Subject and Course Guides: Advanced Reviews: Stages of a Review

Stages of a Review

Cooper (1982) discusses five stages of conducting an advanced review:

Problem formulation
- The initial stage of a review is very iterative in nature and involves developing the research aims and objectives, refining the research question, developing eligibility criteria, and piloting data extraction and analysis. The problem formulation stage ends with a completed protocol. PRISMA offers a checklist for protocols: https://www.prisma-statement.org/protocols
Data collection
- For advanced reviews, data collection is the systematic search stage of the review. Advanced review search strategies are comprehensive, search at least three databases, one of which is multi-disciplinary, and utilize controlled vocabularies and appropriate search syntax for each database. It is highly recommended that you involve a librarian in the search stage of your review.
Data evaluation
- Once search results have been acquired, they need to go through a process of de-duplication, two rounds of screening, and potentially a risk of bias assessment prior to analysis.
Data analysis and interpretation
- The first step in the data analysis stage is data extraction. Data should be extracted exactly as it appears in the source and coding, categorization, and analysis should only be applied after extraction.
Presentation of results
- Manuscript writing is the final stage of the review. This should be done according to the current PRISMA Statement and checklist or one of the relevant extensions for specific review types

These stages are general enough to apply to many different types of advanced reviews.

For specific guidance on Systematic Reviews, Scoping Reviews, and Rapid Reviews, please refer to the tabs on the left.

Cooper, H. M. (1982). Scientific Guidelines for Conducting Integrative Research Reviews. Review of Educational Research, 52(2), 291–302. DOI: 10.3102/00346543052002291

Further reading and viewing:

Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach
Munn, Z., Peters, M.D.J., Stern, C. et al. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol 18, 143 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
Evidence synthesis video playlist
For more on evidence synthesis, check out this curated playlist of YouTube videos.

Guidelines:

Reporting standards for evidence synthesis reviews:

Reporting standards are not the same as conducting guidelines or standards, the standards below are not intended to be used to guide you as you conduct your review, but instead, they are intended to guide you in how to write your manuscript.

PRISMA (2020)
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)
PRISMA for Abstracts
"The PRISMA 2020 extension for Abstracts was published within the main PRISMA 2020 paper. The 12-item checklist gives authors a framework for condensing their systematic review into the essentials for a journal or conference abstract that will meet the needs of many readers."
PRISMA-Equity
"The PRISMA-Equity extension was published in 2012. It provides guidance for reporting equity-focused systematic reviews in order to help reviewers identify, extract, and synthesize evidence on equity in systematic reviews. Health inequity is defined as unfair and avoidable differences in health."
PRISMA for Protocols
"PRISMA-P was published in 2015 aiming to facilitate the development and reporting of systematic review protocols."
PRISMA for Scoping Reviews
"The PRISMA extension for scoping reviews was published in 2018. The checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items to include when completing a scoping review."
PRISMA for Searching
"The PRISMA extension for searching was published in 2021. The checklist includes 16 reporting items, each of which is detailed with exemplar reporting and rationale."