Systematic review: look for the question and selection rules

When someone says “a review of the research,” a useful first task is to find the review's question and the rules for including studies. A long reference list is a place to investigate, not the answer to that task. You can check one important feature without attempting your own full review.

Three reports about signs—but not the same question

In an invented scenario, a neighborhood group receives a document about signs at community events. Its stated question concerns whether adults can find an entrance using large outdoor directional signs. The authors list rules for which reports they considered and describe their search.

At a family meeting, Mateo calls it “a review of all signs.” His daughter is looking for evidence about small labels on indoor craft boxes. His partner asks about signs using pictures without written words. They return to the document's question before assuming it covers either request.

The family writes, “This review's stated scope is outdoor entrance signs for adults.” They may search for other material, or simply choose craft-box labels by agreement. They do not stretch the document's scope to make a household preference sound researched. The example is fictional; it reports no actual signage finding.

What can you locate in the review?

You might check for:

• A question that names the people, setting, comparison, and outcome of interest.
• Eligibility rules explaining which studies could be included.
• Where the authors searched and the date their search ended.
• An account of what was included and why other material was excluded.
• The authors' discussion of limitations and unanswered questions.

Write down only what you find. If an explanation sits in a supplement you cannot access, say that. If the review question differs from yours, identify the difference before arguing about whether the document is “good.”

A review is not a synonym for every kind of summary

For this reading task, ask a narrative overview for its scope and references without assuming it followed systematic selection rules. When a document calls itself a systematic review, look for the reported methods behind that description.

Meta-analysis offers a related but separate question: did the authors combine study results numerically, and which results went into that calculation? Do not infer the answer simply from the review's title. Primary source takes you toward the individual records or reports cited along the way.

Different family questions deserve their own line

An adult may be interested in a headline about a broad topic while a teen wants to know whether the people studied resemble the people being discussed. A sibling can ask about an omitted setting without taking responsibility for finding every missing study. Partners can decide whether the mismatch matters for the ordinary choice they face.

You may finish with a narrow conclusion: “I found a review, but its question is not our question.” That is a useful reading result. This glossary does not turn a short check into a professional evidence appraisal or personal medical guidance.

Source

[1] Lasserson TJ, Thomas J, Higgins JP. Chapter 1: Starting a review. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, version 6.5. Cochrane; 2024. Chapter updated August 2021; accessed September 5, 2026. Section 1.1 supports [1]. Terminology only; no intervention finding adopted.

Related guides

• Meta-analysis
• Primary source
• Peer review
• Sample size