Skip to Main Content
Emory University Emory Libraries

Literature and Systematic Reviews for Public Health

Methodology

While systematic and scoping reviews answer different types of research questions, the methodology you must follow for conducting and reporting these types of reviews is similar.

If you are conducting a systematic review, refer to the Cochrane Handbook on Systematic Reviews of Interventions for guidance on methodology.

If you are conducting a scoping review, refer to the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis, particularly Chapter 10: Scoping Reviews, for guidance on methodology.

See also our Emory Libraries guide on systematic reviews.

Adapting for a Capstone or Thesis

The accepted methodology for systematic and scoping reviews requires a team of researchers so that articles can be reviewed by two people independently, and data can be extracted by two people independently. This is to minimize bias in the final analysis. For the purposes of your capstone or thesis, you will likely be conducting a review on your own, so you will need to adapt the methodology of a systematic or scoping review. Standard reviews also usually search multiple databases and can take a year or longer to complete; since you have a limited amount of time to conduct your review for your capstone or thesis, here are some ways you can adapt the standard methodology:

Steps of a Review Standard Methodology Adapted Methodology
Step 1: Protocol Develop a protocol to be registered on PROSPERO (systematic reviews) or OSF (scoping reviews). May not be necessary; check with your advisor.
Step 2: Search for literature Develop a systematic, reproducible search strategy and conduct the search across multiple databases such as PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and/or PsycInfo to capture all relevant literature. Conduct the search across one or two databases, such as PubMed and Embase, or PubMed and Scopus.
Step 3: Title/abstract screening All relevant literature found in the search is screened by two reviewers independently based on the title and abstract. Conflicts are resolved through discussion or a third tie-breaking vote. One person screens the results based on title and abstract.
Step 4: Full text screening Articles that pass the title/abstract screening are then screened by two reviewers independently based on the full text of the article. Conflicts are resolved through discussion or a third tie-breaking vote. One person screens the articles based on the full text.
Step 5: Data extraction Articles that pass through the full text screening are the "Included" articles for the review; a data extraction form is created and two reviewers extract data from the included articles independently. One person extracts the data from the included articles.
Step 6: Quality assessment Systematic reviews only. Included articles are graded for quality and risk of bias with tools based on the type of included article. One person assesses the quality / risk of bias of included articles.
Step 7: Synthesize results The extracted data is narratively synthesized in the body of your paper, sometimes using charts and graphs to convey the information.  

Reporting

Reporting guidelines tell you exactly what information you need to include in your final manuscript when conducting a systematic or scoping review. Following these guidelines ensures that you write a methodologically sound manuscript, and it makes it easier to know what information you need to include.

If you are conducting a systematic review, use the PRISMA reporting guidelines.

If you are conducting a scoping review, use the PRISMA-ScR reporting guidelines.