




































Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2025

Rethinking Systematic Review Assignment Design in Graduate Health
Science Education from Librarians’ Perspectives

Laura Lipke, MS, MLIS, AHIPa, Carrie Price, MLSb

aHealth Science Librarian, University Libraries, Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY,
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3653-5843 , llipke@binghamton.edu

bBiomedical Librarian, NIH Library, Office of Research Services, OD, National Institutes of
Health, Bethesda, MD, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4345-3547 , carrie.price@nih.gov

Cite as: Lipke L and Price C. Rethinking Systematic Review Assignment Design in Graduate
Health Science Education from Librarians’ Perspectives. Hypothesis. 2025;37(1).
doi:10.18060/28463

Lipke and Price. All works in Hypothesis are licensed under a CC BY-NC
4.0 DEED Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International. Authors own copyright of their
articles appearing in Hypothesis. Readers may copy articles without permission of the
copyright owner(s), as long as the author(s) are acknowledged in the copy, and the copy is
used for educational, not-for-profit purposes. For any other use of articles, please contact the
copyright owner(s).

1

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3653-5843
https://orcid.org/
mailto:llipke@binghamton.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4345-3547
https://orcid.org/
mailto:carrie.price@nih.gov
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/


Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2025

Abstract
Background: This article examines the problematic phenomenon of faculty assigning
graduate health science students systematic reviews as semester-based assignments while
expecting a health science librarian to be a willing support system for those students. Despite
published conduct and reporting guidelines establishing that systematic reviews require a
team, time, and methodological expertise, some faculty still turn to full systematic review
assignments in the classroom. The authors propose applying cognitive load theory and
chunking the systematic review process into manageable steps, allowing both faculty and
students to better understand the required methodologies and to enhance educational
outcomes.

Experience: The authors have often been invited to visit classes where faculty have required
students to complete a full systematic review. These assignments often result in frustration
among faculty, librarians, and students stemming from the faculty’s limited experience with
the methodology and students feeling overwhelmed by the process. While the authors’
experiences with suggesting the adaptable assignments to faculty is limited at the time of this
publication, it is the hope of the authors that by sharing these concepts with other health
science librarians, the trend of adapting more appropriate review assignments will expand.

Discussion: Through applying cognitive load theory and chunking principles to simplify the
systematic review process, the authors propose approaches to systematic review research
methods that can improve the educational process, ameliorate faculty workload, and enhance
student learning outcomes. As a result, students will be more prepared in future research
endeavors. Challenges include faculty adoption and acceptance of different approaches to
systematic review assignments, and a further burden on the librarians who support these types
of assignments.

Takeaways: The authors aim to raise faculty awareness of proper systematic review
methodologies by offering alternative assignments that enhance student learning outcomes
and alleviate the librarian’s teaching burden. Initial attempts to promote these adaptations
have shown promise, with some faculty successfully revising their syllabi and capstone
projects to align with the suggested modifications. Future research will include webinars for
faculty on systematic review methodologies, followed by ongoing evaluations of how these
modifications impact the health science curriculum.

Background
"I need you to visit my research methods class this fall. My students are going to be doing a
systematic review and we need your help." What health science librarian has not received a
similar invitation from faculty while feeling secretly resentful and frustrated at having to
support a methodology that is not suited to the classroom?

Many health science programs encourage students to learn the skills they will need to perform
research within their profession. To instill these research skills, many health science graduate
program faculty assign systematic reviews as a semester-based individual or group project,
and subsequently may invite a librarian to the classroom for support. Academic librarians,
especially health science librarians, are increasingly viewed as research collaborators given

2



Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2025

their skills in information organization, database structure, and searching1-4. It is generally
well known among librarians, however, that systematic reviews require an in-depth
knowledge of the complex standardized methodology in order to produce the quality of
evidence necessary for the domains of medicine and health. The authors have observed a lack
of faculty knowledge about the full systematic review methods process. Faculty inability to
mentor students through a systematic review assignment impedes student learning outcomes
and student success. By applying the educational principles of cognitive load theory (CLT)
and chunking, which entails breaking down large tasks into smaller ones, the authors
recommend several alternative methods to provide opportunities for faculty to implement
learning about the standardized methodology required of systematic reviews. Enhanced
knowledge could lead to positive outcomes for everyone involved: the faculty, the students,
and the librarian.

