Systematic Reviewers Research Articles

International multi-stakeholder consensus statement on clinical trial integrity.

To prepare a set of statements for randomised clinical trials (RCT) integrity through an international multi-stakeholder consensus. The consensus was developed via: multi-country multidisciplinary stakeholder group composition and engagement; evidence synthesis of 55 systematic reviews concerning RCT integrity; anonymised two-round modified Delphi survey with consensus threshold based on the average percentage of majority opinions; and, a final consensus development meeting. Prospective registrations: (https://osf.io/bhncy, https://osf.io/3ursn). There were 30 stakeholders representing 15 countries from five continents including triallists, ethicists, methodologists, statisticians, consumer representatives, industry representatives, systematic reviewers, funding body panel members, regulatory experts, authors, journal editors, peer-reviewers and advisors for resolving integrity concerns. Delphi survey response rate was 86.7% (26/30 stakeholders). There were 111 statements (73 stakeholder-provided, 46 systematic review-generated, 8 supported by both) in the initial long list, with eight additional statements provided during the consensus rounds. Through consensus the final set consolidated 81 statements (49 stakeholder-provided, 41 systematic review-generated, 9 supported by both). The entire RCT life cycle was covered by the set of statements including general aspects (n=6), design and approval (n=11), conduct and monitoring (n=19), reporting of protocols and findings (n=20), post-publication concerns (n=12), and future research and development (n=13). Implementation of this multi-stakeholder consensus statement is expected to enhance RCT integrity.

Mathematics Beliefs of Secondary School Students: A Systematics Reviews

Purpose: This systematic review aims to explore the mathematics beliefs of secondary school students. Specifically, the study aims to identify the most commonly held mathematics beliefs by secondary school students and explore the factors that influence these beliefs. The review also aims to discuss the implications of the findings for educators and researchers. Methodology: The review included 27 studies, which were conducted between 2010 and 2021, and focused on mathematics beliefs of students in grades 7-12. The studies were conducted in various countries, including the United States, China, Turkey, and Iran. Findings: The results of the review suggest that mathematics beliefs of secondary school students are influenced by various factors, including gender, ethnicity, previous academic performance, teacher expectations, and cultural beliefs. Significance: Additionally, the review found that mathematics beliefs can impact students' academic achievement and their attitudes towards mathematics. Based on the findings of the review, recommendations for future research and educational practice are provided.

Systematic reviewers' perspectives on replication of systematic reviews: A survey

AbstractBackgroundReplication is essential to the scientific method. It is unclear what systematic reviewers think about the replication of systematic reviews (SRs). Therefore, we aimed to explore systematic reviewers' perspectives on (a) the definition and importance of SR replication; (b) incentives and barriers to conducting SR replication; and (c) a checklist to guide when to replicate an SR.MethodsWe searched PubMed for SRs published from January to April 2021, from which we randomly allocated 50% to this survey and 50% to another survey on data sharing in SRs. We sent an electronic survey to authors of these SRs (n = 4669) using Qualtrics. Quantitative responses were summarized using frequency analysis. Free‐text answers were coded using an inductive approach.ResultsThe response rate was 9% (n = 409). Most participants considered “replication of SRs” as redoing an SR (68%) or reanalyzing originally collected data (61%), using the same or similar methods. Participants also considered updating an SR, either one's own (42%) or others (43%), equivalent to replication. Most participants agreed that replication of SRs is important (89%). Although 54% of participants reported having conducted a replication of a SR, only 22% have published a replication within 5 years. Those who published a replication (n = 89) often found their replication supported (47%) or expanded the generalizability of the original review (51%). The most common perceived barriers to replicating SRs were difficulty publishing (75%), less prestige (65%), fewer citations (56%), and less impact on career advancement (55%) compared to conducting an original SR. A checklist to assess the need for replication was deemed useful (79%) and easy to apply in practice (69%) by participants.ConclusionReviewers have various perceptions of what constitutes a replication of SRs. Reviewers see replication as important and valuable but perceive several barriers to conducting replications. Institutional support should be better communicated to reviewers to address these perceptions.

Systematic reviewers' perspectives on sharing review data, analytic code, and other materials: A survey

AbstractBackgroundThere are many benefits of sharing data, analytic code, and other materials, yet these items are infrequently shared among systematic reviews (SRs). It is unclear which factors influence authors' decisions to share data, code, or materials when publishing their SRs. Therefore, we aimed to explore systematic reviewers' perspectives on the importance of sharing review materials and factors that might influence such practices.MethodsWe searched PubMed for SRs published from January to April 2021, from which we randomly allocated 50% to this survey and 50% to another survey on the replication of SRs. We sent an electronic survey to authors of these SRs (n = 4671) using Qualtrics. Quantitative responses were summarized using frequency analysis. Free‐text answers were coded using an inductive approach.ResultsThe response rate was 9% (n = 417). Most participants supported routine sharing of search strategies (84%) but fewer for analytic code (43%) or files documenting data preparation (38%). Most participants agreed that normative practices within the discipline were an important facilitator (78%). Major perceived barriers were lack of time (62%) and suitable sharing platforms (31%). Few participants were required by funders (19%) or institutions (17%) to share data, and only 12% of participants reported receiving training on data sharing. Commonly perceived consequences of data sharing were lost opportunities for future publications (50%), misuse of data (48%), and issues with intellectual property (40%). In their most recent reviews, participants who did not share data cited the lack of journal requirements (56%) or noted the review did not include any statistical analysis that required sharing (29%).ConclusionCertain types of review materials were considered unnecessary for sharing, despite their importance to the review's transparency and reproducibility. Structural barriers and concerns about negative consequences hinder data sharing among systematic reviewers. Normalization and institutional incentives are essential to promote data‐sharing practices in evidence‐synthesis research.

Reflection and peer assessment to promote self-directed learning in higher education

Reflection and peer assessment as pedagogical approaches were implemented through a group project in this study aimed to transform students into reflective and self-directed learners thereby enhancing their competence and learning achievements. To support students’ learning progress and evaluate their learning outcomes, formative and summative assessments were conducted halfway through and at the end of the project, respectively, under the guidance of the course instructor. Self-reflection as a systematic reviewing process during the formative assessment enabled students to critically evaluate their own learning behavior and identify intrinsic learning needs, while team members were encouraged to provide constructive feedback to peers which could play a crucial role in improving their overall learning experiences. In contrast, the summative assessment exercise allowed students to grade their peers within each group considering pre-assigned criteria as guided by the course instructor. The summative assessment indicated contrasting performance among the two participating groups, which could be attributed to their differences in active engagement, peer interactions, and collaborative learning during the project that eventually influenced the group's performance. Though both teams were comparable in terms of competence, effective collaboration and organization among group members supplemented the learning process and turn their performance distinct. However, in some cases, the realization of learning needs was not transformed into necessary actions, which was eventually reflected in the group performance. Overall, this study demonstrated that reflection and peer assessment practice are conducive to the development of critical thinking and self-directed learning among students, which can augment their learning experiences at the university level. Keywords: Self-directed learning, active learning, reflective practices, formative assessment, contructivism, transformative learning theory.

Measuring the impact of zero-cases studies in evidence synthesis practice using the harms index and benefits index (Hi-Bi)

ObjectivesIn evidence synthesis practice, dealing with studies with no cases in both arms has been a tough problem, for which there is no consensus in the research community. In this study, we propose a method to measure the potential impact of studies with no cases for meta-analysis results which we define as harms index (Hi) and benefits index (Bi) as an alternative solution for deciding how to deal with such studies.MethodsHi and Bi are defined by the minimal number of cases added to the treatment arm (Hi) or control arm (Bi) of studies with no cases in a meta-analysis that lead to a change of the direction of the estimates or its statistical significance. Both exact and approximating methods are available to calculate Hi and Bi. We developed the “hibi” module in Stata so that researchers can easily implement the method. A real-world investigation of meta-analyses from Cochrane reviews was employed to evaluate the proposed method.ResultsBased on Hi and Bi, our results suggested that 21.53% (Hi) to 26.55% (Bi) of Cochrane meta-analyses may be potentially impacted by studies with no cases, for which studies with no cases could not be excluded from the synthesis. The approximating method shows excellent specificity (100%) for both Hi and Bi, moderate sensitivity (68.25%) for Bi, and high sensitivity (80.61%) for Hi compared to the exact method.ConclusionsThe proposed method is practical and useful for systematic reviewers to measure whether studies with no cases impact the results of meta-analyses and may act as an alternative solution for review authors to decide whether to include studies with no events for the synthesis or not.

