Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Nov 27;21(1):268.
doi: 10.1186/s12874-021-01463-y.

Modular literature review: a novel systematic search and review method to support priority setting in health policy and practice

Annariina M Koivu  1 , Patricia J Hunter  2 , Pieta Näsänen-Gilmore  3   4 , Yvonne Muthiani  3 , Jaana Isojärvi  3 , Pia Pörtfors  4 , Ulla Ashorn  3 , Per Ashorn  3
Affiliations

Modular literature review: a novel systematic search and review method to support priority setting in health policy and practice

Annariina M Koivu et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. .

Abstract

Background: There is an unmet need for review methods to support priority-setting, policy-making and strategic planning when a wide variety of interventions from differing disciplines may have the potential to impact a health outcome of interest. This article describes a Modular Literature Review, a novel systematic search and review method that employs systematic search strategies together with a hierarchy-based appraisal and synthesis of the resulting evidence.

Methods: We designed the Modular Review to examine the effects of 43 interventions on a health problem of global significance. Using the PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Study design) framework, we developed a single four-module search template in which population, comparison and outcome modules were the same for each search and the intervention module was different for each of the 43 interventions. A series of literature searches were performed in five databases, followed by screening, extraction and analysis of data. "ES documents", source documents for effect size (ES) estimates, were systematically identified based on a hierarchy of evidence. The evidence was categorised according to the likely effect on the outcome and presented in a standardised format with quantitative effect estimates, meta-analyses and narrative reporting. We compared the Modular Review to other review methods in health research for its strengths and limitations.

Results: The Modular Review method was used to review the impact of 46 antenatal interventions on four specified birth outcomes within 12 months. A total of 61,279 records were found; 35,244 were screened by title-abstract. Six thousand two hundred seventy-two full articles were reviewed against the inclusion criteria resulting in 365 eligible articles.

Conclusions: The Modular Review preserves principles that have traditionally been important to systematic reviews but can address multiple research questions simultaneously. The result is an accessible, reliable answer to the question of "what works?". Thus, it is a well-suited literature review method to support prioritisation, decisions and planning to implement an agenda for health improvement.

Keywords: Effect size; Evidence-based policy; Health policy; Modular review; Priority-setting; Randomised controlled trial; Review methodology; Systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
A modular PICOS-based literature search model
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Overview and summary of the key stages of the Modular Review method
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
PRISMA 2009 flow chart of literature search and screening [23]
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Baltussen R, Jansen MP, Mikkelsen TS, Tromp N, Hontelez J, Bijlmakers L, et al. Priority setting for universal health coverage: we need evidence-informed deliberative processes, not just more evidence on cost-effectiveness. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2016;5(11):615–618. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Stratil JM, Baltussen R, Scheel I, Nacken A, Rehfuess EA. Development of the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence-to-decision framework: an overview of systematic reviews of decision criteria for health decision-making. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2020;18:8. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Smith V, Devane D, Begley CM, Clarke M. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11(1):15. - PMC - PubMed
    1. MEDLINE®: description of the database. 2021. Available at: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/medline.html. Accessed 8 Jan 2021.
    1. Chandler J, Cumpston M, Thomas J, Higgins J, Deeks J, Clarke M, et al. Chapter I: introduction. In: Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page M, et al., editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021) Cochrane; 2021.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources