Which method is recognized as the principal approach for conducting secondary research?

The principal approach for conducting secondary research is the systematic review. This method involves a comprehensive and structured process of collecting, evaluating, and synthesizing existing research studies on a specific topic. Systematic reviews follow predefined protocols, which include clear research questions, criteria for inclusion and exclusion of studies, and rigorous assessment of the quality of the studies being reviewed.

What makes systematic reviews particularly valuable in secondary research is their ability to provide an overarching summary of evidence on a specific question, reducing bias and increasing the reliability of the findings. They consolidate diverse data to draw more comprehensive conclusions, which supports informed decision-making in clinical practice, policy formulation, and further research endeavors.

In contrast, a case study is more focused on an individual instance or a small group, providing detailed insights but lacking the breadth and generalizability of findings that a systematic review contributes. Expert opinions can provide valuable insights but are often based on personal judgment and experience rather than a synthesis of rigorous evidence. Quantitative analysis involves analyzing numerical data but does not inherently encompass the comprehensive structure required for secondary research as outlined in systematic reviews. Thus, systematic reviews stand out as the principal method for ensuring thorough and reliable secondary research.