Framing a Systematic Review: Question and Protocol

A systematic review is only as credible as the plan behind it. This level teaches you to turn a clinical or public-health question into a precise, answerable review question, set clear eligibility criteria, and draft a protocol you can register on PROSPERO, the transparency step that separates real evidence synthesis from a casual literature summary.

Who this level is for

Residents, MPH/MSc/PhD students, early-career faculty, and clinicians or researchers planning their first systematic review or meta-analysis, across low- and middle-income countries and beyond. No prior review experience assumed; the question skills from Foundations help but are not required.

What you'll learn

• The difference between a narrative review, a systematic review, and a meta-analysis, and when each is appropriate
• Where meta-analysis fits, and when quantitative pooling makes sense (and when it does not)
• How to frame a review question with PICO, PECO and related frameworks
• How to set the scope: condition, population, setting, and which study designs to include
• How to write pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria for studies
• The key components of a review protocol, and why registering it on PROSPERO matters

You finish with: A registration-ready review question (PICO/PECO) + a protocol skeleton.