I think this is the best introductory book to systematic reviews and meta-analyses: Applied Meta-Analysis for Social Science Research by Noel Card. You can find a version here on ResearchGate by using Google.

Jan Antfolk Thank you for the suggestion, I quite appreciate it. I was able to find the book on ResearchGate.

It depends! There are various types of literature reviews. See an overview in this paper:

Grant, Maria J., and Andrew Booth. "A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies." Health Information & Libraries Journal 26.2 (2009): 91-108.

A general first step is to define a search strategy based on one of these ways of defining the type of studies you want to include/exclude:

1. PEO

Population Exposure Outcome(s)

2. PICO can be useful for focused clinical questions.

Patient, Problem or Population Intervention Comparison (if there is one) Outcome(s).

3. PICOS

Patient, Problem or Population Intervention Comparison (if there is one) Outcome(s) Study type

4. PICo

Population or Problem Interest Context

5. SPIDER can be used for both qualitative and quantitative studies:

Sample Phenomenon of Interest Design Evaluation Research type

6. SPICE can be appropriate for formulation social sciences research questions, both qualitative and quantitative:

Setting Perspective Intervention or exposure of Interest Comparsion Evaluation

7. COSMIN

COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments

Hello,

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/about-cdsr

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/

How to conduct a systematic review

If you are considering embarking on a systematic review, there are several issues you need to contemplate if you wish to conduct one. In healthcare, for example, the first step would be to define an explicit research question by using the PICOTS (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Timing, Setting) framework, and also register the protocol for the review on PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/), the international database of prospectively registered systematic reviews. Protocols provide a complete detailed description of the process by which the review will be conducted. Registering the protocol reduces research bias, duplication of effort, resource waste, and provides greater transparency.

Outside of medical sciences, protocols can be uploaded to Open Science Framework (https://osf.io)...

The process of conducting systematic reviews, especially for new authors, will prove to be a worthwhile endeavour. Authors refine their knowledge on the subject area of interest, develop new research ideas, and gain critical skills in synthesising existing literature...

https://www.elsevier.com/connect/authors-update/why-systematic-reviews-matter

Maral Babapour , S. Merish , and Ljubomir Jacić , thank you for providing the information, I appreciate it. I will be giving a detailed overview to determine and address the initial questions regarding my systematic review and choose the most appropriate search strategy.

Ljubomir Jacić I am hoping to conduct a systematic review on the health-related beneficial effects of human-animal interaction in South Asia. Given that I am considering studies that take into account both, physical and psychological health benefits, I think it may fit within the medical sciences?

Following..

Noel Card's book Applied Meta-Analysis for Social Science Research that was mentioned here is absolutely the best book for psychologists. I looked at many books and most are either too simplistic or too heavy on statistics. Card is the most balanced and is aimed at researchers that know statistics but did not do a meta-analysis before. He also presents pros and cons for various choices you will have to make, and is not very long (but provide references for further explorations).

Also, a recent article in annual reviews touch on the many questions you need to ask yourself before a review: https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803?journalCode=psych

I would also recommend looking at journals you plan to submit your paper, as each has some common practices. The APA also provide a guide on what to report for such reviews.

Card's book is outstanding: https://www.guilford.com/books/Applied-Meta-Analysis-for-Social-Science-Research/Noel-Card/9781462525003

Gil Greengross Thank you for further recommending the book and providing additional information. I have already started perusing it.

Srini Vasan Thank you for sharing the link.

I am totally agree with Prof. Ljubomir Jacić and Maral Babapour viewpoint. Moreover, the attached figure would be helpful to understand the different aspects of the systematic review.

Irfan Ullah and Muhammad Saad Khan , thank you for providing the information.

Dear Aliya Khalid , as you are in the field of social sciences, this is fine resource for you, link follows. Good luck with your research.

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/about/about-cochrane-reviews

I recommend using RefWorks for searching and managing your references into neat folders. You can also share them with your coworkers if I recall correctly.

RefWorks: https://www.refworks.com/refworks2/default.aspx?r=authentication::init

Info about RefWorks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RefWorks I used it about 6 years ago and I was satisfied with it.

I'd recommend the PRISMA guideline, especially if you are considering a meta-analysis

http://www.prisma-statement.org

Here you go...>>

1. Starting a review [https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-01]

2. Determining the scope of the review and the questions it will address [https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-02]

3. Defining the criteria for including studies [https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-03]

4. Searching for and selecting studies [https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-04]

5. Collecting data [https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-05]

6. Choosing effect measures and computing estimates of effect [https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-06]

7. Considering bias [https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-07]

8. Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial [https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-08]

9. Summarizing study characteristics and preparing for synthesis [https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-09]

10. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses [https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-10]

11. Undertaking network meta-analyses [https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-11]

12. Synthesizing and presenting findings using other methods [https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-12]

13. Assessing risk of bias due to missing results in a synthesis [https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-13]

14. Completing ‘Summary of findings’ tables and grading the certainty of the evidence [https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-14]

15. interpreting results and drawing conclusions [https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-15]

Normally before literature review, you need to have a research question in your mind. From this research question a structure framework of your paper can be made. In the framework each part of your paper can solve sub-research questions, those sub questions can be integrated together to compose your research question. And then literature review part can solve one of sub questions.

However this above top-down strategy sometime is challenged by bottom-up methods. In my experience, the process of writing research papers is a process of research thinking. In other words, you don't know what exactly you will write out until you finish writing. Therefore, the ability of logical thinking and reasoning analyzing is important in writing literature reviewing.

The research literature is an unsafe workplace

"The research literature represents a workplace for millions of scientists and scholars, where publications can be considered as key research equipment...

We argue that our current inability to flag erroneous publications quickly and at scale, combined with the lack of real-world incentives for journals and publishers to direct adequate resources toward post-publication corrections, results in the research literature representing an increasingly unsafe workplace. We describe possible solutions, such as the capacity to transfer signed PubPeer notices describing verifiable errors to relevant publications, and the reactivation of PubMed Commons..."

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08989621.2024.2428205