Covidence breaks down how to write a methods section for a review study. Note that narrative reviews do not need as much front-loading for article screening, but you want to be as thorough as possible.

 

The methods section of your systematic review describes what you did, how you did it, and why. Readers need this information to interpret the results and conclusions of the review. Often, a lot of information needs to be distilled into just a few paragraphs. This can be a challenging task, but good preparation and the right tools will help you to set off in the right direction 

 

Systematic reviews are so-called because they are conducted in a way that is rigorous and replicable. So it’s important that these methods are reported in a way that is thorough, clear, and easy to navigate for the reader – whether that’s a patient, a healthcare worker, or a researcher. 

 

Like most things in a systematic review, the methods should be planned upfront and ideally described in detail in a project plan or protocol. Reviews of healthcare interventions follow the  PRISMA guidelines  for the minimum set of items to report in the methods section. But what else should be included? It’s a good idea to consider what readers will want to know about the review methods and whether the journal you’re planning to submit the work to has expectations on the reporting of methods. Finding out in advance will help you to plan what to include.

 

Keep it brief

 

The methods section should be succinct but include all the noteworthy information. This can be a difficult balance to achieve. A useful strategy is to aim for a brief description that signposts the reader to a separate section or sections of supporting information. This could include datasets, a flowchart to show what happened to the excluded studies, a collection of search strategies, and tables containing detailed information about the studies. This separation keeps the review short and simple while enabling the reader to drill down to the detail as needed. And if the methods follow a well-known or standard process, it might suffice to say so and give a reference, rather than describe the process at length. 

 

Follow a structure

 

A clear structure provides focus. Use of descriptive headings keeps the writing on track and helps the reader get to key information quickly. What should the structure of the methods section look like? As always, a lot depends on the type of review but it will certainly contain information relating to the following areas:

 

1. Selection criteria 

 

2. Search 

 

3. Data collection and analysis (not relevant for this class)

 

4. Study quality and risk of bias (not relevant for our class; requires three reviewers)

 

Let’s look at each of these in turn.

 

1. Selection criteria 

 

The criteria for including and excluding studies are listed here. This includes detail about the types of studies, the types of participants, the types of interventions and the types of outcomes and how they were measured. 

 

2. Search 

 

Comprehensive reporting of the search is important because this means it can be evaluated and replicated. The search strategies are included in the review, along with details of the databases searched. It’s also important to list any restrictions on the search (for example, language), describe how resources other than electronic databases were searched (for example,  non-indexed journals), and give the date that the searches were run.  The PRISMA-S extension provides guidance on reporting literature searches. 

 

(you are not doing a full systematic review, but you ARE using the systematic search strategy)

 

Conclusion

 

Careful planning, clear writing, and a structured approach are key to a good methods section. 

We can handle this paper for you

We Guarantee ZERO Plagiarism ZERO AI

Done by Professional writers from scratch