» Articles » PMID: 31720912

A 24-step Guide on How to Design, Conduct, and Successfully Publish a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis in Medical Research

Overview
Journal Eur J Epidemiol
Specialty Public Health
Date 2019 Nov 14
PMID 31720912
Citations 168
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

To inform evidence-based practice in health care, guidelines and policies require accurate identification, collation, and integration of all available evidence in a comprehensive, meaningful, and time-efficient manner. Approaches to evidence synthesis such as carefully conducted systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential tools to summarize specific topics. Unfortunately, not all systematic reviews are truly systematic, and their quality can vary substantially. Since well-conducted evidence synthesis typically involves a complex set of steps, we believe formulating a cohesive, step-by-step guide on how to conduct a systemic review and meta-analysis is essential. While most of the guidelines on systematic reviews focus on how to report or appraise systematic reviews, they lack guidance on how to synthesize evidence efficiently. To facilitate the design and development of evidence syntheses, we provide a clear and concise, 24-step guide on how to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies and clinical trials. We describe each step, illustrate it with concrete examples, and provide relevant references for further guidance. The 24-step guide (1) simplifies the methodology of conducting a systematic review, (2) provides healthcare professionals and researchers with methodologically sound tools for conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and (3) it can enhance the quality of existing evidence synthesis efforts. This guide will help its readers to better understand the complexity of the process, appraise the quality of published systematic reviews, and better comprehend (and use) evidence from medical literature.

Citing Articles

The effects of intermittent fasting on anthropometric indices, glycemic profile, chemotherapy-related toxicity, and subjective perception in gynecological and breast cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Liu X, Meng Q, Fan W, Ning L, Ge L BMC Cancer. 2025; 25(1):419.

PMID: 40055608 PMC: 11887389. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-025-13806-9.


Systematic review meta-analysis protocol preparation and registration - A narrative review.

Maurya I, Garg R Indian J Anaesth. 2025; 69(1):132-137.

PMID: 40046710 PMC: 11878364. DOI: 10.4103/ija.ija_1165_24.


Gender-neutral vs. gender-specific strategies in school-based HPV vaccination programs: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Chandeying N, Khantee P, Puetpaiboon S, Thongseiratch T Front Public Health. 2025; 13:1460511.

PMID: 40041177 PMC: 11876415. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1460511.


How follow-up period in prospective cohort studies affects the relationship between baseline fish consumption and risk of Alzheimer's disease and dementia.

Grant W J Alzheimers Dis Rep. 2025; 9:25424823251324397.

PMID: 40034504 PMC: 11863749. DOI: 10.1177/25424823251324397.


Patient safety incident reporting systems and reporting practices in African healthcare organisations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Fekadu G, Muir R, Tobiano G, Ireland M, Engidaw M, Marshall A BMJ Open Qual. 2025; 14(1).

PMID: 40011060 PMC: 11865795. DOI: 10.1136/bmjoq-2024-003202.


References
1.
Nikolakopoulou A, Mavridis D, Furukawa T, Cipriani A, Tricco A, Straus S . Living network meta-analysis compared with pairwise meta-analysis in comparative effectiveness research: empirical study. BMJ. 2018; 360():k585. PMC: 5829520. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.k585. View

2.
Higgins J, Thompson S . Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002; 21(11):1539-58. DOI: 10.1002/sim.1186. View

3.
Nikolakopoulou A, Mavridis D, Salanti G . Demystifying fixed and random effects meta-analysis. Evid Based Ment Health. 2014; 17(2):53-7. DOI: 10.1136/eb-2014-101795. View

4.
Moher D, Cook D, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup D . Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet. 1999; 354(9193):1896-900. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(99)04149-5. View

5.
Ioannidis J, Haidich A, Pappa M, Pantazis N, Kokori S, Tektonidou M . Comparison of evidence of treatment effects in randomized and nonrandomized studies. JAMA. 2001; 286(7):821-30. DOI: 10.1001/jama.286.7.821. View