Skip to Main Content
Monash Health Library


Click here to chat with a librarian

A systematic review is conducted with the intention of transparency and reproducibility therefore all steps and decisions, as outlined in the protocol, need to be included in the writing stage.

Reporting Guidelines

The PRISMA 2020 Checklist addresses the main components of the introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of a systematic review report. Use the checklist to guide the reporting of your systematic review and address any missing components.

PRISMA 2020 Checklist

The PRISMA Flow Diagram should be used to demonstrate your inclusion and exclusion process - the process outlined in the Select & Screen section of this guide. If you are using Covidence, a populated PRISMA diagram will be available to you in workspace (see button in Review Summary banner in Covidence).

PRISMA Flow Diagram

For additional reporting guidelines, search The Equator Network and filter by study type (including systematic reviews), clinical area, and section of the report.

Methodology

A systematic review needs to include a detailed methodology section. The methodology should describe the searching process that was undertaken - as described in the Literature Search section of this guide. This allows for critical appraisal of the work and reproducibility. If a Monash Health Librarian is involved in the systematic review, they can write the methodology section for you.

The SR-Accelerator Methods Wizard tool can automatically generate a methodology section for you based on your answer to select questions.

Manuscript Layout

Publishers will have different requirements for the format of a manuscript submission. Pay particular attention to font, size, margins, word and character limits, format and style.

The below list contains instructions and guidelines for some of the major publishers:

Writing a Cochrane Review? Use RevMan!

For more information and guidance on writing for publication, see our Writing, Referencing & Publishing guide.

Writing, Referencing & Publishing Guide

Scholarly Journals

Publishing your work is important for disseminating new research for better health care, and to gain recognition as a scholar.

For more information and guidance on writing for publication, including selecting a journal, predatory publishing, and the peer review process, see our Writing, Referencing & Publishing guide.

Writing, Referencing & Publishing Guide

Updating the Review

Your review may require updating in order to ensure that it collects and reports on the latest available evidence. Additionally, updating an existing systematic review is generally more efficient than starting anew.

The below resources discuss updating systematic reviews in detail:

You may find it useful to register for automated alerts in order to remain abreast of the current research on your systematic review topic. See our Keeping Up To Date guide for instructions on setting up alerts for journals, databases, and more.

Keeping Up To Date Guide

According to the Cochrane Handbook, your interpretation of the results of your systematic review and/or meta-analysis should include:

- Information on all important outcomes, including adverse outcomes.
- The quality of the evidence for each of these outcomes, as it applies to specific populations, and specific interventions.
- Clarification of the manner in which particular values and preferences may bear on the balance of benefits, harms, burden and costs of the intervention. (Section 15.1)


Chapter 15 of the Cochrane Handbook provides detailed guidance on how to:

  • interpret the results of your statistical synthesis & analysis, based on the type of results and outcomes (e.g. dichotomous, continuous)
  • best express and present those interpretations when writing up your systematic review
  • draw conclusions and describe implications of research and practice  

Cochrane Handbook - Chapter 15

Systematic reviews should include a ‘Summary of findings’ (SoF) table which presents key information about:

  • the certainty or quality of evidence, based on an assessment such as GRADE (read more)
  • the magnitude of effect of the interventions examined
  • the sum of available data on the main outcomes

For detailed guidance on preparing a SoF table, see Chapter 14 of the Cochrane Handbook and section 4.3 of the GRADE Handbook.

Cochrane Handbook - Chapter 14

GRADE Handbook - Section 4.3

 Summary of findings tables may appear directly underneath the abstract of an article; elsewhere in the main text; or included within supplementary materials and then referred to within the main article. Check your publisher's submission guidelines for their requirements.

Examples of SoF tables

  1. Example table from a systematic review (Bastos et al., 2022) that used GRADE.
  2. Example table from a systematic review (Sanders et al., 2021) where the authors did not use GRADE.
  3. For example SoF tables with qualitative evidence, ​​​​​see this article by the GRADE Working Group.
    • The article explains how to apply GRADE-CERQual and create a Summary of Qualitative Findings table.

Creating a SoF table

Review teams with 3 members or less can use the free version of GRADEpro GDT, an online tool. 

Evidence profiles

SoF tables are one type of 'evidence table' -- evidence profiles are another type. Evidence profiles present similar information, but have a greater level of detail overall, including a detailed quality assessment.

For more information on the differences between the two tables, and when an evidence profile is recommended, refer to the resources below.

Monash Health acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of the land, the Wurundjeri and Boonwurrung peoples, and we pay our respects to them, their culture and their Elders past, present and future.

We are committed to creating a safe and welcoming environment that embraces all backgrounds, cultures, sexualities, genders and abilities.