13 KiB
[Literature Review Title]
Authors: [Author Names and Affiliations] Date: [Date] Review Type: [Narrative / Systematic / Scoping / Meta-Analysis / Umbrella Review] Review Protocol: [PROSPERO ID if registered, or state "Not registered"] PRISMA Compliance: [Yes/No/Partial - specify which guidelines]
Abstract
Background: [Context and rationale]
Objectives: [Primary and secondary objectives]
Methods: [Databases, dates, selection criteria, quality assessment]
Results: [n studies included; key findings by theme]
Conclusions: [Main conclusions and implications]
Registration: [PROSPERO ID or "Not registered"]
Keywords: [5-8 keywords]
1. Introduction
1.1 Background and Context
[Provide background information on the topic. Establish why this literature review is important and timely. Discuss the broader context and current state of knowledge.]
1.2 Scope and Objectives
[Clearly define the scope of the review and state the specific objectives. What questions will this review address?]
Primary Research Questions:
- [Research question 1]
- [Research question 2]
- [Research question 3]
1.3 Significance
[Explain the significance of this review. Why is it important to synthesize this literature now? What gaps does it fill?]
2. Methodology
2.1 Protocol and Registration
Protocol: [PROSPERO ID / OSF link / Not registered]
Deviations: [Document any protocol deviations]
PRISMA: [Checklist in Appendix B]
2.2 Search Strategy
Databases: [PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, bioRxiv, etc.]
Supplementary: [Citation chaining, grey literature, trial registries]
Search String Example:
("CRISPR"[Title/Abstract] OR "Cas9"[Title/Abstract]) AND
("disease"[MeSH Terms]) AND ("2015/01/01"[Date] : "2024/12/31"[Date])
Dates: [YYYY-MM-DD to YYYY-MM-DD] | Executed: [Date]
Validation: [Key papers used to test search strategy]
2.3 Tools and Software
Screening: [Rayyan, Covidence, ASReview]
Analysis: [VOSviewer, R, Python]
Citation Management: [Zotero, Mendeley, EndNote]
AI Tools: [Any AI-assisted tools used; document validation approach]
2.4 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Inclusion Criteria:
- [Criterion 1: e.g., Published between 2015-2024]
- [Criterion 2: e.g., Peer-reviewed articles and preprints]
- [Criterion 3: e.g., English language]
- [Criterion 4: e.g., Human or animal studies]
- [Criterion 5: e.g., Original research or systematic reviews]
Exclusion Criteria:
- [Criterion 1: e.g., Case reports with n<5]
- [Criterion 2: e.g., Conference abstracts without full text]
- [Criterion 3: e.g., Editorials and commentaries]
- [Criterion 4: e.g., Duplicate publications]
- [Criterion 5: e.g., Retracted articles]
- [Criterion 6: e.g., Studies with unavailable full text after author contact]
2.5 Study Selection
Reviewers: [n independent reviewers] | Conflict resolution: [Method]
Inter-rater reliability: [Cohen's kappa = X]
PRISMA Flow:
Records identified: n=[X] → Deduplicated: n=[Y] →
Title/abstract screened: n=[Y] → Full-text assessed: n=[Z] → Included: n=[N]
Exclusion reasons: [List with counts]
2.6 Data Extraction
Method: [Standardized form (Appendix E); pilot-tested on n studies]
Extractors: [n independent] | Verification: [Double-checked]
Items: Study ID, design, population, interventions/exposures, outcomes, statistics, funding, COI, bias domains
Missing data: [Author contact protocol]
2.7 Quality Assessment
Tool: [Cochrane RoB 2.0 / ROBINS-I / Newcastle-Ottawa / AMSTAR 2 / JBI]
Method: [2 independent reviewers; third for conflicts]
Rating: [Low/Moderate/High risk of bias]
Publication bias: [Funnel plots, Egger's test - if meta-analysis]
2.8 Synthesis and Analysis
Approach: [Narrative / Meta-analysis / Both]
Statistics (if meta-analysis): Effect measures, heterogeneity (I², τ²), sensitivity analyses, subgroups
Software: [RevMan, R, Stata]
Certainty: [GRADE framework; factors: bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision]
3. Results
3.1 Study Selection
Summary: [X records → Y deduplicated → Z full-text → N included (M in meta-analysis)]
Study types: [RCTs: n=X, Observational: n=Y, Reviews: n=Z]
Years: [Range; peak year]
Geography: [Countries represented]
Source: [Peer-reviewed: n=X, Preprints: n=Y]
3.2 Bibliometric Overview
[Optional: Trends, journal distribution, author networks, citations, keywords - if analyzed with VOSviewer or similar]
3.3 Study Characteristics
| Study | Year | Design | Sample Size | Key Methods | Main Findings | Quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First Author et al. | 2023 | [Type] | n=[X] | [Methods] | [Brief findings] | [Low/Mod/High RoB] |
Quality: Low RoB: n=X ([%]); Moderate: n=Y ([%]); High: n=Z ([%])
3.4 Thematic Synthesis
[Organize by themes, NOT study-by-study. Synthesize across studies to identify consensus, controversies, and gaps.]
