The next steps of the review are your responsibility and the Library does not support this part of the process as part of our services charter. However, we have provided a brief summary of what comes next.
Once you have determined the articles for inclusion you need to extract any relevant data. This requires careful planning to ensure this step is managed appropriately (and in line with any ethics requirements). There are various tools and templates available for the extraction stage of your systematic review. Batten & Brackett (2021) discuss some useful methodologies.
Covidence provides a free downloadable manual "A Practical Guide: Data Extraction for Intervention Systematic Reviews" which provides definitions, insightful advice, real-world examples, links to the Cochrane Handbook, and downloadable templates. The manual is tailored to make the extraction process more accessible and efficient for researchers undertaking intervention systematic reviews.
Some analysis packages that can be used to manage extracted data include:
Depending on how much time has passed since you ran your literature searches, you may be required to re-run your searches in order to incorporate any new evidence into your review prior to publishing.
Synthesis is a stage in the systematic review process where extracted data are pooled together and evaluated. It is one of the most important stages of the systematic review process, as it determines the outcomes of the review. There are two commonly accepted methods of synthesis in systematic reviews:
This division is not absolute, and even if you are conducting a quantitative systematic review, aspects of qualitative data synthesis are relevant in explaining why studies that have been excluded differ from the findings of the meta-analysis. The Library has numerous resources that can help you with this stage.
One of the unique aspects of a systematic review is the inclusion of a detailed methodology that describes your process of searching for and selecting studies. Systematic reviews need to allow a reader to critically interpret the findings - to understand why sources were chosen, how they were assessed, and how conclusions were reached (Horsley, p. 55). Additionally, it allows your review to be replicated. As such, it is important not to take shortcuts when writing about your methodology. This is where your documentation becomes important. For advice on writing up your review, students can contact Student Academic Success (SAS) or sign up for their PhD workshops if eligible.
Choosing where to publish your review is usually determined at the beginning of the project, as this decision can influence your whole process. General advice about where to publish can be sought from your Liaison Librarians, and supervisors and colleagues can also be helpful in this regard.