Title: Mastering the Art of Literature Review: A Comprehensive Guide

Welcome to our guide on literature review, where we delve into the intricate process of conducting
systematic reviews and synthesizing literature. Crafting a literature review is a fundamental task in
academic research, requiring meticulous attention to detail, critical analysis, and synthesis of existing
scholarly works. Whether you're a seasoned researcher or a novice in the field, mastering the art of
literature review can be a daunting challenge.

The complexity of writing a literature review lies in its multifaceted nature. It involves navigating
through a vast array of sources, ranging from peer-reviewed journals and scholarly articles to books
and conference proceedings. Sorting through this abundance of information demands not only time
and patience but also a keen sense of discernment to identify relevant literature that contributes
meaningfully to the research topic.

Moreover, conducting a systematic review requires adherence to rigorous methodological protocols.

It entails formulating clear research questions, defining inclusion and exclusion criteria,
systematically searching for relevant studies, and critically appraising the quality of evidence. The
meticulous nature of these tasks demands a structured approach and a comprehensive understanding
of research methodologies.

Furthermore, synthesizing the findings of diverse studies into a coherent narrative poses its own set
of challenges. It necessitates the ability to analyze and interpret data, identify patterns and trends
across studies, and draw insightful conclusions that advance scholarly knowledge in the field.
Crafting a compelling argument that integrates disparate perspectives while maintaining clarity and
coherence is no easy feat.

In light of these challenges, many researchers seek assistance to navigate the complexities of
literature review writing. That's where ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔ comes in. With a team of experienced
academic writers and researchers, ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔ offers professional assistance in crafting
high-quality literature reviews tailored to your specific research needs.

At ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔, we understand the importance of delivering meticulously crafted literature

reviews that meet the highest academic standards. Our expert writers possess advanced degrees in
their respective fields and have extensive experience in conducting systematic reviews and
synthesizing literature across diverse disciplines. Whether you're a graduate student working on a
thesis or a seasoned scholar publishing a research paper, we are here to support you every step of the
way.

With our commitment to excellence and dedication to client satisfaction, ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔ has
earned a reputation as a trusted provider of academic writing services. We pride ourselves on
delivering top-notch literature reviews that not only meet but exceed our clients' expectations. When
you choose ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔, you can rest assured that your literature review is in capable hands.

