Crafting a literature review can be an arduous task, requiring meticulous attention to detail and a

comprehensive understanding of the subject matter. It involves sifting through numerous academic
papers, synthesizing ideas, and critically evaluating existing research to provide a comprehensive
overview of the current state of knowledge on a particular topic.

One of the most challenging aspects of writing a literature review is ensuring that it is systematic and
well-structured. Without a clear plan and methodology, it's easy to become overwhelmed by the
sheer volume of information available. Moreover, identifying relevant sources and synthesizing their
findings in a coherent manner requires a significant investment of time and effort.

To alleviate the burden of writing a literature review, we recommend seeking assistance from
professionals at ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔. Our team of experienced writers specializes in conducting
systematic literature reviews across a wide range of disciplines. With their expertise, you can rest
assured that your literature review will be thoroughly researched, well-organized, and tailored to
meet your specific requirements.

By entrusting your literature review to ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔, you can save valuable time and energy
while ensuring that your work meets the highest academic standards. Don't let the daunting task of
writing a literature review impede your progress – let us help you navigate the complexities of
academic writing with ease.
Ideally you should represent the meta-analysis visually on a see fig. Narrative reviews are mostly
descriptive, do not require a systematic search of the literature, and concentrate on a subset of
studies in a field selected based on availability or author preference. Then ask yourself, “has
someone written a systematic literature review on my question already?” If so, yours may not be
needed. This may be sufficient in areas with consistent and widely understood terminology that
matches the PICO for each synthesis. You can also add or alter the columns to look for shared study
populations, sort by level of evidence or source type, etc. Some of these tools already exist and are
in development or in early use, and some are commercially available or freely available. A diagram
illustrating how the three approaches complemented each other is shown in online supplemental
appendix 1. Fifth, situate your own research within the current literature in your field. Given the
heterogeneity of tools, we suggest users following a two-step approach when selecting a tool. Living
systematic reviews: an emerging opportunity to narrow the evidence-practice gap. A survey of
unresolved problems in life cycle assessment. Absolute and relative magnitude of effect (if both are
appropriate). Most tools are scales in which various components of quality are scored and combined
to give a summary score. In this paper, we present a guide designed for researchers and in. The search
strategy for an update need not replicate the original search strategy, but could be refined, for
example, based on an analysis of the yield of the original search. You can also search for protocols
that will indicate that another group has set out on a similar project. The literature review sets up the
ideas and concepts that you can draw upon later to help interpret your own findings. For example,
key stakeholders would dismiss a review if a study is carried out in a relevant geographical setting
but is not included; if a large, high profile study that might not change the findings is not included;
or if an up to date search is required for a guideline to achieve credibility. The level of evidence of
the type of summary increases from the systematic review to the meta-analysis of published data to
the pooled reanalysis. They need to examine the weight and certainty of the new evidence to help
determine whether an update is needed and how urgent that update is. The management of
authorship between versions can sometimes be complicated. The abstract should record the name of
the database with which the review is registered, and the registration number. Use specific authors
or sources as examples, and be sure to explain any similarities or departures in approach,
methodology, findings, or argument. These studies disagree about the most significant reasons for
cheese-based injury with some arguing that choking on cheese poses the highest risk (Muffet, 2008;
Moon; 2009; Rennet, 2011). Finally, the conclusions of the review should be clearly stated. You
might begin a systematic review of the literature after investing time and energy in reviewing the
literature for your dissertation, a grant proposal, or another project. It also includes an analysis and
evaluation of existing research. Consult your library subject guide to review databases appropriate
for your topic. Following the meeting, the checklist was distributed to the participants to ensure it
reflected the decisions made. Instead a literature review explores the key themes or concepts in the
literature and compares what different research has found about each theme.
Whether the review uses current methodological standards is important in deciding if the update will
influence the review findings, quality, reliability, or credibility sufficiently to justify the effort in
updating it. From Lab to Literature: Exploring the Roadblocks Physicians Navigate in Publishing
Their Research Levels of evidence-based medicine in mass gathering public health and emergency
medicine literature review A clinical literature review of effective supervision in clinical practice
settings Comments are closed. More broadly, synthesis of the PICO (Population, Intervention,
Comparator and Outcome) elements of the included studies underpins interpretation of review
findings and is an important output of the review in its own right. Not applicable. Consent for
publication Competing interests. There are established strategies for defining such answerable search
questions. You can always check our plagiarism score before submitting your work to help ease your
mind. The appraisal of these new data can be carried out in different ways. Most Cochrane Reviews
on the effects of interventions will include some type of statistical synthesis. Box 1: Examples of
what factors might change in an updated systematic review A systematic review of steroid treatment
in tuberculosis meningitis used GRADE methods and split the composite outcome in the original
review of death plus disability into its two components. Antibiotic prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis
for preventing infection after cesarean section. Especially important in a systematic review is the
