Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis Consultation
Methodological consultation for systematic reviews and meta-analyses — protocol design, search strategy, screening workflow, risk-of-bias assessment and synthesis method, with you conducting the review and a specialist advising at each stage.
Where reviews go wrong, and where consultation helps
Most systematic reviews that are rejected fail on method rather than writing: a question too broad to answer, a search that missed a database the field relies on, screening done by one person, or a meta-analysis pooling studies that should never have been pooled. These are decisions made in the first two weeks, and they are very hard to repair later.
Consultation front-loads that judgement. Your specialist works with you on the protocol — the question in PICO or equivalent form, eligibility criteria, the databases and grey-literature sources your field expects, and a registration plan if PROSPERO or a similar registry applies. As screening and extraction proceed, they review your workflow against PRISMA and the relevant Cochrane or JBI guidance, and advise on whether a quantitative synthesis is defensible or a narrative synthesis is the honest choice.
You run the searches, do the screening and extraction, and own every decision in the review. We review, question and recommend. Authorship reflects that: the review is yours.
PhD candidates and researchers undertaking a systematic review or meta-analysis for a thesis chapter, a standalone publication or a guideline, who want methodological rigour reviewed by someone who has done it before.
Talk to a research consultant →Everything included, end to end
Written assessment of the review question, eligibility criteria and registration plan, with specific recommendations.
Database coverage, search string logic and grey-literature sources reviewed against what your field expects.
Advice on dual screening, conflict resolution and an extraction form that captures what the synthesis will need.
A reasoned recommendation on meta-analysis versus narrative synthesis, effect measure, model and heterogeneity handling.
Tool selection (RoB 2, ROBINS-I, JBI or field-specific) and how to report it.
Flow diagram and checklist reviewed against the current PRISMA statement before you submit.
A clear, transparent process
We look at your question, your timeline and whether a systematic review is the right design — and say so if it is not.
Question, criteria, sources and registration reviewed and agreed in writing before searching starts.
Checkpoint reviews as you screen, extract and assess bias; synthesis method decided on the evidence you actually found.
PRISMA check and a read of the manuscript for methodological clarity before submission.
What researchers say about working with us
They handled everything from journal selection to final revisions. My paper was accepted in a Q1 journal — and I could see every step in the portal.
The pre-submission peer review caught issues two reviewers would have flagged. We were accepted on the first round with only minor revisions.
For my EB-1A petition I needed a strong publication record fast. The team mapped a realistic plan and delivered three indexed papers within the year.
Clear communication and zero surprises. The journal they recommended was a perfect fit for my topic.
Editing made my writing sound native without changing my meaning. Reviewers specifically praised the clarity.
The portal kept me sane — I always knew exactly where my manuscript stood. No chasing emails.
Common questions
Still unsure? Book a free 30-minute call and we’ll map the right path for your work.
No. Those are the review. You conduct them — with a second screener from your own team where dual screening is required — and we review the design, the strategy and the decisions. A review conducted by a consultant is not your review, and journals and examiners are right to ask who did the work.
For health-related reviews, registration on PROSPERO or an equivalent registry is expected by most journals and some require it. Other fields vary. We advise on whether registration applies to your review and how to write a protocol that will hold up to it.
Yes — that is one of the most useful questions to ask early. Whether pooling is defensible depends on clinical or conceptual homogeneity, the outcome measures available and the number of studies. Sometimes the honest answer is a narrative synthesis, and we will say so.
Longer than most people plan for. Screening thousands of records and extracting data from dozens of studies is measured in months, not weeks, and consultation does not shorten that — it prevents the rework that would otherwise add to it.
Ready to strengthen your research and publication strategy?
Book a consultation with our specialists or send a query. We’ll map your goals and an honest, evidence-based strategy for your research.