Yes, review articles include a methods section that describes how evidence was found, selected, and synthesized.
Readers want to see how a review gathered and weighed studies. A clear methods section builds trust because it shows the search path, screening steps, and how the team judged quality. Different review types use different depth, but each should still show what was done and why.
What “Methods” Means In Review Writing
In primary research, methods explain how data were produced. In a review, methods explain how evidence from other studies was located and combined. The core parts are steady across fields: search strategy, eligibility criteria, screening flow, data items, appraisal approach, and synthesis plan. Some reviews add protocol links or registration numbers. Below are the common flavors you will see.
| Review Type | What The Methods Cover | Typical Standard |
|---|---|---|
| Systematic | Protocol, databases, search strings, dates, dual screening, risk-of-bias tools, synthesis plan. | PRISMA items; registry entry when available. |
| Scoping | Broad map of evidence with transparent search and selection, charting of data. | PRISMA-ScR guidance or journal rules. |
| Narrative | Defined scope, how sources were located, how relevance and strength were judged. | SANRA criteria and journal instructions. |
| Rapid | Streamlined steps with stated shortcuts and limits. | Agency or journal templates; clear trade-offs. |
| Umbrella | How prior reviews were found and compared; overlap handling. | PRISMA extensions for overviews. |
| Qualitative | Search for qualitative studies, appraisal fit for interpretive work, synthesis method. | Cochrane-Campbell guidance for qualitative syntheses. |
Do Review Papers Need A Methods Section? Practical View
Short answer: yes. Even a narrative piece should explain how sources were gathered and filtered. That can be a brief paragraph rather than a long block, but it must tell the reader enough to follow the path and judge fairness. Journals and reviewers ask for this clarity, and readers expect it.
Why Methods Matter In Reviews
First, methods show completeness. Without them, readers cannot tell whether the author cherry-picked studies. Second, methods let others repeat the search or update it later. Third, methods help editors and peer reviewers spot gaps early and request fixes before publication.
Core Elements To State
Use this sequence, then tailor by review type:
- Question and scope: what the review set out to answer, and the boundaries.
- Sources: databases, registries, websites, and manual checks such as reference lists.
- Search details: date run, limits, and a few key terms or full strings in a supplement.
- Eligibility rules: study designs, populations, outcomes, time frames, languages, and reasons to exclude.
- Screening flow: numbers at each stage and who screened.
- Data items: what was extracted and by whom.
- Appraisal: tool or reasoning used to judge study quality or credibility.
- Synthesis: how findings were combined—meta-analysis, thematic synthesis, or structured narrative.
- Limitations: where the process may miss evidence or add bias.
Standards And Tools That Shape Reporting
Many journals point authors to community standards. The PRISMA 2020 checklist lays out items that make a systematic review transparent, including the search and selection steps and the flow diagram. For searching and selection practice, Cochrane’s handbook spells out clear steps; see Chapter 4 on searching and selecting studies.
Systematic Reviews: What Editors Expect
Editors look for a protocol or registration link when possible, a full search strategy, dual screening, a named risk-of-bias tool, and a prespecified plan for synthesis. Numbers through each stage should appear in a diagram. When meta-analysis is not possible, the write-up still needs a structured synthesis method that explains how studies were grouped and compared.
Narrative Pieces: How To Be Transparent
Many journals accept narrative reviews, but they still expect transparency. Keep the scope tight, name the sources searched, and say why some bodies of evidence earned more weight. A short “Search And Selection” subsection usually covers this. Borrowing elements from systematic practice—clear strings, dates, and screening notes—raises trust without bloating the word count.
Scoping Reviews: Mapping Without Overclaiming
Scoping work maps concepts and gaps. Methods should show breadth of searching, clear charting of data, and the decision not to rate effect size. The write-up should avoid language that reads like a head-to-head trial comparison and should stick to what the map can and cannot tell the reader.
Where Methods Live In The Manuscript
Most journals place Methods after the introduction and before results. Some formats merge parts of Methods into a “Search Strategy And Selection Criteria” box near the top, then point to supplements for strings and forms. Preprints often mirror this layout, which helps peer reviewers move fast. If your journal uses a one-column layout, keep paragraphs short so tables and the flow figure slot cleanly.
When A Journal Allows A Short Methods
Short formats still need transparency. Write a tight paragraph that states databases, dates, key limits, and screening in duplicate. Add a link to a protocol or a repository that holds strings and forms. Short does not mean vague; it means the detail sits in the right place.
How To Draft A Lean, Useful Methods Section
You can fit strong transparency in a short space. Use tight sentences and place bulky details in a supplement. The outline below works across fields and journal styles.
