Systematic, scoping or something else?
Choosing the review type early saves weeks. A systematic review answers a focused question, appraises study quality and synthesises findings, sometimes statistically. A scoping review maps the extent and nature of evidence on a broader topic, usually without formal quality appraisal, and follows JBI guidance and PRISMA-ScR. Rapid reviews streamline some steps for time-sensitive questions, and umbrella reviews synthesise existing reviews.
If your aim is to build an argument from selected sources rather than exhaustively collect evidence, a narrative review may serve better, and our literature review help is the more natural fit.
The review stages we support
| Stage | What we help with |
|---|---|
| Question and protocol | Framework choice, eligibility criteria, outcomes and a registration-ready protocol |
| Searching | Subject headings (MeSH, Emtree) combined with free-text terms, Boolean logic, truncation and proximity operators, grey literature |
| Screening | Pilot screening, calibration between reviewers, recording reasons for full-text exclusion |
| Extraction and appraisal | Extraction forms, plus tools such as RoB 2, ROBINS-I, CASP, JBI checklists or the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale |
| Synthesis | Meta-analysis, narrative synthesis following SWiM guidance, or charting for scoping reviews; GRADE for certainty of evidence |
| Reporting | PRISMA 2020 checklist and flow diagram, tables of included studies |
Where reviews usually go wrong
The most common weakness is a search that cannot be reproduced: one database, no subject headings, no record of the date or the exact string. Close behind are eligibility criteria written so loosely that two reviewers disagree on half the abstracts, and meta-analyses that pool studies too different to combine. We also see PRISMA diagrams where the numbers do not add up, and risk-of-bias judgements that never feed into the conclusions.
When pooling is appropriate, we explain the choice between fixed- and random-effects models and how to read I² and tau² so you can describe heterogeneity accurately. For the underlying statistics, our guide to hypothesis testing and p-values is a useful refresher.
A worked example shows how much structure matters. Suppose your question is whether exercise programmes reduce depressive symptoms in older adults. Using PICO, the population is adults aged 65 and over, the intervention is structured exercise, the comparison is usual care or no exercise, and the outcome is a validated depression score. Each element becomes a block of synonyms and subject headings joined by OR, and the blocks are joined by AND. Writing that out before you search makes the eligibility criteria almost write themselves, and it gives a second screener a clear basis for decisions.
Getting started
Send your draft question, any protocol or proposal, the databases you can access through your library, and your deadline. If you have already searched, include the exported strings and record counts. A protocol and search strategy review usually takes three to five working days; ongoing support through screening and synthesis is planned around your timeline. Request a free quote and we will reply within a few hours.
If you are part of a team, tell us who will screen and extract, so we can suggest a calibration exercise and a simple way to resolve disagreements before the main screening starts.
Rigour you can document
Systematic reviews are judged on transparency: could someone else repeat what you did and reach the same set of studies? Our support is designed to leave a clear audit trail of decisions, so you can explain them in your methods section or viva. You remain the reviewer and author, and we follow the boundaries set out on our academic integrity page. If your review feeds into a paper, our publication support can help with journal selection and submission.
What you get
- Feedback on your review question framed with PICO, PEO, SPIDER or PCC
- A protocol review aligned with PRISMA-P, ready for PROSPERO or OSF registration
- Database-specific search strings for sources such as MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science
- Screening and data extraction templates, with set-up help in Covidence, Rayyan or a spreadsheet
- Guidance on risk-of-bias tools and, where suitable, meta-analysis with forest plots and heterogeneity statistics
- A PRISMA 2020 or PRISMA-ScR checklist and flow diagram check before submission
What we don't do
- Acting as the independent second screener on an assessed student review unless your programme permits it; instead we show you how to document screening decisions properly
- Guaranteeing acceptance by a journal or registration body
- Writing your discussion or conclusions; we help you interpret the evidence so you can write them
How it works
Describe your project
Level, deadline and what you need help with.
Agree a written scope
What's included, the price and the timeline.
Work in stages
Check-ins so you can steer the work.
Review and ask
Explanations and follow-up questions included.