Table 6 Features of the proliferation era

Where articles are labelled as ‘systematic review’, interpretations vary. Because there are so many forms of review, this term might now be too broad and generic.

Make a specific statement about the type of review undertaken and provide explanation and critique of its use

Adherence to an established method is often poorly described and confused.

When choosing an established method, take time to understand it and follow its central tenets

Reliance on secondary sources, rather than reference to original texts, leading to misunderstandings about some forms of review

Reference to original sources is important, particularly in higher-level academic reviews. The reading and citation of subsequent texts should provide support and context, rather than the basis of understanding

Proliferation of terms to describe approaches (particularly a feature of qualitative reviews)

Consolidation is required, with limitation of review types named

Many researchers appear to undertake the same processes, irrespective of what they call the review

Greater understanding of types of reviews is necessary and higher levels of explanation and justification of the processes undertaken

Comprehensive searchers are undertaken when the stated review type does not suggest this is necessary

Not all reviews require comprehensive searches but they appear to be the mainstream. Greater confidence in not using such searches is required

Critical appraisal is understood to mean different things and the purposes are unclear

Better levels of understanding and explanation of the purposes and outcomes of critical appraisal are required