Service overview
Twenty review formats, from systematic and scoping reviews to meta-analyses and landscape reviews. This service is part of that division and is scoped individually around what you need to learn, decide or publish.
A systematic review answers a defined question by identifying, selecting, appraising and synthesising all relevant studies using a method that is transparent and reproducible. Its authority comes from the process: a protocol set in advance, a documented search, explicit eligibility criteria, consistent screening and extraction, and a synthesis that reflects the quality and consistency of the evidence. In engineering, systematic reviews are increasingly used to consolidate fragmented literatures in areas such as materials, energy and machine learning.
Reporting is where many systematic reviews fall short. A reader should be able to see exactly how many records were found, how they were screened, why studies were excluded and how conclusions follow from the extracted data. Manuscript support for systematic reviews concentrates on this reporting, using the PRISMA 2020 statement as the usual guide, and on presenting the synthesis honestly.
What is an engineering systematic review?
An engineering systematic review answers a defined question by searching the literature with a documented, reproducible strategy, screening studies against stated criteria, extracting data in a structured way and synthesising the findings. The key feature is transparency of method, so that others can audit or update the review.
What is the difference between a systematic review and a meta-analysis?
A systematic review is a method for finding and synthesising studies. A meta-analysis is a statistical technique for pooling quantitative results from comparable studies. A meta-analysis is often a component of a systematic review, but a systematic review can be purely narrative when pooling would be inappropriate. See the comparison.
What this service covers
Problems this service can address
- Reviews that read as narrative and omit the methods needed for reproducibility
- Flow diagrams and extraction tables that are incomplete
- Uncertainty about registration and reporting expectations
Methods and analytical approaches
- PRISMA 2020-aligned structuring
- Search-strategy and screening reporting
- Evidence-table and synthesis presentation
- Risk-of-bias and limitations reporting
Applications
- Thesis-derived systematic reviews
- Technology evidence reviews
- Standards and guideline evidence summaries
Relevant engineering disciplines
Scope, inputs and deliverables
Scope of work
- Assessment of your material: data, methods, draft and target venue
- Structuring and drafting or editing strictly from your supplied results and methods
- Consistency and source checks on text, tables, figures and references
- Journal-formatted files and a submission checklist
- Feasibility check on: protocol, search logs and screening records
Typical inputs required from you
- Protocol, search logs and screening records
- Extraction data
- Draft synthesis
Deliverables
- Review manuscript
- PRISMA checklist and flow-diagram support
- Supplementary-material organisation
Highly specialised requests are first checked for feasibility from this information. Please do not send confidential data through the public form; describe it first and agree secure transfer afterwards.
Project workflow and method
- 01Enquiry and requirement assessment
- 02Technical scoping and proposal
- 03Execution
- 04Quality review and delivery, with an agreed round of revisions
Read the full project workflow.
In depth: how the work is done
The protocol and registration
A protocol states the question, eligibility criteria, search plan, screening and extraction methods and planned synthesis before the review is conducted. Registering or publicly posting the protocol reduces the risk of selective reporting. Where no protocol was written, the manuscript should say so and describe deviations openly. We help authors turn their protocol into the methods section and document any changes made after the review began.
Search strategy reporting
PRISMA expects the full search strategy for each database, with dates, limits and any supplementary methods such as citation chasing or grey-literature searches. Search strings should be reproducible. Engineering reviews often use Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore and discipline databases, and the choice of sources should be justified. We help authors format search appendices and check that numbers in the text match the flow diagram.
Screening, selection and the flow diagram
The flow diagram traces records from identification through screening, eligibility and inclusion, with reasons for exclusion at full-text stage. Dual screening or an agreement check improves reliability. We check that the numbers reconcile, that reasons for exclusion are categorised and that the text describes how disagreements were resolved. Inconsistent numbers are among the most common reviewer complaints.
Data extraction and evidence tables
Evidence tables summarise included studies in a structured form: design, setting, sample or specimens, methods, outcomes and key findings. The table design should reflect the review question. We help authors build tables that are readable, consistent and complete, and we separate data taken directly from papers from authors' interpretation.
