Struggling with your literature review? You're not alone.

Crafting a comprehensive and insightful

literature review can be an arduous task, requiring extensive research, critical analysis, and eloquent
synthesis of existing scholarly works. Whether you're a student, researcher, or academic professional,
the challenge of composing a literature review can be daunting.

From defining the scope of your review to conducting exhaustive searches across numerous
databases, sorting through an abundance of sources, and finally synthesizing them into a coherent
narrative, the process demands time, dedication, and expertise. Additionally, adhering to formatting
guidelines and citation styles adds another layer of complexity to the task.

Given the complexity and time-consuming nature of literature reviews, it's no surprise that many
individuals seek assistance to ensure their review meets the highest standards of quality and rigor.
That's where ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔ comes in.

At ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔, we understand the challenges you face in crafting a literature review that
not only meets but exceeds expectations. Our team of experienced writers specializes in conducting
thorough research, analyzing scholarly literature, and articulating key insights with precision and
clarity.

When you choose ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔, you can trust that your literature review will be meticulously
crafted to showcase your understanding of the subject matter, demonstrate critical thinking skills,
and contribute valuable insights to your field of study. Our writers are adept at synthesizing complex
ideas, identifying relevant literature, and presenting findings in a compelling manner that resonates
with your audience.

Save yourself the stress and frustration of tackling your literature review alone. Trust ⇒
StudyHub.vip ⇔ to deliver a literature review that stands out for its depth, coherence, and scholarly
rigor. With our expertise and dedication to excellence, you can confidently submit a literature review
that earns accolades from professors, peers, and colleagues alike.

