Systematic Literature Review Nursing: Complete Nursing Guide

A systematic literature review is a defined research methodology, not simply a comprehensive literature review conducted carefully. The distinguishing characteristic of a systematic review is its reproducibility: the search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, data extraction process, and synthesis method are all documented in enough detail that another researcher following the same steps should arrive at the same set of studies and the same conclusions. This reproducibility standard has significant implications for citation practice in systematic reviews — the citations must include the studies that were screened, not just those that were included; the search strategy itself is documented and often published; and the synthesis of studies follows a structured reporting standard (most commonly PRISMA). For nursing students and DNP candidates conducting systematic reviews as capstone projects or publishing systematic reviews in journals, understanding these specific citation and documentation standards is necessary for producing a credible, usable review.

How Systematic Reviews Differ From Narrative Literature Reviews

The difference between a systematic review and a narrative literature review is not just about comprehensiveness — it's about the nature of the process and the types of conclusions it permits. A narrative literature review synthesizes the author's judgment about what the literature on a topic says: the author selects sources, interprets them, and writes a synthesis that reflects their reading of the field. A systematic review uses a predefined, transparent process to identify, select, appraise, and synthesize all the evidence relevant to a specific question, with the goal of minimizing bias in the evidence synthesis.

The practical implications of this difference are significant. In a narrative review, it's acceptable (and common) to cite only the sources you chose to include — your literature review IS the sources you selected and discussed. In a systematic review, the protocol for how you decided which sources to include is itself part of the evidence — the search strategy (databases, search terms, date ranges, filters), the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the number of records identified, screened, and included are all documented and typically displayed in a PRISMA flow diagram. The systematic review methodology means the citations include not just included studies but also documentation of the overall search scope.

Systematic Review Reporting Requirements

Database Search and Search Strategy Documentation

The search strategy for a systematic review must be comprehensive, documented, and reproducible. Comprehensive means searching enough databases to capture the relevant literature in the field — for nursing systematic reviews, the minimum is typically CINAHL and PubMed, with additional discipline-relevant databases depending on the topic. Documented means recording the exact search string used in each database, including MeSH terms, keywords, Boolean operators, and filters, and the date the search was conducted. Reproducible means the search string is detailed enough that another researcher running the same search in the same database on the same date would retrieve the same results.

For nursing systematic reviews in APA 7, the search strategy is typically documented in the methods section as a description of databases searched and in an appendix that includes the full search string per database. This is one of the ways systematic review methodology generates more detailed citation/documentation content than a narrative review: the databases themselves and the search strategies used in them become part of the documented methodology rather than background assumptions.

Search strategy development for systematic reviews often involves a nursing librarian — searching comprehensively enough to justify a systematic review requires discipline in database coverage, MeSH term selection, and filter application that benefits from expertise. DNP programs often explicitly require librarian consultation for the capstone systematic review, and using this resource significantly improves search quality.

Citing Included Studies and the PRISMA Flow Diagram

In a systematic review, the reference list includes all included studies — the studies that met inclusion criteria and were synthesized in the review — as well as any methodological references (PRISMA, Cochrane Handbook, JBI Manual) and other sources cited in the introduction, methods, or discussion. For a typical nursing systematic review with 10-30 included studies, this produces a reference list that is more citation-dense than most research papers of comparable length.

The PRISMA flow diagram documents the number of records identified, screened, excluded, and included at each stage. Studies excluded at the full-text stage should be listed (usually in an appendix) with the reason for exclusion — "wrong population," "wrong intervention," "wrong outcome," "not peer-reviewed," etc. — so that the selection process is transparent and auditable. This documentation is part of the systematic review's citation architecture, even though the excluded studies are not cited in the reference list in the traditional sense.

In APA 7, included studies in a systematic review are cited just like any other journal article: author(s), year, title, journal, volume, issue, pages, DOI. A common practice in systematic review reference lists is to mark included studies with an asterisk (*) or other notation to distinguish them from background sources cited in the introduction and discussion — this is acceptable and sometimes required by journals. The reference list for a systematic review can therefore be organized to clearly show which references are included studies versus background sources, depending on journal or program requirements.

Systematic Review Citation Checklist

• PICO/PICOT research question documented before beginning the search
• PROSPERO registration completed if required by program or target journal
• All databases searched documented with date, search string, and result count
• Full search string for each database preserved in a searchable format
• Title/abstract screening documented with include/exclude decisions and reasons
• Full-text excluded studies listed with reasons (PRISMA requirement)
• Data extraction table completed with full citations for all included studies
• Quality appraisal completed using appropriate tool (documented in methods)
• APA 7 references for included studies correct and complete
• PRISMA flow diagram completed and included

Quality Appraisal in Systematic Reviews: Why It Matters for Citations

Quality appraisal — the systematic assessment of the methodological rigor of included studies — is a required component of systematic reviews because not all peer-reviewed studies are equally reliable. A study published in a peer-reviewed journal has been through editorial and reviewer scrutiny, but peer review does not guarantee methodological quality: it may have a high risk of bias in how participants were selected, how outcomes were measured, or how data were analyzed. Quality appraisal tools make these methodological quality dimensions explicit and consistent across all included studies, so readers of the review can understand the overall strength of the evidence base, not just the number of studies.

Quality appraisal results are documented in the systematic review and are cited in the context of interpreting the findings: "Evidence from the three included RCTs was assessed as high quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool; the four cohort studies had moderate methodological quality per the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale." This citation of the appraisal tool — Cochrane Risk of Bias, CASP Checklists, JBI Critical Appraisal Tools, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, GRADE framework — is part of the methods documentation. The specific tool used should be referenced in the methods section, and the appraisal results for each included study are typically documented in a summary table that is part of the review's supplementary material or appendix.

The GRADE framework (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) is used in many systematic reviews to rate the overall body of evidence for each outcome — not just individual studies but the entire set of included studies for a given outcome. GRADE produces evidence ratings of High, Moderate, Low, or Very Low based on study design, risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, and imprecision. For nursing systematic reviews that inform clinical practice recommendations, GRADE ratings give the review's conclusions their clinical applicability context — a recommendation based on High-quality evidence has a different clinical weight than one based on Very Low quality evidence, even if both are peer-reviewed.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

• Treating a systematic review as a comprehensive narrative review. A narrative review of the literature is not a systematic review — the reproducibility of the search process, the documented eligibility criteria, and the structured synthesis method distinguish them.
• Not registering the review protocol. PROSPERO registration is required or expected for most graduate-level and publishable nursing systematic reviews — register before beginning data collection.
• Not documenting the exact search string for each database. The search string needs to be documented precisely enough for another researcher to reproduce it — "searched CINAHL and PubMed" is not sufficient.
• Searching only one or two databases for a comprehensive review. Nursing systematic reviews typically require CINAHL, PubMed, and additional topic-relevant databases — single-database searches miss significant relevant literature.
• Not documenting exclusion reasons for full-text excluded studies. PRISMA requires reporting exclusion reasons for full-text excluded studies — this is a documentation requirement, not just a methodological preference.
• Using a narrative review format for the synthesis when quantitative meta-analysis is expected. Know whether your program or target journal expects meta-analysis (if included studies are sufficiently homogeneous) or narrative synthesis — don't conflate the two.
• Not using a structured quality appraisal tool. Risk-of-bias assessment of included studies is a core systematic review requirement — document which tool was used and the appraisal results per study.
• Including studies that don't meet inclusion criteria because you "like" the study. Systematic review rigor depends on applying inclusion/exclusion criteria consistently — deviating undermines the review's reproducibility and credibility.

Related Guides