In conclusion, mastering the art of literature review is a challenging yet rewarding endeavor. By
leveraging the expertise of professionals at ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔, you can streamline the process and
ensure the success of your research endeavors. Take the first step towards academic excellence and
order your literature review from ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔ today.
RQ1: What computer languages are being taught in introductory. Their objective is to synthesize
evidence through meta-analysis, a type of SLR that employs statistical analyses. Use the search
strings created in Step 2 to search the databases. Fig. 3 illustrates. This re?ects that, while the idea of
integrating. They can also map out the competitive landscape in terms of other available licensed or
emerging treatments. News Production Workflows in Data- driven, Algorithmic Journalism: A
Systema. Refers to the problem that positive results are more likely to. What to consider when
critically appraising a systematic review. In short, the evidence against or for the question at hand is
summarized. On the other hand, traditional is thought to heavily depend on the researcher’s decisions
regarding the data selection and, consequently, evaluation and results. Use specific authors or
sources as examples, and be sure to explain any similarities or departures in approach, methodology,
findings, or argument. Due to this variety of formats, make sure you are clear on what kind of
literature review your professor is expecting. Table 7 Data Collection form completed for Maxwell et
al., 1998. Suggestion. A shift from an up-front design to up-front analysis. The core methodology
behind a living review can be that of a full SLR or a rapid review. Publication bias can lead to
systematic bias in SLR. In the Conclusion, the authors frame the overall results in terms of their
implications for practice and research. Look for patterns in authors’ approaches or in their
methodological handling of the topic. Hence, wherever a systematic review has been published, it is
important to critically appraise it before using it to inform practice. Moreover, consultant on personal,
professional, stewardship leadership, research. In a meta-analysis, studies with narrower CIs are
given more weight in the analysis, and those with wider CIs are given relatively less weight; this is
referred to as weighting according to the inverse of the variance. Finding a good review can save
you hours of searching and will give you a ready-made search strategy to update or modify. This
review requires intensive information on the topic and it allows to include the searching on all major
databases, including statistical test values. The process of performing a systematic literature review
must be transparent and. Start by focusing on the red box and examine the comparative risk column
that shows the assumed risk among the control group. When this interval crosses the line of no
effect, the effect could be null or could even run in the opposite direction. Unleashing the Power of
AI Tools for Enhancing Research, International FDP on. Primary research designs and study
characteristics are appraised, data synthesized and results interpreted (4). I will also run some
searches at this point to find relevant studies and look at their keywords to add to the list.
Kitchenham, B., Mendes, E., Travassos, G.H. (2007) A Systematic Review.
As with a traditional literature review, the aim is to identify and critically evaluate and summarise
the current evidence on the identified problems. Systematic reviews follow a clearly outlined
convention or plan, with criteria that are clearly articulated or planned before the review is
conducted. Many of the reviews in these databases can be accessed by searching within PubMed
using the Clinical Queries feature. News Production Workflows in Data- driven, Algorithmic
Journalism: A Systema. In addition, electronic databases mentioned before sometimes prompt the
use of the so-called Boolean operators, simple words such as AND, OR, NOT, or AND NOT.
Summary In summary, systematic reviews (if well-conducted) can be an invaluable resource for
providing an up-to-date and systematic summary of the current evidence for particular interventions.
More importantly, to assess the consistency of evidence and assumptions to clear logical questions,
there is also an incorporated way of assessing the consistency of evidence and conjecture, which has
equally a significant value in this type of literature review. Unlike the narrative literature review, the
systematic review enables the definition of a methodological approach that will allow the answer to
specific research questions. Hands down to their expert consultation and guidance. The main
difference between them is situated in the process of collecting and selecting data and the material
for the review. Q2: What characteristics of the study data sets and the data. Searches vs.Backward
Snowballing, Proceedings of the 6th Int'l Symp. You may start with writing research questions and
objectives. Requirements Elicitation Techniques: Empirical Results Derived from a. Medical
systematic reviews are conducted and published through the Cochrane Library named after Archie
Cochrane a Scottish doctor who established the idea of evidence-based medicine. The stages listed
above may appear to be sequential, but it is important to recognize. The Process of Systematic
Reviews Here is how you would get a systematic review started, described in steps. When to Use
Literature Reviews Here is where you would commonly find literature reviews: Academic research
Book reviews Reviews of articles Recommended for You: Primary vs. Scholars who conduct
systematic reviews register their research protocols in advance to clearly state the literature search
strategy, rules for including and excluding studies, and a plan for the analysis. One inclusion criteria
might be that assignment to study arms had to be random; an exclusion criteria might be all studies
without a control arm that used a placebo. A protocol will be required to set out the types of research
studies to be included in the review, and anything that does not meet these criteria will be excluded,
based on the prespecified research question and a sound rationale. Refers to the problem that positive
results are more likely to. It may also be, however, that the inclusion criteria do cover these but no
relevant studies have yet been conducted. If the visitor submits a form on the site, their visitor ID is
associated with the provided information in order to facilitate contact with our team. While
systematic reviews can be challenging and time-consuming to conduct, they can also be extremely
rewarding. Results Derived from a Systematic Review (Davis et al., 2006). Integrative methods
create taxonomies from conceptual findings and provide the foundation for the development of
global descriptions of phenomena across studies. This information is often presented graphically in a
flow diagram like this one from Radeva-Petrova et al. ( 2014 ). Address how your approach to the
topic reinforces or rejects previous approaches as well as how your work contributes to the larger
body of knowledge on your topic. Here, the results of a literature search and numbers of studies that
