Systematic reviews are among the most rigorous and respected forms of research synthesis. They are highly valued across disciplines from health sciences and psychology to education, social policy, computer science, environmental research, and business. Yet for many doctoral researchers, the first attempt at writing a systematic review can feel overwhelming. The process involves crafting precise research questions, developing complex search strategies, screening hundreds or thousands of papers, extracting data consistently, and synthesising evidence transparently.
In 2026, the process has evolved. AI tools now streamline many of the mechanical steps while preserving human judgement, methodological integrity, and critical interpretation. Writing your first systematic review with AI support is no longer unusual — it is becoming the new standard.
This comprehensive guide will walk you through the full systematic review process, showing exactly how AI can accelerate rigorous research without compromising quality, ethics, or academic credibility.
Understanding What a Systematic Review Really Is
Before writing your first systematic review, you must understand how it differs from traditional literature reviews.
A systematic review is:
- question-driven
- transparent
- replicable
- exhaustive
- governed by strict methodological protocols
Key features include:
- pre-defined search strategy
- explicit inclusion/exclusion criteria
- systematic screening
- structured data extraction
- synthesis based on evidence, not opinion
Unlike narrative reviews, systematic reviews aim to eliminate bias by following rigorous methods such as PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses).
In short: a systematic review is a scientific study of the literature.
Why AI Support Matters in Systematic Reviews
The modern research environment features immense publication volumes and high expectations for methodological precision. AI tools support systematic reviews by providing:
- faster search expansion
- more accurate screening
- improved data extraction consistency
- automated tracking and documentation
- real-time analysis and summarisation
- reduced cognitive load during repetitive tasks
AI cannot replace critical appraisal, synthesis, or conceptual thinking but it dramatically accelerates the foundational mechanical labour that can otherwise take months.
In 2026, writing your first systematic review without AI support is now considered inefficient.
Step 1: Formulating a Strong, Reviewable Research Question for writing your first systematic review
Your systematic review must start with a precise, structured question.
The most common frameworks are important for writing your first systematic review:
- PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) — for health and clinical studies
- SPIDER — for qualitative reviews
- PEO (Population, Exposure, Outcome) — for observational evidence
- PICo — for qualitative/context-based inquiries
- CIMO — for management and organisational studies
Example (education):
How does gamified assessment influence student engagement in higher education?
AI support:
Tools like ChatGPT (Academic Mode), Elicit, Scite Assistant can help refine the structure of the question but the researcher must validate the final version for writing your first systematic review
Step 2: Designing a Transparent Search Strategy for writing your first systematic review
A systematic review requires a reproducible search strategy that identifies all relevant studies.
Databases commonly used include for writing your first systematic review:
- Scopus
- Web of Science
- PubMed
- ERIC
- PsycINFO
- IEEE Xplore
- ABI/Inform
- Google Scholar (for grey literature)
AI support helps in several ways:
AI for Search String Generation
Tools such as:
- ResearchRabbit
- Litmaps
- Elicit
- Scite
can help identify synonyms, controlled vocabulary, related concepts, and missing terms.
Example:
For “student engagement,” AI may suggest including:
- academic engagement
- behavioural engagement
- participation
- motivation
This improves sensitivity and recall.
AI for Automatic Logging
AI-based browser plug-ins can track:
- search strings
- date accessed
- inclusion numbers
- PRISMA-related records
This automates documentation for your Methods section.
Step 3: Screening Studies in a Structured Flow for writing your first systematic review
Screening generally has two stages:
- Title and abstract screening
- Full-text screening
AI support dramatically speeds up both stages.
Tools for AI-Assisted Screening
- Rayyan AI
- Covidence with AI Assist
- ASReview (active learning machine learning model)
- Litmaps Auto-Filter
These tools:
- predict relevance
- group similar papers
- highlight key terms matching inclusion criteria
- create collaborative screening workflows
Researchers remain responsible for all final decisions, but AI reduces a 3,000-paper screening to a manageable set far more quickly.
Step 4: Extracting Data Consistently
Data extraction is where systematic reviews can become exhausting.
A well-designed extraction form might include:
- author, year
- methodology
- population
- context
- instruments
- main findings
- limitations
- theoretical framework
AI support tools automate repetitive extraction tasks for writing your first systematic review
AI Tools for Data Extraction
- ChatPDF (with ethical use)
- Scholarcy
- PDFgear AI
- Ref-N-Write Extraction Assistant
- Covidence Data Extraction 2.0
- SyntheiaAI Extract
They can summarise:
- aims
- methods
- sample
- results
- limitations
Researchers still must verify accuracy — especially for methodological nuance.
Step 5: Quality Appraisal of Included Studies
Quality appraisal must never be left entirely to AI.
