“The hallmark of a well-conducted systematic review is the transparency of its methods and the objectivity of its conclusions.” – Dr. Iain Chalmers, Founding Director of the Cochrane Collaboration.
Mastering Systematic Review Protocols: A Guide for 2024-2025
What are Systematic Review Protocols?
Systematic review protocols are comprehensive, pre-defined plans that outline the methodology for conducting a systematic review. These protocols serve as a roadmap, detailing the objectives, methods, and analytical approach of the review. In the context of 2024-2025 studies, these protocols have become increasingly crucial in ensuring transparency, reproducibility, and rigor in research synthesis across various scientific disciplines.
Why are Systematic Review Protocols Important in 2024-2025?
The importance of developing robust systematic review protocols for 2024-2025 studies cannot be overstated:
- Ensures transparency and reproducibility in the review process
- Minimizes bias and enhances methodological rigor
- Facilitates collaboration among research team members
- Allows for peer review of the methodology before conducting the review
- Supports registration in systematic review databases (e.g., PROSPERO)
- Addresses emerging challenges in data synthesis and meta-analysis
How to Write Effective Systematic Review Protocols for 2024-2025 Studies
As we navigate the research landscape of 2024-2025, here are key strategies for writing comprehensive systematic review protocols:
- Clearly define the research question using the PICO(S) framework
- Specify inclusion and exclusion criteria for studies
- Detail the search strategy, including databases and search terms
- Outline the screening and data extraction processes
- Describe the approach to assessing risk of bias in included studies
- Specify the methods for data synthesis and meta-analysis (if applicable)
- Address considerations for emerging technologies and data types
Anatomy of a Systematic Review Protocol for 2024-2025
Let’s break down the key components of an effective systematic review protocol:
This diagram illustrates the essential elements that form a comprehensive systematic review protocol. Each component plays a crucial role in ensuring a thorough, transparent, and reproducible review process.
Best Practices for Writing Systematic Review Protocols in 2024-2025
| Component | Best Practice | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Research Question | Use PICO(S) framework | “In adults with type 2 diabetes (P), how does intermittent fasting (I) compared to standard dietary advice (C) affect HbA1c levels (O) in randomized controlled trials (S)?” |
| Search Strategy | Include AI-assisted search tools | “We will use MEDLINE, Embase, and AI-powered LitSense for comprehensive literature identification.” |
| Eligibility Criteria | Specify study designs and data types | “We will include RCTs and prospective cohort studies, including those with wearable device data.” |
| Data Extraction | Use standardized, digital forms | “Data will be extracted using the REDCap electronic data capture tool, ensuring consistency across reviewers.” |
| Quality Assessment | Incorporate AI-assisted bias detection | “Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool, supplemented by the AI-driven BiasDetect algorithm.” |
Emerging Trends in Systematic Review Protocols for 2024-2025
- AI-Assisted Literature Screening: Incorporating machine learning algorithms to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of study selection.
- Living Systematic Reviews: Designing protocols for continuously updated reviews that incorporate new evidence as it becomes available.
- Network Meta-Analysis Protocols: Developing specialized protocols for complex, multi-intervention comparisons.
- Integration of Real-World Evidence: Incorporating protocols for synthesizing data from electronic health records and wearable devices.
- Open Science Practices: Emphasizing data sharing, code availability, and transparent reporting in protocols.
For more insights on crafting effective systematic review protocols, refer to the comprehensive guide published in the BMJ. Additionally, the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions provides valuable strategies for developing robust protocols across various research domains.
Editverse – Your Partner in Systematic Review Excellence
At Editverse, we understand the critical role of well-designed systematic review protocols in advancing scientific knowledge and informing evidence-based practice. Our team of experienced researchers and methodologists is here to help you craft comprehensive, rigorous protocols that not only meet the highest standards of systematic review methodology but also address the unique challenges of 2024-2025 research landscapes.
Our specialized services include:
- Protocol Development and Refinement
- PROSPERO Registration Support
- Advanced Search Strategy Design
- AI-Assisted Literature Screening Integration
Let us help you transform your systematic review protocols into powerful tools for knowledge synthesis. Our tailored approach ensures your protocols are not only methodologically sound but also aligned perfectly with the evolving standards of systematic reviews in 2024-2025.