3.4.1 Theme 1: [Title]
Findings: [Synthesis of key findings from multiple studies]
Supporting studies: [X, Y, Z]
Contradictory evidence: [If any]
Certainty: [GRADE rating if applicable]
3.5 Methodological Approaches
Common methods: [Method 1 (n studies), Method 2 (n studies)]
Emerging techniques: [New approaches observed]
Methodological quality: [Overall assessment]
3.6 Meta-Analysis Results
[Include only if conducting meta-analysis]
Effect estimates: [Primary/secondary outcomes with 95% CI, p-values]
Heterogeneity: [I²=X%, τ²=Y, interpretation]
Subgroups & sensitivity: [Key findings from analyses]
Publication bias: [Funnel plot, Egger's p=X]
Forest plots: [Include for primary outcomes]
3.7 Knowledge Gaps
Knowledge: [Unanswered research questions]
Methodological: [Study design/measurement issues]
Translational: [Research-to-practice gaps]
Populations: [Underrepresented groups/contexts]
4. Discussion
4.1 Main Findings
[Synthesize key findings by research question]
Principal findings: [Top 3-5 takeaways]
Consensus: [Where studies agree]
Controversy: [Conflicting results]
4.2 Interpretation and Implications
Context: [How findings advance/challenge current understanding]
Mechanisms: [Potential explanations for observed patterns]
Implications for:
- Practice: [Actionable recommendations]
- Policy: [If relevant]
- Research: [Theoretical, methodological, priority directions]
4.3 Strengths and Limitations
Strengths: [Comprehensive search, rigorous methods, large evidence base, transparency]
Limitations:
- Search/selection: [Language bias, database coverage, grey literature, publication bias]
- Methodological: [Heterogeneity, study quality]
- Temporal: [Rapid evolution, search cutoff date]
Impact: [How limitations affect conclusions]
4.4 Comparison with Previous Reviews
[If relevant: How does this review update/differ from prior reviews?]
4.5 Future Research
Priority questions:
- [Question] - Rationale, suggested approach, expected impact
- [Question] - Rationale, suggested approach, expected impact
- [Question] - Rationale, suggested approach, expected impact
Recommendations: [Methodological improvements, understudied populations, emerging technologies]
5. Conclusions
[Concise conclusions addressing research questions]
- [Conclusion directly addressing primary research question]
- [Key finding conclusion]
- [Gap/future direction conclusion]
Evidence certainty: [High/Moderate/Low/Very Low]
Translation readiness: [Ready / Needs more research / Preliminary]
6. Declarations
Author Contributions
[CRediT taxonomy: Author 1 - Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing; Author 2 - Analysis, Review; etc.]
Funding
[Grant details with numbers] OR [No funding received]
Conflicts of Interest
[Author-specific declarations] OR [None]
Data Availability
Protocol: [PROSPERO/OSF ID or "Not registered"]
Data/Code: [Repository URL/DOI or "Available upon request"]
Materials: [Search strategies (Appendix A), PRISMA checklist (Appendix B), extraction form (Appendix E)]
Acknowledgments
[Contributors not meeting authorship criteria, librarians, patient involvement]
7. References
[Use consistent style: APA / Nature / Vancouver]
Format examples:
APA: Author, A. A., & Author, B. B. (Year). Title. Journal, volume(issue), pages. https://doi.org/xx.xxxx
Nature: Author, A. A. & Author, B. B. Title. J. Name volume, pages (year).
