Conducting a Systematic Review: Methodology and Search Strategy

This article discusses the methodology and search strategy for conducting a systematic review on the incidence of Chlamydia among young women population. It explains the key phrases and Boolean operators used for literature search and the selection criteria for review selection. The article also highlights the importance of systematic review in reducing bias and reaching reliable conclusions.

Running head: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Methodology
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Methodology
Introduction- A systematic review method will be adopted for this research with the aim
of reducing bias with the usage of explicit techniques. These will facilitate conduction of a
comprehensive search of scholarly literature and critical appraisal of the individual studies.
The objective and reasons for adopting a systematic review approach was that conclusions
drawn as a result of systematic review are more reliable and valid than individual trials
(Shamseer et al., 2015).
Discussion- While formulating the clinical question, the fact was taken into consideration
whether results of different studies that determine the incidence of Chlamydia among young
women population will be compared. Identification and retrieval of relevant scholarly
literature would form an essential aspect of the systematic review. Hence, a systematic search
strategy needs to be established, prior to the commencement of the literature search
technique, for adequate information extraction (Munafò et al., 2017). MEDLINE and
CINAHL will be the two electronic databases from where articles shall be retrieved.
MEDLINE refers to Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online and contains a
bibliography of all articles containing biomedical and life sciences information. CINAHL or
Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature is another important database that
contains journal articles on biomedicine, allied health, nursing, and healthcare.
The search terms to be used for the literature search will be clearly described, with
regards to the relevance to the research question. Some of the key phrases that will be used in
this regard include, "chlamydia", “women”, “females”, “young”, “youth”, “incidence”,
“onset”, “reports”, and “Chlamydia trachomatis”. The key phrases will be combined with the
use of Boolean operators namely, AND, OR, and NOT. While AND will help in narrowing
down the search items from the retrieved records, NOT will exclude specific terms from the

2SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
obtained hits. Retrieval of articles will be broadened with the use of OR Boolean operator
that will connect two or more substitutes (McGowan et al., 2016). Hence, the two electronic
databases will be able to produce unique records of scientific literature that match the search
phrases.
Following input of key terms, articles that are published in English, are peer-reviewed
and published on or after 2008, will be extracted. Review selection will be conducted with
the help of a person who has methodological expertise. Agreement on the inclusion and
exclusion criteria will be followed by implementation of a selection strategy given below:
 Assessment of retrieved abstracts and titles of the articles for duplication and
relevance
 Selection of articles meet the research question
 Obtaining complete full text copies of the reviews that will be considered potentially
eligible for inclusion in the study (Shamseer et al., 2015).
 Critically appraising the reviews for their quality and relevance with the use of a
CASP tool.
This will be followed by a thematic analysis where specific themes within the data will be
examined and recorded for describing the phenomenon under investigation (Braun, Clarke &
Terry, 2014). Thus, it will help in recognition of patterned meaning across different datasets
that will provide a relevant answer to the question of Chlamydia incidence among women.
Conclusion- Conduction of the systematic review will summarise a large expanse of
evidence and help in gaining relevant information on the research question. It will also
remove the differences between the results from various articles and minimise bias, while
reaching conclusions.

3SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
References
Braun, V., Clarke, V., & Terry, G. (2014). Thematic analysis. Qual Res Clin Health
Psychol, 24, 95-114.
McGowan, J., Sampson, M., Salzwedel, D. M., Cogo, E., Foerster, V., & Lefebvre, C.
(2016). PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline
statement. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 75, 40-46.
Munafò, M. R., Nosek, B. A., Bishop, D. V., Button, K. S., Chambers, C. D., du Sert, N.
P., ... & Ioannidis, J. P. (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human
Behaviour, 1(1), 0021.
Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., ... & Stewart, L.
A. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis
protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. Bmj, 349, g7647.