Revising the JBI quantitative critical appraisal tools to improve their applicability: an overview of methods and the development process.

JBI offers a suite of critical appraisal instruments that are freely available to systematic reviewers and researchers investigating the methodological limitations of primary research studies. The JBI instruments are designed to be study-specific and are presented as questions in a checklist. The JBI instruments have existed in a checklist-style format for approximately 20 years; however, as the field of research synthesis expands, many of the tools offered by JBI have become outdated. The JBI critical appraisal tools for quantitative studies (eg, randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies) must be updated to reflect the current methodologies in this field. Cognizant of this and the recent developments in risk-of-bias science, the JBI Effectiveness Methodology Group was tasked with updating the current quantitative critical appraisal instruments. This paper details the methods and rationale that the JBI Effectiveness Methodology Group followed when updating the JBI critical appraisal instruments for quantitative study designs. We detail the key changes made to the tools and highlight how these changes reflect current methodological developments in this field.

A META-ANALYSIS ON CORRELATION OF SITE AND SIZE OF TYMPANIC MEMBRANE PERFORATION WITH THE DEGREE OF HEARING LOSS

A discharging ear is the most common presenting symptom for ENT conditions. However, some degree of hearing loss is always present. In order to compare the degree of hearing impairment with the size and location of the perforation, we made an effort to conduct this study. The purpose of the study is to ascertain whether, and if so, what, a relationship exists between the location and extent of the tympanic membrane perforation and the severity of hearing loss. In a systematic scoping review of randomized controlled trials, each database was subjected to a unique systematic search approach. Utilizing the methodological approaches specified in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviewers, a systematic scoping review is conducted after selection criteria, with results reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA). Tympanic membrane anomalies are the root cause of various degrees of conducive deafness. The size of the perforation affects how much hearing is lost. More of an impact is felt on lower frequencies than on higher frequencies. More deafness results from posterior-inferior perforations than anterior-inferior perforations.

Fibroblast Activation Protein Inhibitor (FAPI)-Based Theranostics—Where We Are at and Where We Are Heading: A Systematic Review

Cancer is the leading cause of death around the globe, followed by heart disease and stroke, with the highest mortality to this day. We have reached great levels of understanding of how these various types of cancer operate at a cellular level and this has brought us to what we call "precision medicine" where every diagnostic examination and the therapeutic procedure is tailored to the patient. FAPI is among the new tracers that can be used to assess and treat many types of cancer. The aim of this review was to gather all the known literature on FAPI theranostics. A MEDLINE search was conducted on four web libraries, PUBMED, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Sciences. All of the available articles that included both diagnoses and therapy with FAPI tracers were collected and put through the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) questionnaire for systematic reviewing. A total of 8 records were deemed suitable for CASP review, ranging from 2018 to November 2022. These studies were put through the CASP diagnostic checklist, in order to assess the goal of the study, diagnostic and reference tests, results, descriptions of the patient sample, and future applications. Sample sizes were heterogeneous, both for size as well as for tumor type. Only one author studied a single type of cancer with FAPI tracers. Progression of disease was the most common outcome, and no relevant collateral effects were noted. Although FAPI theranostics is still in its infancy and lacks solid grounds to be brought into clinical practice, it does not show any collateral effects that prohibit administration to patients, thus far, and has good tolerability profiles.

Peer influence on prosocial behavior in adolescence

Peer relationships are crucial for the formation and development of prosocial behavior among adolescents. However, most studies have focused on harmful behaviors and risky behaviors of adolescence, and previous verifiable work has often focused on peer relationship influences for antisocial behavior in adolescents. The research on the influence of adolescent peer relationship on prosocial behavior is relatively insufficient, especially the lack of systematic reviewing articles. This article presents peer influence can affect the prosocial behavior by demonstrating social and prosocial behavior in adolescent stage, exploring the importance of peer relationship, decision information of peers and peer intimacy. Moreover, this paper reviews recent experiential studies to explain the mechanism of peer influence on adolescent prosocial behavior from the perspectives of social learning and conformity theory and gender differences. This paper builds a higher study basement for future prosocial behavior field. Limitations of differences between different prosocial behaviors, and the influence level from peers are also worth investigating in the future.

The revised JBI critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias for randomized controlled trials.

JBI recently began the process of updating and revising its suite of critical appraisal tools to ensure that these tools remain compatible with recent developments within risk of bias science. Following a rigorous development process led by the JBI Effectiveness Methodology Group, this paper presents the revised critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias for randomized controlled trials. This paper also presents practical guidance on how the questions of this tool are to be interpreted and applied by systematic reviewers, while providing topical examples. We also discuss the major changes made to this tool compared to the previous version and justification for why these changes facilitate best-practice methodologies in this field.

Systematic Review Reporting - Writing concisely and precisely.

Systematic reviews rank at the top of the evidence hierarchy. Concise writing implies drafting the systematic review article succinctly, i.e. using as few words to express as full an extent of the research effort as possible. Precise writing means drafting the text with accuracy especially with respect to the methodological and statistical aspects. The Abstract ought to be succinct and structured to allow for editors, peer reviewers and readers to get the gist of the key aspects of the systematic review with a quick read. The readership needs to be able to critically appraisal systematic reviews for their internal and external validity rapidly. The Abstract also needs to be standalone, representing an independent summary that can be fully understood without the need for reading the full paper. The standard structure of the main text of a scientific article called IMRaD (Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion) applies equally to systematic reviews in the same way as it does to any other kinds of research manuscripts whether related to laboratory experiments or clinical trials. Restricting the word count limits to those imposed by journals may at first seem difficult, even unfair, to systematic reviewers. However, with the availability of online appendices to transparently and fully report the details of the methods, results and other aspects of the work undertaken allows for a succinct print or PDF article. Writing a shorter manuscript is more effortful than writing a longer report. This commentary is aimed at novice systematic reviewers to help them learn the written and unwritten writing rules in order to assist them in producing impactful publications to support evidence-based medicine.

Core outcome domains for lichen sclerosus: a CORALS initiative consensus statement.

Lichen sclerosus (LS) is a chronic inflammatory condition mainly affecting genital skin. It causes distressing symptoms that impact daily quality of life (QoL). It causes progressive anatomical changes and a potential risk of cancer. Published randomized controlled trials are of varying methodological quality and difficult to combine in meta-analyses. This is partly due to lack of agreed outcome measures to assess treatment response. Identification of core outcome sets (COSs), which standardize key outcomes to be measured in all future trials, is a solution to this problem. To obtain international agreement on which outcome domains should be measured in interventional trials of genital LS. Recommended best practice for COS domain development was followed: (i) identification of potential outcome domains: a long list was generated through an up-to-date LS literature search, including information collected during the LS priority-setting partnership; (ii) provisional agreement of outcome domains: a three-stage multi-stakeholder international electronic-Delphi (e-Delphi) consensus study; (iii) final agreement of outcome domains: online consensus meeting with international stakeholders including anonymized voting. In total, 123 participants (77 patients, 44 health professionals, 2 researchers) from 20 countries completed three rounds of the e-Delphi study. Eleven outcome domains were rated as 'critical' and were discussed at the online consensus meetings. The first set of consensus meetings involved 42 participants from 12 countries. Consensus was met for 'symptoms' (100% agreed) and 'QoL - LS-specific' (92% agreed). After the second set of meetings, involving 29 participants from 12 countries, 'clinical (visible) signs' also met consensus (97% agreed). The international community has agreed on three key outcome domains to measure in all future LS clinical trials. We recommend that trialists and systematic reviewers incorporate these domains into study protocols with immediate effect. CORALS will now work with stakeholders to select an outcome measurement instrument per prioritized core domain.

Using Risk of Bias 2 to assess results from randomised controlled trials: guidance from Cochrane

A systematic review identifies, appraises and synthesises all the empirical evidence from studies that meet prespecified eligibility criteria to answer a specific research question. As part of the appraisal, researchers...

Evidence-based decision-making: On the use of systematicity cases to check the compliance of reviews with reporting guidelines such as PRISMA 2020

Background and contextSystematic reviews aim to provide high-quality evidence-based syntheses for efficacy under real-world conditions and allow understanding the correlations between exposures and outcomes. They are increasingly popular and have several stakeholders (e.g., healthcare providers, researchers, educators, students, journal editors, policy makers, managers) to whom they help make informed recommendations for practice or policy. ProblemSystematic reviews usually exhibit low methodological and reporting quality. To tackle this, reporting guidelines have been developed to support systematic reviews reporting and assessment. Following such guidelines is crucial to ensure that a review is transparent, complete, trustworthy, reproducible, and unbiased. However, systematic reviewers usually fail to adhere to existing reporting guidelines, which may significantly decrease the quality of the reviews they report and may result in systematic reviews that lack methodological rigor, yield low-credible findings and may mislead decision-makers. MethodsTo assure that a review complies with reporting guidelines, we rely on assurance cases that are an emerging way of arguing and relaying various safety–critical systems’ requirements in an extensive manner, as well as checking the compliance of such systems with standards to support their certification. Since the nature of assurance cases makes them applicable to various domains and requirements/properties, we therefore propose a new type of assurance cases called systematicity cases. Systematicity cases focus on the systematicity property and allow arguing that a review is systematic i.e., that it sufficiently complies with the targeted reporting guideline. The most widespread reporting guidelines include PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and meta-Analyses). We measure the confidence in a systematicity case representing a review as a means to quantify the systematicity of that review i.e., the extent to which that review is systematic. We rely on rule-based Artificial Intelligence to create a knowledge-based system that automatically supports the inference mechanism that a given systematicity case embodies and that allows making a decision regarding the systematicity of a given review. ResultsAn empirical evaluation performed on 25 reviews (self-identifying as systematic) showed that these reviews exhibit a suboptimal systematicity. More specifically, the systematicity of the analyzed reviews varies between 32.96% and 66.49% and its average is 54.42%. More efforts are therefore needed to report systematic reviews of higher quality. More experiments are also needed to further explore the factors hindering and/or assuring the systematicity of reviews. AudienceThe main beneficiaries of our work are journal reviewers, journal editors, managers, policymakers, researchers, organizations developing reporting guidelines, peer reviewers, students, insurers, evidence users, as well as reporting guidelines developers.

A Literature Review on Postpartum Perineal Wound Care: Epidemiology, Impact, and Future Interventions

BACKGROUND: Perineal injury is an injury to the urogenital diaphragm and levator ani muscle, which occurs during normal delivery, or vaginal delivery, can occur without injury to the perineal or vaginal skin. Perineal wounds become one of the breeding media for germs so that it becomes the cause of puerperal infection. Perineal infection can occur because the location of the perineum is moist so that it becomes a breeding ground for bacteria. Incidence of infection that occurs in the perineal wound can spread to the birth canal or urinary tract. Infectious conditions in the perineal wound will slow down the wound healing process, because it can increase the damage to the supporting tissues of the skin. AIM: This systematic review aims to see how postnatal perineal wound care: Epidemiology, impact, and future interventions. METHODS: Researchers searched for quantitative studies published between 2017 and 2021, using PubMed, Elsevier, and Google Scholar. Thirty studies in systematics review. RESULTS: The studies that have been collected that there are nine studies discussing the effect of therapies given to the treatment of perineal wounds in studies that discuss therapy two studies including discussing infrared lamp therapy, one study discussing the effects of mastic oleoresin, one study discussing betel leaf decoction, one study discussing the effectiveness of Aloe vera, one study discussing the effects of cinnamon, one study discussed the application of negative pressure sores, one study discussed the effect of pineapple fruit juice, and one other study discussed the effects of carvacrol, tymol, and olive oil. Then, two studies discussed the prevalence of perineal wound events and three studies discussed the characteristics of perineum wounds. CONCLUSION: This systematic review evaluates and synthesizes the effectiveness of intervention methods of perineal wound pain reduction and perineal wound healing (episiotomy) and improves comfort in consideration of the methodological evidence level of stud patients’ comfort.

An Introduction to Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

A high quality systematic review with meta-analysis is considered to provide a high level of evidence in health-care research. It is important to follow rigorous methodology while conducting a systematic review and reporting its findings. To minimize the chances of error and bias, at least two (preferably 3–4) authors should be involved at all stages of the conduct of a systematic review. Registering the protocol on open websites such as PROSPERO is essential to enable transparency and scientific rigor. Important steps are writing the protocol, conducting detailed literature search through multiple databases, identifying studies that meet strict inclusion criteria, abstracting the data, contacting authors to obtain additional information, assessing the risk of bias of included studies, synthesizing evidence qualitatively, conducting meta-analysis using appropriate statistical models, assessing publication bias and heterogeneity, exploring heterogeneity through sensitivity and subgroup analyses, grading the certainty of evidence following the GRADE framework, reporting using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines, describing the limitations and providing implications for clinical practice and future research. Clinicians should evaluate the credibility of systematic reviews prior to applying their results in clinical practice. This article provides a brief introduction to the methodology of systematic reviews and meta-analyses and also provides links to some high-quality free resources for prospective systematic reviewers.