are excluded during the process are shown. The search strings were used on 6 digital libraries.
A small number of high quality studies with a low risk of bias is preferable to lots of poorly reported
or conducted studies. Parallel tracks Parallel interwoven creation tracks. The result should be a
robust and reliable assimilation of evidence in order to reach a reliable conclusion. News Production
Workflows in Data- driven, Algorithmic Journalism: A Systema. On the other hand, traditional is
thought to heavily depend on the researcher’s decisions regarding the data selection and,
consequently, evaluation and results. Try to place your current work and research within this wider
discussion by considering how your research supports, contradicts, or departs from other scholars’
research. Overviews of systematic reviews are also useful because they provide summaries of groups
of related systematic reviews (e.g., summarizing the evidence of the effectiveness of a number of
different interventions for a certain outcome or disease). Systematic reviews are currently
considered as one of the highest forms of research evidence and it can be tempting to view a
systematic review as providing “the definitive answer” to a clinical question. Kitchenham et al.
(2007) used the following inclusion criteria. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and
understand how you use this website. You might also know this kind of review style as narrative
reviews. Many first time reviewers, whether they are independent researchers or undertaking the
review as part of a PhD or Professional Doctorate, feel that they benefit from attending workshops
and accessing online training resources offered by some review organizations. Perhaps for these
reasons, many published systematic reviews are produced by teams working in collaboration with the
support of a specialist systematic review organization (see Table 2) in order to achieve these many
and varied tasks. Context: Review(s) of all empirical studies of PP within the domain of. Davis, A.,
Dieste, O., Hickey, A., Juristo, N., Moreno, A.M. (2006) Effectiveness of. Publication bias can lead
to systematic bias in SLR. Integrative methods create taxonomies from conceptual findings and
provide the foundation for the development of global descriptions of phenomena across studies.
Moreover, we identi?ed the research type of each paper as pre-. The information at the bottom of the
forest plot relates to the data that has been pooled from all the included studies. Validity The extent
to which the design and conduct of the. Commonly for systematic reviews of the effectiveness of
treatments, the question will follow a “PICOS” format (to define the Population, Intervention(s),
Comparison(s), Outcomes and Study designs of interest to the review). The authors suggest tables to
consolidate evidence, but also remind us that the use of quantitative evidence to evaluate qualitative
data is not necessarily useful. An annotated bibliography might suffice for a literature review. They
are usually one of the first steps in research methodologies. For full interpretation of data, there are a
whole raft of factors that should be considered together (not simply the statistical answer to your
question); these issues are incorporated into the GRADE approach (Grading of Recommendations
Assessment, Development and Evaluation) for assessing the evidence (15). In case of duplicates
publications (reporting the same data), refer the. Include information on the thesis, perspective,
historical approach, arguments, sources, and methodology. But opting out of some of these cookies
may affect your browsing experience. My 4-year academic journey has been made flawless. Because
I’ve found my go-to-place for any academic help.
If you were carrying out a full systematic review to publish, you would spend some time building up
your keywords and then testing the results to ensure you were retrieving relevant articles.
Examining the evidence in anesthesia literature: a critical appraisal of systematic reviews. However,
even according to this common understanding, the two types are very different. These review
techniques have evolved over time and can sometimes influence each other a little bit. Studies are
not created equal, and the weight parameter lets researchers account for these differences in the
analysis. General types of questions often considered by such checklists include the following. RQ2:
Are the robots that are being used simulated or physical (real-life)? The duplicate will need to be
removed as shown in Figure 5. Although we found more sources, the recommendations were con-.
Some databases were selected based on previous studies we were. When this interval crosses the line
of no effect, the effect could be null or could even run in the opposite direction. Now, I encourage
you to try to be a little more to be systematic whenever researching some topic, to try to write a
systematic literature review yourself and to maybe even consider submitting it to JEPS. Besides
making room for suf?cient up-front design activities as. UCD and ASD, has been around for some
time, many integration. A third author can help discuss any areas of conflict or indecision. Hands
down to their expert consultation and guidance. These elements of the research question will be
further set out through the eligibility criteria for the review. Differences in review methodology can
lead to disparate conclusions and decisions, even for the same research question. The number of
events may also be used (e.g., number of cardiac arrests) and can be summarized using a rate ratio
(for rare events), or mean difference (for common events). In a full-scale systematic review a
number of authors would do these steps independently to ensure the process is accurate and to avoid
bias introduced by personal choices and preferences. For example, Radeva-Petrova et al. ( 2014 )
include the following passage in their plain language summary. Contrast: within-organisation OR
within-organization OR within-. Systematic reviews present the ideal opportunity to undertake in-
depth assessments of evidence relevant to your practice and have the potential to influence national
guidelines in your area. Changes in approach over time can be seen after publication information has
been compared, so be sure to place the authors within their own historical context too. Some
systematic reviews include a meta-analysis, which is quantitative technique for combining the results
of multiple studies to estimate a pooled effect size that takes variations in study size and quality into
consideration. The inclusion of more recent studies has the potential to change the findings of the
systematic review (12). You will need to decide your inclusion and exclusion criteria at the start when
you are writing your research proposal, or planning your essay. Why do I mention systematic reviews
in relation to desk-top research. The search should be documented as it occurs and changes noted
and justified. It may be considered that a large, appropriately powered and designed randomized
study on its own may provide the answer to an important clinical question without the need for
systematic review.
This also shows in the development of more and more specific guidelines and checklists for writing
systematic literature reviews (see for example PRISMA or Cochrane Handbook for Systematic