Vancouver: Author AA, Author BB. Title. J Abbrev. Year;volume(issue):pages. doi:xx.xxxx
- [First reference]
- [Second reference]
- [Continue...]
8. Appendices
Appendix A: Search Strings
PubMed (Date: YYYY-MM-DD; Results: n)
[Complete search string with operators and MeSH terms]
[Repeat for each database: Scopus, Web of Science, bioRxiv, etc.]
Appendix B: PRISMA Checklist
| Section | Item | Reported? | Page |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title | Identify as systematic review | Yes/No | # |
| Abstract | Structured summary | Yes/No | # |
| Methods | Eligibility, sources, search, selection, data, quality | Yes/No | # |
| Results | Selection, characteristics, risk of bias, syntheses | Yes/No | # |
| Discussion | Interpretation, limitations, conclusions | Yes/No | # |
| Other | Registration, support, conflicts, availability | Yes/No | # |
Appendix C: Excluded Studies
| Study | Year | Reason | Category |
|---|---|---|---|
| Author et al. | Year | [Reason] | [Wrong population/outcome/design/etc.] |
Summary: Wrong population (n=X), Wrong outcome (n=Y), etc.
Appendix D: Quality Assessment
Tool: [Cochrane RoB 2.0 / ROBINS-I / Newcastle-Ottawa / etc.]
| Study | Domain 1 | Domain 2 | Domain 3 | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study 1 | Low | Low | Some concerns | Low |
| Study 2 | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Overall] |
Appendix E: Data Extraction Form
STUDY: Author______ Year______ DOI______
DESIGN: □RCT □Cohort □Case-Control □Cross-sectional □Other______
POPULATION: n=_____ Age_____ Setting_____
INTERVENTION/EXPOSURE: _____
OUTCOMES: Primary_____ Secondary_____
RESULTS: Effect size_____ 95%CI_____ p=_____
QUALITY: □Low □Moderate □High RoB
FUNDING/COI: _____
Appendix F: Meta-Analysis Details
[Only if meta-analysis performed]
Software: [R 4.x.x with meta/metafor packages / RevMan / Stata]
Model: [Random-effects; justification]
Code: [Link to repository]
Sensitivity analyses: [Details]
Appendix G: Author Contacts
| Study | Contact Date | Response | Data Received |
|---|---|---|---|
| Author et al. | YYYY-MM-DD | Yes/No | Yes/No/Partial |
9. Supplementary Materials
[If applicable]
Tables: S1 (Full study characteristics), S2 (Quality scores), S3 (Subgroups), S4 (Sensitivity)
Figures: S1 (PRISMA diagram), S2 (Risk of bias), S3 (Funnel plot), S4 (Forest plots), S5 (Networks)
Data: S1 (Extraction file), S2 (Search results), S3 (Analysis code), S4 (PRISMA checklist)
Repository: [OSF/GitHub/Zenodo URL with DOI]
Review Metadata
Registration: [Registry] ID: [Number] (Date: YYYY-MM-DD)
Search dates: Initial: [Date]; Updated: [Date]
Version: [1.0] | Last updated: [Date]
Quality checks:
- Citations verified with verify_citations.py
- PRISMA checklist completed
- Search reproducible
- Independent data verification
- Code peer-reviewed
- All authors approved
Usage Notes
Review type adaptations:
- Systematic Review: Use all sections
- Meta-Analysis: Include sections 3.6, Appendix F
- Narrative Review: May omit some methodology detail
- Scoping Review: Follow PRISMA-ScR, may omit quality assessment
Key principles:
- Remove all [bracketed placeholders]
- Follow PRISMA 2020 guidelines
- Pre-register when feasible (PROSPERO/OSF)
- Use thematic synthesis, not study-by-study
- Be transparent and reproducible
- Verify all DOIs before submission
- Make data/code openly available
Common pitfalls to avoid:
- Don't list studies - synthesize them
- Don't cherry-pick results
- Don't ignore limitations
- Don't overstate conclusions
- Don't skip publication bias assessment
Resources:
- PRISMA 2020: http://prisma-statement.org/
- PROSPERO: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/
- Cochrane Handbook: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook
- GRADE: https://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/
DELETE THIS SECTION FROM YOUR FINAL REVIEW