How to Write a Systematic Literature Review: Student Edition

A systematic literature review is a rigorous, structured approach to identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing all available evidence on a specific research question. Unlike narrative literature reviews, systematic reviews follow a predefined protocol to minimize bias and ensure reproducibility. This guide provides a complete step-by-step process for students, from formulating your question to writing the final report, including PRISMA standards and practical templates.

Introduction

If you’re a graduate student facing your first systematic literature review, you’re likely feeling overwhelmed. You’ve heard it’s “rigorous” and “comprehensive,” but what does that actually mean? More importantly, how do you execute one without drowning in thousands of papers?

A systematic literature review is the gold standard for evidence synthesis in many academic fields, particularly in health sciences, education, and social sciences. Its purpose is to answer a specific research question by locating, appraising, and synthesizing all high-quality evidence available—while being completely transparent about your methods so others could replicate your work.

Unlike a traditional literature review that might summarize key themes subjectively, a systematic review uses explicit, reproducible methods to identify all eligible studies, assess their quality, and combine their findings. This approach reduces bias and provides the most reliable answer to your research question.

Why This Matters for Students:

• Many thesis and dissertation committees now require systematic review methodology
• It’s a valuable skill for evidence-based practice in healthcare, education, and policy
• Systematic reviews are highly cited and often published in peer-reviewed journals
• Mastering this method sets you apart in academia and research careers

Who This Guide Is For:

• Graduate students in health sciences, social sciences, education, and STEM fields
• Undergraduate researchers working on capstone or honors projects requiring evidence synthesis
• Students learning evidence-based practice (EBP) methodologies
• Anyone wanting to understand the systematic review process for academic publications

Systematic Review vs. Literature Review: Understanding the Difference

Before diving into the steps, you must understand what makes a systematic review distinct:

Traditional (Narrative) Literature Review

• Broad scope, often exploring a general topic
• Selective study inclusion based on author judgment
• No standardized search strategy
• Subjective synthesis and interpretation
• Higher risk of selection bias
• Suitable for: Background sections, theoretical papers

Systematic Literature Review

• Narrow, focused research question (usually using PICO/PECO framework)
• Exhaustive, reproducible search across multiple databases
• Predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria
• Structured quality assessment of included studies
• Quantitative or qualitative synthesis (meta-analysis when possible)
• Transparent reporting following PRISMA guidelines
• Suitable for: Evidence-based practice, clinical guidelines, policy decisions

When to Use Which:
If your goal is to provide a comprehensive, unbiased evidence summary for decision-making, you need a systematic review. If you’re exploring a topic for the first time or providing theoretical context, a narrative review may suffice. Many professors now require systematic review methods for graduate-level assignments because they teach rigorous research skills.

The Systematic Review Process: A Step-by-Step Guide

Step 1: Formulate a Focused Research Question

The entire systematic review hinges on your research question. A vague question leads to an unmanageable review. Use a structured framework:

PICO Framework (for quantitative studies):

• Population: Who are the participants? (e.g., adults with type 2 diabetes)
• Intervention: What treatment or exposure? (e.g., metformin)
• Comparison: What’s the alternative? (e.g., placebo, other drug) – not always required
• Outcome: What effect are you measuring? (e.g., HbA1c levels)

Example PICO Question:
“In adults with type 2 diabetes (P), does metformin (I) compared to placebo (C) reduce HbA1c levels (O)?”

Alternative Frameworks:

• PECO (for environmental/occupational health): Population, Exposure, Comparison, Outcome
• SPICE (for social sciences): Setting, Perspective, Intervention, Comparison, Evaluation
• CIPO (for education): Context, Intervention, Population, Outcome

Your Research Question Must Be:

• Clear and unambiguous
• Feasible (enough literature exists)
• Relevant to your field
• Answerable through empirical studies

Step 2: Develop and Register Your Protocol

Before you search, you must document your planned methodology in a protocol. This prevents post-hoc decisions that introduce bias.

