1. Introduction to Systematic Review and Mapping


This session will introduce systematic review and systematic map methods, including the differences between traditional literature reviews and systematic methods. It will also compare and contrast systematic review and systematic map methods and explain when each is appropriate. Finally, it will discuss common ways in which review teams work and how to plan a review project. The session includes a practical exercise comparing a traditional review with a systematic review.


Learning objectives:

  • To understand the central tenets of systematic review/map methods
  • To appreciate the difference between traditional literature reviews and systematic reviews
  • To understand the key differences between systematic reviews and systematic maps and when each is appropriate
  • To be aware of common ways in which review teams undertake systematic reviews and maps
  • To be aware of the main stages of a systematic review and map, and appreciate how these stages are connected and might be planned

To begin, watch the following presentation:


You can find the lecture handouts here.


Next, read the introductory text of the guidance from the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence here. We'll revisit sections of the CEE Guidance throughout the course. It focuses on environmental and conservation topics, but is subject agnostic, meaning that it's useful for other disciplines, too. Feel free to focus instead on the Cochrane Guidance if you work with healthcare topics.



Practical exercise


Briefly read through the traditional literature review and systematic review below:

Traditional review: Pedersen, A.B. and Fenton, A., 2015. The role of antiparasite treatment experiments in assessing the impact of parasites on wildlife. Trends in Parasitology, 31(5): 200-211

Systematic review protocol: Bernes, C., Carpenter, S.R., Gårdmark, A., Larsson, P., Persson, L., Skov, C. and Van Donk, E., 2013. What is the influence on water quality in temperate eutrophic lakes of a reduction of planktivorous and benthivorous fish? A systematic review protocol. Environmental Evidence, 2(1):9

Systematic review report: Bernes, C., Carpenter, S.R., Gårdmark, A., Larsson, P., Persson, L., Skov, C., Speed, J.D. and Van Donk, E., 2015. What is the influence of a reduction of planktivorous and benthivorous fish on water quality in temperate eutrophic lakes? A systematic review. Environmental Evidence, 4(1):7


Take some time to consider how they compare in terms of:

  • Length
  • Comprehensiveness
  • Transparency/clarity
  • How were studies deemed relevant?
  • Could you repeat them?
  • Do the methods seem objective?
  • Was the reliability of each study assessed?
  • Does it seem reliable?

This thought process will help you to understand how systematic reviews differ from traditional reviews, and will help to clarify why systematic review methods are more objective and reliable that traditional approaches. If you want to learn more about why this traditional review is unrealiable, read this commentary.


Move to the next module!