Evidence-based practice relies on using research evidence to guide clinical decision-making. However, staying current with all published research can be challenging. Many clinicians use review articles that apply predefined methods to locate, identify, and summarize all available evidence on a topic to guide clinical decision-making. This paper discusses the role of review articles, including narrative, scoping, and systematic reviews, to synthesize existing evidence and generate new knowledge. It provides a step-by-step guide to conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis, covering key steps such as formulating a research question, selecting studies, evaluating evidence quality, and reporting results. This paper is intended as a resource for clinicians looking to learn how to conduct systematic reviews and advance evidence-based practice in the field.
EmparanzaJ, CabelloJ, BurlsA. Does evidence-based practice improve patient outcomes? An analysis of a natural experiment in a Spanish hospital. J Eval Clin Pract, 2015; 21(6):1059–1065.
2.
LehaneE, Leahy-WarrenP, O'RiordanC, SavageE, DrennanJ, O'TuathaighC, et al. Evidence-based practice education for health care professions: an expert view. BMJ Evid Based Med, 2019; 24(3):103–108.
3.
Institute of Medicine. Roundtable on evidence-based medicine. Leadership commitments to improve value in healthcare: finding common ground: workshop summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2009.
4.
Kamtchum-TatueneJ, ZafackJG. Keeping up with the medical literature: why, how, and when?. Stroke, 2021; 52(11):e746–e748.
5.
AlperB, HandJ, ElliottS, KinkadeS, HauanM, OnionD, et al. How much effort is needed to keep up with the literature relevant for primary care?. J Med Libr Assoc, 2004; 92(4):429–437.
6.
TriccoAC, TetzlaffJ, MoherD. The art and science of knowledge synthesis. J Clin Epidemiol, 2011; 64(1):11–20.
SuttonA, ClowesM, PrestonL, BoothA. Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Info Libr J, 2019; 36(3):202–222.
9.
GrantMJ, BoothA. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J, 2009; 26(2):91–108.
10.
HigginsJ, ThomasJ, ChandlerJ, CumpstonM, LiT, PageM, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.3. 2022.
11.
AromatarisE, MunnZ. JBI manual for evidence synthesis.
12.
SukheraJ. Narrative reviews in medical education: key steps for researchers. J Grad Med Educ, 2022; 14(4):418–419.
13.
GreenhalghT, ThorneS, MalterudK. Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews?. Eur J Clin Invest, 2018; 48(6):e12931.
14.
KalletRH, BransonRD, LipnickMS. Respiratory drive, dyspnea, and silent hypoxemia: a physiological review in the context of COVID-19. Respir Care, 2022; 67(10):1343–1360.
15.
MillerAG, BartleRM, RehderKJ. High-frequency jet ventilation in neonatal and pediatric subjects: a narrative review. Respir Care, 2021; 66(5):845–856.
16.
QuachS, VeitchA, ZaccagniniM, WestA, NonoyamaML. Underrepresentation of respiratory therapists as experts in Delphi studies on respiratory practices and research priorities. Respir Care, 2022; 67(12):1609–1632.
17.
KalletRH. Mechanical ventilation in ARDS: quo vadis?. Respir Care, 2022; 67(6):730–749.
18.
ScottJB, WeissTT, LiJ. COVID-19 lessons learned: prone positioning with and without invasive ventilation. Respir Care, 2022; 67(8):1011–1021.
19.
ChatburnRL, BransonRD. Shortages and vulnerabilities of hospital oxygen systems. Respir Care, 2022; 67(8):1002–1010.
20.
MunnZ, PetersMDJ, SternC, TufanaruC, McArthurA, AromatarisE. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2018; 18(1):143.
21.
PetersM, GodfreyC, KhalilH, McInerneyP, ParkerD, SoaresC. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc, 2015; 13(3):141–146.
22.
TriccoA, LillieE, ZarinW, O'BrienK, ColquhounH, LevacD, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med, 2018; 169(7):467–473.
23.
PetersM, MarnieC, TriccoA, PollockD, MunnZ, AlexanderL, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth, 2020; 18(10):2119–2126.
24.
KappelC, ChaudhuriD, HassallK, TheuneS, SharifS, AlhazzaniW, et al. Point-of-care ultrasound training for respiratory therapists: a scoping review. Can J Respir Ther, 2022; 58:28–33.
25.
TaitoS, YamauchiK, KataokaY. Telerehabilitation in subjects with respiratory disease: a scoping review. Respir Care, 2021; 66(4):686–698.
26.
MoherD, TetzlaffJ, TriccoAC, SampsonM, AltmanDG. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med, 2007; 4(3):e78.
27.
Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Standards for Systematic Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness Research. Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews. EdenJ, LevitL, BergA, MortonS. eds. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2011.
28.
ClarkeM, ChalmersI. Reflections on the history of systematic reviews. BMJ Evid Based Med, 2018; 23(4):121–122.
29.
FaggionCMJr., BakasNP, WasiakJ. A survey of prevalence of narrative and systematic reviews in five major medical journals. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2017; 17(1):176.
