systematic review outline template

Systematic Review

Library Help
What is a Systematic Review (SR)?

Steps of a Systematic Review

Framing a Research Question
Developing a Search Strategy
Searching the Literature
Managing the Process
Meta-analysis
Publishing your Systematic Review

Forms and templates

Image: David Parmenter's Shop

PICO Template
Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
Database Search Log
Review Matrix
Cochrane Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies

• PRISMA Flow Diagram - Record the numbers of retrieved references and included/excluded studies. You can use the Create Flow Diagram tool to automate the process.

• PRISMA Checklist - Checklist of items to include when reporting a systematic review or meta-analysis

PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA-S: Common Questions on Tracking Records and the Flow Diagram

PROSPERO Template
Manuscript Template
Steps of SR (text)
Steps of SR (visual)
Steps of SR (PIECES)

Adapted from A Guide to Conducting Systematic Reviews: Steps in a Systematic Review by Cornell University Library

Source: Cochrane Consumers and Communications (infographics are free to use and licensed under Creative Commons )

Check the following visual resources titled " What Are Systematic Reviews?"

Video with closed captions available
Animated Storyboard
<< Previous: What is a Systematic Review (SR)?
Next: Framing a Research Question >>
Last Updated: Mar 4, 2024 12:09 PM
URL: https://lib.guides.umd.edu/SR

Macquarie University Library
Subject and Research Guides

Systematic Reviews

Step 10: Templates, Write & Publish
Step 1: Check Protocols & Guides
Step 2: Form a Question
Step 3: Develop a Search Strategy & Criteria
Grey Literature
Documenting the Search
Step 5: Export Results with EndNote, Mendeley
Review Software and Tools
Step 6: PRISMA Flow Diagram & Screen
Step 7: Extract Data
Step 8: Appraise Studies & Assess Risk of Bias
Step 9: Synthesise & Interpret, Meta-analyses
Non-Health Systematic Reviews

Writing Your Review

When writing up your systematic review keep in mind the specific guidelines for structuring your review. Systematic review standards are elements that should be reported in any published systematic review. Also there may be other 'Instructions to Authors' provided by the journals or organisations in which you plan to publish.

The PRISMA statement can be followed to ensure reliable coverage of the systematic review methods, results and conclusions. The PRISMA Elaboration and Explanation (E&E) document that accompanies the PRISMA statement provides instructions for each of the items on the checklist.

PRISMA Statement
PRISMA Elaboration and Explanation Document
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

Strategic Publishing

RV2 Checklist To help make informed decisions before publishing, MQ has developed the RV2 checklist to assist with selecting appropriate peer-reviewed journals.
Strategic Publishing Guide Strategic publishing guide by DVC-R and the Library
Think Check Submit Think. Check. Submit. helps researchers identify trusted journals for their research. Through a range of tools and practical resources, this international, cross-sector initiative aims to educate researchers, promote integrity, and build trust in credible research and publications.

Templates for SRs

This link is to best practice examples from Cochrane on how to write about your searches in a Cochrane review.

You can adapt examples to suit your systematic review.

Search Text Templates for Reviews and Updates

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

Knowledge Base

Methodology

Systematic Review | Definition, Example, & Guide

Systematic Review | Definition, Example & Guide

Published on June 15, 2022 by Shaun Turney . Revised on November 20, 2023.

A systematic review is a type of review that uses repeatable methods to find, select, and synthesize all available evidence. It answers a clearly formulated research question and explicitly states the methods used to arrive at the answer.

They answered the question “What is the effectiveness of probiotics in reducing eczema symptoms and improving quality of life in patients with eczema?”

In this context, a probiotic is a health product that contains live microorganisms and is taken by mouth. Eczema is a common skin condition that causes red, itchy skin.

What is a systematic review, systematic review vs. meta-analysis, systematic review vs. literature review, systematic review vs. scoping review, when to conduct a systematic review, pros and cons of systematic reviews, step-by-step example of a systematic review, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about systematic reviews.

A review is an overview of the research that’s already been completed on a topic.

What makes a systematic review different from other types of reviews is that the research methods are designed to reduce bias . The methods are repeatable, and the approach is formal and systematic:

Formulate a research question
Develop a protocol
Search for all relevant studies
Apply the selection criteria
Extract the data
Synthesize the data
Write and publish a report

Although multiple sets of guidelines exist, the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews is among the most widely used. It provides detailed guidelines on how to complete each step of the systematic review process.

Systematic reviews are most commonly used in medical and public health research, but they can also be found in other disciplines.

Systematic reviews typically answer their research question by synthesizing all available evidence and evaluating the quality of the evidence. Synthesizing means bringing together different information to tell a single, cohesive story. The synthesis can be narrative ( qualitative ), quantitative , or both.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Systematic reviews often quantitatively synthesize the evidence using a meta-analysis . A meta-analysis is a statistical analysis, not a type of review.

A meta-analysis is a technique to synthesize results from multiple studies. It’s a statistical analysis that combines the results of two or more studies, usually to estimate an effect size .

A literature review is a type of review that uses a less systematic and formal approach than a systematic review. Typically, an expert in a topic will qualitatively summarize and evaluate previous work, without using a formal, explicit method.

Although literature reviews are often less time-consuming and can be insightful or helpful, they have a higher risk of bias and are less transparent than systematic reviews.

Similar to a systematic review, a scoping review is a type of review that tries to minimize bias by using transparent and repeatable methods.

However, a scoping review isn’t a type of systematic review. The most important difference is the goal: rather than answering a specific question, a scoping review explores a topic. The researcher tries to identify the main concepts, theories, and evidence, as well as gaps in the current research.

Sometimes scoping reviews are an exploratory preparation step for a systematic review, and sometimes they are a standalone project.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

A systematic review is a good choice of review if you want to answer a question about the effectiveness of an intervention , such as a medical treatment.

To conduct a systematic review, you’ll need the following:

A precise question , usually about the effectiveness of an intervention. The question needs to be about a topic that’s previously been studied by multiple researchers. If there’s no previous research, there’s nothing to review.
If you’re doing a systematic review on your own (e.g., for a research paper or thesis ), you should take appropriate measures to ensure the validity and reliability of your research.
Access to databases and journal archives. Often, your educational institution provides you with access.
Time. A professional systematic review is a time-consuming process: it will take the lead author about six months of full-time work. If you’re a student, you should narrow the scope of your systematic review and stick to a tight schedule.
Bibliographic, word-processing, spreadsheet, and statistical software . For example, you could use EndNote, Microsoft Word, Excel, and SPSS.

A systematic review has many pros .

They minimize research bias by considering all available evidence and evaluating each study for bias.
Their methods are transparent , so they can be scrutinized by others.
They’re thorough : they summarize all available evidence.
They can be replicated and updated by others.

Systematic reviews also have a few cons .

They’re time-consuming .
They’re narrow in scope : they only answer the precise research question.

The 7 steps for conducting a systematic review are explained with an example.

Step 1: Formulate a research question

Formulating the research question is probably the most important step of a systematic review. A clear research question will:

Allow you to more effectively communicate your research to other researchers and practitioners
Guide your decisions as you plan and conduct your systematic review

A good research question for a systematic review has four components, which you can remember with the acronym PICO :

Population(s) or problem(s)
Intervention(s)
Comparison(s)

You can rearrange these four components to write your research question:

What is the effectiveness of I versus C for O in P ?

Sometimes, you may want to include a fifth component, the type of study design . In this case, the acronym is PICOT .

Type of study design(s)
The population of patients with eczema
The intervention of probiotics
In comparison to no treatment, placebo , or non-probiotic treatment
The outcome of changes in participant-, parent-, and doctor-rated symptoms of eczema and quality of life
Randomized control trials, a type of study design

Their research question was:

What is the effectiveness of probiotics versus no treatment, a placebo, or a non-probiotic treatment for reducing eczema symptoms and improving quality of life in patients with eczema?

Step 2: Develop a protocol

A protocol is a document that contains your research plan for the systematic review. This is an important step because having a plan allows you to work more efficiently and reduces bias.

Your protocol should include the following components:

Background information : Provide the context of the research question, including why it’s important.
Research objective (s) : Rephrase your research question as an objective.
Selection criteria: State how you’ll decide which studies to include or exclude from your review.
Search strategy: Discuss your plan for finding studies.
Analysis: Explain what information you’ll collect from the studies and how you’ll synthesize the data.

If you’re a professional seeking to publish your review, it’s a good idea to bring together an advisory committee . This is a group of about six people who have experience in the topic you’re researching. They can help you make decisions about your protocol.

It’s highly recommended to register your protocol. Registering your protocol means submitting it to a database such as PROSPERO or ClinicalTrials.gov .

Step 3: Search for all relevant studies

Searching for relevant studies is the most time-consuming step of a systematic review.

To reduce bias, it’s important to search for relevant studies very thoroughly. Your strategy will depend on your field and your research question, but sources generally fall into these four categories:

Databases: Search multiple databases of peer-reviewed literature, such as PubMed or Scopus . Think carefully about how to phrase your search terms and include multiple synonyms of each word. Use Boolean operators if relevant.
Handsearching: In addition to searching the primary sources using databases, you’ll also need to search manually. One strategy is to scan relevant journals or conference proceedings. Another strategy is to scan the reference lists of relevant studies.
Gray literature: Gray literature includes documents produced by governments, universities, and other institutions that aren’t published by traditional publishers. Graduate student theses are an important type of gray literature, which you can search using the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (NDLTD) . In medicine, clinical trial registries are another important type of gray literature.
Experts: Contact experts in the field to ask if they have unpublished studies that should be included in your review.

