Neuroscience Systematic Literature Review

Proof required

Submit your PROSPERO registration number and registration record (or equivalent pre-registration such as OSF Registries if PROSPERO does not cover your review type), showing the review question, population, intervention/exposure/comparison/outcome (PICO), inclusion and exclusion criteria, and planned analysis approach. Also submit your documented database search strategy showing the search string, the databases included (at minimum PubMed and one other neuroscience-specific database such as PsycINFO, Embase, or Scopus), and the date of search.

What gets checked

• PROSPERO registration number is provided — this is the non-negotiable pre-registration requirement; no registration means the review is not pre-registered and cannot claim that status
• PICO question is fully specified with each element defined — population includes diagnosis or participant characteristics, intervention or exposure is specific, comparison is named, and primary outcome is stated with the measure and timepoint
• Search strategy uses appropriate MeSH terms and free-text terms for the neuroscience field — not only broad terms but the specific vocabulary used in the target literature

Common mistakes

• Registering the protocol after beginning the search — pre-registration has no validity if data collection has already begun; the purpose of registration is to commit to the question and methods before seeing the evidence
• Searching only one database — systematic reviews that omit PsycINFO, Embase, or Scopus will miss a significant fraction of the neuroscience literature; at minimum two databases are required

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask the submitter to confirm the PROSPERO registration date and search date — the registration must pre-date the search; verify by checking both dates.
• Ask why specific inclusion and exclusion criteria were chosen — criteria should be justified by the review question, not convenience.
• Ask what limitations in the search strategy they are aware of — acknowledging search limitations (language restrictions, database coverage gaps) is a marker of methodological literacy.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit the PRISMA flow diagram showing records identified, screened, assessed for eligibility, and included with reasons for exclusion at each stage. Submit a completed data extraction table showing key study characteristics and outcomes for all included studies. Submit your risk of bias summary showing the rating for each study on each domain using a named validated tool (Cochrane RoB 2 for RCTs, ROBINS-I for non-randomised studies, SYRCLE for animal studies).

What gets checked

• PRISMA flow diagram is complete — all numbers are consistent and all exclusion reasons at full-text stage are documented
• Data extraction table captures neural-specificity information — not only effect size and outcome measure but which brain region, neural circuit, or biological marker was measured and by what method (fMRI, EEG, histology, electrophysiology)
• Risk of bias tool is appropriate for the study design — using Cochrane RoB 2 on cohort studies, or CASP on RCTs, indicates a methodological error

Common mistakes

• Conducting only title/abstract screening without full-text screening — title and abstract screening has high false-positive rates; full-text review is required to confirm eligibility
• Extracting only the headline effect size without the neural specificity data — a neuroscience systematic review that does not track what neural measure was used and in which system cannot draw meaningful neurobiological conclusions

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask the submitter to walk through one disagreement in the screening process — how was a borderline case resolved?
• Ask whether they assessed inter-rater reliability for the screening — if only one reviewer screened, this is a methodological limitation to be acknowledged.
• Ask them to explain the risk of bias rating for the highest-quality study included — confirms genuine understanding of the tool, not just completion of the form.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit your complete systematic review manuscript (following PRISMA 2020 reporting standards: abstract structured per PRISMA-A, methods documenting all PRISMA items, PRISMA flow diagram, results with data extraction table and risk of bias summary, GRADE assessment of evidence certainty, and discussion interpreting the neuroscience implications) plus a Q&A record showing specific challenges to the methodology or biological interpretation and your responses. The reviewer must be named and their neuroscience systematic review or neuroimaging methods background stated.

What gets checked

• GRADE evidence certainty is assessed — not just descriptive effect size reporting but a systematic judgement of the overall certainty (high/moderate/low/very low) for each main outcome with the basis for the rating stated
• Neural specificity of the conclusions is proportionate to the evidence — conclusions about specific circuits or brain regions must be supported by studies that actually measured those regions; extrapolation from whole-brain measures to specific circuits must be explicitly flagged
• Q&A record shows at least two challenges to methodology or biological interpretation and substantive responses

Common mistakes

• Omitting GRADE assessment — reporting the effect sizes from included studies without assessing the overall certainty of the evidence base is a reporting standard violation; GRADE is required for any review claiming to synthesise evidence for practice or policy
• Overstating neural specificity — systematic reviews of fMRI studies often conclude about 'brain regions' when the included studies measured whole-brain activation with modest sample sizes; claims about specific circuits or systems must be hedged appropriately

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask the submitter to justify the overall GRADE certainty rating for the main outcome — which domain(s) led to downgrading and why?
• Ask whether the neural specificity claims in the conclusion are supported by all included studies or only a subset — tests whether the synthesised conclusion accurately represents the heterogeneous evidence base.
• Verify the reviewer has experience with systematic review methodology or neuroimaging analysis — domain knowledge in the neuroscience topic alone is insufficient to probe methodological quality.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.