Visit www.editverse.com to learn how we can elevate your systematic review protocols and amplify the impact of your research synthesis efforts.
Mastering the art of writing effective systematic review protocols is crucial for researchers navigating the complex landscape of evidence synthesis in 2024-2025. By developing comprehensive, transparent, and methodologically rigorous protocols, you can significantly enhance the quality, reproducibility, and impact of your systematic reviews.
Remember, at Editverse, our team of subject matter experts is always ready to support you in developing state-of-the-art systematic review protocols. Whether you’re grappling with complex search strategies, need assistance in integrating AI-assisted screening methods, or seek to refine your data synthesis approach, our tailored services can help you overcome challenges and produce protocols that set the standard for excellence in your field.
As we move further into 2024-2025, the landscape of systematic reviews continues to evolve, with increasing emphasis on living reviews, network meta-analyses, and the integration of diverse data types. By staying abreast of these trends and leveraging expert support, you can ensure that your systematic review protocols not only meet current best practices but also anticipate future developments in evidence synthesis methodologies.
Key Takeaways for Systematic Review Protocols in 2024-2025
- Embrace technological advancements, including AI-assisted literature screening and data extraction tools.
- Consider the potential for living systematic reviews in rapidly evolving fields.
- Incorporate plans for handling diverse data types, including real-world evidence and big data.
- Emphasize transparency and reproducibility through detailed reporting and open science practices.
- Anticipate the need for flexibility in protocols to address emerging research paradigms.
In conclusion, writing effective systematic review protocols for 2024-2025 studies requires a blend of methodological rigor, technological savvy, and forward-thinking approaches. By investing time and expertise in developing comprehensive protocols, researchers can lay a solid foundation for high-quality systematic reviews that significantly contribute to their fields of study.
Embrace the power of well-crafted systematic review protocols to elevate the quality and impact of your research synthesis efforts. With the right approach and support, your systematic reviews can become powerful tools for advancing knowledge and informing evidence-based practice in the dynamic research environment of 2024-2025.
Editverse – High-Quality Manuscript Writing and Data-Analysis Services
At Editverse, we understand the critical role of effective communication in scientific research. Our team of experienced researchers and communication experts is here to help you create compelling poster presentations that capture the essence of your research and engage your audience at prestigious conferences and journals like Nature or JAMA.
Our specialized services include:
- Manuscript Editing and Enhancement
- Advanced Data Analysis and Visualization
- Peer Review Support
- Publication Strategy Consultation
Let us help you transform your research into visually striking and scientifically rigorous poster presentations. Our tailored approach ensures your work not only meets the highest standards of academic communication but also effectively highlights the unique value of your research.
Discover how we can elevate your research presentations and amplify the impact of your work in 2024-2025 and beyond.
Ready to take your systematic review protocols to the next level? Contact EditVerse today and discover how our expert team can support you in crafting protocols that set new standards in systematic review methodology for 2024-2025 and beyond.
Looking ahead to 2024-2025, writing strong systematic review protocols is key. By 2024 to 2025, we expect a big jump in systematic reviews, aiming for 8000s to1. This shift will change how research is done and viewed in medicine. Systematic reviews, with careful protocols, help combine what we already know. They lead to reliable results that help in making decisions in research, healthcare, and policy.
The Cochrane Collaboration started in 1993 and leads in systematic reviews. It sets the standard for how they are done1. The PRISMA extensions, like PRISMA-PC (2014), PRISMA-RR (2015 updated in 2024), and PRISMA-Ethics (2018), show how systematic reviews can adapt to various needs and areas1. Following the PCORI Methodology Standards ensures your reviews focus on patient outcomes and quality evidence1.
Key Takeaways
- Systematic reviews will see a significant increase by 2024-2025, reaching the range of 8000s to 9000s1.
- The Cochrane Collaboration has revolutionized the conduct and perception of systematic reviews in medical research1.
- PRISMA extensions demonstrate the adaptability of systematic reviews to diverse research needs and domains1.
- PCORI Methodology Standards ensure patient-focused, high-quality systematic reviews1.
- Adherence to research standards and protocols is crucial for trustworthy systematic review findings.
Importance of Systematic Reviews for Future Research
Systematic reviews are key for combining evidence and planning future research. They are different from narrative reviews because they follow a strict method. This method helps reduce bias and gives reliable results. Systematic literature reviews are now vital in medical sciences, with a big increase since 20102.