At this stage of your review, you won’t read the articles yet. Simply save any potentially relevant citations using bibliographic software, such as Scribbr’s APA or MLA Generator .

Databases: EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED, LILACS, and ISI Web of Science
Handsearch: Conference proceedings and reference lists of articles
Gray literature: The Cochrane Library, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials, and the Ongoing Skin Trials Register
Experts: Authors of unpublished registered trials, pharmaceutical companies, and manufacturers of probiotics

Step 4: Apply the selection criteria

Applying the selection criteria is a three-person job. Two of you will independently read the studies and decide which to include in your review based on the selection criteria you established in your protocol . The third person’s job is to break any ties.

To increase inter-rater reliability , ensure that everyone thoroughly understands the selection criteria before you begin.

If you’re writing a systematic review as a student for an assignment, you might not have a team. In this case, you’ll have to apply the selection criteria on your own; you can mention this as a limitation in your paper’s discussion.

You should apply the selection criteria in two phases:

Based on the titles and abstracts : Decide whether each article potentially meets the selection criteria based on the information provided in the abstracts.
Based on the full texts: Download the articles that weren’t excluded during the first phase. If an article isn’t available online or through your library, you may need to contact the authors to ask for a copy. Read the articles and decide which articles meet the selection criteria.

It’s very important to keep a meticulous record of why you included or excluded each article. When the selection process is complete, you can summarize what you did using a PRISMA flow diagram .

Next, Boyle and colleagues found the full texts for each of the remaining studies. Boyle and Tang read through the articles to decide if any more studies needed to be excluded based on the selection criteria.

When Boyle and Tang disagreed about whether a study should be excluded, they discussed it with Varigos until the three researchers came to an agreement.

Step 5: Extract the data

Extracting the data means collecting information from the selected studies in a systematic way. There are two types of information you need to collect from each study:

Information about the study’s methods and results . The exact information will depend on your research question, but it might include the year, study design , sample size, context, research findings , and conclusions. If any data are missing, you’ll need to contact the study’s authors.
Your judgment of the quality of the evidence, including risk of bias .

You should collect this information using forms. You can find sample forms in The Registry of Methods and Tools for Evidence-Informed Decision Making and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations Working Group .

Extracting the data is also a three-person job. Two people should do this step independently, and the third person will resolve any disagreements.

They also collected data about possible sources of bias, such as how the study participants were randomized into the control and treatment groups.

Step 6: Synthesize the data

Synthesizing the data means bringing together the information you collected into a single, cohesive story. There are two main approaches to synthesizing the data:

Narrative ( qualitative ): Summarize the information in words. You’ll need to discuss the studies and assess their overall quality.
Quantitative : Use statistical methods to summarize and compare data from different studies. The most common quantitative approach is a meta-analysis , which allows you to combine results from multiple studies into a summary result.

Generally, you should use both approaches together whenever possible. If you don’t have enough data, or the data from different studies aren’t comparable, then you can take just a narrative approach. However, you should justify why a quantitative approach wasn’t possible.

Boyle and colleagues also divided the studies into subgroups, such as studies about babies, children, and adults, and analyzed the effect sizes within each group.

Step 7: Write and publish a report

The purpose of writing a systematic review article is to share the answer to your research question and explain how you arrived at this answer.

Your article should include the following sections:

Abstract : A summary of the review
Introduction : Including the rationale and objectives
Methods : Including the selection criteria, search method, data extraction method, and synthesis method
Results : Including results of the search and selection process, study characteristics, risk of bias in the studies, and synthesis results
Discussion : Including interpretation of the results and limitations of the review
Conclusion : The answer to your research question and implications for practice, policy, or research

To verify that your report includes everything it needs, you can use the PRISMA checklist .

Once your report is written, you can publish it in a systematic review database, such as the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews , and/or in a peer-reviewed journal.

In their report, Boyle and colleagues concluded that probiotics cannot be recommended for reducing eczema symptoms or improving quality of life in patients with eczema. Note Generative AI tools like ChatGPT can be useful at various stages of the writing and research process and can help you to write your systematic review. However, we strongly advise against trying to pass AI-generated text off as your own work.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

Student’s t -distribution
Normal distribution
Null and Alternative Hypotheses
Chi square tests
Confidence interval
Quartiles & Quantiles
Cluster sampling
Stratified sampling
Data cleansing
Reproducibility vs Replicability
Peer review
Prospective cohort study

Research bias

Implicit bias
Cognitive bias
Placebo effect
Hawthorne effect
Hindsight bias
Affect heuristic
Social desirability bias

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.

A literature review is a survey of credible sources on a topic, often used in dissertations , theses, and research papers . Literature reviews give an overview of knowledge on a subject, helping you identify relevant theories and methods, as well as gaps in existing research. Literature reviews are set up similarly to other academic texts , with an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion .

An annotated bibliography is a list of source references that has a short description (called an annotation ) for each of the sources. It is often assigned as part of the research process for a paper .

A systematic review is secondary research because it uses existing research. You don’t collect new data yourself.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Turney, S. (2023, November 20). Systematic Review | Definition, Example & Guide. Scribbr. Retrieved April 3, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/systematic-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shaun Turney

Other students also liked, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, what is critical thinking | definition & examples, unlimited academic ai-proofreading.

✔ Document error-free in 5minutes ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

PRISMA STATEMENT
TRANSLATIONS
ENDORSEMENT
PRISMA Statement
Flow Diagram
History & Development
Citing & Using PRISMA

UNC Libraries
HSL Academic Process
Systematic Reviews
Step 2: Develop a Protocol

Systematic Reviews: Step 2: Develop a Protocol

Created by health science librarians.

Step 1: Complete Pre-Review Tasks

Do I need to write a protocol?

Writing a protocol, make your protocol visible.

Protocol FAQs
Step 3: Conduct Literature Searches
Step 4: Manage Citations
Step 5: Screen Citations
Step 6: Assess Quality of Included Studies
Step 7: Extract Data from Included Studies
Step 8: Write the Review

Check our FAQ's

Email us

Chat with us (during business hours)

Call (919) 962-0800

Make an appointment with a librarian

Request a systematic or scoping review consultation

About Step 2: Develop a Protocol

In Step 2, you will write your systematic review protocol. This is a detailed work plan for your systematic review. You will:

Define the criteria you will use to screen literature.
Decide where and how you will search for literature.
Choose quality assessment tools to evaluate the literature.
Decide how you will extract data from the articles you include.
Upload your protocol to a website or registry to make it available to the public.

This page has checklists and templates to help you write your protocol. Librarians can help you refine your protocol based on systematic review best-practices.

Click an item below to see how it applies to Step 2: Develop a Protocol.

Reporting your review with PRISMA

For PRISMA, there are specific items you will want to report in your protocol. For this step, review the PRISMA-P standards and the explanation document.

PRISMA-P for Protocols
PRISMA-P Explanation & Elaboration document
PRISMA-P Checklist

Managing your review with Covidence

Covidence is a tool that can be used for screening, quality assessment, and data extraction. Decisions made in this stage will inform the logistics and completion of future review steps. Specify the use of Covidence in the protocol, if applicable, and note team member roles for these tasks.

How a librarian can help with Step 2

When writing your protocol, a librarian can help you :

Develop and refine your research plan according to systematic review best practices
Advise on your literature searching methods documentation
Determine if/where to publish or share your completed protocol

What is a protocol?

A protocol is a detailed work plan that describes how and why you are doing a systematic review. It includes your rationale and objectives, how you will search for literature, and how you will screen and synthesize what you find. It is best practice to develop a protocol and make it publicly available before starting a systematic review.

Why should you write a protocol?

Your protocol will help your team navigate the systematic review process. It will also show readers how your completed systematic review might be different from your plan. This can help them understand whether there is any bias in your review results and conclusions.

Uploading your protocol

You can upload a review protocol to a website or registry and make it accessible so researchers can know what reviews are planned or in process. While not an inclusive list, several options of places to upload or deposit your protocol can be found in our Protocol FAQ . 

Writing a Review Protocol: Good Practice and Common Errors

HSL Protocol Template

What to Include

Many elements of a systematic review will need to be detailed in advance in the protocol. An example of items included in the protocol are:

Team members
Rationale and objectives of the review
Eligibility criteria (also referred to as inclusion and exclusion criteria)
Databases and key terms of the literature search (ideally, a full search strategy for at least one database)
Process and tools for study selection (screening) , quality assessment , and data extraction
Data items that will be extracted
Methods of data synthesis

Use PRISMA to write your protocol

PRISMA is a set of standards about what to include in your systematic review. PRISMA 2015 has a special extension specifically for the best protocol reporting methods. The documents linked below (PRISMA-P Statement, E&E, and PRISMA-P Checklist) provide detailed instructions about how to write a good protocol.

PRISMA-P 2015 Statement PRISMA reporting guideline for systematic review protocols.
PRISMA-P 2015 E&E PRISMA-P Elaboration & Explanation document of the 2015 Statement (includes examples).
PRISMA-P 2015 Checklist Choose between PDF and Word versions of the PRISMA-P 2015 Checklist
UNC HSL Systematic Review Protocol Template Word document protocol template for systematic review protocols adapted from the PRISMA-P checklist
Review Protocol Template by Sarah Vistintini A downloadable Word document that can be used to draft a systematic review protocol
Evidence Synthesis Protocol Template A downloadable Word document that can be used to create a systematic review protocol
PROSPERO Protocol Registration Form A PDF of the PROSPERO registration form
Open Science Framework (OSF) Systematic Review Protocol Open Science Framework's (OSF) protocol template for preregistering systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and meta-analyses

You can upload your protocol to a website or registry and make it available to others. There are several places to upload or deposit your protocol listed below.  Alternatively, some journals publish systematic review protocols. If you plan to publish your protocol in a journal, make sure to check the protocol requirements on the journal website before submitting.

