Systematic Literature Reviews

Manuals and guidelines

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Manual developed to assist in the production of systematic reviews using the Cochrane methodology.
JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis Manual developed to assist in the production of systematic reviews using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology.
PRISMA Set of guidelines for developing evidence syntheses (PRISMA Checklist, PRISMA Flow Diagram, PRISMA Scoping Reviews, PRISMA Protocols, PRISMA Search).

Protocol registration

Open Science Framework (OSF) Free platform that allows collaborative management of research projects throughout their lifecycle. A persistent DOI (Digital Object Identifier) is assigned to deposits, facilitating citation.
Prospero Allows the registration of systematic reviews, rapid reviews, and umbrella reviews.

Thesauruses

DeCS Health Sciences Descriptors (DeCS) corresponds to the translation of the MeSH vocabulary by the Virtual Health Library (BVS), however, it is always recommended to check the descriptors in the MeSH browser.
MeSH Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) is the controlled vocabulary of the National Library of Medicine used in indexing scientific output in the PubMed/Medline database.

Results screening

Rayyan Free online platform developed to assist researchers in producing systematic reviews and scoping reviews, accelerating the study selection process.
PRISMA Flow Diagram Diagram representing the study selection phase in evidence synthesis studies. The diagram can be downloaded in Word format.
PRISMA Flow Diagram (R package & Shiny app) Tool for creating the PRISMA Flow Diagram.

Quality assessment

Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (University of Oxford)
Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP)
JBI Critical Appraisal Tools
LATITUDES Network
Quality Assessment and Risk of Bias Tool Repository

PROSPERO is an international registry of systematic review protocols, managed and maintained by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at the University of York and the National Institute for Health and Care Research in the United Kingdom. It allows for the free registration of systematic intervention reviews, assigning a unique identifier to each protocol.

This initiative promotes Open Science and transparency in research, reducing the risk of bias and avoiding duplication of topics. The table below describes the information required to complete the registry.

The registration form should be completed in accordance with the PRISMA-Protocols guidelines.

Section	Field	Description
Review title and basic details	Review title	Title in English.
	Condition or domain being studied	Description of the PICO framework of the review.
	Review objectives	Review question and respective selection criteria, as well as the context and rationale for conducting the review.
	Keywords	Keywords (minimum of 3 free terms).
Eligibility criteria	Population	Participant characteristics and selection criteria.
	Intervention(s) or exposure(s)	Characteristics of the intervention and respective selection criteria.
	Comparator(s) or control(s)	Explain whether a comparator exists and, if so, define its characteristics and selection criteria.
	Study design	Types of studies to include.
	Context	Characteristics of the context or other selection criteria not previously stated.
Timeline of the review	Review timeline	Start date and expected completion date.
Availability of full protocol	Availability of full protocol (optional field)	Possibility of uploading a more extensive version of the protocol into the registry.
Searching and screening	Search for unpublished studies	State whether the search will include only published studies or also unpublished studies (gray literature).
	Main bibliographic databases that will be searched	Select the databases.
	Search language restrictions	Specify whether the revision will include language restrictions.
	Search date restrictions	Specify whether the search will include time restrictions.
	Other methods of identifying studies	State whether additional research will be conducted and, if so, what kind (select from list).
	Link to search strategy	Upload the research strategy to at least one database in PDF format.
	Selection process	Select the option regarding how the study selection process will be conducted.
	Other relevant information about searching and screening (optional field)	Describe other information related to the selection process (e.g., selection stages, conflict resolution).
Data collection process	Data extraction from published articles and reports	Select the option regarding how the data extraction process will be conducted.
	Study risk of bias or quality assessment	Define whether the process for assessing bias/quality risk in studies will be applied.
	Reporting bias assessment	Define whether the bias risk assessment process will be applied to sources with missing information.
	Certainty assessment	Define whether the process for assessing confidence in the results of the included sources will be applied (e.g., GRADE).
Outcomes to be analyzed	Main outcomes	Describe the main outcomes (definition of outcome, methods of measurement). (e.g.: Quality of life: change in quality-of-life score from baseline measured by any validated HRQoL instrument at 6 months after study entry and at the end of the study. Data for this outcome will be synthesized using a standardized mean difference.)
Outcomes to be analyzed	Additional outcomes (optional field)	Describe secondary outcomes, if any.
Planned data synthesis	Strategy for data synthesis	Select the strategy/method to be applied in the synthesis of results.
Current review stage	Stage of the review at this submission	Select the status of the review at each stage of the process.
Current review stage	Publication of review results	Select whether there is an intention to publish the review.
Review affiliation, funding and peer review	Review team members	Authors information.
	Review affiliation	Institutional affiliation of authors.
	Funding source	Select the applicable funding option.
	Peer review	Select whether the review was peer-reviewed.
Additional information	Additional information (optional field)	Describe any additional information that may be relevant to a better understanding of the rationale for the revision.
	Review conflict of interest	Select whether conflicts of interest exist.
	Medical Subject Headings	List MeSH terms related to the review.

Open Science Framework (OSF) is a free platform that allows the registration and sharing of systematic review protocols, including scoping reviews, and assigns a permanent DOI to each record.

This initiative adheres to best practices in systematic review development and promotes the principles of Open Science, ensuring transparency, reducing the risk of bias, and preventing duplication of research topics.

