Which is a main step in conducting a systematic review?

Which is a main step in conducting a systematic review?

• A. Randomize participants and blind investigators.
• B. Define the question, protocol, search, screen, extract data, assess bias, synthesize, interpret, report.
• C. Create a new theoretical framework without protocol.
• D. Develop a marketing plan for dissemination.

Answer: (B)

Systematic reviews rely on a prespecified, transparent workflow that guides every step from framing the question to sharing the findings. The essential sequence starts with defining a clear question and a protocol, which outlines the eligibility criteria, search strategy, study screening, data extraction, and plans for assessing bias, followed by methods to synthesize and interpret the results and then report them. This structured approach is what makes a review systematic: it reduces bias by committing to a plan before seeing the results, ensures all relevant evidence is sought and evaluated consistently, and provides a clear path from question to conclusions. This is why the option describing defining the question and protocol, a comprehensive search, screening, data extraction, bias assessment, synthesis, interpretation, and reporting fits best. Other options describe activities that belong to individual studies or to project activities outside the review process—such as randomizing participants and blinding investigators (which are trial methods), creating a new theoretical framework without a protocol (which lacks the systematic, prespecified approach), or developing a marketing plan for dissemination (which is about dissemination strategy, not the methodological steps of conducting the review).

Systematic reviews rely on a prespecified, transparent workflow that guides every step from framing the question to sharing the findings. The essential sequence starts with defining a clear question and a protocol, which outlines the eligibility criteria, search strategy, study screening, data extraction, and plans for assessing bias, followed by methods to synthesize and interpret the results and then report them. This structured approach is what makes a review systematic: it reduces bias by committing to a plan before seeing the results, ensures all relevant evidence is sought and evaluated consistently, and provides a clear path from question to conclusions.

This is why the option describing defining the question and protocol, a comprehensive search, screening, data extraction, bias assessment, synthesis, interpretation, and reporting fits best. Other options describe activities that belong to individual studies or to project activities outside the review process—such as randomizing participants and blinding investigators (which are trial methods), creating a new theoretical framework without a protocol (which lacks the systematic, prespecified approach), or developing a marketing plan for dissemination (which is about dissemination strategy, not the methodological steps of conducting the review).