The results section should begin with a summary of the process followed from the search to the final selection of studies for extraction and synthesis, including how many articles have been included or excluded at each stage. This should be accompanied by a flow chart conforming to the PRISMA statement (Figure 9.4) (Liberati et al. 2009).40 Lists of included and excluded studies should be included as separate appendices in the systematic review report. It is important that all studies excluded at and from the ‘full text review’ stage should have their reason for exclusion given as a part of this list.
Figure 9.4: Flowchart detailing identification and selection of studies for inclusion in the review
Description of studies
To provide a context for the findings of the review, the results section should also include an overall description of the included studies. This should provide sufficient detail for the readers to assess how similar the studies are to one another, with a view to informing the appropriateness of meta-analysis. Specific items of interest from the studies may also be highlighted here. These may include: characteristics of the participants, the settings in which the tests have been conducted and specific study designs used. Tables are the most appropriate form for presenting this data, and the use of appendices should also be considered. The presence of extensive detail on study characteristics may obscure the actual findings, and make them less accessible to the reader.
Methodological quality
This section should detail the methodological quality of the included studies, as determined by the critical appraisal checklist used. It should include a narrative summary of the overall methodological quality of the included studies, which may be directly supported by a table showing the results of the critical appraisal (see Table 9.7 for example; if this table is not included in the results it should be included in the appendix). If any studies have been excluded due to critical appraisal, this is an appropriate area to provide justification.
Table 9.7: Critical appraisal results for included studies using the JBI critical appraisal checklist
Study | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Q7 | Q8 | Q9 | Q10 |
Author(s) ref | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | U | Y | N | Y | U |
Y - Yes, N - No, U - Unclear
Findings of the review
There is no accepted standard for the structure for reporting the findings of systematic reviews; however it is recommended that findings be presented in the same order as the relevant review questions in order to create a logical flow. Again, the use of tables and appendices should be considered in order to avoid obscuring important details with an excess of less important items. As a general rule, findings are discussed textually and then supported with meta-graphs, tables and figures as appropriate.