Is it appropriate if the purpose of a systematic review is broader than the EBP question?

A systematic review is designed to synthesize existing research evidence on a specific clinical question or intervention. However, it is permissible for the purpose of a systematic review to be broader than the initial Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) question. This flexibility allows the review to address a wider range of related questions or interventions that might emerge from the literature.

When the purpose of a systematic review is broader, it can incorporate various studies that cover different aspects of a topic or various interventions that fall within the same category. This broader approach enables a more comprehensive understanding of the evidence available, which can be particularly useful in fields where questions are complex or multifaceted. By addressing several EBPs, the systematic review can provide practitioners with a more holistic view, guiding decisions based on a wider spectrum of data.

Approaching a systematic review with a broad scope can also highlight gaps in existing research, uncover insights that may not have been considered with a narrow focus, and facilitate the development of future research questions. This capacity to evaluate and synthesize broader themes makes the systematic review a valuable tool in EBP.

In summary, having a broader purpose for a systematic review enhances its utility in informing practice and fostering understanding of complex issues, which is why the assertion that it can address several EB