Systematic Reviews

Project Management in Systematic Reviews

Why is project management essential?

• Every systematic review is unique.
• It often involves multiple team members, sometimes located in different places.
• It requires a significant time investment.
• Many tasks are distributed across team members using various tools and software.

Effective planning helps manage these challenges and ensures a smooth workflow throughout the project.

When should project management be integrated?

Ideally during the planning/protocol stage, and then continuously throughout the project to adapt to unforeseen issues.

• Time: Plan timelines and deadlines for each stage.
• Tasks: Identify and clearly describe the tasks required.
• Roles: Define the responsibilities of each team member.
• Costs: Anticipate expenses related to tools and software.

Key steps to plan

• Team: Structure and training
  • Develop a team charter: agreement on roles, responsibilities, policies, and contributions to authorship/publication.
  • Assess and address training needs for team members.
• Work: Process-oriented approach
  • Identify individual tasks.
  • Assign responsibility for each task.
  • Set timelines and deadlines.
  • Identify dependencies between tasks (simultaneous or sequential).
• Tools: Selection and accessibility
  • Consider cost, ease of use, and training needs when choosing tools.

Identify and manage risks

• Delays: Slippage in key stages.
• Scope creep: Addition of unplanned tasks or objectives.
• Budget: Cost overruns due to underestimated needs.
• Team: Staffing changes or scheduling conflicts.
• Recognition: Fair attribution of credit for contributions.

(Evidence Synthesis Institute, 2024)

Suggested Resource:

Project Management Task Sheet for Systematic Review Projects

Reference :

• Evidence Synthesis Institute (2024). « Supporting and Mentoring Teams Through Screening and Projet Management », présentée à la Evidence Synthesis Institute Conference.

Single screening versus conventional double screening for study selection in systematic reviews: a methodological systematic review

Waffenschmidt, Siw, Marco Knelangen, Wiebke Sieben, Stefanie Bühn et Dawid Pieper (2019). Single screening versus conventional double screening for study selection in systematic reviews : A methodological systematic review, BMC Medical Research Methodology, vol. 19, no 132. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0782-0

The value of a second reviewer for study selection in systematic reviews

Stoll, Carolyn R. T., Sony Izadi, Susan Fowler, Paige Green, Jerry Suls et Graham A. Colditz (2019). The value of a second reviewer for study selection in systematic reviews, Research Synthesis Methods, vol.10, no 4, p. 539‑545. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1369

Single-reviewer abstract screening missed 13 percent of relevant studies: a crowd-based, randomized controlled trial

Gartlehner, Gerald, Lisa Affengruber, Viktoria Titscher, Anna Noel-Storr, Gordon Dooley, Nicolas Ballarini et al. (2020). Single-reviewer abstract screening missed 13 percent of relevant studies : A crowd-based, randomized controlled trial, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 121, p. 20‑28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.01.005

Resource use during systematic review production varies widely: a scoping review

Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit, Moriah Ellen, Irma Klerings, Raluca Sfetcu, Nicoletta Riva, Mersiha Mahmić-Kaknjo et al. (2021). Resource use during systematic review production varies widely : A scoping review, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 139, p. 287‑296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.019