FAQ

A narrative review offers a thematic, interpretive overview of the literature on a topic and is typical of thesis chapter 2. A systematic review answers a focused question using a pre-registered protocol, a reproducible search, formal screening against inclusion/exclusion criteria, and structured quality appraisal. Systematic reviews follow PRISMA 2020 reporting; narrative reviews follow discipline conventions.

PROSPERO registration is expected for systematic reviews and meta-analyses in health-related fields and is strongly recommended for any protocol-driven review. Narrative, scoping, and rapid reviews are typically not registered on PROSPERO — scoping reviews can be registered on the Open Science Framework instead. Check your target journal and institution for specific requirements.

For a systematic review, plan on searching at least three subject-appropriate databases plus a source of grey literature. Health sciences reviews commonly use PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL; social science reviews often add PsycINFO, Scopus, or Web of Science. Your institution's research librarian can recommend the right combination for your topic.

At minimum, a reference manager (Zotero, Mendeley, or EndNote) and a spreadsheet (Excel or Google Sheets). For team-based systematic reviews, screening platforms like Covidence or Rayyan streamline title/abstract and full-text screening. Meta-analysts commonly use RevMan or R (the metafor package). None of these tools are required to start learning.

No. The Review Protocol is an independent educational resource produced by Angel Reyes / Subthesis. We reference PRISMA 2020, the Cochrane Handbook, and JBI methodology for teaching purposes only, and we are not endorsed by or affiliated with any of these organizations.

Yes. All templates on this site are released under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) license. You may adapt them for academic work and publication with attribution to Subthesis. For commercial use, please contact us through Subthesis.

Your institution's research librarian. Librarians are specialists in database structure, controlled vocabularies (MeSH, Emtree), and reproducible searching. This site provides general guidance; a librarian tailors the strategy to your specific question and institution's subscriptions.

No. The Review Protocol is an educational resource, not a peer-reviewed publication. We ground our guidance in established reporting standards (PRISMA, Cochrane, JBI) and widely cited methodology papers, but readers should verify requirements against their target journal and institution.

A scoping review maps the breadth, concepts, and gaps in the literature on a topic; a systematic review answers a specific question by synthesizing evidence against pre-specified criteria. Scoping reviews follow PRISMA-ScR; systematic reviews follow PRISMA 2020. Scoping reviews usually do not include formal quality appraisal or meta-analysis.

A rigorous systematic review typically takes six to eighteen months from protocol registration to submission, depending on team size, scope, and whether meta-analysis is included. Rapid reviews compress this timeline by using streamlined methods (single screener, limited databases, narrower inclusion).

PRISMA and Cochrane recommend dual independent screening and extraction, which requires at least two reviewers plus a tiebreaker. Solo systematic reviews are possible for student projects but should be transparently reported as a limitation. Scoping and narrative reviews can be conducted alone.

You can learn basic meta-analytic methods with guided practice, and tools like RevMan and the R metafor package make computation accessible. For complex analyses (network meta-analysis, individual participant data meta-analysis, multilevel models), collaboration with a statistician is strongly recommended.