Planning
Learning Objectives
This chapter will help you:
- understand various types of review questions.
- use frameworks to ensure clear, precise questions.
“Developing a clear and concise question is the first and one of the most important steps in conducting a systematic review, as this will guide the review process” (Tricco et al., 2011, p. 14).
Planning your review
According to Pilkington and Hounsome (2017), “organization and planning are the key factors to successfully completing a systematic review” (p. 22). When planning your review, you will need to:
- decide which type of review is to be conducted,
- develop a clear and precise research question,
- search in databases and protocol registries to get an overview of available literature and validate the need for the review to avoid duplication,
- document inclusion and exclusion criteria to help with the screening, and
- select members for your team which may include:
- a team leader to manage team communication, progress, and motivation.
- subject experts who have extensive knowledge about the research question.
- a methodological expert with extensive knowledge and experience in review methods.
- a librarian or information specialist who can develop search strategies, conduct the search, and manage the software used in screening.
- a statistician who performs relevant statistical calculations and presents the results in charts and tables.
- consumers or stakeholders who contribute ideas to the development of the review question and provide outside perspectives (Grant & Booth, 2009; Muka et al., 2020; Munn, Peters, et al., 2018; Munn, Stern, et al., 2018; Tawfik et al., 2019; Townsend et al., 2022).
In the video below, librarians from the University of Ottawa offer advice on preplanning before undertaking a review.
CRECS uOttawa. (2017, December 22). Planning a systematic review [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjjL30owIFo
Developing a review question
When developing your question, consider the aim and type of your review, who it is about, what you need to find out, and how will you study the topic. This is done after an initial search, which helps to estimate the size and type of available literature, refine the question, identify key articles and possible search terms (Booth et al., 2022; Fowler & Jewell, 2022). A well-formed review question is concise and guides the review. It makes developing keywords and synonyms for a search strategy easier and will retrieve more relevant results (Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, 2023).
To develop a good review question:
- choose a topic: It should interest you. Consider how many papers are published on it and any research gaps.
- research the area: Read widely on the topic. Note any themes appearing or research problems.
- narrow down your topic: Refine the topic to become specific and specialised.
- turn it into a question: The structure of your question depends on what type of review you are conducting.
- test and refine: Ask peers and colleagues for feedback (Federation University Australia, n.d.).
Frameworks
Using question frameworks can help develop a clear, focused, and researchable review question (Booth et al., 2022). They provide focus and structure to your objectives so you are clear about what you wish to extract, analyse, and discuss in your review (Evans, 2022; Jolley, 2020). You should choose the framework that best fits your review aims and question. Question frameworks are expressed as acronyms, described below.
Reviews of quantitative evidence often use PICO or variations (Davies, 2011; Methley et al., 2014). Reviews of qualitative or mixed methods evidence often use ECLIPSE, SPICE, or SPIDER (Booth, 2006; Cooke et al., 2012; Davies, 2011; Methley et al., 2014). Scoping reviews often use PCC.
Activity 2
Example
Click on the accordion buttons to see the research objectives and framework elements for the following published review. Note that this review has objectives rather than a question.
Sullivan O., Curtin, M., Flynn, R., Cronin, C., Mahony, J. O., & Trujillo, J. (2023). The use of telehealth interventions to aid transition to self-management for adolescents with allergic conditions: A systematic review. Allergy, 79, 861-883. https://doi.org/10.1111/all.15963
Further reading
Booth, A., Noyes, J., Flemming, K., Moore, G., Tunçalp, Özge, & Shakibazadeh, E. (2019). Formulating questions to explore complex interventions within qualitative evidence synthesis. BMJ Global Health, 4(Suppl 1), Article e001107. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2018-001107
References
Booth, A. (2006). Clear and present questions: Formulating questions for evidence based practice. Library Hi Tech, 24(3), 355-368. https://doi.org/10.1108/07378830610692127
Booth, A., Sutton, A., Clowes, M., & Martyn-St James, M. (2022). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. (2023). Asking focussed questions. Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences: Medical Services Division. https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/resources/ebm-tools/asking-focused-questions
Cooke, A., Smith, D., & Booth, A. (2012). Beyond PICO: The SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qualitative Health Research, 22(10), 1435-1443. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732312452938
Davies, K. S. (2011). Formulating the evidence based practice question: A review of the frameworks. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 6(2), 75-80. https://doi.org/10.18438/B8WS5N
Evans, D. (2022). Making sense of evidence-based practice for nursing: An introduction to quantitative and qualitative research and systematic reviews. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003156017
Federation University Australia. (n.d.). Designing a research question. https://studyskills.federation.edu.au/orientation/study-support-services/postgraduate-resources/designing-a-research-question/
Fowler, S. A., & Jewell, S. T. (2022). Database searching. In M. J. Foster & S. T. Jewell. (Eds.). Piecing together systematic reviews and other evidence syntheses (pp. 93-110). Rowman & Littlefield.
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), 91-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Jolley, J. (2020). Introducing research and evidence-based practice for nursing and healthcare professionals (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429329456
Methley, A. M., Campbell, S., Chew-Graham, C., McNally, R., & Cheraghi-Sohi, S. (2014). PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: A comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews. BMC Health Services Research, 14(1), Article 579. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-014-0579-0
Muka, T., Glisic, M., Milic, J., Verhoog, S., Bohlius, J., Bramer, W. M., Chowdhury, R., & Franco, O. H. (2020). A 24-step guide on how to design, conduct, and successfully publish a systematic review and meta-analysis in medical research. European Journal Epidemiology, 35(1), 49-60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-019-00576-5
Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), Article 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
Munn, Z., Stern, C., Aromataris, E., Lockwood, C., & Jordan, Z. (2018). What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(5), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0468-4
Pilkington, G., & Hounsome, J. (2017). Planning and managing my review. In A. Boland, M. C. Cherry, & R. Dickson (Eds.), Doing a systematic review: A student’s guide (2nd ed., pp. 21-42). SAGE.
Tawfik, G. M., Dila, K. A. S., Mohamed, M. Y. F., Tam, D. N. H., Kien, N. D., Ahmed, A. M., & Huy, N. T. (2019). A step by step guide for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis with simulation data. Tropical Medicine and Health, 47(1), Article 46. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41182-019-0165-6
Townsend, W. A., Capellari, E. C., & Allee, N. J. (2022). Project and data management. In M. J. Foster & S. T. Jewell. (Eds.). Piecing together systematic reviews and other evidence syntheses (pp. 71-90). Rowman & Littlefield.
Tricco, A. C., Tetzlaff, J., & Moher, D. (2011). The art and science of knowledge synthesis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64(1), 11-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.11.007
A systematically organised collection of information, such as journal articles.
A database for the publication of information about the design, conduct and administration of research.
Qualifications and disqualifications for retrieved results.
The process of checking the eligibility of studies found in the search
A structure to organise the components of a balanced and focused research question.
Quantitative research uses statistical methods to count and measure outcomes from a study. The outcomes are usually objective and predetermined.
Qualitative research uses individual in-depth interviews, focus groups or questionnaires to collect, analyse and interpret data on what people do and say.
Research that uses more than one method, such as both quantitative and qualitative.
