{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029411764705882353, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012605042016806723, 'mean_word_length': 4.95625, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
How to produce a systematic review

As systematic reviews aim to collate all of the relevant information, clinicians or researchers can be confident that most, if not all, the relevant papers have been considered (Higgins and Green, 2011). Systematic reviews are the most highly regarded research evidence, and therefore, are used to inform guidelines, summarise evidence and provide justification for commencing a randomised controlled trial (Fig. 1) (Murad et al., 2016). I am interested in the long-term risks that follow a diagnosis of gestational diabetes (GDM). Currently, I am synthesizing studies of interventions to reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in women with prior GDM. This review article will form the basis of further research to inform the development of interventions to reduce the risk of T2D. The purpose of this short report is to share the challenges and techniques I have discovered while undertaking a systematic review.