Optometry and Vision Science Research Guide: Syntheses and reviews

Type of Review

Purpose

Key Features

A systematic review is a structured and comprehensive method of identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing all available research evidence relevant to a specific, well-defined question. It follows a transparent protocol to ensure that the process is reproducible, minimizes bias, and supports evidence-based conclusions.

Methods:

Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.5 (updated August 2024). Cochrane, 2024. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.

Nagendrababu V, Dilokthornsakul P, Jinatongthai P, et al. Glossary for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses. International endodontic journal. 2020;53(2):232-249. doi:10.1111/iej.13217

Formal critical appraisal and risk of bias (RoB) assessment are essential components of a systematic review.

In the literature: 

Evans JR, Lawrenson JG. Antioxidant vitamin and mineral supplements for slowing the progression of age‐related macular degeneration. Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2023;2023(9). doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000254.pub5

Statistically combine results from multiple studies.

Methods:

Cooper, Harris. Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis: A Step-by-Step Approach Fifth Edition ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc;  2017. doi:10.4135/9781071878644

Quantitative synthesis, often part of a systematic review.

In the literature:

Rudnicka AR, Kapetanakis V, Wathern AK, et al. Global variations and time trends in the prevalence of childhood myopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet (British edition). 2015;386:S69-S69. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00907-1

Maps the breadth and depth of a field, identify gaps.

Methods:

Peters MDJ, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. International journal of evidence-based healthcare. 2015;13(3):141-146.

Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616

Broad inclusion criteria, no critical appraisal required.

In the literature:

Lee L, Moo E, Angelopoulos T, Yashadhana A, Ovenseri-Ogbomo G. Integrated people-centered eye care: A scoping review on engaging communities in eye care in low- and middle-income settings. PloS one. 2023;18(1). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0278969

Provide a general overview of a topic.

Methods:

Loseke, Donileen R.. Narrative as Topic and Method in Social Research Vol. 0. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.;  2022. doi:10.4135/9781071938928

Less structured, more interpretive and discursive.

In the literature:

Upadhyay T, Prasad R, Mathurkar S. A Narrative Review of the Advances in Screening Methods for Diabetic Retinopathy: Enhancing Early Detection and Vision Preservation. Cureus. 2024 Feb 4;16(2):e53586.

Provide timely evidence for decision-making.

Methods:

Dobbins M. Steps for conducting a rapid review. 2017; National Collaborating Centre for methods and tools (NCCMT). McMaster University. 

Streamlined methods, may sacrifice comprehensiveness.

In the literature:

Heinze N, Jones L, Makwana B. A rapid review of evidence relating to service use, experiences, and support needs of adults from minority ethnic communities along the eyecare pathway in the United Kingdom. Front Public Health. 2023 Feb 28;11:1119540. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1119540. 

Understand how and why complex interventions work (or don’t) in specific contexts.

Methods:

Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, Walshe K. Realist review – a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Journal of health services research & policy. 2005;10(1_suppl):21-34.

Theory-driven, focuses on mechanisms and context.

In the literature:

Baker H, Ratnarajan G, Harper RA, Edgar DF, Lawrenson JG. Effectiveness of UK optometric enhanced eye care services: a realist review of the literature. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2016 Sep;36(5):545-57. doi: 10.1111/opo.12312. 

Synthesize qualitative studies.

Methods:

Fetterman, D. (Ed.) (2020).  Ethnography: Step-by-Step. (Vols. 1-0). SAGE Publications, Inc., https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071909874

Interpretive, aims to develop new conceptual understandings.

In the literature:

Cheng C, Inder K, Chan SW. Patients’ experiences of coping with multiple chronic conditions: A meta‐ethnography of qualitative work. International journal of mental health nursing. 2019;28(1):54-70. doi:10.1111/inm.12544

Summarize evidence from multiple systematic reviews.

Methods:

Gosling CJ, Cortese S, Radua J, Moher D, Delorme R, Solmi M. Umbrella-Review, Evaluation, Analysis and Communication Hub (U-REACH): a novel living umbrella review knowledge translation approach. BMJ mental health. 2024;27(1):e301310-. 

High-level synthesis, useful for policy and guideline development.

In the literature:

Assi L, Chamseddine F, Ibrahim P, et al. A Global Assessment of Eye Health and Quality of Life: A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2021;139(5):526–541. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2021.0146

Include diverse methodologies (quantitative, qualitative, theoretical).

Methods:

Toronto CE, Remington Ruth, eds. A Step-by-Step Guide to Conducting an Integrative Review. 1st ed. 2020. Springer International Publishing; 2020.

Broad scope, allows for holistic understanding.

In the literature:

Stoianov M, de Oliveira MS, dos Santos Ribeiro Silva MCL, Ferreira MH, de Oliveira Marques I, Gualtieri M. The impacts of abnormal color vision on people’s life: an integrative review. Quality of life research. 2019;28(4):855-862. doi:10.1007/s11136-018-2030-1