Dissertation Outline Sample: A Systematic Review Nursing Dissertation

Model Answer

This outline shows how to plan and structure an MSc nursing systematic review dissertation before you begin full drafting. It suits a review of a clinical topic of around 15,000–16,000 words, reported to a recognised standard such as PRISMA, and built around five chapters. Work through each chapter below, note the specific sub-sections your topic requires, and use the indicative word counts as a planning guide rather than a fixed rule — a review with many included studies will need a longer Findings chapter than one with few. Treat this as a live document: revisit it once your protocol is agreed, again once your searches are complete, and once more once you know how many studies you have included.

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Establishes the clinical problem, explains why a systematic review is the right method, and states your review question. This chapter should make a busy clinical reader understand, within the first paragraph, exactly why this review is needed.

What to cover:

• Clinical background and scale of the problem (prevalence, patient impact, cost to services)
• Policy or guideline context (for example NICE guidance or NMC standards) relevant to the topic
• Rationale for reviewing the evidence systematically rather than narratively
• A PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) framing of your review question
• Aim and objectives of the review
• An overview of how the rest of the dissertation is structured
• Statistics or audit data illustrating the scale of the problem in a UK clinical setting
• A short paragraph distinguishing this review’s question from reviews that already exist on the topic

Suggested flow: Open with the clinical problem and its scale, narrow to the specific gap in guidance or evidence, state your PICO question, then close with aims and a chapter roadmap.

Common pitfall: Stating a review question that is too broad to search or synthesise within the scope of a Masters dissertation.

Indicative length: ~2,200 words  |  Indicative references/sources: 15–20

Chapter 2: Methodology (Search Strategy and Quality Appraisal)

Documents exactly how studies were found, screened and quality-assessed, following a recognised systematic review protocol. Because a systematic review lives or dies on transparency, every methodological decision should be explained rather than simply stated.

What to cover:

• Protocol and reporting standard used (for example PRISMA), and registration if applicable
• Databases searched, search terms used and the date range covered
• Inclusion and exclusion criteria, stated precisely enough to be repeatable
• A PRISMA flow diagram or table describing records identified, screened, excluded and included
• The critical appraisal tool used (for example CASP) and how quality was scored
• The data extraction and synthesis approach (narrative synthesis or thematic synthesis)
• A record of how many results each database search returned, kept for the PRISMA diagram
• A short paragraph justifying the chosen quality appraisal tool over the alternatives
• A statement of how disagreements between reviewers, or with your supervisor, were resolved

Suggested flow: Present the protocol and standard used first, then the search strategy, then the screening process shown in a PRISMA diagram, then quality appraisal, then your synthesis method.

Common pitfall: Vague inclusion criteria that make the search impossible for another researcher to replicate.

Indicative length: ~3,000 words  |  Indicative references/sources: 8–12

Chapter 3: Findings (Synthesis of Included Studies)

Synthesises what the included studies found, organised by theme rather than study by study, supported by a summary table. This is usually the longest chapter, since it must both describe the evidence base and synthesise it into meaningful themes.

What to cover:

• Overview of the final included studies: design, setting, sample sizes and quality ratings
• A study characteristics table summarising each included paper
• Findings organised into three to four themes that cut across multiple studies
• Areas of agreement and disagreement between studies, explained rather than just noted
• An overall statement on the quality and certainty of the evidence base
• A brief note on any studies excluded at full-text stage, and why
• An explicit link between each theme and the studies that support it
• A short paragraph noting where the evidence is strong versus where it is thin or conflicting

Suggested flow: Open with an overview of the included studies and their quality, present the study characteristics table, then work theme by theme through the synthesis, closing with an overall statement on evidence certainty.

Common pitfall: Summarising each study in turn instead of synthesising findings thematically across studies.

Indicative length: ~4,500 words  |  Indicative references/sources: 15–25, the included studies themselves

Chapter 4: Discussion

Interprets the synthesised findings for clinical practice, relating them to existing guidelines and the strength of the evidence. A strong Discussion in a review dissertation always returns to what the findings mean for a nurse at the bedside, not only for the literature.

What to cover:

• Summary of key findings set against the original review question
• Comparison with existing clinical guidelines or policy
• Explanation of why studies may disagree (differences in population, setting or measurement)
• Strengths and limitations of the review process itself
• Implications for nursing practice and patient care
• Gaps that remain in the evidence base
• A short paragraph on the transferability of findings to different clinical settings
• Consideration of what a lower-quality evidence base means for how confidently recommendations can be made

Suggested flow: Summarise the key synthesised findings first, compare them against guidance and policy, explain areas of disagreement between studies, then close with limitations and implications for practice.

Common pitfall: Overstating what a small, mixed-quality evidence base can actually support in terms of practice change.

Indicative length: ~3,300 words  |  Indicative references/sources: 10–15

Chapter 5: Conclusion and Recommendations for Practice

Draws the review to a close with clear, actionable recommendations for clinical practice, education and future research. Recommendations should always be graded by the strength of evidence behind them, so a marker can see you are not overstating what a review this size can support.

What to cover:

• A concise summary of what the evidence shows overall
• Specific, actionable recommendations for practice or policy
• Recommendations for future primary research or further reviews
• Reflection on the limitations of the review
• A final statement on the review’s contribution to patient care
• Recommendations split clearly into practice, education and further research
• A short closing paragraph reflecting on what the review process itself taught you

Suggested flow: Summarise the overall evidence picture in one paragraph, list graded recommendations, then close with limitations and a final statement on contribution to patient care.

Common pitfall: Recommendations that are too general to act on, rather than tied directly to a specific finding.

Indicative length: ~2,000 words  |  Indicative references/sources: 3–6

How the Chapters Fit Together

Your PICO question in the Introduction should shape the inclusion and exclusion criteria set out in Methodology, which in turn determines which studies appear in Findings. The Discussion should then return explicitly to the clinical significance stated in Chapter 1, so a marker can see a single, coherent line of argument running from the opening background to the final recommendations for practice.

Chapter Word Count Summary

Milestones

• Weeks 1–2: agree your review question (PICO) and finalise your protocol
• Weeks 3–4: finalise the search strategy and databases with your supervisor or librarian
• Weeks 5–7: run searches, screen titles and abstracts, and complete the PRISMA flow diagram
• Weeks 8–9: retrieve full texts, apply quality appraisal and extract data
• Weeks 10–13: synthesise findings and draft the Findings chapter
• Weeks 14–16: draft Discussion and Conclusion
• Week 18: submit a full draft for supervisor feedback
• Week 20: revise, format and submit

Further reading: see our literature review writing service and our dissertation writing service for support with systematic reviews.