grad-systematic-review

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Systematic Literature Review (PRISMA)

系统文献综述（PRISMA）

Overview

概述

A systematic review uses explicit, pre-defined methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesize all relevant research on a specific question. Unlike narrative reviews, systematic reviews follow a reproducible protocol that minimizes bias in study selection and interpretation. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) framework provides the standard reporting structure, including the iconic flow diagram tracking records through identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion.

系统综述采用明确的、预先定义的方法来识别、筛选、评估和综合与特定研究问题相关的所有研究。与叙述性综述不同，系统综述遵循可复现的方案，最大程度减少研究筛选和解读中的偏倚。PRISMA（系统综述与Meta分析首选报告条目）框架提供了标准的报告结构，包括标志性的流程图，用于追踪文献记录从识别、筛选、合格性评估到最终纳入的整个过程。

When to Use

适用场景

Synthesizing the totality of evidence on a well-defined research question
Identifying gaps, contradictions, or consensus in a body of literature
Establishing what is known before designing new empirical research
Informing policy or practice guidelines with evidence-based synthesis

综合与明确研究问题相关的全部证据
识别文献体系中的空白、矛盾点或共识
在设计新的实证研究前明确已知信息
通过循证综合为政策或实践指南提供依据

When NOT to Use

不适用场景

When the research question is too broad to define clear inclusion criteria
When a scoping review (mapping the landscape) is more appropriate than a systematic review (answering a specific question)
When time constraints prevent the rigorous protocol required
When there is very little published research on the topic (consider a scoping review first)

研究问题过于宽泛，无法定义清晰的纳入标准时
范围综述（梳理研究领域全貌）比系统综述（回答特定问题）更合适时
时间限制无法满足严格的方案要求时
该主题已发表研究极少时（建议先开展范围综述）

Assumptions

核心假设

IRON LAW: A systematic review must be REPRODUCIBLE — every search
decision, inclusion criterion, and quality assessment must be documented
so another researcher can replicate the process. If your review cannot
be replicated, it is a narrative review, NOT a systematic review.

Key assumptions:

Transparency and reproducibility distinguish systematic from narrative reviews
A pre-registered protocol reduces bias in study selection and analysis
At least two independent reviewers should screen and assess studies to reduce subjective bias
Quality assessment of included studies is mandatory — not all evidence is equal

IRON LAW: A systematic review must be REPRODUCIBLE — every search
decision, inclusion criterion, and quality assessment must be documented
so another researcher can replicate the process. If your review cannot
be replicated, it is a narrative review, NOT a systematic review.

关键假设：

透明度和可复现性是系统综述与叙述性综述的核心区别
预先注册的方案可减少研究筛选和分析中的偏倚
至少应由两名独立评审员进行文献筛选和评估，以减少主观偏倚
必须对纳入研究进行质量评估——并非所有证据的价值都相同

Methodology

方法论

Step 1: Define the Research Question and Protocol

步骤1：定义研究问题与方案

Formulate a focused question using a framework (PICO for interventions, PEO for qualitative, SPIDER for mixed methods). Register the protocol (e.g., PROSPERO). Define databases, search terms, date ranges, and language restrictions.

Framework	Components
PICO	Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome
PEO	Population, Exposure, Outcome
SPIDER	Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research type

使用合适的框架（干预研究用PICO，定性研究用PEO，混合方法研究用SPIDER）制定聚焦的研究问题。注册方案（例如PROSPERO）。明确检索数据库、检索词、时间范围和语言限制。

框架	组成部分
PICO	研究人群（Population）、干预措施（Intervention）、对照（Comparison）、结局指标（Outcome）
PEO	研究人群（Population）、暴露因素（Exposure）、结局指标（Outcome）
SPIDER	样本（Sample）、研究现象（Phenomenon of Interest）、研究设计（Design）、评估方法（Evaluation）、研究类型（Research type）

Step 2: Execute the Search Strategy

步骤2：执行检索策略

Search at least 3 databases (e.g., Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed). Use Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT) with controlled vocabulary and free-text terms. Document every search string and date. Supplement with citation chaining (forward and backward), grey literature, and hand-searching key journals.