objective, methodologically sound and reproducible retrieval of the evidence using.search strategies
devised by a trained and experienced information scientist. References of the included studies and
appraisal tools are shown in online supplemental appendix 2 and 3, respectively. The literature review
must be defined by a guiding concept (eventually your research objective, the problem or issue you
are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). Is my research topic appropriate for systematic review
methods. Using the PRISMA statement and its extensions to write protocols or the completed
review. From the first round of the survey, the ranked items were divided into three lists for the
second round. If you are conducting an analytical review with a meta-analysis to compare data
outcomes from several clinical trials you may wish to computerize the data collection and analysis
processes. The literature review sets up the ideas and concepts that you can draw upon later to help
interpret your own findings. Introduction 2. Definitions Associated with XXX (optional section) 3.
Also there may be other 'Instructions to Authors' provided by the journals or organisations in which
you plan to publish. If you are writing a narrative review to summarise information reported in a
small number of studies then you probably don't need to go to the trouble of coding the data
variables for computer analysis but instead summarize the information from the data extraction forms
for the included studies. PDF version of this page (470K) Other titles in this collection Advances in
Patient Safety Related information PMC PubMed Central citations PubMed Links to PubMed
Similar articles in PubMed It Is Not That Simple nor Compelling. The review should enumerate,
describe, summarize, objectively evaluate and clarify this previous research. The standardized
technique for assessing and reporting reviews of LCA (STARR-LCA) checklist is a starting point for
improving the utility of systematic reviews in LCA. In other words, the PRISMA Statement is a road
map to help authors best describe what was done, what was found, and in the case of a review
protocol, what are they are planning to do. This question format can be further defined by adding
relevant parameters such as geographic region, technology type, or years of interest. Cochrane
Database Syst Rev 2011;( 10 ): CD006589. Approach the grey literature methodically and
purposefully. The title of a systematic review is its first signal of its relevance to potential readers.
Automating risk of bias assessment for clinical trials BCB’14.
Develop a search strategy and locate studies This is where a reference librarian can be particularly
beneficial in assisting with the creation and execution of electronic searches. Please include
availability, topic and phone number. General interpretation of the results and important implications.
The template assumes a thematic structure (as opposed to a chronological or methodological
structure), as this is the most common approach. TL is an editor (unpaid) for the Cochrane Airways
Group. An update is only worthwhile if the question is topical for decision making for practice,
policy, or research priorities (fig 1 ? ). You could also register your completed work with
PROSPERO. A standardized technique for assessing and reporting reviews of LCA data (STARR-
LCA) A summary of STARR-LCA checklist items is provided here: Review title, keywords and
abstract Rationale for the review Review question and objectives. Merriam Webster's Collegiate
Dictionary (2012) defines the concept of bias in several ways including, “bent, tendency,” “an
inclination of temperament or outlook especially a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment,”
and “systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome
or answer over others.” As human beings we naturally have affiliations and views that unconsciously
shape our interpretation of data and the conclusions we draw. You will want to include columns to
note key variables and findings in the study that pertain to your topic and your review. This is where
your librarian will come in handy again. Given the heterogeneity of tools, we suggest users following
a two-step approach when selecting a tool. A systematic literature review aims to classify, critically
appraise, and summarise the current evidence concerning an identified issue, similar to conventional
literature reviews. One or more of these strengths and limitations may apply to each of the outcomes
of the systematic review being described in the abstract. This discrepancy could be explained by
additional tools identified through other reviews, tools from grey literature and differences in
eligibility criteria (eg, exclusion of non-pharmacological interventions or assessing only one or a few
specific types of bias). Eligibility criteria for selecting studies We included a tool, if it addressed
quality concerns of NRSIs and was published in English (unless from grey literature). Systematic
Reviews: Literature Review Systematic Reviews: Literature Review When performing literature
searches for a systematic review it's important to use a wide range of resources and searching
methods in order to identify all relevant studies. While the template provides a general structure, you
should adapt it to fit the specific requirements and focus of your literature review. This guidance
could help groups identify and prioritise reviews for updating and hence use their finite resources to
greatest effect. A particularly difficult area is the Discussion section of an abstract. Fortunately,
knowledge from other disciplines can be leveraged to improve systematic reviews in LCA. Our
rationale was that some appraisal tools may exist in the format of grey literature, such as agency
reports and technical support documents. It gives a general summary of information relevant to a
certain research problem or question. We recognise that journals have developed their own set of
headings that are considered appropriate for reporting systematic reviews, and it is not our intention
to suggest changes to these headings, but to recommend what should be reported under them. It’s
also possible that translations will be needed. Also, Ma et al 46 and Quigley et al 14 both
recommended ROBINS-I, MINORS and JBI, and all these tools ranked top 10 for addressing and
sufficiently describing methodological quality in our study. Most tools are scales in which various
components of quality are scored and combined to give a summary score. For example, if you are
extracting qualitative data, you will want to extract data such as theoretical framework, data
collection method, or role of the researcher and their potential bias. The iterative use of economic
evaluation as part of the process of health technology assessment.