# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Research Guides: Systematic Reviews & Evidence Synthesis Guide: Home

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Welcome to this guide on systematic reviews on evidence synthesis! The information in this guide should not be considered a substitute for existing protocols which contain prescriptive road maps for your review process.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By using our site you accept that we use and share cookies to measure and improve our site's performance. By continuing to use our site, you consent to this. Please see our Privacy Policy for more information.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Covidence lets you create and maintain Systematic Reviews online.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By using our site you accept that we use and share cookies to measure and improve our site's performance. By continuing to use our site, you consent to this. Please see our Privacy Policy for more information.

# data[].attributes.headline
Cornell University Library Decision Tree

# data[].attributes.subject
Cornell University Library Decision Tree

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are many types of knowledge synthesis (KS) reviews, and choosing the right one can be tricky. The following questions will help you determine which types of review might be suitable for your project. Please feel free to discuss the results with your librarian.

# data[].attributes.headline
Article: A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies

# data[].attributes.subject
Article: A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Health Info Libraries J - 2009 - Grant - A typology of reviews  an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies

# data[].attributes.headline
Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements

# data[].attributes.subject
Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Health Info Libraries J - 2019 - Sutton - Meeting the review family  exploring review types and associated information (1)

# data[].attributes.body
Contains recommended items to address in a systematic review protocol.

# data[].attributes.body
Guidance on developing review protocols.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Developing the protocol of the review (C1-C23)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Cochrane Interactive Learning (CIL): Module 2-writing a protocol

# data[].attributes.headline
JBI Manual - Development of a scoping review protocol

# data[].attributes.subject
JBI Manual - Development of a scoping review protocol

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis - JBI Global Wiki

# data[].attributes.body
Accepts registrations for systematic reviews, rapid reviews and umbrella reviews. PROSPERO does not accept scoping reviews or literature scans.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
PROSPERO for animal studies is an international database of prospectively registered systematic reviews of animal studies relevant to human health. Key features from the review protocol are recorded and maintained as a permanent record in PROSPERO. The aim is to provide a comprehensive listing of systematic reviews registered at inception, to help avoid unplanned duplication. By promoting transparency in the process and enabling comparison of reported review findings with what was planned in the protocol PROSPERO also aims to minimise the risk of bias in systematic review.

# data[].attributes.body
Video tutorials for reviewers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to use Covidence - Covidence Academy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How to use Covidence Reviewers Organisations Save time on your review Step-by-step guidance on how to navigate and use Covidence for seamless and efficient systematic review management. Reviewers Everything an individual reviewer needs to know in easy to follow videos Getting started Managing your team Conducting your review Exporting your data Organisations Specific guidance for […]

# data[].attributes.body
For health care reviews. Submission of a draft protocol follows acceptance of a topic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Information for authors | Cochrane Library

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Authors of Cochrane Reviews are expected to maintain their review once published by addressing comments that are submitted via the Cochrane Library and by updating the Cochrane Review when new evidence becomes available.

# data[].attributes.body
Free and paid versions available. Features include: reference import, de-duplication, blinding, screening, and more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
AI-Powered Systematic Review & Literature Review Platform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Rayyan is the pioneering AI-powered platform redefining evidence-based research & decision-making. Designed for efficient systematic literature review…

# data[].attributes.headline
International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (INPLASY)

# data[].attributes.subject
International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (INPLASY)

# data[].attributes.body
Accepts registrations for systematic reviews, rapid reviews, umbrella reviews, scoping reviews, and mapping reviews at low cost.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols

# data[].attributes.body
Free searchable repository for depositing protocols. Commonly used for scoping reviews.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Publish Your Reports

Share papers in OSF Preprints or a community-based preprint provider, so others can find and cite your work. Track impact with metrics like downloads and view counts.

OSF is a game changer for those wanting to effectively share their research process in the spirit of collaboration.

Patricia Ayala Research Services Librarian
University of Toronto See her research

OSF is indispensable in helping me create reproducible research pipelines from preregistration through data collection and analysis. Its versatility makes it my one-stop shop for projects. The Dropbox integration effortlessly transforms my existing local workflow to public repository.

