According to Jesson, Matheson, and Lacey (2011), the difference between a systematic review and the traditional literature review is primarily based on how they focus on the research question. On the one hand, the traditional literature review centers on evaluating subsisting work in a particular research area. This review identifies the research gaps, places the research studies with others, appraises assuring research methods, and proposes further researches. On the other hand, systematic review focusses on a particular research question. It identifies analytically synthesizing and assessing outcomes of primary research study through an explicit methodological approach.
The systematic review differs from a meta-analysis in that systematic review is used in synthesizing, appraising, and gathering shreds of evidence to answer particular well-defined questions. In contrast, meta-analysis is used in combining those answers in a new statistical framework to facilitate testing hypotheses (Wang et al. 2018). According to Claudino et al. (2018), a meta-analysis is an analytical approach used for a combination of the data retrieved from a systematic review. The systematic review describes trends in the research fields by calculating the number of studies that have utilized a particular research methodology.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Systematic review and meta-analysis can be used to certify the creation of unbiased synthesis of the literature concerning a specific research question by including extensive references to the first study relevant to the research question (Subhash & Cudney 2018). In this case, the conclusions are not based on a single study; instead, they are based on numerous studies to reduce bias. Thus, the systematic review and meta-analysis can be used to avoid biasness by utilizing many resources, thus formulating reliable conclusions or results (Beaudart et al. 2017). However, the findings of the meta-analysis are considered to be more substantial compared to those produced by a single review. In this case, the systematic review collects and recapitulates the heuristic evidence fitting the pre-specified eligible benchmarks, and meta-analysis summarizes the results derived from the studies, thus avoiding biasness.
References
Beaudart, C., Zaaria, M., Pasleau, F., Reginster, J. Y., & Bruyère, O. (2017). Health outcomes of sarcopenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS one , 12 (1), e0169548.
Claudino, J. G., Gabbett, T. J., Bourgeois, F., de Sá Souza, H., Miranda, R. C., Mezêncio, B., ... & Amadio, A. C. (2018). CrossFit overview: systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports medicine-open , 4 (1), 11.
Jesson, J., Matheson, L., & Lacey, F. M. (2011). Doing your literature review: Traditional and systematic techniques . Sage.
Subhash, S., & Cudney, E. A. (2018). Gamified learning in higher education: A systematic review of the literature. Computers in Human Behavior , 87 , 192-206.
Wang, D. Y., Salem, J. E., Cohen, J. V., Chandra, S., Menzer, C., Ye, F., ... & Rathmell, W. K. (2018). Fatal toxic effects associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA oncology , 4 (12), 1721-1728.