检索至少3个数据库（例如Scopus、Web of Science、PubMed）。使用布尔运算符（AND、OR、NOT）结合受控词汇和自由文本词。记录每一条检索式和检索日期。补充引用追踪（正向和反向）、灰色文献检索以及核心期刊人工检索。

Step 3: Screen and Select Studies

步骤3：筛选与选择研究

Apply inclusion/exclusion criteria in two phases:

Title and abstract screening — two reviewers independently; resolve disagreements by discussion or third reviewer
Full-text screening — apply criteria to full papers; record reasons for exclusion

Document the process in a PRISMA flow diagram:

Records identified → duplicates removed → screened → eligible → included

分两个阶段应用纳入/排除标准：

标题与摘要筛选——由两名评审员独立进行；通过讨论或第三方评审员解决分歧
全文筛选——对全文应用筛选标准；记录排除理由

用PRISMA流程图记录整个过程：

识别的文献记录 → 去除重复文献 → 筛选 → 合格 → 纳入

Step 4: Extract Data, Assess Quality, and Synthesize

步骤4：提取数据、评估质量与综合分析

Extract data into a standardized form. Assess quality using appropriate tools (e.g., Cochrane RoB for RCTs, CASP for qualitative, JBI checklists). Synthesize via meta-analysis (quantitative), thematic synthesis (qualitative), or narrative synthesis. Report per PRISMA 2020 checklist.

将数据提取至标准化表格。使用合适的工具评估质量（例如随机对照试验用Cochrane RoB，定性研究用CASP，JBI清单）。通过Meta分析（定量）、主题综合（定性）或叙述性综合进行分析。按照PRISMA 2020清单报告结果。

Output Format

输出格式

markdown

undefined

markdown

undefined

Systematic Review: [Research Question]

Protocol

Question framework: [PICO/PEO/SPIDER]
Registration: [PROSPERO ID or equivalent]
Databases searched: [list]
Date range: [start-end]

Question framework: [PICO/PEO/SPIDER]
Registration: [PROSPERO ID or equivalent]
Databases searched: [list]
Date range: [start-end]

Search Strategy

Database	Search String	Records Found
[name]	[Boolean query]	[N]

Database	Search String	Records Found
[name]	[Boolean query]	[N]

PRISMA Flow

Identified: [N] records
Duplicates removed: [N]
Screened (title/abstract): [N]
Excluded at screening: [N]
Full-text assessed: [N]
Excluded at full-text: [N] (reasons: ...)
Included in synthesis: [N]

Identified: [N] records
Duplicates removed: [N]
Screened (title/abstract): [N]
Excluded at screening: [N]
Full-text assessed: [N]
Excluded at full-text: [N] (reasons: ...)
Included in synthesis: [N]

Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria

Criterion	Include	Exclude
Population	[specification]	[specification]
Study type	[specification]	[specification]
Language	[specification]	[specification]
Date	[specification]	[specification]

Criterion	Include	Exclude
Population	[specification]	[specification]
Study type	[specification]	[specification]
Language	[specification]	[specification]
Date	[specification]	[specification]

Quality Assessment Summary

Study	Tool Used	Overall Rating	Key Concerns
[author, year]	[RoB/CASP/JBI]	[high/moderate/low]	[specific issues]

Study	Tool Used	Overall Rating	Key Concerns
[author, year]	[RoB/CASP/JBI]	[high/moderate/low]	[specific issues]

Synthesis

[Key finding 1 with evidence strength]
[Key finding 2 with evidence strength]
Gaps identified: [what remains unknown]

[Key finding 1 with evidence strength]
[Key finding 2 with evidence strength]
Gaps identified: [what remains unknown]

Limitations

[Search limitations]
[Assessment limitations]

undefined

[Search limitations]
[Assessment limitations]

undefined

Gotchas

注意事项

A systematic review without a PRISMA flow diagram is incomplete — the flow diagram is not optional
Pre-registering the protocol prevents post-hoc changes to inclusion criteria that introduce bias
Grey literature (theses, conference papers, reports) must be considered to reduce publication bias
Quality assessment is NOT pass/fail — it informs how much weight to give each study in the synthesis
Do NOT conflate systematic review with meta-analysis; meta-analysis (statistical pooling) is one possible synthesis method within a systematic review
Inter-rater reliability for screening and quality assessment should be reported (e.g., Cohen's kappa)

没有PRISMA流程图的系统综述是不完整的——流程图并非可选内容
预先注册方案可避免事后修改纳入标准引入偏倚
必须考虑灰色文献（学位论文、会议论文、报告）以减少发表偏倚
质量评估并非简单的合格/不合格——它用于指导综合分析中对各研究的权重分配
不要将系统综述与Meta分析混淆；Meta分析（统计合并）是系统综述中一种可能的综合分析方法
应报告筛选和质量评估的评分者间信度（例如Cohen's kappa系数）

References

参考文献

Page, M. J., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71.
Higgins, J. P. T., et al. (Eds.). (2023). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Version 6.4). Cochrane.
Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016). Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review (2nd ed.). Sage.

Page, M. J., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71.
Higgins, J. P. T., et al. (Eds.). (2023). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Version 6.4). Cochrane.
Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016). Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review (2nd ed.). Sage.