Writing a good systematic review and meta

May not be easy to combine studies Design pitfalls to look out for Studies included in systematic reviews may be of varying study designs, but should collectively be studying the same outcome. Is each study included in the review studying the same variables? Some reviews may group and analyze studies by variables such as age and gender; factors that were not allocated to participants. Do the analyses in the systematic review fit the variables being studied in the original studies?

Writing a good systematic review and meta

Tables Figures All scientific journals have author instructions. Study them carefully and follow them. Some journals may want you to submit without a title page. Some journals want the tables and figures as the last part of the manuscript. Other journals want you to upload tables and figures as separate files.

Some journals may want the acknowledgement in another place. All text should be written with 1. Most journals prefer a font size of The maximum allowed length of a manuscript varies depending on journal. Item above should be headings in your manuscript.

writing a good systematic review and meta

Item 3 Introduction is also a heading in some journals while in others the background text starts directly without a heading. Check in author instructions how long how many words your manuscript can be.

A few journals have no word limit. However, most journals have and for a literature review it would usually be somewhere between 2, words. The shorter the more likely it is read.

Writing a systematic review – Science Network TV

It is difficult and very time consuming to shorten a manuscript expressing yourself more succinct. However, if successful the reader will experience a well digested interesting text that reads more easily. For every sentence you need to ask yourself — is this sentence really necessary?

Can I refer to the original publication instead of describing all details? Once you have gone through all sentences you need to start over and ask for every word — is this word really necessary? Have a look at some of the examples given in the table above.

I also states who is corresponding author. Identify the manuscript as a systematic review and meta-analysis if relevant in the title.

Related Reading

The title page is a separate page. Some journals prefer it to be the first page of the document. Other journals want it as a separate file. The abstract is usually also a separate page coming after the title page but before the introduction.

Hence, the introduction starts on a new page. Each paragraph prepares the way for the next paragraph: Begin with describing the topic and why it is an important topic.

writing a good systematic review and meta

You may want to mention prevalence or costs associated with this topic. You are not supposed to write a new textbook here so this paragraph must not be too long.

The rationale for a project is always to solve a problem. In this paragraph describe the unresolved problem associated with the topic.

Search form

The problem may be a few examples:A systematic review is a highly rigorous review of existing literature that addresses a clearly formulated question. Systematic reviews are regarded as the best source of research evidence.

This article discusses the types of systematic review, systematic review protocol and its registration, and the best approach to conducting and writing a systematic review. Do the analyses in the systematic review fit the variables being studied in the original studies?

Systematic Reviews are similar to Meta-Analyses, except they do not include a statistical analysis quantitatively combining all the studies.

a) True b) False. 2. The panels writing Systematic Reviews may include which of the following. Systematic Literature Review, sometimes known as systematic reviews, are associated with evidence-based healthcare practice, the idea that nursing and related healthcare disciplines should be grounded in the most up-to-date and accurate research evidence.

On the system in, and objectivity of, systematic review. What makes a review systematic (as opposed to unsystematic) is the use of an explicit and auditable protocol for review. An understanding of the reading and writing practices that define systematic review still holds truth and objectivity as regulative ideals, but is aware of the reading and writing practices that both enable and challenge those ideals.

A systematic review answers a defined research question by collecting and summarising all empirical evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria. A meta-analysis is the use of statistical methods to summarise the results of these studies.