The following citations are just a sample of those retrieved from the PubMed database using the search strategy:
Systematic Review*[ti] and Guidelines as topic.
To see the plethora of systematic review articles in PubMed, just search systematic review*[ti].
If you click on the article title below, you will be taken to that citation in the PubMed database. Use the Full Text@UAB Libraries button to access the article. 
Kuehn, B.M. (2011). IOM sets out "gold standard" practices for creating guidelines, systematic reviews. Journal of the American Medical Association, 305, 1846-1848. PMID: 21558510.
Haase, S.C. (2011). Systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 127, 955-966. PMID: 21285802.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are important research tools in modern medicine. They serve to condense and clarify large amounts of data into resources that can educate clinicians, enhance patient care, help formulate clinical guidelines, and guide future research endeavors.
METHODS: The existing literature, including recently updated guidelines, on systematic reviews and meta-analysis was reviewed and summarized.
RESULTS: A brief background on the origins of systematic reviews is presented, and the advantages and disadvantages of this type of study are discussed. A step-by-step guide to conducting a proper systematic review is outlined, with many illustrative examples. The recently updated reporting guidelines for this type of study are included.
CONCLUSIONS: Using clinical examples and published guidelines, a framework is presented to help the reader properly conduct a systematic review. These guidelines also help the reader conduct a critical appraisal of systematic reviews published in the scientific literature. Even more importantly, principles regarding application of systematic review results to individual patients are addressed.
Swartz, M.K. (2011). The PRISMA statement: A guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. 25, 1-2. PMID: 21147401.
Henderson, L.K., Craig, J.C., Willis, N.S., Tovey, D., & Webster, A.C. (2010). How to write a Cochrane systematic review. Nephrology, 15, 617-624. PMID: 20883282.
Abstract: The Cochrane Collaboration is a global network whose aim is to improve health-care decision making through systematic reviews of the effects of health-care interventions. Cochrane systematic reviews are published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews within The Cochrane Library ( http://www.thecochranelibrary.com), and regularly updated as new evidence arises. Cochrane Reviews are undertaken by teams of volunteer authors, who have access to free training resources, reference texts and software for preparing and maintaining their review. Here we aim to describe the steps involved to undertake a new or update an existing Cochrane Review.
Baker, P.R., Francis, D.P., Hall, B.J., Doyle, J., Armstrong, R. (2010). Managing the production of a Cochrane systematic review. Journal of Public Health, 32, 448-450. PMID: 20679286.
Nannini, A., & Houde, S.C. (2010). Translating evidence from systematic reviews for policy makers. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 36, 22-26. PMID: 20506938.
Abstract: Gerontological nurses who have received education and have experience in conducting systematic reviews may assume a key role in interpreting systematic reviews for policy makers. Systematic reviews offer evidence to determine the best policy and program solutions to a problem. To be successful in translating evidence from systematic reviews, gerontological nurses need to (a) understand the steps of the policy making process and where different kinds of reviews may be used, (b) assess the "technical" literacy and level of interest in gerontological issues of the intended policy maker, and (c) develop and practice skills in policy writing that distill information in policy briefs as well as shorter formats. Gerontological nurses can be powerful advocates for older adults using the systematic review of the literature as an instrument to educate policy makers.
Wieseler, B., & McGauran, N. (2010). Reporting a systematic review. Chest. 137, 1240-1246. PMID: 20442127.
Neely, J.G., Magit, A.E., Rich, J.T., Voelker, C.C., Wang, E.W., Paniello, R.C., Nussenbaum, B., & Bradley, J.P. (2010). A practical guide to understanding systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Otolaryngology--Head and Neck Surgery, 142, 6-14. PMID: 20096216.
Abstract: A systematic review is a transparent and unbiased review of available information. The published systematic review must report the details of the conduct of the review as one might report the details of a primary research project. A meta-analysis is a powerful and rigorous statistical approach to synthesize data from multiple studies, preferably obtained from a systematic review, in order to enlarge the sample size from smaller studies to test the original hypothesis and/or to generate new ones. The objective of this article is to serve as an easy to read practical guide to understand systematic reviews and meta-analyses for those reading them and for those who might plan to prepare them.