Systematic reviews are often considered the highest quality of evidence due to their adherence
to rigorous evolving published conduct and reporting standards5. Consequently, reviews that
do not adhere to the strict methodology cannot be considered trustworthy6-14. A recent
flourish of published systematic reviews has demonstrated a general lack of knowledge
regarding the rigorous methodology and reporting standards throughout the healthcare and
medical fields8,9,11,15–19.This wave of inaccurately conducted and reported reviews has led to
unreliable evidence, inaccurate estimates of treatment effectiveness, misleading conclusions,
reduced applicability, and significant research waste11. Similarly, due to the recent evolution
of graduate education programs in the health science fields, many faculty report a lack of
knowledge and skills needed to advise in such projects20–29. This shortfall of experience is
supported in other studies that have also found a limited community of researchers who
thoroughly understand the methodology of systematic reviews, and a majority of faculty who
lack training in this methodology22,26–28,30,31. In scholarship arguing for and against systematic
reviews as graduate projects, most authors agree that the lack of faculty knowledge and
experience with these reviews is a major barrier26–28,31,32.

Scientific scholarship promotes skills of inquiry, analysis, critical thinking, and
communication among healthcare professionals21. Promoting research skills in the classroom
provides students with the opportunity to learn about methodologies, to develop database
search strategies, to appraise research, to synthesize evidence, and to translate knowledge into
practice21,23,24,33,34. While all of these skills can be gained by completing a systematic review,
this type of literature review introduces challenges, due to the complexity of the standardized
methodology, the possible lack of mentor knowledge or experience, time constraints, and the
group nature of such projects6,7,14,35,36. The assignment of systematic reviews has led to
controversies in the scholarship supporting and opposing such assignments in health science
graduate programs due to the lack of experienced and knowledgeable faculty to act as
supervisors20,22,26–28,30-32,37. This has also resulted in mixed feedback from students and faculty
who describe the work as demanding in terms of the time and knowledge required24.
Additionally, the final product of these review assignments rarely aligns with the standardized
conduct and reporting standards. This significantly reduces the effectiveness of the overall
exercise since the final review: 1) is most likely not publishable, and 2) has incorrectly
influenced the students’ understanding of how a systematic review is conducted12,16,17,19.

The ability to comprehend and apply the complex methodology of a systematic review can be
the primary hurdle for students assigned this type of project. The process of learning this

3



Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2025

methodology according to the standardized methods presented by regarded organizations such
as the Cochrane Collaboration or JBI, compounded by the pressures of graduate research
assignments, can lead to cognitive overload for students and significantly impact learning
outcomes6,14,38. The basic premise of cognitive load theory (CLT), “...is that human cognitive
processing is heavily constrained by our limited working memory which can only process a
limited number of information elements at a time.39” This theory postulates that when a
learner is presented with an overload of new complex information, the working memory is
unable to process the information and this leads to cognitive overload38,40,41. CLT proposes an
instructional design method known as “chunking” to reduce the cognitive load associated with
learning new information. Chunking reduces the complexity of an overall task, groups
relevant information into an organized representation, allows time between learning episodes,
and optimizes successful completion by advancing students through a simple to complex
assignment process38,40–44. By chunking the aspects of learning the methodology process of a
systematic review, the learner is able to merge prior knowledge into a cohesive unified
framework and develop the expertise required to complete evidence-based research45,46.

Chunking can be incorporated into the instructional design of teaching the systematic review
process, which can help reduce the cognitive overload reported by students. By chunking the
steps of a systematic review, the student will be able to build upon previously learned research
skills and progress toward the more complex elements of a review with more confidence and
likelihood of success. The chunked assignments presented in this article will introduce
students and faculty to the skills and methodology required of a full systematic review in
steps, which can and should replace a full systematic review assignment based on the authors’
expertise with the methodology and their experience in a multitude of health science
classrooms.

Experience
The authors of this paper are academic health science librarians who have provided research
support to undergraduate, graduate, and practicing healthcare professionals. Librarian and
information specialists, can specialize in various roles to support systematic reviews;
inclusion of these specialists often leads to higher quality searching and reporting1,2,4.

