Who's Publishing Systematic Reviews? An Examination Beyond the Health Sciences





The number of systematic reviews (SRs) published continues to grow, and the methodology of evidence synthesis has been adopted in many fields outside of its traditional health sciences origins. SRs are now published in fields as wide ranging as business, environmental science, education, and engineering; however, there is little research looking at the nature and prevalence of non-health sciences systematic reviews (non-HSSRs). In this study, a large sample from the Scopus database was used as the basis for analyzing SRs published outside the health sciences. To map the current state of non-HSSRs, their characteristics were investigated and the subject areas publishing them determined. The results showed that a majority of the non-HSSRs examined were lacking at least one characteristic commonly expected in health sciences systematic review (HSSRs) methodology. The broad subject areas publishing non-HSSRs fall mostly within the social sciences and physical sciences.


Download data is not yet available.


Aromataris, E., & Munn, Z. (2020). JBI manual for evidence synthesis. The Joanna Briggs Institute. https://jbi-global-wiki.refined.site/space/MANUAL

Baas, J., Schotten, M., Plume, A., Côté, G., & Karimi, R. (2020). Scopus as a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 377–386. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00019

Batten, J., & Brackett, A. (2021). Ensuring the rigor in systematic reviews: Part 3, the value of the search. Heart and Lung, 50(2), 220–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrtlng.2020.08.005

Brackett, A., & Batten, J. (2020). Ensuring the rigor in systematic reviews: Part 1, the overview. Heart and Lung, 49(5), 660–661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrtlng.2020.03.015

Bramer, W. M., Rethlefsen, M. L., Kleijnen, J., & Franco, O. H. (2017). Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: A prospective exploratory study. Systematic Reviews, 6, 245. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0644-y

Campbell Collaboration. (2022a). Campbell collaboration. https://www.campbellcollaboration.org/

Campbell Collaboration. (2022b). Methodological expectations of Campbell collaboration intervention reviews (MECCIR). https://www.campbellcollaboration.org/about-meccir.html

Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. (2022). Centre for reviews and dissemination. https://www.york.ac.uk/crd/

Clarke, M., & Chalmers, I. (2018). Reflections on the history of systematic reviews. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, 23(4), 121–122. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2018-110968

Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. (2018). Guidelines and standards for evidence synthesis in environmental management (Version 5.0 and previous versions). https://environmentalevidence.org/information-for-authors/

Cornell University Library. (2022). A guide to evidence synthesis: Evidence synthesis institute for librarians. https://guides.library.cornell.edu/evidence-synthesis/trainings

de Almeida Biolchini, J. C., Mian, P. G., Natali, A. C. C., Conte, T. U., & Travassos, G. H. (2007). Scientific research ontology to support systematic review in software engineering. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 21(2), 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2006.11.006

Denyer, D., & Tranfield, D. (2009). Producing a systematic review. In The Sage handbook of organizational research methods. (pp. 671–689). Sage Publications Ltd.

Elsevier B.V. (2021a). How do author keywords and indexed keywords work? https://service.elsevier.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/21730/supporthub/scopus/

Elsevier B.V. (2021b). How do I search for a document? Find exact or approximate phrases or words. https://service.elsevier.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/34325/supporthub/scopus/https

Elsevier B.V. (2021c). What are the most used subject area categories and classifications in Scopus? https://service.elsevier.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/14882/supporthub/scopus/related/1/

Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre. (2022). EPPI-Centre. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ioe/departments-and-centres/centres/evidence-policy-and-practice-information-and-co-ordinating-centre-eppi-centre

Foster, M. J., & Jewell, S. T. (2017). Assembling the pieces of a systematic review: A guide for librarians. Rowman & Littlefield.

Higgins, J. P. T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J., & Welch, V. A. (2019). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Cochrane Collaboration. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current

Hoffmann, F., Allers, K., Rombey, T., Helbach, J., Hoffmann, A., Mathes, T., & Pieper, D. (2021). Nearly 80 systematic reviews were published each day: Observational study on trends in epidemiology and reporting over the years 2000-2019. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 138, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.022

Institute of Medicine. (2011). Finding what works in health care: Standards for systematic reviews (J. Eden, L. Levit, A. Berg, & S. Morton, Eds.). National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13059

Jacobsen, S. M., Douglas, A., Smith, C. A., Roberts, W., Ottwell, R., Oglesby, B., Yasler, C., Torgerson, T., Hartwell, M., & Vassar, M. (2021). Methodological quality of systematic reviews comprising clinical practice guidelines for cardiovascular risk assessment and management for noncardiac surgery. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 127(6), 905–916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2021.08.016

