Overview
Systematic reviews look simple from the outside — search, select, summarize — but reviewers soon meet decisions that textbooks treat briefly: how broad the question should be, how to build a reproducible search across several databases, how to handle disagreement between screeners, which risk-of-bias tool fits which study design, and when meta-analysis is appropriate. Training helps teams make these decisions deliberately and document them.
Our courses follow the review workflow, with hands-on work on each participant's or team's question. We draw on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (version 6.5 at the time of writing) and JBI methodology, use PRISMA 2020 and its extensions (PRISMA-S for searching, PRISMA-P for protocols, PRISMA-ScR for scoping reviews) for reporting, and practice in screening tools such as Covidence and Rayyan.
Training suits people doing their first review for a thesis or publication, and teams who want a shared protocol and consistent methods. If you need a review conducted with you rather than taught, see our systematic review support service.
Who it’s for and the problems it solves
This is for you if you are…
- Master's and doctoral students whose thesis includes a systematic or scoping review
- Clinicians, allied health and public health professionals starting a first review
- Research teams, librarians and guideline developers who want a common method
- Education, social policy and management researchers adapting systematic methods outside health
- Supervisors who want to support students conducting reviews
Common problems we help with
- Your search returns thousands of results, or almost none
- You are unsure whether you need a systematic, scoping or rapid review
- You do not know how to write or register a protocol
- Your team screens inconsistently and you are not sure how to resolve conflicts
- You are unsure which risk-of-bias tool to use or how to synthesize studies when meta-analysis is not possible
What’s included — and what isn’t
Included
- Choosing a review type: systematic, scoping, rapid, umbrella or mixed-methods review
- Framing the question with PICO, PEO, SPIDER or PCC and writing eligibility criteria
- Protocol writing and registration (PROSPERO for eligible health reviews, OSF Registries otherwise)
- Search strategy development: concepts, controlled vocabulary (MeSH, Emtree), free text, Boolean logic, translating across databases and documenting with PRISMA-S
- Screening in Covidence or Rayyan: pilot screening, dual independent review, conflict resolution and inter-rater agreement
- Data extraction forms and piloting
- Risk of bias and quality appraisal: RoB 2, ROBINS-I, Newcastle–Ottawa Scale, JBI and CASP checklists
- Synthesis: narrative synthesis and SWiM guidance, an introduction to meta-analysis and certainty of evidence with GRADE
- Reporting with PRISMA 2020, including the flow diagram and checklist
Not included
- Conducting the review for participants — they run their own searches, screening and synthesis
- Advanced meta-analysis modeling beyond an introduction (available through our meta-analysis service)
- Accredited or credit-bearing qualifications; certificates confirm attendance or completion only
What you receive
- Course program
- Session plan tailored to the group's discipline, review type and experience level.
- Protocol template and feedback
- A protocol template aligned with PRISMA-P and written feedback on each participant's or team's draft protocol.
- Search strategy clinic
- A hands-on session building and testing a search in at least one major database, with feedback on the documented strategy.
- Tool practice
- Guided practice in Covidence or Rayyan with a training set of records, including a calibration exercise.
- Materials and certificate
- Slides, extraction and appraisal templates, reading list and an optional certificate of attendance or completion.
How it works
Needs check
We ask about review questions, disciplines, database access, tools and experience.
Program
We agree session topics and whether training is spread over weeks (aligned with review progress) or intensive.
Workshops and practice
Participants work on their own questions, protocols and searches during and between sessions.
Feedback
Written feedback on protocols and search strategies, and a final session on synthesis and reporting.
Sample session outline (five sessions)
- Session 1: Question and review type
- Systematic vs scoping vs rapid reviews; framing with PICO/PCC; eligibility criteria; checking for existing reviews.
- Session 2: Protocol and registration
- PRISMA-P structure; planning methods in advance; PROSPERO eligibility and OSF alternatives; managing deviations.
- Session 3: Searching
- Concept blocks, subject headings, truncation, proximity operators; translating searches; grey literature; exporting to a reference manager; PRISMA-S reporting.