The authors have been invited to numerous graduate classes where “systematic reviews” have
been assigned. Often, the librarians are then expected to teach some kind of in-class
instructional session and create learning materials or an instructional narrative to support the
students in completing a semester-based systematic review. However, as noted earlier, full
systematic reviews are not suitable for graduate students due to the guideline requirements,
and the timeline of a systematic review is also not feasible within a typical semester.
Anecdotal experience of the authors and informal discussions with their librarian colleagues
illustrate that these scenarios can often result in feelings of frustration for all parties. As a
case in point, one of the authors was invited to a class where the students were required to
complete a systematic review. The faculty requested that the PRISMA Checklist and the
PRISMA Flow Diagram be demonstrated and explained as part of the library instruction
session. However, when the librarian demonstrated the PRISMA Flow Diagram, which
captures total search results, duplicates, included records, and excluded records as they are
moved through the systematic review screening process, the students became extremely
distraught. Upon delving deeper, the author realized that the students were not doing a

4



Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2025

comprehensive literature review, and neither were they planning to document their searches.
Rather, the students had been directed by the faculty to handpick articles they felt were
relevant to their topic, making the application of the PRISMA Flow Diagram and the
PRISMA Checklist impossible. The faculty member failed to realize this disconnect between
their instruction and the assignment. The author left the classroom feeling distressed.

Due to multiple experiences like these, the authors wish to make recommendations that are
better suited to the classroom, as well as to provide other academic health science librarians
with examples to present when faced with similar circumstances. The assignments presented
here were developed with the Cochrane Collaboration and JBI systematic review conduct
guidelines, as well as the PRISMA reporting statement and its extensions, in mind6,14,18. Even
though the authors do not recommend that students be assigned or attempt to complete a full
systematic review within a semester, they still believe that it is possible to provide students
with research experiences that will assist them to produce true systematic reviews in the
future6,14,35. The authors have applied their experience and knowledge working with graduate
health science students and faculty to address the hurdles often presented with systematic
review assignments and subsequent librarian collaborations.

The listed assignments include a brief description, learning outcomes, and are presented in
order of increasing complexity. The authors also recommend that these assignments be
completed as a group. The systematic review process requires a team of experts, so by
completing these assignments in a group setting, the students will learn how the team process
reduces bias within the systematic review method6,14. The suggested assignments can be
incorporated into a variety of pedagogical techniques as necessary and appropriate for the
classroom environment. Faculty and health science librarians may adapt these chunked
assignments in the same way that they may have adapted a full systematic review assignment
for the classroom; that is, with a rubric and curriculum to support the student, tailored to the
needs of the discipline. Because these assignments are more feasible than a full systematic
review, the authors feel that faculty who adopt and adapt these practices may have more
fruitful collaborations with librarians and better student academic outcomes. Most health
science librarians who have supported evidence synthesis are familiar with the ideas around
literature review typologies, topic and protocol development, systematic searching and
screening, risk of bias/critical appraisal, data extraction, synthesis, and peer review of
academic manuscripts, enabling them to support such assignments more actively.

Table A. Chunked Assignment Summaries

Assignment Summary

Narrative Review

A narrative review allows students to learn
the literature review process without the
necessity of a comprehensive literature search,
critical appraisal, data extraction, a team, or time.

Systematic Review Protocol

A systematic or scoping review protocol contains
many of the same reporting elements as the final
review but can be performed as an independent
exercise within a shorter amount of time.

5



Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2025

Systematic Search and Search Methods

Conducting and reporting a documented and
reproducible literature search helps students
understand the foundation of a systematic
literature review.

Risk of Bias/Critical Appraisal

Critically appraising or determining the risk of bias
of a set of relevant research requires that students
become familiar with the standardized instruments,
research design, and advanced critical thinking skills.

Data Extraction
Having students extract data from relevant published
studies requires them to adhere to pre-defined criteria
and manage research data in a transparent way.

Qualitative Synthesis

Qualitatively describing how the data answers the
research question allows students to determine the
strengths and weaknesses of the data, identifies
evidence gaps, and compare the findings with
existing scholarship.

Peer Review

Peer review is a process all scholars will experience
in their career, whether it is in the form of receiving
or providing this feedback. Conducting a peer review
of another student’s work allows students to learn
to provide gracious yet constructive feedback.
The peer review can be completed with any of the
alternative assignments suggested.

Systematized Review

While a systematized review does not meet the strict
criteria for conducting and reporting a systematic
review, it can work as an introduction to the process
and be performed by an individual or group within
a shorter time frame.

While pairing assignments together is not necessary, suggested pairings have been provided
dependent on the scope and goals of the research methods course.

Narrative Review Assignment

A narrative literature review is an integrated analysis of the existing literature used to
summarize a body of scholarship, draw conclusions about a topic, identify research gaps,
justify the need for the research question, and develop a broad overview of a topic. By
understanding the current state of the literature, one can show how new research fits into the
larger corpus of literature. The purpose of a narrative literature review is to explain the
background of the research on a topic; identify major themes, concepts, and scholars; and
highlight critical gaps, points of disagreement, or flawed approaches. This type of literature
review can also suggest new areas of research. A narrative literature review is often the
opening section of many published articles and is a necessary pedagogical step to introduce
the purpose of a systematic review. The complexity of the narrative literature review
assignment can be modified depending on the course objectives, and steps in the process can
be further chunked to meet timelines throughout the semester.