Maya Mathur Department of Epidemiology
Harvard University See her research

Because SocArXiv is a not-for-profit organization, researchers can be assured that they are sharing their research in an environment where access, inclusivity, and preservation, rather than profit, will remain at the heart of the mission. A great benefit of partnering with OSF is that this application is a free public good.

Philip Cohen SocArXiv papers See his research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Share papers in OSF Preprints or a community-based preprint provider, so others can find and cite your work. Track impact with metrics like downloads and view counts. OSF is a game changer for those wanting to effectively share their research process in the spirit of collaboration.

# data[].attributes.headline
Guidance for creating a data management plan. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Guidance for creating a data management plan. 

# data[].attributes.body
From University of Calgary. Includes a linked template.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Library: Guide to the DMP Assistant Template for Systematic Review Projects: Home

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Companion guide to the Portage DMP Assistant Template for Systematic Review Projects

# data[].attributes.headline
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

# data[].attributes.subject
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Version 6.4, 2023

Senior Editors: Julian Higgins ¹, James Thomas ²
Associate Editors: Jacqueline Chandler ³, Miranda Cumpston 4,5, Tianjing Li ⁶, Matthew Page ⁴, Vivian Welch ⁷

¹ University of Bristol, UK
² EPPI-Centre, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London, UK
³ Wessex Academic Health Science Network, UK
⁴ School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Australia
⁵ Cochrane Public Health; School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Australia
⁶ Department of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine & Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus USA; Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, USA
⁷ The Campbell Collaboration; Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada; School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Canada.

Information on how to cite this Handbook is available here.

For any queries on the Handbook, contact support@cochrane.org.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Version 6.4, 2023 Senior Editors: Julian Higgins 1, James Thomas 2 Associate Editors: Jacqueline Chandler 3, Miranda Cumpston 4,5, Tianjing Li 6, Matthew Page 4, Vivian Welch 7 1 University of Bristol, UK 2 EPPI-Centre, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London, UK 3 Wessex Academic Health Science Network, UK

# data[].attributes.headline
Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews

# data[].attributes.subject
Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Healthcare decision makers in search of reliable information that compares health interventions increasingly turn to systematic reviews for the best summary of the evidence. Systematic reviews identify, select, assess, and synthesize the findings of similar but separate studies, and can help clarify what is known and not known about the potential benefits and harms of drugs, devices, and other healthcare services. Systematic reviews can be helpful for clinicians who want to integrate research findings into their daily practices, for patients to make well-informed choices about their own care, for professional medical societies and other organizations that develop clinical practice guidelines.

Too often systematic reviews are of uncertain or poor quality. There are no universally accepted standards for developing systematic reviews leading to variability in how conflicts of interest and biases are handled, how evidence is appraised, and the overall scientific rigor of the process.

In Finding What Works in Health Care the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommends 21 standards for developing high-quality systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research. The standards address the entire systematic review process from the initial steps of formulating the topic and building the review team to producing a detailed final report that synthesizes what the evidence shows and where knowledge gaps remain.

Finding What Works in Health Care also proposes a framework for improving the quality of the science underpinning systematic reviews. This book will serve as a vital resource for both sponsors and producers of systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Read online, download a free PDF, or order a copy in print or as an eBook.

# data[].attributes.headline
Below is a small sample of appraisal tools. Various factors will determine the most appropriate tool for your review.  

# data[].attributes.subject
Below is a small sample of appraisal tools. Various factors will determine the most appropriate tool for your review.  

# data[].attributes.body
"A meta-tool for appraising public health evidence that orients users to the appropriate application of several critical appraisal tools and places them within a larger framework to guide their use."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The MetaQAT is a meta-tool for appraising public health evidence that orients users to the appropriate application of several critical appraisal tools and places them within a larger framework to guide their use. It is one of few critical appraisal tools designed specifically for public health evidence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
MetaQAT - Critical Appraisal Tool | Public Health Ontario

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Documents, resources and links related to appraising public health evidence that orients users to the appropriate application of several critical appraisal tools.