Compare protocol registries to see which tool might meet your needs.

PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews. Free.
Open Science Framework (OSF) Open repository for scientific research. Free.
Carolina Digital Repository Long-term storage and access for scholarly works, datasets, research materials and records produced by the UNC-CH community (free). Choose "Other Deposits" and then select "Poster, Presentation, Protocol, or Paper".
Research Registry Register all types of research studies, from ‘first in man’ case reports to observational/interventional studies to systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Not free.
INPLASY- The International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols An international database created to help researchers around the world to register their systematic review protocols. Not free.
Protocols.io A secure platform for developing and sharing reproducible methods. Create a protocol, collaborate with your team, then run as a checklist. Free.
<< Previous: Step 1: Complete Pre-Review Tasks
Next: Step 3: Conduct Literature Searches >>
Last Updated: Mar 28, 2024 9:43 AM
URL: https://guides.lib.unc.edu/systematic-reviews

Search & Find

E-Research by Discipline
More Search & Find

Places & Spaces

Places to Study
Book a Study Room
Printers, Scanners, & Computers
More Places & Spaces
Borrowing & Circulation
Request a Title for Purchase
Schedule Instruction Session
More Services

Support & Guides

Course Reserves
Research Guides
Citing & Writing
More Support & Guides
Mission Statement
Diversity Statement
Staff Directory
Job Opportunities
Give to the Libraries
News & Exhibits
Reckoning Initiative
More About Us

Search This Site
Privacy Policy
Accessibility
Give Us Your Feedback
208 Raleigh Street CB #3916
Chapel Hill, NC 27515-8890
919-962-1053

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

Knowledge Base
Methodology
Systematic Review | Definition, Examples & Guide

Systematic Review | Definition, Examples & Guide

Published on 15 June 2022 by Shaun Turney . Revised on 17 October 2022.

A systematic review is a type of review that uses repeatable methods to find, select, and synthesise all available evidence. It answers a clearly formulated research question and explicitly states the methods used to arrive at the answer.

They answered the question ‘What is the effectiveness of probiotics in reducing eczema symptoms and improving quality of life in patients with eczema?’

In this context, a probiotic is a health product that contains live microorganisms and is taken by mouth. Eczema is a common skin condition that causes red, itchy skin.

What is a systematic review, systematic review vs meta-analysis, systematic review vs literature review, systematic review vs scoping review, when to conduct a systematic review, pros and cons of systematic reviews, step-by-step example of a systematic review, frequently asked questions about systematic reviews.

A review is an overview of the research that’s already been completed on a topic.

What makes a systematic review different from other types of reviews is that the research methods are designed to reduce research bias . The methods are repeatable , and the approach is formal and systematic:

Formulate a research question
Develop a protocol
Search for all relevant studies
Apply the selection criteria
Extract the data
Synthesise the data
Write and publish a report

Systematic reviews are most commonly used in medical and public health research, but they can also be found in other disciplines.

Systematic reviews typically answer their research question by synthesising all available evidence and evaluating the quality of the evidence. Synthesising means bringing together different information to tell a single, cohesive story. The synthesis can be narrative ( qualitative ), quantitative , or both.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Systematic reviews often quantitatively synthesise the evidence using a meta-analysis . A meta-analysis is a statistical analysis, not a type of review.

A meta-analysis is a technique to synthesise results from multiple studies. It’s a statistical analysis that combines the results of two or more studies, usually to estimate an effect size .

A literature review is a type of review that uses a less systematic and formal approach than a systematic review. Typically, an expert in a topic will qualitatively summarise and evaluate previous work, without using a formal, explicit method.

Although literature reviews are often less time-consuming and can be insightful or helpful, they have a higher risk of bias and are less transparent than systematic reviews.

Similar to a systematic review, a scoping review is a type of review that tries to minimise bias by using transparent and repeatable methods.

Sometimes scoping reviews are an exploratory preparation step for a systematic review, and sometimes they are a standalone project.

A systematic review is a good choice of review if you want to answer a question about the effectiveness of an intervention , such as a medical treatment.

To conduct a systematic review, you’ll need the following:

A precise question , usually about the effectiveness of an intervention. The question needs to be about a topic that’s previously been studied by multiple researchers. If there’s no previous research, there’s nothing to review.
If you’re doing a systematic review on your own (e.g., for a research paper or thesis), you should take appropriate measures to ensure the validity and reliability of your research.
Access to databases and journal archives. Often, your educational institution provides you with access.
Time. A professional systematic review is a time-consuming process: it will take the lead author about six months of full-time work. If you’re a student, you should narrow the scope of your systematic review and stick to a tight schedule.
Bibliographic, word-processing, spreadsheet, and statistical software . For example, you could use EndNote, Microsoft Word, Excel, and SPSS.

A systematic review has many pros .

They minimise research b ias by considering all available evidence and evaluating each study for bias.
Their methods are transparent , so they can be scrutinised by others.
They’re thorough : they summarise all available evidence.
They can be replicated and updated by others.

Systematic reviews also have a few cons .

They’re time-consuming .
They’re narrow in scope : they only answer the precise research question.

The 7 steps for conducting a systematic review are explained with an example.

Step 1: Formulate a research question

Formulating the research question is probably the most important step of a systematic review. A clear research question will:

Allow you to more effectively communicate your research to other researchers and practitioners
Guide your decisions as you plan and conduct your systematic review

A good research question for a systematic review has four components, which you can remember with the acronym PICO :

Population(s) or problem(s)
Intervention(s)
Comparison(s)

You can rearrange these four components to write your research question:

What is the effectiveness of I versus C for O in P ?

Sometimes, you may want to include a fourth component, the type of study design . In this case, the acronym is PICOT .

Type of study design(s)
The population of patients with eczema
The intervention of probiotics
In comparison to no treatment, placebo , or non-probiotic treatment
The outcome of changes in participant-, parent-, and doctor-rated symptoms of eczema and quality of life
Randomised control trials, a type of study design

Their research question was:

What is the effectiveness of probiotics versus no treatment, a placebo, or a non-probiotic treatment for reducing eczema symptoms and improving quality of life in patients with eczema?

Step 2: Develop a protocol

A protocol is a document that contains your research plan for the systematic review. This is an important step because having a plan allows you to work more efficiently and reduces bias.

Your protocol should include the following components:

Background information : Provide the context of the research question, including why it’s important.
Research objective(s) : Rephrase your research question as an objective.
Selection criteria: State how you’ll decide which studies to include or exclude from your review.
Search strategy: Discuss your plan for finding studies.
Analysis: Explain what information you’ll collect from the studies and how you’ll synthesise the data.

It’s highly recommended to register your protocol. Registering your protocol means submitting it to a database such as PROSPERO or ClinicalTrials.gov .

Step 3: Search for all relevant studies

Searching for relevant studies is the most time-consuming step of a systematic review.

Databases: Search multiple databases of peer-reviewed literature, such as PubMed or Scopus . Think carefully about how to phrase your search terms and include multiple synonyms of each word. Use Boolean operators if relevant.
Handsearching: In addition to searching the primary sources using databases, you’ll also need to search manually. One strategy is to scan relevant journals or conference proceedings. Another strategy is to scan the reference lists of relevant studies.
Grey literature: Grey literature includes documents produced by governments, universities, and other institutions that aren’t published by traditional publishers. Graduate student theses are an important type of grey literature, which you can search using the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (NDLTD) . In medicine, clinical trial registries are another important type of grey literature.
Experts: Contact experts in the field to ask if they have unpublished studies that should be included in your review.

At this stage of your review, you won’t read the articles yet. Simply save any potentially relevant citations using bibliographic software, such as Scribbr’s APA or MLA Generator .

Databases: EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED, LILACS, and ISI Web of Science
Handsearch: Conference proceedings and reference lists of articles
Grey literature: The Cochrane Library, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials, and the Ongoing Skin Trials Register
Experts: Authors of unpublished registered trials, pharmaceutical companies, and manufacturers of probiotics

Step 4: Apply the selection criteria

To increase inter-rater reliability , ensure that everyone thoroughly understands the selection criteria before you begin.

You should apply the selection criteria in two phases:

Based on the titles and abstracts : Decide whether each article potentially meets the selection criteria based on the information provided in the abstracts.
Based on the full texts: Download the articles that weren’t excluded during the first phase. If an article isn’t available online or through your library, you may need to contact the authors to ask for a copy. Read the articles and decide which articles meet the selection criteria.

It’s very important to keep a meticulous record of why you included or excluded each article. When the selection process is complete, you can summarise what you did using a PRISMA flow diagram .

When Boyle and Tang disagreed about whether a study should be excluded, they discussed it with Varigos until the three researchers came to an agreement.

Step 5: Extract the data

Extracting the data means collecting information from the selected studies in a systematic way. There are two types of information you need to collect from each study:

Information about the study’s methods and results . The exact information will depend on your research question, but it might include the year, study design , sample size, context, research findings , and conclusions. If any data are missing, you’ll need to contact the study’s authors.
Your judgement of the quality of the evidence, including risk of bias .

Extracting the data is also a three-person job. Two people should do this step independently, and the third person will resolve any disagreements.

They also collected data about possible sources of bias, such as how the study participants were randomised into the control and treatment groups.

Step 6: Synthesise the data

Synthesising the data means bringing together the information you collected into a single, cohesive story. There are two main approaches to synthesising the data:

Narrative ( qualitative ): Summarise the information in words. You’ll need to discuss the studies and assess their overall quality.
Quantitative : Use statistical methods to summarise and compare data from different studies. The most common quantitative approach is a meta-analysis , which allows you to combine results from multiple studies into a summary result.

