[Literature Review Title]

Authors: [Author Names and Affiliations] Date: [Date] Review Type: [Narrative / Systematic / Scoping / Meta-Analysis / Umbrella Review] Review Protocol: [PROSPERO ID if registered, or state "Not registered"] PRISMA Compliance: [Yes/No/Partial - specify which guidelines]

Abstract

Background: [Context and rationale]
Objectives: [Primary and secondary objectives]
Methods: [Databases, dates, selection criteria, quality assessment]
Results: [n studies included; key findings by theme]
Conclusions: [Main conclusions and implications]
Registration: [PROSPERO ID or "Not registered"]
Keywords: [5-8 keywords]

1. Introduction

1.1 Background and Context

[Provide background information on the topic. Establish why this literature review is important and timely. Discuss the broader context and current state of knowledge.]

1.2 Scope and Objectives

[Clearly define the scope of the review and state the specific objectives. What questions will this review address?]

Primary Research Questions:

1. [Research question 1]
2. [Research question 2]
3. [Research question 3]

1.3 Significance

[Explain the significance of this review. Why is it important to synthesize this literature now? What gaps does it fill?]

2. Methodology

2.1 Protocol and Registration

Protocol: [PROSPERO ID / OSF link / Not registered]
Deviations: [Document any protocol deviations]
PRISMA: [Checklist in Appendix B]

2.2 Search Strategy

Databases: [PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, bioRxiv, etc.]
Supplementary: [Citation chaining, grey literature, trial registries]

Search String Example:

("CRISPR"[Title/Abstract] OR "Cas9"[Title/Abstract]) AND 
("disease"[MeSH Terms]) AND ("2015/01/01"[Date] : "2024/12/31"[Date])

Dates: [YYYY-MM-DD to YYYY-MM-DD] | Executed: [Date]
Validation: [Key papers used to test search strategy]

2.3 Tools and Software

Screening: [Rayyan, Covidence, ASReview]
Analysis: [VOSviewer, R, Python]
Citation Management: [Zotero, Mendeley, EndNote]
AI Tools: [Any AI-assisted tools used; document validation approach]

2.4 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Inclusion Criteria:

• [Criterion 1: e.g., Published between 2015-2024]
• [Criterion 2: e.g., Peer-reviewed articles and preprints]
• [Criterion 3: e.g., English language]
• [Criterion 4: e.g., Human or animal studies]
• [Criterion 5: e.g., Original research or systematic reviews]

Exclusion Criteria:

• [Criterion 1: e.g., Case reports with n<5]
• [Criterion 2: e.g., Conference abstracts without full text]
• [Criterion 3: e.g., Editorials and commentaries]
• [Criterion 4: e.g., Duplicate publications]
• [Criterion 5: e.g., Retracted articles]
• [Criterion 6: e.g., Studies with unavailable full text after author contact]

2.5 Study Selection

Reviewers: [n independent reviewers] | Conflict resolution: [Method]
Inter-rater reliability: [Cohen's kappa = X]

PRISMA Flow:

Records identified: n=[X] → Deduplicated: n=[Y] → 
Title/abstract screened: n=[Y] → Full-text assessed: n=[Z] → Included: n=[N]

Exclusion reasons: [List with counts]

2.6 Data Extraction

Method: [Standardized form (Appendix E); pilot-tested on n studies]
Extractors: [n independent] | Verification: [Double-checked]

Items: Study ID, design, population, interventions/exposures, outcomes, statistics, funding, COI, bias domains

Missing data: [Author contact protocol]

2.7 Quality Assessment

Tool: [Cochrane RoB 2.0 / ROBINS-I / Newcastle-Ottawa / AMSTAR 2 / JBI]
Method: [2 independent reviewers; third for conflicts]
Rating: [Low/Moderate/High risk of bias]
Publication bias: [Funnel plots, Egger's test - if meta-analysis]

2.8 Synthesis and Analysis

Approach: [Narrative / Meta-analysis / Both]
Statistics (if meta-analysis): Effect measures, heterogeneity (I², τ²), sensitivity analyses, subgroups
Software: [RevMan, R, Stata]
Certainty: [GRADE framework; factors: bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision]

3. Results

3.1 Study Selection

Summary: [X records → Y deduplicated → Z full-text → N included (M in meta-analysis)]
Study types: [RCTs: n=X, Observational: n=Y, Reviews: n=Z]
Years: [Range; peak year]
Geography: [Countries represented]
Source: [Peer-reviewed: n=X, Preprints: n=Y]

3.2 Bibliometric Overview

[Optional: Trends, journal distribution, author networks, citations, keywords - if analyzed with VOSviewer or similar]

3.3 Study Characteristics

Quality: Low RoB: n=X ([%]); Moderate: n=Y ([%]); High: n=Z ([%])

3.4 Thematic Synthesis

[Organize by themes, NOT study-by-study. Synthesize across studies to identify consensus, controversies, and gaps.]

3.4.1 Theme 1: [Title]

Findings: [Synthesis of key findings from multiple studies]
Supporting studies: [X, Y, Z]
Contradictory evidence: [If any]
Certainty: [GRADE rating if applicable]

3.5 Methodological Approaches

Common methods: [Method 1 (n studies), Method 2 (n studies)]
Emerging techniques: [New approaches observed]
Methodological quality: [Overall assessment]

3.6 Meta-Analysis Results

[Include only if conducting meta-analysis]

Effect estimates: [Primary/secondary outcomes with 95% CI, p-values]
Heterogeneity: [I²=X%, τ²=Y, interpretation]
Subgroups & sensitivity: [Key findings from analyses]
Publication bias: [Funnel plot, Egger's p=X]
Forest plots: [Include for primary outcomes]

3.7 Knowledge Gaps

Knowledge: [Unanswered research questions]
Methodological: [Study design/measurement issues]
Translational: [Research-to-practice gaps]
Populations: [Underrepresented groups/contexts]

4. Discussion

4.1 Main Findings

[Synthesize key findings by research question]

Principal findings: [Top 3-5 takeaways]
Consensus: [Where studies agree]
Controversy: [Conflicting results]

4.2 Interpretation and Implications

Context: [How findings advance/challenge current understanding]
Mechanisms: [Potential explanations for observed patterns]

Implications for:

• Practice: [Actionable recommendations]
• Policy: [If relevant]
• Research: [Theoretical, methodological, priority directions]

4.3 Strengths and Limitations

Strengths: [Comprehensive search, rigorous methods, large evidence base, transparency]

Limitations:

• Search/selection: [Language bias, database coverage, grey literature, publication bias]
• Methodological: [Heterogeneity, study quality]
• Temporal: [Rapid evolution, search cutoff date]

Impact: [How limitations affect conclusions]

4.4 Comparison with Previous Reviews

[If relevant: How does this review update/differ from prior reviews?]

4.5 Future Research

Priority questions:

1. [Question] - Rationale, suggested approach, expected impact
2. [Question] - Rationale, suggested approach, expected impact
3. [Question] - Rationale, suggested approach, expected impact

Recommendations: [Methodological improvements, understudied populations, emerging technologies]

5. Conclusions

[Concise conclusions addressing research questions]

1. [Conclusion directly addressing primary research question]
2. [Key finding conclusion]
3. [Gap/future direction conclusion]

Evidence certainty: [High/Moderate/Low/Very Low]
Translation readiness: [Ready / Needs more research / Preliminary]

6. Declarations

Author Contributions

[CRediT taxonomy: Author 1 - Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing; Author 2 - Analysis, Review; etc.]