Key Role in Combining Evidence
Systematic reviews are crucial for combining evidence from many studies. They use meta-analysis to bring together qualitative data. This helps find links between variables and see how well treatments work2. Keeping systematic reviews up to date is important as new research comes out, making them even more valuable2.
Structured Method for Trustworthy Findings
The strength of systematic reviews is their structured approach. They follow a set protocol to lessen bias. The PRISMA guidelines are widely used for reporting these reviews, making them clear and consistent2. With the Cochrane Collaboration’s help, systematic reviews are seen as a trusted source of evidence for evidence-based practice2.
Systematic reviews bring together the best evidence, helping practitioners and policymakers make better decisions. This leads to better outcomes in many areas. They are now a key part of research planning, making sure new studies are based on solid knowledge and fill important gaps2.
Understanding Systematic Reviews
Systematic reviews are a detailed look at existing research that answer specific questions3. They are seen as the top source of research evidence, especially in evidence-based medicine3. Unlike traditional reviews, they look at both published and unpublished research, known as grey literature3. These reviews can be qualitative, quantitative, or meta-analysis3.
Detailed Analysis to Answer Specific Questions
Qualitative reviews summarize study results without combining them statistically. Quantitative reviews use stats to merge study results3. Meta-analysis reviews combine the results of similar studies3. Writing a systematic review involves several steps: asking a research question, making a protocol, and setting criteria for what to include or exclude3. Then, you search for studies, pick them, check their quality, extract data, analyze and present findings, interpret them, and update the review as needed3.
The Cochrane Collaboration’s Impact
The Cochrane Collaboration started in Oxford, UK, in 1993 and changed how systematic reviews are done and viewed in medical research. Cochrane training programs, like those by Cochrane Nigeria, highlight the value of systematic reviews in research3. Studies show that Cochrane reviews often take over 2 years to publish after the protocol, but most meta-analyses are published within a year4. Over time, the quality of reporting in meta-analyses has gotten better, according to a random study4.
“Systematic reviews are a detailed analysis aimed at answering specific research questions. They are different from traditional reviews because they follow a strict method and focus on reducing bias.”
The Cochrane Collaboration’s work on systematic reviews is huge, setting high standards for evidence-based research3. Their efforts have made systematic reviews a go-to method for combining research and guiding medical decisions3.
Benefits of Systematic Reviews in Research
Systematic reviews are a key tool in making Evidence-Based Practice more effective. They bring together all the research on a topic for a detailed look. This helps practitioners and policymakers make better decisions5.
These reviews do more than just collect data. They help spot research gaps and spark new research questions. This process is vital for moving science forward and improving results.
Supporting Evidence-Based Practice
Systematic reviews look at many studies to back up Evidence-Based Practice. They highlight issues or biases in single studies. This makes sure the evidence is reliable and useful5.
Identifying Research Gaps and New Questions
The growth of PRISMA Extensions like PRISMA-PC and PRISMA-Ethics shows how systematic reviews are adapting5. The quality of these reviews has also gotten better over time6. They help find gaps in research, leading to new questions and discoveries.
“Systematic reviews carefully look at lots of studies to support Evidence-Based Practice, highlighting problems in single studies and making sure evidence is trustworthy and useful. This is key for moving research forward.”
In summary, systematic reviews are key for improving Evidence-Based Practice and sparking new Research Questions. They combine existing knowledge to help decision-makers and find important Research Gaps. This process is vital for a stronger, more impactful research world56.
Key Features of Systematic Reviews
Systematic reviews are key in research, offering a dependable way to summarize evidence on certain topics. They follow a detailed process to check study validity and lessen bias7. This makes them a trusted source for future studies and evidence-based practices.
Validity Assessments and Bias Reduction
Systematic reviews carefully check the validity and bias risk of studies. Researchers use tools like the ROBIS (Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews) tool8. This thorough check helps spot and fix bias, making sure conclusions are based on solid evidence.
Adherence to Research Standards
Systematic reviews stick to strict research standards, like the PCORI Methodology Standards7. This ensures the review process is clear and honest. It helps researchers work together, involve patients, and keep a patient-centered focus7. By doing this, systematic reviews show a strong commitment to quality and advancing research.
