is a systematic review original research

Topic selection and planning. In recent years, there has been an explosion in the number of systematic reviews conducted and published (Chalmers & Fox 2016, Fontelo & Liu 2018, Page et al 2015) - although a systematic review may be an inappropriate or unnecessary research methodology for answering many research questions.Systematic reviews can be inadvisable for a variety of reasons.

Literature reviews include peer-reviewed original research, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses, but also may include conference abstracts, books, graduate degree theses, and other non-peer reviewed publications. The methods used to identify and evaluate studies should be specified, but they are less rigorous and comprehensive than those ...

A systematic review is a scholarly synthesis of the evidence on a clearly presented topic using critical methods to identify, define and assess research on the topic. [1] A systematic review extracts and interprets data from published studies on the topic (in the scientific literature), then analyzes, describes, critically appraises and summarizes interpretations into a refined evidence-based ...

Systematic reviews (SR) represent a cornerstone of research synthesis and require scientific rigour. Nevertheless, SR are often criticised as secondary research and not granted the status of original research. Journal editors are gatekeepers in the publication process. Their appraisal of a study design may reflect but also influence which value ...

Systematic reviews involve the application of scientific methods to reduce bias in review of literature. The key components of a systematic review are a well-defined research question, comprehensive literature search to identify all studies that potentially address the question, systematic assembly of the studies that answer the question, critical appraisal of the methodological quality of the ...

Whether or not such analysis is performed, a systematic review is an original report of research evidence with interpretation and recommendations, amounting to a whole greater than the sum of parts [ 20 ]. The Cochrane Library is a valuable repository of systematic reviews to inform practice.

In recent years, there has been an explosion in the number of systematic reviews conducted and published (Chalmers & Fox 2016, Fontelo & Liu 2018, Page et al 2015) - although a systematic review may be an inappropriate or unnecessary research methodology for answering many research questions.Systematic reviews can be inadvisable for a variety of reasons.

Characterization of non-responding journals showed that about two thirds do publish systematic reviews. Discussion: Currently, the editors of most core clinical journals consider SRs original research. Our findings are limited by a non-responder rate of 45%. Individual comments suggest that this is a grey area and attitudes differ widely.

Systematic reviews are characterized by a methodical and replicable methodology and presentation. They involve a comprehensive search to locate all relevant published and unpublished work on a subject; a systematic integration of search results; and a critique of the extent, nature, and quality of evidence in relation to a particular research question. The best reviews synthesize studies to ...

However, when an author submits a systematic review and meta-analysis to journals, the manuscript category between a review and original article is indistinct. ... 4.76% classified a systematic review and meta-analysis as an original article, 15.9% as a review, 20.6% as an independent type of manuscript, and 58.7% did not mention any policy on ...

an explicit, reproducible methodology. a systematic search that attempts to identify all studies that would meet the eligibility criteria. an assessment of the validity of the findings of the included studies, for example through the assessment of the risk of bias. a systematic presentation, and synthesis, of the characteristics and findings of ...

Background Synthesizing research evidence using systematic and rigorous methods has become a key feature of evidence-based medicine and knowledge translation. Systematic reviews (SRs) may or may not include a meta-analysis depending on the suitability of available data. They are often being criticised as 'secondary research' and denied the status of original research.

Time: According to Cochrane, it takes 18 months on average to complete a Systematic Review. The average systematic review from beginning to end requires 18 months of work. "…to find out about a healthcare intervention it is worth searching research literature thoroughly to see if the answer is already known.

A systematic review aims to bring evidence together to answer a pre-defined research question. This involves the identification of all primary research relevant to the defined review question, the critical appraisal of this research, and the synthesis of the findings.13 Systematic reviews may combine data from different.

According to Cochrane, a systematic review is defined as an attempt "to identify, appraise and synthesize all the empirical evidence that meets pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a given research question. Researchers conducting systematic reviews use explicit methods aimed at minimizing bias, in order to produce more reliable findings that can be used to inform decision making."