Funding

[Grant details with numbers] OR [No funding received]

Conflicts of Interest

[Author-specific declarations] OR [None]

Data Availability

Protocol: [PROSPERO/OSF ID or "Not registered"]
Data/Code: [Repository URL/DOI or "Available upon request"]
Materials: [Search strategies (Appendix A), PRISMA checklist (Appendix B), extraction form (Appendix E)]

Acknowledgments

[Contributors not meeting authorship criteria, librarians, patient involvement]

7. References

[Use consistent style: APA / Nature / Vancouver]

Format examples:

APA: Author, A. A., & Author, B. B. (Year). Title. Journal, volume(issue), pages. https://doi.org/xx.xxxx

Nature: Author, A. A. & Author, B. B. Title. J. Name volume, pages (year).

Vancouver: Author AA, Author BB. Title. J Abbrev. Year;volume(issue):pages. doi:xx.xxxx

1. [First reference]
2. [Second reference]
3. [Continue...]

8. Appendices

Appendix A: Search Strings

PubMed (Date: YYYY-MM-DD; Results: n)

[Complete search string with operators and MeSH terms]

[Repeat for each database: Scopus, Web of Science, bioRxiv, etc.]

Appendix B: PRISMA Checklist

Appendix C: Excluded Studies

Summary: Wrong population (n=X), Wrong outcome (n=Y), etc.

Appendix D: Quality Assessment

Tool: [Cochrane RoB 2.0 / ROBINS-I / Newcastle-Ottawa / etc.]

Appendix E: Data Extraction Form

STUDY: Author______ Year______ DOI______
DESIGN: □RCT □Cohort □Case-Control □Cross-sectional □Other______
POPULATION: n=_____ Age_____ Setting_____
INTERVENTION/EXPOSURE: _____
OUTCOMES: Primary_____ Secondary_____
RESULTS: Effect size_____ 95%CI_____ p=_____
QUALITY: □Low □Moderate □High RoB
FUNDING/COI: _____

Appendix F: Meta-Analysis Details

[Only if meta-analysis performed]

Software: [R 4.x.x with meta/metafor packages / RevMan / Stata]
Model: [Random-effects; justification]
Code: [Link to repository]
Sensitivity analyses: [Details]

Appendix G: Author Contacts

9. Supplementary Materials

[If applicable]

Tables: S1 (Full study characteristics), S2 (Quality scores), S3 (Subgroups), S4 (Sensitivity)
Figures: S1 (PRISMA diagram), S2 (Risk of bias), S3 (Funnel plot), S4 (Forest plots), S5 (Networks)
Data: S1 (Extraction file), S2 (Search results), S3 (Analysis code), S4 (PRISMA checklist)
Repository: [OSF/GitHub/Zenodo URL with DOI]

Review Metadata

Registration: [Registry] ID: [Number] (Date: YYYY-MM-DD)
Search dates: Initial: [Date]; Updated: [Date]
Version: [1.0] | Last updated: [Date]

Quality checks:

• Citations verified with verify_citations.py
• PRISMA checklist completed
• Search reproducible
• Independent data verification
• Code peer-reviewed
• All authors approved

Usage Notes

Review type adaptations:

• Systematic Review: Use all sections
• Meta-Analysis: Include sections 3.6, Appendix F
• Narrative Review: May omit some methodology detail
• Scoping Review: Follow PRISMA-ScR, may omit quality assessment

Key principles:

1. Remove all [bracketed placeholders]
2. Follow PRISMA 2020 guidelines
3. Pre-register when feasible (PROSPERO/OSF)
4. Use thematic synthesis, not study-by-study
5. Be transparent and reproducible
6. Verify all DOIs before submission
7. Make data/code openly available

Common pitfalls to avoid:

• Don't list studies - synthesize them
• Don't cherry-pick results
• Don't ignore limitations
• Don't overstate conclusions
• Don't skip publication bias assessment

Resources:

• PRISMA 2020: http://prisma-statement.org/
• PROSPERO: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/
• Cochrane Handbook: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook
• GRADE: https://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/

DELETE THIS SECTION FROM YOUR FINAL REVIEW