Navigating the intricate world of academia, especially when pursuing a Ph.D.

, often involves
grappling with the formidable task of conducting a literature review. For many, this undertaking
proves to be a daunting challenge, requiring extensive research, critical analysis, and adept synthesis
of existing knowledge within a chosen field of study. Crafting a systematic literature review
demands precision, diligence, and a keen eye for detail.

The process begins with identifying relevant sources, which can encompass a wide array of scholarly
articles, books, conference proceedings, and other academic publications. Sifting through this vast
body of literature necessitates not only time but also a comprehensive understanding of the research
topic and its surrounding discourse.

Once the pertinent sources are gathered, the next phase entails synthesizing the information,
discerning common themes, identifying gaps in existing knowledge, and evaluating the quality and
reliability of each source. This requires a meticulous approach, as each piece of literature must be
critically analyzed and integrated into a coherent narrative that contributes meaningfully to the
research endeavor.

Furthermore, maintaining clarity and cohesion throughout the literature review is paramount, as it
serves as the foundation upon which subsequent research is built. The ability to effectively
communicate complex ideas and findings is essential in ensuring the credibility and impact of the
review.

Given the challenges inherent in writing a literature review, many scholars opt to seek assistance
from professional writing services. Among these, ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔ stands out as a trusted
resource for Ph.D. students embarking on the journey of conducting a systematic literature review.
With a team of experienced writers well-versed in academic research and writing, ⇒ StudyHub.vip
⇔ offers tailored solutions to meet the unique needs of each client.
By enlisting the expertise of ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔, Ph.D. students can alleviate the burden of writing
a literature review while ensuring the highest standards of quality and rigor are maintained. With
meticulous attention to detail and a commitment to excellence, ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔ empowers
scholars to navigate the complexities of academia with confidence and proficiency.
Interest in systematic reviews of the literature, with or without meta-analysis, is increasing in many
disciplines including LCA. For stand-alone historiographies, include an introduction, body
paragraphs, and a conclusion. Artesunate combinations for treatment of malaria: meta-analysis. For
example when researching a systematic styled review you would take careful notes of what you have
searched for and in which databases in the. It (Literature Review), in fact, sample survey and
survives on scholarly articles and other sources such as dissertations and conference proceedings.
The guidance could also help these groups decide whether their effort is worthwhile. Cochrane
systematic reviews do not include 'systematic' in the title, however. Validity of the Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality clinical practice guidelines: how quickly do guidelines become
outdated. Umbrella reviews are an established method of locating appraising and synthesising
systematic reviews. News Production Workflows in Data- driven, Algorithmic Journalism: A
Systema. The authors solicit feedback from collaborators, colleagues, and peer reviewers. Box 3:
Examples of a systematic review’s currency The public is interested in vitamin C for preventing the
common cold: the Cochrane review includes over 29 trials with either no or small effects, concluding
good evidence of no important effects. 17 Assessment: still a current question for the public. Indeed,
there is probably added value to updating a review, because this will include taking into account
comments and criticisms, and adoption of new methods in an iterative process. 2 3 4 5 6 Cochrane
has over 20 years of experience with preparing and updating systematic reviews, with the publication
of over 6000 systematic reviews. All discrepancies were solved through discussion among the three
researchers (MH, LJ and JW). For most readers, the findings described in the abstract will also be
key, either as the sole part of an article that will be read, or to determine whether reading the full text
is required. However, it’s also essential to remember examples of older studies and keep the balance
between them and the newer research. My 4-year academic journey has been made flawless. It
should be adapted to your specific question. 8. Analyze the results Establish a standard measure of
outcome which can be applied to each study on the basis of its effect size. Wooden building products
in comparative LCA: A literature review. These should be assessed in terms of whether they might
change the review findings or improve its credibility (fig 1 ? ). We look forward to further discussion
of the STARR-LCA checklist items through input from the LCA community, including
advancements in LCA methodology. 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. Moreover, a systematic review requires subject expertise, statistical
support and a librarian to help design and run the search. One or more of these strengths and
limitations may apply to each of the outcomes of the systematic review being described in the
abstract. Low osmolarity oral rehydration salt (ORS) solution versus standard solution for acute
diarrhoea in children: the 2001 Cochrane review 18 led the World Health Organization to
recommend ORS solution formula worldwide to follow the new ORS solution formula 19 and this
has now been accepted globally. In both stand-alone and embedded historiographies, you must
support your arguments and analyses with examples from the sources. For agencies, people
responsible for managing a portfolio of systematic reviews, there is a need to use both formal and