Kallaher, A., Eldermire, E. R. B., Fournier, C. T., Ghezzi-Kopel, K., Johnson, K. A., Morris-Knower, J., Scinto-Madonich, S., & Young, S. (2020). Library systematic review service supports evidence-based practice outside of medicine. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 46(6), 102222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102222

Katsura, M., Kuriyama, A., Tada, M., Tsujimoto, Y., Luo, Y., Yamamoto, K., So, R., Aga, M., Matsushima, K., Fukuma, S., & Furukawa, T. A. (2021). High variability in results and methodological quality among overlapping systematic reviews on the same topics in surgery: A meta-epidemiological study. British Journal of Surgery, 108(12), 1521–1529. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znab328

Kitchenham, B. A. (2004). Procedures for performing systematic reviews (Keele University Technical Report TR/SE-0401). https://www.inf.ufsc.br/~aldo.vw/kitchenham.pdf

Kitchenham, B., & Brereton, P. (2013). A systematic review of systematic review process research in software engineering. Information and Software Technology, 55(12), 2049–2075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2013.07.010

Kocher, M., & Riegelman, A. (2018). Systematic reviews and evidence synthesis: Resources beyond the health sciences. College & Research Libraries News, 79 (5), 248-252.

Koffel, J. B. (2015). Use of recommended search strategies in systematic reviews and the impact of librarian involvement: A cross-sectional survey of recent authors. PloS One, 10(5), e0125931. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125931

Lam, M. T., & McDiarmid, M. (2016). Increasing number of databases searched in systematic reviews and meta-analyses between 1994 and 2014. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 104(4), 284–289. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.006

Li, L., Tian, J., Tian, H., Moher, D., Liang, F., Jiang, T., Yao, L., & Yang, K. (2014). Network meta-analyses could be improved by searching more sources and by involving a librarian. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(9), 1001–1007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.04.003

Ludeman, E., Downton, K., Shipper, A. G., & Fu, Y. (2015). Developing a library systematic review service: A case study. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 34(2), 173–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2015.1019323

McGowan, J., & Sampson, M. (2005). Systematic reviews need systematic searchers. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 93(1), 74–80. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15685278

McGowan, J., Sampson, M., Salzwedel, D. M., Cogo, E., Foerster, V., & Lefebvre, C. (2016). PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 75, 40–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & Group, P. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62(10), 1006–1012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005

Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5

Niforatos, J. D., Weaver, M., & Johansen, M. E. (2019). Assessment of publication trends of systematic reviews and randomized clinical trials, 1995 to 2017. JAMA Internal Medicine, 179(11), 1953–1594. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.3013

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Kirkham, J., Dwan, K., Kramer, S., Green, S., & Forbes, A. (2014). Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. (10), MR000035. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000035.pub2

Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Blackwell Publishing

Redulla, R. (2016). Bias because of selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomized trials of healthcare interventions. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 14(4), 183–185. https://doi.org/10.1097/xeb.0000000000000089

Rethlefsen, M. L., Farrell, A. M., Osterhaus Trzasko, L. C., & Brigham, T. J. (2015). Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 68(6), 617–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.025

Rethlefsen, M. L., Kirtley, S., Waffenschmidt, S., Ayala, A. P., Moher, D., Page, M. J., & Koffel, J. B. (2021). PRISMA-S: An extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10, 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z

Rethlefsen, M. L., Murad, M. H., & Livingston, E. H. (2014). Engaging medical librarians to improve the quality of review articles. JAMA, 312(10), 999–1000. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.9263

Roth, S. C. (2018). Transforming the systematic review service: A team-based model to support the educational needs of researchers. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 106(4), 514–520. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.430

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

Uman, L. S. (2011). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry = Journal de l'Académie Canadienne de Psychiatrie de L'enfant et de l'Adolescent, 20 (1), 57–59.

Vinyard, M., & Whitt, J. (2016). Scopus. The Charleston Advisor, 18(2), 52–57.

Wang, Q., & Waltman, L. (2016). Large-scale analysis of the accuracy of the journal classification systems of Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.003




How to Cite

Slebodnik, M., Pardon, K., & Hermer, J. (2022). Who’s Publishing Systematic Reviews? An Examination Beyond the Health Sciences. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, (101). https://doi.org/10.29173/istl2671



Refereed Articles
Share |