Systematic review for prospective studies is a meticulous and essential process ensuring research findings’ reliability and validity. The key to success lies in adhering to a well-structured methodology that includes defining the research question, developing a comprehensive search strategy, screening studies based on pre-defined criteria, and critically appraising the selected articles. Read more @ https://pubrica.com/academy/manuscript-editing/conduct-a-systematic-review-for-prospective-studies/

1. How to conduct a
systematic review for
prospective studies?
An Academic presentation by
Dr. Nancy Agnes, Head, Technical
Operations, Pubrica
Group: www.pubrica.com
Email: sales@pubrica.com

2. • The purpose of this systematic review is to consolidate and critically assess the findings of prospective
research from many fields.
• Prospective studies can provide important information on cause-and-effect associations, risk factors,
and prognostic variables.
• A thorough search of electronic resources and manual assessment of references discovered prospective
studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria.
• This blog gives a thorough review of performing prospective studies as well as recommends interesting
areas for additional research.

3. • A systematic review of prospective studies involves a rigorous and
structured approach to identifying, appraising, and synthesizing
all the relevant research on a specific topic.
• Here is a step-by-step guide on how to conduct a systematic
review of prospective studies:
contd...

4. Define the research question:
Start by developing a clear and focused research question,
specifying the population, intervention or exposure, comparator,
and outcome (PICO) elements.
Develop a protocol:
Before starting the review process, create a protocol that
outlines the objectives, inclusion and exclusion criteria, search
strategy, data extraction process, and methods for assessing study
quality and synthesizing findings.
contd...

5. Perform a comprehensive literature search:
• Conduct a thorough search of relevant databases (e.g., PubMed, Embase, Web of Science) using
appropriate keywords and search terms.
• Additionally, check reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews for potentially eligible
studies.
Screen and select studies:
• Screen the titles and abstracts of the identified articles for eligibility according to the pre-defined
inclusion and exclusion criteria.
• Obtain the full text of potentially eligible articles and perform a more detailed assessment to
determine their suitability for inclusion in the review.

7. Data extraction:
• Extract relevant data from the included studies using a standardized data extraction form.
• This may include study design, population characteristics, sample size, intervention or exposure
details, outcome measures, and results.
Assess the quality of the included studies:
• Evaluate the quality and risk of bias of the included prospective studies using an appropriate
appraisal tool (e.g., the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies or the Cochrane Risk of Bias
tool for randomized controlled trials).
• This step helps ensure that the review findings are based on high-quality evidence.

8. Synthesize the findings:
• Depending on the included studies' nature and heterogeneity, you may perform a meta-analysis
to quantitatively combine the results or conduct a narrative synthesis to describe the findings
qualitatively.
• In both cases, report the main results, including effect estimates and measures of uncertainty
(e.g., confidence intervals).
Interpret the results and draw conclusions:
• Discuss the review's main findings in the context of the existing literature, considering the strength
and limitations of the evidence.
• Provide recommendations for clinical practice or policy and suggestions for future research.

9. Report the review:
• Write a clear, concise, and well-structured report of the systematic review, following the PRISMA
(Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines to ensure
transparency and completeness.
Update the review:
• Systematic reviews may need to be updated periodically as new research becomes available.
• Keep track of new evidence and consider updating the review if significant findings emerge that
might change the conclusions.

10. • To know more about systematic review Services, check our study guide. How to write a
systematic review manuscript?
Research question and
objectives
• Systematic review research questions should be practical, intriguing, new, ethical, and relevant.
PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) and SPIDER (Sample, Phenomenon of
Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research type) are two often utilized tools.
• PICO is utilized for quantitative evidence synthesis and is more sensitive than the specialized
SPIDER technique.
• SPIDER is recommended for qualitative and mixed techniques searches. A hybrid strategy
employing both methods is advised for extensive searches, especially when applying qualitative
research to qualitative issues.

11. • ·Check our systematic review Service sample work to know and learn more about " A Systematic
Review of depression/anxiety screening and impact on COPD exacerbations severity.".
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
• The PICO technique, research design, and date are used to determine eligibility. The most
common exclusion criteria include irrelevant, duplicated, unavailable full texts, or abstract-only
studies.
• These exclusions should be communicated in advance to avoid bias in the researcher. Articles
containing the target patients, researched interventions, or a comparison of two studied
therapies would be the inclusion criteria.
• In a nutshell, it would be publications that include information that answers our study topic. The
most significant aspect is that there should be clear and adequate positive and negative
information to answer the question.

12. • Pubrica's team of researchers and authors develop Scientific and medical research papers that
can be an indispensable tools to the practitioner/authors.
• Pubrica medical writers help you to write and edit the introduction by introducing the reader to the
shortcomings or empty spaces in the identified research field.
• Our experts know the structure that follows the broad topic, the problem, and the background and
advance to a narrow topic to state the hypothesis.

13. +44 1618186353
UNITED KINGDOM
+91-9884350006
INDIA
EMAIL
sales@pubrica.com
Contact Us