Boyle and colleagues also divided the studies into subgroups, such as studies about babies, children, and adults, and analysed the effect sizes within each group.

Step 7: Write and publish a report

The purpose of writing a systematic review article is to share the answer to your research question and explain how you arrived at this answer.

Your article should include the following sections:

Abstract : A summary of the review
Introduction : Including the rationale and objectives
Methods : Including the selection criteria, search method, data extraction method, and synthesis method
Results : Including results of the search and selection process, study characteristics, risk of bias in the studies, and synthesis results
Discussion : Including interpretation of the results and limitations of the review
Conclusion : The answer to your research question and implications for practice, policy, or research

To verify that your report includes everything it needs, you can use the PRISMA checklist .

Once your report is written, you can publish it in a systematic review database, such as the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews , and/or in a peer-reviewed journal.

A systematic review is secondary research because it uses existing research. You don’t collect new data yourself.

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a dissertation , thesis, research paper , or proposal .

There are several reasons to conduct a literature review at the beginning of a research project:

To familiarise yourself with the current state of knowledge on your topic
To ensure that you’re not just repeating what others have already done
To identify gaps in knowledge and unresolved problems that your research can address
To develop your theoretical framework and methodology
To provide an overview of the key findings and debates on the topic

Writing the literature review shows your reader how your work relates to existing research and what new insights it will contribute.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

Turney, S. (2022, October 17). Systematic Review | Definition, Examples & Guide. Scribbr. Retrieved 2 April 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/systematic-reviews/

Is this article helpful?

Shaun Turney

Other students also liked, what is a literature review | guide, template, & examples, exploratory research | definition, guide, & examples, what is peer review | types & examples.

How to write a systematic review

Affiliations.

1 The Methodist Orthopedics and Sports Medicine Center, Houston, Texas [email protected].
2 Sports Medicine Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
3 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
4 Sports Medicine Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
PMID: 23925575
DOI: 10.1177/0363546513497567

Background: The role of evidence-based medicine in sports medicine and orthopaedic surgery is rapidly growing. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are also proliferating in the medical literature.

Purpose: To provide the outline necessary for a practitioner to properly understand and/or conduct a systematic review for publication in a sports medicine journal.

Study design: Review.

Methods: The steps of a successful systematic review include the following: identification of an unanswered answerable question; explicit definitions of the investigation's participant(s), intervention(s), comparison(s), and outcome(s); utilization of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines and PROSPERO registration; thorough systematic data extraction; and appropriate grading of the evidence and strength of the recommendations.

Results: An outline to understand and conduct a systematic review is provided, and the difference between meta-analyses and systematic reviews is described. The steps necessary to perform a systematic review are fully explained, including the study purpose, search methodology, data extraction, reporting of results, identification of bias, and reporting of the study's main findings.

Conclusion: Systematic reviews or meta-analyses critically appraise and formally synthesize the best existing evidence to provide a statement of conclusion that answers specific clinical questions. Readers and reviewers, however, must recognize that the quality and strength of recommendations in a review are only as strong as the quality of studies that it analyzes. Thus, great care must be used in the interpretation of bias and extrapolation of the review's findings to translation to clinical practice. Without advanced education on the topic, the reader may follow the steps discussed herein to perform a systematic review.

Keywords: PRISMA; PROSPERO; evidence-based medicine; meta-analysis; systematic review.

Publication types

Systematic Review
Evidence-Based Medicine
Medical Writing / standards*
Meta-Analysis as Topic
Orthopedics*
Publishing / standards*
Review Literature as Topic*
Sports Medicine*

An official website of the United States government

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.

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.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Sage Choice

Systematic reviews: Structure, form and content

This article aims to provide an overview of the structure, form and content of systematic reviews. It focuses in particular on the literature searching component, and covers systematic database searching techniques, searching for grey literature and the importance of librarian involvement in the search. It also covers systematic review reporting standards such as PRISMA-P and PRISMA, critical appraisal and tools and resources to support the review and ensure it is conducted efficiently and effectively. Finally, it summarizes the requirements when screening search results for inclusion in the review, and the statistical synthesis of included studies’ findings.

Provenance and Peer review: Solicited contribution; Peer reviewed; Accepted for publication 24 January 2021.

Introduction

A systematic review collects secondary data, and is a synthesis of all available, relevant evidence which brings together all existing primary studies for review ( Cochrane 2016 ). A systematic review differs from other types of literature review in several major ways. It requires a transparent, reproducible methodology which indicates how studies were identified and the criteria upon which they were included or excluded. As well as synthesis of these studies' findings, there should be an element of evaluation and quality assessment. The systematic review methodology originated in medical and healthcare research, but it has now been adopted by other disciplines, such as engineering, education, economics and business studies. The processes and requirements for conducting a systematic review can seem arduous or time consuming, but with the use of appropriate tools and resources, and with thorough planning undertaken before beginning the review, researchers will be able to conduct their systematic reviews efficiently and smoothly.

This article provides an overview of the structure, form and content of systematic reviews, with a particular focus on the literature searching component. It will also discuss tools and resources – including those relating to reporting standards and critical appraisal of the articles included in the review – which will be of use to researchers conducting a systematic review.

Topic selection and planning

In recent years, there has been an explosion in the number of systematic reviews conducted and published ( Chalmers & Fox 2016 , Fontelo & Liu 2018 , Page et al 2015 ) – although a systematic review may be an inappropriate or unnecessary research methodology for answering many research questions. Systematic reviews can be inadvisable for a variety of reasons. It may be that the topic is too new and there are not enough relevant published papers to synthesise and analyse for a systematic review, or, conversely, that many other researchers have already published systematic reviews on the topic. However, if a scoping search appears to yield sufficient relevant studies for evidence synthesis, and indicates that no previous systematic reviews have been published (or that those previously published require an update or have methodological flaws), systematic reviews are likely to be appropriate.

Most systematic reviews take between six and 18 months to complete, and require a minimum of three authors to independently screen search results. Although many university modules require students to complete systematic reviews, due to this time and authorship requirement, it would be better to describe such student reviews as ‘reviews with systematic literature searches,’ as it is not possible to fulfil all the methodological requirements of a systematic review in a piece of work with a single author. Researchers without the available time or number of potential co-authors may prefer to adopt a different approach, such as narrative, scoping, or umbrella reviews. The systematic, transparent searching techniques outlined in this article can be adopted and adapted for use in other forms of literature review ( Grant & Booth 2009 ), for example, while the critical appraisal tools highlighted are appropriate for use in other contexts in which the reliability and applicability of medical research require evaluation.

Once it has been determined that a systematic review is the appropriate methodology for the research, and that there is sufficient time and resources to conduct it, researchers should then spend some time developing their review topic. It is appropriate at this point to do some scoping searches in relevant subject databases, first to ensure that the proposed review is unique, and meets a research need, and second to obtain a broad overview of the literature that exists, and which is likely to be included in the eventual systematic review. Based on this scoping work, the review topic may need to be refined or adapted, possibly to broaden or narrow it in focus. Once reviewers are satisfied with their chosen topic, the next step is to prepare a protocol which states transparently the methodology they intend to follow when conducting their review.

Creating a protocol

A protocol is a description of the proposed systematic review, including methods, the rationale for the review, and steps which will be taken to eliminate bias while conducting the review. Registering the protocol stakes a claim on the research, and it also means that researchers have done a significant portion of the work required before they formally begin the review, as they will have written the Methods section in draft form and planned what will be necessary to document and report by the time the protocol is finished.

Most protocols are registered with PROSPERO (2020), although it is also possible to upload your protocol on an institutional or subject repository, or publish the protocol in a journal. Guidance for creating a protocol can be found at PRISMA-P (The PRISMA Group et al 2015), or by working through the online training on protocols available at the Cochrane Library ( Cochrane Interactive Learning 2019 ).

Reporting standards and structure

PRISMA (the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) is 'an evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses' ( Moher et al 2009 ). The PRISMA checklist is a useful guideline of content that should be reported and included in the final published version of the systematic review, and will help when in the planning stages as well. Most systematic reviews will be written up using the PRISMA checklist as their underlying structure, so familiarity with this checklist and the content required when reporting the findings of the systematic review should be established at the earliest planning stages of the research.

PRISMA-P (The PRISMA Group et al 2015) is the reporting guidelines for protocols. The EQUATOR Network lists reporting standards for multiple different types of study design ( EQUATOR Network 2020 ). Researchers can search for the right guideline for their type of study. Those undertaking a Cochrane review should select the correct Cochrane Handbook ( Cochrane Training 2020 ) for their review type.

Search strategy

The search strategy for systematic reviews is the main method of collecting the data which will underpin the review's findings. This means that the search must be sufficiently robust – both sensitive and specific – to capture all relevant articles. Ideally, multiple databases and other sources of information should be searched, using a consistent, predetermined search string. Generally, this will involve multiple synonyms for each theme of the review's topic, and a multifield search including freetext terms in (at minimum) the title and abstract, and the controlled vocabulary in the database thesaurus. These words are then combined with the Boolean operators AND, OR and NOT so that search results are both sensitive and specific.

Grey literature

It is likely that systematic reviews will need to include a search of grey literature as well as the peer-reviewed journal articles found through database searching. Grey literature includes unpublished theses, conference proceedings, government reports, unpublished trial data and more. Leaving grey literature out can run the risk of biasing the reviews results ( Goldacre 2011 ).

Searching grey literature can be challenging. Most sources of grey literature cannot be searched with complex Boolean operators and myriad synonymous keywords in the manner of a database. Likewise, the websites and other sources used to search for grey literature are unlikely to have a controlled vocabulary thesaurus. The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) tool is designed to help adapt complex systematic database search strategies for use when searching for grey literature ( CADTH 2009 ).