Risk of bias and quality appraisal
Included studies differ in rigour. Appraisal tools, adapted from health research or created for engineering contexts, assess issues such as sampling, measurement validity, reporting completeness and conflicts of interest. The manuscript should name the tool used, justify any adaptation and show how appraisal influenced the synthesis. Where no suitable tool exists, authors state their criteria.
Synthesis and certainty of evidence
Synthesis may be narrative, tabular, graphical or quantitative. Narrative synthesis needs a structure, such as grouping by intervention or outcome, and transparent rules for weighing studies. When meta-analysis is not appropriate because of heterogeneity, the manuscript explains this. We encourage statements about the certainty of conclusions rather than a uniform tone of confidence.
Limitations and implications
A systematic review has its own limitations: language and database restrictions, publication bias, reviewer subjectivity and the quality of primary studies. Stating them builds credibility. Implications for practice and research should follow directly from the synthesis and should not exceed it. We help authors write conclusions that are proportionate.
Quality control and good practice
Quality-control approach
- Every statement, number and reference is checked against your supplied data and the original sources.
- No data, results, citations or author contributions are invented; gaps are flagged to you.
- Authorship and contribution decisions stay with you and your co-authors, and the use of AI tools is disclosed where journals require it.
- Journal guidelines and reporting checklists are followed; acceptance is never promised.
Common pitfalls this service helps avoid
- Numbers that do not reconcile. Differences between text, flow diagram and tables erode trust.
- A search that cannot be reproduced. Missing strings or dates prevent verification.
- Treating all studies as equal. Quality differences must inform the synthesis.
- Conclusions stronger than the evidence. Weak or inconsistent evidence should be described as such.
What good reporting looks like
Support for a systematic review manuscript is documented through a PRISMA 2020 checklist completion record, a reconciliation table for the flow diagram numbers, a methods-completeness review and a list of queries to the authors. The review itself, including search, screening and extraction, is conducted by the authors; we do not invent studies, data or citations. No acceptance outcome is promised.
An illustrative scenario
Hypothetical example written for explanation. It is not a client case, a result or a testimonial.
Imagine a team reviewing studies of machine-learning methods for structural damage detection. The draft reports 412 records after de-duplication, but the flow diagram says 398. Reconciliation shows that a second database search was added late. The authors correct the numbers, add the full search string, and note that only 12 of the 41 included studies reported validation on independent structures, which the synthesis highlights as a major limitation.
Questions to settle before you begin
- Was a protocol written and made available?
- Can someone reproduce my searches exactly?
- Do my flow-diagram numbers reconcile with the text?
- How did study quality influence the synthesis?
- Are my conclusions limited to what the evidence supports?
Key terms
- PRISMA
- A reporting guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
- Protocol
- A prespecified plan for conducting a review.
- Risk of bias
- The likelihood that a study's results are systematically distorted.
- Grey literature
- Material not published through commercial publishers, such as reports and theses.
- Narrative synthesis
- A structured description of findings when pooling is not possible.
Working together on Review Article Writing projects
Review article engagements begin by choosing the review type that fits the question, because systematic, scoping, narrative and bibliometric reviews have different methods and reporting expectations. We ask for the topic, the target journal and any searches or papers you already have. The method is documented so that the review can be audited, and every source cited is checked against the original. We do not invent references or studies, and we state limitations such as database coverage. Acceptance depends on editors and reviewers and cannot be promised.
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between a systematic review and a meta-analysis?
A systematic review uses a documented, reproducible process to find, select and synthesise studies. A meta-analysis is a statistical pooling of comparable results, which a systematic review may or may not include.
Do you conduct the systematic review?
The review methodology can be supported separately in the research division. Manuscript support assumes the review has been conducted and documented by the authors.
Which reporting guideline do you use?
PRISMA 2020 is the usual guide, with extensions where relevant to the review type.
Can you register my protocol?
We can help prepare the protocol text. Registration is performed by the authors on a suitable platform.
Can you check whether my references exist?
We help verify references against sources and flag items that cannot be confirmed. We never create references.
Does ENGRexpert guarantee acceptance in a journal?
No. Editors and reviewers decide. We support the clarity, rigour and fit of your manuscript and never promise an outcome.
How is this service scoped and priced?
After your enquiry we review what you need, ask for missing information and send a written scope and quotation. Price depends on complexity, deliverables and timeline. See the project workflow.