Reviews of Interventions ). In your notes, be sure to record each author’s thesis, methodology,
strengths, limitations, and significant findings in addition to relevant information you can use in an
essay. This kind of work will declutter the landscape of the same things called a different way and
will help correct misinterpretations on different concepts called the same. Now, I encourage you to
try to be a little more to be systematic whenever researching some topic, to try to write a systematic
literature review yourself and to maybe even consider submitting it to JEPS. If the visitor submits a
form on the site, their visitor ID is associated with the provided information in order to facilitate
contact with our team. In the fourth stage, the ?nal sample passed a ?rst categorization. Filtering of
the papers generally occurs in two phases. Hopefully, this systematic review vs literature review was
able to help you understand where they are applicable. Dr. Nahed Said Al Nagger. Lecture VI.
Learning Objectives. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your
browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. Refers to the
problem that positive results are more likely to. Q1: What evidence is there regarding pair
compatibility factors that affect. It is worth checking that, based on issues around risk of bias, you
agree with the conclusions made by the systematic review authors. So what is the difference between
systematic review and literature review. Most systematic searches specify several, if not many,
criteria regarding which studies to include or exclude. For example, the review could be about the
effectiveness of treatment. Validity The extent to which the design and conduct of the. For this
reason, most systematic reviews are conducted by teams, given the large scope of the data initially
collected for most research topics. Method: We conduct a systematic review of the literature on
UCASD. Excluding it completely from a literature review is inappropriate because the search should
be always as complete as possible in order to reduce the risk of publication bias. Simply put, studies
with weaker research designs, such as this one, have less weight in the pooled analysis. So, here in
this systematic review vs literature review comparison piece, we’ve given you all that you need to
know about these review types and where you should use them. On the left of the forest plot you
will find a list of these included studies (commonly given a study ID consisting of the first author’s
name and the year in which the study was published). Acknowledgments The authors would like to
thank Dr. Rebecca Stores and Dr. Chris Markham for their support and useful comments on the
manuscript. For validation, a set of papers should be reviewed by 2 or more. In addition to including
all the questions needed to answer the review question and. It should be noted, however, that the
upper CI for ischemic and unidentified stroke is very close to the line of no effect (0.99). When
making decisions related to practice, it is important to consider that should the true effect lie at this
point, then this would mean that newer anticoagulants only very marginally reduce the risk for a
composite end point of stroke and systemic embolism as compared with warfarin. The search strings
were constructed by linking the four OR lists using. You also have the option to opt-out of these
cookies. You might also know this kind of review style as narrative reviews.
For stand-alone historiographies, include an introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion.
Because I’ve found my go-to-place for any academic help. Where there is a high degree of
heterogeneity (variability between studies, either in types of participants, interventions or outcomes,
or study design, risk of bias or results), it may not be appropriate to combine their results using meta-
analysis. Education Naima Ferdous July 26, 2021 Systematic and literature reviews are used to give
a piece of summary information; both reviews also synthesize evidence. By clicking “Accept”, you
consent to the use of ALL the cookies. It is important to interpret these for yourself so that you can
check whether the conclusions of the systematic review accurately reflect the findings. Literature
reviews can usually be conducted by a single person rather than a team. Like any other aspect of
research, however, systematic reviews must define and follow a method that can be replicated. To
reduce the final body of the literature, conclusions, conjectures, and information gathering
techniques are prepared and used as tools for the process before processing the review. E.g. formal
experiments that was failed to reject null. To systematically accumulate, organize, evaluate, and.
Examining the evidence in anesthesia literature: a critical appraisal of systematic reviews. To write a
strong stand-alone literature review, you should approach the research using a step-by-step process.
This example shows a specific type of effect size: relative risk. Statistical analysis (or meta-analysis)
may or may not be used to analyze the results of the included studies. If you are being more
systematic and wish to generate data for your project, you can follow the steps undertaken by a full
systematic review, and record the numbers of studies you include and exclude at each phase. Fig. 7.
Codes and number of articles related to the artifact-mediated communication principle. Scholars who
conduct systematic reviews register their research protocols in advance to clearly state the literature
search strategy, rules for including and excluding studies, and a plan for the analysis. Comparison:
Single-company project effort estimation model. Which principles constitute a user-centered agile
software development approach? It should be noted, however, that the upper CI for ischemic and
unidentified stroke is very close to the line of no effect (0.99). When making decisions related to
practice, it is important to consider that should the true effect lie at this point, then this would mean
that newer anticoagulants only very marginally reduce the risk for a composite end point of stroke
and systemic embolism as compared with warfarin. Evaluation and Assessment in Software
Engineering (C). However, students could gain a reasonable idea from citations and journal rankings
(albeit rough). A manual search for relevant clinical studies from references of the screened articles
was additionally carried out. Literature reviews don’t have to follow such rigid methods or make the
methods explicit. Furthermore, critical review applies to research areas where point-by-point
arguments on a particular research topic are needed to be identified to reach an accurate and precise
conclusion on the research question. The search and screening procedures are described in the
technical section of the report, together with the PRISMA outline, the scope of the search is included
with a flow chart showing the reasons for including or excluding papers at each stage of the process.
If you were carrying out a full systematic review to publish, you would spend some time building up
your keywords and then testing the results to ensure you were retrieving relevant articles. Screening
for a literature review is typically less intensive. Descriptive Vs. Inferential Statistics: The Main
Differences.