informal horizon scanning. Fig. 7. Codes and number of articles related to the artifact-mediated
communication principle. Were the criteria for appraising studies appropriate? 6. A meta-analysis of
the differences in environmental impacts between organic and conventional farming.
Adhesively bonded versus non-bonded amalgam restorations for dental caries. In the event,
consensus was reached, and the annex was not required. The number of steps for conducting
Evidence Synthesis varies a little, depending on the source that one consults. Unleashing the Power
of AI Tools for Enhancing Research, International FDP on. Smart Dosing: A mobile application for
tracking the medication tray-filling a. 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. Therefore, and to use peer reviewers’ time most effectively, editors need to consider when to
peer review an update and the type of peer reviewer most useful for a particular update (for
example, topic specialist, methodologist). In reporting the search process for the update, investigators
must ensure transparency for any previous versions and the current update, and use an adapted flow
diagram based on PRISMA reporting (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-
analyses). 57 The search processes and strategies for the update must be adequately reported such
that they could be replicated. This work provides a systematic literature review of blockchain-based
applications across multiple domains. Codes related to the parallel interwoven creation tracks
principle. New approaches to publishing licences could help new authors build on and re-use the
previous edition while giving appropriate credit to the previous authors. In most cases, reviews
without clearly and exactly specified populations, interventions, exposures, and outcomes will
produce results sets that quickly outstrip the resources of a small team and offer no consistent way to
assess and synthesize findings from the studies that are identified. For example, both D’Andrea et al
13 and our study found that intervention measurement, outcome measurement and confounding
were frequently addressed by existing tools. Guidance for literature search reporting has been
diverse, and, in many cases, does not offer enough detail to authors who need more specific
information about reporting search methods and. Low osmolarity oral rehydration salt (ORS)
solution versus standard solution for acute diarrhoea in children: the 2001 Cochrane review 18 led
the World Health Organization to recommend ORS solution formula worldwide to follow the new
ORS solution formula 19 and this has now been accepted globally. In a literature review it is best to
build a case with selected sources by grouping them thematically so that you can analyze, compare
and contrast the theories, and that policies and practices in the field you are studying or conveyed in
an organized way. Box 3: Examples of a systematic review’s currency The public is interested in
vitamin C for preventing the common cold: the Cochrane review includes over 29 trials with either
no or small effects, concluding good evidence of no important effects. 17 Assessment: still a current
question for the public. First, users may narrow down the scope of tools based on their own needs,
for example, excluding tools for a different study design. Next, the three reviews were used as a
starting set and were uploaded to the website Connected Papers, which provides an online tool for
snowballing. 22 With each uploaded review, Connected Papers analysed approximately 50?000
articles and finally returned 40 articles with the highest level of similarity, based on factors such as
overlapping citations. The goal of a review may be to provide a survey of previous publications,
critique current work, or make summary projections about future discoveries. Are there factors about
them (e.g. age, race) that could be relevant to the question you’re trying to answer. The abstract
should include the main source of funding for the systematic review, whether from host institutions
or from external bodies. Direction of the effect (i.e., which group is favoured) and size of the effect
in terms meaningful to patients and clinicians. It should give a theoretical base for the research and
help you (the author) determine the nature of your research. Why Manual Pen-Testing is a must have
for comprehensive application security. 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. For instance with respect to CoP workshops one specific example is
the problem-based learning interactive multimedia experiential learning and role-playing PIER
approach Hardless Nilsson Urban Nulden 2005. New authors and authorship Updated systematic
reviews are new publications with new citations. Transparent and complete reporting is an essential
component of “good research”; it allows readers to judge key issues regarding the conduct of
research and its trustworthiness and is also critical to establish a study’s replicability. Company Video
To Phd Systematic Literature Review.
Introduction When readers screen the title of an article, and parts of its abstract, they try to
determine whether or not to devote their scarce time to reading on. Also, be sure to adhere to your
style guidelines because headings, title pages, references lists, and other sections or formatting
features may differ. They are usually one of the first steps in research methodologies. Even the most
comprehensive tools could be complemented with items from other tools. Real-life applications for
deriving a so-called best answer from LCA data have arrived. 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. A
logging system is needed to make sure all relevant studies. Codes related to the iterative and
incremental design and development principle. For example, some scholars have examined the social
aspects of a topic while others have explored its economic aspects. Those who will read this example
of literature review will understand in which way they should move to continue investigating the