30.
PageM, McKenzieJ, BossuytP, BoutronI, HoffmannT, MulrowC, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 2021; 372(71).
31.
PowellJT, KoelemayMJW. Systematic reviews of the literature are not always either useful or the best way to add to science. EJVES Vasc Forum, 2022; 54:2–6.
32.
PetticrewM. Time to rethink the systematic review catechism? Moving from “what works” to “what happens.”. Syst Rev, 2015; 4(1).
33.
GoughD, ThomasJ, OliverS. Clarifying differences between reviews within evidence ecosystems. Syst Rev, 2019; 8(1).
34.
CampbellJM. Quality of systematic reviews is poor, our fault, our responsibility. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep, 2017; 15(8):1977–1978.
35.
IoannidisJ. The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q, 2016; 94(3):485–514.
36.
BorahR, BrownAW, CapersPL, KaiserKA. Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry. BMJ Open, 2017; 7(2):e012545.
37.
UttleyL, MontgomeryP. The influence of the team in conducting a systematic review. Syst Rev, 2017; 6(1):149.
38.
RethlefsenML, FarrellAM, Osterhaus TrzaskoLC, BrighamTJ. Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol, 2015; 68(6):617–626.
39.
DuddenRF, ProtzkoSL. The systematic review team: contributions of the health sciences librarian. Med Ref Serv Q, 2011; 30(3):301–315.
ThomasJ, KnealeD, McKenzieJ, BrennanS, BhaumikS, et al. Chapter 2: Determining the scope of the review and the questions it will address. In: HigginsJ, ThomasJ, ChandlerJ, CumpstonM, LiT, PageM. editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.3. 2022.
42.
SternC. Q is for Question. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep, 2015; 13(9):1–2.
43.
TawfikGM, DilaKAS, MohamedMYF, TamDNH, KienND, AhmedAM, et al. A step by step guide for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis with simulation data. Trop Med Health, 2019; 47(1):46.
44.
StewartL, MoherD, ShekelleP. Why prospective registration of systematic reviews makes sense. Syst Rev, 2012; 1(1).
45.
BoothA, ClarkeM, DooleyG, GhersiD, MoherD, PetticrewM, et al. The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews. Syst Rev, 2012; 1(1).
46.
TawfikGM, GiangHTN, GhozyS, AltibiAM, KandilH, LeHH, et al. Protocol registration issues of systematic review and meta-analysis studies: a survey of global researchers. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2020; 20(1):213.
47.
TanneryNH, MaggioLA. The role of medical librarians in medical education review articles. J Med Libr Assoc, 2012; 100(2):142–144.
48.
BramerW, de JongeG, RethlefsenM, MastF, KleijnenJ. A systematic approach to searching: an efficient and complete method to develop literature searches. J Med Libr Assoc, 2018; 106(4):531–541.
49.
SchellingerJ, SewellK, BlossJE, EbronT, ForbesC. The effect of librarian involvement on the quality of systematic reviews in dental medicine. PLoS One, 2021; 16(9):e0256833.
50.
LiJ, LuoJ, PavlovI, PerezY, TanW, RocaO, et al. Awake prone positioning for non-intubated patients with COVID-19–related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Respir Med, 2022; 10(6):573–583.
LefebvreC, GlanvilleJ, BriscoeS, FeatherstoneR, LittlewoodA, MarshallC, et al. Chapter 4: Searching for and selecting studies. In: HigginsJ, ThomasJ, ChandlerJ, CumpstonM, LiT, PageM, et al. editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.3. 2022.
53.
BellerE, ChenJ, WangU, GlasziouP. Are systematic reviews up to date at the time of publication?. Syst Rev, 2013; 2(1).
54.
GuimarãesN, FerreiraA, Ribeiro SilvaR, de PaulaA, LisboaC, MagnoL, et al. Deduplicating records in systematic reviews: there are free, accurate automated ways to do so. J Clin Epidemiol, 2022; 152:110–115.
55.
BramerWM, GiustiniD, de JongeGB, HollandL, BekhuisT. Deduplication of database search results for systematic reviews in EndNote. J Med Libr Assoc, 2016; 104(3):240–243.
StollCRT, IzadiS, FowlerS, GreenP, SulsJ, ColditzGA. The value of a second reviewer for study selection in systematic reviews. Res Syn Meth, 2019; 10(4):539–545.
LiT, HigginsJ, DeeksJ, et al. Chapter 5: Collecting data. In: HigginsJ, ThomasJ, ChandlerJ, CumpstonM, LiT, PageM. editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.3. 2022.
60.
IoannidisJ. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med, 2005; 2(8):e124.
61.
FarrahK, YoungK, TunisM, ZhaoL. Risk of bias tools in systematic reviews of health interventions: an analysis of PROSPERO-registered protocols. Syst Rev, 2019; 8(1).
62.
SterneJ, SavovićJ, PageM, ElbersR, BlencoweN, BoutronI, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. BMJ, 2019:l4898.
