Reviews, evidence synthesis, and meta-analysis

Narrative review

Create a concept before collecting prose. The review should solve a reader problem: explain a changing field, compare approaches, clarify controversy, or identify a practical evidence gap. Use a transparent search description appropriate to the process, represent counterevidence, and organize around themes or decisions rather than paper-by-paper summaries.

Systematic review

Treat the protocol, search, screening, extraction, appraisal, and synthesis as the study. Preserve exact search strategies, decision reasons, and flow. Report included evidence and limitations. The writer should not retrofit eligibility to produce a preferred result.

Meta-analysis

Work with statistical expertise. Confirm compatibility of populations, interventions, outcomes, designs, and effect measures. Explain heterogeneity and sensitivity. A pooled estimate is not automatically more truthful than the studies it combines.

Dominant risks

• Convenience selection described as systematic.
• Search methods omitted because they occurred “before writing.”
• Quality appraisal mentioned but not used in interpretation.
• Conclusions broader than eligibility.
• Statistical pooling used to hide conceptual heterogeneity.