Systematic Reviews in Germany: Questions Researchers Ask Before Commissioning Support

Researchers in Germany ask us the same questions before commissioning a systematic review service or other research support. The answers below cover scope, timelines, cost drivers, authorship and German-specific rules, and each points to the guide with more detail.

1. What does systematic review support cover?

The systematic review process end to end: review protocol and protocol registration, literature searching, study screening, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment, evidence synthesis and PRISMA reporting to PRISMA 2020, plus editing. You choose the stages you need, and your team keeps control of the review question and conclusions. We can start from your draft protocol or from the question alone. Read next: the PRISMA 2020 flowchart and how our team runs each step.

2. Do we need grey literature in our review?

Often yes, especially for intervention questions, because unpublished trials can bias results. A grey literature search usually covers clinical trial registries, regulatory documents, conference abstracts and agency reports. If you decide against it, explain why in the protocol. Read next: grey literature in systematic reviews.

3. How long does a systematic review take?

Often more than a year. An analysis of 195 reviews registered in PROSPERO found a mean of 67.3 weeks from registration to publication [1]. Your systematic review timelines depend mainly on how many records the search returns and how many studies you include, so a stage-by-stage plan is more useful than one number.

4. Can the process be made faster?

Some stages can overlap, such as screening while the search is refined, and clear eligibility criteria reduce rework. Cutting steps that protect quality, such as dual screening or a peer-reviewed search, risks bias and reviewer objections. We would rather agree a realistic plan than promise a date; your submission deadline is the starting point.

5. What drives systematic review costs?

Mainly the volume of work: the number of databases and registries, records to screen, studies to extract, languages covered, whether you need meta-analysis or a GRADE assessment, and whether the search must be updated before submission. These research costs are easier to estimate from a draft protocol, even an incomplete one, than from a topic alone.

6. Can you give a fixed price before we share the protocol?

Not reliably. Without the question, scope and expected record volume, any price would be a guess. A draft protocol or short scoping description is enough for a quotation, and stages can be added or removed as the scope becomes clearer.

7. Who is the author of the review?

Your team. Under the ICMJE authorship criteria, authors make substantial contributions to the conception or design, or to acquiring, analysing or interpreting data; draft or critically revise the work; give final approval; and agree to be accountable for it [2]. Writing assistance that does not meet them is acknowledged, in line with ICMJE guidelines and GPP 2022 [2, 3].

8. Do you guarantee that a journal will accept the review?

No, and nobody can. Journal acceptance depends on the editors and peer reviewers. We improve methods and reporting quality, which addresses common reviewer objections, in line with publication ethics, but we make no acceptance guarantees.

9. Which German sources should we search?

Alongside international databases, consider the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS), a WHO primary register run by the BfArM, and HTA documents from IQWiG and the G-BA. ZB MED’s LIVIVO portal can extend a systematic literature search into life-sciences literature. Use German search terms as well as English ones, and record each source and date in your search log. Read next: where to search for grey literature.

10. How does the EU HTA Regulation affect our review?

EU joint clinical assessments have applied to cancer medicines and advanced therapy medicinal products since January 2025; orphan medicines follow in January 2028 and other new medicines in January 2030. The Regulation raises the bar for transparent, reproducible evidence synthesis, while the German benefit assessment by the G-BA continues, so evidence teams should expect to serve both. Read next: the EU HTA Regulation and joint clinical assessment.