Systematic Literature Review (PRISMA) 系統性文獻回顧 PRISMA
Released已發布Conduct a systematic literature review following the PRISMA framework with explicit search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, quality assessment, and transparent synthesis. Use this skill when the user needs to design a reproducible literature search, apply PRISMA flow documentation, develop inclusion and exclusion criteria, assess study quality, or when they ask 'how do I do a systematic review', 'what is PRISMA', or 'how do I make my literature review reproducible'.
學術研究技能：Systematic Literature Review (PRISMA) 分析與應用。
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.
When to Use使用時機
- 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
When NOT to Use不適用時機
- 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)
Assumptions前提假設
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
Framework 框架
Step 1: Define the Research Question and Protocol
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 |
Step 2: Execute the Search Strategy
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.
Step 3: Screen and Select Studies
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
Step 4: Extract Data, Assess Quality, and Synthesize
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.
Output Format輸出格式
Gotchas注意事項
- 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)
References參考資料
- 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.