Advanced
search

PRISMA for Review of Management Literature – Method, Merits, and Limitations – An Academic Review

Vinaytosh Mishra a
Monu Pandey Mishra b
aGulf Medical University, UAE
bAaroha Healthcare (P) Ltd., India

Advancing Methodologies of Conducting Literature Review in Management Domain

ISBN: 978-1-80262-372-7, eISBN: 978-1-80262-371-0

ISSN: 2754-5865

Publication date: 24 November 2023

pdf (333 KB) ePub (3 MB) Article view Figure view Cited (9) cite article

Abstract

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) is a widely accepted guideline for performing a systematic review (SR) in clinical journals. It not only helps an author to improve the reporting but also assists reviewers and editors in the critical appraisal of available SR. These tools help in achieving reproducibility in research, a major concern in contemporary academic research. But there is a lack of awareness about the approach among management researchers. This chapter attempts to fill this gap using a narrative review of reliable online resources and peer-reviewed articles to discuss the PRISMA guidelines and recent amendments. The chapter further points out the limitations of PRISMA in the review of management literature and suggests measures to overcome that. This piece of literature introduces a reader to the basics of a systematic review using PRISMA as an instrument. One of the significant contributions is to delineate a seven-step strategy to attain reproducibility in the systematic review. The chapter is useful for researchers and academicians in the field of social science and management.

Keywords

Citation

Mishra, V. and Mishra, M.P. (2023), "PRISMA for Review of Management Literature – Method, Merits, and Limitations – An Academic Review", Rana, S., Singh, J. and Kathuria, S. (Ed.) Advancing Methodologies of Conducting Literature Review in Management Domain (Review of Management Literature, Vol. 2), Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 125-136. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2754-586520230000002007

Publisher

:

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2024 Vinaytosh Mishra and Monu Pandey Mishra. Published under exclusive licence by Emerald Publishing Limited

1 Introduction

A literature review (LR) is an integral part of academic projects. The foremost purpose of an LR is to develop a knowledge of the extant research work related to a particular topic or area of study (Knopf, 2006). Another objective of the literature review is to present insights in the form of a written report. Webster and Watson in their seminal work asserts that conducting an LR helps you in not only building your expertise in a specific area of the research field but also in identifying the research gap. An effective LR helps in the development of theory, summarizes the knowledge where an overabundance of research exists, and discovers areas where research is required (Webster & Watson, 2002). Since they wrote this paper with the roadmap of literature review 20 years back other researchers have contributed to the body of review of the literature (ROL) by defining the different types of LR (Leidner, 2018; Paré et al., 2015) or how to make searches more inclusive and well-organized (Bandara et al., 2015; Vom Brocke et al., 2009). A general framework for the LR is depicted in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1. Framework for Review of Academic Literature.

Fig. 1.

Framework for Review of Academic Literature.

Despite the recent advancement in the arena of LR, two major shortcomings persist. Foremost, the evidence synthesis fails to instill interest in the reader at the same time it lacks delineating theoretical contribution. Webster and Watson in their recent work suggests two measures for refining the procedure of LR. Firstly, they suggest systematically digitally encoding (SDE) of main knowledge contributions in the form of a graph or networks. Secondly, they propose reviewing creative literature as a source of inspiration for constructing the theoretical contributions of the paper. Fig. 2 depicts the publication data graph model suggested by Watson and Webster (2020) in their seminal work.

Fig. 2. Publication Data Graph Model.

Fig. 2.

Publication Data Graph Model.

The task of creating a data graph model may be intimidating for a researcher who is new to the concept. The availability of Graphic User Interface (GUI) based tools for the task may result in wider acceptance of the method soon.

2 Types of Literature Review

As discussed, in an earlier section several types of literature reviews have emerged over the years. Out of these foremost are narrative, systematic, meta-analysis, and meta-synthesis.

  1. Narrative Literature Review: The main objective behind the narrative LR is to examine and recapitulate an existing body of literature. To achieve this a thorough background of the literature is presented in interest to educate, identify gaps, or spot inconsistencies in the research area. Thus, the narrative review can not only assist in refining, focusing, and identifying research questions but also in proposing conceptual and theoretical frameworks (Coughlan et al., 2007). Another examples can be seen as conceptual review (Rana et al., 2020, 2022).

