Can a whole master’s thesis be a review of other studies? In many programs, yes, provided the review is systematic: a defined question, a protocol, a reproducible search, explicit inclusion criteria and a transparent account of every decision. A systematic literature review is a research method in its own right, and examiners judge it on its methods section just as they would judge an empirical study.
This article is part of our guide How to Write a Master’s Thesis by the Mastermind PhD team and relates to our Literature Review support service. Sources last checked: November 2026.
This guide explains what makes a review systematic, then walks through eight practical steps and shows how the PRISMA 2020 statement shapes the reporting, with a realistic view of what a single master’s student can do.
What is a systematic literature review? It is a review that uses explicit, pre-specified and reproducible methods to identify, select, appraise and synthesize all relevant studies on a clearly formulated question. Unlike a narrative literature review, it documents the databases, search strings, dates, criteria and screening decisions so that another researcher could repeat it. When the synthesis combines results statistically, it includes a meta-analysis.
How is it different from a traditional literature review?
| Aspect | Narrative literature review | Systematic literature review |
|---|---|---|
| Question | Broad topic | Focused, often structured with PICO or a similar framework |
| Search | Selected by the author, not fully reported | Several databases, full search strings, dates reported |
| Selection | Implicit | Pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria |
| Quality appraisal | Rarely formal | Formal appraisal with a named tool |
| Reporting | Free structure | Reporting guideline such as PRISMA 2020, with a flow diagram |
| Reproducibility | Low | High, by design |
What is PRISMA 2020?
PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) is a reporting guideline. The 2020 version (Page et al., 2021) has a 27-item checklist grouped into seven sections, a 12-item checklist for abstracts and a flow diagram that tracks records from identification through screening to inclusion. PRISMA tells you what to report, not how to conduct the review; methods guidance comes from handbooks such as the Cochrane Handbook or, in software engineering, Kitchenham’s guidelines. Extensions exist for related designs, for example scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) and search reporting (PRISMA-S).
📱 Get support with your literature review — We agree the databases and inclusion criteria with you; you receive the review matrix with a Turnitin report.
How do you conduct a systematic literature review in 8 steps?
Step 1: Formulate a focused question
Use a framework that fits your field: PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcome) for interventions, PEO (population, exposure, outcome) for associations, or SPIDER for qualitative evidence. “What is the effect of gamified learning on the motivation of secondary school students?” is answerable; “Gamification in education” is a topic, not a question.
Step 2: Write and register a protocol
The protocol states the question, criteria, databases, search strategy, screening process, appraisal tool and synthesis plan before you start. PROSPERO registers reviews with a health-related outcome; reviews in other fields can be registered on OSF Registries. Even if registration is not required by your program, a dated protocol in your appendix protects you against the charge of changing criteria after seeing results.
Step 3: Build the search strategy
Combine synonyms of each concept with OR and the concepts with AND, using truncation and phrase searching, for example: (“gamif*” OR “game-based learning”) AND (motivation OR engagement) AND (“secondary school” OR “high school”). Search at least two or three relevant databases (such as Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, ERIC or PsycINFO, depending on the field) and record each exact string, the date and the number of results. A subject librarian can review the strategy.
Step 4: Remove duplicates and screen titles and abstracts
Export all records to a reference manager or a screening tool such as Rayyan or Covidence, remove duplicates, and screen titles and abstracts against the criteria. Ideally two reviewers screen independently. In a master’s thesis you may be the only reviewer; in that case, ask your supervisor or a colleague to screen a random sample and report the agreement.
Step 5: Assess full texts
Retrieve the remaining full texts and apply the criteria again. Record the reason for every exclusion at this stage (wrong population, wrong outcome, wrong design), because the PRISMA flow diagram reports these reasons with counts.
Step 6: Extract data
Use a piloted extraction form: authors, year, country, design, sample, intervention or exposure, measures, main results and notes. Test the form on two or three studies before extracting from all of them.
Step 7: Appraise study quality
Choose a tool that fits the designs you include: RoB 2 for randomized trials, the JBI checklists or CASP checklists for many designs, or MMAT for mixed collections of studies. Report the appraisal for every included study in a table.
Step 8: Synthesize and report
If studies are similar enough in design, measures and outcomes, a meta-analysis may be possible. Otherwise, use a structured narrative synthesis: group studies by outcome or design, tabulate results, and describe patterns and inconsistencies. Then report using the PRISMA 2020 checklist and include the completed checklist as an appendix.
How do you complete the PRISMA flow diagram?
The diagram has three stages:
- Identification: records found in each database and other sources, minus duplicates and records removed by automation tools.
- Screening: records screened and excluded at title and abstract level, reports sought and not retrieved, reports assessed at full text, and reports excluded with reasons.
- Included: the final number of studies, and of reports if one study has several publications.
The numbers must add up at every step. Examiners check the arithmetic, so build the diagram from your screening log rather than from memory.
Is a systematic literature review realistic for a master’s thesis?
It is, with a well-scoped question. A review limited by population, outcome, language and date range can be completed in a master’s timeline, while a broad question can return thousands of records. Run a quick scoping search first: if it returns many thousands of records, narrow the question; if it returns almost nothing, widen it or consider a scoping review. State all limits in the methods and discuss them as limitations.
Which mistakes weaken a systematic literature review?
- Searching only Google Scholar, whose results cannot be reproduced reliably.
- Changing inclusion criteria after screening without reporting the change.
- A flow diagram whose numbers do not add up.
- Listing study summaries one after another instead of synthesizing across studies.
- No quality appraisal, or an appraisal that is never used in the interpretation.
- Calling a review “systematic” without a protocol, a full search string or a flow diagram.
📱 Ask on WhatsApp now — 5 years of experience across all disciplines and 14 academic services. Two-stage payment (80/20); revisions are free until supervisor approval, within 30% of the chapter.
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between a systematic literature review and a meta-analysis?
The review is the overall method of finding, selecting and appraising studies. A meta-analysis is a statistical technique sometimes used within it to combine effect sizes. Many systematic reviews include no meta-analysis because the studies are too different.
How many databases should I search?
There is no fixed number, but searching a single database is usually considered insufficient. Two to four databases relevant to your field, plus reference list checking of included studies, is common in master’s projects.
Can I do a systematic literature review alone?
Many master’s students do. Report it honestly as a limitation, and reduce the risk by having a second person check a sample of screening and extraction decisions, with the level of agreement reported.
Is a scoping review the same thing?
No. A scoping review maps the extent and nature of evidence on a broader question and usually does not appraise quality. It has its own reporting guideline, PRISMA-ScR.
Do I need to follow PRISMA if my field is not health?
PRISMA was developed in health research but is widely used in education, management, engineering and other fields. Check whether your program or target journal prefers another guideline, and cite the one you follow.
Sources
- Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
- PRISMA. PRISMA 2020 statement, checklist and flow diagram. https://www.prisma-statement.org/
- Higgins, J. P. T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., et al. (Eds.). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (current version). Cochrane. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook
- Kitchenham, B., & Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for Performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering (EBSE Technical Report EBSE-2007-01). Keele University and Durham University.
- Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York. PROSPERO: International prospective register of systematic reviews. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/
Sources last checked: November 2026. This article is general educational guidance and does not replace your university regulations or your supervisor’s instructions. How we prepare our content.