Skip to Main Content
Monash Health Library
Click here to chat with a librarian

Systematic Review Guide

Reporting in a systematic review differs from other types of reviews in several key ways due to its structured, transparent, and reproducible nature. Following formal guidelines and keeping detailed documentation helps to ensure transparency, reproducibility, and high-quality evidence synthesis.

This includes:

  • Reporting guidelines, e.g. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses).
  • Documentation of the search strategy, included studies and any tools used during assessment and analysis of evidence
  • Flow diagrams and structured tables to show how studies were selected and analyzed.

Reporting guidelines in health research are structured checklists or frameworks that outline the minimum information a study should include to ensure clarity, transparency, and reproducibility.

Why is it important to use a reporting guideline?

  • Ensures all essential study details are clearly and transparently reported.
  • Improves the quality, completeness, and consistency of publications.
  • Makes research easier to assess, replicate, and build upon.
  • Increases trust and credibility in the findings.
  • Supports compliance with journal and funding body requirements.

How do I use a reporting guideline?

PRISMA 2020 is the reporting guideline for systematic reviews.

  1. Use the PRIMSA checklist when writing your review and abstract.
  2. Use the PRIMSA flow diagram to record your included and excluded studies. 
  3. Cite PRIMSA in your review:
    1. Page, M.J., McKenzie, J.E, Bossuyt, P.M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T.C., Mulrow, C.D., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71 
  4. Include the completed checklist and flowchart when submitting your review to a publisher.
Example
Perera, B.P.R., et al. (2025). Psychometric properties of the Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale: a systematic review. Systematic Reviews, 14 (149).

Recommended resources:

Price, C. (2022). The PRISMA Statement for REPORTING Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

In a systematic review, the methodology is the detailed, pre-defined plan outlining how studies are identified, selected, appraised, and synthesised to answer a specific research question.

Why is it important to write a rigourous methodology?

  • Ensures transparency in how the review was conducted.
  • Allows others to assess the rigour and validity of the methods.
  • Enables replication or updating of the review in the future.
  • Demonstrates adherence to best practice and reporting standards.
  • Increases credibility and trust in the review’s findings.

How do I write the methodology section?

Use the PRIMSA checklist when writing your review.

  1. Define the review question
  2. Describe your inclusion and exclusion criteria
  3. List all databases, registers, and other sources searched, including dates of coverage.
  4. Provide the full, reproducible search strategy for at least one database and note any limits applied.
  5. Explain the screening process, number of reviewers, and how disagreements were resolved.
  6. Describe what data was extracted, how, and by whom.
  7. State the tools or criteria used to assess study quality and how this was applied.
  8. Outline how the data was analysed and any software used.
  9. Note any changes made from the original registered protocol.
Example
Zulfiqar, S.H., et al. (2023). Talent management of international nurses in healthcare settings: A systematic review. PLoS One, 18(11): e0293828.

Recommended resources:

Reporting on findings in a systematic review is the clear, structured presentation of the results from the included studies and any analyses, showing how they address the review’s research question.

Why is it important to report your findings?

  • Communicates the evidence clearly to readers
  • Enables interpretation and understanding of the results
  • Supports informed decision-making in practice and policy
  • Allows replication or updating of the review by other researchers
  • Demonstrates transparency and accountability in the review process

How do I report the findings?

Use the PRIMSA checklist when writing your review.

  1. Organise results by outcomes, themes, or research question.
  2. Show study flow with a PRISMA diagram.
  3. Summarise study characteristics in tables.
  4. Report results clearly for each outcome.
  5. Assess and present risk of bias.
  6. Synthesise findings narratively or with meta-analysis.
  7. Report on the certainty of evidence for each outcome using GRADE.
  8. Use figures/tables to highlight key patterns.
  9. Connect findings back to the review question.
Example
Cremer, S., et al. (2023). Effective nursing interventions in ADL care affecting independence and comfort - a systematic review. Geriatric nursing, 52, 73–90.

Recommended resources:

Cochrane Training. (2018). An overview of "Summary of findings" (SoF) tables in systematic reviews.

Publication of your review is the process of formally sharing your completed systematic review in a scientific journal or other reputable outlet, making the findings accessible to the wider research and clinical community.

Why is it important to publish your review in a reputable journal?

  • Supports informed decision-making in practice and policy
  • Allows replication or updating of the review by other researchers

How do I publish the review?

  • Choose a suitable journal
  • Follow journal guidelines for formatting, referencing and word count.
  • Prepare the manuscript with all relevant sections.
  • Submit the manuscript via the journal’s submission system.
  • Respond to peer review by revising and clarifying as requested.
  • Approve final proofs and ensure your review is publicly accessible.

Authorship

According to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, a co-author must meet four key criteria:

  • they must make substantial contributions to the research design, data collection, analysis, or interpretation
  • assist in drafting or revising the manuscript
  • approve the final version for publication and
  • take accountability for the work's accuracy and integrity.

Individuals who do not meet these criteria should be acknowledged in the manuscript rather than listed as co-authors.

AI tools cannot be co-authors.

Recommended resources:

Authorship flowchart

Writing, Referencing & Publishing Guide

Request a report of recommended journals for publishing