Follow Up: Systematic Review

Daniel Dumke — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:48:00 +0000

Already some time ago I wrote about Systematic Review, a literature analysis approach that should lead to a well founded overview of a specific research field. Since I left out the history and some insights last time I wanted to extend on my last article here.

History and background

Systematic Review developed from a need in medical research to aggregate multiple studies on one research topic into a comprehensive picture on the current state of the research. Meta research can improve the overall validity of the research by increasing the sample size and viewing a research problem from different angles. But this also comes with a disadvantage as well: Small differences in the methodology of the original studies have to be acknowledged by the researcher and incorporated within meta analysis. Larger differences can even lead to the invalidity of the whole meta study.

But meta studies still is one of the best evidence there is (figure 1).

Figure 1: Hierarchy of Evidence (Tranfield et al., 2003)

So to overcome the difficulties the Systematic Review process was developed, with the goal to formalize the process of meta analysis

Transfer

Tranfield (2003) pioneered the transfer of the methodology to the management field with only few adjustments. To justify the transfer he compared the research methodology in management and medicine (figure 2).

Figure 2: Comparison of Management and Medical Research (click to enlarge; Tranfield et al., 2003)

Conclusion

In my own research the Systematic Review approach proves very helpful in organizing the vast amount of research available in supply chain risk management.

Figure 3: Overview Systematic Review Approach (Tranfield et al., 2003)

Reference:

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review British Journal of Management, 14 (3), 207-222 DOI: 10.1111/1467-8551.00375

Rate This:

Tags:

research

systematic review

Cranfield Systematic Review Approach

Daniel Dumke — Sun, 09 May 2010 09:51:00 +0000

My professor gave me the hint to look for a systematic literature review approach which has been used at Cranfield University in the UK. Actually I found the description of a methodology to be used for a “systematic review”, that can be quite useful. It relies on six principles.

The approach addresses one or more clearly specified question
Involvement of many participants
The goal is to find all published and unpublished studies on a specific topic
Criteria for selection of studies are designed a priori and documented
Findings are summarized in a transparent and accessible format
Synthesis of the findings is necessary to make clear which parts of the questions can be answered and which parts are not known

These goals are achieved by following a ten step process:

Design a review plan and -protocol
It should contain the research strategy, including review questions, study selection criteria, procedures for data extration and synthesis, and a timetable
Review group
which consists of a) advisors, giving strategic advise and b) supporters, helping in the day to day analysis
Review question(s)
Formultate the review questions according to the CIMO method, including context, intervention of an actor, mechanisms at work, outcome of the intervention
Search
use different search strategies (defined in the review plan) eg. protocol driven, snow balling and personal knowledge
Select relevant studies
use the predefined criteria for selecting the relevant literature
Rate the quality of the studies
Extract information
systematically collect the information from the studies selected
Synthesis findings
Reporting
Describe an analysis of the field, present what is known and not yet known
Inform research, policy and practice

Conclusion

Using this approach has many advantages over “just reading the papers”. The major drawback though is, that it needs experience and patience to create the review plan. All necessary research questions have to be raised already at the beginning of the endeavor, since only this can provide for a consistent analysis of the literature.

Reference:

Cranfield Systematic Review

Rate This:

Tags:

phd

systematic review

university