All systematic reviews of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods literature should be reported in accordance with PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. (Please see the guidelines under general guidelines).
We DO NOT publish narrative reviews of literature
• Need for Review
• Review question/purpose
• Design
• Literature search
• Search results
• Review methods
• Conclusions
• Relevance to health science theory/research/practice
• Keywords
The main document should be organized under the following headings
Critical appraisal is an essential component of all kinds of reviews expect scoping reviews. Therefore, provide comprehensive details about the quality rating and scores of the reviewed studies along with the checklists and tools used for critical appraisal. Please provide strengths and limitations of each of the reviewed study in the literature summary tables so that readers can assess why and how studies were rated as high, low, or moderate quality.
Introduction:Use one short paragraph to briefly define the research or knowledge synthesis gap, and the significance of your review.
Background:Provide a succinct review of literature of any previous reviews on your chosen topic, highlight the significance of the review, and justify the choice of your review design.
Purpose:Provide one clear purpose and review questions.
Review Type:Explicitly name the type of review and provide justification and supporting citations.
Search Strategy:Identify the databases search, the MESH terms, keywords, and indexed terms used for literature search. Use PRISMA guidelines to present your search strategy.
Search Results:First provide the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the studies and then present the outcomes of literature search.
Data Extraction:Provide details about the methods of data extraction and the rationale for using certain methods. If literature summary tables were developed, outline the components extracted from the studies and provide summary tables with the submission.
Data Synthesis:The methods of data synthesis are diverse for various types of reviews. Please adhere to the correct method of data synthesis. For example, qualitative systematic reviews should use thematic synthesis, or critical interpretative synthesis, or meta-ethnography for literature synthesis. DO NOT use thematic analysis for synthesis of review because thematic analysis is used for data analysis in empirical qualitative studies. For quantitative reviews and meta-analysis, clearly outline the statistical model that has been applied to perform meta-analysis. In addition, report statistical methods applied to estimate the pooled effect size and assess heterogeneity and publication bias. Provide details of formulas, if any, applied to convert effect size of individual studies included in the meta-analysis. Clearly describe the amount and nature of missing data and how the missing data were handled.
Critical Appraisal: Critical appraisal is an essential component of all kinds of reviews expect scoping reviews. Therefore, provide comprehensive details about the quality rating and scores of the reviewed studies along with the checklists and tools used for critical appraisal. Please provide strengths and limitations of each of the reviewed study in the literature summary tables so that readers can assess why and how studies were rated as high, low, or moderate quality.
Findings: Report your findings under relevant headings and themes. Please do not repeat the information of tables in the findings and vice versa. Tables should be included within the manuscript in the designated section.
Discussion: Compare your research findings with national and international literature and outline areas for practice, research, and implications for practice and policymaking. The limitations should be included in this section as a separate paragraph.
DO NOT repeat your research findings in this section.
Relevance to health science theory/research/practice: Choose one of the listed themes and present the contribution of your manuscript for the global health care community.
Conclusions: Conclusions should not repeat the key findings. Instead, focus on outlining the meaningful contribution of your manuscript and take-home messages for specialists and non-specialists.
