Systematic review article and Meta-analysis .Main steps for Successful writing – Pubrica
                     SYSTEMATIC REVIEW 
ANRTDI MCLEETA-
ANALYSIS:
MAIN STEPS FOR SUCCESSFUL WRITING
An Academic presentation by
Dr. Nancy Agnes, Head, Technical Operations, Pubrica 
 Group: www.pubrica.com
Email: [email protected]
Today's Discussion
Outline
In-Brief
Introductio
n  
Metaanalys
is  
Conclusion
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.
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.
Contd...
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.
Contd...
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.
Contd...
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 Contd...
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.
Contd...
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.
Contd...
Publications types: while you may normally deal  
with just original and review studies, certain issues  
may need the use of data from annual 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.
Contd...
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.
Contd...
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.
vi) Results from Interpretation
According to the categorization criteria, the research  
findings you collected will be reported in an  
organized form-ideally a table.
Contd...
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.
Contd...
On the other hand, a qualitative viewpoint allows 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.
Contd...
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.
Contd...
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.
Contd...
The conclusion
frequently
contains
It's also a
gsuogogdestions idfoera  ftuoture 
setmudpyh asi zweell as practise instructions. your
review's  unique contributions.
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.
Contd...
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.
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.
Contd...
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 per cent 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.
Contd...
Contd...
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.
Contd...
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.
Contd...
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.
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.
Contd...
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.
Contact Us
UNITED KINGDOM
+44- 7424810299
INDIA
+91-9884350006
EMAIL
[email protected]