Systematic literature (Qualitative, non-meta-analysis) review writing is a protocol-driven process that demands researchers to extract, analyse and present an exhaustive summary of the latest yet apt literature for their specific studies in the prescribed format along with bias/evidence quality figures. It primarily focuses on clear, structured questions that need to be answered using an in-depth search strategy.
Systematic review authors should decide ahead of time what information will be needed for their precise review and build up a technique for acquiring them. Although there are several software’s (e.g., Covidence, Colandr, Rayyan, CREBP, EPPI-Reviewer 4, Distiller, JBI SUMARI tool, Systematic Review Data Repository (SRDR), Systematic Review Toolbox available for collecting data, its researchers’ knowledge and skills play a major role in the extraction.
The data extracted should sufficiently depict the included investigations, support the development of tables and figures, encourage the risk of bias assessment, and empower syntheses and meta-analyses. Review authors ought to acquaint themselves with detailing rules for systematic review and the PRISMA statement; to guarantee that significant components and areas are incorporated.
Data extractor name, data extraction date, identification features of a report from which we are going to extract the data is also part of the extraction process.
Figure: PRISMA flow chart depicting the article filtering process.4
2. Study Location and demographic details
3. Study techniques
4. Statistical analysis:
Depiction of the intervention(s) and examination intervention(s), preferably with adequate detail for replication:
For each pre-indicated result area (for example, uneasiness) in the systematic review:
Other information to collect
The authors gather the critical finishes of the included study as detailed by its authors. It isn’t important to report these ends in the survey, yet they ought to be utilized to confirm the consequences of the study attempted by the review authors, especially corresponding to the course of impact. Further remarks by the study authors, for instance, any clarifications they accommodate startling discoveries, might be noted. References to different studies that are referred to in the investigation report might be helpful, in spite of the fact that review authors ought to know about the chance of reference inclination. Documentation of any correspondence with the examination creators is significant for review straightforwardness.
Preferably, data just should be extricated once and ought to be put away in a safe and stable area for future updates of the survey, whether or not the first review authors or an alternate gathering of authors update the Systematic review. Normalizing and sharing information assortment apparatuses just as information the board frameworks among review authors are working in comparative subject regions can smooth out deliberate review creation. Review authors have the chance to work with trial lists, diary editors, funders, controllers, and different partners to make study information (for example, CSRs, IPD, and some other type of study information) freely accessible, expanding the straightforwardness of study. Pubrica Systematic Review Support Service is a pilot program to support researchers in performing high-quality systematic reviews.
Researcher performing data extraction
Date of data extraction
Identification features of the study:
Record number (to uniquely identify study)
Type of publication (e.g. journal article, conference abstract)
Country of origin
Source of funding
Aim/objectives of the study
Study inclusion and exclusion criteria
Recruitment procedures used (e.g. details of randomisation, blinding)
Unit of allocation (e.g. participant, GP practice etc.)
Characteristics of participants at the beginning of the study e.g.
Number of participants in each characteristic category for intervention and control group(s) or mean/median characteristic values (record whether it is the number eligible, enrolled, or randomised that is reported in the study)
Intervention and setting
Setting in which the intervention is delivered
Description of the intervention(s) and control(s) (e.g. dose, route of administration, number of cycles, duration of cycle, care provider, how the intervention was developed, theoretical basis (where relevant))
Description of co-interventions
Unit of assessment/analysis
Statistical techniques used
For each pre-specified outcome:
Definition used in study
Measurement tool or method used
Unit of measurement (if appropriate)
Length of follow-up, number and/or times of follow-up measurements
For all intervention group(s) and control group(s):
Number of participants enrolled
Number of participants included in analysis
Number of withdrawals, exclusions, lost to follow-up
Summary outcome data e.g.
Dichotomous: number of events, number of participants
Continuous: mean and standard deviation
Type of analysis used in study (e.g. intention to treat, per protocol)
Results of study analysis e.g.
Dichotomous: odds ratio, risk ratio and confidence intervals, p-value
Continuous: mean difference, confidence intervals
If subgroup analysis is planned the above information on outcome data or results will need to be extracted for each patient subgroup
Record details of any additional relevant outcomes reported
NB: Notes fields can be useful for occasional pieces of additional information or important comments that do not easily fit into the format of other fields.