Crafting a literature review, especially a systematic one, poses several challenges.

It demands
extensive research, critical analysis, and synthesis of existing studies to provide a comprehensive
overview of the topic. One of the primary hurdles is navigating through a vast array of sources to
identify relevant studies while ensuring the inclusion of diverse perspectives.

Moreover, evaluating the quality and credibility of literature requires a keen eye to distinguish
between reliable and biased sources. Organizing the gathered information in a coherent manner and
maintaining the flow of the review adds another layer of complexity. Balancing between
summarizing existing literature and offering insightful interpretations further intensifies the difficulty.

Addressing the limitations of a systematic literature review is crucial for maintaining its integrity.
These limitations may stem from factors such as the availability of relevant studies, publication
biases, language barriers, and methodological constraints. Acknowledging these constraints is
essential for providing a nuanced understanding of the research landscape and interpreting the
findings accurately.

In navigating these challenges, seeking assistance from professional writing services like ⇒
StudyHub.vip ⇔ can be immensely beneficial. With a team of experienced writers well-versed in
academic writing conventions, they can alleviate the burden of crafting a literature review. By
entrusting the task to experts, individuals can ensure the quality and rigor of their literature review
while saving time and effort.

For a meticulously crafted literature review that addresses the limitations inherent in systematic
reviews, consider ordering from ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔. Their commitment to excellence and attention
to detail will undoubtedly enhance the scholarly merit of your work.
Parallel tracks Parallel interwoven creation tracks. You can create evidence and summary tables to
describe study characteristics, results, or both. Also, be sure to adhere to your style guidelines
because headings, title pages, references lists, and other sections or formatting features may differ.
Intervention: which main intervention or treatment are you considering for assessment. These can
help provide readers with more context about the review, and its conclusions. We’ve also included
practical examples and links to more free videos and guides to help you understand exactly what’s
required in each section. This template is for the write-up of the actual literature review chapter,
whereas the catalog is for use during the literature sourcing and sorting phase. Systematic Reviews:
the process, quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods. Here’s a free detailed template for
recording data extraction, from Dalhousie University. For example, “What has already been written
on subject X?”, then narrowing down to the research question. The stages listed above may appear to
be sequential, but it is important to recognize. Parallel tracks Parallel interwoven creation tracks.
Chapter 9: Summarizing study characteristics and preparing for synthesis. Romi Satria Wahono. SD
Sompok Semarang (1987) SMPN 8 Semarang (1990) SMA Taruna Nusantara Magelang (1993). Fig.
5. Codes and articles related to the process dimension. The process of performing a systematic
literature review must be transparent and. Before you start, you may want to brainstorm some
common themes that you will use to analyze the sources (e.g., participant characteristics,
measurement tools, results). These include limitations, strength of evidence, biases, applicability,
economic effects, and implications for future practice or research. Formulate a clear, well-defined
research question of appropriate scope. The search should be documented as it occurs and changes
noted and justified. Therefore, while developing literature summary tables, think twice before using
the predeveloped themes. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and
Evaluations) is a transparent framework for presenting summaries of evidence. (PDF) Five tips for
developing useful literature summary tables for Data were extracted using the summary tables in
Excel. Three examples of a data extraction form are below: Data Extraction Form Example (suitable
for small-scale literature review of a few dozen studies) This example was used to gather data for a
poster reporting a literature review of studies of interventions to increase Emergency Department
throughput. Social Service Review, 84, 257-282. Craig, S. C. (2009). A historical review of mother
and child programs for incarcerated women. Table: 1 outline for systemic review and meta-analysis
Assess study quality In recent years, there has been a push to improve the consistency of each RCT
included in systematic reviews. You can adapt examples to suit your systematic review. Figure 1
provides an example of a literature summary table from a scoping review. 3. Procedures for
documenting the search process are given in Table 2. Psychometric reviews assess the quality of
health measurement tools so that the best instrument can be selected for use. The form elements may
not be changed, and data must be entered manually.
Omitting this information from a summary could lead to the inclusion of a flawed article in the
review, thereby jeopardising the review’s rigour. Is this template for an undergrad, Master or PhD-
level thesis. The kinds of questions you'll come up with are: Were the participants really randomly
allocated to their groups. Systematic Reviews: the process, quantitative, qualitative and mixed
methods. This will serve as the basis for your thesis statement. Regarding those instances particularly
involving kinship foster care, the research is minimal. The commonly used information may include
authors, purpose, methods, key results and quality scores. Guide Sections - Table of Contents If