6



Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2025

Students can use a topic of their choice or a current assignment to complete a narrative
literature review, which can be graded according to a rubric. A collaborating librarian can
assist with topic development, resource selection, searching, and records management.

Learning objectives for the Narrative Review Assignment include:

• Students will develop a research question.

• Students will search for literature to answer the research question.

• Students will distinguish appropriate databases for their topic of inquiry.

• Students will format and construct a literature review.

• Students will synthesize themes.

• Students will accurately cite sources.

Systematic Review Protocol Assignment

One of the initial steps for completing a systematic review is to develop and register a
protocol. The purpose of a protocol is to provide a detailed plan for the review project, reduce
the risk of bias within the review, and establish providence of the research question to be
evaluated47. Students can learn how to plan the steps and the workflow of a systematic review
by following the PRISMA-Protocol reporting guideline47.

Students may use a previously developed topic, or a topic related to a class assignment to
complete the protocol assignment. The PRISMA-Protocol checklist provides instructors with
a grading rubric for the assignment47. A collaborating librarian can discuss different review
types, help students plan and potentially execute their literature search, and support student
knowledge on protocol development.

Learning objectives for the Systematic Review Protocol Assignment include:

• Students will develop a research question.

• Students will summarize the steps and methodology of the research process of a
systematic review.

• Students will recognize and identify the resources available to develop a protocol
according to established guidelines.

Systematic Search and Search Methods Assignment

Developing an appropriately sensitive and specific search strategy to ensure that the results
are comprehensive for a systematic review is a complex task which often involves days of
work for health science librarians. This process involves learning how to determine which
search terms and databases are applicable to the research topic, identifying the appropriate
controlled vocabulary within the chosen databases, and translating the search strategy from
one database to another to ensure a systematic search6,14. In addition to the development and

7



Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2025

translation of the search strategy, a systematic review requires that the search strategy be
documented in enough detail to be reproducible48. Documentation of the search strategy is
done according to the PRISMA-Search (PRISMA-S) extension standards and recorded in a
PRISMA Flow Diagram13,48. Developing a systematic and comprehensive search strategy is a
major factor that distinguishes a systematic review from other types of reviews, and arguably
an important foundation of the review49.

Students will conduct a comprehensive literature search in three to five bibliographic literature
databases and report the search with the elements of PRISMA-S extension48. It is
recommended to invite a health science librarian or information specialist to be embedded in
the class to advise on searching comprehensively in academic databases for scholarly,
peer-reviewed literature and documenting the search2,4. A collaborating librarian can assist
students with selecting the best databases to search and provide tips for creating documented,
reproducible searches.

Learning objectives for the Systematic Search and Search Methods Assignment:

• Students will develop a research question.

• Students will demonstrate learned search skills through the successful retrieval of
evidence.

• Students will identify optimal databases for evidence-based practice in health science.

• Students will understand how to document a reproducible search strategy.

This assignment is best paired with the Peer-Review Assignment.

Risk of Bias Assessment/Critical Appraisal Assignment

Critical appraisal “is the process of carefully and systematically examining research to judge
its trustworthiness, and its value and relevance in a particular context. It is an essential skill
for evidence-based practice because it allows healthcare professionals to find and use research
evidence reliably and efficiently.50” Critical appraisal of the evidence to be synthesized is a
vital step in the methodology of a systematic review because it can highlight the risk of bias
in results, which can affect the quality of the evidence incorporated6,14. The process involves
becoming familiar with standardized instruments and critical appraisal checklists, such as
those from JBI and the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP), learning the whys and
hows of bias assessment and critical appraisal, and using critical thinking to determine the
validity, reliability, and relevance of a study in relation to the research question12,50,51.

Start by providing the students with a set of key studies that can be appraised with the use of
checklists or other tools. Collaborating librarians can then assist with determining the value
and quality of publications through recognized information literacy techniques.

Learning objectives for the Risk of Bias Assessment/Critical Appraisal Assignment:

• Students will use critical thinking and appraisal skills.

• Students will appraise critically through the use of the standardized checklists.

8



Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2025

• Students will identify markers of validity, reliability, transparency, and relevance of
research methods.

• Students will distinguish methodological quality within a scientific study.