  2. Systematic Literature Review: It is a more demanding method for LR. These are frequently used by researchers to get an answer to well-defined and precise research inquiries. Thus, they make the available evidence more accessible to decision-makers (Williams et al., 2021).

  3. Meta-Analysis Literature Review: This approach takes the results from the selected pieces of literature and analyzes these using a well-established statistical method (Coughlan et al., 2007). Polit and Beck (2006) claim that meta-analysis approaches support drawing inferences and identifying patterns and associations between results.

  4. Meta Synthesis: Unlike meta-analysis literature review, meta synthesis is a nonstatistical method for SLR and evidence synthesis from qualitative studies. It is an emergent technique in various fields such as medical and business research and can be used in many different methods. It aims to build on earlier conceptualizations and understandings. However, the approach must be suitable to the specific field of scientific research (Lachal et al., 2017).

Out of the methods discussed above, the dominant styles used in the review of management literature are narrative and systematic LR. The narrative review in the field of social science is suitable for pinpointing the knowledge gaps, whereas the systematic review is more focused on disseminating the existing information. Jesson et al. (2011) discuss a continuum of the diverse nuances of these two types of academic reviews (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3. Continuum for Management LR.

Fig. 3.

Continuum for Management LR.

The rest of the chapter is schematized as follows. Section 2 deliberates the concerns over reproducibility in contemporary research and seven strategies to achieve it in the literature review. Section 3 discusses PRISMA guidelines and recent updates in it. The section further lists the limitations of PRISMA and its extensions of it. The chapter concludes with discussions beyond PRISMA, and frameworks used for systematic review.

3 Reproducibility in Research

Reproducible research ensures that if the same analysis is repeated multiple times the result obtained will be the same. It is a by-product of watchful diligence in the process of research (Alston & Rick, 2021). An article published in Nature observes that more than 70% of researchers have attempted and failed to replicate the research of other academicians, while more than 50% half have been unsuccessful in replicating the findings of their research (Baker, 2016). This paints a very grim picture of the state of reproducibility in academic research. Irreproducibility of research causes grave concern in academia and the management field is no different. Moreover, irreproducibility restricts the translation of research into practice as it adversely affects the reliability of the information. Various measures to achieve reproducibility in the research listed in Table 1 (Shokraneh, 2019).

Table 1.

Strategy to Achieve the Reproducibility Practice in Management Research.
SN Strategy Description
Strategy 1 Pre-registration (Stewart et al., 2012) Researchers suggest registering the potential systematic reviews in directories such as PROSPERO. It also helps researchers in better planning their review.
Strategy 2 Open methods (Koffel & Rethlefsen, 2016) It is suggested to share the strategies for literature search in databases and analytical codes as a part of the systematic literature review procedure.
Strategy 3 Open data (Shokraneh, 2018) This strategy facilitates revisiting the search results. It also helps in removing duplicates and evaluating the replicability of searching, screening, and analysis.
Strategy 4 Collaboration Teamwork among the researchers not only brings more expertise but also brings more integrity. Team members can run the procedure separately to check whether the results are reproducible.
Strategy 5 Automation (Beller et al., 2018) Vienna principles stress the reproducibility of the automation activities and making program codes available to the research community for wider use.
Strategy 6 Reporting guidelines (Page et al., 2018) Reporting guidelines such as PRISMA help researchers select literature. But recent guidelines emphasize more on the reproducibility of research.
Strategy 7 Post-publication review Peer reviews are restricted to a close group while post-publication reviews provide an opportunity for an appraisal through a wider audience.

Source: Compiled by authors using mentioned resources.

Discussion about all seven strategies is out of the scope of this chapter and needs a series of articles to discuss it adequately. The focus of the next section is to discuss PRISMA reporting guidelines and recent updates. The objective of the section is to introduce PRISMA guidelines to researchers new to this tool in a lucid manner. This chapter addresses the following three research questions:

  1. What are strategies to achieve reproducibility in management research?

  2. What are PRISMA guidelines and how to use them?

  3. What are the modifications in PRISMA 2020 statement from the 2009 version?

  4. What are extensions of PRISMA useful in the review of the management literature?

4 Research Methodology

This study uses narrative LR to explain the PRISMA guidelines and their extensions useful in the review of the management of literature. The fundamental narrative reviews are extremely effective for obtaining a wide perspective on a subject and are often more comparable to a textbook chapter on an important topic. One of the drawbacks of this type of review is the bias of the author in the evidence synthesis. The authors of this study have tried their best to provide evidence factually and to perform narrative review. This chapter uses the approach discussed in extant literature (Contandriopoulos et al., 2010; Nasheeda et al., 2019; Rice et al., 2016).

