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.
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.
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, |
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.
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:
Some advice on broadening your topic:
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:
Some advice on narrowing your topic:
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, 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:
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.