Systematic reviews and Meta-analysis in Business/Management
There are many types of reviews. The choice of review type should be based on the review question as well as resource-related factors. Of the following types, the most commonly used in Management research are systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Systematic review - Also called a Systematic Literature Review. This starts with a clearly defined question, and uses explicit and systematic methods to collect, appraise and synthesize data from all relevant studies.
Meta-analysis - This type of review uses statistical methods to analyze the results of relevant studies. It should be based on systematic methods to collect and appraise all relevant studies before conducting the meta-analysis step of the process.
Realist review - This type of review aims to answer the question of what works for whom and under what conditions.
Scoping review - This review type addresses a broader question and may be done to identify gaps in the field. It uses methods similar to that of a systematic review, but does not require critical appraisal.
Rapid review - This review type often varies in scope and methodology. Depending on the constraints, certain steps may be skipped or may not be conducted as thoroughly, however transparency is still maintained by the completeness of the reporting.
Evidence and gap map - This is similar to a scoping review in purpose, but includes a visual representation of the evidence in the field. It incorporates synthesis reviews and primary studies located using rigorous systematic searching and selection methods.
- Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
- Sutton, A., Clowes, M., Preston, L., & Booth, A. (2019). Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 36(3), 202-222. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12276
- Munn, Z., Peters, M. D., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC medical research methodology, 18(1), 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
- Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International journal of social research methodology, 8(1), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
- Khangura, S., Polisena, J., Clifford, T. J., Farrah, K., & Kamel, C. (2014). Rapid review: an emerging approach to evidence synthesis in health technology assessment. International journal of technology assessment in health care, 30(1), 20-27. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462313000664
Methodology and guidance documents
Guidelines and best practices may differ across disciplines. Below is a list of guidance documents for conducting a systematic review or meta-analysis:
- The Campbell CollaborationThe Campbell Collaboration is an international social science research network that produces open, policy-relevant systematic reviews. They have coordinating groups in the following disciplinary areas: Crime & Justice, Education, International Development, Social Welfare, Disability, and Business & Management. They have produced guidance documents and training resources.
- Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of InterventionsThis is the official guide that describes the process for conducting a systematic review in detail.
- Collaboration for Environmental EvidenceThe Collaboration of Environmental Evidence is a not-for-profit community of scientists, policy formers, environmental managers, and other stakeholders.They have created a document called Guidelines and Standards for Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Management.
- CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health careThe Centre for Reviews and Dissemination is a world-renowned institute. They aim to promote high standards in the conduct of systematic reviews by providing practical guidance for undertaking systematic reviews.
- Joanna Briggs InstituteThe Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) is an international not-for-profit research and development organisation based in Australia. The JBI Reviewer's manual provides guidance for the conduct of JBI systematic reviews.
One of the most commonly cited scholarly articles on systematic reviews in Management and organizational research is Tranfield & Denyer (2003). It provides higher level discussions and considerations that are relevant to management researchers, but may not be sufficient as a step-by-step guide.
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375
Reporting standards help you identify the minimum amount of detail that needs to be reported during publication; it helps your work remain transparent and reproducible. Some journals may require that a specific reporting standard be followed. The most common reporting standards are shown below.
- PRISMA - Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysisThis is the most commonly used reporting standard for systematic reviews. It includes a checklist and flow diagram for reporting all aspects of your review. According to the Scope of PRISMA: "PRISMA focuses on ways in which authors can ensure the transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. It does not address directly or in a detailed manner the conduct of systematic reviews, for which other guides are available"
- Quantitative Meta-analysis Reporting StandardsPublished by the American Psychological Association (APA) as part of their 7th edition. This replaces the previous MARS reporting guideline.
- PRISMA - ScR (extension for scoping reviews)This is the PRISMA extension specifically designed for scoping reviews.
- PRISMA - P (for protocols)This is the PRISMA extension for protocols
- RAMESES II Reporting standards for realist evaluationsThis article provides a checklist of reporting items for realist syntheses or reviews.
- EQUATOR NetworkThe EQUATOR Network (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) seeks to improve the reliability of published research by promoting transparent and accurate reporting through robust reporting guidelines
- Last Updated: May 11, 2023 9:42 AM
- URL: https://libguides.ucalgary.ca/SRinBusiness
- Print Page