Hello.
Lafta R. Al-Khazraji Your question has a huge answer and can be explained in several ways, but in order to summarise I could tell you that methods are the basis of a systematic review compared to a literature review or other kinds of reviews, making them reliable and replicable, so they are a strong way to summarise findings in research. About you second question, it could be answering as this: it depends on the kind of review, since there are different kinds of systematic reviews, each one of them point exactly to an objective, like to summarise what is published with a scoping review, or "to create a map" of what is published with a mapping review, up to the global effect measure calculated through a systematic review with a metaanalisis. This is a really big picture of it and i am not covering the details but i hope you could get a sense of it.
Best regards.
Lafta R. Al-Khazraji There are multiple types of revision, with different particularities. Systematic review is characterized by a rigorous and replicable methodology that ensures
1. The inclusion of all the articles dealing with the topic (according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria).
2. The rigorous evaluation of the methodological quality and the risk of bias of each of the papers.
3. The potential quantitative analysis (meta-analysis) of the reported data by means of a global mathematical model that helps in the interpretation of the results.
Although narrative reviews and other types of reviews are of interest, from a scientific point of view, systematic reviews are a priority for the scientific community because of these elements.
Systematic reviews are highly regarded for their rigorous methodology and comprehensive synthesis of evidence.
More importantly, conducting a systemic review minimizes bias in the selection and interpretation of studies.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Methodology