Copyright © 2021 pubrica. All rights reserved 1

Systematic Review Article and meta-Analysis:

Main Steps for Successful Writing

Dr. Nancy Agnes, Head, Technical Operations, Pubrica, sales@pubrica.com

In brief

A review article is a piece of writing that gives a

complete and systematic summary of results

available in a certain field while also allowing the

reader to perceive the subject from a different

viewpoint. A review article's writers conduct a

critical study and synthesize, assess, and classify

relevant data, finally coming at new cumulative

findings based on current investigations by other

academics. The purpose might be (a) theory

development, (b) theory assessment, (c) a review of

the state of knowledge on a specific issue, (d) issue

identification, and (e) providing a historical account

of the history of theory and research on a certain

issue. A review may be important in research and

everyday life for a variety of reasons, including

policymaking. This article will assist you in

producing a meta-analysis-based systematic review

article.

I. INTRODUCTION

Important Steps in Systematic Review

When planning and writing a systematic review, it's

helpful to follow the steps below.

i) Objective

The objective of a systematic review is the same as it

is for an original research study: the publication must

provide something new to the area. The precise goal

must be in line with the study questions. In most

cases, the objectives are indicated in the last

paragraph of the introduction. The goals then

influence the methods used to find sources, process

them, and deliver the results. In the studies closing

section, it should be noted if and to what degree the

objectives have been met.

ii) Questionnaires for Research

The research question is contained and articulated in

the body of a review article, formulated as the

problem: the topic and emphasis of the study. It's a

spiral that creates logical links between the article's

elements; that is, various portions build on and follow

up on one another in a logical pattern. In the case of a

systematic review, the research question must be

matched with the study's aims and methods, which is

especially important for identifying data sources

(library searches) and determining study inclusion

and exclusion criteria.

iii)Obtain Data Sources—Literature survey

Electronic databases often accessed through

university libraries, are the major and most valuable

data sources. Because access to certain publications

may be restricted due to cost constraints, the

university's resources for journal subscriptions will

determine the degree of access offered to students and

staff. Databases such as:

Web of Science

Medline/PubMed

EBSCO

SCOPUS

ProQuest Central

PsycARTICLES

iv) Selection Criteria

The relevant articles and whose findings are to be

processed are chosen using the categorization criteria

listed below.

The first criterion may be the year of publication,

which indicates the period being studied.

Article Citation: This information may be found

in databases, usually under the term citation.

Articles with more citations cover more

significant research.

Keywords:These represent the language used in

the area and aid in identifying the most pertinent

research.

Article relevance: online databases may provide

many articles, but some works may be

completely unrelated to the review's topic due to

the potential overlap of key terms and other

characteristics. As a result, it's vital to go through

each publication—in most situations, the abstract

will suffice—and weed out any research that isn't

relevant.

Publications types: while you may normally deal

with just original and review studies, certain

issues may need the use of data from annual

Copyright © 2021 pubrica. All rights reserved 2

reports, research reports, or guidelines. As a

result, it's critical to include these details in the

procedure's description.

Socio-demographic environment: The study's

description is helpful since it is relevant to the

review's outcomes. As a result, while presenting

the study findings, the review must account for

this.

Finally, in the discussion part that follows, all of

these criteria/indicators will be reviewed and

understood.

v) Data Collection procedure

It is necessary to record and document the whole

literature search procedure. Peer reviewers pay close

attention to how the "data" for the analysis was

collected while analyzing systematic reviews. For this

reason, particular approaches can be utilized, with the

PRISMA research flow diagram being the most

widely utilized in modern science. The PRISMA

research flow diagram is shown in Figure 1 [1].

Figure 1: PRISMA flow chart [1]

vi) Results from Interpretation

According to the categorization criteria, the research

findings you collected will be reported in an

organized form-ideally a table. When analyzing the

outcomes, it's a good idea to compare the qualitative

and quantitative viewpoints of the investigations.

When using a quantitative approach, you can track

the number of studies that used a longitudinal versus

cross-sectional design, the number of studies that

used a standardized methodology versus one

developed specifically for the study, and the number

of studies that had well-balanced participant samples

in terms of representativeness versus those that did

not. On the other hand, a qualitative viewpoint allows

Copyright © 2021 pubrica. All rights reserved 3

for examining wider features of the works and finer

nuances in the determined results. When reviewing

study procedures and findings, various tools may be

used as a guide. The CONSORT statement

establishes a standardized method for reporting and

interpreting the outcomes of randomized clinical

trials.

vii)Conclusion

This necessitates you bringing a fresh viewpoint to

the subject matter under investigation, highlighting

and sharing the findings' most important findings.

Importantly, the commentary should compare and

assess the results against other relevant research

initiatives rather than the author's presentation of his

or her viewpoints on the subject. Every thought or

result given in the paper must also be properly

referenced. The conclusion should be a practical

evaluation of the research; it should not include any

discoveries or evidence. Its goal is to describe the

study's findings and contributions in a concise

manner. Although this might be a difficult effort for

an inexperienced author, it is critical to master the

talent of clearly presenting your thoughts. The

conclusion frequently contains suggestions for future

study as well as practise instructions. It's also a good

idea to emphasize your review's unique contributions

[2].

II. METAANALYSIS

Metaanalysis is a type of systematic review in which

several studies are combined to get aggregate effect

estimates. The magnitude of the effect is computed

and indexed to do this. Some of these study problems

may be better understood by aggregating the impacts

and conducting a statistical analysis. There are also

parallels with preliminary intervention trials, in which

the focus is on the effectiveness of the intervention.

In a metaanalysis, however, the researcher examines

many studies to assess the size of impacts. To

develop a framework for the review, it's good to use a

systematic guideline like PRISMA [3].

