Evidence synthesis
Choose a starter by the question you want to answer and the evidence you can obtain. These six project types are starting points, not mutually exclusive scientific categories.
A systematic review can pool some outcomes and synthesize others without pooling. Individual participant data describes the data level and can be used with pairwise or network methods. Diagnostic accuracy describes the review question. Scoping reviews primarily map a field.
| Project type | When to use it | How it differs |
|---|---|---|
| Scoping review | Use this starter to map concepts, methods, populations, settings or evidence types. Frame the scope with population, concept and context (PCC); eligible sources can extend beyond intervention trials. | The main objective is mapping rather than estimating treatment benefit. A gap means evidence was not located within the review’s scope; it does not demonstrate that an intervention is ineffective. |
| Systematic review without meta-analysis | Use this starter for a systematic review with explicit selection and appraisal, but a structured synthesis without a pooled effect. The reasons may differ by outcome: incompatible measures, missing effect statistics, or substantively different interventions. | This remains an answer-focused systematic review. It is not a scoping review merely because it lacks a meta-analysis. “Narrative synthesis” alone is not a reproducible method description. |
| Systematic review with pairwise meta-analysis | Use this starter for a focused systematic review when studies provide sufficiently compatible estimates for one or more pairwise comparisons. Define population, intervention or exposure, comparator, outcome and follow-up before choosing a model. | Pairwise synthesis combines direct comparisons. A network review connects several treatment comparisons; a scoping review maps a field. Not every outcome in this project has to be pooled. |
| Systematic review of diagnostic test accuracy | Use this starter to synthesize accuracy evidence for a defined index test, target condition and reference standard. Specify whether the test is used for screening, triage, replacement or add-on testing. | Diagnostic accuracy synthesis jointly addresses sensitivity and specificity, often across thresholds. It is not an intervention-effect review or a prediction-model development study, and accuracy alone does not show improved patient outcomes. |
| Systematic review with individual participant data meta-analysis | Use this starter when obtaining original participant data is feasible and serves a defined question, such as consistently defined outcomes or treatment–covariate interactions. Plan data access, governance and harmonization before analysis. | IPD describes the data level, not an alternative to every other synthesis type. It can support pairwise or network methods. More granular data do not remove original study bias or bias from unavailable datasets. |
| Systematic review with network meta-analysis | Use this starter when a review seeks comparisons among multiple interventions, including comparisons with little or no direct evidence. Specify the treatment nodes and eligible comparisons before fitting a model. | Network meta-analysis adds indirect evidence to direct comparisons under additional assumptions. A connected diagram is necessary for connected-network estimation but does not establish transitivity. |
How to use these guides
Each guide explains the study type, walks through every starter flow and node, identifies the tables and equations, and connects a published review with a hypothetical scenario. In the editor, choose New project → Evidence synthesis → the study type. Use Add flow when your protocol needs an additional process.
The educational scenarios contain no study results. The editor organizes methods and externally verified results; it does not execute meta-analysis or validate statistical assumptions. Reporting guidance such as PRISMA complements, rather than replaces, methodological guidance.
Source check: 2026-09-17.