Write in a clean editor, then format for Systematic Reviews in one click — DocuGuru applies the official BMC (BioMed Central) template with numbered references and exports a submission-ready PDF plus the editable LaTeX source. Free to start.
Systematic Reviews is a peer-reviewed journal published by BMC (BioMed Central), covering Meta-analysis and systematic reviews, Health Policy Implementation Science, Global Maternal and Child Health. Over its lifetime it has published 3,582 papers, which have received 174,656 citations.
| Publisher | BMC (BioMed Central) |
|---|---|
| Reference style | Numbered (Vancouver) Numbered — [1], [2] in the text 1. Smith A, Jones B, Lee C. A representative article title. Systematic Reviews. 2023;12(3):45–58.
Formats any DOI in Systematic Reviews style. No sign-up. |
| Publishes research in | Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Health Policy Implementation Science Global Maternal and Child Health Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation |
| ISSN | 2046-4053 |
| Citation impact (2-yr) | 5.35 |
| h-index | 140 |
| i10-index | 1,899 |
| Article processing charge | $2,072 |
| Open access | Yes — indexed in DOAJ |
| Top institutions publishing here | University of KwaZulu-Natal |
| Journal website | www.systematicreviewsjournal.com |
| You get | A submission-ready PDF and the editable LaTeX source — ready to submit. |
Citations each year’s papers have accumulated so far — the most recent years are still building up.
BACKGROUND: Rapid reviews have emerged as a streamlined approach to synthesizing evidence - typically for informing emergent decisions faced by decision makers in health care settings. Although there is growing use of rapid review 'methods', and proliferation of rapid review products, there is a dearth of published literature on rapid review methodology. This paper outlines…
This paper argues that the current proliferation of types of systematic reviews creates challenges for the terminology for describing such reviews. Terminology is necessary for planning, describing, appraising, and using reviews, building infrastructure to enable the conduct and use of reviews, and for further developing review methodology. There is insufficient consensus on terminology for a…
Scoping reviews are an increasingly common approach to evidence synthesis with a growing suite of methodological guidance and resources to assist review authors with their planning, conduct and reporting. The latest guidance for scoping reviews includes the JBI methodology and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Extension for Scoping Reviews. This paper provides…
When randomized trials have addressed multiple interventions for the same health problem, network meta-analyses (NMAs) permit researchers to statistically pool data from individual studies including evidence from both direct and indirect comparisons. Grasping the significance of the results of NMAs may be very challenging. Authors may present the findings from such analyses in several numerical…
