So you have decided that you are going to put together a systematic review and you have managed to persuade some of your colleagues and peers to be co-authors. What might you do next to get the review done?
Have a meeting.
The first thing I would recommend is that you get everyone who is to be involved together to define the problem. This is important because everybody will come to the table with different mind sets and different backgrounds, and also prior knowledge. Together you can make sure that everyone is agreed as to what problem will be addressed.
However, you should not go beyond that in the meeting, rather once the problem has been clarified you should end the meeting and get everybody to think of what hypothesis or question your review will be addressing. This way you will not end up with just the point of view of the most respected author or the person who shouts the loudest. Also, I find that my best ideas come when I am not really thinking directly about them and by leaving time to think you provide the opportunity for people to synthesise what was discussed and come up with any solutions or points that need clarification that were missed during the meeting.
This thinking time should not be extensive and should be defined during the meeting by booking the next meeting in for a couple of days later.
Have another meeting
Everybody has hopefully now thought about the issues and come up with ideas for the hypothesis. At this second meeting you will review everybody’s ideas. Let each person present their ideas in turn without allowing any questions to ensure that people are not intimidated and only present part of what they have come up with.
Once everybody’s ideas have been presented you can then discuss the merits of them all and finesse the hypothesis until you have it agreed by all authors. At this point you will need to discuss any limits people feel will be necessary for the systematic review, will it be limited for example by date, inclusion criteria, size or specific endpoint measures. These limits will be very important once the search has been run as you will typically need to filter huge numbers of abstracts to determine the few that will be included and as suggested by the type of review your process needs to be systematic.
The next step, once the hypothesis or question has been defined, is to define the search and that will be discussed in the next post.
I have taken a lot of the ideas for this post from an Accidental Creative podcast episode I listened to on brainstorming. This episode can be found here and is well worth a listen.