Title: Mastering the Art of Literature Review: Your Ultimate Checklist PDF

Embarking on a literature review journey can be both exciting and daunting. As you delve into the
vast sea of scholarly articles, books, and research papers, it's easy to feel overwhelmed by the sheer
volume of information. Crafting a comprehensive literature review requires meticulous planning,
thorough research, and impeccable organization. To guide you through this intricate process, we've
created the ultimate Literature Review Checklist PDF.

Here's why crafting a literature review can be challenging:

1. Information Overload: With countless sources available, sifting through them to find
relevant and credible information can be like finding a needle in a haystack.
2. Time-Consuming: Conducting a thorough literature review requires significant time and
effort. From searching for relevant literature to synthesizing information, each step demands
careful attention.
3. Complexity: Analyzing and synthesizing diverse sources while maintaining coherence and
relevance can be challenging, especially for those new to academic writing.
4. Critical Analysis: Evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of existing literature requires
critical thinking and analytical skills. It's not just about summarizing sources but also about
identifying gaps, contradictions, and areas for further research.
5. Formatting and Citations: Ensuring proper formatting and citation style adherence can be a
tedious task, but it's crucial for maintaining academic integrity.

To alleviate the stress associated with crafting a literature review, we recommend seeking assistance
from professionals. ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔ offers expert guidance and support to help you navigate the
complexities of literature review writing. Our team of experienced writers understands the nuances
of academic research and can assist you at every stage of the process.

By ordering from ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔, you can:

Save Time: Focus on other aspects of your research while our experts handle the literature
review for you.
Ensure Quality: Receive a well-researched, meticulously crafted literature review that meets
academic standards.
Enhance Understanding: Gain insights into effective literature review writing techniques
from seasoned professionals.
Meet Deadlines: We understand the importance of timely submissions and ensure that your
literature review is delivered promptly.

