What Is an Application of a Literature Review
Abstruse
An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, total HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is likewise available in through the 'Save PDF' activeness button.
Systematic literature reviews are essential submissions to Prehospital and Disaster Medicine (PDM). They are an important element in the scientific procedure that allows for compilation of known show regarding an investigative topic or question. The systematic review is a means to plant what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic and to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the testify that is the basis of the knowledge.
Both disaster and prehospital health and medicine are newly developing fields of science. During the past three to iv decades, an established scientific literature base has formed for the disciplines. This literature base of operations has become advisable for synthesizing to understand established enquiry findings past means of structured literature reviews. The Editorial Board of PDM encourages the publication of high-quality, structured literature reviews. Unfortunately, many reviews are conducted without formal assessment of bachelor literature or findings analysis. The objective of this discussion is to summarize types of literature review and the usual applications of each method.
1 effect with literature review classification is variations in the terminology used to describe the dissimilar formats used. For this discussion, the electric current mutual nomenclature is used. But, within the literature, one will find variation in terminology used to draw literature review processes.
Systematic Review
Systematic reviews provide a structured analysis of known evidence that can reliably make up one's mind health and medical practice standards and public policy. Systematic reviews define a topic and identify, summarize, and evaluate the findings of all well-designed enquiry for that topic that is reported in the literature. This review method uses strict criteria designed to limit bias and emphasize scientific validity with the aim to produce an impartial assay. Systematic reviews are the preferred method for rigorous literature review. A systematic review requires a focused objective, defined literature eligibility criteria (and exclusion criteria), a reproducible enquiry protocol, a structured literature search to locate all eligible studies and reports, a scientific assessment of the included literature, and a systematic synthesis of the validity, flaws, and findings of the literature reviewed. This type of review requires attending to not-biased analysis of the literature by use of a defined scientific method, such as described within the PRISMA Argument.Reference Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff and Altman 1 Systematic reviews require minimization of mistake both in bear of the review and within the literature included inside the review. A systematic review should originate with a declared research protocol that is included in the publication of the review manuscript. Before initiating such a review, it is important that a researcher be familiar with the underlying literature available for the review topic and clinch there is an acceptable quantity of literature with telescopic and quality for review. Equally with any scientific written report, a systematic review should exist designed and described such that future investigators tin reproduce the review. Reputable scientific journals require that for systematic reviews, the 27 particular PRISMA Checklist be followed and submitted along with a manuscript.2 Important in the checklist is detailed descriptions of review methods and results.
Meta-Analysis (Quantitative and Qualitative)
Meta-analyses are designed to critically and systematically evaluate the bear witness present for a disease, treatment, or health result. Meta-analysis is a subset of systemic review and the aforementioned PRISMA Checklist used for systematic review should exist followed in conducting a meta-assay. 2 The same attention invested in systematic review is required for meta-assay, with an additional requirement that data accumulated during a meta-analysis be homogeneous such that standard statistical methods or qualitative analysis can be practical to the pooled data. It has been shown that combining randomized and not-randomized studies into a single meta-analysis tends to show stronger handling effects for not-randomized enquiry.Reference Ioannidis, Haidich and Pappa iii Therefore, meta-analyses of randomized studies is considered most appropriate. An advantage of meta-analyses over other forms of research is the ability to examine heterogeneity amongst key studies that are used to develop health and medical standards.Reference Greenland 4
Both quantitative and qualitative meta-analyses are thorough and rigidly structured in review of appropriate literature. Qualitative meta-assay reviews qualitative literature to evaluate and interpret themes and concepts, oftentimes establishing primary and secondary population characteristics and ideas. Qualitative meta-analyses are too used to study cultural and ecology variations among populations. Quantitative meta-analyses review quantitative studies to improve objective analysis of pooled data, narrow or show flaws in reported data through pooled analysis, and appraise validity of quantitative literature sources. When substantial, high-quality literature is available to appropriately pool data or data from that literature base, meta-analysis is preferred every bit a review method.
