Skip to Main Content

Systematic & Scoping Review Guide

Why do a protocol?

Adherence to a pre-defined protocol is key to avoiding biases; it ensures that all important decisions have been made before the results are known
  • A protocol helps you clearly think through the review process and identify the steps involved and their sequence 
  • It removes ambiguity and potential mistakes/biases especially when you are working with a team
  • Prevents unnecessary duplication and waste of resources
  • Encourages prioritization and promotes collaboration
  • It alerts other researchers that a review is underway

 

Elements of a protocol

1.   Research question is clearly defined and answerable and usually becomes the title of the study

2.   Background to the review is brief and details the rationale for the study by addressing gaps in the literature

3.   Objectives of the review describes what is hoped to be achieved

4.   Administrative details such as proposed timeline, budget, staffing, etc.

5.   Inclusion and exclusion criteria for the studies to be considered in the review are clearly articulated

6.   Primary and secondary outcomes are defined

7.   Biases that are foreseen and a clear statement of how they will be addressed

8.   Preliminary search strategy (scoping search) that has been done to assess the body of evidence. This may change once you start the project.

9.   Screening process including number of reviewers and how conflicts will be resolved

10. Critical appraisal methodology and tools used 

11. Data extraction protocol, content, and table (what and how storing)

12. Data Management Plan

References

Al-Jundi A, Sakka S. Protocol writing in clinical research. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016 Nov;10(11):ZE10-ZE13.

Bettany-Saltikov J. Learning how to undertake a systematic review: Part 1. Nurs Stand. 2010;24(50):47-56.

Pollock A, Berge E. How to do a systematic review. Int J Stroke. 2018 Feb;13(2):138-156.

Resources for protocol templates

More reporting protocols can be found at the EQUATOR NETWORK (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research Network), an international initiative that seeks to improve the reliability and value of published health research literature by promoting transparent and accurate reporting and wider use of robust reporting guidelines.

 

Resources for Writing a Protocol and Planning a Systematic Review

Biccard BM, Rodseth RN. Taking an idea to a research protocol. South Afr J Anaesth Analg. 2014;20(1):14–18. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/22201173.2014.10844558

Liberati A, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000100. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

Yannascoli SM, Schenker ML, Carey JL, Baldwin KD. How to write a systematic review: a step-by-step guide. Univ Pa Orthop J. 2013; 23:64–69. https://doi.org/10.1097/BLO.0b013e31802c9098

Registering a Protocol

Protocols can be registered in

Deviations from the protocol must be reported when conducting a systematic review. They are allowed in a scoping review.