Systematic review planning and management worksheet

Consider preregistration in PROSPERO or elsewhere before starting. Prespecifying screening and inclusion/exclusion criteria before searching and not changing them afterward is fundamental to credibility.

When to use this worksheet and what completion involves Fictional completed example

EvalCompass Worksheet

Systematic review planning and management worksheet

Method: Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Basic information

Define the review framework.

Completed example for this section (fictional)

This fictional example is for explanation. Adapt it to your own program. Your entries will not change.

Provisional review title: Learning support and scores on the same scale
PICO: population, intervention, comparison and outcome: P: eligible children; I: learning support; C: usual support; O: score after six months
Eligible designs: RCTs only / observational studies included, etc.: Plan to include RCTs
Languages: Japanese and English; record language omissions as a limitation
Publication years: Finalize before searching.
Responsible staff and start date: Staff A and B / July 2026 (fictional)
Preregistration number, such as PROSPERO: Not registered; consider a suitable register.

Reason for this entry: Do not present fictional A/B as real study bibliographic entries.

Provisional review title

PICO: population, intervention, comparison and outcome

Eligible designs: RCTs only / observational studies included, etc.

Languages

Publication years

Responsible staff and start date

Preregistration number, such as PROSPERO

Writing tips and explanation for this section

About this section

Define the review framework.

Do not present fictional A/B as real study bibliographic entries.

View the method explanation

Writing tips

Follow each field’s heading to record the program name, focus, period, and other details. Leave undecided matters clearly marked as unresolved.

Read the full fictional example

Search strategy record

Record each database's search strategy and date.

Completed example for this section (fictional)

This fictional example is for explanation. Adapt it to your own program. Your entries will not change.

Scroll horizontally to view the table

Database	Search strategy: keywords	Search date	Hits	Notes, such as filters
Plan to select educational research databases.	Combine learning support, population and comparison terms and retain executed searches.	Not conducted	Not calculated	Record search settings when executed.

Reason for this entry: Do not invent counts for searches not performed.

Scroll horizontally to view the table

Database	Search strategy: keywords	Search date	Hits	Notes, such as filters

Writing tips and explanation for this section

About this section

Record each database's search strategy and date.

Do not invent counts for searches not performed.

View the method explanation

Writing tips

Keep the information in each row aligned. Scroll wide tables horizontally to see every column.

Read the full fictional example

Screening management

Record stage counts following the PRISMA flow.

Completed example for this section (fictional)

This fictional example is for explanation. Adapt it to your own program. Your entries will not change.

Scroll horizontally to view the table

Screening stage	Count	Excluded count	Main exclusion reasons	Responsible person
Full-text assessment	2 fictional illustrative studies	Not calculated; actual searching not performed	Actual searching not performed	A and B (fictional)

Reason for this entry: Distinguish calculation examples from actual review progress.

Scroll horizontally to view the table

Screening stage	Count	Excluded count	Main exclusion reasons	Responsible person

Writing tips and explanation for this section

About this section

Record stage counts following the PRISMA flow.

Distinguish calculation examples from actual review progress.

View the method explanation

Writing tips

Keep the information in each row aligned. Scroll wide tables horizontally to see every column.

Read the full fictional example

Data extraction items

Design items extracted from each included study.

Completed example for this section (fictional)

This fictional example is for explanation. Adapt it to your own program. Your entries will not change.

Scroll horizontally to view the table

Study ID: author and year	Intervention content	Population	Outcome measures and effect sizes	Assess risk of bias	Notes
Fictional A, not a real study	Learning support	Assume identically defined eligible children.	Score mean difference 2, SE 1	Not assessed	Formula illustration
Fictional B, not a real study	Assume equivalent learning support.	Assume identically defined eligible children.	Score mean difference 4, SE 1	Not assessed	Formula illustration

Reason for this entry: Distinguish mean differences and standard errors.

Scroll horizontally to view the table

Study ID: author and year	Intervention content	Population	Outcome measures and effect sizes	Assess risk of bias	Notes

Writing tips and explanation for this section

About this section

Design items extracted from each included study.

Distinguish mean differences and standard errors.

View the method explanation

Writing tips

Keep the information in each row aligned. Scroll wide tables horizontally to see every column.

Read the full fictional example

Completion check

Completed example for this section (fictional)

This fictional example is for explanation. Adapt it to your own program. Your entries will not change.

☑ Checked: Documented PICO beforehand
☐ Not checked: Finalized inclusion and exclusion criteria before searching
☐ Not checked: At least 2 independent screeners
☐ Not checked: Selected a risk-of-bias tool and applied it to all included studies
☐ Not checked: Created a PRISMA flow diagram
☐ Not checked: Examined bias from missing studies or results and recorded funnel plot or other applicability, findings or reasons for non-use

Reason for this entry: Review procedures beyond defining the question have not been conducted. Illustrating formulas with two studies is not a completed systematic review.

Documented PICO beforehand
Finalized inclusion and exclusion criteria before searching
At least 2 independent screeners
Selected a risk-of-bias tool and applied it to all included studies
Created a PRISMA flow diagram
Examined bias from missing studies or results and recorded funnel plot or other applicability, findings or reasons for non-use

Writing tips and explanation for this section

About this section

Review procedures beyond defining the question have not been conducted. Illustrating formulas with two studies is not a completed systematic review.

View the method explanation

Writing tips

Read each item and check those you have confirmed. Do not use the fictional example’s checkbox states as findings about your own program.

Read the full fictional example

Before writing, check when to use the worksheet and what completion involves

Systematic review planning and management worksheet is a worksheet for applying Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review in meetings or individual work. For the overall duration of the method, use “Planning example, not a universal standard duration: 3–12 months for searching, screening, extraction and statistical synthesis” as a reference, adjusting for scale and resources. Fill in what you know provisionally and leave unresolved matters as questions to check next.

