Guidelines for Systematic-Meta Analyses

[Download Tamplate Here]

 

TITLE

The title should contain a descriptor that best describes the type of review, such as: ‘Systematic review’, ‘Meta-analysis’, 'Systematic review and meta-analysis', and others.

 

ABSTRACT

• The abstract should include the following headings:Background 
• (Introduction and Purpose), Method (Design, Data Sources, including search dates, Review Methods), Results, and Conclusion.
• Abstract is not more than 350 words and should not contain abbreviations, with 3-5 keywords. 

 

INTRODUCTION

• Include background and rationale, conceptual or theoretical context, international relevance of topic, and aim (Describe the current state of knowledge and its uncertainties.
• Articulate why it is important to do the review.
• If other systematic reviews addressing the same (or a largely similar) question are available, explain why the current review was considered necessary. If the review is an update or replication of a particular systematic review, indicate this and cite the previous review.
• If the review examines interventions' effects, briefly describe how the intervention(s) examined might work.
• If there is complexity in the intervention or context of its delivery (or both) (e.g., multi-component interventions, equity considerations), consider presenting a logic model to display the hypothesised relationship between intervention components and outcomes visually.
• Objectives:  Provide an explicit statement of all objective(s) or question(s) the review addresses, expressed in terms of a relevant question formulation framework. If the purpose is to evaluate the effects of interventions, use the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome (PICO) framework or one of its variants to state the comparisons that will be made.

 

METHODS

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA 

Specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review and how studies were grouped for the syntheses.

INFORMATION SOURCES

Specify all databases, registers, websites, organizations, reference lists, and other sources searched or consulted to identify studies. Specify the date when each source was last searched or consulted.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Present the full search strategies for all databases, registers, and websites, including any filters and limits used.

SELECTION PROCESS 

Specify the methods used to decide whether a study met the review's inclusion criteria, including how many reviewers screened each record and each report retrieved, whether they worked independently, and, if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process.

DATA COLLECTION PROCESS

Specify the methods used to collect data from reports, including how many reviewers collected data from each report, whether they worked independently, any processes for obtaining or confirming data from study investigators, and, if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process.

DATA ITEMS 

• List and define all outcomes for which data were sought. Specify whether all results compatible with each outcome domain in each study were sought (e.g., for all measures, time points, analyses), and if not, the methods used to decide which results to collect.
• List and define all other variables for which data were sought (e.g., participant and intervention characteristics, funding sources). Describe any assumptions made about any missing or unclear information.

STUDY RISK OF BIAS ASSESSMENT

Specify the methods used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies, including details of the tool(s) used, how many reviewers assessed each study whether they worked independently, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process.

EFFECT MEASURES

Specify for each outcome the effect measure(s) (e.g., risk ratio, mean difference) used in synthesizing or presenting results.

SYNTHESIS METHODS 

• Describe the processes to decide which studies were eligible for each synthesis (e.g., tabulating the study intervention characteristics and comparing against the planned groups for each synthesis ).
• Describe any methods required to prepare the data for presentation or synthesis, such as handling missing summary statistics or data conversions.
• Describe any methods used to tabulate or visually display the results of individual studies and syntheses.
• Describe any methods used to synthesize results and provide a rationale for the choice(s). If meta-analysis was performed, describe the model(s), method(s) to identify the presence and extent of statistical heterogeneity, and software package(s) used.
• Describe any methods to explore possible causes of heterogeneity among study results (e.g., subgroup analysis, meta-regression). 
• Describe any sensitivity analyses conducted to assess the robustness of the synthesized results. 

REPORTING BIAS ASSESSMENT

Describe any methods used to assess bias risk due to missing synthesis results (arising from reporting biases).

CERTAINTY ASSESSMENT

Describe any methods used to assess certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for an outcome.

 

RESULTS

STUDY SELECTION

Describe the search and selection process results, from the number of records identified in the search to the number of studies included in the review, ideally using a flow diagram. Cite studies that might appear to meet the inclusion criteria but which were excluded, and explain why they were excluded.

STUDY CHARACTERISTICS

Cite each included study and present its characteristics

RISK OF BIAS IN STUDIES

Present assessments of risk of bias for each included study.

RESULTS OF INDIVIDUAL STUDIES

For all outcomes, present, for each study: (a) summary statistics for each group (where appropriate) and (b) an effect estimate and its precision (e.g., confidence/credible interval), ideally using structured tables or plots.

RESULTS OF SYNTHESES

• For each synthesis, briefly summarise the characteristics and risk of bias among contributing studies.
• Present results of all statistical syntheses conducted. If meta-analysis was done, present for each the summary estimate and its precision (e.g., confidence/credible interval) and measures of statistical heterogeneity. If comparing groups, describe the direction of the effect.
• Present results of all investigations of possible causes of heterogeneity among study results.
• Present all sensitivity analyses conducted to assess the robustness of the synthesized results.

REPORTING BIASES

Present assessments of risk of bias due to missing results (arising from reporting biases) for each synthesis assessed.

CERTAINTY OF EVIDENCE

Present assessments of certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for each outcome assessed.

 

DISCUSSION

• Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence.
• Discuss any limitations of the evidence included in the review.
• Discuss any limitations of the review processes used.
• Discuss the implications of the results for practice, policy, and future research.

 

CONCLUSION

• This should not be a summary/repetition of the findings. 

 

REGISTRATION AND PROTOCOL

• Provide registration information for the review, including the register name and registration number, or state that the review was not registered.
• Indicate where the review protocol can be accessed or state that a protocol was not prepared.
• Describe and explain any amendments to information provided at registration or in the protocol.

 

AUTHORS CONTRIBUTIONS

• Contribution of each researcher in carrying out the publication
• Author contributions using CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy)
• Duties and roles of the author in the publication process
• Example: “Author A contribution to……., Author B Contribution to…….”

 

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

• In this section, the authors should declare any conflicts of interest, sources of support for the work, and whether the authors had access to the study data.

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

• Personal acknowledgments should be limited to appropriate professionals who contributed to the paper, including providing technical help and financial or material support, and to department chairpersons who provided general support
• Acknowledgment is given to the funding sources of study (donor agency, the contract number, the year of acceptance) and those who support that funding. The names of those who support or assist the study are written clearly. Names that have been mentioned as the authors of the manuscripts are not allowed here).
• Acknowledgments to the parties or partners who contributed to the research
• Acknowledgments if publication is part of a Research Grant

 

REFERENCES

• Authors are recommended to use reference management software (Mendeley, EndNote, Mendeley, Zotero, etc.) in writing citations and references. which are based on APA 7th Edition(American Psychological Association).

• In the reference, include the DOI or URL of the cited article
• Avoid using abstracts as references.
• Information from manuscripts submitted but not yet accepted should be cited in the text as “unpublished observations” with written permission from the source. Papers accepted but not yet published may be included as references; designate the journal and add “Forthcoming”.
• Avoid citing “personal communication” unless it provides essential information not available publicly; name the person and date of communication and obtain written permission and confirmation of accuracy from the source of personal communication.
• Click Here [Exemple of References]