Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-6mft8 Total loading time: 0.653 Render date: 2021-10-22T20:54:28.071Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }
Coming soon

11 - Assembling the building blocks: reviews and their uses

Penny Webb
Queensland Institute of Medical Research
Chris Bain
University of Queensland
Get access


While it is important to be able to read and interpret individual papers, the results of a single study are never going to provide the complete answer to a question. To move towards this we need to review the literature more widely. There can be a number of reasons for doing this, some of which require a more comprehensive approach than others. If the aim is simply to increase our personal understanding of a new area then a few papers might provide adequate background material. Traditional narrative reviews, which give less emphasis to complete coverage of the literature and tend to be more qualitative, have value for exploring areas of uncertainty or novelty, but it is harder to scrutinise them for flaws. In contrast, a major policy decision might require a systematic review of all the relevant literature. We will focus on the systematic approach here, but this can of course be tailored according to need.

What is a systematic review?

Like a primary research paper, an epidemiological review should aim to produce a helpful synthesis of primary data – looking for patterns but not hiding differences – and it should normally offer a formal causal interpretation. Although its primary data units are whole studies rather than individuals, the review process should have the same rigour as its component studies. A systematic review should be a response to a clearly formulated question and involve the identification of all relevant primary research studies that address that question.

Essential Epidemiology
An Introduction for Students and Health Professionals
, pp. 252 - 275
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Ahlbom, A., Feychting, M., Green, A. et al. (2009). Epidemiologic evidence on mobile phones and tumor risk. A review. Epidemiology, 20: 639–652.Google Scholar
,AHRQ. (2004). Guide to Clinical Preventive Services, Third Edition: Periodic Updates. AHRQ Publication No . 04-IP003, January 2004. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Aspinall, W. (2010). A route to more tractable expert advice. Nature, 463: 294–295.Google Scholar
Black, N. (1996). Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care. British Medical Journal, 312: 1215–1218.Google Scholar
Britton, A., McKee, M., Black, N. et al. (1998). Choosing between randomised and non-randomised studies: a systematic review. Health Technology Assessment, 2 (No. 13): 1–124.Google Scholar
,Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. (1996). Breast cancer and hormonal contraceptives: collaborative reanalysis of individual data on 53297 women with breast cancer and 100239 women without breast cancer from 54 epidemiological studies. The Lancet, 347: 1713–1727.Google Scholar
Delgado-Rodriguez, M., Ruiz-Canela, M., Irala-Estevez, J., Llorica, J. and Martinez-Gonzalez, A. (2001). Participation of epidemiologists and/or biostatisticians and methodological quality of published controlled clinical trials. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 55: 569–572.Google Scholar
Deltour, I., Johansen, C., Auvinen, A., Feychting, M., Klaeboe, L. and Schüz, J. (2009). Time trends in brain tumor incidence rates in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden, 1974–2003. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 101: 1621–1724.Google Scholar
dos Santos Silva, I., Stavola, B., McCormack, V. and Collaborative Group on Pre-Natal Risk Factors and Subsequent Risk of Breast Cancer. (2008). Birth size and breast cancer risk: re-analysis of individual participant data from 32 studies. PLoS Medicine, 5: e193.Google Scholar
Glasziou, P., Irwig, L., Bain, C. and Colditz, G. (2001). Systematic Reviews in Health Care: A Practical Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Glasziou, P., Vandenbroucke, J. and Chalmers, I. (2004). Assessing the quality of research. British Medical Journal, 328: 39–41.Google Scholar
Harris, R. P., Helfand, M., Woolf, S. H. et al. for the Methods Work Group Third U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. (2001). Current methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 20 (3S): 21–35.Google Scholar
Horner, M. J., Ries, L. A. G., Krapcho, M. et al. (Eds). (2009). SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2006, National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD,, based on November 2008 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site, 2009.
Khurana, V. G., Teo, C., Kundi, M., Hardell, L. and Carlberg, M. (2009). Cell phones and brain tumors: a review including the long-term epidemiologic data. Surgical Neurology, 72: 205–214.Google Scholar
Liberati, A., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J. et al. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. British Medical Journal, 339:b2700 doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2700.Google Scholar
Manson, J. E. and Bassuk, S. S. (2007). Invited commentary: hormone therapy and risk of coronary heart disease – why renew the focus on the early years of menopause? American Journal of Epidemiology, 166: 511–517.Google Scholar
McKee, M., Britton, A., Black, N. et al. (1999). Interpreting the evidence: choosing between randomised and non-randomised studies. British Medical Journal, 319: 312–315.Google Scholar
Moher, D., Cook, D. J., Eastwood, S. et al. (1999). Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of reporting of meta-analyses. Lancet, 354: 1896–1900.Google Scholar
Muir Gray, J. A. (1997). Evidence-Based Health Care – How to Make Health Policy and Management Decisions . Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.
Oxman, A. D., Cook, D. J. and Guyatt, G. H. (1994). Users' guides to the medical literature VI. How to use an overview. Journal of the American Medical Association, 272: 1367–1371.Google Scholar
Pirozzo, S., Summerbell, C., Cameron, C. and Glasziou, P. (2003). Should we recommend low-fat diets for obesity? Obesity Reviews, 4: 83–90.Google Scholar
Purdie, D. M., Bain, C. J., Webb, P. M. et al. (2001). Body size and ovarian cancer: case–control study and systematic review (Australia). Cancer Causes Control, 12: 855–863.Google Scholar
Schultz, K. F., Chalmers, I., Hayes, R. J. and Altman, D. G. (1995). Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. Journal of the American Medical Association, 273: 408–412.Google Scholar
Smith, G. C. S. and Pell, J. P. (2003). Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. British Medical Journal, 327: 1459–1461.Google Scholar
Stroup, D. F., Berlin, J. A., Morton, S. C. et al. (2000). Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology. A proposal for reporting. Journal of the American Medical Association, 283: 2008–2012.Google Scholar
,US Preventive Services Task Force. (2009). Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151: 716–726.Google Scholar
,Various. (2004). Screening for breast cancer: point–counterpoint. International Journal of Epidemiology, 33: 43–74.Google Scholar
,WCRF (World Cancer Research Fund) and AICR (American Institute for Cancer Research). (1997). Food, Nutrition and the Prevention of Cancer: A Global Perspective. Washington DC: AICR.
,WCRF (World Cancer Research Fund) and AICR (American Institute for Cancer Research). (2007). Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Cancer: A Global Perspective. Washington DC: AICR.
Weed, D. L. (2000). Interpreting epidemiological evidence: how meta-analysis and causal inference methods are related. International Journal of Epidemiology, 29: 387–390.Google Scholar

Send book to Kindle

To send this book to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats

Send book to Dropbox

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Available formats

Send book to Google Drive

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Available formats