Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Brief History of the Systematic Review

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
How to Perform a Systematic Literature Review

Abstract

History is important, because it takes a longer-term view of any human enterprise. The way that we do things today might seem quaint or perhaps ethically dubious in years to come. Knowledge of the past is not merely a retrospect, but shows a direction of travel: How can we see where we are going if we don’t know where we are coming from? So let us begin by exploring how the systematic literature review evolved. What is literature, what is the purpose of reviewing such literature, and what is distinct about a systematic review?

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Shah HM, Chung KC (2009) Archie Cochrane and his vision for evidence-based medicine. Plast Reconstr Surg 124:982–988. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181b03928

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Cochrane AL (1972) Effectiveness and efficiency: random reflections on health services. Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust, London

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cochrane A (1979) 1931–1971: a critical review, with particular reference to the medical profession. In: Medicines for the year 2000. Office of Health Economics, London

    Google Scholar 

  4. Djulbegovic B, Guyatt GH (2017) Progress in evidence-based medicine: a quarter century on. Lancet 390:415–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31592-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Le Fanu J (2011) The rise & fall of modern medicine. Abacus, London

    Google Scholar 

  6. Fisher RA (1935) Design of experiments. Oliver and Boyd, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  7. Begg C (1996) Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA 276:637–639. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.276.8.637

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Moher D, Jones A, Lepage L, for the CONSORT Group (2001) Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: a comparative before-and-after evaluation. JAMA 285:1992. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.285.15.1992

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sackett DL (1989) Rules of evidence and clinical recommendations on the use of antithrombotic agents. Chest 95:2S–4S

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Sinclair JC et al (1995) Users’ guides to the medical literature. IX. A method for grading health care recommendations. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 274:1800–1804. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.274.22.1800

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Greenhalgh T (1997) How to read a paper : getting your bearings (deciding what the paper is about). BMJ 315:243–246. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7102.243

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Mulrow CD (1987) The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med 106:485–488. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-106-3-485

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sacks HS, Berrier J, Reitman D et al (1987) Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med 316:450–455. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198702193160806

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH (1993) The science of reviewing research. Ann N Y Acad Sci 703:125–133; discussion 133–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb26342.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Chalmers I (1993) The Cochrane collaboration: preparing, maintaining, and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of health care. Ann N Y Acad Sci 703:156–163; discussion 163–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb26345.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. McKenzie JE, Brennan SE, Ryan RE , Thomson HJ, Johnston RV, Thomas J (2019) Chapter 3: Defining the criteria for including studies and how they will be grouped for the synthesis. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.0. (updated July 2019). Cochrane. https://www.training.cochrane.org/handbook

  17. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (ed) (2009) CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in healthcare, 3rd edn. York Publishing Services, York

    Google Scholar 

  18. Glass GV (1976) Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educ Res 5:3–8. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X005010003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Antiplatelet Trialists’ Collaboration (1988) Secondary prevention of vascular disease by prolonged antiplatelet treatment. BMJ 296:320–331. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.296.6618.320

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Olsson C, Ringnér A, Borglin G (2014) Including systematic reviews in PhD programmes and candidatures in nursing—“Hobson’s choice”? Nurse Educ Pract 14:102–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2014.01.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2009) Overview—Depression in adults: recognition and management—Guidance—NICE. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg90. Accessed 17 Apr 2020

  22. Canadian Nurses Association (2010) Evidence-informed decision making and nursing practice. In: Evidence-informed decision making and nursing practice. https://www.cna-aiic.ca/en/nursing-practice/evidence-based-practice

  23. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6:e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Sehon SR, Stanley DE (2003) A philosophical analysis of the evidence-based medicine debate. BMC Health Serv Res 3:14. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-3-14

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC, Gray JAM et al (1996) Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ 312:71–72. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Greenhalgh T, Toon P, Russell J et al (2003) Transferability of principles of evidence based medicine to improve educational quality: systematic review and case study of an online course in primary health care. BMJ 326:142–145. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7381.142

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Campbell DT, Stanley JC (1966) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research, 2. Reprinted from “Handbook of research on teaching”. Houghton Mifflin Comp., Boston, MA. Reprint. ISBN: 978-0-395-30787-2

    Google Scholar 

  28. McCrae N (2012) Evidence-based practice: for better or worse. Int J Nurs Stud 49:1051–1053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.08.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. French P (1999) The development of evidence-based nursing. J Adv Nurs 29:72–78. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1999.00865.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Carper B (1978) Fundamental patterns of knowing in nursing. ANS Adv Nurs Sci 1:13–23. https://doi.org/10.1097/00012272-197810000-00004

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Mackey A, Bassendowski S (2017) The history of evidence-based practice in nursing education and practice. J Prof Nurs 33:51–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2016.05.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. McDonald L (2001) Florence Nightingale and the early origins of evidence-based nursing. Evid Based Nurs 4:68–69. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebn.4.3.68

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. BMJ (2016) Is The BMJ the right journal for my research article?—The BMJ. https://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-authors/bmj-right-journal-my-research-article. Accessed 17 Apr 2020

  34. Greenhalgh T, Annandale E, Ashcroft R et al (2016) An open letter to The BMJ editors on qualitative research. BMJ 352:i563. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i563

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Norman I, Griffiths P (2014) The rise and rise of the systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud 51:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.10.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Hart C (1998) Doing a literature review: releasing the social science research imagination. Sage Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  37. Ridley D (2008) The literature review: a step-by-step guide for students. SAGE, London

    Google Scholar 

  38. Griffiths P, Norman I (2005) Science and art in reviewing literature. Int J Nurs Stud 42:373–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2005.02.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Polit DF, Beck CT (2012) Nursing research: generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice, 9th edn. Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA

    Google Scholar 

  40. Greenhalgh T (2018) How to implement evidence-based healthcare. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, UK

    Edward Purssell

  2. Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, King’s College London, London, UK

    Niall McCrae

Authors
  1. Edward Purssell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Niall McCrae
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edward Purssell .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Purssell, E., McCrae, N. (2020). A Brief History of the Systematic Review. In: How to Perform a Systematic Literature Review. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49672-2_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49672-2_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-49671-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-49672-2

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation