literature-review

A systematic literature review requires formulating a PICO research question, selecting databases like PubMed, designing a Boolean search strategy, screening records, extracting data, and synthesizing evidence using PRISMA reporting standards.

The difference lies in the objective: systematic reviews use PICO to synthesize evidence on a specific intervention, while scoping reviews map broader evidence landscapes to identify research gaps before formulating systematic review protocols.

Writing a PRISMA-compliant PubMed search strategy involves selecting relevant MeSH terms and keywords, combining them with Boolean operators, documenting the exact query strings, and tracking the screening flow to ensure reproducible research synthesis.

Use the PICO framework for research synthesis when your review focuses on specific clinical or intervention questions, requiring structured comparison between populations, interventions, comparators, and outcomes to guide targeted database selection and screening.

The best way to extract data and synthesize evidence for a scoping review is to systematically chart key variables from screened articles and synthesize findings narratively, adhering to PRISMA-ScR reporting standards to map existing literature.

Yes, this approach supports narrative literature reviews by guiding database selection and evidence synthesis, though PRISMA reporting standards are specifically designed for systematic and scoping reviews to ensure rigorous, reproducible research protocols.