How to Conduct a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: A Guide for Clinicians

Abstract

Evidence-based practice relies on using research evidence to guide clinical decision-making. However, staying current with all published research can be challenging. Many clinicians use review articles that apply predefined methods to locate, identify, and summarize all available evidence on a topic to guide clinical decision-making. This paper discusses the role of review articles, including narrative, scoping, and systematic reviews, to synthesize existing evidence and generate new knowledge. It provides a step-by-step guide to conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis, covering key steps such as formulating a research question, selecting studies, evaluating evidence quality, and reporting results. This paper is intended as a resource for clinicians looking to learn how to conduct systematic reviews and advance evidence-based practice in the field.

Keywords: knowledge synthesis; meta-analysis; narrative review; review; scoping review; systematic review.

Fig. 1.

The review process. Modified from Reference 40. PICO = population, intervention, comparison(s), and outcome; MeSH = medical subject headings list of the National Library of Medicine; PRISMA = Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

Fig. 2.

An example of visual representation of a search strategy using the population, intervention, comparison(s), and outcome format. From Reference 50, with permission. MeSH = medical subject headings list of the National Library of Medicine.

Fig. 3.

An example of risk of bias assessment for randomized clinical trials. From Reference 50, with permission.

Fig. 4.

Explanations on an example of meta-analysis forest plot. From Reference 50, with permission.

Fig. 5.

An example of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flowchart. From Reference 50, with permission.