Snowballing, hand-searching and reference lists

Sometimes it may be appropriate to 'snowball' a search. This involves screening all the articles that cite included papers (the articles which meet the inclusion criteria after screening). Search for the titles of each included article in Web of Science or Scopus (or both), and any listed citing article which meets your inclusion criteria should also be included in the review.

Hand searching involves looking back through the tables of contents of key journals, conference proceedings, or lists of conference presentations relevant to the systematic review topic. Once key journals have been identified, reviewers should plan how many years back they will look – this will need to be done consistently across all journals that are hand-searched.

After reviewers have screened all the papers identified by the database and grey literature searches, and agreed on which will be included in the review, they should check through these articles' reference lists. Any articles in their reference lists which meet all inclusion criteria should also be included in the review.

Librarian co-authorship

There is some evidence that having a librarian co-author on a systematic review can improve the review's quality. A number of recent studies have indicated that librarian involvement improves the reproducibility of the literature searching ( Hameed et al 2020 , Koffel 2015 , Rethlefsen et al 2015 ). Reviews without librarian involvement often have problems with their search strategies – for example Boolean operators used incorrectly, inappropriate search syntax, or a lack of sufficient synonyms for each search term, meaning that relevant studies might be missed ( Golder et al 2008 , Li et al 2014 ). Unfortunately, in some instances, systematic reviews without librarian co-authors will still be published, even if their search strategies have significant methodological flaws ( Brasher & Giustini 2020 ). Librarian involvement will help ensure that the search strategy is robust, and that it is described accurately in the methodology to ensure that the systematic review is reproducible. Generally, if a librarian is developing the search terms, running the searches in databases and writing the search methods, they should be a co-author of the systematic review, whereas if the librarian supports researchers who then conduct the searches themselves, co-authorship is not necessary. This also aligns with the Vancouver recommendations on co-authorship ( International Committee of Medical Journal Editors 2019 ).

After database and grey literature searches are completed, and researchers have identified other papers through hand-searching, they will need to screen the titles and abstracts to determine if they meet the criteria for inclusion. These criteria should be pre-defined (ie: stated in the protocol before searches have begun). Inclusion criteria might relate to the following:

Date range of publication. Study design type. Whether a study focuses on the review's specific disease, condition, or patient population. Whether a study focuses mainly on the review's specific intervention. Whether a study focused on a certain country, region, or healthcare context (for example primary care, outpatient department, critical care unit, or similar).

This list is not exhaustive, and there are many other inclusion criteria to apply, depending on the scope of the topic of the systematic review. It is important that these criteria are stated clearly in the Methods section of both the protocol and systematic review, and that all co-authors understand them.

Generally, articles are screened against these criteria independently by at least two authors. Initially they should screen the titles and abstracts, and then move on to screening the full text for any articles which could not be judged as fulfilling (or not fulfilling) all inclusion criteria on the basis of the information in their titles and abstracts.

Referencing software such as Endnote, EndnoteWeb, Mendeley or Zotero can be used for screening, or reviewers may prefer to use systematic review screening software such as Covidence or Rayyan.

Critical appraisal tools

There are a number of tools and checklists available to help assess the quality of studies to be included in a review. Studies included in a systematic review should be assessed for their quality and reliability. While poor quality studies should not be excluded if they fulfil predefined inclusion criteria, the systematic review should make clear that all included studies have been assessed according to consistent principles of critical appraisal, and the results of that appraisal should be included in the review.

Most critical appraisal tools consist of different checklists to apply to different types of study design. If a systematic review includes multiple types of study design, it is advisable that researchers are consistent about which tools they use – it is preferable to use different checklists from a single source, rather than picking and choosing from a variety of sources.

If the systematic review is only including peer-reviewed, published journal articles, the checklists from either CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme), Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, SIGN (Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network), or Joanna Briggs Institute will be appropriate ( Brice 2020 , Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine 2020 , Joanna Briggs Institute 2020 , SIGN 2020 ). Reviews which include grey literature should use a grey literature appraisal tool, such as AACODS ( Tyndall 2008 ). There are also risk of bias assessment tools, such as RoBiS for evaluating systematic reviews, and RoB 2 for evaluating randomized controlled trials ( Bristol Medical School 2020 , Sterne et al 2019 ).

One of the main advantages of systematic reviews is that they combine the analysis of the data from a number of primary studies. Most commonly, this is done through meta-analysis – the statistical combination of results from two or more studies. As outlined in the Cochrane Handbook, in interventional studies, a systematic review meta-analysis will seek to answer these three main questions:

What is the direction of effect? What is the size of effect? Is the effect consistent across [all included] studies? ( Higgins et al 2019 )

The researchers will then make a judgement as to the strength of evidence for the effect. If the systematic review is assessing the effectiveness of a variety of different interventions, it may not be possible to combine all studies for meta-analysis as the studies may be sufficiently different to make meta-analysis inappropriate. Researchers should ensure that when interpreting the results they consider the limitations and potential biases of included studies. When reporting the findings it is also usually necessary to consider applicability, and make recommendations – such as for a change in practice.

Systematic reviews – when an appropriate approach to the topic being researched – are a way to synthesize and evaluate the range of evidence available in multiple primary studies. Their methodology is complex, but if the correct reporting guidelines are followed, and researchers make use of tools, resources and the support of librarians and other information specialists, the process will be more straightforward. Planning is key: researchers should have a clear picture of what is involved, and what will need to be documented and reported in any resulting publications, and put measures in place to ensure that they capture all of this essential information.

No competing interests declared .

ORCID iD: Veronica Phillips https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4383-9434

Developing a Protocol for Systematic and Scoping Reviews

Protocol templates.

Making Your Protocol Available
Additional Resources
Related Guides
Getting Help

Click the tabs below to learn more about template resources for systematic and scoping reviews.

Systematic Review Templates
Scoping Review Templates

Systematic Review Protocol Templates

The following resources offer templates for authors to develop a systematic review protocol.

PRISMA-P for Systematic Review Protocols Developed in 2015, the PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) checklist provides guidance on what should be included in an SR protocol. Like other PRISMA models, this should be viewed as the bare minimum of what to include.
Campbell Institute The Campbell Collaboration is a source through which systematic reviews can be conducted. Campbell follows the Cochrane Handbook guidelines for systematic reviews as well as their own policies and guidelines in protocol and organization of the review (The Campbell Collaboration, 2020). For authors to publish with Campbell, they must register and be approved prior to conducting the evidence synthesis. Review Campbell's website for more information.
Cochrane Handbook Cochrane Reviews offers distinct descriptions and requirements for what is to be included in a protocol when conducting a Cochrane review. This information is available in the Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR). Keep in mind, in order to conduct a Cochrane review, there are further measures authors must take in addition to the procedures for conducting a systematic review (Cumpston & Chandler, 2021). Review the Cochrane website carefully prior to beginning your review process.

Scoping Review Protocol Templates

The following resources offer templates for authors conducting a scoping review.

PRISMA-ScR While the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses provides a lot of information for authors looking to complete systematic reviews, they also developed a template and information for authors writing scoping reviews (Tricco et. al, 2018). This checklist should be treated as a minimal requirement for authors to follow.
Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) This link downloads as a Microsoft Word document detailing the specific template for completing a scoping review through the Joanna Briggs Institute. The JBI Manual provides information on each section of a scoping review as well as how to distinguish a scoping review from other forms of evidence synthesis (Peters et. al, 2020).
Scoping Reviews: JBI Manual Chapter of the JBI Manual covering what authors need to know regarding scoping reviews.
<< Previous: Home
Next: Making Your Protocol Available >>
Last Updated: Feb 5, 2024 3:28 PM
URL: https://guides.library.duq.edu/protocols

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: Home

Get Started
Exploratory Search
Where to Search
How to Search
Grey Literature
What about errata and retractions?
Eligibility Screening
Critical Appraisal
Data Extraction
Synthesis & Discussion
Assess Certainty
Share & Archive

Welcome! This guide is designed to help novice and experienced review teams navigate the systematic review and/or meta-analysis process.

Guide Sections - Table of Contents

If you're new to this methodology, check out the video and resources below. Each tab above contains more detail about the respective topic.

Table of Contents for this Guide

Get Started | Reporting guidelines and methodological guidance, team formation, finding existing reviews.

Define Scope | F ormation of a clear research question and eligibility criteria; contains subpage for exploratory searching .

Protocol | Introduction to protocol purpose, development, registration.

Comprehensive Search | Contains subpages where to search , how to search , grey literature , and errata/retractions .

Eligibility Screening | Title and abstract screening, full-text review, interrater reliability, and resolving disagreements.

Critical Appraisal | Risk of bias assessment purpose, tools, and presentation.

Data Extraction | Data extraction execution, and presentation.

Synthesis & Discussion | Qualitative synthesis, meta-analysis, and discussion

Assess Certainty | Assessing certainty of evidence using formal methods.

Share & Archive | Repositories to share supplemental material.

Help & Training | Evidence Synthesis Services support and events; additional support outside of the VT Libraries; contains subpage tools .

What is a systematic review and/or meta-analysis?

A review of a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify , select , and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect and analyse data from the studies that are included in the review. Statistical methods ( meta-analysis ) may or may not be used to analyse and summarise the results of the included studies.

- Cochrane Collaboration Definition

Considerations before you start.

Has the review already been done or is a review currently underway ? (no need to duplicate if a review exists or is in-progress)

Do you have the resource capacity? (e.g., a team of 3 or more people, time to commit to a months or years long review?)

If a systematic review and/or meta-analysis is not the best option, you may consider alternative evidence synthesis approaches !