Order your literature review from ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔ today and experience the difference our
professional writing services can make in your academic or professional endeavors.
LCA studies comparing beverage cartons and alternative packaging: can overall conclusions be
drawn. It contains a table divided into three categories: category, description of websites, and URL.
Statements in the manuscript should not be construed as endorsement by the US Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality or the US Department of Health and Human Services. Of over 50
Cochrane editorial teams, most but not all have some systems for updating, although this process can
be informal and loosely applied. Please also reach out to her if you have any question. It is very
difficult to paraphrase something line-by-line as you go along, because everything seems important
and it is too easy to just lift the phrases the author has used. Some topics move quickly, and the
definition of “regular intervals” will vary according to the field and according to the state of
evidence in the field. The evolving state of reviews in LCA Variety of review types. Proceedings of
the 5th ACM conference on Bioinformatics, computational biology, and health informatics.
2014:88-95.. ? Elliott JH, Turner T, Clavisi O, et al. Do you know how to develop your research
design and methodology? 4. Oral iron supplements for children in malaria-endemic areas. In a
critical review, the reviewer not only summarizes the existing literature, but also evaluates its
strengths and weaknesses. Brief summary of strength and limitations of evidence (e.g.,
inconsistency, imprecision, indirectness, or risk of bias, other supporting or conflicting evidence).
They each have unique formatting requirements for many features. It should not feel like a glorified
annotated bibliography. ( ). Establishing the cost-effectiveness of new pharmaceuticals under
conditions of uncertainty—when is there sufficient evidence. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic
Reviews of Interventions. 2nd Edition ed. Chichester: Wiley; 2019. We only included articles
identified through the database search and snowballing if published in English, while included grey
literature could be published in all languages, as many HTA agencies tend to only use languages of
their nations. Given a decision to update, the process needs to start with an appraisal and revision of
the background, question, inclusion criteria, and methods of the existing review. They are highly
customizable, and you can use them in any way you desire. Consistent among effective note-takers is
their high level of engagement. The Matrix folder contains your Review Matrix, where you record
select information about each source. Provide, in a brief and concise way, the context of the study.
Research Question: How and why does aerobic exercise have a positive impact on executive
function?” The document contains a table with three columns and six rows. 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. Fortunately, knowledge from other disciplines can
be leveraged to improve systematic reviews in LCA. Exit Essay - Save the Filipino Language by
Renz Perez.docx Exit Essay - Save the Filipino Language by Renz Perez.docx Appendicular
SkeletonSystem PPT.pptx Appendicular SkeletonSystem PPT.pptx Caldecott Medal Book Winners
and Media Used Caldecott Medal Book Winners and Media Used English 7-Quarter 3-Module 3-
FACTORS THAT MAY INFLUENCE LITERATURE.pptx English 7-Quarter 3-Module 3-
FACTORS THAT MAY INFLUENCE LITERATURE.pptx Literature review guide 1. Reduced
osmolarity oral rehydration solution for treating dehydration caused by acute diarrhoea in children.
Include an objective topical sentence that introduces your readers to the purpose of that paragraph.
Higgins J, Green S, Scholten R. Chapter 3. Maintaining reviews: updates, amendments and
feedback: Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011).
The Matrix folder contains your Review Matrix, where you record select information about each
source. The average number of titles clicked on to obtain the abstract or full text, even after
retrieving several searches in a row, is less than five. Competing interests: All participants have a
direct or indirect interest in systematic reviews and updating as part of their job or academic career.
Moreover, all guidelines for carrying out systematic reviews recommend that at least two subject
experts screen the studies identified in the search. The Editors require the submission of a populated
checklist from the relevant reporting guidelines, including the PRISMA checklist or the most
appropriate PRISMA extension. Furthermore, we found that appraisal tools designed for specific
interventions had potential to be transferred for general interventions. Ethics declarations Ethics
approval and consent to participate. In a critical review, the reviewer not only summarizes the
existing literature, but also evaluates its strengths and weaknesses. International Committee of
Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). We also found some discrepancies in the tools identified or
recommended. All discrepancies were solved through discussion among the three researchers (MH,
LJ and JW). Reference could be made to known ongoing studies that have the potential to change
the result of the review. Systematic Reviews and Meta Analysis Getting Started Guides and
Standards Review Protocols Databases and Sources Randomized Controlled Trials Controlled
Clinical Trials Observational Designs Tests of Diagnostic Accuracy Software and Tools Where do I
get all those articles. After removing duplicates and reviewing full-texts, we included 49 tools which
met our criteria. Guidelines for systematic review in conservation and environmental management.
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.
Altman, Sally Hopewell, Hilda Bastian, Iain Chalmers, Peter C. The editors will have a look at it as
soon as possible. Most tools are scales in which various components of quality are scored and
combined to give a summary score. An investigation should also be initiated following guidelines
from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). These characteristics might include descriptors
of the participants (e.g., age, severity of disease), range of interventions used (e.g., dose and
frequency of drug administration), and measurement of outcomes (e.g., follow-up times). Item 7:
Synthesis of results. PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for reporting literature
searches in systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2021;10(1):39.. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK,
Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. A comparison of statistical methods for identifying out-of-date
systematic reviews. 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. Process-based LCA, in which data are obtained based on parameters of known, physically
utilized components, can be further divided into attributional and consequential types ( Finnveden et
al. 2009 ). In contrast, input-output models are based on economic inputs to a system, such as the
EIOLCA model created by the Green Design Institute at Carnegie Mellon University (2008). When
the results are not statistically significant, authors should distinguish between those where there is
insufficient evidence to rule out a difference between treatments (wide confidence interval), and
those which have sufficient evidence that an important difference is unlikely (narrow confidence
interval). Cite this Article in your Essay (APA Style) Drew, C. (May 15, 2023). 15 Literature Review
Examples. See ' Doing a systematic literature search ' for guidance and links. Systematic reviews of
the literature, with or without meta-analysis, can help summarize the existing data in meaningful
ways to better answer existing questions or answer altogether new questions. Students should always
cross-check any information on this site with their course teacher.
For example, if ROBINS-I 18 is used for assessing methodological quality, the quality concerns
known to users will be RoB in eight domains (eg, confounding and selection bias). This is not an
exhaustive list, but the following strategies may help you record the information you have decided to
