Skip to content
Published studies are shown for demonstration purposes, not because they are good or bad research. Demonstrator · items marked Example are invented · what exists today
Search

Templates

Systematic review and meta-analysis

By e2er authors

A systematic review with a random-effects meta-analysis, following PRISMA 2020: a protocol fixed before the search, a recorded OpenAlex search, screening with a reason for every exclusion, open-access full texts, extraction in which every number is traced to its page and quote, a meta-analysis by e2er's own code (tau^2, I^2, prediction interval, Egger's test, trim and fill, leave-one-out) or a plain narrative synthesis when too few studies can be pooled, and a PRISMA flow diagram.

In placeIn e2er 0.16.1systematic reviewmeta-analysis
1 evaluation 9 of 10 runs completed latest 2027-03-03Example
Adapt this templateRun it
Anyone can contribute. Improve this template Contribute a template
Input
A review question
Output
A systematic review following PRISMA 2020: protocol, recorded search, screening, extraction traced to quotes, a random-effects meta-analysis or a narrative synthesis, forest, funnel and flow diagrams
At the end
When any run ends, e2er builds the PDF, writes the audit trail and the structured export, and pushes to GitHub if you set that up.

Sources

Based on

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372, n71, 29 March 2021.Read on 11 October 2026, Crossref record checked 2026-10-11.

Methods

Rebecca DerSimonian and Nan Laird (1986). Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 7(3), 177-188.

Wolfgang Viechtbauer (2005). Bias and Efficiency of Meta-Analytic Variance Estimators in the Random-Effects Model. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 30(3), 261-293.

Julian P. T. Higgins and Simon G. Thompson (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine 21(11), 1539-1558.

Richard D. Riley, Julian P. T. Higgins and Jonathan J. Deeks (2011). Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses. BMJ 342, d549.

Matthias Egger, George Davey Smith, Martin Schneider and Christoph Minder (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315(7109), 629-634.

Sue Duval and Richard Tweedie (2000). Trim and Fill: A Simple Funnel-Plot-Based Method of Testing and Adjusting for Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis. Biometrics 56(2), 455-463.

Wolfgang Viechtbauer (2010). Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package. Journal of Statistical Software 36(3).

Steps

Greyed steps do not run in the selected mode.

  1. 1
    Review protocol
    The protocol designer writes review_protocol.json: the question (PICO, PECO or another form), eligibility criteria with ids, databases, searches, outcome, effect measure, synthesis settings, risk-of-bias tool.
    Review protocol
    specialists
  2. 2
    Search OpenAlex and record it
    Code runs every search on OpenAlex (and Crossref when named), records the queries, counts and dates, and removes duplicates (records.json); runs at every start, so an edited protocol is searched again.
    check
  3. 3
    Protocol review, with the search counts
    The researcher approves or edits the protocol, seeing the counts.
    your review
  4. 4
    Pre-registration
    OPTIONAL: the protocol frozen with its fingerprint.
    your review
  5. 5
    Screening on title and abstract
    The study screener decides every record on its title and abstract (include, exclude with criterion and reason, unsure).
    Screening of the records
    specialists
  6. 6
    Screening check: every record decided, every exclusion with a reason
    Code: every record decided, every exclusion with a criterion of the protocol and a reason; the sample for the researcher (screening_sample.md).
    check
  7. 7
    Screening review
    The researcher reads the unsure records and a sample of exclusions, and corrects decisions.
    your review
  8. 8
    Open-access full texts
    Code: open-access full texts of the included and unsure records, page by page, or the reason there is none.
    check
  9. 9
    Eligibility, extraction and risk of bias
    The study extractor decides eligibility on the full text and extracts effects, characteristics and risk of bias, every number with its page and quote.
    Extraction from the studies
    specialists
  10. 10
    Extracted numbers traced to their sources
    Code: every extracted number read back from its source.
    check
  11. 11
    Extraction review
    OPTIONAL: the researcher reads the extraction table.
    your review
  12. 12
    Meta-analysis, forest, funnel and flow diagram
    Code: random-effects meta-analysis (REML or DL), tau^2, I^2, Q, prediction interval, Egger's test, trim and fill, leave-one-out; narrative synthesis below min_studies; forest, funnel and PRISMA flow figures; tables.
    check
  13. 13
    Review draft
    The review writer drafts the review from the results.
    Systematic review
    specialists
  14. 14
    Draft review
    The researcher reads the draft.
    your review
  15. 15 specialists, parallel
  16. 16 reviewers, parallel
  17. 17 specialists
Technical details

Template id systematic-review · file pipelines/systematic-review.toml, checked against pipeline.schema.json.

StepId in the template fileSpecialists
1. Review protocoldesign_protocolprotocol_designer
2. Search OpenAlex and record itsearch
3. Protocol review, with the search countsreview_protocol
4. Pre-registrationpreregister
5. Screening on title and abstractscreenstudy_screener
6. Screening check: every record decided, every exclusion with a reasonscreening_check
7. Screening reviewreview_screening
8. Open-access full textsfulltext
9. Eligibility, extraction and risk of biasextractstudy_extractor
10. Extracted numbers traced to their sourcesextraction_check
11. Extraction reviewreview_extraction
12. Meta-analysis, forest, funnel and flow diagramsynthesis
13. Review draftwrite_draftmeta_review_writer
14. Draft reviewreview_draft
15. Polishpolishpolish_numerics, polish_bibliography
16. Review panelreviewmethods_reviewer, data_reviewer, plausibility_reviewer, writing_reviewer, technical_reviewer
17. Revisionrevisionrevisor, patch_revisor

At the end (finalize): compile, audit_export, github_push, structured_export. Modes: single_pass, iterative.

More

Description

Data model
Discipline
General
Method family
Literature review
Design
not specified
Research stage
Revision and editing
Authors
e2er authors (Software, Methodology)
Usage
not used in published research yet · Examples: 1 example study
Source
e2er repository · pipelines/systematic-review.toml · @d8fd8ab
Record
template:systematic-review · JSON

Solid tags are declared by the source or mapped from its terms; dashed tags are inferred by a published rule. Hover a tag for its provenance.

Versions and evaluations

One version, unreleased

One version so far: pipelines/systematic-review.toml in e2er 0.16.1. No evaluation records exist yet.

Evaluate this template Report a failure
Cite this template
Persistent identifiers planned 
@software{e2erauthors2026e2ersystematicreviewandm,
  title   = {e2er systematic review and meta-analysis template},
  author  = {e2er authors},
  year    = {2026},
  note    = {e2er template. Persistent identifier planned},
  url     = {https://e2er.org/templates/systematic-review}
}

Checks on this template

  • ✓Output contracts · Every step produced the artifact it declared, in the declared form
    Required of every template.
  • ✓Execution reliability · Analysis code ran and wrote a parseable, non-empty result
    Required of every template.
  • –Numbers · Every number in tables and text matches the output of executed code
    Not applicable. This method produces no computed numbers to match.
  • ○Citations · Every reference resolves to an existing publication via OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar or Crossref
    Proposed. Proposed for the floor; runs log it but may not block on it.
  • ○Verbatim passages · Every claim about a source points to a passage found word for word in that source
    Proposed. Proposed for the floor; runs log it but may not block on it.

Runs of this template

Example: a systematic review of algorithmic management studiesExample

Use it

Install e2er as described on the Install page, then start a run:

e2er run "<your research question>" --template systematic-review

From e2er 0.16.1. Get started goes from install to publish.

On e2er.org

Loading…

Report a failurePropose a new version

Discussion

Loading…