Cornerstones

Cornerstones of the systematic review and/or meta-analysis.

According to Wormald & Evans (2018) , the systematic review differs from a subjective, traditional literature review approach in that:

A systematic review is a reproducible piece of observational research and should have a protocol that sets out explicitly objective methods for the conduct of the review, particularly focusing on the control of error , both from bias and the reduction of random error through meta-analysis. Especially important in a systematic review is the objective , methodologically sound and reproducible retrieval of the evidence using...search strategies devised by a trained and experienced information scientist .

Note: This site will continue to evolve and develop through community driven collaboration with information retrieval and evidence synthesis experts across many disciplines. If you've found a broken link or have suggestions for the guide, please reach out to [email protected] .

Next: Get Started >>
Last Updated: Mar 28, 2024 2:54 PM
URL: https://guides.lib.vt.edu/SRMA

LibGuides
A-Z List
Help

How to Find and Conduct Systematic Reviews

Find Systematic Reviews

Step 1: Choose Your Topic

Step 2: Identify Your Keywords

Step 3: Connect Your Keywords

Step 4: Choose Your Databases

Step 5: Find Your Subjects

Step 6: Run Your Search

Step 7: Apply Your Criteria

Step 8: Manage Your Citations

Step 9+: What Happens Next?

CONDUCT A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW: OUTLINE OF THE PROCESS

Other Systematic Review Resources
Feedback & Get Help

Want a preview of the process? Finished reading the ste ps and need a refresher? Use this outline as a (p)review, but make sure to see the full guide for details on how to complete each step. (Click on a step name to see the To Do List associated with that step in the full guide.)

Before You Begin

You know what a systematic review is.
You really want to do a systematic review.
You know the basics of using databases.
Choose a topic.
Phrase your topic as an answerable question.
Review the existing literature on the topic .
Decide which types of documents you will and will not include in your systematic review (create inclusion and exclusion criteria).
Clearly state the research topic in as much detail as possible.
Identify the main and unique keywords in your research topic.
Apply quotation marks and asterisks to your search.
Identify any synonyms or related terms .
Use AND to connect independent keywords.
Use OR to connect related keywords.
Use NOT to eliminate irrelevant words.
Write out all your keywords with the connectors.
Wrap parenthese s around related terms.
Examine your search phrase for redundancies .
Write your full search phrase .
Make a list of all the subjects, fields, and disciplines that may contribute information about your topic.
Identify the databases associated with the subjects, fields, and disciplines on your list.
Translate your keywords into subjects
Add the subjects you found to your search phrases (one search phrase per database).
Double check your (semi)final search phrases.
Place each search phrase in th e corresponding database's "Advanced Search."
M ake sure your search phrases are turning up results that are relevant to you. If not, revise them.
"Steal" all the keywords and subjects from the results that are relevant and add them to your own search phrases.
Rerun searches in the databases for as long as you keep modifying your search phrases.
Write down the number of results you retrieved in each database.
Apply your inclusion and exclusion criteria to your results using the databases' filters and limits.
Write down the number of results you obtain in each database after you apply the filters and limits.
Consider a citation manager such as RefWorks.
Transfer the citation information from the databases to the citation manager you select.
Find any other types of sources you are interested in that may not have been included in the databases.
Make sure you have documented every step of your search process.
Read and evaluate the sources you found.
Contact your professor or advisor for more information on what you should do next.
<< Previous: Step 9+: What Happens Next?
Next: Other Systematic Review Resources >>
Last Updated: Feb 14, 2024 2:31 PM
URL: https://library.fiu.edu/systematicreviews

Information

Fiu libraries floorplans, green library, modesto a. maidique campus, hubert library, biscayne bay campus.

Directions: Green Library, MMC

Directions: Hubert Library, BBC

Reference management. Clean and simple.

How to write a systematic literature review [9 steps]

What is a systematic literature review?

Where are systematic literature reviews used, what types of systematic literature reviews are there, how to write a systematic literature review, 1. decide on your team, 2. formulate your question, 3. plan your research protocol, 4. search for the literature, 5. screen the literature, 6. assess the quality of the studies, 7. extract the data, 8. analyze the results, 9. interpret and present the results, registering your systematic literature review, frequently asked questions about writing a systematic literature review, related articles.

A systematic literature review is a summary, analysis, and evaluation of all the existing research on a well-formulated and specific question.

Put simply, a systematic review is a study of studies that is popular in medical and healthcare research. In this guide, we will cover:

the definition of a systematic literature review
the purpose of a systematic literature review
the different types of systematic reviews
how to write a systematic literature review

➡️ Visit our guide to the best research databases for medicine and health to find resources for your systematic review.

Systematic literature reviews can be utilized in various contexts, but they’re often relied on in clinical or healthcare settings.

Medical professionals read systematic literature reviews to stay up-to-date in their field, and granting agencies sometimes need them to make sure there’s justification for further research in an area. They can even be used as the starting point for developing clinical practice guidelines.

A classic systematic literature review can take different approaches:

Effectiveness reviews assess the extent to which a medical intervention or therapy achieves its intended effect. They’re the most common type of systematic literature review.
Diagnostic test accuracy reviews produce a summary of diagnostic test performance so that their accuracy can be determined before use by healthcare professionals.
Experiential (qualitative) reviews analyze human experiences in a cultural or social context. They can be used to assess the effectiveness of an intervention from a person-centric perspective.
Costs/economics evaluation reviews look at the cost implications of an intervention or procedure, to assess the resources needed to implement it.
Etiology/risk reviews usually try to determine to what degree a relationship exists between an exposure and a health outcome. This can be used to better inform healthcare planning and resource allocation.
Psychometric reviews assess the quality of health measurement tools so that the best instrument can be selected for use.
Prevalence/incidence reviews measure both the proportion of a population who have a disease, and how often the disease occurs.
Prognostic reviews examine the course of a disease and its potential outcomes.
Expert opinion/policy reviews are based around expert narrative or policy. They’re often used to complement, or in the absence of, quantitative data.
Methodology systematic reviews can be carried out to analyze any methodological issues in the design, conduct, or review of research studies.

Writing a systematic literature review can feel like an overwhelming undertaking. After all, they can often take 6 to 18 months to complete. Below we’ve prepared a step-by-step guide on how to write a systematic literature review.

Decide on your team.
Formulate your question.
Plan your research protocol.
Search for the literature.
Screen the literature.
Assess the quality of the studies.
Extract the data.
Analyze the results.
Interpret and present the results.

When carrying out a systematic literature review, you should employ multiple reviewers in order to minimize bias and strengthen analysis. A minimum of two is a good rule of thumb, with a third to serve as a tiebreaker if needed.

You may also need to team up with a librarian to help with the search, literature screeners, a statistician to analyze the data, and the relevant subject experts.

Define your answerable question. Then ask yourself, “has someone written a systematic literature review on my question already?” If so, yours may not be needed. A librarian can help you answer this.

You should formulate a “well-built clinical question.” This is the process of generating a good search question. To do this, run through PICO:

Patient or Population or Problem/Disease : who or what is the question about? Are there factors about them (e.g. age, race) that could be relevant to the question you’re trying to answer?
Intervention : which main intervention or treatment are you considering for assessment?
Comparison(s) or Control : is there an alternative intervention or treatment you’re considering? Your systematic literature review doesn’t have to contain a comparison, but you’ll want to stipulate at this stage, either way.
Outcome(s) : what are you trying to measure or achieve? What’s the wider goal for the work you’ll be doing?

Now you need a detailed strategy for how you’re going to search for and evaluate the studies relating to your question.

The protocol for your systematic literature review should include:

the objectives of your project
the specific methods and processes that you’ll use
the eligibility criteria of the individual studies
how you plan to extract data from individual studies
which analyses you’re going to carry out

For a full guide on how to systematically develop your protocol, take a look at the PRISMA checklist . PRISMA has been designed primarily to improve the reporting of systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses.

When writing a systematic literature review, your goal is to find all of the relevant studies relating to your question, so you need to search thoroughly .

This is where your librarian will come in handy again. They should be able to help you formulate a detailed search strategy, and point you to all of the best databases for your topic.

➡️ Read more on on how to efficiently search research databases .

The places to consider in your search are electronic scientific databases (the most popular are PubMed , MEDLINE , and Embase ), controlled clinical trial registers, non-English literature, raw data from published trials, references listed in primary sources, and unpublished sources known to experts in the field.

➡️ Take a look at our list of the top academic research databases .

Tip: Don’t miss out on “gray literature.” You’ll improve the reliability of your findings by including it.

Don’t miss out on “gray literature” sources: those sources outside of the usual academic publishing environment. They include:

non-peer-reviewed journals
pharmaceutical industry files
conference proceedings
pharmaceutical company websites
internal reports

Gray literature sources are more likely to contain negative conclusions, so you’ll improve the reliability of your findings by including it. You should document details such as:

The databases you search and which years they cover
The dates you first run the searches, and when they’re updated
Which strategies you use, including search terms
The numbers of results obtained

➡️ Read more about gray literature .

This should be performed by your two reviewers, using the criteria documented in your research protocol. The screening is done in two phases:

Pre-screening of all titles and abstracts, and selecting those appropriate
Screening of the full-text articles of the selected studies

Make sure reviewers keep a log of which studies they exclude, with reasons why.

➡️ Visit our guide on what is an abstract?

Your reviewers should evaluate the methodological quality of your chosen full-text articles. Make an assessment checklist that closely aligns with your research protocol, including a consistent scoring system, calculations of the quality of each study, and sensitivity analysis.

The kinds of questions you'll come up with are:

Were the participants really randomly allocated to their groups?
Were the groups similar in terms of prognostic factors?
Could the conclusions of the study have been influenced by bias?