4.1 Inclusion Criteria

Literature published in peer-reviewed journals and available online was included in the event synthesis.

4.2 Exclusion Criteria

The information available in online resources other than those mentioned on PRISMA official website was excluded. The study further excluded literature published in a language other than English. Sixty-five articles were excluded because the full text of those articles was not available, and it may result in bias.

The flow chart for the selection of literature is listed in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4. Flow Chart of Stages of Literature Search.

Fig. 4.

Flow Chart of Stages of Literature Search.

The authors of the study (MPM) collated the information from the selected literature and presented it in a structured format for a better understanding of the readers.

5 Results and Discussion

Based on the research questions of the study, the results and discussion section lists the findings in three subsections namely (1) PRISMA guidelines, (2) PRISMA 2020 additions, and (3) Extensions of PRISMA. The section is followed by the conclusion, implications, and future directions of the research.

5.1 PRISMA Guidelines

“PRISMA Statement and its extensions are an evidence-based, minimum set of recommendations designed primarily to encourage transparent and complete reporting of the systematic review. It has been developed to assist authors with appropriate reporting of diverse knowledge synthesis methods (such as SRs, scoping reviews, and review protocols) and to ensure that all aspects of this type of research are accurately and transparently reported” (Sarkis-Onofre et al., 2021). Thus, it is a guiding light to help researchers adeptly recount what was done, what was found, and in the case of a review protocol, what they are planning to do. “PRISMA guidelines are also helpful for reviewers and editors as they assist them in critical appraisal of published systematic reviews. Although it brings structure to a literature review it is not a quality assessment instrument to judge the quality of a systematic review” (PRISMA, 2022).

PRISMA checklists help in improving the reporting quality of an SLR and provide considerable transparency in the selection process of papers for review. The PRISMA Statement has been recommended by various journals as one of the publishing requirements (Page & Moher, 2017). Many journals publishing health research refer to PRISMA in their Instructions to Authors and some require authors to adhere to them. Similar practices can be adopted for the review of literature in the social science and management field. In 2009, the “QUOROM (Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses) Statement was updated to address several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances, and was renamed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses). The PRISMA Group advised that PRISMA should replace QUOROM for those journals that endorsed QUOROM in the past” (Tao et al., 2011). The next section discusses the guidelines of PRISMA 2020 and the addition of a more than one decade-old version of it.

5.2 PRISMA 2020 Additions

“The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesize studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation” (PRISMA, 2022). The guidelines attempt to ensure a systematic review is valuable to users. To achieve these authors are advised to prepare a transparent, complete, and accurate account of why the review was done, what they did, and what they found. The updated guidelines reflect advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesize studies. It includes a 27-item checklist and an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item (Page et al., 2021). The new guideline also includes a revised abstract checklist, and flow diagrams for original and updated reviews. The official website of PRISMA provides tools and procedures to use guidelines in the systematic review. The key documents to be used are (1) PRISMA 2020 Checklist, and (2) PRISMA 2020 flow diagram. “The PRISMA diagram for Databases and Registers follows the same format as the previous 2009 PRISMA diagram while the diagram for Databases, Registers, and Gray Literature has an additional column on the right side of the diagram for reporting grey literature searches and results” (PRISMA, 2022). For the greater good of brevity, the authors have not included the specifics of the checklist and flow diagram. The details can be found on the official website.

The prominent additions to PRISMA 2020 guidelines are listed in 10 points as follows:

  1. The addition of the abstract writing specification within the newer guidelines.

  2. Protocol and registration items are moved from the beginning of the method section to the “Other Information” section with the addition of a sub-item suggesting authors explain changes to the information presented at the time of registration in directories such as PROSPERO.

  3. The “Search” item is modified to recommend authors present full search strategies for all databases, registers and websites searched, not just at least one database.

  4. “Study selection” items are changed to give more insight into how many reviewers screened each record and each report retrieved, whether they worked independently, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process.

  5. The new standard includes a subitem to the “Data items” advising authors to describe how results were defined, which of these were required, and methods for selecting a subcategory of findings from included studies.

