Abstract
This article is a guidance how to write systematic reviews (SR’s) and meta-analyses (MA) in orthopaedics and which aspects to focus on for transparency, systematicity and readability. Both SR and MA summarise and synthesise the best evidence available on a specific topic. This requires a systematic, structured and transparent process of analysis. The title should be concise, indicate type of review and ideally report the most important finding. Next, the structured abstract (no more than 350 words) should also raise key points and report the overall level of evidence. A relevant clinical question must be defined before the literature search is started. Methodological details such as databases searched, the exact search strategy (including time frame), inclusion/exclusion criteria, method of literature appraisal and statistical analysis must be described briefly. The primary and secondary outcomes should be mentioned. SR’s be pre-registered before data extraction, to ensure transparency and the reduction of risk of bias. If registered, registration number should be stated in the abstract and the funding sources. A clear summary of the findings is important including the number of identified studies (depicted in a flowchart) and for meta-analyses a forest plot. The results of the literature appraisal and statistical analyses should be reported precisely. Subsequently, a general interpretation of findings and their significance and relevance to clinical practice should be provided. Clinical implications from the analysis should be drawn carefully and further research questions should be addressed. Finally, a conclusion, based solely on the results of the study is a necessity. Up to ten keywords are requested representing the main content of the article. Most applicable keywords should facilitate finding the manuscript in the databases and therefor considered carefully.
Similar content being viewed by others
Change history
02 July 2021
Typo errors within the abbreviation section corrected
Abbreviations
- AMSTAR:
-
Assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews
- GRADE:
-
Grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation
- JBI:
-
Joanna Briggs Institute
- MA:
-
Meta-analysis
- MeSH:
-
Medical subject headings
- MINORS:
-
Methodological index for non-randomized studies
- PICOS:
-
Patients, Interventions, Comparisons, Outcomes and Study design
- PRISMA:
-
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis
- PROSPERO:
-
Prospective register of systematic reviews
- ROBIS:
-
Risk of bias in systematic reviews
- SR:
-
Systematic review
- OSF:
-
Open science framework
- ICTRP:
-
International clinical trials registry platform
- QUOROM:
-
Qualitiy of reports of meta-analyses
References
Paré G, Tate M, Johnstone D, Kitsiou S (2016) Contextualizing the twin concepts of systematicity and transparency in information systems literature reviews. Eur J Inf Syst 25:493–508
Gough D, Thomas J, Oliver S (2019) Clarifying differences between reviews within evidence ecosystems. Syst Control Found Appl 8:170
Borah R, Brown AW, Capers PL, Kaiser KA (2017) Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry. BMJ Open 7:e012545
Ioannidis JPA, Greenland S, Hlatky MA, Khoury MJ, Macleod MR, Moher D et al (2014) Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet 383:166–175
Arksey H, O’Malley L (2005) Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 8:19–32
Aromataris E, Fernandez R, Godfrey CM, Holly C, Khalil H, Tungpunkom P (2015) Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. JBI Evid Implement 13:132–140
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLOS Med 6:e1000097
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD et al (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:n71
Salvador-Oliván JA, Marco-Cuenca G, Arquero-Avilés R (2019) Errors in search strategies used in systematic reviews and their effects on information retrieval. J Med Libr Assoc JMLA 107:210–221
Duffy S, de Kock S, Misso K, Noake C, Ross J, Stirk L (2016) Supplementary searches of PubMed to improve currency of MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-process searches via ovid. J Med Libr Assoc 104:309–312
Zadro JR, Moseley AM, Elkins MR, Maher CG (2019) PEDro searching has improved over time: a comparison of search commands from two six-month periods three years apart. Int J Med Inform 121:1–9
Critical Appraisal Checklists by specific Study Design type (2021). Temple University Libraries. https://guides.temple.edu/systematicreviews/criticalappraisal.
Aromataris E, Munn Z, et al. (2020). JBI manual for evidence synthesis. https://synthesismanual.jbi.global. Doi: https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-01
Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (eds) (2019) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester
Zeng X, Zhang Y, Kwong JSW, Zhang C, Li S, Sun F et al (2015) The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review. J Evid Based Med 8:2–10
Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J (2003) Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg 73:712–716
Tufanaru CMZ, Aromataris E, Campbell J, Hopp L (2020) Chapter 3: Systematic reviews of effectiveness. In: Aromataris EMZ (ed) JBI manual for evidence synthesis. The Joanna Briggs Institute, Adelaide
Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF (1999) Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Lancet 354:1896–1900
Schünemann H, Brożek J, Guyatt G, Oxman A (eds) (2013). GRADE handbook for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. www.guidelinedevelopment.org/handbook
Funding
No additional funding received for this work.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
There is no ethical approval needed for this research methodology paper.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Prill, R., Karlsson, J., Ayeni, O.R. et al. Author guidelines for conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 29, 2739–2744 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06631-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06631-7