The Ultimate Guide to Mastering Systematic Literature Reviews: A 10-Step Roadmap

Essential SLR Highlights

A systematic literature review requires methodical planning - Following a structured protocol dramatically increases the quality and reproducibility of your research synthesis.
Comprehensive search strategies are the foundation of reliable results - Utilizing multiple databases and documenting your search process is critical for minimizing bias.
Quality assessment of included studies is non-negotiable - The strength of your conclusions depends directly on the rigor of your evaluation of the primary research.

What is a Systematic Literature Review?

A systematic literature review (SLR) is a rigorous, transparent approach to synthesizing research evidence on a specific topic. Unlike traditional narrative reviews, SLRs follow a predefined protocol to minimize bias and ensure comprehensive coverage of existing literature. They are the gold standard for evidence synthesis in many fields, including healthcare, social sciences, and education.

The systematic approach helps researchers collect, evaluate, and synthesize all available evidence relevant to a specific research question. By following a step-by-step process, researchers can produce reliable, reproducible findings that inform practice, policy, and future research directions.

The 10-Step Systematic Literature Review Process

Step 1: Formulate a Clear Research Question

Every effective systematic review begins with a well-defined research question. This question guides the entire review process, from search strategy development to result synthesis. Many researchers use the PICO framework to structure their question:

Population: Who or what is the focus of your research?
Intervention: What intervention or exposure are you examining?
Comparison: What is the alternative to the intervention?
Outcomes: What results are you measuring?

A precise research question narrows your focus and sets clear boundaries for your review. Without this foundation, you risk conducting an unfocused search that yields irrelevant results or misses crucial studies.

Step 2: Develop a Comprehensive Review Protocol

A protocol is essentially a detailed plan that outlines the methods and procedures for your systematic review. Think of it as your research blueprint that documents:

The specific research question
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Search strategy and information sources
Study selection process
Data extraction methods
Quality assessment approach
Data synthesis plan

Protocol Registration

Registering your protocol on platforms like PROSPERO for health and social care reviews or following Cochrane guidelines for intervention reviews adds transparency and helps prevent duplication. This also demonstrates your commitment to methodological rigor before beginning the review process.

Step 3: Define Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Clear eligibility criteria determine which studies will be included in your review. These criteria should be explicit, comprehensive, and directly tied to your research question. Common criteria include:

Study design: Which study types will you include? (e.g., RCTs, cohort studies, case-control studies)
Publication timeframe: What date range will you consider?
Language restrictions: Which languages will you include?
Population characteristics: What specific demographic features are relevant?
Outcome measures: Which specific outcomes must be reported?

Well-defined criteria ensure your review remains focused and manageable while capturing all relevant evidence.

Step 4: Conduct a Comprehensive Literature Search

A thorough literature search is crucial for identifying all relevant studies. This typically involves:

Database Selection

Include multiple databases relevant to your field. Common options include:

PubMed/MEDLINE
Scopus
Web of Science
Embase
CINAHL
PsycINFO
Google Scholar

Search Strategy Development

Create a comprehensive search strategy using:

Keywords and subject headings
Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT)
Truncation symbols and wildcards
Field-specific search limiters

Additional Sources

Supplement database searches with:

Grey literature (dissertations, conference proceedings)
Reference list checking (snowballing)
Citation tracking
Expert consultations

Document your search process meticulously, including the exact search terms, filters, and date of search for each database. This ensures transparency and reproducibility.

Step 5: Screen Studies for Eligibility

The screening process typically involves two stages:

Initial Screening

Review titles and abstracts to identify potentially relevant studies based on your inclusion criteria. This is often done by at least two independent reviewers to minimize bias.

Full-Text Screening

Obtain and review the full text of potentially relevant studies to make final eligibility decisions. Document reasons for excluding studies at this stage.

Using systematic review software like Covidence, Rayyan, or EPPI-Reviewer can streamline this process and facilitate collaboration among multiple reviewers.

Step 6: Assess the Quality of Included Studies

Evaluating the methodological quality of included studies is essential for determining the reliability of their findings. Various tools are available for quality assessment, including:

Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool: For randomized controlled trials
ROBINS-I: For non-randomized intervention studies
CASP Checklists: For various study designs
JBI Critical Appraisal Tools: For different study types
Newcastle-Ottawa Scale: For cohort and case-control studies

Quality assessment should be performed by multiple reviewers independently, with disagreements resolved through discussion or by a third reviewer.

Step 7: Extract Data from Included Studies

Data extraction involves systematically collecting relevant information from each included study using a standardized form. Common data elements include:

Study characteristics (authors, year, country, design)
Participant details (sample size, demographics)
Intervention/exposure characteristics
Comparison details
Outcome measures and results
Funding sources and conflicts of interest

Using a pilot-tested data extraction form ensures consistency across studies and reviewers. Like screening and quality assessment, data extraction should ideally be performed by multiple reviewers.

Step 8: Analyze and Synthesize Data

Data synthesis can be qualitative, quantitative, or mixed, depending on the nature of your research question and the included studies.

Qualitative Synthesis

When studies are too heterogeneous for statistical combination, a narrative synthesis can summarize findings, identify patterns, and explore relationships among studies.

Quantitative Synthesis (Meta-Analysis)

When appropriate, meta-analysis can statistically combine results from multiple studies to produce a weighted average effect size with increased precision and power.

