Abstract:Background: A systematic review (SR) helps us make sense of a body of research while minimizing bias and is routinely conducted to evaluate intervention effects in a health technology assessment (HTA). In addition to the traditional de novo SR, which combines the results of multiple primary studies, there are alternative review types that use systematic methods and leverage existing SRs, namely updates of SRs and overviews of SRs. This paper shares guidance that can be used to select the most appropriate review type to conduct when evaluating intervention effects in an HTA, with a goal to leverage existing SRs and reduce research waste where possible. Process: We identified key factors and considerations that can inform the process of deciding to conduct one review type over the others to answer a research question and organized them into guidance comprising a summary and a corresponding flowchart. This work consisted of three steps. First, a guidance document was drafted by methodologists from two Canadian HTA agencies based on their experience. Next, the draft guidance was supplemented with a literature review. Lastly, broader feedback from HTA researchers across Canada was sought and incorporated into the final guidance. Insights: Nine key factors and six considerations were identified to help reviewers select the most appropriate review type to conduct. These fell into one of two categories: the evidentiary needs of the planned review (i.e., to understand the scope, objective, and analytic approach required for the review) and the state of the existing literature (i.e., to know the available literature in terms of its relevance, quality, comprehensiveness, currency, and findings). The accompanying flowchart, which can be used as a decision tool, demonstrates the interdependency between many of the key factors and considerations and aims to balance the potential benefits and challenges of leveraging existing SRs instead of primary study reports. Conclusions: Selecting the most appropriate review type to conduct when evaluating intervention effects in an HTA requires a myriad of factors to be considered. We hope this guidance adds clarity to the many competing considerations when deciding which review type to conduct and facilitates that decision-making process.

Starting a review

Formulating Questions and Locating Primary Studies for Inclusion in Systematic Reviews

Chapter I: introduction

Selecting and Appraising Studies for a Systematic Review

Best Practice Guidelines and Essential Methodological Steps to Conduct Rigorous and Systematic Meta-Reviews

Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

Review Research as Scientific Inquiry

Defining the review question and developing criteria for including studies

A Step-by-Step Guide to Conducting an Integrative Review

Young GI angle: Why and how to write a good review article

Guidance on review type selection for health technology assessments: key factors and considerations for deciding when to conduct a de novo systematic review, an update of a systematic review, or an overview of systematic reviews

The ABC of systematic literature review: the basic methodological guidance for beginners

Living systematic review: 1. Introduction—the why, what, when, and how

How to write a review article?

How to write a Cochrane systematic review

Reflections on reviews

Systematic reviews of the literature: an introduction to current methods

Preparing a Cochrane review

How to Write a Systematic Review of the Literature

The Systematic Review-lution: A Manifesto to Promote Rigour and Inclusivity in Research Synthesis

Search strategy formulation for systematic reviews: Issues, challenges and opportunities