One-Paragraph Template You Can Adapt
“We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL on 3 March 2025 using controlled terms and text words for [topic]. We also checked trial registries and reference lists. We included peer-reviewed studies of [population] that reported [outcome] and excluded case reports. Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts in duplicate, then reviewed full texts. Disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. Data on design, sample, and outcomes were extracted using a piloted form. Risk of bias was judged with [tool]. When designs matched, we used a random-effects model; otherwise we used a structured narrative approach.”
Space-Saving Tips That Keep Clarity
- Move full search strings and pilot forms to a supplement.
- Use a table for eligibility and data items.
- Point to a published protocol rather than repeating it.
- Keep dates, versions, and software names precise.
Common Pitfalls And Easy Fixes
Vague Search
Fix it by stating databases, the date run, and either the main terms or the exact strings in a supplement. If you limited by language or year, say so and explain the reason in one clear line.
Shifting Eligibility
If inclusion rules changed, say when and why. Readers can then judge the impact and follow your trail without guessing. A one-sentence note in Methods and a short reminder in the discussion keep the record straight.
No Appraisal
Even in a narrative piece, say how you judged the strength of the included studies. Name a tool or a short set of criteria that fits the designs. That one move separates careful synthesis from a reading list.
Opaque Synthesis
Describe how you grouped studies and how you handled conflicting results. If you counted p-values, stop; that habit inflates weak signals. Pick a method that fits the question and data, then explain it in plain words.
Flow Diagram Basics
A flow figure gives numbers for records found, deduplicated, screened, excluded with reasons, and included. Place the figure near the start of results so readers see the study set before the findings. Many journals accept the PRISMA template, which keeps labels consistent across fields.
Risk-Of-Bias Tools You Can Cite
Common choices include RoB 2 for randomized trials, ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies, QUADAS-2 for diagnostic accuracy, AMSTAR 2 for the quality of prior reviews, and CASP checklists for qualitative studies. Pick tools that match designs and say how many reviewers rated each study.
Table: Quick Methods Checklist For Authors
| Step | What To State | Where It Goes |
|---|---|---|
| Question & scope | Exact question, boundaries, outcomes. | Opening lines of Methods. |
| Sources | Databases, registries, websites, handsearching. | Methods, with dates. |
| Search | Limits, key terms, full strings in supplement. | Methods + supplement. |
| Eligibility | Designs, populations, outcomes, languages. | Methods + table. |
| Screening | Numbers, reviewers, tie-breaker. | Methods + flow diagram. |
| Data items | What you extracted and tools used. | Methods + table. |
| Appraisal | Tool or criteria and how applied. | Methods. |
| Synthesis | Meta-analysis, narrative, or thematic plan. | Methods. |
| Limitations | Gaps, language limits, time windows. | End of Methods. |
When Methods Differ By Field
Fields set different norms for searching and appraisal. In clinical medicine, teams lean on trial registries and risk-of-bias tools. In public health, authors track context and equity alongside effect size. In social sciences, mixed-methods syntheses are common, so the write-up explains how qualitative themes and quantitative findings were joined. Engineering teams may add patent searches and standards documents. In humanities work, narrative forms still name search paths, archives used, and judgment standards for source selection.
Word limits vary across journals, so detail often moves to a supplement or repository. Pre-registration helps because a protocol records the plan before screening starts. When plans change, the write-up should say so and explain the reason. That honest trail helps readers judge the strength of the take-home claims without guessing what happened behind the scenes.
Ethics, Registration, And Data Sharing
Most reviews do not need ethics board approval, but they still benefit from registration and clear data sharing. If you registered a protocol, place the link in the first paragraph of Methods. Post search strings, code, and extraction forms in a repository. That single step makes updates easier for other teams and helps readers see what was done without digging through email attachments.
Peer Review Expectations Across Journals
Editors look for a clear question, sources searched, search date, eligibility, screening flow, appraisal, and a synthesis plan that fits the data. Many journals align with widely used principles on structure and transparency. You can save time by writing your Methods to meet those shared expectations from the start, then trimming details to the supplement as needed.
Practical Examples Of Phrases You Can Reuse
Scope And Question
“We set the question using a PICOS frame and limited scope to adults.”
Search And Selection
“We searched MEDLINE and Embase from inception to March 2025 with no language limits, then screened titles and abstracts in duplicate.”
Appraisal And Synthesis
“Two reviewers rated risk of bias using RoB 2. We grouped studies by design and combined results with a random-effects model when designs matched.”
Final Takeaways
Review writing always benefits from clear, brief methods that match the review type. Name where you searched, how you selected, how you judged quality, and how you combined results. Link a protocol when you can, share the full strings, and use common tools so readers can follow every step with confidence.