UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

Statement D is wrong because a systematic review must aim to include all relevant studies that meet the criteria, not just those that support the researcher's preferred position; selective inclusion would bias the review. Statements A, B, C and E are correct: systematic reviews follow explicit procedures, define criteria in advance, may use meta-analysis or narrative synthesis and rely on transparent reporting for credibility. Thus, D alone is the incorrect statement.

Option A:
Option A is incorrect as it treats both A and D as wrong, despite A correctly describing the structured procedures that characterise a systematic review. Rejecting A would undermine the definition of systematic work.

Option B:
Option B is wrong because it pairs B with D, although B accurately states that inclusion and exclusion criteria are set beforehand. Without pre-specified criteria, a review would not be truly systematic.

Option C:
Option C is also incorrect since it includes C with D, even though C correctly explains that both quantitative meta-analysis and qualitative narrative synthesis can be used to integrate findings.

Option D:
Option D is correct because it isolates D as the only misleading statement, implicitly affirming that A, B, C and E reflect the rigorous and transparent nature of systematic reviews.

Statements A, B, C and E correctly describe central ideas in meta-analysis. Effect sizes allow results from different studies to be put on a comparable scale, and larger samples often receive more weight in pooled estimates. Meta-analysis can reveal overall trends, and examining heterogeneity is vital for understanding variation across studies. Statement D is false because critical appraisal of primary study quality is still essential to avoid misleading pooled conclusions.

Option A:
Option A is incomplete as it omits E, failing to mention that heterogeneity can influence whether it is appropriate to pool studies and how results should be interpreted. Ignoring heterogeneity can lead to oversimplified conclusions.

Option B:
Option B is incorrect because it includes D, wrongly implying that quality appraisal is unnecessary once a meta-analysis is conducted. Including D undermines the emphasis on methodological rigour in research synthesis.

Option C:
Option C is correct because it collects the statements that describe how effect sizes, weighting, pattern detection and heterogeneity analysis work together in meta-analysis. It excludes D, which minimises the importance of evaluating individual studies.

Option D:
Option D is wrong because it also retains D and omits A, thereby neglecting the role of effect sizes and accepting the false idea that quality appraisal can be ignored. This produces an incomplete and conceptually flawed account of meta-analysis.

Statements A, B, C, D and E describe core features and concerns of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A is true because systematic reviews use explicit protocols for searching and synthesising evidence, and B is correct that meta-analysis statistically combines results. C is accurate in emphasising transparent inclusion and exclusion criteria, while D rightly points to publication bias as a threat. E is also true since effect sizes are typically weighted by sample size or precision, whereas F is false because narrative reviews vary widely in rigour and often lack the structured protocol of systematic reviews.

Option A:
Option A is correct as it brings together all the statements that match standard descriptions of systematic reviews and meta-analyses and excludes F, which overstates the rigour of narrative reviews. It therefore contains all and only the true statements.

Option B:
Option B wrongly adds statement F, implying that narrative reviews always match the rigour of systematic approaches. In reality, many narrative reviews are selective and unsystematic. Including F makes the combination invalid.

Option C:
Option C omits statement B, ignoring the defining statistical element of meta-analysis, namely combining quantitative results across studies. Without B, the explanation fails to capture a key aspect of research synthesis.

Option D:
Option D excludes statement A and thus neglects the procedural foundation of systematic reviews. Although it includes B, C, D and E, such an omission makes the description incomplete and the option incorrect.

A systematic review follows a rigorous protocol that includes clearly formulated research questions, predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, systematic search strategies and explicit methods for assessing study quality. It aims to locate and synthesise all relevant empirical evidence to answer a particular question, minimising bias. Often, systematic reviews may be accompanied by meta-analyses. Because the stem emphasises explicit criteria for identifying, appraising and synthesising evidence, systematic review is the correct term.

Option A:
Narrative reviews are more informal and may summarise research selectively without following a transparent, replicable protocol. They rely heavily on the reviewer’s judgment and are more vulnerable to bias. While useful for broad overviews, they do not match the explicit, pre-specified procedures described in the stem.

Option B:
Systematic reviews provide a comprehensive and reproducible approach to summarising evidence, supporting evidence-based decision-making in many fields such as education and health. Their stepwise procedures and documented search strategies align precisely with the stem’s description, confirming systematic review as the appropriate completion.

Option C:
Historical reviews focus on the chronological development of ideas, theories or practices over time. They may not employ formal inclusion criteria or comprehensive search strategies targeted at answering a specific empirical question. Hence, historical review is not the best answer here.

Option D:
Critical reviews emphasise evaluating and critiquing existing literature, sometimes proposing new conceptual frameworks, but they may not involve exhaustive, protocol-driven searches and standardised quality assessment of studies. Therefore, critical review is not the correct completion for a process defined by explicit, pre-specified criteria for identifying and synthesising all relevant evidence.