What systematic review help covers ¶
A systematic review answers a focused question by searching, selecting and appraising all eligible studies using a pre-specified, reproducible method, and a meta-analysis statistically pools their results where studies are similar enough. Our systematic review help is methodological consulting and coaching: you lead the review, and we check, explain and run analyses with you.
You can book support for one stage or the whole review:
- Protocol writing, PICO or PECO framing and PROSPERO registration
- Search strategies for PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and CINAHL
- Screening workflows in Covidence or Rayyan
- Data extraction forms, risk of bias and critical appraisal
- Meta-analysis, sensitivity analyses and GRADE certainty ratings
- PRISMA 2020 reporting and peer-review responses
Many clients start with our working sessions as a systematic review tutor, then ask us to check the finished manuscript.
Protocol, PROSPERO registration and search strategies ¶
Ask a librarian to peer review your search with the PRESS checklist. Reviewers notice when a search has never been tested.
We review your protocol against PRISMA-P and help you complete the PROSPERO form. PROSPERO registers reviews with a health-related outcome and expects registration before data extraction starts; it does not accept scoping reviews, which can be registered on OSF instead.
Search strategies combine controlled vocabulary with free-text terms, joined by Boolean operators: OR within a concept, AND between concepts. We check MeSH selection and explosion, truncation, phrase searching and field tags, then translate the strategy across databases.
PubMed search block
("Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2"[Mesh] OR "type 2 diabetes"[tiab] OR T2DM[tiab]) AND ("Exercise"[Mesh] OR exercis*[tiab] OR "physical activity"[tiab]) AND (randomized controlled trial[pt] OR randomi*[tiab])
In Scopus the free-text lines move into TITLE-ABS-KEY(); in Web of Science they move into TS=(). Neither database uses MeSH, so the free-text side must carry more weight.
We also check that the search is reported to the PRISMA-S extension, with full strategies for every database in a supplement.
Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis Support
Send your file today and get a quote with a matched editor.
Systematic review software for screening and extraction ¶
Screening should be done by two independent reviewers at title and abstract stage and again at full text, with conflicts resolved by discussion or a third reviewer. The right software makes that audit trail easy to report.
| Tool | Best suited to | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Covidence | Dual screening, full-text review and extraction in one place | Subscription; many universities hold a license |
| Rayyan | Fast title and abstract screening with blinding | Free tier available; paid plans add features |
| DistillerSR | Large or regulated reviews with custom forms | Commercial; strong audit trail |
| EndNote or Zotero | Deduplication before screening | Record the number of duplicates removed |
We help you pilot eligibility criteria on a sample, calculate agreement between screeners and design extraction forms that capture exactly what your analysis needs.
PRISMA 2020 flow diagram and checklist ¶
The PRISMA 2020 statement has a 27-item checklist, a 12-item checklist for abstracts and updated flow diagram templates. We check every item against your manuscript and build the flow diagram from your screening records.
The 2020 diagram separates three units that are often confused:
- Records: titles and abstracts retrieved from databases and registers.
- Reports: full-text documents sought, retrieved and assessed for eligibility, with exclusion reasons.
- Studies: the investigations included, since one study can have several reports.
Numbers must reconcile from identification to inclusion. For a step-by-step walkthrough, read our PRISMA flow diagram guide.
Risk of bias and critical appraisal tools ¶
| Tool | Study design | Structure and judgments |
|---|---|---|
| RoB 2 | Randomized trials | Five domains, from the randomization process to selection of the reported result; low risk, some concerns or high risk |
| ROBINS-I | Non-randomized studies of interventions | Seven domains, including confounding and selection of participants; low, moderate, serious or critical risk |
| Newcastle-Ottawa Scale | Cohort and case-control studies | Selection, comparability, and outcome or exposure; star-based rating |
| CASP or JBI checklists | Qualitative and other designs | Structured appraisal questions |
We check that judgments are made per outcome where the tool requires it, that each one is supported by quoted evidence from the study, and that results feed into your synthesis. We can produce traffic-light and summary plots with the robvis package in R.
Meta-analysis software: R metafor, RevMan and CMA ¶
We run and check meta-analyses with you in R using metafor, or in RevMan. A typical metafor workflow computes effect sizes with escalc(), fits a random-effects model with rma() (REML by default), and adds forest(), funnel() and regtest() for Egger’s test. We report τ², I² and a prediction interval, consider the Hartung-Knapp adjustment, and run leave-one-out and subgroup analyses that were pre-specified.
Funnel plot asymmetry tests are generally only meaningful with 10 or more studies, so we flag when they should not be reported. If you used Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA), Stata or JASP, we can check and interpret your output. For Hunter and Schmidt psychometric meta-analysis, we use metafor’s HS estimator or the psychmeta package for artifact corrections. See also our R help service.
GRADE certainty of evidence
GRADE rates each outcome as high, moderate, low or very low certainty. Evidence is downgraded for risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision and publication bias, and can be upgraded for a large effect or a dose-response gradient. We help you build a Summary of Findings table with explicit footnotes for each decision.
How it works, and who does the review ¶
- Send your protocol or draft, your stage and your deadline through the quote form.
- We match you with a methodologist who knows your field.
- You receive feedback in Track Changes with margin comments that explain the reasoning, plus annotated code and output for any analysis.
- You can ask follow-up questions about the comments after delivery.
Turnaround runs from 24 hours to 7 days depending on length. You keep full authorship. If one of our methodologists acts as a second screener or extractor, that contribution should be acknowledged as your journal requires. Check your institution’s rules and our academic integrity policy before you book.