Book contents
- Critical Review for the MRCPsych
- Reviews
- Critical Review for the MRCPsych
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Foreword
- Chapter 1 Introduction to Epidemiology
- Chapter 2 Cross-Sectional and Ecological Studies
- Chapter 3 Case–Control Studies
- Chapter 4 Diagnostic Studies
- Chapter 5 Cohort Studies
- Chapter 6 Self-Controlled Case Series Studies
- Chapter 7 Causation in Epidemiological Studies
- Chapter 8 Clinical Trials
- Chapter 9 Systematic Review
- Chapter 10 Network Analysis
- Chapter 11 Descriptive Statistics
- Chapter 12 Analytic or Inferential Statistics
- Chapter 13 Economic Analysis
- Chapter 14 Qualitative Studies
- Chapter 15 Audit and Quality Improvement
- Chapter 16 Research Ethics, Ethical Approval, and Reporting Standards in Research Studies
- Glossary
- Index
- References
Chapter 9 - Systematic Review
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 July 2026
Book contents
- Critical Review for the MRCPsych
- Reviews
- Critical Review for the MRCPsych
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Foreword
- Chapter 1 Introduction to Epidemiology
- Chapter 2 Cross-Sectional and Ecological Studies
- Chapter 3 Case–Control Studies
- Chapter 4 Diagnostic Studies
- Chapter 5 Cohort Studies
- Chapter 6 Self-Controlled Case Series Studies
- Chapter 7 Causation in Epidemiological Studies
- Chapter 8 Clinical Trials
- Chapter 9 Systematic Review
- Chapter 10 Network Analysis
- Chapter 11 Descriptive Statistics
- Chapter 12 Analytic or Inferential Statistics
- Chapter 13 Economic Analysis
- Chapter 14 Qualitative Studies
- Chapter 15 Audit and Quality Improvement
- Chapter 16 Research Ethics, Ethical Approval, and Reporting Standards in Research Studies
- Glossary
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter discusses systematic reviews as a cornerstone of evidence-based practice. Systematic reviews use explicit, reproducible methods to identify, appraise, and synthesise research evidence, thereby reducing bias compared to narrative reviews. The methodology is outlined step by step, including formulation of a research question, development of a protocol, comprehensive literature searching, study selection, data extraction, quality appraisal, and evidence synthesis. Quantitative synthesis through meta-analysis is explained, including the calculation of pooled estimates and assessment of heterogeneity. The importance of assessing publication bias and sensitivity analyses is highlighted. The chapter also considers qualitative synthesis and mixed-methods reviews, broadening the scope of systematic approaches beyond purely quantitative data. Strengths of systematic reviews include their transparency, reproducibility, and utility in informing guidelines and policy decisions. Limitations include potential bias in the underlying studies, the need for rigorous methods, and the time and expertise required. Practical examples illustrate their impact in shaping clinical practice, public health interventions, and resource allocation. The chapter concludes by underscoring the role of systematic reviews in consolidating knowledge, guiding practice, and identifying gaps for future research. This chapter maps to syllabus section 3.6.6, which requires understanding of systematic reviews, meta-analysis, and reporting standards such as QUORUM and PRISMA.
Keywords
Systematic ReviewSteps in Conducting a Systematic ReviewRisk of Bias Assessment ToolsPublication Bias AssessmentHeterogeneity in Meta-AnalysisMeta-Analysis Statistical ModelsRegression AnalysisSensitivity AnalysisSubgroup AnalysisNetwork Meta-Analysis (NMA)Assumptions in NMAStatistical Models for NMAInterpreting NMA Results
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Critical Review for the MRCPsych , pp. 117 - 146Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2026
References
Further Reading
Begg, CB, Mazumdar, M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics. 1994;50(4):1088–101. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/2533446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, NAM, Khan, KS, Clark, TJ. Local anaesthesia for pain control during outpatient hysteroscopy: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2010;340:c1130. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c1130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DerSimonian, R, Laird, N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7(3):177–88. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duval, S, Tweedie, R. Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics. 2000;56(2):455–63. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Egger, M, Davey, Smith G, Schneider, M, Minder, C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629–34. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galbraith, RF. A note on graphical presentation of estimated odds ratios from several clinical trials. Stat Med. 1988;7(8):889–94. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4780070807.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guyatt, GH, Oxman, AD, Vist, GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7650):924–6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Higgins, JPT, Thomas, J, Chandler, J, et al. (eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2nd ed. Chichester: Wiley; 2019. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119536604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, JPT, Thompson, SG, Deeks, JJ, Altman, DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557–60. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hutton, B, Salanti, G, Caldwell, DM, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(11):777–84. doi: https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-2385.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nikolakopoulou, A, Higgins, JPT, Papakonstantinou, T, et al. CINeMA: an approach for assessing confidence in the results of a network meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2020;17(4):e1003082. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003082.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Doherty, LJ, Taft, A, Hegarty, K, Ramsay, J, Davidson, LL, Feder, G. Screening women for intimate partner violence in healthcare settings: abridged Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2014;348:g2913. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g2913.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Page, MJ, McKenzie, JE, Bossuyt, PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Page, MJ, Moher, D, Bossuyt, PM, et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n160. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richardson, WS, Wilson, MC, Nishikawa, J, Hayward, RS. The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP J Club. 1995;123(3):A12–A13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salanti, G, Ades, AE, Ioannidis, JPA. Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview with suggestions for practice. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(2):163–71. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutton, AJ, Duval, SJ, Tweedie, RL, Abrams, KR, Jones, DR. Empirical assessment of effect of publication bias on meta-analyses. BMJ. 2000;320(7249):1574–7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7249.1574.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, SG. Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated. BMJ. 1994;309(6965):1351–5. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.309.6965.1351.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wells, GA, Shea, B, O’Connell, D, et al. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-Analyses. Ottawa: Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; 2011.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.1 AA
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The HTML of this chapter
complies with version 2.1 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), covering newer accessibility requirements and improved
user experiences and achieves the intermediate
(AA)
level of WCAG compliance, covering a wider range of accessibility requirements.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
Visual Accessibility
Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
Structural and Technical Features
ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.