you're new to this methodology, check out the video and resources below. However, in most areas,
terminology is variable, making it difficult to compare the PICO of each included study to the PICO
for each synthesis, or to compare PICO elements across studies. Could the conclusions of the study
have been influenced by bias? 7. To recognise all applicable trials in a given region, it is essential to
create a detailed list of key terms (i.e., “MeSH” terms) related to each component of PICOC.
Deciding on the best approach will depend on the purpose of the table and the stage of the review.
To write a strong embedded literature review, you should approach your research systematically.
Objectives:. By the end of the session, the student will be able to: 1. Research groups and researchers
contacted (Names and contact details). The protocol for your systematic literature review should
include: the objectives of your project the specific methods and processes that you’ll use the
eligibility criteria of the individual studies how you plan to extract data from individual studies
which analyses you’re going to carry out For a full guide on how to systematically develop your
protocol, take a look at the PRISMA checklist. As such, the thesis or central argument of your
historiography should explain why your research on the topic contributes to or rejects previous
historical analyses of your topic. PRISMA Statement PRISMA Elaboration and Explanation
Document Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. In some
reviews, the labels and terminology used in each study are retained when describing the PICO
elements of the included studies. Fig. 7. Codes and number of articles related to the artifact-
mediated communication principle. Explain why this has been the case and how these approaches
enhance or limit current understandings of the topic. However, students could gain a reasonable idea
from citations and journal rankings (albeit rough). What are the purposes of a systematic literature
review. Five tips for developing useful literature summary tables for writing Literature summary
tables are not only meant to provide an overview of basic information (authors, country, purpose and
findings) about included articles, but they should also provide detailed information about the
theoretical and conceptual frameworks and the methods used in the included article. Here is an
example of a table that summarizes the characteristics of studies in a review, note this table could be
improved by adding a column for the quality score you assigned to each study, or you could add a
column with a value representing the time period in which the study was carried out if this might be
useful for the reader to know. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014; 1: CD008963. A
summary table is also called a synthesis matrix. Watson, 2002), they are less common in software
engineer-. The authors found that there were two sets of expertise required: that of gathering the
information to ensure completeness, and creating a literature review that could be repeated by a
different person later to yield largely the same information. It includes multiple pieces of data
derived from both quantitative and qualitative data analysis in systematic reviews.
The examples described in this section illustrate approaches for making this process more
transparent. 9.3 Preliminary steps of a synthesis 9.3.1 summarize the characteristics of each study
(step 2.1). A starting point for synthesis is to summarize the PICO characteristics of each study (i.e.
the PICO of the included studies, see Chapter 3 ) and categorize these PICO elements in the groups
(or domains) pre-specified in the protocol (i.e. the PICO for each synthesis). Research and Synthesis
Table Templates This Excel workbook includes simple templates for creating research tables and
synthesis tables. Medical professionals read systematic literature reviews to stay up-to-date in their
field, and granting agencies sometimes need them to make sure there’s justification for further
research in an area. Communications of the Association of Information Systems, 37 (43), 879-910.
Stand-alone literature reviews are the most common type of literature review and are frequently
assigned by professors. Experiential (qualitative) reviews analyze human experiences in a cultural or
social context. It also includes an analysis and evaluation of existing research. An examination of the
included studies always precedes statistical synthesis in Cochrane Reviews. A meta-analysis is a step
forward from a systematic review in that it employs mathematical and statistical methods to
summarise the results of studies included in the systematic review (1). Think of a synthesis table as a
tool for making comparisons, identifying trends, and locating gaps in the literature. However, the
quality of reviews is also contingent on rigorous data extraction and synthesis, which require
developing literature summaries. From here, identify the purpose or thesis for your topic. Many
recent critical appraisal checklists (eg, Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool) discourage review authors
from assigning a quality score and recommend noting the main strengths and limitations of included
studies. It is highly important that any SLR should ultimately highlight potential future directions
and research gaps so that prospect researchers may focus on those particular areas. Also, be sure to
adhere to your style guidelines because headings, title pages, references lists, and other sections or
formatting features may differ. When analyzing the result set, it became apparent that, while. An
important part of planning the analysis strategy is building in contingencies to use alternative
methods when the desired method cannot be used. Table 9.5.a Overview of available methods for
