Vedant Research

We begin by helping you frame a focused, answerable research question using the PICO/PECO framework (Population, Intervention/Exposure, Comparator, Outcomes). We assist in defining clear inclusion and exclusion criteria, selecting appropriate outcome measures, and developing a detailed search strategy. We also guide you through the PROSPERO registration process to ensure your protocol is publicly registered, enhancing the transparency and credibility of your research.

Our information specialists design and execute exhaustive search strategies across multiple bibliographic databases, including PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar. We use a combination of controlled vocabulary (MeSH terms, Emtree terms) and Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT) to maximise sensitivity and precision. We also hand-search reference lists of included studies and relevant grey literature to identify additional eligible studies.

We perform a two-stage screening process following PRISMA guidelines. In Stage 1, two independent reviewers screen titles and abstracts against your pre-defined eligibility criteria. In Stage 2, the full texts of potentially eligible studies are retrieved and assessed for inclusion. Any disagreements between reviewers are resolved through consensus or by a third reviewer. The entire process is documented and presented in a PRISMA flow diagram, which is a mandatory requirement for most journals.

We develop and pilot a standardised data extraction form to capture all relevant information from each included study. This includes study characteristics (authors, year, country, design), participant demographics, intervention/exposure details, comparator information, outcome data (including effect sizes, confidence intervals, and p-values), and funding sources. All extractions are performed independently by two reviewers and cross-checked for accuracy.

Assessing the methodological quality of included studies is critical to interpreting the results of your review. Our team applies validated tools appropriate to your study design, including:

• Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 (RoB 2) for randomised controlled trials.
• ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies – of Interventions) for non-randomised studies.
• Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for observational cohort and case-control studies.
• QUADAS-2 for diagnostic accuracy studies.
• JBI Critical Appraisal Tools for other study designs such as cross-sectional studies and qualitative research.

Where studies are sufficiently homogeneous, our biostatisticians perform a quantitative meta-analysis. We:

• Choose between fixed-effect and random-effects models based on the expected heterogeneity.
• Calculate pooled effect sizes (odds ratios, risk ratios, hazard ratios, mean differences, standardised mean differences) with 95% confidence intervals.
• Assess statistical heterogeneity using the I² statistic, tau², and Cochran’s Q test.
• Conduct subgroup analyses and meta-regression to explore sources of heterogeneity based on study-level characteristics (e.g., geographical region, intervention type, risk of bias).
• Perform sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of our findings by excluding low-quality studies or studies with extreme effect sizes.
• For reviews where meta-analysis is not feasible, we provide a narrative synthesis structured around the research question.

We rigorously assess for publication bias and other small-study effects using:

• Funnel plots with visual inspection.
• Egger’s regression test for asymmetry.
• Begg’s rank correlation test.
• Trim-and-fill analysis to impute potentially missing studies and adjust pooled estimates accordingly.

To help you communicate the strength of your findings, we evaluate the overall certainty of the evidence for each critical outcome using the GRADE framework. We produce Summary of Findings (SoF) tables that clearly present the quality of evidence, the magnitude of effect, and key information for clinical or policy decision-making.

The final step is preparing a publication-ready manuscript formatted to the specific guidelines of your target journal. We write all sections of a standard systematic review manuscript, including:

• A structured abstract following PRISMA for Abstracts.
• A clear Introduction outlining the rationale and objectives.
• A detailed Methods section describing the protocol, search strategy, eligibility criteria, screening process, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and synthesis methods.
• A comprehensive Results section with study selection flow, study characteristics, risk of bias summaries, synthesis of findings (including forest plots, tables, and narrative summaries), and results of additional analyses.
• A Discussion section that interprets the findings, explores limitations, and draws evidence-based conclusions.
• A Conclusion that summarises the main findings and their implications.