Systematic Reviews

• EndNote: citation management software that allows you to import citations, organized them into folders and remove duplicates, as well as to format bibliographies and manuscripts.  DoIT offers it for $85 for current MU faculty.
• Zotero:  citation management software comparable to EndNote. Use the Groups feature to create a shared group for your systematic review.  Free.

• Covidence is a not-for-profit service dedicated to improving the use of evidence in healthcare decision-making. It's the primary screening and data extraction tool. Cochrane recommends it as the primary screening and extraction tool for systematic reviews.

• Cadima is a freely available online tool that supports the conduct of systematic reviews by guiding review authors through the evidence synthesis process. 

The University of Missouri has the SAS, SPSS, and STATA available through Software Anywhere. The following statistics software is also available for purchase:

• SAS - Available for $65 per license    
• SPSS - Available for $65 per license

The Social Sciences Statistics Center at Mizzou offers consultating services: http://sssc.missouri.edu/consulting.htm 

The Yale MeSH Analyzer is a tool you can use to compare the MeSH used for articles you have identified for your review already. It creates an analysis grid that helps easily identify the terms used for each article. Below is a how-to video:

A systematic review protocol states your rationale, hypothesis, and planned methodology.  Members of the team then use the protocol as a guide for conducting the research.  It is recommended that you register your protocol before conducting your review.  Registering your protocol will improve transparency as well as alerting other researchers of your intentions so efforts are not duplicated.

Where to Register Your Protocol

• Campbell Collaboration

  "The Campbell Collaboration promotes positive social and economic change through the production and use of systematic reviews and other evidence synthesis for evidence-based policy and practice."
  Disciplines: Business and Management, Crime and Justice, Disability, Education, International Development, Knowledge Translation and Implementation, Methods, Nutrition, and Social Welfare

• Cochrane

  "Our mission is to promote evidence-informed health decision-making by producing high-quality, relevant, accessible systematic reviews and other synthesized research evidence. Our work is internationally recognized as the benchmark for high-quality information about the effectiveness of health care."
  Disciplines: Healthcare

• PROSPERO

  An international database of prospectively registered systematic reviews in health and social care. Key features from the review protocol are recorded and maintained as a permanent record. (Does not accept scoping reviews.)
  Disciplines: Health and Social Care, Welfare, Public Health, Education, Crime, Justice, and International Development

• Open Science Framework

  An open source web application that connects and supports the research workflow. Researchers use the OSF to collaborate, document, archive, share, and register research projects, materials, and data. OSF can be used to pre-register a systematic or scoping review protocol and to share documents such as a Zotero library, search strategies, and data extraction forms.
  Disciplines: Multidisciplinary

• MECIR (Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews)

  Standards for the reporting of new Cochrane Intervention Reviews

• PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses)

  An evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. PRISMA focuses on the reporting of reviews evaluating randomized trials, but can also be used as a basis for reporting systematic reviews of other types of research, particularly evaluations of interventions.

• University of Kentucky's DMPTool: UK Libraries has developed a protocol development tool that is freely. You will find a template with detailed guidance and examples. Please do not use DMPTool to register your protocol, you will need to download the PDF and register it.

• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(7): e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
   
• Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Goetzsche PC, et al. (2009). The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration. PLoS Med 6(7): e1000100. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100

• MOOSE (Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology)

  an evidence-based, minimum set of recommendations for reporting randomized trials. It offers a standard way for authors to prepare reports of trial findings, facilitating their complete and transparent reporting, and aiding their critical appraisal and interpretation.

• Stroup DF et al. Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology - A Proposal for Reporting (pdf) JAMA 2000. 283(15):2008-2012.

• STARLITE Statement: Standards for Reporting Literature Searches (Sampling strategy, Type of study, Approaches, Range of years, Limits, Inclusion and exclusions, Terms used, Electronic sources)

• Booth A. "Brimful of STARLITE’’: toward standards for reporting literature searches. J Med Libr Assoc. 2006 Oct; 94(4):421-429, e205. PMID: 17082834 (PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE)
• Sandelowski M. In response to a "Brimful of Starlite". J Med Libr Assoc. 2007 Jul; 95(3):233, author reply 233. PMID: 17641751 (PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE)

• Table 3 Elements of the STARLITE mnemonic
  Element	Explanatory notes
  S: Sampling strategy	Comprehensive: attempts to identify all relevant studies on the topic Selective: attempts to identify all relevant studies but only within specified limits Purposive: samples from specific disciplines, years, journals
  T: Type of studies	Fully reported: describes actual study types (e.g., grounded theory) or designs to be included Partially reported: uses an ‘‘umbrella’’ category such as ‘‘qualitative studies’’ without defining what this means
  A: Approaches	Approaches other than electronic subject searches (see below) Example: hand-searching Citation snowballing
  R: Range of years (start date–end date)	Fully reported: includes start and end dates with justification for time period chosen Partially reported: includes start and end dates but only determined available coverage of databases
  L: Limits	Functional limits that are applied for logistic reasons but do not alter the topic conceptually (e.g., human, English etc.)
  I: Inclusion and exclusions	Conceptual limitations that mediate the scope of the topic area (e.g., geographical location, setting, or a specific focus of study)
  T: Terms used	Fully present: example of a sample search strategy from one or more of the main databases Partially present: reports terminology used but without evidence of search syntax and operators
  E: Electronic sources	Reports databases used and, optimally, search platforms and vendors to assist in replication