Formulating the research question is the initial stage.

Determine the keywords you'll use to search for

articles, as well as the period range for which you

want articles to be considered, as well as the criteria

for inclusion and exclusion. Look for papers that fit

your subject and eligibility requirements in the

databases you've chosen. Once the papers included in

the metaanalysis have been found, they must be

coded using the variables specified for the

metaanalysis. Because coding decisions aren't always

obvious, two rates are frequently utilized to establish

a measure of reliability, such as percent agreement or

a kappa coefficient. Next, enter the extracted data into

a database with pertinent study parameters such as

intervention, follow-up periods, sample size, control

group type, and research design. To make

comparisons and aggregation possible, a "common

currency" of effects must be developed.

We've created a mechanism for estimating effect

sizes, and now we have to aggregate them over all of

the papers we've looked at to see if there is an impact

and what that impact is. A fixed-effects or random-

effects strategy can be used to accomplish this. These

two approaches deal with study sampling errors. The

former assumes that the error in estimating the

population effect size is due to random factors

associated with subject-level sampling. The latter

assumes that study sampling errors are present in

addition to subject-level sampling errors. Although

the fixed-effects model has more statistical power, the

random-effects model is more common due to its

better generalizability. The effects of higher sample

numbers are more consistent across research and

hence more precise. It's better to utilize specialist

statistical tools built for metaanalyses to see if the

total effect magnitude differs from zero [4].

A table should be supplied, similar to systematic

reviews, summarising all of the papers included in the

study and documenting all important aspects, such as

author, date of data collection, key result results, and

medical data collection techniques. In addition, a

forest plot that displays the range of outcomes for

each research is frequently provided, demonstrating

the range of effects of an intervention in comparison.

III. CONCLUSION

When writing a review article, the objective is to

follow a systematic, plain, and clear process. The

reader and the editor must both understand the goals

and process, and all of the findings must be consistent

with the techniques utilized. Although certain

modifications on normal methods are permissible,

they must always be explained and justified in

conversation; otherwise, you will very certainly have

to deal with them in the first round of peer review.

There are certain particular methodologies and

techniques for assessing the quality of reviews (e.g.,

AMSTAR, MOOSE) that can be useful in identifying

what is being evaluated and how to improve the paper

[5].

REFERENCES

[1]Čablová, L., Pazderková, K., &Miovský, M.

(2014). Parenting styles and alcohol use among

children and adolescents: A systematic review.

Drugs: Education, Prevention, and Policy, 1, 1–13.

[2]Čablová, L., Pates, R., Miovský, M., & Noel, J.

(2017). How to write a systematic review article and

metaanalysis. Addiction Science: A Guide for the

Perplexed, 173.

Copyright © 2021 pubrica. All rights reserved 4

[3] Ahn E, Kang H. Introduction to systematic review

and metaanalysis. Korean J Anesthesiol.

2018;71(2):103-112. doi:10.4097/kjae.2018.71.2.103

[4] Tawfik, G.M., Dila, K.A.S., Mohamed, M.Y.F. et

al. A step by step guide for conducting a systematic

review and metaanalysis with simulation data. Trop

Med Health 47, 46 (2019).

https://doi.org/10.1186/s41182-019-0165-6

[5]Dhammi IK, Haq RU. How to Write Systematic

Review or Metaanalysis. Indian J Orthop.

2018;52(6):575-577.

doi:10.4103/ortho.IJOrtho_557_18

[6] Tang, M.Y., Rhodes, S., Powell, R. et al. How

effective are social norms interventions in changing

the clinical behaviours of healthcare workers? A

systematic review and metaanalysis. Implementation

Sci 16, 8 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-020-

01072-1

[7]Shiferaw K, Mengiste B, Gobena T, Dheresa M

(2021) The effect of antenatal care on perinatal

outcomes in Ethiopia: A systematic review and

metaanalysis. PLoS ONE 16(1): e0245003.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245003

[8] Akiyama S, Hamdeh S, Micic D, et al. Prevalence

and clinical outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with

autoimmune diseases: a systematic review and meta-

analysis, Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases

2021;80:384-391.

[9] Chen, Y., Chen, D. & Lin, H. Infiltration and

sealing for managing non-cavitated proximal lesions:

a systematic review and metaanalysis. BMC Oral

Health 21, 13 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-

020-01364-4

[10]Comeche, J.M.; Gutierrez-Hervás, A.; Tuells, J.;

Altavilla, C.; Caballero, P. Predefined Diets in

Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease:

Systematic Review and Metaanalysis. Nutrients 2021,

13, 52. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13010052

[11]Yekaninejad, MS, Badrooj, N, Vosoughi, F, Lin,

C-Y, Potenza, MN, Pakpour, AH. Prevalence of food

addiction in children and adolescents: A systematic

review and metaanalysis. Obesity Reviews. 2021;

22:e13183. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.13183

[12] Maya Balakrishnan, Parth Patel, Sydney Dunn-

Valadez, Cecilia Dao, Vinshi Khan, Hiba Ali, Laith

El-Serag, Ruben Hernaez, Amy Sisson, Aaron P.

Thrift, Yan Liu, Hashem B. El-Serag, FasihaKanwal,

Women Have a Lower Risk of Nonalcoholic Fatty

Liver Disease but a Higher Risk of Progression vs

Men: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis,

Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Volume

19, Issue 1, 2021, Pages 61-71.e15,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2020.04.067.

[13] Ma, X, Liu, S, Chen, L, Zhuang, L, Zhang, J,

Xin, Y. The clinical characteristics of pediatric

inpatients with SARS-CoV-2 infection: A

metaanalysis and systematic review. J Med Virol.

2021; 93: 234– 240.

https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.26208