What is systematic review and how we should write it?

Successful clinical decisions are the outcome of a complex process. In making them, we draw on information from scientific evidences, our personal experience and external rules and constraints. Considering that the explosive increase in the amount and quality of the scientific evidence that has come from both the laboratory bench and the bedside, we may lack the time, motivation, and basic skills needed to find, critically appraise, and synthesize information. Fortunately, systematic reviews help us and answer sharply defined clinical questions. This article deals with two questions; a: what is a systematic review and, b: how should we organize it?

We searched MEDLINE database with search terms of systematic review and narrative review, restricted to English language, without time limitation. Then we selected those articles written by renowned experts.

There are two types of review articles: narrative review and systematic review. Narrative review has been the conventional method for writing review articles; since it is subjective, it may be subject to error and bias; in areas where there is lack or paucity of evidence, the narrative review may still be the best writing method. Systematic review is the precise, systematic and classified method of reviewing the existing data and evidences. It is objective, constructive and comprehensive and has much less error and bias than the narrative review.

Systematic reviews are thus a vital link in the great chain of evidence that stretches from the laboratory bench to the bedside. It is absolutely essential for targeting these goals, for writing a systematic review, a fully trained team with an expert leader and a precise protocol is essential.