Yes, timelines vary in health research reviews; scoped projects can take weeks, while full systematic work often needs many months.
A time plan for a health sciences review depends on scope, question clarity, search reach, screening volume, data work, and the size of your team. This guide gives realistic windows you can use to draft a schedule, set milestones, and avoid delays.
Quick Benchmarks By Review Type
Use these broad windows to sanity-check your plan. Your numbers may shift with topic breadth, screening yield, and team hours per week.
| Review Type | Typical Duration | Best Use |
|---|---|---|
| Rapid review | 3–8 weeks | Time-limited decisions with trimmed steps |
| Narrative review | 4–10 weeks | Context building and theory framing |
| Scoping review | 2–6 months | Map topics, bodies of evidence, and gaps |
| Systematic review (no meta-analysis) | 6–12 months | Structured appraisal and synthesis |
| Systematic review with meta-analysis | 8–18 months | Full quantitative synthesis with checks and updates |
Why Timelines Swing In Health Projects
Topic breadth drives hit counts. A narrow drug class with strict outcomes screens fast; a broad public health theme yields thousands of records. Databases matter as well. Adding subject-specific sources boosts retrieval and work hours. Team shape counts too. Two independent screeners speed selection and reduce bias, while a single reviewer slows the queue.
Method choice changes the clock. A rapid approach trims sources or steps. A scoping design maps concepts and usually stops short of risk-of-bias grading. A full systematic route adds protocol registration, dual screening, risk-of-bias, and detailed synthesis tables.
Health Research Literature Review Timeline — Practical Ranges
The windows below reflect common health sciences practice along with guidance from widely used methods resources. For reporting, many teams follow the PRISMA 2020 materials; for methods and planning, the Cochrane planning chapter is a staple. Link your workflow to both where they fit.
1) Framing The Question
Time: 2–10 days. Nail the PICO/PEO elements, scope the exposure or intervention, tighten outcomes, and set context limits. Draft a short concept model and a list of must-have terms. Early clarity trims weeks downstream.
2) Protocol And Registration
Time: 1–3 weeks. Write aims, eligibility, databases, search strings, screening plan, data items, risk-of-bias tools, and synthesis plan. If you register on PROSPERO or a local registry, add submission time. A complete protocol keeps scope creep in check.
3) Searching Databases And Sources
Time: 1–4 weeks. Build and test strings across MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and topic-specific sources as needed, plus trial registers and preprints if policy permits. Log each search with dates and limits. A trained librarian can save days and cut noise.
4) De-Duplication And Title/Abstract Screening
Time: 1–4 weeks. Expect thousands of records in broad topics. Use a citation manager or screening tool with dual, blinded decisions and a conflict queue. Pilot ten to twenty papers to align inclusion calls before full screening.
5) Full-Text Screening
Time: 2–6 weeks. Fetch PDFs, record reasons for exclusion, and keep the PRISMA flow updated. Complex questions with many study designs extend this step. Tight criteria shorten it.
6) Data Extraction
Time: 2–8 weeks. Build a tested extraction form. Capture population, intervention/exposure, comparator, outcomes, time points, and study design features. Use pilot pairs for the first five to ten papers to lock fields and reduce rework.
7) Risk-Of-Bias/Quality Appraisal
Time: 1–4 weeks. Choose tools that match study designs (e.g., RoB 2, ROBINS-I, JBI checklists). Calibrate with a small set, then proceed in pairs. Keep justifications short and traceable.
8) Synthesis And, If Appropriate, Meta-Analysis
Time: 2–8 weeks. Plan grouping rules in advance. When data allow, run fixed or random-effects models with heterogeneity checks and sensitivity tests. When pooling is not suitable, craft a clear narrative synthesis with effect directions and evidence tables.
9) Write-Up, Figures, And Checks
Time: 3–8 weeks. Align sections to PRISMA items, add the flow diagram, place study and risk-of-bias tables, and run cross-checks from abstract to appendices. Build a short plain-language summary for non-technical readers.
10) Peer Review And Revisions
Time: 3–12 weeks. Budget cycles for journal review or sponsor feedback. Small changes take days; major scope shifts can add months.