However, AI can help:
- summarise methodological details
- classify study design
- highlight risk-of-bias indicators
- provide rationale drafts
Common tools include:
- CASP
- JBI Critical Appraisal Checklists
- MMAT (Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool)
AI can pre-fill reasoning but the researcher must provide final judgement.
Step 6: Synthesising Evidence Using AI Assistance
Synthesis must remain human-led.
AI can support the following areas:
1. Thematic Synthesis (Qualitative Reviews)
AI tools such as:
- NVivo AI Coding
- ATLAS.ti AI Assistant
- Notably AI
can provide preliminary clusters of recurring concepts.
Researchers must:
- refine themes
- interpret meaning
- connect to theory
2. Narrative Synthesis (Mixed Evidence)
AI models can:
- summarise patterns
- compare study outcomes
- highlight contradictions
3. Meta-Analysis Support (Quantitative Reviews)
AI tools like:
- RevMan Web (Cochrane)
- MetaInsight AI plug-ins
can: - calculate effect sizes
- detect heterogeneity
- generate forest plots
But statistical analysis must be validated using established methods.
Caution:
AI can suggest synthesis structures, but interpretation must be researcher-driven to preserve academic integrity.
Step 7: Writing the Systematic Review with AI Support
When writing your first systematic review, AI can help with:
- improving clarity
- rewriting for conciseness
- generating section outlines
- formatting references
- checking PRISMA compliance
But it must not:
- create fake citations
- fabricate findings
- replace your academic reasoning
A recommended workflow:
Introduction
AI helps restructure:
- background
- rationale
- gap identification
Methods
AI assists with:
- search strategy formatting
- PRISMA descriptions
- coding framework templates
Results
AI helps summarise:
- study characteristics
- qualitative themes
- quantitative outcomes
Discussion
AI can suggest:
- implications
- limitations
- future research
BUT the intellectual contribution must be entirely your own.
Step 8: Ensuring Transparency and Reproducibility — A 2026 Expectation
Systematic reviews in 2026 must include:
- PRISMA 2020 flow diagram
- Open-access search strategy appendix
- Full inclusion/exclusion criteria
- Data extraction form
- Risk of bias table
- AI-use declaration (now required by many journals)
Transparency builds credibility.
Step 9: Tools to Support the Entire Systematic Review Lifecycle
Here is a consolidated list of the most important AI and non-AI tools you can use when writing your first systematic review:
Search & Mapping
- Elicit
- ResearchRabbit
- Litmaps
- Scite
Screening
- Rayyan AI
- Covidence
- ASReview
Data Extraction & Summarisation
- Scholarcy
- PDFgear AI
- ChatPDF (ethically)
Synthesis
- NVivo AI
- ATLAS.ti AI
- Notably AI
Writing & Formatting
- Zotero
- EndNote
- Grammarly Academic
- ChatGPT Academic Mode
Each tool supports different components of a systematic review without undermining rigorous standards.
Common Mistakes When Writing Your First Systematic Review
Avoid these pitfalls:
- Mixing narrative and systematic review styles
- Not preregistering your review (PROSPERO where relevant)
- Letting AI screen too aggressively without oversight
- Incomplete search strategies
- Poor documentation
- Weak appraisal of study quality
- Lack of coherence between results and discussion
- Allowing AI to write entire sections
A systematic review must be analytical, not mechanical.
Ethics of Using AI in Systematic Reviews
In 2026, AI use must follow four rules:
- Declare AI use transparently
Many journals now have AI disclosure requirements. - Never upload sensitive data to unapproved tools
Especially transcripts or participant information. - Verify all AI outputs manually
AI can misunderstand methods or misinterpret results. - Maintain scholarly authorship
Your insight, argument, and interpretation define the review.
Conclusion: Writing Your First Systematic Review with AI Support Is Now the Standard
Systematic reviews remain one of the most respected scholarly outputs because of their rigour, structure, and contribution to evidence-based knowledge. In 2026, AI support has revolutionised the process, making the workflow faster, more transparent, and more manageable — especially for first-time reviewers.
Yet despite these innovations, the core principles remain unchanged:
- clarity
- methodological integrity
- transparency
- critical thinking
- human interpretation
By integrating AI wisely, writing your first systematic review can become a rewarding journey rather than a daunting task — one that strengthens your scholarly identity and enhances the quality of your research.
Visit our other human resource certifications
Visit our other artificial intelligence certifications
Visit our other digital technology certifications
Visit our other higher education certifications
Visit our other quality and lean six sigma certifications
Visit our other strategy and management certifications
Innovative Practices: How Case Studies Influence Product Design
Case Studies in Economics: A Closer Look
Utilizing Case Studies for Effective Disaster Management
AI-Powered Learning: Enhancing Student Engagement and Outcomes
Ethical Considerations of AI in Education: Balancing Innovation and Privacy
Responses