Data Extraction Assignment

Data extraction is the first step in the synthesis process of a systematic review. This step
requires that the review team adhere strictly to the inclusion and exclusion criteria identified
by the review authors and extract data according to those elements. For this assignment, the
students may work independently and then come together as a team to discuss their findings.
Additional information regarding the data extraction process can be found in Chapter 5 of the
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews6.

Start by giving students a collection of predetermined key studies on a chosen topic. Provide
adaptable templates that students will use to extract data elements of the studies such as
population, participant demographics, intervention, methodology, and more. Collaborating
librarians can provide classroom instruction in records management.

Learning objectives for the Data Extraction Assignment:

• Students will design a data extraction process for a systematic review.

• Students will describe the process of extracting specific criteria.

• Students will differentiate between data collection, data management, and process
documentation.

This assignment is best paired with the Qualitative Synthesis Assignment.

Qualitative Synthesis Assignment

Qualitative synthesis of the data extracted is a required aspect of a systematic review. This
process is completed regardless of whether or not a quantitative meta-analysis is also done.
The qualitative synthesis is a narrative thematic analysis of the themes found within the data
and usually includes a summarization of the general characteristics that were identified along
with any relationships, patterns, heterogeneity, and degrees of consistency that were observed.
This narrative will also describe how the data answers the research question, determine the
strengths and weaknesses of the data, identify evidence gaps, and compare the findings with
known scholarship. Additional information regarding the qualitative evidence synthesis
process can be found in Chapter 21 of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews6.

Students will select five to ten key research articles based on their research question. They
will then provide a detailed summary of these articles using an adaptable template or form for
identifying themes and categories. Collaborating librarians can assist students with planning
and executing a literature search and finding other qualitative syntheses as model publications.

Learning objectives for the Qualitative Synthesis Assignment:

9



Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2025

• Students will develop a research question.

• Students will differentiate between analyzing and synthesizing qualitative data.

• Students will apply critical thinking skills.

• Students will develop advanced writing skills.

• Students will describe the qualitative synthesis process of a systematic review.

This assignment is best paired with the Data Extraction Assignment.

Peer-Review Assignment

Peer review is a process all scholars will experience in their career, whether it is in the form of
receiving or providing this feedback. Many of the previously mentioned assignments would
be appropriate for a peer review assignment. The Systematic Review Protocol Assignment
and the Systematic Search and Search Methods Assignment could be reviewed using the
PRISMA-Protocol and the PRISMA-Search checklists14,47,48. An initial literature review can
also be a source of a peer review assignment. For this assignment, students would benefit
from faculty-developed examples of constructive review feedback along with an explanation
of how the peer-review process works, and why it is important in health science scholarship.

After the students have completed either the Narrative Review, Systematic Review Protocol,
or the Systematic Review and Search Methods assignments noted above, they can pair up,
exchange assignments, and conduct a peer review statement based on best practices and
readings around the peer review process. Alternatively, faculty or the librarian(s) can provide
students with published research articles from the health science literature and have them
conduct a “post-publication” peer review. Grade according to a rubric. While librarians do not
often play a role in the peer review process, they may be able to create learning materials
around scholarly communication and publication ethics3.

Learning objectives for the Peer Review Assignment:

• Students will interpret necessary requirements of existing reporting standards through
peer review.

• Students will examine how peer review supports the scholarly process.

• Students will identify how to optimally document the systematic review process.

This assignment is best paired with the Narrative Review, Protocol, or the Search Methods
Assignments.

Systematized Review Assignment

The systematized review is an introductory review process for students52. While a
systematized review does not meet the strict criteria for conducting and reporting a systematic
review, it can work as an introduction to the process. This type of review can also be

10



Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2025

completed by a single researcher or student whereas a systematic review requires a team of
experts. As described by Grant and Booth in 2009, it is an “attempt to include elements of
systematic review process while stopping short of systematic review. . . [and]. . . typically
conducted as a postgraduate student assignment.52”

Have individuals or groups of students conduct a thorough, reproducible literature review with
key elements, such as the protocol, bias assessment, and formalized data extraction, excluded.
Once again, collaborating librarians can assist through teaching review typology education,
topic development, comprehensive searching, records management, and more.

Learning objectives for a Systematized Review Assignment:

• Students will understand the methodology needed for a systematic review.

• Students will develop an appropriate research question.

• Students will determine appropriate inclusion and exclusion criteria.

• Students will determine which databases and resources are suitable for their research
question.

• Students will develop a systematic search strategy.

• Students will document a transparent and reproducible search strategy.

• Students will critically appraise scholarly evidence.

• Students will synthesize evidence.