In short, systematic reviews stand out for their thorough checks, efforts to reduce bias, and sticking to research standards. These features make them a vital tool for making evidence-based decisions and guiding future research.
Writing Systematic Review Protocols for 2024-2025 Studies
Starting your research for the 2024-2025 year? It’s key to know about Systematic Review Protocols. These are the basics for doing thorough and reliable systematic reviews. They help move knowledge forward in your area9.
When it comes to Systematic Review Protocols, the Literature Search Strategies are crucial. You need to design your search well to find all the studies and evidence you need. Using databases and Boolean operators right helps you search wider and deeper, giving you better results9.
Don’t forget about Data Extraction Protocols. These tell you how to collect and organize data from the studies you pick. Having clear protocols keeps things consistent, reduces bias, and keeps your review trustworthy. This step is key for making sense of the evidence and drawing solid conclusions9.
Planning and documenting your Systematic Review Protocols carefully makes your research more original, trustworthy, and impactful. This detailed approach boosts the validity of your findings. It also helps other researchers build on your work with confidence9.
When working on your Systematic Review Protocols for 2024-2025, check out the latest resources and guidelines. This ensures your methods match the best practices in your field9.
By focusing on the quality of your Systematic Review Protocols, you help advance research. You also make a big impact on understanding your subject10.
Defining Literature Search Strategies
Creating strong literature search strategies is key for a thorough systematic review11. A detailed search plan makes a systematic review more reliable and clear11. It’s important to use both controlled vocabulary and text words in your search, depending on the database11. Also, searching each database and noting the hits helps make your process clear11.
Databases and Boolean Operators
Researchers often use trusted databases like Scopus and PubMed for their searches12. These databases are full of scholarly work, making them great for systematic reviews. Using Boolean operators like AND, OR, and NOT can help refine your search13. These operators help you focus on the most relevant studies for your review.
Following strict research standards is key for a systematic review11. Checking the quality of studies with the right tools is a good practice11. Also, pulling important data from studies, like their design and results, is crucial for a full analysis11.
Finally, it’s important to share your search strategy in detail, following PRISMA guidelines11. This makes your search clear and lets readers see how thorough you were.
“A strong literature search strategy is the base of a good systematic review. It prepares you for a deep and trustworthy look at the evidence.”
| Database | Strengths | Limitations |
|---|---|---|
| Scopus | – Covers a lot of peer-reviewed work – Offers citation data and tools | – Some places can’t access it – Might miss some gray literature |
| PubMed | – Covers a lot of life sciences literature – Includes MEDLINE, a top database for medical research | – Focuses mainly on clinical and medical studies – Might not cover all social science or humanities work |
Data Extraction Protocols
When you start a systematic review, data extraction protocols become key. It’s important to stay organized and consistent as you go through lots of articles. Tools like EndNote help by organizing articles, citing sources, and making reference lists. This makes your systematic review process smoother14.
Systematic reviews are used a lot in science, psychology, and medicine. They follow strict rules in each field14. It’s vital to set clear research questions using the PICOS framework. This helps you focus on the right data14.
The PRISMA statement is a big deal in reporting systematic reviews. Editors want authors to follow these guidelines14. The PROSPERO registry is also helpful, offering a big database of systematic reviews and advice14.
Here are some tips for making your data extraction protocols better:
- Be clear about the databases and search methods you’ll use, including MeSH terms and limits14.
- Have a detailed screening process to find the right studies14.
- Use a strong data extraction template for consistency and to get all the needed info14.
- Work with your team to stay organized and reduce mistakes during data extraction14.
Following these protocols can make your systematic review better and more reliable. This helps move knowledge forward in your field14.
“Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are key for combining evidence. They make research easier to find and help guide future studies and patient care.”
| Systematic Review Techniques | Organization Tools | Data Extraction Protocols |
|---|---|---|
| PRISMA guidelines | EndNote | PICOS framework |
| PROSPERO registry | Database search strategies | Screening and data extraction templates |
| Cochrane Collaboration standards | Collaborative team workflows | Consistency and quality control measures |
Risk of Bias Assessment
Doing a Risk of Bias Assessment is key to making sure your systematic review is reliable and valid. It helps spot potential bias sources. This lets you know the quality of the studies and the strength of the evidence. Tools like ROB2, ROBIN-I, help by looking at selection bias, performance bias, and attrition bias. These can change the real effects of the treatments being studied.
