Skip to Main Content

Systematic Review Guide

This guide will help you determine which type of review is right for you and how to navigate the process.

Formulating a Research Question

Your research question is probably the most important part of any review. While you formulate it, it is best you do some preliminary searching and find some articles as a way to ensure that your question can be answered in this format. Oftentimes, a research question that comes to mind will not have many results and would actually be better suited for an experimental setting. Below, are some helpful frameworks so that your topic is neaither too broad nor narrow, and also some criteria that can guide you towards refining your question.

FINER Criteria for Developing Research Questions

When developing your research question, it has been proposed that it should meet the FINER criteria:

 

The research team should keep these elements in mind when forming their question and before moving on to the next steps.

Adapted from: Hulley, S. B., Cummings, S. R., & Browner, W. S. (2013). Designing clinical research.

Research Question Frameworks

The most recommended framework for systematic reviews; however, it is not the only framework. If you will be reviewing studies that had qualitative or mixed methods designs, look through the tabs for examples and also follow this link for even more ideas.

P

Population Participants undergoing treatment for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

I

Intervention Anti-diabetic medication (Insulin, sulfonylurea, DPP-4 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, SGLT-2 inhibitors or thiazolidinediones).

C

Comparison Placebo or metformin.

O

Outcomes Changes to bone biochemical markers or bone mineral density (BMD).

From: Saadi MSS, Das R, Mullath Ullas A, Powell DE, Wilson E, Myrtziou I, Rakieh C, Kanakis I. Impact of Different Anti-Hyperglycaemic Treatments on Bone Turnover Markers and Bone Mineral Density in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int J Mol Sci. 2024 Jul 22;25(14):7988. doi: 10.3390/ijms25147988. PMID: 39063229; PMCID: PMC11277066.

S

Sample size (who is the group of people being studied?) Patients 18 years or older with at least 80% of the sample size having a schizophrenia-spectrum diagnosis.

PI

Phenomenon of Interest Antipsychotic polypharmacy.

D

Design (how was the research collected?) Double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) 

E

Evaluation (what is the outcome being impacted?) Severity of positive and/or negative symptoms.

R

Research type (qualitative or mixed methods) Mixed methods (recognized rating scales of psychopathology)

From: Lochmann van Bennekom MWH, IntHout J, Gijsman HJ, Akdede BBK, Yağcıoğlu AEA, Barnes TRE, Galling B, Gueorguieva R, Kasper S, Kreinin A, Nielsen J, Nielsen RE, Remington G, Repo-Tiihonen E, Schmidt-Kraepelin C, Shafti SS, Xiao L, Correll CU, Verkes RJ. Efficacy and tolerability of antipsychotic polypharmacy for schizophrenia spectrum disorders. A systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data. Schizophr Res. 2024 Aug 13;272:1-11. doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2024.07.035. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 39142215.

Additional example: Alamer S, Robinson-Barellla A, Cooper M, Nazar H, Husband A. Barriers and facilitators of adherence to treatment interventions for COPD amongst individuals from minority ethnic communities: Meta-ethnography. PLoS One. 2025 Feb 10;20(2):e0318709. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0318709. PMID: 39928635; PMCID: PMC11809908.

The PEO question framework is useful for qualitative research topics.

P

Population and their problems Adolescents and young adults.

E

Exposure Vaping and e-cigarettes.

O

Outcomes or themes Perceptions on weight management.

From: Mohapatra S, Wisidagama S, Schifano F. Exploring Vaping Patterns and Weight Management-Related Concerns among Adolescents and Young Adults: A Systematic Review. J Clin Med. 2024 May 14;13(10):2896. doi: 10.3390/jcm13102896. PMID: 38792437; PMCID: PMC11122629.

S

Setting Emergency Departments in urban areas.

P

Perspective (the users, potential users,
or stakeholders of the service—i.e. for whom)

Patients presenting with an opioid overdose.

I

Intervention Naloxone

C

Comparison Different dosages of naloxone.

E

Evaluation Adverse events per dose.

