Background of identified problem

Is this section clearly identified by a heading? Identify the heading? State the identified population, strategies, and outcome being examined? Is this information presented clearly? Are there citations supporting the information presented? Do you question a statement made? If so, share with the author the statement you question. Is there written or inferred bias towards one strategy? If there is bias, provide the author with a sample from their writing.

State the PICOT question? Is this section clearly identified by a heading?

Provide the author with examples of areas you like most in the systematic review. Explain why you like these areas? Explain. Identify the strongest point the author has made? Explain why this is a strong point for the systematic review. Offer suggestions for the author to continue doing well.

Does the systematic review (SR) draft contain sources that are scholarly, peer-reviewed research? If not, identify which sources are not. Does the SR analyze the intervention strategy (I) studies for its effect on the outcome? What are the major points discussed? Does the SR analyze the comparison strategy (C) effect on the outcome? What are the major points discussed? Are there subheadings for clarity of discussion? How many articles analyze the I? How many articles analyze the C? Are there two sides (pro and con of each) presented to the I and C? Is there bias in the authors writing? Discuss the answers to these questions.

Questions to consider when providing the author feedback on improving their SR: Could you duplicate the literature search? If not, what information is missing? What areas of the systematic review paper do you have questions about? Are there areas that left you confused? Provide the author with the sentence which you question or leave you confused and offer a suggestion for improvement. Does the paper flow smoothly from section to section? Are there headings to help you follow the writer’s thoughts? Does the author present an opinion/bias in the background? Does the evaluation/analysis section present research the answer to the PICOT question? Does the author analyze original research only or does the author analyze a meta-analysis or systematic review? Does the conclusion provide a review of the paper from the background to analysis finding?