HigginsJ, SavovićJ, PageM, ElbersR, SterneJ, et al. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial. In: HigginsJ, ThomasJ, ChandlerJ, CumpstonM, LiT, PageM. editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.3. 2022.
65.
SterneJA, HernanMA, ReevesBC, SavovicJ, BerkmanND, ViswanathanM, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions. BMJ, 2016; 355:i4919.
66.
Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. WellsG, SheaB, O'ConnellD, PetersonJ, WelchV, LososM, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality if nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. 2014.
67.
Cochrane Scientific Committee. Review of the development of the risk of bias tool for nonrandomized studies for interventions – ROBINS-I. 2016.
68.
ZhangY, HuangL, WangD, RenP, HongQ, KangD. The ROBINS-I and the NOS had similar reliability but differed in applicability: a random sampling observational studies of systematic reviews/meta-analysis. J Evid Based Med, 2021; 14(2):112–122.
69.
GuyattG, OxmanA, AklE, KunzR, VistG, BrozekJ, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol, 2011; 64(4):383–394.
70.
NapolitanoN, BerlinskiA, WalshBK, GinierE, StricklandSL. AARC clinical practice guideline: management of pediatric patients with oxygen in the acute care setting. Respir Care, 2021; 66(7):1214–1223.
71.
MetlayJP, WatererGW, LongAC, AnzuetoA, BrozekJ, CrothersK, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of adults with community-acquired pneumonia. an official clinical practice guideline of the American Thoracic Society and Infectious Diseases Society of America. Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 2019; 200(7):e45–e67.
72.
OuelletteDR, PatelS, GirardTD, MorrisPE, SchmidtGA, TruwitJD, et al. Liberation from mechanical ventilation in critically ill adults: an official American College of Chest Physicians/American Thoracic Society clinical practice guideline: inspiratory pressure augmentation during spontaneous breathing trials, protocols minimizing sedation, and noninvasive ventilation immediately after extubation. Chest, 2017; 151(1):166–180.
73.
SmithHAB, BesunderJB, BettersKA, JohnsonPN, SrinivasanV, StormorkenA, et al. 2022 Society of Critical Care Medicine clinical practice guidelines on prevention and management of pain, agitation, neuromuscular blockade, and delirium in critically ill pediatric patients with consideration of the ICU environment and early mobility. Pediatr Crit Care Med, 2022; 23(2):e74–e110.
74.
SchoenbergNC, BarkerAF, BernardoJ, DeterdingRR, EllnerJJ, HessDR, et al. A comparative analysis of pulmonary and critical care medicine guideline development methodologies. Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 2017; 196(5):621–627.
75.
HessDR. AARC clinical practice guidelines: phase 4. Respir Care, 2021; 66(1):177–178.
76.
WilsonKC, SchoenbergNC, CohnDL, CrothersK, FennellyKP, MetlayJP, et al. Community-acquired pneumonia guideline recommendations-impact of a consensus-based process versus systematic reviews. Clin Infect Dis, 2021; 73(7):e1467–e1475.
77.
SchünemannH, BrożekJ, GuyattG, OxmanA. GRADE handbook: handbook for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. GRADE Working Group; 2013.
78.
GoldetG, HowickJ. Understanding GRADE: an introduction. J Evid Based Med, 2013; 6(1):50–54.
79.
HaidichA. Meta-analysis in medical research. Hippokratia, 2010; 14(1):29–37.
80.
DeeksJ, HigginsJ, AltmanD, et al. Chapter 10: Analyzing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: HigginsJ, ThomasJ, ChandlerJ, CumpstonM, LiT, PageM. editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.3. 2022.
81.
CallcutR, BransonR. How to read a review paper. Resp Care, 2009; 54(10):1379–1385.
82.
ZlowodzkiM, PoolmanRW, KerkhoffsGM, TornettaP, BhandariM. International Evidence-Based Orthopedic Surgery Working Group. How to interpret a meta-analysis and judge its value as a guide for clinical practice. Acta Orthop, 2007; 78(5):598–609.
83.
Vu-NgocH, ElawadySS, MehyarGM, AbdelhamidAH, MattarOM, HalhouliO, et al. Quality of flow diagram in systematic review and/or meta-analysis. PLoS One, 2018; 13(6):e0195955.
HessD. How to write an effective discussion. Resp Care, 2004; 49(10):1238–1241.
86.
BeranA, MhannaM, SrourO, AyeshH, SajdeyaO, GhazalehS, et al. Effect of prone positioning on clinical outcomes of non-intubated subjects with COVID-19. Respir Care, 2022; 67(4):471–479.
87.
WangQ, YangF, GaoL, GaoW. Effects of inspiratory muscle training and high-intensity interval training on lung function and respiratory muscle function in asthma. Respir Care, 2022; 67(1):1465–1475.
88.
TorbicH, KrishnanS, HarnegieMP, DuggalA. Neuromuscular blocking agents for ARDS: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Respir Care, 2021; 66(1):120–128.