From: Yugar B, McManus K, Ramdin C, Nelson LS, Parris MA. Systematic Review of Naloxone Dosing and Adverse Events in the Emergency Department. J Emerg Med. 2023 Sep;65(3):e188-e198. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2023.05.006. Epub 2023 Jun 7. PMID: 37652808.

Reformulating Research Question

If upon your preliminary search, you aren't getting a lot of results, it could be that your topic is too narrow. Here are some reasons why the scope of your topic could be considered narrow:

  • The drug or intervention you are researching is too new and still may be only in the clinical trial stage/just introduced to the market.
  • Your region may not have a sufficient number of studies for that topic
  • The problem could be too case-specific
  • The phenomenon of interest may be extremely rare or limited to a very small population that new research or a case study may be more apt

Some advice on broadening your topic:

  • If it's a drug or intervention, broaden your question to all treatments for said problem or all drugs of that class. For example, Sedelpar is a relatively new drug that is a PPARδ receptor agonist and it is used in the treatment of Primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) you could either:
    1. Broaden your scope to researching all current recommended treatments of PBC, or
    2. Broaden your scope to researching all PPARδ receptor agonist treatments
  • If your research question was too limiting in terms of region, you can expand. For example, you could expand from Arkansas to the entirety of the delta region.

In general, an indication that a research problem is too narrowly defined is that you can't find any relevant or meaningful information about it. If this happens, don't immediately abandon your efforts to investigate the problem because it could very well be an excellent topic of study. A good way to begin is to look for parallels and opportunities for broader associations that apply to the initial research problem. A strategy for doing this is to ask yourself the basic six questions of who, what, where, when, how, and why.

Another way to find out is to consult with an information expert (our librarians) or a topic expert (research mentor) to determine this. You can make an appointment with one of our medical librarians or email us at comlibr1@nyit.edu to discuss the feasibility of your research question.

If the amount of results in your preliminary search seems daunting and all over the place, your research question or topic may be too broad. This often happens when beginning your research after receiving an assignment or a topic to investigate by a research mentor. Here are some signs your topic is too broad:

  • the information you've found is too general and it is difficult to determine what is most important to keep or discard
  • the amount of sources is too many and they cover a wide variety of concepts and specialties
  • you're finding it difficult to identify and apply the proper methods needed to analyze the topic

Some advice on narrowing your topic:

  • determine if you can break down your variable or unit of analysis into smaller parts
  • limit the locale to a smaller region
  • limit the number of interventions you may be comparing
  • reduce the time period being studies
  • combining any of the above strategies

Another way to find out is to consult with an information expert (our librarians) or a topic expert (research mentor) to determine this. You can make an appointment with one of our medical librarians or email us at comlibr1@nyit.edu to discuss the feasibility of your research question.

Source: Lloyd-Walker, Beverly and Derek Walker. "Moving from Hunches to a Research Topic: Salient Literature and Research Methods." In Designs, Methods and Practices for Research of Project Management. Beverly Pasian, editor. (Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing, 2015), pp. 119-129.

Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility criteria, or, inclusion and exclusion criteria, involves the team to outline which studies will ultimately be included for the review. These are defined after you have a clear research question and well before you begin your screening as a way to reduce bias. Here are some things to consider about the studies your team ultimately wishes to include or exclude:

  • Study participants: age range, gender
  • Study designs: RCTs, cohort studies, case-control study, cross-sectional surveys, etc.
  • Study setting: emergency rooms, United States, etc.
  • Interventions: specific drugs or drug classes
  • Outcomes: can exclude studies with outcomes not of interest (e.g. only wanting studies that measure bone mineral density in patients with t2d)
  • Publication types: other reviews, editorials, and comments are often excluded
  • Publication date
  • Publicaiton language: introduces language bias, but non-English articles are often excluded

Attribution

In addition to credit given for various images, parts of this guide were adapted from work/guides by:

Medical University of South Carolina, UT San Antonio Health Libraries, University of South California, Duke University Medical Center Library & Archives, University of Exeter, UNC

Used with permission or in accordance with Creative Commons Licensing.

© 2024 New York Institute of Technology