include in your literature review. It examines the effects of physical exercise in children with ADHD
and it includes the keywords systematic review and meta-analysis, which tells us it is a literature
review worth examining. If there are no summary measures, some numerical data may still be given
(example 7c), although authors should be wary of making this in the form of “vote counting” where
the number of “positive” and “negative” studies is given. The PRISMA extension statement for
reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions:
checklist and explanations. The systematic review framework from evidence-based medicine has
been successfully utilized in other disciplines, such as ecology ( Gates 2002 ) and software
engineering ( Baldassarre et al. 2008 ). Similarly, we propose a checklist of essential topics to assist in
designing, conducting, and reporting systematic reviews in LCA. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;
suppl 1: 31 - 3. Arrows can be used to link key words to newly generated searchable words to show
a graphic organization of the relationships between them. Review authors and commissioners can use
a decision framework and checklist to navigate and report these decisions with “update status” and
rationale for this status. Using a template, you understand the upgrade will always have the
formatting, design, and general arrangement. Connections should be made linking those sources to
one another. Dogan RI, Murray GC, Neveol A, Lu Z (2009) Understanding PubMed user search
behavior through log analysis. Accounting for ecosystem services in life cycle assessment, Part I: A
critical review. 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. Comparing environmental impacts
for livestock products: a review of life cycle assessments. Additional published and unpublished data
can become available from a wide range of sources—including study investigators, regulatory
agencies and industry—and are important to consider. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;( 10 ):
CD006589. In a review of existing LCAs Villanueva and Wenzel (2007) followed a four-phase
protocol that included (i) an inventory of existing LCA studies, (ii) definition of criteria for the
selection of LCA studies, (iii) selection of LCA studies, and (iv) identification of key issues. Routine
prophylactic antibiotics with caesarean section: the Cochrane review reports clear evidence of
maternal benefit from placebo controlled trials but no information on the effects on the baby. 20
Assessment: this is a current question. Tool selection As shown in figure 1, we identified 1738 articles
after removing duplicates and excluded 1645 articles after subsequently reviewing titles, abstracts
and full-text. These statements should be clearly backed by the results given in the abstract, and by
presentation of the strengths and limitations of the evidence in the review. For example, of the 44
tools identified by D’Andrea et al, 13 27 were published between 2003 and 2019; while in our study,
47 were identified as published between 2003 and 2019. Include an objective topical sentence that
introduces your readers to the purpose of that paragraph. Be sure to carefully follow your citation
style guide for reference list formatting. The Documents folder contains PDF copies of the material
you have selected for review. Similarly, only RTI Item Bank, 27 the tool by Genaidy et al 35 and
NICE 41 sufficiently described the item Outcome definition. Decisions about whether and when to
update a systematic review are judgments made at a point in time. 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. Health care has strongly
advocated for utilizing the best available evidence for decision-making (e.g., prescribing patient
treatment on the basis of drug trials) and the framework of evidence-based medicine ( Sackett et al.
1996 ) is designed to complement the expertise of individual practitioners. We look forward to
further discussion of the STARR-LCA checklist items through input from the LCA community,
including advancements in LCA methodology.
This is common in the social sciences and humanities. In a critical review, the reviewer not only
summarizes the existing literature, but also evaluates its strengths and weaknesses. It’s simpler to
delete information than add it in, so err on the side of adding also rather than too little. A systematic
review is guided filtering and synthesis of all available evidence addressing a specific, focused
research question, generally about a specific intervention or exposure. Simply indicating what an
author claims or has found is not sufficient. PRISMA 2020 Checklist (PDF) PRISMA 2020
Checklist (Word) The checklist can also be completed using a Shiny App available at The PRISMA
2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting. Your university library has subscriptions to
many research databases. From the remaining 27 eligible studies, we identified 417 appraisal tools.
As yet, there has been limited external validation of these tools to determine which approach would
be most effective and when. The search will necessarily be incomplete, vague and very large all at
the same time. References of the included studies and appraisal tools are shown in online
supplemental appendix 2 and 3, respectively. While the needs of tool users may vary, they could all
be somewhat satisfied by our research. The quality of any review or meta-analysis is dependent on
the individual studies upon which it is built. Newly identified studies can change the conclusion of a
review. PDF Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses evidence. We have
suggested reporting a minimum set of items. We do not advocate that abstracts replace full articles in
informing decision making, but we recognise that for many time-pressed readers, or for those with
limited access to the full texts of reports, it is important that abstracts contain as much information
as is feasible within the word limit of abstracts. Improving the efficiency and relevance of health
technology assessment: the role of decision analytic modelling. Paper 179. Centre for Health
Economics, University of York, 2000. ? Sculpher M, Claxton K. Over the past decade, advances in
systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline.
Abstracts of systematic reviews are very important, as some readers cannot access the full paper,
such that abstracts may be the only option for gleaning research results. 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. One researcher (MH) extracted tool characteristics using a prespecified Excel form. The
systematic review framework from evidence-based medicine has been successfully utilized in other
disciplines, such as ecology ( Gates 2002 ) and software engineering ( Baldassarre et al. 2008 ).
Similarly, we propose a checklist of essential topics to assist in designing, conducting, and reporting
systematic reviews in LCA. After downloading the PDF, examine the reference list for other
relevant sources. Preparing and updating systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of
health care. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.
The organising committee invited participants, put forward the agenda, collected background
materials and literature, and drafted the structure of the report. In health care research, some
investigators advocate for the additional rigor of prospectively registered review protocols available
for peer review and a database of review protocols ( Booth et al. 2011 ). The review's protocol and
methods provide a cohesive understanding about how the review study will be planned, conducted
and reported. Examiners used a checklist to evaluate clinical capabilities on a four-point scale to
calculate their results. This improved the clarity of the reviews findings in relation to the effects and
the importance of the effects of steroids on death and on disability. 11 A systematic review of
dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DHAP) for treating malaria was updated with much more detailed
analysis of the adverse effect data from the existing trials as a result of questions raised by the
European Medicines Agency. To ensure you complete the assignment properly, follow these steps.