Assemble the Team: Gather a multidisciplinary team - consider including subject experts, methodologists, librarians/information specialists, statisticians, and, if relevant, stakeholders.
At the Bank, your team might range in size and scope, but please try to include at least a few people that can give scope and input so this is not a 1-person team trying to undertake a huge and rigorous review!
Develop the Research Question: Use frameworks like PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) to clearly define the question.
Write and Register a Protocol: Develop a protocol outlining your objectives, inclusion/exclusion criteria, search strategy, and methods. Consider registering with platforms like PROSPERO or the Open Science Framework (OSF) for transparency.
Search for Evidence: Conduct exhaustive searches across relevant databases (e.g., PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus), including grey literature, to identify all eligible studies. Document your strategy for reproducibility.
Tip: Include the Library at this stage, either consulting for search strategy revision or for help developing the searches here
Screen Results: Independently screen titles and abstracts, then full texts, against pre-defined criteria. Use tools like Covidence (paid) or Rayyan (free) for managing this process and ensuring duplicate review.
Please note that all articles included in your systematic review will undergo two rounds of screening:
Extract Data: Collect relevant information from included studies using standardized forms.
Assess risk of bias and study quality using appropriate tools during this step
Write the Review: Synthesize findings through narrative, tabular, and/or quantitative methods.
We suggest reporting methods and results according to PRISMA guidelines. Include limitations, implications, and recommendations for future research.
Don't forget to use a citation management platform like Endnote, Mendeley, or Zotero to format your citations easily!
Advise on review type selection based on your objectives and available resources.
Collaborate in developing the search strategy, including identifying databases and grey literature sources.
Conduct literature searches using advanced techniques and document strategies for reproducibility.
Assist with citation management (e.g., EndNote, Zotero, Mendeley).
Provide training or guidance on screening tools, data extraction forms, and reporting standards.
Review protocols for clarity and completeness.
Support with tracking full-text retrieval and interlibrary loan requests.
Make final inclusion/exclusion decisions—that responsibility remains with the review authors.
Interpret study findings, conduct statistical analyses, or write substantive sections of the review.
Manage the review timeline or enforce deadlines for external team members.
Download Open Access articles that the team has not tried in good faith to procure/download themselves if the list of full-text needed is greater than 50.
Requests must be submitted at least three weeks prior to desired search launch.
The Library will aim to respond to initial queries within five business days.
Standard turnaround for search strategy development and execution can take two to four weeks, depending on scope and database complexity.
Full-text retrieval may take an additional two to three weeks, depending on availability and licensing. We can work with you to help you download open access articles on your own to speed up this process on your own, but depending on the number of interlibrary loan requests and full-text documents you require, we cannot guarantee faster turn-around times for document delivery.
Intake meeting, consultation, brainstorming, initial searches, and up to three rounds of search strategy revisions are included as part of the standard service.
Additional revisions may require extended timelines.
Clear documentation and transparent communication will be maintained throughout the process.
No-cost services for World Bank staff and official partners; At this time, we cannot honor external requests
Charges for extensive full-text retrieval or requests beyond standard scope will be discussed upfront.
The WBG Library’s contribution should be acknowledged in the final review publication, in accordance with established guidelines (e.g., ICMJE recommendations).
Library staff may be offered co-authorship if their contribution meets authorship criteria, but participation is not guaranteed.
Artificial intelligence is changing the landscape of systematic reviews in several ways. While AI can speed up and streamline many steps, human expertise is vital for interpreting findings, making nuanced decisions, and ensuring quality.
At this time, we DO NOT recommend using AI to do your systematic review searching (search optimization), such as for suggesting terms or identifying relevant literature, as it may mis-identify or miss relevant literature, hallucinate literature results, and not screen in a reproducible and replicable way that the rigor of a systematic review demands. While AI is great for getting a general sense of what may be on a topic, it is not optimized at this time for the quality and rigors of systematic searching.
However, we do see a limited role of AI in speeding up some of the processes that can be tightly controlled within the systematic review process. We recommend reaching out to the AI team at the WBG to speak to them about training an AI model for the following options:
|
|
|
|
World
Bank Group: World Bank | IFC | MIGA | ICSID |
© 2025 The World Bank Group, All
Rights Reserved |