Free scoping read. A written assessment of your manuscript in two business days, at no cost.

Start one
Contents

Academy · Concepts & Definitions · Systematic review methods (workshop)

Systematic Review Methods: A Two-Session Workshop Guide

A recording of this workshop will be added once a cohort has completed it. This written session plan is divided into two sessions: the research question and search, followed by screening and synthesis.

Pubrica AcademyWritten by a systematic review methodologist Reviewed byan information specialist Published10 October 2026 Last checked10 October 2026 Reading time8 minutes Sources2 peer-reviewed

This two-session workshop guide splits systematic review methods training into a first session covering question structuring, protocol development, and search strategy, and a second session (held after participants have had time to practice) covering screening, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment, and synthesis.

Learning objectives

  • Why dividing this training into two sessions separated by a practice interval may be more effective than a single long session.
  • The content and sequence of each of the two sessions.
  • The materials participants should bring to each session to obtain practical experience.

Common misconceptions

  • “Systematic review methods training works best as a single intensive session.” Skills such as search-strategy development and screening benefit from a practice interval between initial instruction and a follow-up session, since participants identify real, specific questions only after attempting the work themselves; a single long session does not allow for this.

Session one: research question and search strategy

Session one covers structuring the research question (PICO or a variant appropriate to the study design), writing the eligibility criteria and planned analysis approach for the protocol, registering the protocol (commonly via PROSPERO), and building a reproducible search strategy that combines controlled vocabulary and free-text terms, documented for each database. At the end of the session, each participant or team has a draft protocol and a preliminary search strategy to refine.

The practice interval between sessions

Between the two sessions, participants register their protocol, finalise and run their search strategy, and begin initial title and abstract screening on a subset of results. This interval, commonly one to three weeks depending on the group’s pace, brings genuine questions to light (such as ambiguous eligibility criteria or search results that do not match expectations), which session two is structured to address.

Session two: screening and synthesis

Session two covers the completion of title/abstract and full-text screening against the finalised eligibility criteria, the design and piloting of a data-extraction form, the assessment of risk of bias for each included study, and the selection and application of a synthesis approach (narrative synthesis, and meta-analysis where appropriate), working with participants’ actual reviews in progress rather than a hypothetical example.

Session recording / slides to be added

Session recording

Recordings of a live run of both sessions, and the accompanying materials, will be added above once a cohort has run.

Key points

Key points

Dividing systematic review methods training into two sessions separated by a practice interval — question and search first, screening and synthesis second — allows the second session to address real, specific problems that arise only once participants have attempted the work.

Practical application

Practical application

  1. Use the interval between sessions for practical work, not only reading. Registering the protocol and running the search generate real questions that the second session can address directly.
  2. Bring current, in-progress review materials to the second session. The use of real rather than hypothetical material grounds the discussion of screening and extraction in participants’ own data.
  3. Pilot the data-extraction form on a small number of studies during the interval, if time allows. This identifies problems in form design before the full discussion in the second session.

Frequently asked questions

They can be combined, but the practice interval is what enables participants to identify genuine, specific questions for session two; combining the sessions forgoes that benefit.

Small teams or individual review groups are most suitable, since the discussion in session two is grounded in each group’s actual progress on its review.

The synthesis portion of session two covers the selection of an appropriate synthesis approach; training in specific software would typically require a separate, dedicated session.

References

  1. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. read 10 October 2026. View on BMJ
  2. PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. University of York, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. read 10 October 2026. View PROSPERO

Every source above is a peer-reviewed article, a publisher’s record of one, or a standard issued by the body that owns it. Each carries the date it was last read. Where a standard moves, this article is revised rather than left up with a note.

How to cite this article

Pick your referencing style and copy it. Your university or target journal may vary the punctuation — check its guide if it has one.

Pubrica Academy. (2026, October 10). Systematic Review Methods: A Two-Session Workshop Guide. Pubrica. https://pubrica.com/academy/workshop-guides/systematic-review-methods-workshop/

This article is written to be learned from. Cite it if you are referring to what it says; if you are using the evidence behind it, cite the sources listed above instead.

Two-session plan

With a practice interval of 1-3 weeks between sessions.

Session 1: question structuring, protocol/eligibility criteria, PROSPERO registration, search strategy build
— Practice gap: register protocol, finalise and run search, begin screening a subset —
Session 2: complete screening, extraction form design/piloting, risk-of-bias assessment, synthesis approach

Pubrica AcademyWritten and maintained by Pubrica’s subject matter experts. Articles are revised when the underlying standards change, and each article states the date on which it was last reviewed.

How Pubrica can help

Pubrica delivers this two-session format for research teams, working with their own in-progress systematic reviews.

Find something else

Search the Pubrica Academy

Access is free and requires no account. Enter a topic, or open the full library to filter by category, sub-topic or resource type.

Delivery of the two-session format for review teams

A scoping assessment is free and takes two business days. It provides a written assessment of what the work requires and which specialist would undertake it.

Get a free quote

Regulations

Check your project against this rule

  1. 1Your work
  2. 2Your details
  3. 3Send
What do you need?

Material you send is held under signed confidentiality, with access limited to the assigned team and encrypted transfer. It is not used to train anything and is not passed to third-party tools. Ask for the agreement before you send anything you would rather cover first.