Don't let the challenges of literature review writing hold you back. With the help of ⇒ StudyHub.vip
⇔, you can master the art of literature review writing with ease. Download our Literature Review
Checklist PDF today and embark on your research journey with confidence.
Relevant documents obtained through this approach were translated using Google Translate. From
the first round of the survey, the ranked items were divided into three lists for the second round.
Writing the literature review: A practical guide Available 3rd floor of Perkins Writing literature
reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences Available online. After
downloading the PDF, examine the reference list for other relevant sources. Other published
protocols as well as Cochrane Review protocols appear in the Cochrane Methodology Register, a
part of the Cochrane Library. Look for words like synthesize, analyze, evaluate, or critique that will
tell you how to examine your sources. Systematic Review EPIDEMIOLOGY HEALTH
ECONOMICS Data availability statement All data relevant to the study are included in the article or
uploaded as supplementary information. The predominance of the abstract in biomedical literature
use is clear. So now you should perform another search string using the keywords aerobic exercise,
and ADHD, and review. To ensure you complete the assignment properly, follow these steps. We will
work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result. Give the name of the film
Prominent stars and their roles Basic setting Type of film If it is based on a book. The current
emphasis of authors, guideline developers, Cochrane, and consequently this guidance has been on
effects reviews. Nguyen Thanh Tu Collection Detailed Presentation on Human Rights(1).pptx
Detailed Presentation on Human Rights(1).pptx DrOsiaMajeed skeletal system details with joints
and its types skeletal system details with joints and its types Minaxi patil. Your university library has
subscriptions to many research databases. Another limitation is that we only searched HTA agencies
for grey literature, and the returned hits on the snowballing approach depended on the starting-set
articles, so some tools only mentioned by clinical guideline or regulatory organisations, or tools
missed by the previous reviews might have been overlooked. There are several types of reviews
which fall under this term; the main ones are in the table below: Types of Reviews General steps for
conducting systematic reviews. From the remaining 27 eligible studies, we identified 417 appraisal
tools. The Documents folder contains PDF copies of the material you have selected for review.
Purpose: It serves to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge within a
particular field. Use the following process to write a research question. How-to conduct a systematic
literature review: A quick guide for Abstract. Ultimately, this study proposes a twelve-item LR
checklist. Contributed to the writing of the manuscript: EMB PPG DGA SH HB IC PCG TL DT.
Active reading and note-taking are two strategies you can use to encourage critical reading. The
update could range from simply endorsing the current question and inclusion criteria, through to full
rewriting of the question, inclusion criteria and methods, and republishing the protocol. Try arranging
your sources by source type to keep you organized. Description of review protocol Findings and
features of the individual studies in the review Assessment of bias, synthesis methods (qualitative
and quantitative), limitations of the review, summary of findings and conclusions. Your keywords
document is where you can keep track of relevant terms. Start with the words you identified while
creating your search strings, but record useful synonyms for them. Listing the sample space will
make the probability clear.
Reviews may utilize a wide range of methods to synthesize the best available evidence in answering
a focused question. Data extraction and synthesis Two independent researchers searched, screened
and reviewed all included studies and tools, summarised quality items and scored whether and to
what extent a quality item was described by a tool, for either methodological quality or reporting.
The process of identifying studies and appraisal tools Two researchers (MH and LJ) independently
scanned all titles and abstract of the identified hits, then reviewed the full-text with Rayyan 24 and
Excel. Newly identified studies can change the conclusion of a review. Do you know how to
develop your research design and methodology. New York: Child and Adolescent Health and
Development, 18 July 2001. ? Smaill FM, Grivell RM. Performing a literature review is a critical first
step in research to understanding the state-of-the-art and identifying gaps and challenges in the field.
Publications Account settings Advanced Search Journal List HHS Author Manuscripts Systematic
Review Checklist: A Standardized Technique for Assessing and Reporting Reviews of Life Cycle
Assessment Data Jennifer m. zumsteg. University of Washington, Department of Rehabilitation
Medicine in Seattle, WA, USA Joyce S. Look for words like synthesize, analyze, evaluate, or critique
that will tell you how to examine your sources. Are you ready to write the overview for your study?
8. When a percentage is used, the baseline risk should also be shown, which allows the reader to see
what the absolute benefit or harm is, and calculate whichever measures they choose (example 8a). An
update is only worthwhile if the question is topical for decision making for practice, policy, or
research priorities (fig 1 ? ). However, there are some circumstances in which an up to date search for
information is important for retaining the credibility of the review, regardless of whether the main
findings would change or not. Technology and innovation The updating of systematic review is
generally done manually and is time consuming. Not applicable. Consent for publication Competing
interests. A report from a meeting of Experts jointly organized by UNICEF and WHO. Preparing for
an update Refresh background, objectives, inclusion criteria, and methods Before including new
studies in the review, authors need to revisit the background, objectives, inclusion criteria, and
methods of the current review. The new search string “aerobic exercise” AND “cognition” AND
“ADHD” is entered. Few titles will entice a reader to invest additional time, but when they do, they
ordinarily start—and quite often end—with the abstract. Vitamin C for preventing and treating the
common cold. In PubMed you can use the systematic review subset to limit to a broad group of
papers that is enriched for systematic reviews. Get our high-caliber English paper editors to help you
reach your publication goal. Please also reach out to her if you have any question. Barbie - Brand
Strategy Presentation Barbie - Brand Strategy Presentation Good Stuff Happens in 1:1 Meetings:
Why you need them and how to do them well Good Stuff Happens in 1:1 Meetings: Why you need