  6. The new guideline splits the “Synthesis of results” into the “Methods” part into six sub-items and advises authors to illustrate: the processes used to determine which studies were eligible for each synthesis.

  7. The addition of a sub-item to the “Study selection” item in the Results section advises the researchers to cite studies that could appear to meet the inclusion criteria, but which were excluded, and explain why they were not included for further evidence synthesis.

  8. “Asking authors to summarize the characteristics and risk of bias among studies contributing to the synthesis; present results of all statistical syntheses conducted; present results of any investigations of possible causes of heterogeneity among study results; and present results of any sensitivity analyses” (Page et al., 2021).

  9. The inclusion of the latest items recommends researchers describe methods for results of an evaluation of conviction in the body of evidence for a result.

  10. An additional item recommends authors declare competing interests and make data, syntax, and code used in the review publicly available.

5.3 Extensions of PRISMA

Numerous extensions of the PRISMA Statement have been developed to facilitate the reporting of diverse types of SLRs. The important extensions relevant to the review of management and social science literature are (1) PRISMA-A (2) PRISMA-E (3) PRISMA-P (4) PRISMA-ScR, and (5) PRISMA-S. The details of these extensions are listed in Table 2).

Table 2.

PRISMA Extensions Relevant to Review of Management Literature.
SN Extension Description
1 PRISMA for abstracts (PRISMA-A)
Page et al. (2021) 		“The 12-item checklist gives authors a framework for condensing their systematic review into the essentials for a journal or conference abstract.” It is updated in PRISMA 2020 statement.
2 PRISMA equity (PRISMA-E)
Welch et al. (2012) 		“It guides reporting equity-focused systematic reviews to help reviewers identify, extract, and synthesize evidence on equity in systematic reviews.” the PRISMA-Equity extension was published in 2012
3 PRISMA for protocols (PRISMA-P)
Moher et al. (2015) 		“PRISMA-P was published in 2015 aiming to facilitate the development and reporting of systematic review protocols.”
4 PRISMA for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR)
Tricco et al. (2018) 		It was published in 2018 to synthesize evidence and evaluate the scope of extant articles in a research area. It also helps in assessing whether a systematic review is required of the topic at all.
5 PRISMA for searching (PRISMA-S)
(Rethlefsen et al., 2021)		 “The PRISMA extension for searching was published in 2021. The checklist includes 16 reporting items, each of which is detailed with exemplar reporting and Rationale.”

Source: Authors compilation on basis of mentioned resources.

6 Conclusion

PRISMA guidelines have evolved over time and in the last decades, there have been many extensions published to cater to the specific need. The use of the PRISMA protocol not only gives structure to the review process it also helps other researchers to reproduce the findings of the systematic review. The recent updates in PRISMA go one step further and provide guidelines for result synthesis and reporting. Even then evidence synthesis is based on the selected literature deeds of the researcher performing the review. There should be a mechanism to minimize these biases. The existing guideline for PRISMA asks authors to summarize the characteristics and risk of bias among studies contributing to the synthesis. These types of majors keep a reader informed about the probable biases in the findings of the systematic review. Other tools such as the assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR) are extensively used for examining the methodological quality of systematic reviews (SR). Again, AMSTAR is specially designed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and its applicability to SRs of other study designs prevalent in management literature is arguable.

PRISMA is extensively used in healthcare research but its wide use in management research is still debatable. The use of traditional narrative reviews is more common in management literature. There is a need for PRISMA extension of specific objectives review of management literature. Management researchers suggest the use of a framework for conducting a review of management literature. They argue that reviews with a framework have proven to be more acceptable as they are likely to show a more robust structure (Paul & Criado, 2020). Some of the frameworks used in the review of literature are ADO (Antecedents, Decisions, and Outcome), 6 W Framework (who, when, where, how, what, and why), and TCCM Framework (Theory, Construct, Characteristics and Methodology) (Callahan, 2014; Paul & Criado, 2020; Paul & Rosado-Serrano, 2019). Although extant literature cites the distinct advantage of using a framework for the review of management literature, there is a lack of standardization of these frameworks. Moreover, developers of these frameworks do not give a clear understanding of which framework is better in which scenario. One of the reasons behind it may be these frameworks are suggested and updated by researchers in their capacity and followed in their academic community. There is a need for a more organized effort like the PRISMA group around the review of management literature.

