Hi,

Yes. Even the few available literature can be reviewed systematically but care needs to be taken in interpreting or generalizing the result. Also, the limitations (in this case, a few number of studies) encountered while doing such a review needs to be unambiguously communicated to the readers so that it can inform the extent and nature of decisions that they can make.

The quality of eventual result and confidence the readers (which include the policy makers) would place on it also depends on the rigour of systematic approach used. This is where systematic approach takes precedence and is a preference above the conventional review.

In as much as there are few literature that could be assessed, I will suggest that systematic review be combined with meta-analysis in order to get better synthesis and effect size of the existing studies. If this is also not feasible or reliable, then collection and analysis of new primary data is thereby suggested.

Thanks for for your concern and answer in this topic. Please let me me know if you have the same experience and your actions if there's.

Do you best review of the existing peer-reviewed scientific literature and detail why and how to undertook the review

I agree with Olawale Festus Olaniyan

One more I would add is that a considerable amount of original papers should first enter into literature. Only after that, any type of a review could be meaningful.

I fully support the ideas suggested by other colleagues, and let me add mine. I think, there is no hard and fast rule specifically determining the number of studies included in a systematic review. It all depends on the volume of studies out there, and the inclusion criteria used for that particular systematic review. For example, researchers analyzed four studies with their systematic review. I have uploaded the copy of that article for your reading.

Smith, R., & Greenwood, N. (2014). The Impact of Volunteer Mentoring Schemes on Carers of People With Dementia and Volunteer Mentors: A Systematic Review. American Journal of Alzheimer's Disease & Other Dementias, 29(1), 8-17. doi:10.1177/1533317513505135

The quality of a systematic review depends on a clear and detailed methodology, with a focus on generalizability and reproducibility. The very thing in a systematic review is a comprehensive search for relevant studies, including all or nearly all elements or aspects, of a specific topic. For this, the researcher conducts a review based on a clearly formulated question, and select and critically appraise relevant research. Then, the researcher collects and analyzes data from the studies included in the review. Cognizant of this, it could be more productive if I work exhaustively on formulating the question that guides the systematic review, the specifications, and filtering mechanisms. The fact that I have a systematic review with few keywords of importance, at the periphery, may lead to a conclusion that studies are minimal in a particular area reviewed. Also, this is erroneous. In general, a prime concern should be on the question and processes leading to a robust conclusion.

Thank you all for the inputs to my question. I understood that we can learn through experience sharing and further practice.

I think I agree with all the forwarded answers;I would like to share some procedural documents that could support your review work.PRISMA check lists, flow diagram and constructing search string strategies.

If the area is under researched or un researched, then litertaure would be scarce. This means, a systematic review is not the right study to conduct. Perhaps you could look at a scopping review?

Joseph?

Thank Joseph. That is why I raised the question, but the responses are still educative to see different perspectives.

Thank you all these is also my question and I have got inputs for my work.

In areas with limited literature, systematic reviews can still provide valuable insights for policy recommendations by identifying existing evidence, highlighting knowledge gaps, pooling available data, involving experts and stakeholders, drawing from related fields, and emphasizing precautionary approaches.