Systematic review and it’s scientific

presentation in microbiology

by:

Dr. Adesoji. A. Timilehin

Senior Lecturer
Department of Microbiology
Federal University Dutsin-Ma, Katsina State, Nigeria
 Research writing in scientific world
 Research is not just about having good results but ability to be able to
communicate it.

 Therefore, you need to have an ideal of different types of scientific

publications.
i. Original research
ii. Clinical case study
iii. Clinical trial
iv. Perspective, opinion and commentary
v. Review articles
 Review: What is it?
 Reviews are different than research articles because they do NOT report on one
single research study conducted by the authors.

 Instead, a review is a report in which the authors read, summarize and synthesize
the majority of the research studies that have been completed in a certain field of
study.

Some element of reviews are:

 Discussion of the historical development of the current state of knowledge in a
certain field.
 Gaps and limitation of the work that has already been done.
 Evaluation of this work.
 Suggestions for future research project.

NOTE: Review are written after you have read through the literatures on a topic
 Importance of reviews to scientist

 Helps scientists to keep up with what is going on in their field of study

or a related field if they are interested in performing interdisciplinary
research.

 It allow scientist to read one article and learn about many, many
research studies all at once.

Types of research reviews:

i. Narrative Reviews (NR)

ii. Systematic Reviews (SR)

 What is systematic review?
 Highly rigorous review of existing literatures that addresses a clearly
formulated question. (sci-hub.tw) (b-ok.org)

 SR are important in evidence based medicines.

 A good SR begins with a protocol that defines the study design, objective and
expected outcomes.

 The protocol usually follows the PRISMA guideline and should be registered
in recognized protocol registry.

 NOTE: PRISMA is Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and

Meta-Analysis (http://www.prisma-statement.org/)
 sci-hub.tw and b-ok.org
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13756-018-0382-5
 What is narrative review?
 NR is usually written by an expert and provides a summary or
overview of a topic.

 Unlike SR, the topic is often broad and less precisely defined.

 The method used to conduct it is not standardized.

 The search strategy is usually not stated, the review is confine to a

well known article.

 The author’s personal beliefs may influence the overall conclusion.

 Types of systematic review
 Qualitative: Here, the results of relevant studies are summarized but
not statistically combined.

 Quantitative: This uses statistical methods to combine the results of

two or more studies.

 Meta-analysis: this uses statistical methods to integrate, estimates of

the effect from relevant studies that are independent but similar and
summarize them.
 Writing a protocol
 A good SR begins with a protocol. This served as a road map for your review and specifies the objectives,
methods and outcomes of a primary interest of the systematic review.
 The purpose of the protocol is to promote transparency.
 The protocol defines the search terms, inclusion and exclusion criteria, data that will be analyzed.
 This is why the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement is
important) (http://www.prisma-statement.org/)
 PRISMA statement consist of 27-items checklist and a flow diagram.
 It aims to guide authors on how to develop a systematic review protocol and what to include when writing
the review.

 A protocol ideally include the following:

i. Databases to be searched and the additional sources (particularly for grey literatures (PUBMED
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed, MEDLINE https://medlineplus.gov/, EMBASE
https://embase.com/login, Science direct, www.sciencedirect.com, google scholar,
https://scholar.google.com/)
ii. Keywords to be used in the search strategy
iii. Limits applied to the search
iv. Screening process
v. Data to be extracted
vi. Summary of data to be reported
 Registering systematic review protocol
 This is for other researchers to know you are already working on it and prevent others
from doing similar work.

 Available registries for SR are:

i. Campbel collaboration: Specific to SR of social intervention.

https://www.campbellcollaboration.org/

ii. Cochrane collaboration: specific for SR of healthcare intervention.

https://www.cochrane.org/

iii. PROSPERO: An open registry for all SR

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/

NOTE: Search their data base to be sure nobody is working on it currently

 What is the best approach to conducting a systematic review?

 The essence of a systematic review lies in being systematic.

 A systematic review involves detailed scrutiny and analysis of a huge mass of literature. To ensure that your
work is efficient and effective, you should follow a clear process:

i. Develop a research question

ii. Define inclusion and exclusion criteria
iii. Locate studies
iv. Select studies
v. Assess study quality
vi. Extract data
vii. Analyze and present results
viii. Interpret results
ix. Update the review as needed
x. It is helpful to follow this process and make notes at each stage.
 How is a systematic review article structured?
 A SR article follows the same structure as that of an original research article. It typically includes a
title, abstract, introduction, literature reviews, methods, results, discussion, and references.

 Title: The title should accurately reflect the topic under review. Typically, the words “a systematic
review” are a part of the title to make the nature of the study clear.

 Abstract: A systematic review usually has a structured Abstract, with a short paragraph devoted
to each of the following: background, methods, results, and conclusion.

 Introduction: The Introduction summarizes the topic and explains why the systematic review
was conducted. There might have been gaps in the existing knowledge or a disagreement in the
literature that necessitated a review. The introduction should also state the purpose and aims of
the review.
 literature reviews: This consist of relevant work that have be conducted in the field.
 Methods: The Methods section is the most crucial part of a systematic review article. The methodology followed should
be explained clearly and logically. The following components should be discussed in detail:
i. Inclusion and exclusion criteria
ii. Identification of studies
iii. Study selection
iv. Data extraction
v. Quality assessment
vi. Data analysis

• Results: The Results section should also be explained logically. You can begin by describing the
search results, and then move on to the study range and characteristics, study quality, and finally
discuss the effect of the intervention on the outcome.

• Discussion: The Discussion should summarize the main findings from the review and then move
on to discuss the limitations of the study and the reliability of the results. Finally, the strengths and
weaknesses of the review should be discussed, and implications for current practice suggested.

• References: The References section of a systematic review article usually contains an extensive
number of references. You have to be very careful and ensure that you do not miss out on a single
one. You can consider using reference management software to help you tackle the references
effectively.
Sample papers
 Suggested readings
 Khan et al., 2003: Five steps to conducting a systematic review. Journal Of The Royal
Society Of Medicine. Vol 96

 Gulpinar and Guclu. (2013). How to write a review article? Turkish Journal of Urology. Vol
39(1):44-48

 Liberati et al., 2009: The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-
Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration.
PLoS Medicine, vol 6:7, e1000100

 Moher et al., 2008: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses:
The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Medicine, vol 6:7, e1000097

 Knoll et al., 2017: Key Steps in Conducting Systematic Reviews for Underpinning Clinical Practice
Guidelines: Methodology of the European Association of Urology. European Urology
Tips for making a good power point presentation

 An academic presentation is a process of advertising your findings.

 You need to focus on what is important, highlighting the bold outcomes and results is
the key here.

These presentation format will be helpful:

i. Introduction (1 slide)
ii. Research Questions/Hypotheses/Aims and Objectives (1 slide)
iii. Literature Review/Theory (1 slide)
iv. Methods & Data Collection (1 slide)
v. Data Presentation/Findings (3-5 slides)
vi. Conclusion (1 slide)
 Conclusion

 Systematic review is not for lazy student, it requires hard work

into searching of literature on the research questions you are
trying to answer. Therefore, surf the web to get relevant
literatures on the area and read accordingly for proper
understanding.

 Also learn how to communicate your finding clearly to your

audience through power point.
Thank you for your attention