them and how to do them well Introduction to C Programming Language Introduction to C
Programming Language Business Literature Review Checklist 1. If a source does not fit within your
search criteria, do not try to make it fit. Examples: 11a. “This work was supported, in part, by the
Program in Reproductive and Adult Endocrinology, NICHD, NIH, Bethesda, MD. Sustainability in
the construction industry: A review of recent developments based on LCA. The first round of
screening can consume 1 hour per screener for every 100-200 records. Download citation Published:
19 April 2021 DOI: Share this article Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read
this content: Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. The selection of
participants aimed on broad representation of different groups involved in producing systematic
reviews (including authors, editors, statisticians, information specialists, and other methodologists),
and those using the reviews (guideline developers and clinicians).
Changing licensing rights around systematic reviews to allow new authors of future updates to
remix, tweak, or build on the contributions of the original authors of the published version (similar to
the rights available via a Creative Commons licence; ) could be a more sustainable and simpler
approach. As the author of a literature review, you must become familiar with a large amount of
research on a specific topic. A scoping review won't help you limit the number of records you'll need
to screen (broad questions lead to large results sets) but may give you means of dealing with a large
set of results. If the question is current, and the review has been cited or used, then it might be
appropriate to simply start with a new protocol. Teaching and evaluating first and second year
medical students' practice of evidence-based medicine. The intent of the STARR-LCA checklist is to
facilitate advancements in designing, conducting and reporting systematic reviews, including meta-
analyses, in LCA. The checklist serves as an excellent starting point for most business research
projects and literature reviews. One limitation is that, some tools identified by our study were
originally developed for purposes beyond assessing methodological quality of reporting of NRSIs, so
our study could not cover all potentials of these tools. A particularly difficult area is the Discussion
section of an abstract. Including creating the protocol, building and running a quality search,
collecting all the papers, evaluating the studies that meet the inclusion criteria and extracting and
analyzing the summary data, a well done review can require dozens to hundreds of hours of work
that can span several months. Higgins J, Green S, Scholten R. Chapter 3. Maintaining reviews:
updates, amendments and feedback: Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). This step could be
achieved by referring to synthesised results and recommendations from existing reviews. 13 14
Second, users could use the overview we provide ( figure 2 ) to see which tool(s) could provide
complementary insights the tool of their first choice is lacking. We suggest that authors let the reader
know whether they feel their question has been answered, or whether there is still uncertainty before
presenting practice and policy implications. LCA of renewable energy for electricity generation
systems - A review. Additional sources of bias across studies, such as failing to locate appropriate
reports to include and the effects of financial conflicts of interest, should be evaluated as part of the
review process; this category of bias can often be minimized by utilizing a well-designed review
protocol ( Miller 2000 ). For example, the abstract should clearly and truthfully reflect the full report,
and not selectively report results that are statistically significant while not referring to those that
were not. The checklists and guidance here still applies to other types of systematic reviews, such as
those on diagnostic test accuracy, and this guidance will need adapting. Your research question is a
great place to start to identify key words for your search. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic
reviews a day: How will we ever keep up. The citation was: Jiu L, Hartog MK, Wang J, et al.
Competing interests: All participants have a direct or indirect interest in systematic reviews and
updating as part of their job or academic career. This could include an indication of what is clear
(example 10c), what important uncertainties remain (example 10b), and whether there is ongoing
research addressing these. 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). This type of
scanning helps identify questions with currency, and can help identify those reviews that should be
updated. We acknowledge the wide range of both qualitative and quantitative synthesis methods that
may be used. It’s a critical evaluation of a text, publicaton, object or phenomenon. Environmental
impacts and costs of woody Biomass-to-Liquid (BTL) production and use - A review. Writing the
literature review: A practical guide Available 3rd floor of Perkins Writing literature reviews: A guide
for students of the social and behavioral sciences Available online. Participants within these groups
were selected on their expertise and experience in updating, in previous work developing methods to
assess reviews, and because some were recognised for developing approaches within organisations to
manage updating strategically. Tools for assessing quality of studies investigating health Objectives
We aimed to identify existing appraisal tools for non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs)
and to compare the criteria that the tools provide at the quality-item level.
The panel proposed the following: Decisions about whether and when to update a systematic review
are judgments made for individual reviews at a particular time. Updates can range from small
adjustments to reviews being completely rewritten, and the PUGs panel spent some time debating
whether the term “new edition” would be a better description than “update.” However, the word
“update” is now in common parlance and changing the term, the panel judged, could cause
confusion. Design Literature review through three approaches: systematic search of journal articles,
snowballing search of reviews on appraisal tools and grey literature search on websites of health
technology assessment. In PubMed you can use the systematic review subset to limit to a broad
group of papers that is enriched for systematic reviews. While it mentions RoB (eg, publication bias),
its main purpose is to illustrate how to grade quality of evidence, rather than to function as an exact
quality appraisal tool. IPCC special report on renewable energy sources and climate change
mitigation. However, the debate does illustrate that an update could represent a review that asks a
similar question but has been completely revised. In our study, appraisal tools refer to tools,
guidelines, instruments or standards that provide guidance on how to report or assess any quality