• Students will report the bulk of a systematic review according to the PRISMA
guidelines.

Discussion
This paper presents a solution grounded in cognitive load theory and chunking to address the
critical need for structured and supportive methods in teaching systematic review
methodology. The previously identified deficiencies in faculty knowledge and mentorship,
and the resulting cognitive overload among students, necessitates innovative solutions.

By applying principles of CLT and chunking, the authors propose modified instructional
methods to alleviate cognitive burden and enhance student learning outcomes. The division of
the systematic review process into manageable chunks not only facilitates skill acquisition by
students, but also empowers them to navigate the complexities of evidence synthesis with
confidence. Each step of the review process can be parsed into its own separate assignment,
which provides the students with an opportunity to learn the details of that step and how it
relates to the systematic review process as a whole. The presented assignments, developed in
alignment with established systematic review standards and guidelines, offer a structured
pathway for faculty and students alike, fostering the development of competent and proficient
researchers.

Ultimately, by advocating for structured learning experiences, the authors seek to bridge the
gap between theoretical knowledge and practical application in systematic review education.

11



Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2025

By adopting chunked systematic review assignments and collaborating with librarians who
have systematic review expertise, graduate health science programs can better equip students
with the necessary skills to produce high-quality evidence, thus advancing evidence-based
practice and future decision-making.

Takeaways
While the authors of this paper are limited in their ability to assign these exercises, they aspire
to promote faculty awareness of standardized, best practice systematic review methodology
while providing them with alternative assignments that are pedagogically sound. Adopting
this approach can potentially result in enhanced research skill development for faculty and
students while reducing the burden on librarians who have been asked to teach in ways that
are inconsistent with accepted and standardized methods. Although the authors’ experiences
with the suggestions in this manuscript and the application of these modified assignments has
been limited at this point, the few attempts to promote these adaptations to health science
faculty have shown promise. Examples of such promise include witnessing faculty adapt
syllabi with individual assignments mimicking the above examples and the revision of
previously assigned systematic and scoping reviews for capstone projects.

As health science librarians are fully aware, how each individual faculty is approached
regarding modifications to their assignments is dependent on the relationship between the
faculty member and the librarian. It is the experience of the authors that librarians who wish
to make these suggestions should focus on the faculty they already have strong relationships
with first, since they are more likely to be receptive. Additionally, librarians might consider
offering regular faculty-focused workshops on review typologies and evidence synthesis
methodologies. When faculty are made aware of the standardized methods regarding these
review types and the constraints they present as student assignments, they may be more likely
to adapt their approach.

Future research is planned to quantifiably evaluate faculty-focused webinars which will
provide attendees with instruction regarding the proper methodology of a systematic review,
and an introduction to the modified assignments described in this manuscript. This research
will be followed by an annual evaluation of the modifications noted in the health science
curriculum supported by the authors.

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Yolanda L. Jones, NIH Library Editing Service, for reviewing the
manuscript.

References
1. Spencer AJ, Eldredge JD. Roles for librarians in systematic reviews: a scoping review. J
Med Libr Assoc. 2018 Jan;106(1):46–56.

2. Rethlefsen ML, Farrell AM, Osterhaus Trzasko LC, Brigham TJ. Librarian co-authors
correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine
systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Jun;68(6):617–26.

12



Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2025

3. Rethlefsen ML, Schroter S, Bouter LM, Moher D, Ayala AP, Kirkham JJ, et al. Improving
peer review of systematic reviews by involving librarians and information specialists:
protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2021 Nov 11;22(1):791.

4. Pawliuk C, Cheng S, Zheng A, Hal Siden H. Librarian involvement in systematic reviews
was associated with higher quality of reported search methods: a cross-sectional survey of
authors from Vancouver, BC. J Clin Epidemiol. 2023 Dec 8;111237.

5. Gopalakrishnan S, Ganeshkumar P. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis: understanding
the best evidence in primary healthcare. J Family Med Prim Care. 2013;2(1):9–14.

6. Higgins JPT, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page M, Welch V, editors. Cochrane
Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.4. 6.4. 2023.

7. Kolaski K, Romeiser Logan L, Ioannidis JPA. Principles for good scholarship in systematic
reviews. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2023 Nov
8];n/a(n/a). Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/dmcn.15719

8. Moore A. Red for danger in systematic reviews? Eur J Hosp Pharm. 2021 Nov
1;28(6):299–300.

9. Moore RA, Derry S, McQuay HJ. Fraud or flawed: adverse impact of fabricated or poor
quality research. Anaesthesia. 2010 Apr;65(4):327–30.