Maria Watson is a PhD candidate in the Urban and Regional Science program at Texas A&M University. Her research interests include disaster recovery, public policy, and economic development. Literature reviews establish the foundation of academic inquires. However, in the planning field, we lack rigorous systematic reviews.

The continuous growth of research, coupled with the demand to systematically summarize the available evidence to inform decisions from consumers and stakeholders, led to the formal development of systematic reviews (SRs) in the late 20th century 1-3. Systematic reviews search, appraise and collate all relevant empirical evidence in order to ...

Because systematic review literature searches may produce thousands of citations and abstracts, the research team will be screening and systematically reviewing large amounts of results. During screening , you will remove duplicates and remove studies that are not relevant to your topic based on a review of titles and abstracts.

We have written elsewhere about this history of systematic reviews 4-6 but reflect here on two aspects of the history and their relevance to EBM today and in the future: quality and quantity. People making decisions and choices about health and social care need access to high-quality evidence from research. Systematic reviews provide this by ...

The purpose of a systematic review is to provide a comprehensive summary of the existing evidence on a topic, rather than presenting new research findings. Systematic reviews are considered to be ...

Systematic reviews can also demonstrate where knowledge is lacking. This can then be used to guide future research. Systematic reviews are usually carried out in the areas of clinical tests (diagnostic, screening ... The final step is calculating the common estimate and its confidence interval with the original data or with the summary ...

What is a literature review? Definition: A literature review is a systematic examination and synthesis of existing scholarly research on a specific topic or subject. Purpose: It serves to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge within a particular field. Analysis: Involves critically evaluating and summarizing key findings, methodologies, and debates found in ...

Methodological rigor of such research syntheses is crucial to ensure the validity of research reviews providing a complete and accurate picture of the body of evidence around a specific research question. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are a valuable tool in any research arena, but especially important in the injury field, where multiple ...

By utilizing Review Manager 5.4.1 and the dataset provided by the author, we conducted an analysis using a random-effects model. The results indicate a slight variance in the test for overall effect, as depicted in Figures 1 and 2 , which could lead to an imprecise estimation of effect size and subsequently affect our confidence in the evidence.

Systematic reviews (SRs) worldwide suffer from methodological deficiencies, potentially biasing intervention decisions, and Peruvian SRs are no exception. Evaluating SRs led by Peruvian researchers is a crucial step to enhance quality and transparency in decision-making and to identify topics where SRs are either scarce or prioritized for research.

This systematic review maps the certainty and quality of evidence reported by systematic reviews in 2018 to 2023 of massage therapy for pain in adults. ... and durations and is intended to be delivered by uniquely trained and credentialed therapists. 3 Original research studies have reported on massage therapy delivered by a wide variety of ...

Methods A systematic review of articles published on PCST was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL and MEDLINE in January 2024. All original research articles on PCST fulfilling the following eligibility criteria were included (1) utilisation and evaluation of tools was the primary objective and (2) at least one patient outcome was reported.

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 trials that examined the effect of substituting soymilk (median dose of 22 g/day or 6.6 g/250 mL serving of soy protein per day and 17.2 g/day or 6.9 g/250 mL of total [added] sugars in the sweetened soymilk) for cow's milk (median dose of 24 g/day or 8.3 g/250 mL of milk protein and 24 g/day or 12 g/250 mL of total sugars [lactose ...

Generative AI in Qualitative Research: A Systematic Review (2022-2024): 10.4018/979-8-3693-8689-7.ch005: In today's world, generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is driving transformative shifts in technological advancements and research paradigms, requiring

The present article presents a systematic review of 20 studies that employed the YAM-5, involving 5325 young participants. Overall, the results supported the hypothesized factor structure of both parts of the measure, although there were also some studies that could not fully replicate the original five-factor model of YAM-5-I.