concern of NRSIs. The goal of a review may be to provide a survey of previous publications, critique
current work, or make summary projections about future discoveries. The first list contained the
items with the highest rankings, and participants for the second round were instructed that these
would be contained in the checklist unless they received low rankings in the second round. Help
readers understand your approach, describe the criteria used to select the sources or the way in
which you have presented information. As yet, there has been limited external validation of these
tools to determine which approach would be most effective and when. Citations for the examples of
good reporting are in Table 2. This tool can help you decide what kind of review is right for your
question. The search will necessarily be incomplete, vague and very large all at the same time.
Following the meeting, the checklist was distributed to the participants to ensure it reflected the
decisions made. The results revealed one-fourth of doctors had attained the level four competence
that is the capacity to complete the task efficiently and thoroughly. The purpose of the workshop was
to develop a common approach to updating systematic reviews, drawing on existing strategies,
research, and experience of people working in this area. In addition, the tools for diagnosis studies,
prognosis studies and secondary studies were beyond the scope of our study, and relevant users may
refer to other studies, such as Quigley et al 14, for further information. The Paper Trail folder keeps
track of your search process. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance
placed on the content. It may take several weeks to complete and run a search. Including creating the
protocol, building and running a quality search, collecting all the papers, evaluating the studies that
meet the inclusion criteria and extracting and analyzing the summary data, a well done review can
require dozens to hundreds of hours of work that can span several months. Which study when? Proof
of concept of a proposed automated tool to help decision which reviews to update first. Adapted
from Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative. For example, if your
research question is “What effect does aerobic exercise have on cognition in adolescents with
ADHD,” underline key words that can be used in search engines. It may also be possible to combine
items from the checklist into one sentence. Types of reviews 1. Define your research question 2.
Unleashing the Power of AI Tools for Enhancing Research, International FDP on. This provides key
information about the scope of the systematic review.
A meta-analysis of the differences in environmental impacts between organic and conventional
farming. Systematic reviews Literature reviews Meta-analyses What is a literature review. Write
interesting bits of information or ideas as you read so that you don’t miss important points when
writing the review. Meta-analysis: A melding of data from multiple studies, usually involving
additional mathematical analyses, with the goal of utilizing this synergy of information and data size
to answer questions that cannot be answered by existing individual studies or to improve the
certainty or impact of known findings by increasing the sample size. If they have not been included,
this threatens the validity of the review, and, at worst, means the review could mislead. For agencies,
people responsible for managing a portfolio of systematic reviews, there is a need to use both formal
and informal horizon scanning. The approach or format used to present the differences in findings
might vary with the target user group. 58 Publishers need to ensure that all previous versions of the
review remain publically accessible. Higgins J, Green S, Scholten R. Chapter 3. Maintaining reviews:
updates, amendments and feedback: Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). Snowballing In the second
approach, we searched for published reviews on appraisal tools for NRSIs. The scoring process was
independently conducted by two researchers (LJ and MH) using NVivo V.12, and all discrepancies
were solved through discussion between the two. There are opportunities to make better use of
technology to streamline the updating process and improve efficiency (table 3 ? ). This PUGs panel
of authors, editors, statisticians, information specialists, other methodologists, and guideline
developers brought together current thinking and experience in this area to provide guidance. After
downloading the PDF, examine the reference list for other relevant sources. Sustainability in the
construction industry: A review of recent developments based on LCA. For the third round of the
Delphi survey, a draft checklist was presented, which included only the items ranked highest in
rounds one and two. Antecedents to IT personnel's intentions to leave: A systematic literature
review. QUADAS-2 Group. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic
accuracy studies. A population-based, multifaceted strategy to implement antenatal corticosteroid
treatment versus standard care for the reduction of neonatal mortality due to preterm birth in low-
income and middle-income countries: the ACT cluster-randomised trial. Bull Med Libr. The
PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline. Adapted from Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research
Design: Qualitative and Quantitative. Acknowledgments We dedicate this paper to the memory of
Alessandro Liberati who, among many important achievements, was instrumental in the development
and implementation of the PRISMA Statement, and had many thoughtful insights to offer at the
PRISMA for Abstracts consensus meeting. Try using the Project Schedule Worksheet (below) to
keep you on track. Establishing the cost-effectiveness of new pharmaceuticals under conditions of
uncertainty—when is there sufficient evidence. A systematic review is best deployed to test a
specific hypothesis about a healthcare or public health intervention or exposure. Clearly, the
responsibility for deciding which systematic reviews should be updated and when they will be
updated will vary: it may be centrally organised and resourced, as with the AHRQ scientific resource
centre (box 2). In other words, the GRADE allows users to use any additional tools to assess NRSI
quality. 52 Also, the GRADE checklist was designed for both RCTs and NRSIs, so some criteria
might be relatively brief, compared with specifically designed tools, such as RTI Item Bank. 27
Finally, GRADE can be used to estimate and score the quality of evidence for the full body of
evidence and not only for individual primary studies. Hope you like it - so useful!:) Tes paid licence
How can I reuse this. One researcher (MH) extracted tool characteristics using a prespecified Excel
form. Authors should describe any methods they used to assess the risk of bias in the included
studies (example 5a). Can my student complete a systematic review during her summer project.