what is the minimum number of articles that is considered as a standard number for conducting a Systematic Literature Review. Is there any reference or guideline which points to this matter?
Hey there,
Take a look at this thread:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What-is-the-minimum-number-of-studies-to-be-included-in-a-systematic-review#view=54d7d652d039b1046b8b46d1
Never conduct a systematic review without extensive reading of the literature including related fields. For example, if you conduct a systematic review of the effects of influenza vaccination against influenza per se you will get one answer but if you use the effects of influenza vaccination against all-cause mortality you will get a very different answer. This is because all vaccines have both specific and nonspecific effects. There is no substitute for in-depth knowledge of a topic and of the hidden assumptions implied in the studies.
There is no specific rule for that. The number would be the number you will retrieve based on your research protocol. A systematic review is systematic and should be driven by a proper method to be sensitive enough (finding the references). The number of studies you would find and their quality/comparability would ultimately help you to determine if meta-analysis is feasible and pertinent.
No. Not anything specific. The rule is to select a good search string that covers the keywords in the field and then have a good explicit criteria for inclusion/exclusion of articles. I have see papers with over 300 papers and also with 20 papers. So, yeah, no specific rule.
The goal of a systematic review, at least the article selection etc is that it is replicable; and that it is not biased in selecting articles that support your personal views or claims associated with your research.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Filing