Eds.), An introduction to systematic reviews (pp. 107–134). London: Sage Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunton, J., & Thomas, J. (2012). Information management in reviews. In: D. Gough, S. Oliver, & J. Thomas (Eds.), An introduction to systematic reviews (pp. 83–106). London: Sage Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, H. M., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. (2009). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. United Kingdom: Russell Sage Foundation Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coren, E. et al. (2014). Parent-training interventions to support intellectually disabled parents campbell systematic reviews. United Kingdom: [s.n.]. Retrieved from Feb 23, 2014 http://campbellcollaboration.org/lib/project/172/

  • Dixon-Woods, M. et al. (2006, February 1). How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective. Qualitative Research,6(1), 27–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • EPPI Centre (2013). http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/

  • Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2012). An introduction to systematic reviews. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gough, D., & Thomas, J. (2012). Commonality and diversity in reviews. In: D. Gough, S. Oliver, & J. Thomas (Eds.), An introduction to systematic reviews (pp. 35–65). London: Sage Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregor, S., & Jones, D. (2007). The anatomy of a design theory. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(5), 312–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammerstrøm, K., Wade, A., & Jorgensen, A.-M. K. (2010). Searching for studies: A guide to information retrieval for Campbell Systematic Reviews (Vol. 1). Oslo: The Campbell Collaboration.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harden, A., et al. (2009). Teenage pregnancy and social disadvantage: Systematic review integrating controlled trials and qualitative studies. BMJ, 339(b424), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harden, A., & Gough, D. (2012). Quality and relevance appraisal. In: D. Gough, S. Oliver, & J. Thomas (Eds.), An introduction to systematic reviews (pp. 153–178). London: SAGE Publications, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, M. R. (2005). The librarian’s roles in the systematic review process: A case study. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 93(1), 81–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, J. P., & Green, S. (2006). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of intervetions 4.2.6. In: J. P. Higgins, & S. Green (Eds.), Cochrane library. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keown, K., van Eerd, D., & Irvin, E. (2008). Stakeholder engagement opportunities in systematic reviews: knowledge transfer for policy and practice. Foundations of Continuing Education, 28(2), 67–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khan, K. S., et al. (2003). Five steps to conducting a systematic review. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 96(3), 118–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitchenham, B. (2010). What’s up with software metrics?—A preliminary mapping study. Journal of Systems and Software, 83(1), 37–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitchenham, B., et al. (2010). Systematic literature reviews in software engineering—A tertiary study. Information and Software Technology, 52(8), 792–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavis, J. N. (2009). How can we support the use of systematic reviews in policymaking? PLoS Medicine, 6(11), e1000141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Littel, J. H., Corcoran, J., & Pillai, V. (2008). Systematic reviews and meta-analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lundh, A., & Gøtzsche, P. C. (2008). Recommendations by cochrane review groups for assessment of the risk of bias in studies. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(22), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, S. T., & Smith, G. F. (1995). Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems, 15, 251–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, S. T., & Storey, V. C. (2008). Design Science in the information systems discipline: An introduction to the special issue on design science research. MIS Quaterly,32(4), 725–730.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, S., Dickson, K., & Newman, M. (2012). Getting started with a review. In: D. Gough, S. Oliver, & J. Thomas (Eds.), An introduction to systematic reviews (pp. 66–82). London: Sage Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, S., & Sutcliffe, K. (2012). Describing and analysing studies. In: D. Gough, S. Oliver, & J. Thomas (Eds.), An introduction to systematic reviews (pp. 135–152). London: Sage Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rees, R., & Oliver, S. (2012). Stakeholder perspectives and participation in systematic reviews. In: D. Gough, S. Oliver, & J. Thomas (Eds.), An introduction to systematic reviews (pp. 17–35). London: Sage Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandelowski, M., et al. (2012). Mapping the mixed methods—mixed research synthesis Terrain. J Mix Method Res Author Manuscript, 6(4), 317–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2012). Research methods for business students (6th ed.). London: Pearson Education Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiller, C., et al. (2013). A framework for stakeholder identification in concept mapping and health research: A novel process and its application to older adult mobility and the built environment. BMC Public Health, 13, 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seuring, S., & Gold, S. (2012). Conducting content-analysis based literature reviews in supply chain management. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 17(5), 544–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinha, M. K., & Montori, V. M. (2006). Reporting bias and other biases affecting systematic reviews and meta-analyses: A methodological commentary. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 6(5), 603–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V., et al. (2011). Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11(1), 15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, J., Harden, A., & Newman, M. (2012). Synthesis: Combining results systematically and appropriately. In: D. Gough, S. Oliver, & J. Thomas (Eds.), An introduction to systematic reviews (pp. 179–226). London: Sage Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Aken, J. E. (2011). The Research Design for Design Science Research in Management Eindhoven.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Aken, J. E., & Romme, G. (2009). Reinventing the future : Adding design science to the repertoire of organization and management studies. Organization Management Journal, 6, 5–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walls, J. G., Wyidmeyer, G. R., & Sawy, O. A. E. (1992). Building an information system design theory for vigilant EIS. Information Systems Research, 3, 36–60.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. GMAP | UNISINOS, Porto Alegre/RS, Brazil

    Aline Dresch & Daniel Pacheco Lacerda

  2. UNISINOS, Porto Alegre/RS, Brazil

    José Antônio Valle Antunes Jr

Authors
  1. Aline Dresch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel Pacheco Lacerda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. José Antônio Valle Antunes Jr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aline Dresch .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Dresch, A., Lacerda, D.P., Antunes, J.A.V. (2015). Systematic Literature Review. In: Design Science Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07374-3_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation