Section 1: Introduction to Systematic Reviews

This section provides an overview of systematic reviews, their significance in academic research, and their application across various disciplines.

1. Understand the concept and importance of systematic reviews in research.
2. Learn the key characteristics that define a systematic review.
3. Identify the differences between systematic reviews and traditional literature reviews.
4. Recognize the stages involved in conducting a systematic review.

Acquiring comprehensive and up-to-date knowledge of the subject area is the initial step in academic research. This is usually accomplished by doing a wide-ranging literature review, which involves evaluating previous research findings critically to choose the best methodology for studying the subject. It is essential for researchers to present a detailed literature review at various stages, such as grant applications or during ethics committee submissions, to underscore the significance of the research topic (Randles & Finnegan, 2023). Therefore, a careful and comprehensive systematic review is essential for advancing scientific knowledge and development.

Systematic reviews provide a deep understanding of the field of study and its existing research landscape. They offer substantial benefits across all scientific disciplines by enhancing evidence-based decision-making processes (Bellibaş & Gümüş, 2018). They also make it possible for researchers to keep up with advancements in their domains, which helps them spot research gaps and the need for conclusions that are supported by evidence.  Consequently, systematic reviews facilitate the evolution of new scientific disciplines, foster changes in existing ones, and contributes to researchers becoming more productive.

Systematic reviews are particularly important for reliably summarizing research findings and thus strengthening the link between comprehensive research results and best practices. For example, in the health sciences, where new findings proliferate rapidly, practitioners in the field can direct their own studies thanks to the information obtained from these studies (Cook et al., 1997; Liberati et al., 2009). Similarly, a psychologist can follow the latest developments and thus carry out his therapies in the light of scientific processes. Systematic reviews therefore serve as a crucial reference for professionals in various fields, including engineering, psychology, and education.

Systematic reviews use a rigorous and reproducible methodology to synthesize study results addressing specific research questions (Page et al., 2016). They are highly effective in increasing the reliability, integrity, and efficiency of reviews by providing a differentiated assessment of benefits and harms (Loke et al., 2007). Additionally, these reviews are functional in formulating recommendations for policy makers and practitioners, filling gaps in the evidence base with practical policy implications that benefit a wide audience (Bellibaş & Gümüş, 2018).

To sum up, systematic reviews are very important for academic research. They make it possible for researchers to successfully incorporate new results and understand what already exists. These assessments not only make important contributions to the body of scientific knowledge, but they also offer practitioners and policymakers important suggestions. However, it is imperative that these procedures be carried out paying close regard to validity and reliability. In the end, systematic reviews and the literature have a major impact on the development of best practices and the advancement of science.

Systematic reviews are important resources for the practice of social and educational sciences and for future research in related fields. Systematic reviews provide a meticulously summarized version of all the research that can answer an academic question. Since previous research is the data for a systematic review, systematic reviews are sometimes referred to as research on research or secondary research (Clarke, 2011). However, systematic reviews are more than just a literature review, which most academics will be familiar with, as they follow a methodological process to identify and analyze the existing literature (Cumpston et al., 2023).

The systematic review method aims to increase the reliability of research results by minimizing bias on a topic. There are some basic features that systematic reviews should have;

• The selection of studies for inclusion in the review should be based on inclusion criteria that meet predetermined objectives,
• A repeatable and transparent method,
• A rigorous and comprehensive pre-planned literature review to identify all relevant research,
• Assessing the validity of the findings of the included studies,
• A systematic presentation and synthesis of included studies (Higgins & Green, 2008).

