Developing and publishing your protocol is crucial from the beginning of your review in order to define your question and plan your eligibility criteria and methods.
Registering a protocol is a basic requirement for a trial or systematic review, to check if your study has already been done and whether your proposed review is necessary.
Campbell Collaboration produces systematic reviews and other evidence based synthesis in areas such as crime, justice, education, social welfare and international development.
Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews and Trials. Search the Cochrane Library to see if there are any protocols or reviews similar to your topic of interest before you develop and register a new review
Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) - is an index of overy 35,000 systematic reviews of health and social care interventions.
Epistemonikos - a collaborative multi-lingual database of health evidence. It is the largest source of systematic reviews, relevant for health-decision making, and a large source of other types of scientific evidence. (Epistemonikos website, April 2021).
PROSPERO is the international prospective register for Systematic Review Protocols.
Pubmed Clinical Queries - a useful resource to quickly find clinical studies.
The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) evidence based practice database contains over 3,000 records across seven publication types including Best Practice Information Sheets, Systematic Review Protocols and Systematic Reviews.
There are a number of frameworks which can help you to develop and focus your research question.
|PICO (Quantitative Studies) P Population or problem I Intervention C Comparison O Outcome|
|PIcO (Qualitative Studies) P Population or problem I Intervention cO Context|
|PEO (Qualitative Studies) P Population E Exposure O Outcome|
|SPIDER (Qualitative & Mixed Methods) S Sample P of I Phenomenon of Interest D Design E Evaluation R Research Type|
|SPICE (Quantitative Studies) S Setting P Perspective I Intervention C Comparison E Evaluation|
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Chapter 2 (Core Methods)
Literature Reviews: An analysis of new or current literature which can include a wide range of subjects with differing levels of comprehension and completion.
Meta-analysis: An approach which statistically combines the results of quantitative studies to produce a more explicit effect of the results.
Mixed methods review/Mixed studies review: specifies any mix of methods where a literature review undertaken in a systematic way is an important component. In relation to a review it refers to a combination of review techniques for example integrating qualitative with quantitative research.
Narrative reviews: Broad perspective on topic (like a textbook chapter), no specified search strategy, significant bias issues, may not evaluate quality of evidence.
Rapid Reviews: Evaluating what is already known about a policy or practice by using a methodology for systematic reviews to search and critically appraise the prevailing literature.
Scoping Reviews: An overview of the literature on a broader topic; often done to identify whether a systematic review is feasible.
Structured reviews: Includes a structured, but limited search, less bias, but not comprehensive, usually evaluates quality of evidence; a partial systematic review
Systematic reviews: Aims to search systematically, critique and synthesize research evidence while usually complying with guidelines on conducting a review.
Sutton, A, Clowes M, Preston L, Booth A (2019) 'Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements', Health Information Libraries Journal, 36 (3), pp. 202-222.
Grant, M.J., Booth A (2009) ‘A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies’, Health Information Libraries Journal, 26 (2), pp. 94-95.