It’s important to know the difference between Intention-to-Treat (ITT) and Per-Protocol (PP) analyses. ITT analysis looks at all participants, even if they didn’t follow the treatment plan. PP analysis only looks at those who did follow it. Using both methods gives a full picture of how well the treatment works and if people followed it.
Tools for Analyzing Study Quality
Systematic reviewers use many tools to check the quality and risk of bias in studies. Some top tools are:
- Cochrane Risk of Bias (ROB2) tool: Looks at bias in different areas, like randomization and outcome measurement15.
- ROBIN-I (Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies – of Interventions): Checks bias in non-randomized studies, focusing on things like confounding and outcome measurement15.
- COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments): A detailed way to check the quality of studies on health outcomes15.
These tools help researchers check the quality of the evidence and spot bias. This is key for making reliable conclusions from the studies15.
Intention-to-Treat and Per-Protocol Analyses
When looking at how well an intervention works, consider both Intention-to-Treat (ITT) and Per-Protocol (PP) analyses. ITT looks at all participants, while PP only looks at those who followed the treatment16.
Looking at both gives a full view of the intervention’s success and how well people followed the treatment16. For example, a study might show a big effect in PP analysis but a smaller effect in ITT analysis. This means the treatment might only work for those who follow it closely16.
By doing a detailed Risk of Bias Assessment and looking at both ITT and PP analyses, you can make your systematic review better. This ensures the findings are trustworthy17.
Publication Bias and Heterogeneity
Starting your systematic review, you must tackle publication bias. This bias means studies with big or positive results get published more often than those with nothing significant or negative18. To get a true picture of the evidence, use funnel plots and statistical tests18.
Funnel Plots and Statistical Tests
Funnel plots are a visual tool to spot publication bias. They show the effect size of each study against its precision. A symmetrical funnel shape means there’s no bias18. Tests like Egger’s regression and Begg’s test give numbers on publication bias18.
Evaluating Study Differences
It’s also key to look at heterogeneity in your systematic review. Heterogeneity means the studies vary, and knowing this can give you insights19. Tools like Q, t², and I² measure heterogeneity, helping you decide which studies to include19.
By focusing on publication bias and heterogeneity, you make your systematic review reliable and valid. This careful approach helps you understand the evidence better and guides future research1819.
| Metric | Description |
|---|---|
| Q | A statistical test that measures the overall heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. A significant Q value indicates the presence of heterogeneity19. |
| t² | An estimate of the between-study variance, which provides a measure of the extent of heterogeneity19. |
| I² | A measure that describes the percentage of total variation across studies that is due to heterogeneity rather than chance. Values range from 0% to 100%, with higher values indicating greater heterogeneity19. |
“Well-conducted meta-analyses allow a more objective appraisal of the evidence than traditional narrative reviews.”19
Understanding and tackling these systematic review aspects leads to strong, reliable findings. These findings help advance your field1819.
Statistical Approaches in Systematic Reviews
When doing systematic reviews, it’s key to use strong Statistical Approaches. This ensures the results are reliable and valid. A big part of this is sensitivity analysis. It lets researchers see how changing the data or methods changes the results20. This helps understand the consistency of findings and how sure we are of our conclusions.
Implementing Sensitivity Analysis
Sensitivity analysis changes parts of the review, like what studies to include or how to analyze them20. This shows how different choices affect the results20. It helps see how solid the findings are and how much they depend on certain assumptions or methods20.
Researchers might leave out some studies or use different stats methods20. By seeing how these changes affect things, they can check if the findings stay the same. This tells them how sure they can be about their conclusions.
Reviews that use strong Statistical Approaches and sensitivity analysis give us trustworthy evidence20. This evidence helps guide future research and make better decisions20.
Using Statistical Approaches, like sensitivity analysis, is key in systematic reviews20. It helps check if the findings are consistent and if we can trust them20.
| Statistical Approach | Description | Benefits |
|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity Analysis | Changes parts of the review to see how different choices affect the results20. |
|
| Consistency of Findings | Looks at how stable and reliable the conclusions are with different methods or sensitivity analyses20. |
|
By using systematic reviews and strong Statistical Approaches, researchers help advance science and inform better practices20. Sensitivity analysis and checking consistency of findings are key. They make sure the research is credible and has an impact20.
