Shodhyantri Engineering Services
Research · Analysis · Editing · Publication Support
Plan, run and report your systematic review transparently, from protocol and search strings to screening records, risk of bias and a complete PRISMA 2020 checklist.
Tell us about your systematic review support need. We reply within one working day.
Systematic review support at Shodhyantri guides scholars through a method that reviewers check line by line. A systematic review must show exactly how studies were found, screened, appraised and synthesised, so another researcher could repeat it. Most rejections come from gaps in that record: a search string that cannot be reproduced, unclear eligibility criteria, a flow diagram whose numbers do not add up, or no risk of bias assessment.
We work with you at each stage while you make the scientific decisions. We help frame the question with PICO or a suitable alternative, draft a protocol for registration, build database-specific search strings, organise screening in tools such as Rayyan, set up data extraction forms and prepare the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram and checklist. Where pooling is appropriate, our meta-analysis support can follow. Where it is not, we help you report a structured narrative synthesis.
PRISMA 2020 is the updated Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. It replaced the 2009 version and includes a 27-item checklist, an abstract checklist and revised flow diagram templates for new and updated reviews, including records found through registers, websites and citation searching. Many journals require the completed checklist at submission.
A systematic review normally starts with a registered protocol, often on PROSPERO for health-related reviews or on the Open Science Framework for other fields. It then follows a comprehensive search, duplicate screening by at least two reviewers, structured data extraction, quality or risk of bias appraisal using a recognised tool, and a synthesis that matches the evidence, whether statistical or narrative.
We help build Boolean strings with controlled vocabulary such as MeSH, adapted correctly for PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and other databases.
We help draft a protocol covering question, criteria, outcomes and synthesis plan so you can register it before screening begins.
We set up deduplication and screening workflows so every exclusion has a reason and the flow diagram numbers reconcile.
We help you pick suitable tools, such as RoB 2, ROBINS-I, Newcastle-Ottawa or JBI checklists, for the designs you include.
We map every PRISMA 2020 item to a page and section of your manuscript, which reviewers and editors check directly.
If studies are too different to pool, we help you write a structured narrative synthesis instead of forcing a meta-analysis.
Ten stages, each with a clear output. Nothing moves to the next stage until you have reviewed the last one.
— You review every stage first, then decide —
The question, criteria and planned methods are fixed and time-stamped before screening of studies begins.
Every database string, date and filter is recorded so another team could run the same search.
Counts at each stage add up, and reasons for full-text exclusions are listed in a supplementary table.
Every included study has a documented risk of bias rating using a tool suited to its design.
The chosen synthesis method fits the data, and any deviation from the protocol is reported openly.
All PRISMA 2020 items are addressed with page numbers, and the abstract follows the abstract checklist.
Every stage is shared with notes explaining what was changed and why. You and your supervisor check it, and the next stage starts only after your go-ahead.
| Common problem | How Shodhyantri helps |
|---|---|
| Searching only Google Scholar and calling the review systematic. | Search several bibliographic databases relevant to your field and report Google Scholar, if used, as a supplementary source. |
| Registering the protocol after screening is already finished. | Register before screening starts, and if late registration happened, state the date honestly in the methods section. |
| Flow diagram numbers that do not add up between stages. | Keep a running log of records at each step and reconcile totals before drawing the PRISMA diagram. |
| Using a single reviewer for all screening and extraction decisions. | Involve a second reviewer for at least a sample, report agreement and explain how disagreements were resolved. |
| Skipping risk of bias assessment or using an unsuitable tool. | Choose a tool designed for your included study designs and report judgements for every domain and study. |
| Reporting the full search string for only one database. | Provide the complete, exact string for every database in a supplementary file, including limits and dates. |
Search PROSPERO, Cochrane and major databases first. A recent review on the same question can make yours redundant.
List a few known relevant studies and confirm your string retrieves them. If not, revise terms before running searches.
Try the form on three studies with your co-reviewer. Ambiguous fields show up quickly and save rework later.
Keep a dated log of searches, decisions and protocol changes. Reviewers often ask for these details during revision.
PRISMA 2020 has separate diagrams for new reviews and updates, and for reviews that also search registers or websites.
Health journals often expect a certainty of evidence rating. Plan for it at protocol stage rather than adding it later.
If your last search is old by submission, rerun it. Editors prefer reviews that reflect the current literature.
Scoping reviews use PRISMA-ScR and other extensions exist. Pick the reporting guideline that matches your review type.
Your work is handled by people who read your field's literature, not by a single generalist.
A PhD-qualified specialist from your field who checks the research logic, gap and contribution.
Handles statistics, models and qualitative coding, and documents every analytical decision.
Improves structure, flow, clarity and academic tone without changing your meaning.
Builds and validates MATLAB, Python, ANSYS or COMSOL work where your study needs it.
Checks grammar, consistency, numbering, citations and the small errors examiners notice.
Applies your university or journal template, reference style and front matter exactly.
PRISMA 2020 is a reporting guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. It sets out what to report, not how to conduct the review. Many journals require a completed checklist and flow diagram at submission, and even where it is not mandatory, reviewers often expect it.
PROSPERO accepts health-related reviews with a health outcome. Many health journals expect registration. Reviews in other fields can register on the Open Science Framework or publish a protocol. Registration before screening shows that your methods were set in advance, which reviewers value.
Screening decisions are part of your scholarly judgement, so you and your co-reviewer make them. We set up the workflow, draft criteria that are easy to apply, help resolve unclear cases by explaining the criteria and check that the records and counts are consistent.
That is common. When designs, populations or outcomes differ too much, a meta-analysis may mislead. We help you write a structured narrative synthesis, grouping studies sensibly and following guidance such as SWiM, the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis reporting items, where relevant.
No. Journals decide through peer review, and reviewers may question your question, search or conclusions. We help make the methods transparent and the reporting complete, which removes many common reasons for rejection, but the decision always rests with the journal.
It depends on the field. Health reviews commonly use PubMed or MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL, while broader reviews often use Scopus and Web of Science. Education, psychology and engineering have their own databases. We suggest a set based on your topic and what your institution can access.
This page covers the review method and PRISMA reporting: protocol, searching, screening, appraisal and synthesis. Meta-analysis support focuses on the statistics after studies are chosen: effect sizes, pooling models, heterogeneity, forest and funnel plots and sensitivity analyses. Many projects use both.
We provide research guidance, statistical analysis, editing, formatting and training support. All research content remains the scholar's own work, in line with UGC and university academic integrity norms. We do not guarantee publication, acceptance, indexing or academic outcomes: journals decide through peer review and universities award degrees.
Share your topic, draft or data. We will tell you honestly what it needs, and what it does not, before you pay anything.