summary and synthesis 9.6 Chapter information Authors: Joanne E McKenzie, Sue E Brennan,
Rebecca E Ryan, Hilary J Thomson, Renea V Johnston Acknowledgements: Sections of this chapter
build on Chapter 9 of version 5.1 of the Handbook, with editors Jonathan Deeks, Julian Higgins and
Douglas Altman. Systematic Reviews: the process, quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods.
Evidence-based interventions that employ race, ethnic, and gender specific modalities need further
development (Miller, 2006). Systematic Reviews: the process, quantitative, qualitative and mixed
methods. Glad you liked it - the author's of the article did a great job, didn't they!:-D Delete Replies
Reply Reply Add comment Load more. Studies of guidelines aimed at medically qualified
professionals. 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. Yes, you’re welcome to get in touch with us to
discuss our private coaching services, where we can help you work through the literature review
chapter (and any other chapters). 103 COMMENTS Chapter 14: Completing 'Summary of findings'
tables and grading the Planning for the 'Summary of findings' table starts early in the systematic
review, with the selection of the outcomes to be included in: (i) the review; and (ii) the 'Summary of
findings' table. Electronic forms are useful and can facilitate subsequent analysis. A summary table
helps you record the main points of each source and document how sources relate to each other.
Discuss any discrepancies in coding throughout the process. They include: non-peer-reviewed
journals pharmaceutical industry files conference proceedings pharmaceutical company websites
internal reports Gray literature sources are more likely to contain negative conclusions, so you’ll
improve the reliability of your findings by including it. The number is up to you; again, you can alter
this table by adding or deleting columns to match what you're actually looking for in your analysis.
The authors further specified that if there were multiple time points at which the outcome was
measured within a time frame, they would select the longest time point.
Include information on the thesis, perspective, historical approach, arguments, sources, and
methodology. The authors found that there were two sets of expertise required: that of gathering the
information to ensure completeness, and creating a literature review that could be repeated by a
different person later to yield largely the same information. Most commonly this is the statistical
combination of results from two or more separate studies (henceforth referred to as meta-analysis) of
effect estimates. SLRs may be quantitative (by only reviewing quantitative studies), qualitative (by
only reviewing qualitative studies), or mixed methods (by reviewing both quantitative and
qualitative studies). However, this is only one dimension of the template, so it will still be useful if
you are adopting a different structure. Ultimately, it affects the generation of novel review findings.
For example, examination of the interventions studied is often needed to itemize their content so as
to determine which studies can be grouped in a single synthesis. Electronic forms are useful and can
facilitate subsequent analysis. Building an Evidence Table The Basics: A standard evidence table has
10 columns. They introduce readers to the surrounding literature while also situating your work
within the larger scholarly discussion on that topic. OR Agile, scrum, extreme programming, lean,
crystal clear, feature driven development, dynamic software development. Here’s a free detailed
template for recording data extraction, from Dalhousie University. Which principles constitute a
user-centered agile software development approach? Reply Delete Replies Sam Young 17 May 2018
at 05:37 This comment has been removed by the author. The commonly used information may
include authors, purpose, methods, key results and quality scores. Visit our guide to the best research
databases for medicine and health to find resources for your systematic review. Writers can easily
summarize material but seem to struggle to adequately synthesize knowledge about their topic and
express that in their writing. The length of embedded literature reviews varies, but is usually
dependent upon the length of your assignment. You should formulate a “well-built clinical
question.” This is the process of generating a good search question. Systematic review standards are
elements that should be reported in any published systematic review. UCASD. Overall, as listed in
Table 5, four codes from our coding sys-. Table 7 Data Collection form completed for Maxwell et al.,
1998. The table was adapted from tables presented in a review of self-management education
programmes for osteoarthritis (Kroon et al 2014). As a result, although narrative reviews are
informative, they often include an element of selection bias. For example, if authors of an included
article intended to develop a new scale and test its psychometric properties. Outcome(s): what are
you trying to measure or achieve. Analyse and Interpret results The Review Manager (RevMan)
software, endorsed by the Cochrane Collaboration, is one example of a statistical programme that
can measure effect sizes for meta-analysis. Communications of the Association of Information
Systems, 37 (43), 879-910. This study can contribute to the body of knowledge for social workers
and provide assistance towards the development of programs and social support services for children
of incarcerated mothers. Unlike embedded literature reviews, which appear as part of a larger piece
of work, stand-alone literature reviews are a self-contained piece of writing that can be read on their
own (Figure A.2). Once researchers have selected a topic, the first step in their research methodology
is often the stand-alone literature review.