- Session 4: Screening, extraction and appraisal
- Covidence or Rayyan workflows; calibration and kappa; extraction form design; choosing and applying risk-of-bias tools.
- Session 5: Synthesis and reporting
- Narrative synthesis and SWiM; when meta-analysis is appropriate; GRADE overview; PRISMA 2020 flow diagram and checklist.
Learning outcomes
Participants finish the course with draft outputs they can use directly in their review, reviewed by a trainer.
- Select an appropriate review type and justify it
- Write a focused question and explicit eligibility criteria
- Draft a protocol ready for registration
- Build, test and document a reproducible multi-database search
- Run calibrated dual screening and resolve conflicts
- Choose a risk-of-bias tool that matches the study designs included
- Plan a synthesis and report the review using PRISMA 2020
Beyond health sciences
Systematic review methods grew up in medicine but are now common in education, management, software engineering and environmental science. Databases, appraisal tools and reporting expectations differ in these fields, and PROSPERO registration is limited to reviews with a health-related outcome. We adapt the course accordingly, for example using OSF Registries, discipline databases such as ERIC or Business Source, and appraisal tools suited to the study designs participants will actually encounter.
Common mistakes we train people to avoid
Reviews often run into trouble at predictable points. Training is the cheapest way to avoid them, because changing a protocol before searching is far easier than repairing a review afterward.
- A question too broad to synthesize or too narrow to find studies
- Searching only one database or only free-text terms
- Screening alone without calibration or a second reviewer on a sample
- Using a quality checklist designed for a different study design
- Calling a narrative summary a 'systematic review' without documented methods
What the work can look like
Illustrative example — fictional data
Illustrative training plan for a nursing review team
A team of four nurse researchers planned a first systematic review on interventions to reduce falls in care homes. This plan is an invented example.
Starting point
Draft PICO question, no protocol, access to MEDLINE, CINAHL and Covidence through their institution. None had screened in pairs before.
Program
Five fortnightly online sessions, timed so the protocol was ready for PROSPERO submission after session 2 and searches were run after session 3.
Feedback points
Eligibility criteria tightened around the care setting; search expanded with CINAHL subject headings; calibration on 100 records before full screening; RoB 2 selected for randomized trials and ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies.
Illustrative example with an invented team and plan.
What you’ll need to provide
- Each participant's or team's draft review question
- Details of database access through the institution (for example MEDLINE via Ovid or PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC, PsycINFO)
- Access to Covidence (often institutionally licensed) or a free Rayyan account
- Preferred schedule and format
- Any program or journal requirements for the review
You don’t need everything ready to ask for a quote — tell us what you have and we’ll say what’s missing.
What affects price and turnaround
Price depends on
- Number and length of sessions
- Individual or team training, and group size
- Written feedback on protocols and search strategies
- Discipline-specific tailoring (health vs education, management or engineering)
- Online or in-person delivery
Turnaround depends on
- Participants' access to databases and screening tools
- Whether sessions are spread to match review progress or run intensively
- Time for participants to draft protocols between sessions
Every project is quoted individually. How we price our work.
Questions people ask before starting
Do I need a librarian as well as this training?
If your institution offers librarian support for searching, use it. Our training complements it: participants arrive at librarian consultations with a clearer question and a draft strategy.
Can I register my review with PROSPERO?
PROSPERO accepts reviews with a health-related outcome. Many other reviews register on OSF Registries. We explain both and help you prepare the protocol; registration is submitted by you.
Will you teach meta-analysis?
The course introduces when and how meta-analysis is used, effect sizes and heterogeneity. Hands-on meta-analysis in R or Stata can be added as a separate module.
Is scoping review training included?
Yes, as an option. We cover JBI scoping review methodology, the PCC framework and PRISMA-ScR reporting, and explain how scoping and systematic reviews differ in purpose.
Do you provide a certificate?
Yes, a certificate of attendance or completion listing topics and hours. It is not an accredited qualification.