Essential Protocol Elements:

1. Justification: Why is this review needed?
2. Objectives: Specific research questions
3. Eligibility Criteria: Population, intervention, comparators, outcomes, study designs, publication dates, languages
4. Search Strategy: Databases to search, date ranges, search terms (with full Boolean strings)
5. Study Selection Process: How many reviewers, how conflicts resolved
6. Data Extraction: What data you’ll extract and how (use a standardized form)
7. Quality Assessment: Tool you’ll use (e.g., Cochrane Risk of Bias, Joanna Briggs Institute checklist)
8. Synthesis Plans: How you’ll combine findings (qualitative narrative or meta-analysis)

Where to Register Your Protocol:

• PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews): The gold standard for healthcare reviews. Registration is free and required by many journals. Learn more about PROSPERO registration
• OSF Registries: Open Science Framework for non-health fields
• Institutional Repository: Some universities accept local registration

Tip: Even if you don’t formally register, write a detailed protocol document and stick to it. This is a hallmark of systematic review rigor.

Step 3: Design a Comprehensive Search Strategy

This is the most time-consuming step. You must search multiple databases exhaustively to capture all relevant literature.

Key Databases by Discipline:

• Health/Medicine: PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science
• Education: ERIC, PsycINFO, Education Source
• Social Sciences: Scopus, Web of Science, SocINDEX
• Business/Economics: Business Source Complete, EconLit
• Engineering: IEEE Xplore, Compendex, Scopus

Search Strategy Components:

1. Identify Search Terms:
   • Start with your main concepts (from PICO)
   • Use controlled vocabulary (e.g., MeSH terms in PubMed)
   • Include synonyms, acronyms, spelling variations
   • Check reference lists of relevant articles for additional terms
2. Construct Boolean Search Strings:

   Example for diabetes + metformin:
   (diabetes mellitus, type 2[MeSH] OR "type 2 diabetes" OR T2DM) 
   AND (metformin[MeSH] OR metformin)
   

3. Apply Filters (carefully!):
   • Publication date range (usually last 5-10 years, but check field norms)
   • Language (usually English only unless you can read multiple languages)
   • Study design (RCTs only, or include observational?)
   • Age groups, human/animal studies
4. Additional Sources:
   • Hand-search key journals
   • Check citations of included articles (backward citation searching)
   • Search for ongoing studies in ClinicalTrials.gov or similar
   • Grey literature: theses, conference abstracts, government reports

Document Everything: Keep a detailed search log for each database: date searched, exact query, number of results, filters applied. This will become part of your PRISMA flow diagram.

Step 4: Screen Studies for Eligibility

After running searches across all databases, you’ll have hundreds (or thousands) of results. Now you must screen them systematically.

Screening Process:

1. Deduplicate: Remove duplicate records using reference management software (EndNote, Zotero, Mendeley) or systematic review tools (Covidence, Rayyan)
2. Initial Title/Abstract Screening: Two independent reviewers assess each record against eligibility criteria. Exclude obviously irrelevant studies.
3. Full-Text Screening: Retrieve full texts for all potentially relevant studies. Two independent reviewers check full articles against criteria.
4. Resolve Disagreements: A third reviewer adjudicates conflicts between first two reviewers.

PRISMA Flow Diagram Requirements:

• Records identified through database searching (n = total)
• Additional records identified through other sources
• Duplicates removed
• Records screened (titles/abstracts)
• Records excluded
• Full-text articles assessed for eligibility
• Full-text articles excluded (with reasons)
• Studies included in qualitative synthesis
• Studies included in quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis)

Screening Tips:

• Use screening tools like Rayyan (free), Covidence, or DistillerSR to streamline the process
• Create clear inclusion/exclusion decision rules before starting
• Pilot test your screening form on 50-100 articles to calibrate reviewers
• Keep a record of excluded studies and reasons (essential for PRISMA)

Step 5: Extract Data Systematically

For each included study, you need to extract standardized data onto a data extraction form.