10. Nguyen PY, Kanukula R, McKenzie JE, Alqaidoom Z, Brennan SE, Haddaway NR, et al.
Changing patterns in reporting and sharing of review data in systematic reviews with
meta-analysis of the effects of interventions: cross sectional meta-research study. BMJ. 2022
Nov 22;379:e072428.

11. Pussegoda K, Turner L, Garritty C, Mayhew A, Skidmore B, Stevens A, et al. Systematic
review adherence to methodological or reporting quality. Systematic Reviews. 2017 Jul
19;6(1):131.

12. Rethlefsen ML, Brigham TJ, Price C, Moher D, Bouter LM, Kirkham JJ, et al. Systematic
review search strategies are poorly described and not reproducible: a cross-sectional
meta-research study [Internet]. medRxiv; 2023 [cited 2023 Nov 15]. p. 2023.05.11.23289873.
Available from: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.05.11.23289873v1

13. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The
PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021
Mar 29;n71.

14. Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Porritt K, Pilla B, Jordan Z, editors. JBI manual for evidence
synthesis [Internet]. JBI; 2024 [cited 2023 Nov 20]. Available from:
https://synthesismanual.jbi.global

15. Fontelo P, Liu F. A review of recent publication trends from top publishing countries. Syst
Rev. 2018 Sep 27;7(1):147.

13

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/dmcn.15719
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.05.11.23289873v1
https://synthesismanual.jbi.global


Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2025

16. Ioannidis JPA. The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted
Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. Milbank Q. 2016 Sep;94(3):485–514.

17. Smith GD, Aveyard H, Jane N, Penny KI. Improving the conduct and reporting of
meta-analyses. Journal of Advanced Nursing (John Wiley & Sons, Inc). 2023
Sep;79(9):3186–8.

18. Torres G, Ledbetter L, Cantrell S, Alomo ARL, Blodgett TJ, Bongar MV, et al.
Adherence to PRISMA 2020 reporting guidelines and scope of systematic reviews published
in nursing: A cross-sectional analysis. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2024 Mar 30; 56(4):531-541.

19. Uttley L, Quintana DS, Montgomery P, Carroll C, Page MJ, Falzon L, et al. The problems
with systematic reviews: a living systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2023 Apr 1;156:30–41.

20. Cañón-Montañez W, Rodríguez-Acelas AL. Contributions of Systematic Reviews and
Meta-analyses to Nursing Education, Research, and Practice. Aquichan [Internet]. 2021 Dec
[cited 2024 Feb 2];21(4). Available from:
http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&pid=S1657-
59972021000402143&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en

21. Cleary M. Essentials of building a career in nursing research. Nurse Res. 2016
Jul;23(6):8–12.

22. Dotto L, T. O. Lemes L, O. Spazzin A, Sousa YTCS, Pereira GKR, Bacchi A, et al.
Acceptance of systematic reviews as Master/PhD theses in Brazilian graduate programs in
dentistry. J Evid Based Med. 2020;13(2):125–9.

23. Einarsen KA, Giske T. Nursing students’ longitudinal learning outcomes after
participation in a research project in a hospital. International Practice Development Journal.
2019 May;9(1):1–10. https://hdl.handle.net/11250/3041511

24. Lesley ML. Facilitating Students’ Success With Their Own Research Projects. Nurse
Educ. 2011 Jun;36(3):107.

25. Milner K, Zonsius M, Alexander C, Zellefrow C. Doctor of Nursing Practice Project
Advisement: A Roadmap for Faculty and Student Success. J Nur Educ. 2019
Dec;58(12):728–32.

26. Orta R, Messmer PR, Valdes GR, Turkel M, Fields SD, Wei CC. Knowledge and
Competency of Nursing Faculty Regarding Evidence-Based Practice. J Contin Educ Nur.
2016 Sep;47(9):409–19.

27. Puljak L, Sapunar D. Acceptance of a systematic review as a thesis: survey of biomedical
doctoral programs in Europe. Syst Rev. 2017 Dec 12;6(1):253.

28. Ten Ham-Baloyi W, Jordan P. Systematic review as a research method in post-graduate
nursing education. Health SA Gesondheid. 2016 Dec 1;21:120–8.

14

http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&pid=S1657-59972021000402143&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en
http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&pid=S1657-59972021000402143&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en
https://hdl.handle.net/11250/3041511


Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2025

29. Wissinger CL. Is there a place for undergraduate and graduate students in the systematic
review process? J Med Libr Assoc. 2018 Apr 5;106(2):248–50.