“Systematic reviews with strong stats and thorough sensitivity analyses give us reliable evidence. This evidence guides future research and helps make better decisions.”
Collaboration and Adherence to Standards
Doing systematic reviews means working together with a team of experts. It’s important to have librarians and other researchers on your team. They bring skills and knowledge that are key to the project21.
For top-quality results, your review must follow established guidelines and methods. The PCORI Methodology Standards offer best practices for patient-focused studies. These standards help ensure your findings are trustworthy21.
Stick to research standards from start to finish, from searching for literature to analyzing data and reporting. This shows your work’s quality and builds trust in your findings2122.
Using a collaborative approach and high research standards makes your systematic reviews valuable. They follow systematic review guidelines and help advance science. This effort improves your research and helps the scientific community23.
Conclusion
Systematic reviews are key to improving Evidence-Based Practice and guiding future research. They bring together all the evidence in a thorough way. This gives practitioners and policymakers the best knowledge to make informed decisions, helping society24.
As more people use systematic reviews, keeping high standards and reducing bias is crucial. There are resources and tools to help researchers do this25.
These reviews have a clear and systematic way of looking at evidence. They help spot gaps in research and lead to new questions for future studies. This drives the growth of scientific knowledge24.
Systematic reviews combine evidence from many sources. They are key to building a strong base for Evidence-Based Practice. This lets professionals make choices based on data, helping individuals and communities.
As you move forward in research, learning about systematic reviews is vital. It helps produce findings that can change lives and shape the future25. Staying committed to careful methods, working together, and following standards makes your reviews valuable. It moves the field of knowledge forward.
FAQ
What are the key steps in writing systematic review protocols for 2024-2025 studies?
Why are systematic reviews important for future research?
How do systematic reviews differ from traditional narrative reviews?
What are the benefits of systematic reviews for evidence-based practice?
What are the key features of a well-conducted systematic review?
What are the essential elements of a literature search strategy for a systematic review?
How do data extraction protocols contribute to the reliability of systematic reviews?
Why is assessing the risk of bias essential in systematic reviews?
How do systematic reviews address publication bias and heterogeneity?
What are the key statistical approaches used in systematic reviews?
Source Links
- https://editverse.com/systematic-reviews-comprehensive-literature-analysis-techniques-for-2024-2025/
- https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/systematic-reviews-and-metaanalyses-in-the-medical-sciences-253321955/253321955
- https://www.onlineassignment-expert.com/blog/how-to-write-a-systematic-literature-review
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11064235/
- https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/introduction-to-systematic-reviews-and-metaanalysesacsrm/255007076
- https://www.wur.nl/en/show/library-lecture-can-systematic-literature-review-benefit-from-artificial-intelligence.htm
- https://editverse.com/how-to-write-a-literature-review-that-impresses-your-peers-in-2024/
- https://www.bera.ac.uk/blog/systematic-reviews-do-we-need-more-rigor-and-transparency
- https://uh.edu/financial/undergraduate/types-aid/scholarships/
- https://www.acls.org/competitions/acls-fellowships/
- https://www.slideshare.net/pubrica/why-search-strategy-is-important-while-writing-a-systematic-review-manuscript
- https://www.uis.no/en/student/course/DUH100_1&
- https://www.umgc.edu/current-students/learning-resources/writing-center/online-guide-to-writing/tutorial/chapter2/ch2-06
- https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/writingasystematicliteraturereviewpdf/265676686
- https://www.umit-tirol.at/page.cfm?vpath=departments/public_health/htads-continuing-education-program/—introduction-to-systematic-reviews-and-meta-analysis-&switchLocale=en_US
- https://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/observer/methods-preregistration-deviations.html
- https://www.linkedin.com/posts/seif-ismail-345090245_how-to-write-a-systematic-review-activity-7209171488048869376-WBJB
- https://www.uis.no/en/course/Duh200
- https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/systematic-reviewing/58150101
- https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/postgraduate/taught/courses/2024/statistics-medical-applications-msc
- https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-24-206.html
- https://globalhealth.georgetown.edu/essays/student-fellows-program-2024-2025-research-projects
- https://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/ampps/ampps-submission-guidelines
- https://www.houghton.edu/undergraduate/admission/apply/
- https://catalog.etown.edu/preview_program.php?catoid=43&poid=5220