What is it like to do a systematic review? The Many Hats of a Researcher

Conducting a systematic review is a meticulous yet rewarding endeavour that offers researchers a comprehensive understanding of a particular field or topic. This process involves well-defined steps to ensure thoroughness and rigour, ultimately contributing valuable insights to the body of knowledge. Let’s look at this step by step at the many hats that researchers wear...

The journey begins with a defined research question, often structured using the PICO framework (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) to ensure the review addresses a specific and relevant topic. At the beginning of a project or when looking to investigate the literature around a particular topic, the enthusiastic and curious researcher becomes an explorer.

Next comes an exhaustive search across multiple databases to identify relevant studies. This involves developing complex search strategies using Boolean operators and keywords. Finding a balance between a search that isn’t too broad to include riffraff and not too narrow to miss relevant materials. Formulating the perfect code to access all the valuable files, the meticulous researcher becomes a hacker.

The identified studies undergo rigorous screening based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, often involving multiple reviewers to ensure consistency and reduce bias. This might be the most difficult part of the process, not because it’s particularly complex, but because it can be incredibly monotonous. Sat in front of a computer screen, reading the 400th abstract that day, hunched in prime position, fingers poised over the keyboard, the researcher becomes a machine.

Essential data from the included studies are extracted systematically using standardised forms to capture relevant information such as study characteristics, methods, and outcomes. This is also somewhat laborious, but the added structure makes it more engaging. Digging through layers and layers to find that nugget of information, the researcher becomes a gold miner.

Each study is assessed for quality and risk of bias using standardised tools like the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. This is often a great opportunity to reflect on how you can improve your own writing by getting by papers that lack the specific details you’re after and appreciating the ones that do it well. Here, among the innocent and the guilty, the researcher becomes a court judge and jury (but hopefully not an executioner).

Extracted data are synthesised, which may involve meta-analysis if the data are sufficiently homogenous. This integrates findings from individual studies to provide a comprehensive overview. Here, bringing together the different outcomes to create one cohesive piece, the innovative researcher becomes a chef, with hopefully more than a couple of carrots, half an onion, and a jar of mustard in the fridge.

The results are compiled into a detailed report following guidelines, such as the most commonly used PRISMA guidelines. Researchers interpret the findings and discuss implications, limitations, and areas for future research. These are then written into a research paper or report, ready to be disseminated in journals, and/or guide the next research study. Here, the researcher becomes one of two things: an explorer once more or an academic.