When this worksheet is useful

When comprehensively synthesizing evidence on interventions such as employment training or conditional cash transfers
When conflicting evaluation studies need statistical organization to clarify overall conclusions
When systematically organizing studies and, if pooling is appropriate, showing average effects and uncertainty

Participants and preparation

At least 2 independent reviewers for screening and extraction, and a statistician for meta-analysis. Collaboration with external statistical and information specialists for search strategies is recommended.

Bring the materials used for decisions, existing data, and differing stakeholder views to help complete the worksheet.

Suggested order

1. Basic informationDefine the review framework.
2. Search strategy recordRecord each database's search strategy and date.
3. Screening managementRecord stage counts following the PRISMA flow.
4. Data extraction itemsDesign items extracted from each included study.
5. Completion check

Signs the worksheet is ready for review

PRISMA flow diagram from search to inclusion
Included-study characteristics
Forest plot of pooled and individual effects

Cautions for review

Inadequate search strategies. English-only or single-database searches miss important studies. Include multiple languages, databases and grey literature.
Pooling despite heterogeneity. Forcing a pooled estimate despite high I² reports a misleading single number.
Pooling without bias appraisal may precisely summarize bias. Report appraisal, sensitivity analysis and limitations.

Read a completed fictional example (your entries will not change)

Fictional example; not actual results

A fictional illustrative example: studies A and B use the same score scale and time point, with mean differences of 2 and 4 points and standard errors of 1 point each.

Basic information

Provisional review title: Learning support and scores on the same scale
PICO: population, intervention, comparison and outcome: P: eligible children; I: learning support; C: usual support; O: score after six months
Eligible designs: RCTs only / observational studies included, etc.: Plan to include RCTs
Languages: Japanese and English; record language omissions as a limitation
Publication years: Finalize before searching.
Responsible staff and start date: Staff A and B / July 2026 (fictional)
Preregistration number, such as PROSPERO: Not registered; consider a suitable register.

Reason for this entry: Do not present fictional A/B as real study bibliographic entries.

Search strategy record

Scroll horizontally to view the table

Database	Search strategy: keywords	Search date	Hits	Notes, such as filters
Plan to select educational research databases.	Combine learning support, population and comparison terms and retain executed searches.	Not conducted	Not calculated	Record search settings when executed.

Reason for this entry: Do not invent counts for searches not performed.

Screening management

Scroll horizontally to view the table

Screening stage	Count	Excluded count	Main exclusion reasons	Responsible person
Full-text assessment	2 fictional illustrative studies	Not calculated; actual searching not performed	Actual searching not performed	A and B (fictional)

Reason for this entry: Distinguish calculation examples from actual review progress.

Data extraction items

Scroll horizontally to view the table

Study ID: author and year	Intervention content	Population	Outcome measures and effect sizes	Assess risk of bias	Notes
Fictional A, not a real study	Learning support	Assume identically defined eligible children.	Score mean difference 2, SE 1	Not assessed	Formula illustration
Fictional B, not a real study	Assume equivalent learning support.	Assume identically defined eligible children.	Score mean difference 4, SE 1	Not assessed	Formula illustration

Reason for this entry: Distinguish mean differences and standard errors.

Completion check

☑ Checked: Documented PICO beforehand
☐ Not checked: Finalized inclusion and exclusion criteria before searching
☐ Not checked: At least 2 independent screeners
☐ Not checked: Selected a risk-of-bias tool and applied it to all included studies
☐ Not checked: Created a PRISMA flow diagram
☐ Not checked: Examined bias from missing studies or results and recorded funnel plot or other applicability, findings or reasons for non-use

Reason for this entry: Review procedures beyond defining the question have not been conducted. Illustrating formulas with two studies is not a completed systematic review.

Common errors in judgment

Collecting only significant studies

How to revise: Set eligibility independently of findings.

Reason: Selecting studies by results biases estimates.

Automatically selecting fixed effects because I² is low

How to revise: Select models from study meaning and the estimand.

Reason: Heterogeneity estimation itself is uncertain with few studies.

Editorial and checking information

Content updated: 2026-10-07Source checked: 2026-09-13 (includes AI cross-checking)No documented human reviewIncludes fictional examplesEditorial policy and scope of checking Cite this page Report a correction

References and checked sections

Cochrane Handbook: Chapter 10, Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses
Jonathan J. Deeks et al. / Cochrane
Section consulted
10.1 / 10.2 / 10.10.3 / 10.10.4
How it relates to the text
Meta-analysis is not mandatory in systematic review. Consider the meaning of pooling and differences between studies.
Source checked: 2026-09-13 (includes AI cross-checking)

How to cite this page

EvalCompass Editorial Team. “Systematic review planning and management worksheet”. EvalCompass, updated 2026-10-07. https://evalcompass.jun-nakatani.com/en/worksheets/meta-analysis/

Add the date you accessed the page. Text created by this site is available under CC BY 4.0. Quotations, external materials, and bundled fonts have their own terms of use. When reusing content, credit the source, link to the license, and indicate any changes.

Suggest a correction or improvement to this page

Change history

2026-09-13 — Checked sources for definitions and applicability conditions, and added fictional examples, reasons for judgments and examples for every worksheet field. Revised unverified claims about history and adoption. Also reviewed existing procedures and cautions, and adjusted fixed participant counts and thresholds and generalizations about institutions.
2026-10-07 — Correction based on independent content review (content-check-causal). Specified funnel plot and related applicability, asymmetry interpretation and recording reasons for non-use.