topic. IPCC special report on renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation. 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. In the first case, we don't know
what interventions to search for and so have to screen all the articles about awareness and
acceptability. The checklist includes two items with several elements. Provenance and peer review:
Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed. 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. In addition to the systematic review approach utilized for
data harmonization, other LCA reviews provide a starting point for considering appropriate
protocols. Systematic Reviews and Meta Analysis It may take several weeks to complete and run a
search. Initially, methods focused on statistical approaches to predict an overturning of the current
review findings in terms of the primary or desired outcome (table 1 ? ). In health care, the acronym
PICO describes one common model for question structure where the key components are the P
opulation of study, the I ntervention, a C omparison group, and the O utcome of interest (Liberati et
al. 2009; Booth and Fry-Smith, 2003 ). Usually, it’s unnecessary, but if an abstract is mentioned in
the requirements, consider adding it to the working plan. Study and report characteristics used as
criteria for inclusion. From here, identify the purpose or thesis for your topic. Keeping the logical
sequence is very important, so having a good writing example will be a serious advantage. Watson,
2002), they are less common in software engineer-. A systematic review is a labor-intensive team
effort. The PUGs guidance can help individuals or academic teams working outside of a
commissioning agency or Cochrane, who are considering writing a systematic review for a journal or
to prepare for a research project. Fifteen invited experts attended, most of whom had participated in
the survey. However, the following steps are generally accepted in how Systematic Reviews are
done: Identify a gap in the literature and form a well-developed and answerable research question
which will form the basis of your search Select a framework that will help guide the type of study
you’re undertaking Different guidelines are used for documenting and reporting the protocols of
your systematic review before the review is conducted. They’re often used to complement, or in the
absence of, quantitative data.
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. A review of assessments conducted on bio-ethanol as a transportation fuel from a net
energy, greenhouse gas, and environmental life cycle perspective. In Cochrane, this is referred to as
the protocol, and editors are part of this process. It also includes an analysis and evaluation of
existing research. The Dissertation Literature Review Example will give you a lot of new ideas for a
unique review. We sought to identify general approaches in this area, and not be specific to
Cochrane; although inevitably most of the panel were somehow engaged in Cochrane. This will
serve as the basis for your thesis statement. The PUGs guidance can help individuals or academic
teams working outside of a commissioning agency or Cochrane, who are considering writing a
systematic review for a journal or to prepare for a research project. Specific points relative to
practical problem solving or setting policy may be especially useful to highlight. An example of a
research question for SRMA based on PICO for this issue is as follows. You should employ multiple
reviewers in order to minimize bias and strengthen analysis. Context: In the last decade, software
development has been characterized by two major approaches: agile. These hacks help you
understand how to prepare your literature research correctly, avoiding numerous common mistakes.
Describe the rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge. Other published protocols
as well as Cochrane Review protocols appear in the Cochrane Methodology Register, a part of the
Cochrane Library. Energy use in the life cycle of conventional and low-energy buildings: A review
article. Generally published to share these results with a wide audience for consideration and
implementation. It is also worth noting that, the target audience of this review and content analysis
could be decision-makers who assess the general quality of an NRSI, NRSI performers who may
report quality of their studies, or developers of relevant appraisal tools. Following the meeting, the
checklist was distributed to the participants to ensure it reflected the decisions made. Reprints and
permissions About this article Cite this article. But hold on! Don’t quickly jump to the conclusion of
a Book review. 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. A literature search is
distinguished from but integral to a literature review. 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. A literature review creates a
“landscape” for the reader, giving her or him a full understanding of the developments in the field.
Noon University of Washington, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Associated
Data Supporting Information S1: This supporting information provides a sample STARR-LCA
worksheet for use in study planning, manuscript preparation, and peer review. Meeting participants
discussed the items and agreed whether they should be included and how each item should be
worded. Article titles should clearly identify the manuscript as a review with or without meta-
analysis, and keyword listings for both individual reports and database structure should include the
terms meta-analysis and systematic review. UCAmI Presentation Dec.2013, Guanacaste, Costa Rica
UCAmI Presentation Dec.2013, Guanacaste, Costa Rica IFSA World Congress -NAFIPS 2013
Edmonton, Alberta. Similarly, the abstract should only draw conclusions that are substantiated by
data from the full report and analyzed as described in the protocol, rather than selectively
emphasising interesting results that were a minor or ad hoc component of the analysis.