Systematic reviews can involve time-consuming and complex processes. Before embarking on a review, it is helpful to have an adequate understanding of systematic reviews and to be prepared for the problems that may arise. Reeves et al., 2002 provided twelve valuable suggestions for researchers conducting systematic reviews that would be advantageous for them to consider before starting their research:

• To show attention to the process of selecting the research group to be examined,
• Allocate time for tasks in the early stages of the build to minimize problems in later stages,
• A novice researcher conducting the process together with an expert,
• Regular meetings of the research team to record and improve progress,
• Developing a detailed and comprehensive protocol for the transparent, planned, and rigorous conduct of the review,
• Identifying the databases and the search strategy to be used in screening sources. In addition, to continuously check and update the strategy during the process,
• Being flexible to make the problems encountered more manageable,
• Establish an ongoing quality assurance system to eliminate biases that the research team may develop in the process,
• Be prepared to take the time needed to create a variety of draft tables with information on the context, results, and methods of the research,
• Ensure that you are familiar with useful software and data analysis methods in order to minimize the difficulties in processing the acquired data,
• Allocating sufficient time to discuss and explore the conclusions reached in the analysis stages of the reviews.
• To develop collaboration and an in-depth understanding of the review process, set workshop times to carry out the tasks with the team as much as possible (Reeves et al., 2002).

Indeed, the suggestions mentioned earlier are important in writing a meticulously prepared review. For example, selecting and grouping the studies to be examined is undeniably essential in laying the foundation for a systematic review. While making this selection, it is necessary to meticulously determine the inclusion and exclusion criteria. For example, criteria such as the years to be covered by the systematic review or the indexes in which the articles to be selected will be indexed should be determined in advance.

In summary, systematic reviews serve as important resources in the social and educational sciences, providing a rigorously summarized version of existing research and guiding future research in related fields. With their methodological approach, systematic reviews aim to increase the reliability of research results and adhere to predetermined objectives and strict selection criteria. Although systematic reviews involve complex and time-consuming processes, careful planning and compliance with the guidelines outlined by Reeves et al. (2002) alleviate the difficulties and ensure the quality and transparency of the review process. Thus, systematic reviews form the basis of knowledge advancement across a variety of academic disciplines and have an important role in informing evidence-based practice.

The stages required to conduct systematic review research are the formulation of the research question, scoping research, protocol development, comprehensive and systematic review, selection of studies according to eligibility criteria, data analysis, evaluation of studies using an appropriate quality method checklist, analysis of results, interpretation, and dissemination of findings (Tawfik et al., 2019; MacMillan et al., 2019). These stages can be divided into three main categories: Planning, conducting, and reporting (Brereton et al., 2007).

Bellibaş, M. Ş., & Gümüş, S. (2018). Eğitim yönetiminde sistematik derleme çalışmaları [Systematic review studies in educational administration]. In K.

Brereton, P., Kitchenham, B. A., Budgen, D., Turner, M., & Khalil, M. (2007). Lessons from applying the systematic literature review process within the software engineering domain. Journal of Systems and Software, 80(4), 571–583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2006.07.009

Clarke, J. (2011). What is a systematic review? Evidence-Based Nursing, 14(3), 64. https://doi.org/10.1136/EBN.2011.0049

Cook, D., Mulrow, C., & Haynes, R. (1997). Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine, 126(5), 376. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-126-5-199703010-00006

Cumpston, M., Flemyng, E., Thomas, J., Higgins, JPT., Deeks, JJ., & Clarke, MJ. (2023). Chapter I: Introduction. In Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, & Welch VA (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of ınterventions version 6.4 (updated August 2023). Cochrane.

Higgins, J. P., & Green, S. (2008). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of ınterventions. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org

Liberati, A., Altman, D., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P., Ioannidis, J., … & Moher, D. (2009). The prisma statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62(10), e1-e34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006

Page, M., Shamseer, L., Altman, D., Tetzlaff, J., Sampson, M., Tricco, A., … & Moher, D. (2016). Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study. Plos Medicine, 13(5), e1002028. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028

Randles, R., & Finnegan, A. (2023). Guidelines for writing a systematic review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2023.105803

Reeves, S., Koppel, I., Barr, H., Freeth, D., & Hammick, M. (2002). Twelve tips for undertaking a systematic review. Medical Teacher, 24(4), 358–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590220145707