FAQs for Systematic and Scoping Reviews

Consider piloting small subset of studies to ensure your eligibility criteria are understood and applied consistently by all reviewers. This presents the opportunity to refine your eligibility criteria or data extraction form and process.

The studies used for piloting should meet your inclusion criteria as stated in the protocol and included in the final synthesis. 

Galter Library does not have an institutional subscription to Covidence or Rayyan. Review teams are responsible for securing and managing the screening tool of their choice.

Data extraction is decided by the team and reported in the protocol. Many factors such as team dynamics, timelines, extraction form, eligible studies, objectives and data elements, shape the process.

• Templates: There are no gold standard data extraction form. Existing templates can be customized based on the needs of the study. Remember to cite your source. Your team should develop custom data extraction forms tailored to the specific variables or outcomes of interest.
• Tools: Review teams select the best approach for their review. See the Project Management Tools for Systematic Reviews page or attend a Conducting a Systematic Review: Part 2 - Tools & Resources [class recording available on class page] for tips and related resources.

The selection of a data extraction tool is influenced by various factors, including resource availability as well as team workflow and preferences. Commonly used tools include:

• Excel: A simple yet powerful tool for custom data extraction tables, especially useful when the review requires specific data points not available in automated tools.
• Covidence: Provides an intuitive interface for customizable data extraction.
• RevMan: Cochrane's Review Manager software supports the entire review process, including data extraction and meta-analysis.
• DistillerSR: A paid tool that automates parts of the systematic review process, including data extraction.

More tools listed on the Multi-purpose and Screening and Data Extraction pages of the AI Resources for Literature Reviews GalterGuide.

There is no set minimum or standard number of articles that should undergo screening in a systematic or scoping review. The number of included studies will vary based on the research question, search strategy, and eligibility criteria. Some topics will generate large search results and high inclusion rate, while others result in very few eligible studies.

For guidance on handling non-English language articles in your review, refer to the Translation Tips for Non-English Language Articles page.

Yes, several AI and machine learning tools can assist with tasks like title/abstract screening and data extraction in systematic and scoping reviews. For an overview of tools and their uses, visit the AI Resources for Literature Reviews page.

Caution: Use such tools with care as there is limited evidence on their efficacy and accuracy.