Cochrane Review
Cochrane Reviews are another subset of systematic reviews designed to investigate the effects of interventions for prevention, handling, and rehabilitation in health intendance. Important for a Cochrane Review is that the review objective is designed to investigate a conspicuously formulated inquiry question. Cochrane reviews follow rigid guidelines and defined research methods 5 that make the reviews highly respected. Cochrane reviews are ultimately designed to determine if there is conclusive bear witness to support a specific treatment or concept. The Cochrane Community is an open grouping that supports cataloging Cochrane Reviews in an extensive library available to the public. The Cochrane Grouping provides online training for pattern and behave of systematic reviews and provides guides and handbooks to assistance researchers. 5
Scoping Review
Scoping reviews are designed to determine the volume of literature on a specific topic every bit well as an overview of the detail of the data regarding the topic.Reference Munn, Peters, Stern, Tufanaru, McArthur and Aromataris 6 While non designed to provide structured review and analysis of defined topics, the scoping method is used to map the bachelor literature in a field of interest, to analyze concepts or definitions in the literature, to report on how inquiry is conducted for a topic or in a field, to identify characteristics or factors related to a concept, equally a preliminary assessment before a systematic review, and to place and analyze noesis gaps for a topic or field.Reference Munn, Peters, Stern, Tufanaru, McArthur and Aromataris 6 Scoping reviews differ from systematic reviews in purpose (as described in a higher place). Systematic reviews consolidate and narrow concepts or findings within the literature, while scoping reviews are focused toward clarification of a concept or theory. Until recently, there was lack of consensus for best methods in conducting scoping reviews. While general agreement is that scoping reviews require an a-priori review protocol, a search strategy, and structured information extraction technique, there has been variation in published literature labeled equally scoping review. To address this effect, the PRISMA Group has adult a checklist like to that used for systematic reviews.Reference Tricco, Lillie and Zarin 7
Narrative Review
Often chosen a "traditional literature review," narrative literature reviews are unstructured reviews of literature used to establish a theory and the context for or justify a research focus. Narrative reviews are commonly found in the introduction or background section of a formal manuscript and used to introduce and justify enquiry described in that manuscript. Narrative reviews may also be published every bit stand-solitary papers focused on theory or frames of thought regarding the literature on a particular topic (Theoretical Literature Review). Narrative reviews may also outline methods or research blueprint that is used for a detail study topic (Methodological Literature Review), or provide a historical evaluation of the development of theory or concepts for a topic (Historical Literature Review). Narrative reviews may be conducted using search words within standard literature databases, merely exercise non describe the specific methods for selecting and reviewing the literature retrieved. Narrative reviews have many of the characteristics of scoping reviews, but lack a-priori review protocols or a pre-defined analysis approach. Narrative reviews often include an author'due south assumptions and biases and mostly cannot exist replicated (equally with systematic reviews).
Sub-forms of the narrative review method are prevalent in the health and medicine literature.Reference Grant and Booth eight Listed below are three of the more common of these types of reviews.
Disquisitional Review
Critical reviews don't include the rigorous written report design of a systematic review and are a grade of narrative review. The objective of a critical review is to develop perspectives on a inquiry topic using bachelor literature. Oft, this form of review is limited to recent literature, just may also be used to evidence changes in perspective over fourth dimension periods.
Conceptual Review
The conceptual review is another subset of narrative review methodology. Conceptual reviews exercise not include a literature search protocol and systematic data extraction techniques. This blazon of review is common within editorials and concept papers. Conceptual reviews evaluate the full general consensus of the literature on a given enquiry topic and explore how this agreement was reached.
They are designed to testify the current understanding of a topic and propose if a improve understanding or consensus is needed. As with scoping reviews, conceptual reviews accept potential to show gaps in the cognition base of operations for a specified enquiry area.
State-of-the Art Review
This sub-form of narrative review is used to focus on recent enquiry and describe what is currently known and agreed upon for a review topic. Mutual to this form of review is a word of areas of understanding and disagreement for the review topic.
Narrative reviews which are also identified as traditional reviews may be given names other than those identified in this give-and-take. "Standard review," "comprehensive review," "snowfall-ball review," "bibliographic review," and other like terms are occasionally used to place what is actually a bones narrative review. As a betoken, "comprehensive review" was an older term for systematic review, but the term systematic review has replaced this older terminology due to the misuse of "comprehensive" past authors in identifying what is an actual narrative review.
Summary
In summary, as with original inquiry, in that location is a bureaucracy for strength of results from dissimilar review methods (Table 1). At the fourth dimension of writing this Editorial, a search of the PubMed 9 database showed 96,807 published papers under the search term "disaster" and eleven,991 nether the search term "prehospital." With a robust and broad literature in prehospital and disaster medicine, loftier-quality literature reviews designed to condense the cognition base are a logical stride to advance the scientific discipline in these ii general fields.
Table ane. Forms of Literature Review and Meta-Analyses
References
Moher, D , Liberati, A , Tetzlaff, J , Altman, DG , The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis: the Prisma Statement. Plos Med. 2009;6(seven):e1000097.10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ioannidis, JP , Haidich, AB , Pappa, M , et al. Comparing of evidence of treatment effects in randomized and nonrandomized studies. JAMA. 2001;286(vii):821–830.10.1001/jama.286.7.821CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenland, Southward. Quantitative methods in the review of epidemiologic literature. Epidemiol Rev. 1987;90:i–30.x.1093/oxfordjournals.epirev.a036298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munn, Z , Peters, MDJ , Stern, C , Tufanaru, C , McArthur, A , Aromataris, E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing betwixt a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Enquiry Methodology. 2018;xviii:143.x.1186/s12874-018-0611-tenCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tricco, AC , Lillie, East , Zarin, W , et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Int Med. 2018;169:467–473.10.7326/M18-0850CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grant, MJ , Booth, A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information Libraries J. 2009;26(2): 91–108.10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.tenCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Source: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/prehospital-and-disaster-medicine/article/literature-reviews-methods-and-applications/70581E0B68B491693E8360DE39E0D6E4
0 Response to "What Is an Application of a Literature Review"
Post a Comment