Every step of the data extraction must be documented for transparency and replicability. Create a data extraction form and set your reviewers to work extracting data from the qualified studies.

Here’s a free detailed template for recording data extraction, from Dalhousie University. It should be adapted to your specific question.

Establish a standard measure of outcome which can be applied to each study on the basis of its effect size.

Measures of outcome for studies with:

Binary outcomes (e.g. cured/not cured) are odds ratio and risk ratio
Continuous outcomes (e.g. blood pressure) are means, difference in means, and standardized difference in means
Survival or time-to-event data are hazard ratios

Design a table and populate it with your data results. Draw this out into a forest plot , which provides a simple visual representation of variation between the studies.

Then analyze the data for issues. These can include heterogeneity, which is when studies’ lines within the forest plot don’t overlap with any other studies. Again, record any excluded studies here for reference.

Consider different factors when interpreting your results. These include limitations, strength of evidence, biases, applicability, economic effects, and implications for future practice or research.

Apply appropriate grading of your evidence and consider the strength of your recommendations.

It’s best to formulate a detailed plan for how you’ll present your systematic review results. Take a look at these guidelines for interpreting results from the Cochrane Institute.

Before writing your systematic literature review, you can register it with OSF for additional guidance along the way. You could also register your completed work with PROSPERO .

Systematic literature reviews are often found in clinical or healthcare settings. Medical professionals read systematic literature reviews to stay up-to-date in their field and granting agencies sometimes need them to make sure there’s justification for further research in an area.

The first stage in carrying out a systematic literature review is to put together your team. You should employ multiple reviewers in order to minimize bias and strengthen analysis. A minimum of two is a good rule of thumb, with a third to serve as a tiebreaker if needed.

Your systematic review should include the following details:

A literature review simply provides a summary of the literature available on a topic. A systematic review, on the other hand, is more than just a summary. It also includes an analysis and evaluation of existing research. Put simply, it's a study of studies.

The final stage of conducting a systematic literature review is interpreting and presenting the results. It’s best to formulate a detailed plan for how you’ll present your systematic review results, guidelines can be found for example from the Cochrane institute .

Teaching and Research guides

Systematic reviews.

Starting the review
About systematic reviews
Research question
Plan your search
Sources to search
Search example
Screen and analyse

What to include

Introduction, discussion and conclusion.

Guides and software
Further help

In general, the writing process for a systematic review is similar to the process of writing any other kind of review.

A systematic review should provide an answer to the research question , it is not a broad overview of current trends and gaps in research. The review should show the reader how the answer was found, and provide the results you have identified.

A systematic review must have a detailed methodology that describes the search process and the selection process. This is why careful documentation of the methodology is important. A reader of the review should be able to critically interpret the findings- to understand why sources were chosen, how they were assessed, and how conclusions were reached.

The structure of the systematic review differs from the narrative review or the traditional literature review that allows you to organise it to best support your argument. A systematic review should reflect the stages outlined in the protocol . With a systematic review reporting guidelines should be followed that help you identify what should be included in each section of the review. One such standard approach is PRISMA .

Although much time is invested in developing a search strategy and screening results, a systematic review is valued by the critical reflection and interpretation of the findings . Focus on analysing, not summarising. Use a critical analysis tool to assess the studies.

Your systematic review needs to tell a story, and it needs to clearly articulate how it provides meaningful and original advancement of the field .

The abstract provides an overview of the systematic review. It usually covers the following:

A brief background (what we know and often the gap that the review will fill)
The aim or hypothesis
Summary of methods
Summary of results
Summary of conclusion (and sometimes recommendations).

Note that these points represent the general ‘story line’ seen in most systematic reviews: What we know (and perhaps what the gap is); what we set out to do; what we did; what we found; what this means.

The introduction provides an overview of the systematic review and enough contextual information for the reader to make sense of the remainder of the report. It usually covers the following:

Background information to contextualise the review (what we already know about this area)
Definitions of key terms and concepts if needed
The rationale for the study (often in terms of a gap in knowledge that needs to be filled, a lack of agreement within the literature that needs to be resolved, or the potential implications of the findings)
The aims and/or objectives (optional)
The research question/s emanating from the rationale
Additional information (Optional)

Note however, that these points are not always in this order. Some writers prefer to begin with the research questions, followed by the context, building to the rationale.

The methods section can be divided up into two main sections.

The first section describes how the literature search was conducted. This section may contain any of the following information:

The databases searched and whether any manual searches were completed
How search terms were identified
What terms were employed in the key word searches
If particular sections of articles were looked at during the search and collection stage i.e. titles, abstracts, table of contents ( note : the information in these sections may have informed the selection process)

The second section discusses the criteria for including or excluding studies. This section may include any of the following information:

Your selection criteria
How you identified relevant studies for further analysis
What articles you reviewed
What particular areas you looked at in the selected articles i.e. a relationship or association between two things (such as a genetic predisposition and a drug), the outcome measures of a health campaign, drug treatment, or clinical intervention, the differing impact of a particular drug or treatment.

Details about the kind of systematic review undertaken, i.e. thematic analysis, might also be mentioned in the methods section.

Broadly speaking, in the results section, everything you have done so far needs to be presented. This can include any of the following:

briefly mention the databases used for the searching
identify the number of hits
show how the articles were selected by title, abstract, table of contents or other procedures.
Overview of the kinds of studies selected for the review i.e. the types of methodologies or study designs used.
where the trials were conducted
treatment duration
details about participants
similarities and differences in the way data was measured
similar or different approaches to the same treatment or condition
Risk of bias across studies
the kinds of relationships or associations demonstrated by the studies
frequency of positive or adverse effects of a particular treatment or drug
the number of studies that found a positive correlation between two phenomena or found a causal relationship between two variables

Often, researchers will include tables in the Results section or Appendix to provide on overview of data found in the studies. Remember, tables in the Results section need to be explained fully.

A primary function of your discussion and conclusion is to help readers understand the main findings and implications of the review.

The following elements are commonly found in the discussion and conclusion sections. Note that the points listed are neither mandatory nor in any prescribed order.

Discussion:

Summary of main findings
Interpretation of main findings (don’t repeat results)
Strengths and weaknesses
Comparison with previous review findings or general literature
The degree to which the review answers the research question
Whether the hypothesis was confirmed
Limitations (e.g. biases, lack of methodological rigour or weak evidence in the articles)

Conclusion:

Summary of how it answers the research question (the ‘take home’ message)
Significance of the findings
Reminder of the limitations
Implications and recommendations for further research.

Separate or combined?

A key difference between a discussion and a conclusion relates to how specific or general the observations are. A discussion closely interprets results in the context of the review. A conclusion identifies the significance and the implications beyond the review. Some reviews present these as separately headed sections. Many reviews, however, present only one section using a combination of elements. This section may be headed either Discussion or Conclusion.

<< Previous: Synthesise
Next: Guides and software >>

Last Updated: Apr 7, 2024 11:18 AM
URL: https://rmit.libguides.com/systematicreviews

What’s Included: Literature Review Template

This template is structure is based on the tried and trusted best-practice format for formal academic research projects such as dissertations and theses. The literature review template includes the following sections:

Before you start – essential groundwork to ensure you’re ready
The introduction section
The core/body section
The conclusion /summary
Extra free resources

Each section is explained in plain, straightforward language , followed by an overview of the key elements that you need to cover. We’ve also included practical examples and links to more free videos and guides to help you understand exactly what’s required in each section.

The cleanly-formatted Google Doc can be downloaded as a fully editable MS Word Document (DOCX format), so you can use it as-is or convert it to LaTeX.

PS – if you’d like a high-level template for the entire thesis, you can we’ve got that too .

FAQs: Literature Review Template

What format is the template (doc, pdf, ppt, etc.).

The literature review chapter template is provided as a Google Doc. You can download it in MS Word format or make a copy to your Google Drive. You’re also welcome to convert it to whatever format works best for you, such as LaTeX or PDF.

What types of literature reviews can this template be used for?

The template follows the standard format for academic literature reviews, which means it will be suitable for the vast majority of academic research projects (especially those within the sciences), whether they are qualitative or quantitative in terms of design.

Keep in mind that the exact requirements for the literature review chapter will vary between universities and degree programs. These are typically minor, but it’s always a good idea to double-check your university’s requirements before you finalize your structure.

Is this template for an undergrad, Master or PhD-level thesis?

This template can be used for a literature review at any level of study. Doctoral-level projects typically require the literature review to be more extensive/comprehensive, but the structure will typically remain the same.

Can I modify the template to suit my topic/area?

Absolutely. While the template provides a general structure, you should adapt it to fit the specific requirements and focus of your literature review.

What structural style does this literature review template use?

The template assumes a thematic structure (as opposed to a chronological or methodological structure), as this is the most common approach. However, this is only one dimension of the template, so it will still be useful if you are adopting a different structure.

Does this template include the Excel literature catalog?

No, that is a separate template, which you can download for free here . This template is for the write-up of the actual literature review chapter, whereas the catalog is for use during the literature sourcing and sorting phase.

How long should the literature review chapter be?

This depends on your university’s specific requirements, so it’s best to check with them. As a general ballpark, literature reviews for Masters-level projects are usually 2,000 – 3,000 words in length, while Doctoral-level projects can reach multiples of this.

Can I include literature that contradicts my hypothesis?

Yes, it’s important to acknowledge and discuss literature that presents different viewpoints or contradicts your hypothesis. So, don’t shy away from existing research that takes an opposing view to yours.

How do I avoid plagiarism in my literature review?

Always cite your sources correctly and paraphrase ideas in your own words while maintaining the original meaning. You can always check our plagiarism score before submitting your work to help ease your mind.