30. Muraraneza C, Mtshali N, Bvumbwe T. Challenges in postgraduate research supervision
in nursing education: Integrative review. Nurse Educ Today. 2020 Jun 1;89:104376.

31. Schnall R. National Institute of Health (NIH) funding patterns in Schools of Nursing:
Who is funding nursing science research and who is conducting research at Schools of
Nursing? J Prof Nurs. 2020 Jan 1;36(1):34–41.

32. Christian R, Palokas M. Systematic review methodology in graduate nursing education.
JBI Evid Synth. 2018 Mar;16(3):587.

33. Ferreira R, Sousa L, Nobre C, Nunes AC, Fonseca C, Ferreira Ó, et al. The Development
of Research Skills in Nursing Postgraduate Training. Educ Sci. 2022 Feb;12(2):78.

34. Menzies JC, Emms K, Valler T. Developing research knowledge and capability in
undergraduate nurses: evaluation of targeted placements. J Res Nurs. 2021
Aug;26(5):408–24.

35. Borah R, Brown AW, Capers PL, Kaiser KA. Analysis of the time and workers needed to
conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry.
BMJ Open. 2017 Feb 1;7(2):e012545.

36. Price C. Systematic review as class assignments? [Internet]. Covidence. 2022 [cited 2023
Nov 8]. Available from: https://www.covidence.org/blog/elementor-2112/

37. Sayers J, Lopez V, Howard PB, Escott P, Cleary M. The leadership role of nurse educators
in mental health nursing. Issues Ment Health Nurs. 2015;36(9):718–24.

38. Venkat MV, O’Sullivan PS, Young JQ, Sewell JL. Using Cognitive Load Theory to
Improve Teaching in the Clinical Workplace. MedEdPortal. 2020;16:10983.

39. Sweller J, van Merriënboer JJG, Paas F. Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design:
20 Years Later. Educ Psychol Rev. 2019 Jun 1;31(2):261–92.

40. Smith NE, Barbé T, Randolph J. Application of the cognitive load theory in prelicensure
nursing education: a quantitative measurement focusing on instructional design. Int J Nurs
Educ Scholarsh. 2022 Jan;19(1):1–12.

41. van Merriënboer JJG, Sweller J. Cognitive load theory in health professional education:
design principles and strategies. Med Educ. 2010 Jan;44(1):85–93.

42. Coffman S, Iommi M, Morrow K. Scaffolding as active learning in nursing education.
Teach Learn Nurs. 2023 Jan;18(1):232–7.

43. Mauldin B. A Novel Teaching Strategy in Nursing Pharmacology: Learning Using
Cognitive Load Theory. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2021 Nov;42(6):E158–60.

15

https://www.covidence.org/blog/elementor-2112/


Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2025

44. van Nooijen CCA, de Koning BB, Bramer WM, Isahakyan A, Asoodar M, Kok E, et al. A
Cognitive Load Theory Approach to Understanding Expert Scaffolding of Visual
Problem-Solving Tasks: A Scoping Review. Educ Psychol Rev. 2024 Jan 26;36(1):12.

45. McGowan BS, Reed JB, Yatcilla JK. Graduate student confidence following a for-credit
systematic review course pilot. J Med Libr Assoc. 109(2):323–9.

46. Usher-Smith JA, Harrison H, Dennison R, Kelly S, Jones R, Kuhn I, et al. Developing
training and opportunities for students in systematic reviews. Med Educ.
2021;55(11):1333–4.

47. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred
reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015
statement. Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 1;4(1):1.

48. Rethlefsen ML, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, Ayala AP, Moher D, Page MJ, et al.
PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in
Systematic Reviews. Syst Rev. 2021 Dec;10(1):1–19.

49. Lefebvre C, Glanville J, Briscoe S, Featherstone R, Littlewood A, Metzendorf MI, et al.
Chapter 4: Searching for and selecting studies [Internet]. Cochrane Training. 2024 [cited
2024 Jan 12]. Available from: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-04

50. Burls A. What is critical appraisal? [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2023 Nov 8]. Available from:
http://www.bandolier.org.uk/painres/download/whatis/What_is_critical_appraisal.pdf

51. CASP Checklists - Critical Appraisal Skills Programme [Internet]. CASP - Critical
Appraisal Skills Programme. [cited 2023 Nov 28]. Available from:
https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/

52. Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated
methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009 Jun;26(2):91–108.

16

https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-04
http://www.bandolier.org.uk/painres/download/whatis/What_is_critical_appraisal.pdf
https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/

