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. Continue Reading: https://bit.ly/3m7OTqC For our services: https://pubrica.com/services/research-services/systematic-review/ Why Pubrica: When you order our services, We promise you the following – Plagiarism free | always on Time | 24*7 customer support | Written to international Standard | Unlimited Revisions support | Medical writing Expert | Publication Support | Biostatistical experts | High-quality Subject Matter Experts.   Contact us:      Web: https://pubrica.com/  Blog: https://pubrica.com/academy/  Email: sales@pubrica.com  WhatsApp : +91 9884350006  United Kingdom: +44-1618186353

1. Copyright © 2021 pubrica. All rights reserved 1
Systematic Review Article and meta-Analysis:
Main Steps for Successful Writing
Dr. Nancy Agnes, Head, Technical Operations, Pubrica, sales@pubrica.com
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.
I. 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. 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. 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. 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
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.
 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.
 Publications types: while you may normally deal
with just original and review studies, certain
issues may need the use of data from annual

2. Copyright © 2021 pubrica. All rights reserved 2
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.
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. 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 [1].
Figure 1: PRISMA flow chart [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. 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. On the other hand, a qualitative viewpoint allows

3. Copyright © 2021 pubrica. All rights reserved 3
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.
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. 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. The
conclusion frequently contains suggestions for future
study as well as practise instructions. It's also a good
idea to emphasize your review's unique contributions
[2].
II. 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. 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 [3].
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. 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 percent 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. 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. 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 [4].
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.
III. 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. 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
[5].
REFERENCES
[1]Čablová, L., Pazderková, K., &Miovský, M.
(2014). Parenting styles and alcohol use among
children and adolescents: A systematic review.
Drugs: Education, Prevention, and Policy, 1, 1–13.
[2]Čablová, L., Pates, R., Miovský, M., & Noel, J.
(2017). How to write a systematic review article and
metaanalysis. Addiction Science: A Guide for the
Perplexed, 173.

4. Copyright © 2021 pubrica. All rights reserved 4
[3] Ahn E, Kang H. Introduction to systematic review
and metaanalysis. Korean J Anesthesiol.
2018;71(2):103-112. doi:10.4097/kjae.2018.71.2.103
[4] Tawfik, G.M., Dila, K.A.S., Mohamed, M.Y.F. et
al. A step by step guide for conducting a systematic
review and metaanalysis with simulation data. Trop
Med Health 47, 46 (2019).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41182-019-0165-6
[5]Dhammi IK, Haq RU. How to Write Systematic
Review or Metaanalysis. Indian J Orthop.
2018;52(6):575-577.
doi:10.4103/ortho.IJOrtho_557_18
[6] Tang, M.Y., Rhodes, S., Powell, R. et al. How
effective are social norms interventions in changing
the clinical behaviours of healthcare workers? A
systematic review and metaanalysis. Implementation
Sci 16, 8 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-020-
01072-1
[7]Shiferaw K, Mengiste B, Gobena T, Dheresa M
(2021) The effect of antenatal care on perinatal
outcomes in Ethiopia: A systematic review and
metaanalysis. PLoS ONE 16(1): e0245003.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245003
[8] Akiyama S, Hamdeh S, Micic D, et al. Prevalence
and clinical outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with
autoimmune diseases: a systematic review and meta-
analysis, Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
2021;80:384-391.
[9] Chen, Y., Chen, D. & Lin, H. Infiltration and
sealing for managing non-cavitated proximal lesions:
a systematic review and metaanalysis. BMC Oral
Health 21, 13 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-
020-01364-4
[10]Comeche, J.M.; Gutierrez-Hervás, A.; Tuells, J.;
Altavilla, C.; Caballero, P. Predefined Diets in
Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease:
Systematic Review and Metaanalysis. Nutrients 2021,
13, 52. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13010052
[11]Yekaninejad, MS, Badrooj, N, Vosoughi, F, Lin,
C-Y, Potenza, MN, Pakpour, AH. Prevalence of food
addiction in children and adolescents: A systematic
review and metaanalysis. Obesity Reviews. 2021;
22:e13183. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.13183
[12] Maya Balakrishnan, Parth Patel, Sydney Dunn-
Valadez, Cecilia Dao, Vinshi Khan, Hiba Ali, Laith
El-Serag, Ruben Hernaez, Amy Sisson, Aaron P.
Thrift, Yan Liu, Hashem B. El-Serag, FasihaKanwal,
Women Have a Lower Risk of Nonalcoholic Fatty
Liver Disease but a Higher Risk of Progression vs
Men: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis,
Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Volume
19, Issue 1, 2021, Pages 61-71.e15,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2020.04.067.
[13] Ma, X, Liu, S, Chen, L, Zhuang, L, Zhang, J,
Xin, Y. The clinical characteristics of pediatric
inpatients with SARS-CoV-2 infection: A
metaanalysis and systematic review. J Med Virol.
2021; 93: 234– 240.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.26208