# data[].attributes.headline
A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)

# data[].attributes.subject
A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
AMSTAR - Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
AMSTAR stands for A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews. There has been a proliferation of systematic reviews as one of the key tools for evidence-based health care. This has presented both opportunities and risks. The opportunities being that it creates an environment where researchers can base decisions on accurate, succinct, credible, comprehensive and comprehensible summaries of the best available evidence on a topic thereby minimising error and bias. The risks include variation in quality and empirical validation.

# data[].attributes.headline
Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP)

# data[].attributes.subject
Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP)

# data[].attributes.body
Contains several free critical appraisal checklists across study types.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
CASP - Critical Appraisal Skills Programme

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
CASP Checklists - Critical Appraisal Skills Programme

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
View or download our range of critical appraisal tools & checklists for free including our RCT, qualitative and quantitative checklists.

# data[].attributes.headline
Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care

# data[].attributes.subject
Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care

# data[].attributes.body
From Centre for Reviews and Dissemination

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
AGREE II is the new (2010) international tool to assess the quality and reporting of practice guidelines. You may access the tool by clicking on its link located in the right side bar.

Please use the following reference when citing the AGREE II:

Brouwers M, Kho ME, Browman GP, Burgers JS, Cluzeau F, Feder G, Fervers B, Graham ID, Grimshaw J, Hanna S, Littlejohns P, Makarski J, Zitzelsberger L for the AGREE Next Steps Consortium. AGREE II: Advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in healthcare. Can Med Assoc J. 2010. Available online July 5, 2010. doi:10.1503/cmaj.090449

In addition to the "paper" version of AGREE II, we have created an electronic version of the AGREE II that allows you to complete an AGREE II assessment of practice guidelines online. You may access this online version in the My AGREE PLUS section of this website.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
AGREE II is the new (2010) international tool to assess the quality and reporting of practice guidelines. You may access the tool by clicking on its link located in the right side bar.

# data[].attributes.headline
PRISMA 2020: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

# data[].attributes.subject
PRISMA 2020: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

# data[].attributes.body
Linked list of reporting standards for different types or aspects of systematic reviews. Includes PRISMA-S for searching and PRISMA-ScR for scoping reviews.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Several extensions of the PRISMA statement are available to facilitate the reporting of different types or aspects of systematic reviews (please click on the relevant extension below for more information). There are also some extensions in development, which have been registered at the EQUATOR Network Library.

# data[].attributes.headline
MECIR: Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews Conduct and Reporting Standard ​

# data[].attributes.subject
MECIR: Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews Conduct and Reporting Standard ​

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews
(MECIR)

Standards for the conduct of new Cochrane Intervention Reviews, and the planning and conduct of updates

Julian Higgins¹, Toby Lasserson², James Thomas³, Ella Flemyng², Rachel Churchill4

¹ Professor of Evidence Synthesis, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

² Evidence Production and Methods Directorate, Cochrane, London, UK

³Professor of Social Research and Policy, EPPI Centre, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London, London, UK

Professor of Evidence Synthesis, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK

These MECIR Standards present a guide to the conduct of Cochrane Intervention Reviews. Each set of Standards includes links to Cochrane Training resources, the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (the Handbook) and other available resources.

This online version will be kept up to date. A PDF of each section can be generated. All substantive changes will be noted here.

MECIR Standards link to the most up-to-date version of the Handbook chapters.

Where links to external resources are included Cochrane Interactive Learning is referred to as 'CIL'.

We welcome your feedback on MECIR, or if you have any general queries related to the MECIR Standards, please contact support@cochrane.org.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR) Version August 2023

# data[].attributes.headline
A Step-By-Step Guide to Conducting an Integrative Review

# data[].attributes.subject
A Step-By-Step Guide to Conducting an Integrative Review

# data[].attributes.body
By Toronto & Remington (2020)

# data[].attributes.headline
MECCIR: Methodological Expectations of Campbell Collaboration Intervention Conduct and Reporting Standards​

# data[].attributes.subject
MECCIR: Methodological Expectations of Campbell Collaboration Intervention Conduct and Reporting Standards​

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Standards for reviews – Campbell Collaboration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Download the latest MECCIR conduct standards and MECCIR reporting standards from our journal website.