6.1 Implications and Future Directions

This chapter has two implications for theory. Firstly, it observes that the process of the management literature review is not standardized. Although PRISMA has useful extensions which can be adopted in the management literature the less prevalent use is strange. Secondly, the existing frameworks used in the review of literature do not highlight the method of selection of these approaches. This study again has two implications for the practices. Firstly, the study provides seven strategies to address the reproducibility crisis in management research. Secondly, it highlights the recent addition to PRISMA and the applicability of existing extensions in the review of management literature.

Once management researchers start using PRISMA more extensions will come addressing specific needs. The review based on the PRISMA framework is more acceptable in interdisciplinary research involving clinicians, nursing, and allied healthcare professionals. Future research can address the mechanism to address duplicate records in literature selection. Another review article on the proprietary and open-source software available for PRISMA will be helpful for the readers.

References

Alston and Rick, 2021 Alston, J. M. , & Rick, J. A. (2021). A beginner's guide to conducting reproducible research. The Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 102(2), 1–14.

Baker, 2016 Baker, M. (2016). 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature, 533(7604), 452–454.

Bandara et al., 2015 Bandara, W. , Furtmueller, E. , Gorbacheva, E. , Miskon, S. , & Beekhuyzen, J. (2015). Achieving rigor in literature reviews: Insights from qualitative data analysis and tool support. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37(1), 8.

Beller et al., 2018 Beller, E., Clark, J., Tsafnat, G., Adams, C., Diehl, H., Lund, H., Ouzzani M, Thayer, K., Thomas, J., Turner, T., Xia, J., Robinson, K., & Glasziou, P. (2018). Making progress with the automation of systematic reviews: Principles of the International Collaboration for the Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR). Systematic Reviews, 7(1), 1–7.

Brocke et al., 2009 Brocke, J. V. , Simons, A. , Niehaves, B. , Niehaves, B. , Reimer, K. , Plattfaut, R. , & Cleven, A. (2009). Reconstructing the giant: On the importance of rigor in documenting the literature search process. CIS 2009 Proceedings Paper 161.

Callahan, 2014 Callahan, J. L. (2014). Writing literature reviews: A reprise and update. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484314536705

Contandriopoulos et al., 2010 Contandriopoulos, D. , Lemire, M. , Denis, J. L. , & Tremblay, É. (2010). Knowledge exchange processes in organizations and policy arenas: A narrative systematic review of the literature. The Milbank Quarterly, 88(4), 444–483.

Coughlan et al., 2007 Coughlan, M. , Cronin, P. , & Ryan, F. (2007). Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1: Quantitative research. British Journal of Nursing, 16(11), 658–663.

Jesson et al., 2011 Jesson, J. , Matheson, L. , & Lacey, F. M. (2011). Doing your literature review: Traditional and systematic techniques. Sage Publications Ltd.

Knopf, 2006 Knopf, J. W. (2006). Doing a literature review. PS: Political Science & Politics, 39(1), 127–132.

Koffel and Rethlefsen, 2016 Koffel, J. B. , & Rethlefsen, M. L. (2016). Reproducibility of search strategies is poor in systematic reviews published in high-impact pediatrics, cardiology, and surgery journals: A cross-sectional study. PLoS One, 11(9), e0163309.

Lachal et al., 2017 Lachal, J. , Revah-Levy, A. , Orri, M. , & Moro, M. R. (2017). Meta-synthesis: An original method to synthesize qualitative literature in psychiatry. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 8, 269.

Leidner, 2018 Leidner, D. E. (2018). Review and theory symbiosis: An introspective retrospective. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 19(6), 1.

Moher et al., 2015 Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., Altman, D., Antes, G., Atkins, D., Barbour, V., Barrowman, N., Berlin, J. A., Clark, J., Clarke, M., Cook, D., D'Amico, R., Deeks, J. J., Devereaux, P. J., Dickersin, K., Egger, M., Ernst, E.,... Tugwell, P. (2015). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, 4(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1

Nasheeda et al., 2019 Nasheeda, A. , Abdullah, H. B. , Krauss, S. E. , & Ahmed, N. B. (2019). A narrative systematic review of life skills education: Effectiveness, research gaps, and priorities. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 24(3), 362–379.

