Criteria-Driven Reviews
Criteria-driven reviews break down into 2 major types: systematic and meta-analysis. In systematic reviews, the researchers specify inclusion criteria to filter the literature, generally for the purpose of revealing themes along which to analyze the studies.
In terms of writing, criteria-driven reviews follow the same basic steps as content-driven reviews — except the IMRD subheadings are used instead of or in addition to topical headings. The introduction and conclusions are largely the same. Thus, this section will focus on the Methods and Results which are unique features to systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
NOTE: We will not be covering the statistics involved! Get thee to a statistician for mathematical wizardry. Or, start by exploring this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis.
Example of Systematic Review Analytical Scheme || The Efficacy of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: A Review of Meta-analyses
Categorization of Meta-analyses
The 269 meta-analyses were categorized into groups to provide the most meaningful and extensive examination of the efficacy of CBT across a range of problem areas and study populations. The major groupings were the following: substance use disorder, schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, depression and dysthymia, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorders, somatoform disorders, eating disorders, insomnia, personality disorders, anger and aggression, criminal behaviors, general stress, distress due to general medical conditions, chronic pain and fatigue, pregnancy complications and female hormonal conditions. In addition, some meta-analyses specifically examined CBT for disorders in children and elderly adults. For each disorder and population grouping, data were described qualitatively, considering the findings of all meta-analyses within that group. The 269 meta-analyses included a wide variety of studies that employed different methodologies and effect size estimates. Therefore, we used the designation small, medium, and large for the magnitude of effect sizes in our review of the 106 representative meta-analyses (Cohen, 1988). In addition, we provide reported response rates, a widely accepted and common metric in psychiatry, from a subsample of 11 studies that examined the efficacy of CBT in randomized controlled trials.
Meta-Analyses are more restrictive so that statistical tests can be run across the reported outcomes. In this case, study designs must be similar enough to permit stats to be run at all, so the number of studies in the paper is considerably lower.
Example Meta-Analysis || Efficacy of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy in Pediatric Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: A Meta-Analysis
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Studies were included if they: (1) included only children and/or adolescents (age <18) with a primary diagnosis of OCD; (2) had enough participants (10 or more); (3) the participants were only treated with CBT, without any pharmacological interventions; (4) used randomization; (5) used at least 1 reliable and valid measurement for primary outcome; and (6) presented sufficient information to enable calculation of effect sizes.
Exclusion criteria were: (1) books and other literature that were not therapy evaluation studies; (2) studies of which the primary goal was not the investigation of the efficacy of CBT in OCD; and (3) articles without comprehensive statistical information or without the retrievable original data. When the studies that were covered in different articles overlapped, only the ones showing the most extensive results were included in this study.