Typical Data Extraction Fields:

• Study identification: Author, year, title, journal
• Study characteristics: Design (RCT, cohort, qualitative), setting, sample size, population demographics
• Intervention details: Description, duration, provider, adherence
• Outcomes: Primary/secondary outcomes, measurement tools, results (means, SDs, proportions)
• Funding sources, conflicts of interest
• Quality assessment scores

Create a Spreadsheet or Use Specialized Software:

• Excel/Google Sheets (simple but manual)
• REDCap (if your institution has it)
• Systematic review software (Covidence, JBI Sumari)
• Custom form in Word/PDF

Pilot Your Extraction Form: Test on 5-10 studies to ensure all necessary data is captured and forms are clear.

Step 6: Assess Study Quality and Risk of Bias

You cannot synthesize studies without evaluating their methodological quality. This step ensures your conclusions are based on reliable evidence.

Quality Assessment Tools by Study Design:

• Checklists exist for nearly every study design. Search “quality assessment tool [your study design].”

Conduct Quality Assessment: Two independent reviewers rate each study. Resolve conflicts via consensus or third reviewer.

Report Results: Create a table showing risk of bias for each included study across domains. This transparency is essential for interpreting your findings.

Step 7: Synthesize Findings

Now you’re ready to answer your research question by combining the evidence.

Two Main Synthesis Approaches:

A. Qualitative Synthesis (Narrative):

• Used when studies are too heterogeneous for statistical pooling
• Organized by themes, concepts, or outcomes
• Presented in text, tables, and matrices
• Clearly explain how studies agree or disagree
• Highlight gaps in evidence

B. Quantitative Synthesis (Meta-Analysis):

• Statistically combine effect sizes from similar studies
• Requires homogeneity in populations, interventions, and outcomes
• Uses statistical models: fixed-effect (assumes one true effect) or random-effects (allows true effects to vary)
• Visualized with forest plots
• Assess heterogeneity with I² statistic (values >50% suggest moderate-high heterogeneity)
• Investigate sources of heterogeneity via subgroup analyses

Meta-Analysis Basics:

• Effect sizes: For continuous outcomes (mean difference, standardized mean difference); for dichotomous outcomes (risk ratio, odds ratio)
• Software: RevMan (Cochrane), Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA), R (meta package), Stata
• Always assess publication bias with funnel plots (if >10 studies)

Important: Meta-analysis is only appropriate when studies are sufficiently similar. Never force it. A high-quality narrative synthesis is better than a forced, misleading meta-analysis.

Step 8: Write the Systematic Review Report

Follow the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 guidelines for optimal transparency and completeness. PRISMA is now standard for systematic reviews in most journals.

PRISMA Checklist Items (27 total):

• Title: Identify as systematic review
• Abstract: Structured summary
• Introduction: Rationale and objectives
• Methods: Protocol, eligibility criteria, information sources, search strategy, selection process, data collection, quality assessment, synthesis methods
• Results: Study selection flow diagram, study characteristics, risk of bias, results of individual studies, synthesis results
• Discussion: Summary of evidence, limitations, conclusions

Structure Your Article:

1. Title: Clear, includes “systematic review” or “systematic literature review”
2. Abstract: 250-300 words, structured (Background, Methods, Results, Conclusion)
3. Introduction: Context, research question, importance
4. Methods: Detailed protocol description (so readers could reproduce it)
5. Results: PRISMA flow diagram, study characteristics table, risk of bias assessment, synthesis findings
6. Discussion: Interpretation, limitations (both review and included studies), implications
7. References: Use reference manager
8. Appendices: Full search strategies, data extraction forms, quality assessment details

Common Mistakes to Avoid:

• ❌ Vague or overly broad research question
• ❌ Incomplete search (missing key databases or grey literature)
• ❌ No dual review of search/selection/extraction
• ❌ Skipping quality assessment or using inappropriate tool
• ❌ Synthesizing without assessing heterogeneity
• ❌ Not registering a protocol (when possible)
• ❌ Failing to report limitations
• ❌ Not following PRISMA guidelines

Systematic Review Templates and Checklists

To help you get started, here’s a simplified workflow checklist:

Pre-Search Checklist

• Research question formulated using PICO/SPICE/etc.
• Inclusion/exclusion criteria defined (PICOS: add study designs)
• Protocol drafted (even if not registered)
• Databases identified
• Search strategy drafted with controlled vocabulary
• Reference management software set up
• Screening form created
• Data extraction form designed
• Quality assessment tool selected
• Second reviewer recruited

During Review Checklist

• Run searches in all databases with complete documentation
• Export all records to reference manager
• Deduplicate records
• Title/abstract screening (2 reviewers)
• Retrieve full-text articles
• Full-text screening (2 reviewers)
• PRISMA flow diagram populated
• Data extraction completed (2 reviewers)
• Quality assessment completed (2 reviewers)
• Resolve all conflicts between reviewers
• Draft study characteristics table

Synthesis & Writing Checklist

• Assess study homogeneity
• Choose synthesis method (narrative or meta-analysis)
• If meta-analysis: compute effect sizes, check heterogeneity, create forest plot
• Draft results section with tables/figures
• Discuss findings in context of existing evidence
• Address limitations (of review AND included studies)
• Follow PRISMA checklist for completeness
• Include full search strategies in appendix
• Have supervisor/colleague review methodology section

When to Seek Professional Help

Systematic literature reviews are massive undertakings—often taking 6-18 months for students. Recognize when you need support:

• Time constraints: If you’re balancing coursework, job, and family, a full systematic review may be unrealistic
• Methodology uncertainty: If you’re struggling with search strategies, statistical synthesis, or quality assessment tools
• Publication goals: If you aim to publish in a peer-reviewed journal, methodological precision is essential

How Professional Services Can Help:

• Literature search strategy development (database selection, Boolean strings)
• Screening and data extraction (some students outsource title/abstract screening to speed process while maintaining quality control)
• Statistical meta-analysis (when you don’t have advanced training)
• Writing and editing (especially methods and results sections)
• PRISMA checklist verification and compliance

If you’re considering assistance, ensure the service employs subject-matter experts with systematic review experience. Look for transparent processes, sample work, and willingness to collaborate rather than completely outsource (you must understand and own the methodology).

Related Guides

• Editing Services: Polishing Your Academic Writing
• Thesis Proposal vs. Full Thesis: Key Differences
• AI Detectors 2026: What Works and What Doesn’t
• Beat Writer’s Block: Practical Strategies for Essay Writing Success 2026
• Using AI Ethically in Literature Reviews: A Student Guide

Conclusion & Next Steps

Writing a systematic literature review is a marathon, not a sprint. The key is meticulous planning, rigorous methodology, and transparent reporting. By following this guide and the PRISMA framework, you’ll produce a high-quality review that withstands academic scrutiny.

Immediate Next Steps:

1. Week 1-2: Finalize your research question using PICO and draft your protocol
2. Week 3-4: Develop search strategy, register protocol (if applicable), begin database searches
3. Month 2: Complete screening and data extraction
4. Month 3: Assess quality, begin synthesis, draft methods and results
5. Month 4: Complete synthesis, write discussion and conclusion
6. Month 5: Revise, ensure PRISMA compliance, submit for feedback or publication

Need Help Getting Started? Our academic experts specialize in systematic review methodology, from protocol development to meta-analysis. Contact us for a consultation or browse our research assistance services to ensure your review meets the highest academic standards.

Key sources: PRISMA 2020 Statement, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Joanna Briggs Institute Manual, and university writing center guidelines.