Do you have an example of a populated template?

We provide a walkthrough of the template and review an example of a high-quality literature research chapter here .

Can I share this literature review template with my friends/colleagues?

Yes, you’re welcome to share this template in its original format (no editing allowed). If you want to post about it on your blog or social media, all we ask is that you reference this page as your source.

Do you have templates for the other dissertation/thesis chapters?

Yes, we do. You can find our full collection of templates here .

Can Grad Coach help me with my literature review?

Yes, you’re welcome to get in touch with us to discuss our private coaching services , where we can help you work through the literature review chapter (and any other chapters).

All Formats

Outline Templates

12+ Literature Review Outline Templates – PDF, DOC

There are some basic criteria that one must judge a work of literature on, irrespective of genre. Typing them out over and over again for each different work can be a waste of time and a redundant exercise. Your time can be better utilized by using these well-constructed literature review outline templates. These excellent free samples are easy to download and print. Whether it’s for a college essay or a survey project, we’ve got templates that can help you write down the literature review without hassle. Details such as evaluation tables, sample plans , search methods, and structure can be easily set with our layout. You can also see Sample Outline Templates.

Literature Review Outline Template

Free Literature Review Thesis Outline Template

free download literature review outline template in word

Free Research Literature Review Structure Outline

research literature review outline template format

Literature Review Outline Templates

The simple pages outline serves as the introduction of your content topic. The introduction gives brief details about what your topic is all about. It provides a framework for the entire literature review.
The body of your content topic. The body of your literature review is an essential part of your literature review. It elaborately describes your topic and what it is about in a step-by-step process.
The conclusion of your content. The conclusion summarizes your content topic and comes up with a finding of your study.

Sample Project Literature Review Template

Free Literature Review Essay Example

Free College APA Literature Review Template

Free Critical Literature Review Layout

Systematic Plan Literature Review Paper

Free Class Evaluation Literature Review

Literature Search Review with Introduction

Literature Review and Survey Outline

Free Literature Review Table Chart Outline

More in Outline Templates

Product literature in response to phone inquiry template, world poetry day whatsapp post template, national read across america day fb post, national read across america day instagram post, national read across america day website banner, national read across america day banner, national read across america day drawing background, national read across america day image background, national read across america day vector background, national read across america day wallpaper background.

10+ Training Outline Templates – PDF, Word, Apple Pages
24+ Autobiography Outline Templates & Samples – DOC, PDF
10+ Project Proposal Outline in Google Docs | MS Word | Pages | Editable PDF | InDesign | Photoshop | Publisher | PDF
15+ Thesis Outline Templates – Sample, Example
11+ Outline Report Templates in Google Docs | Word | Pages | PDF
10+ Production Outline Templates
12+ Project Outline Templates in Google Docs | Word | Pages | PDF | XLS
15+ Meeting Outline Templates in PDF | DOC
8+ Project Proposal Outline Templates
12+ Outline Templates in Apple Pages
10+ Outline Templates in Word
10+ Outline Templates
15+ Topic Proposal Outline Templates – PDF, Word
12+ Research Project Proposal Outline Templates – PDF, Word, Pages

File Formats

Word templates, google docs templates, excel templates, powerpoint templates, google sheets templates, google slides templates, pdf templates, publisher templates, psd templates, indesign templates, illustrator templates, pages templates, keynote templates, numbers templates, outlook templates.

COMMENTS

PDF Systematic review protocol
Systematic Review Protocol & Support Template. This template is primarily intended to help you plan your review in a systematic way. A copy of this completed form will be available via the intranet to help others carrying out reviews in the future and to avoid duplicating work already undertaken in the Centre.
Steps of a Systematic Review
Tools: Steps: PICO template. 1. Id entify your research question. Formulate a clear, well-defined research question of appropriate scope. Define your terminology. Find existing reviews on your topic to inform the development of your research question, identify gaps, and confirm that you are not duplicating the efforts of previous reviews.
PDF How to Write a Systematic Review: A Step-by-Step Guide
outline the fundamental steps for assessing the appropriateness of meta-analytic technique for your review and an explanation of statistical tools available for data analysis and presentation. An academic discussion regarding the strengths and weaknesses of systematic review methodology is beyond the scope of this guide, as are detailed
Step 10: Templates, Write & Publish
Step 10: Templates, Write & Publish; Non-Health Systematic Reviews; Contact us; Writing Your Review. When writing up your systematic review keep in mind the specific guidelines for structuring your review. Systematic review standards are elements that should be reported in any published systematic review. Also there may be other 'Instructions ...
Systematic Review
A systematic review is a type of review that uses repeatable methods to find, select, and synthesize all available evidence. It answers a clearly formulated research question and explicitly states the methods used to arrive at the answer. Example: Systematic review. In 2008, Dr. Robert Boyle and his colleagues published a systematic review in ...
PRISMA Checklist
The PRISMA 2020 statement comprises a 27-item checklist addressing the introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of a systematic review report. PRISMA 2020 Checklist (PDF) PRISMA 2020 Checklist (Word)
How to Write a Systematic Review: A Narrative Review
Background. A systematic review, as its name suggests, is a systematic way of collecting, evaluating, integrating, and presenting findings from several studies on a specific question or topic.[] A systematic review is a research that, by identifying and combining evidence, is tailored to and answers the research question, based on an assessment of all relevant studies.[2,3] To identify assess ...
How to Do a Systematic Review: A Best Practice Guide for Conducting and
Systematic reviews are characterized by a methodical and replicable methodology and presentation. They involve a comprehensive search to locate all relevant published and unpublished work on a subject; a systematic integration of search results; and a critique of the extent, nature, and quality of evidence in relation to a particular research question.
Systematic Reviews: Step 2: Develop a Protocol
In Step 2, you will write your systematic review protocol. This is a detailed work plan for your systematic review. You will: Define the criteria you will use to screen literature. Decide where and how you will search for literature. Choose quality assessment tools to evaluate the literature.
Systematic Review
A systematic review is a type of review that uses repeatable methods to find, select, and synthesise all available evidence. It answers a clearly formulated research question and explicitly states the methods used to arrive at the answer. Example: Systematic review. In 2008, Dr Robert Boyle and his colleagues published a systematic review in ...
How to write a systematic review
Background: The role of evidence-based medicine in sports medicine and orthopaedic surgery is rapidly growing. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are also proliferating in the medical literature. Purpose: To provide the outline necessary for a practitioner to properly understand and/or conduct a systematic review for publication in a sports medicine journal.
A Research Guide for Systematic Literature Reviews
A commonly used systematic review protocol template. ... The standards address the entire systematic review process from the initial steps of formulating the topic and building the review team to producing a detailed final report that synthesizes what the evidence shows and where knowledge gaps remain.
Systematic reviews: Structure, form and content
Topic selection and planning. In recent years, there has been an explosion in the number of systematic reviews conducted and published (Chalmers & Fox 2016, Fontelo & Liu 2018, Page et al 2015) - although a systematic review may be an inappropriate or unnecessary research methodology for answering many research questions.Systematic reviews can be inadvisable for a variety of reasons.
Developing a Protocol for Systematic and Scoping Reviews
While the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses provides a lot of information for authors looking to complete systematic reviews, they also developed a template and information for authors writing scoping reviews (Tricco et. al, 2018). This checklist should be treated as a minimal requirement for authors to follow.
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: Home
A review of a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect and analyse data from the studies that are included in the review. Statistical methods ( meta-analysis) may or may not be used to analyse and summarise the results of the included ...
Outline of Process
Use this outline as a (p)review, but make sure to see the full guide for details on how to complete each step. (Click on a step name to see the To Do List associated with that step in the full guide.) Before You Begin. Make sure: You know what a systematic review is. You really want to do a systematic review. You know the basics of using databases.
How to write a systematic literature review [9 steps]
Analyze the results. Interpret and present the results. 1. Decide on your team. When carrying out a systematic literature review, you should employ multiple reviewers in order to minimize bias and strengthen analysis. A minimum of two is a good rule of thumb, with a third to serve as a tiebreaker if needed.
SLR Template
Here's a template for conducting a systematic literature review: Systematic Literature Review (SLR) Template. 1. Title: Provide a clear and descriptive title for your systematic literature review. 2. Objective: State the main research question or objectives of the systematic literature review. 3.
PDF Systematic review protocol
Systematic Review Protocol & Support Template This template is primarily intended to help you plan your review in a systematic way. A copy of this completed form will be available via the intranet to help others carrying out reviews in the future and to avoid duplicating work already undertaken in the Centre.
Systematic Reviews
What is a systematic review protocol? ... Much of the information within the protocol will assist with the article format and writing; Source: ... These videos outline the most common errors made in each section of Cochrane Review Protocols and how these errors can be avoided or addressed.
Write
What to include. In general, the writing process for a systematic review is similar to the process of writing any other kind of review. A systematic review should provide an answer to the research question, it is not a broad overview of current trends and gaps in research. The review should show the reader how the answer was found, and provide ...
Free Literature Review Template (Word Doc & PDF)
The literature review template includes the following sections: Before you start - essential groundwork to ensure you're ready. The introduction section. The core/body section. The conclusion /summary. Extra free resources. Each section is explained in plain, straightforward language, followed by an overview of the key elements that you ...
12+ Literature Review Outline Templates
With Basic a Sample, You Can Make an Introduction Plan, Survey Search, APA Format, and Systematic Table, All with Ease. Get a Doc Example in PDF, Word, and Google Docs Now! ... 12+ Literature Review Outline Templates - PDF, DOC. There are some basic criteria that one must judge a work of literature on, irrespective of genre. Typing them out ...