Consider factors such as statistical heterogeneity, publication bias, and the quality of included studies when interpreting synthesized results.

Step 9: Interpret Results and Draw Conclusions

Interpreting the findings involves considering:

The strength and consistency of evidence
The quality of included studies
The applicability of findings to different contexts or populations
Potential biases in the review process
Agreements and disagreements with other reviews

Your conclusions should directly address your research question and reflect the strength of the available evidence, acknowledging any limitations or uncertainties.

Step 10: Report the Review

The final step is to document your systematic review following established reporting guidelines, such as:

PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
MOOSE: Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology
ENTREQ: Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research

A well-structured report typically includes:

A clear title indicating it's a systematic review
An abstract summarizing key information
A detailed introduction establishing context
A comprehensive methods section
Well-presented results, including a PRISMA flow diagram
A thoughtful discussion of findings and implications
A conclusion summarizing key points

Consider updating your review periodically as new evidence emerges to maintain its relevance and value.

Comparing the Complexity of SLR Phases

The radar chart below illustrates the relative complexity, time requirement, and importance of each phase in the systematic review process. Understanding these dimensions can help researchers allocate resources effectively and identify stages that may require additional attention or support.

Systematic Review Process Flow

The mindmap below illustrates the interconnected nature of the systematic review process, showing how each step relates to others and the decision points that guide the journey from research question to final report. Understanding these relationships helps maintain coherence throughout the review process.

mindmap root["Systematic Literature Review Process"] ["1. Formulate Research Question"] ["Use PICO framework"] ["Define scope"] ["Identify knowledge gaps"] ["2. Develop Protocol"] ["Document methodology"] ["Register protocol (PROSPERO)"] ["Plan timeline"] ["3. Define Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria"] ["Study design criteria"] ["Publication period"] ["Language restrictions"] ["Population specifications"] ["4. Conduct Literature Search"] ["Select databases"] ["Develop search strings"] ["Document search strategy"] ["Search grey literature"] ["5. Screen Studies"] ["Title/abstract screening"] ["Full-text review"] ["Resolve disagreements"] ["Document exclusions"] ["6. Assess Study Quality"] ["Select appropriate tools"] ["Independent assessment"] ["Grade evidence strength"] ["7. Extract Data"] ["Design extraction form"] ["Pilot test form"] ["Dual extraction"] ["Manage data"] ["8. Synthesize Data"] ["Narrative synthesis"] ["Meta-analysis (if appropriate)"] ["Assess heterogeneity"] ["9. Interpret Results"] ["Consider quality of evidence"] ["Address research question"] ["Identify limitations"] ["10. Report Findings"] ["Follow PRISMA guidelines"] ["Include flow diagram"] ["Consider publication"]

SLR Completion Timeline and Workload Distribution

Planning your systematic review timeline is essential for successful completion. The table below provides a typical timeframe for each step and indicates the level of workload and number of team members typically required. This can help you plan resources efficiently and set realistic expectations.

Step	Typical Duration	Workload Intensity	Recommended Team Size	Key Challenges
1. Formulate Research Question	1-2 weeks	Moderate	2-3 members	Balancing specificity with feasibility
2. Develop Protocol	2-4 weeks	Moderate	2-3 members	Anticipating methodological issues
3. Define Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria	1-2 weeks	Moderate	2-3 members	Creating criteria that are neither too broad nor too narrow
4. Conduct Literature Search	2-4 weeks	High	1-2 members + librarian	Balancing sensitivity and specificity
5. Screen Studies	4-8 weeks	Very High	2-4 members	Managing large numbers of citations
6. Assess Study Quality	2-4 weeks	High	2-3 members	Resolving assessment disagreements
7. Extract Data	3-6 weeks	Very High	2-3 members	Handling inconsistently reported data
8. Synthesize Data	3-6 weeks	High	1-3 members + statistician	Addressing heterogeneity across studies
9. Interpret Results	2-3 weeks	Moderate-High	All team members	Contextualizing findings appropriately
10. Report Findings	4-8 weeks	High	1-2 primary writers + team review	Meeting reporting guidelines comprehensively

Note: Timeframes can vary significantly based on the scope of the review, team expertise, available resources, and complexity of the topic. Novice teams should allow for additional time, especially in the early phases of the process.

Visual Guide to Systematic Review Process

The following image illustrates the systematic review process flow, highlighting the relationship between different steps and the iterative nature of the review:

Video Tutorial: Conducting a Systematic Review

This comprehensive tutorial by Dr. Amina Yonis walks through the complete process of conducting a systematic literature review, from formulating your research question to writing up the final report. It offers practical guidance on implementing the PRISMA framework and utilizing the PICO model to structure your approach.

Frequently Asked Questions

How long does a typical systematic literature review take to complete?

What is the difference between a systematic review and a meta-analysis?

How many team members are needed for a systematic review?

What software tools are recommended for managing systematic reviews?

How do I handle disagreements between reviewers during screening or data extraction?

References

What are the Steps of a Systematic Review? - Ohio State University Health Sciences Library
Ten Steps to Conduct a Systematic Review - Journal of Medical Internet Research
Five Steps to Conducting a Systematic Review - Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
Step-by-step guide for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis - Tropical Medicine and Health
Steps of a Systematic Review - University of Maryland Libraries
How-to Conduct a Systematic Literature Review - ScienceDirect
7 Steps of a Systematic Literature Review - mtech access