Systematic review and meta-analysis support

Specify the review before screening

Define the question and eligibility criteria, choose appropriate information sources and record a reproducible search plan. Discuss protocol registration or publication where relevant. A change to the plan should be dated and explained so that the final report accurately reflects the process.

Keep screening and extraction traceable

Maintain source records, deduplication decisions, screening outcomes and reasons for exclusion at full text. Use a piloted extraction form and describe reviewer roles and disagreement handling. The final flow diagram must reconcile with the actual screening log.

Assess the evidence before pooling it

Choose an appraisal method appropriate to the designs included. Consider differences in populations, interventions, outcomes, measurements and follow-up before combining results. A meta-analysis is not automatically appropriate; a structured narrative synthesis may be more defensible.

• Document effect measures and conversions.
• Explain the model and assumptions used for synthesis.
• Plan sensitivity or subgroup analyses for substantive reasons.
• Report uncertainty, heterogeneity and limitations transparently.

Report with the relevant guideline

PRISMA provides checklists and flow-diagram resources for reporting systematic reviews. Select the appropriate guidance and extension for the review type. Checklist completion supports transparent reporting; it does not replace sound methods or prove that the findings are reliable.

Scope, files and delivery

Start with a short project brief. We assess the work, discuss the expertise required and confirm the deliverables, fee, schedule and included revisions in writing. Share the current version and the instructions that govern it. Additional data, a new target journal or a substantially changed brief may require a revised scope. You review the proposed changes and retain responsibility for the research.