The recommended form for registering systematic reviews is the Generalized Systematic Review Registration Form. The table below displays the required information for completing the registration, including only the most frequently used fields. All fields not included should be evaluated to determine whether they are relevant; if not, they can be marked as Not Applicable (NA). The registration form should be completed in accordance with the PRISMA-Protocols guidelines.

Section	Fields	Information to be completed
Metadata	Title	Title of the protocol with identification of the review type. Even if the body of the protocol is in Portuguese, the title must be in English to ensure the record's retrievability.
	Description	Protocol abstract.
	Contributors	Author information.
	Category	Select the option Uncategorized.
	License	Registry access license [The library suggests using a CC BY license.]
	Subjects	Select the area(s) of knowledge for the review.
	Tags	Free keywords
Review methods	Type of review	Identify the type of review to be conducted and the methodology to be applied (JBI/Cochrane and PRISMA).
	Review stages	Identify the different stages of the review (e.g., defining the review question, searching, selecting, extracting, and synthesizing).
	Current review stage	Identify the stage of the review at the time of registration.
	Start date	Start date of the review.
	End date	Expected date for completion of the review.
	Background	Introduction to the protocol - should include a brief theoretical overview of the topic, the rationale for conducting the review, and its objectives. [The library suggests that the sources used for this section be listed after the text]
	Primary research question(s)	Provide the main review question.
	Secondary research question(s)	Provide any supplementary questions, if applicable.
	Software	Specify the tools to be used in the different stages of the review (e.g., Rayyan for the selection process).
	Funding	Disclose funding, if applicable.
	Conflicts of interest	Declare conflicts of interest, if applicable.
	Overlapping authorships	If applicable, state whether the articles included may have been authored by the same authors as the review.
Search strategy	Databases	List the databases used.
	Interfaces	Identify the search interfaces of the databases used (e.g., Medline via PubMed, CINAHL Complete via EBSCO Host).
	Grey literature	Identify the gray literature repositories to be included.
	Inclusion and exclusion criteria	Describe PCC/PICO/PICo framework used and the respective selection criteria.
	Query strings	Provide the search query for at least one database, identifying the database and the date of the search.
	Search validation procedure	Describe the research validation process (e.g., preliminary research to identify key articles and relevant keywords, confirmation of retrieval of articles previously identified as relevant).
	Other search strategies	Describe other forms of research that complement database searches (e.g., manual searches on websites, analysis of bibliographic references in included articles, contact with authors).
Screening	Screening stages	Describe the stages of the selection process and the software used.
	Used exclusion criteria	Define the exclusion criteria applied in the selection process (e.g., language, dates, source types).
	Screening reliability	State the number of reviewers participating in the selection process and describe the strategies used to ensure that the process is conducted independently. The existence of a pilot testing phase may also be mentioned, if applicable.
	Screening reconciliation procedure	Describe the strategies to be used in conflict resolution (e.g., discussion among reviewers or through the intervention of a third reviewer).
	Data management and sharing	State whether the selection process will be shared in any way during the review (e.g., ask Rayyan for a permanent, non-editable link).
Extraction	Entities to extract	Describe the data to be extracted from the included articles (e.g., bibliographic information, population, concept, objectives, main results) and identify the extraction tool (e.g., JBI).
	Extraction reliability	State the number of reviewers involved in the extraction process and describe the strategies used to ensure that the process is carried out independently.
	Extraction reconciliation procedure	Describe the strategies to be used in conflict resolution (e.g., discussion among reviewers or through the intervention of a third reviewer).
	Data management and sharing	Describe how the extraction tools are shared (e.g., making a file available on the OSF).
Synthesis and quality assessment	Planned data transformations (optional field for scoping reviews)	Describe how the data will be processed (e.g., recoding, categorization, data aggregation).
	Quality assessment (optional field for scoping reviews)	Describe the tools to be applied in the process of assessing the quality/risk of bias of the sources included (e.g., JBI Critical Appraisal Tools, CASP Checklists, Cochrane Risk of Bias ROB).
	Synthesis plan	Describe the strategies to be applied in synthesizing the results (e.g., meta-analysis, meta-synthesis, narrative synthesis).

Articles

Aromataris, E., & Riitano, D. (2014). Systematic Reviews: Constructing a Search Strategy and Searching for Evidence. AJN, American Journal of Nursing, 114(5), 49–56. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000446779.99522.f6

Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

Kolaski, K., Logan, L. R., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2023). Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 12(1), 96. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02255-9

Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x

Peters, M. D. J., Godfrey, C., McInerney, P., Khalil, H., Larsen, P., Marnie, C., Pollock, D., Tricco, A. C., & Munn, Z. (2022). Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 20(4), 953–968. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-21-00242

Peters, M. D. J., Marnie, C., Tricco, A. C., Pollock, D., Munn, Z., Alexander, L., McInerney, P., Godfrey, C. M., & Khalil, H. (2020). Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 18(10), 2119–2126. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-20-00167

Pollock, D., Peters, M. D. J., Khalil, H., McInerney, P., Alexander, L., Tricco, A. C., Evans, C., De Moraes, É. B., Godfrey, C. M., Pieper, D., Saran, A., Stern, C., & Munn, Z. (2023). Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 21(3), 520–532. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-22-00123

Books

Bettany-Saltikov, J., & McSherry, R. (2024). How to do a systematic literature review in nursing: a step-by-step guide (3rd ed.). McGraw Hill Open University Press.

Purssell, E., & McCrae, N. (2024). How to perform a systematic literature review: a guide for health and social care researchers, practitioners and students (2nd ed.). Springer Nature Switzerland.