Turn one question into a reviewable systematic review
Real sources · Illustrative request · Sample version
Customer question
Hypothetical commission: a surgery/psychology team agrees one perioperative social-support question and two outcomes.
How do searches, decisions and reporting retain consistent rules and provenance?
Each conclusion links to screening, extraction, bias judgments and analysis. Non-poolable evidence receives a structured synthesis.
Illustrative commissioned workload
| Check / stage | Chart content |
|---|---|
| Record screening | Illustrative maximum 3,000; retain rules and disagreements |
| Full-text assessment | Illustrative maximum 80; trace exclusions |
| Studies and outcomes | Illustrative maximum 20 studies and 2 outcomes |
These are existing fictional quote assumptions, not screening results or fixed allowances for every project.
Analysis excerpt
| Check | Finding / sample content | Use |
|---|---|---|
| Question freeze | Define procedure, exposure and time window first | Confirm the protocol version |
| Traceable decisions | Study identities and exclusions enter the ledger | Complete agreed human review |
| Reporting and handover | Conclusions and supplements use the same inputs | Reproduce figures and report limitations |
Delivery manifest
| File | Format | Contents |
|---|---|---|
| Protocol and screening ledger | PDF / XLSX | PICO, searches/dates, exclusions and study identities |
| Extraction and evidence assessment | XLSX | Source locations, extraction, bias assessments and review disputes |
| Report and reproduction supplement | PDF / R / CSV | Interpretation, appropriate analyses, code and handover; manuscript services require agreement |
This is an illustrative formal delivery manifest. This pack supplies an HTML report, CSV tables and a source register. Agree formal formats, quantities and scope in the quote.
Acceptance criteria
- Protocol, eligibility rules, search coverage and dates, and version changes are clear
- Screening reasons, extraction, and risk-of-bias judgments trace to original sources, with dependencies, missingness, and disagreements documented
- Agreed human review is complete, and analyses and code can be reproduced in the agreed environment
- The report and supplements match the scope; if pooling is inappropriate, reasons and a structured synthesis are delivered
- Significance, result direction, publication, and authorship positions are not acceptance conditions
Sources
- PRISMA 2020 checklist
https://www.prisma-statement.org/prisma-2020-checklist - EOS · 术前社会连接与术后结局研究稿件
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.09.15.26363083v1