Page et al., 2018 Page, M. J. , Altman, D. G. , Shamseer, L. , McKenzie, J. E., Ahmadzai, N., Wolfe, D., Yazdi, F., Catalá-López, F., Tricco, A. C., & Moher, D. (2018). Reproducible research practices are underused in systematic reviews of biomedical interventions. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 94, 8–18.

Page et al., 2021 Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo- Wilson, E., McDonald, S.,... Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10(1), 1–11.

Page and Moher, 2017 Page, M. J. , & Moher, D. (2017). Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: A scoping review. Systematic Reviews, 6(1), 1–14.

Paré et al., 2015 Paré, G. , Trudel, M. C. , Jaana, M. , & Kitsiou, S. (2015). Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management, 52(2), 183–199.

Paul and Criado, 2020 Paul, J. , & Criado, A. R. (2020). The art of writing a literature review: What do we know and what do we need to know? International Business Review, 29(4), 101717.

Paul and Rosado-Serrano, 2019 Paul, J. , & Rosado-Serrano, A. (2019). Gradual Internationalization vs Born-Global/International new venture models: A review and research agenda. International Marketing Review, 36(6), 830–858.

Polit and Beck, 2006 Polit, D. F. , & Beck, C. T. (2006). The content validity index: Are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 29(5), 489–497.

PRISMA, 2022 PRISMA . (2022). The PRISMA 2020 Checklist and flow diagram. https://prisma-statement.org/

Rana et al., 2020 Rana, S. , Raut, S. K. , Prashar, S. , & Hamid, A. B. A. (2020). Promoting through consumer nostalgia: A conceptual framework and future research agenda. Journal of Promotion Management, 27(2), 211–249.

Rana et al., 2022 Rana, S. , Raut, S. K. , Prashar, S. , & Quttainah, M. A. (2022). The transversal of nostalgia from psychology to marketing: What does it portend for future research? International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 30(4), 899–932.

Rethlefsen et al., 2021 Rethlefsen M. L. , Kirtley S. , Waffenschmidt S. , Ayala, A. P., Moher, D., Page, M. J., Koffel, J. B., & PRISMA-S Group . (2021). PRISMA-S: An extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z

Rice et al., 2016 Rice, S. M. , Purcell, R. , De Silva, S. , Mawren, D. , McGorry, P. D. , & Parker, A. G. (2016). The mental health of elite athletes: A narrative systematic review. Sports Medicine, 46(9), 1333–1353.

Sarkis-Onofre et al., 2021 Sarkis-Onofre, R. , Catalá-López, F. , Aromataris, E. , & Lockwood, C. (2021). How to properly use the PRISMA Statement. Systematic Reviews, 10(1), 1–3.

Shokraneh, 2018 Shokraneh F. (2018, November 26). Reproducible and Replicable Search for Research Methods in Systematic Reviews. Search Solutions.

Shokraneh, 2019 Shokraneh, F. (2019). Reproducibility and replicability of systematic reviews. World Journal Meta-Analysis, 7(3), 66–71.

Stewart et al., 2012 Stewart, L. , Moher, D. , & Shekelle, P. (2012). Why prospective registration of systematic reviews makes sense. Systematic Reviews, 1(1), 1–4.

Tao et al., 2011 Tao, K. M. , Li, X. Q. , Zhou, Q. H. , Moher, D. , Ling, C. Q. , & Yu, W. F. (2011). From QUOROM to PRISMA: A survey of high-impact medical journals' instructions to authors and a review of systematic reviews in anesthesia literature. PLoS One, 6(11), e27611.

Tricco et al., 2018 Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Chang, C., Elie, A., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M. G., Garritty, C.,... Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850

Watson and Webster, 2020 Watson, R. T. , & Webster, J. (2020). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review on a roadmap for release 2.0. Journal of Decision Systems, 29(3), 129–147.

Webster and Watson, 2002 Webster, J. , & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), 13–23.

Welch et al., 2012 Welch, V. , Petticrew, M. , Tugwell, P. , Moher, D. , O'Neill, J. , Waters, E. , & White, H. (2012). Guidelines and guidance-PRISMA-equity 2012 extension: Reporting guidelines for systematic reviews with a focus on health equity. PLoS Medicine, 9(10), 1487.

Williams et al., 2021 Williams, R. I., Jr. , Clark, L. A. , Clark, W. R. , & Raffo, D. M. (2021). Re-examining systematic literature review in management research: Additional benefits and execution protocols. European Management Journal, 39(4), 521–533.

Manage cookies

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support