Statistical Process Control (SPC) Implementation in Manufacturing Industry to Improve Quality Performance: A Prisma Systematic Literature Review and Meta Analysi

The fundamental need for quality in manufacturing is the production process must be able to generate the product with an acceptable variance from the stated quality index. Statistical process control (SPC) is frequently used to monitor standards, take measurements, and take corrective action. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematics Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methods were used to better inform reviewers and readers about the authors’ actions and findings, speed up the review process, and improve the quality of the reporting. Publish or perish, VOS viewer, and Mendeley Desktop were also used to search related articles and analyze the bibliometric. The conclusion notes that integrating other quality approaches has increased the use of SPC in the manufacturing sector. This was applied within other quality improvement programs such as Six Sigma and TQM. Even though SPC is a statistically based technique, challenge, and limitation factors showed that implementing SPC in the manufacturing industry will be successful if other crucial factors like management, education/training, culture, and the availability of human resources are well-prepared. In conclusion, the authors hope that this review will highlight the value of SPC as a potential tool for quality control and enhancement in the manufacturing sector.

Willingness to Pay for Down Syndrome Screening: A systematics Review.

Background:Financial ability to pay has a unique role in the accessibility of health care services, which indicates the necessity of raising enough funds by governments. However, how much households are willing to pay (WTP) for receiving a particular service? And what factors influence their WTP? The current systematic review aimed to, firstly, review studies on the WTP for Down syndrome (DS) screening, and, secondly, to identify factors that affect WTP for DS screening. Methods:We systematically searched the Scopus, PubMed, Web of Sciences (ISI), and Embase databases to identify relevant studies from their inception to June 2020; the search strategy was updated on December 2021. Initially, 157 articles were identified, and 5 were found eligible for full-text review. In event of any disagreement, a third reviewer was used. Extracted WTPs were converted to US dollars in 2018 using exchange rate parity and the present value formula to make a comparison. The quality assessment of the selected studies was done using the "Lancsar and Louvier" and Smith checklist; also, vote counting was used to assess the influence of factors. Results:Five eligible studies, published from 2005 to 2020, were fully reviewed. All final studies were scored as good quality. The extracted WTPs varied from $169 to $1118 in UK and Canada, respectively. Income and information/knowledge about screening tests were the most frequently investigated factors. Education level, detection rate, women's age, cost, and family history were significantly associated with higher levels of WTP for DS screening. Conclusion:This study demonstrated a significant gap in WTP for DS screening in various countries. Women are WTP higher costs for tests with higher screenings. Also, a unique role was identified for income, occupation, information, and family history of DS in WTP for DS screening. In addition, a positive association was found for the variable of age.

Cognitive Load Theory on Virtual Mathematics Laboratory: Systematic Literature Review

The primary goal of cognitive load theory is to improve the learning of complex cognitive tasks by transforming current scientific knowledge on how cognitive structures and processes are organized into guidelines for instructional design. Cognitive load theory assumes that the bottleneck for acquiring new secondary biological knowledge is the limited working memory capacity. In the ideal situation, the working memory resources required for learning do not exceed the available resources. Despite this, in reality, there will often be a high cognitive load, or even ”overload,” for two reasons. First, dealing with interactive information elements in complex cognition imposes a high intrinsic working memory load. Second, learners also have to use working memory resources for activities that are extraneous to performing and learning tasks, that is, activities that are not productive for learning. Virtual Laboratory is a form of animation that can visualize abstract phenomena or complex experiments in natural laboratories to increase learning activities and develop problem-solving skills. A virtual math laboratory was created to optimize dual coding memory, namely verbal and audio learning. The investigation tracked the approved reporting Items for Systematics Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, illustrating the outcomes of the literature searches and articles selection process. It is used to provide that the selection process is replicable and transparent. We accomplished a computerized bibliometric analysis from 2002-2022 for articles retrieved from the SCOPUS database. Data were collected in July 2022.
 Keywords: cognitive load theory, virtual laboratory, mathematics education