What Real-World Data Say About Time
Large reviews with many screeners often outlast solo projects, not the other way around. Coordination, conflict resolution, and extra checks add hours, yet they raise reliability. A study of hundreds of projects reported mean times above a year once publication steps were included, and many teams listed five or more authors. These patterns match day-to-day experience in hospital and university settings.
Scope Choices That Shorten Or Extend The Clock
Trim That Saves Weeks
- Set a tight population and outcomes list before searches.
- Limit languages only when justified and documented.
- Use a librarian to tune strings and filters.
- Pilot the screening rule book on a small batch.
- Automate de-duplication and use a conflict queue.
Choices That Add Weeks
- Vague eligibility that shifts mid-stream.
- One screener for selection or extraction.
- No pilot phase for forms or risk tools.
- Untracked updates that trigger repeat searches.
- Late changes to the meta-analysis plan.
Staffing Patterns And Weekly Hours
Your calendar is a function of hands on deck and hours per week. A part-time team working five to ten hours weekly moves slowly; a dedicated group with protected time can keep momentum. Dual screening and calibrated extraction pairs speed progress and improve agreement.
Suggested Team Mix
- Lead investigator: scope, protocol, arbitration, write-up.
- Information specialist: search builds, updates, logs.
- Two reviewers: screening, extraction, risk-of-bias.
- Statistician or methods lead: meta-analysis and checks when needed.
Milestone Map For Health Reviews
Use this map to block your calendar. Shift numbers to match topic size and staff time.
| Phase | Core Tasks | Suggested Window |
|---|---|---|
| Question & protocol | PICO/PEO, eligibility, registry | 2–4 weeks |
| Search & retrieval | Strings, runs, logs, exports | 2–3 weeks |
| Screening | Titles/abstracts, full texts, PRISMA flow | 3–8 weeks |
| Extraction & quality | Forms, pilot, risk-of-bias | 3–8 weeks |
| Synthesis | Groupings, tables, meta-analysis if fit | 3–6 weeks |
| Manuscript | Write, figures, checks, submit | 4–8 weeks |
Choosing The Right Review Type For Your Aim
Rapid Approach
Pick this path when a decision deadline looms and a trimmed search or single-reviewer approach is acceptable. Document every shortcut.
Narrative Synthesis
Use this when you need concept framing, theory, and context. This route is faster but less structured. Be clear on selection logic and sources.
Scoping Map
Choose this to chart topics, designs, and gaps. Pairs of screeners help a lot here, as inclusion is often broad and mixed.
Full Systematic Route
Go here when you need a comprehensive, reproducible product with explicit methods. This is the longest path and benefits from a clear protocol and method leads.
Time-Saving Tools And Habits
- Reference managers with smart de-duplication and tags.
- Screening platforms that enable blinding and conflict queues.
- Template extraction sheets tied to study design.
- Version control for search strings and forms.
- Short weekly stand-ups to clear blocks.
Sample Weekly Plan For A Three-Month Scoping Project
Weeks 1–2
Lock the question, write the protocol, and pilot the search on one database. Pretest screening on a set of fifty records.
Weeks 3–5
Run all searches, export to your tool, and de-duplicate. Finish title/abstract screening with dual decisions.
Weeks 6–8
Fetch full texts, complete screening, and set up data fields. Pilot extraction on five studies.
Weeks 9–11
Complete extraction in pairs, assemble tables, and write methods and results.
Week 12
Polish figures, run checks, and share with a mentor for a quick read-through.
Common Pitfalls That Stretch The Calendar
- Skipping a protocol and changing scope mid-stream.
- Running searches without peer review or a librarian.
- Loose screening rules that cause conflict spikes.
- Extraction forms that miss critical variables and need rework.
- No record of reasons for exclusion at full text.
- Late plan for subgroup or sensitivity runs.
Budgeting Tips For Thesis And Grant Timelines
For student theses, match the design to the calendar you actually have. A three-month window fits a scoping or narrative product. Full systematic work needs sustained time and a team. For sponsored work, present a realistic Gantt with buffers at screening, extraction, and revisions, since those stages swing the most.
Putting It All Together
Plan the design that fits your aim and timeline, staff the key roles, and block the calendar by phase. Attach reporting to PRISMA items and align methods with the Cochrane guide where relevant. With a clear protocol, dual screening, and steady weekly hours, you can deliver a reliable health review without last-minute scrambles.