Writing a systematic literature review can be a daunting task for many researchers and students alike.

It requires a comprehensive understanding of the topic, meticulous organization, and critical analysis
of existing literature. From defining the research question to synthesizing findings, each step
demands careful attention to detail and adherence to established methodologies.

One of the primary challenges of writing a literature review is the sheer volume of scholarly articles,
books, and other sources available on any given subject. Sorting through this vast amount of
information to identify relevant studies and extract key findings can be time-consuming and
overwhelming.

Furthermore, ensuring the accuracy and reliability of the sources chosen is crucial to maintaining the
integrity of the review. This involves critically evaluating the methodology, sample size, and validity
of each study included, which requires a discerning eye and a strong grasp of research principles.

Another hurdle faced by many writers is synthesizing the findings of various studies into a coherent
narrative that contributes meaningfully to the existing body of knowledge. This requires not only
summarizing individual findings but also identifying patterns, themes, and gaps in the literature to
offer insights and recommendations for future research.

Given the complexities and challenges associated with writing a literature review, many individuals
find it beneficial to seek professional assistance. ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔ offers expert writing services
tailored to your specific needs. Our team of experienced writers is well-versed in the intricacies of
conducting systematic literature reviews and can help you navigate the process with ease.

Whether you need assistance with defining your research question, conducting a comprehensive
literature search, or synthesizing findings, ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔ is here to support you every step of
the way. With our meticulous attention to detail and commitment to excellence, you can trust us to
deliver a high-quality literature review that meets your objectives and exceeds your expectations.

Don't let the complexities of writing a literature review hold you back. Order from ⇒ StudyHub.vip
⇔ today and take the first step towards academic success.
This is the median control group risk across 8 trials of 3,663 women. Consequently, the most up-to-
date version of a tool might be missing, and the extent to which a quality item was described by a
tool might be underestimated. Not applicable. Consent for publication Competing interests. Results
Forty-nine tools met inclusion criteria and were included for the content analysis. A young
researcher's guide to a systematic review 6 min read. Citation impact was highly variable for
reporting guidelines of health research: a citation analysis. It is concerned with creating a convincible
reviewed research method that has a specific focus or answers a specific question. 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. Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from
nuclear power: A critical survey. In education, often the methods are more relaxed as generally
education papers do not meet the high quality standards of medical papers and their research
designs. There have been systematic literature reviews that have analysed the. If meta-analyses have
been done, include for each the summary measure (estimated effect) and confidence interval.
However, if there are some points that need clarification or are missing from the overall context, they
should be mentioned. Methods Section An entire section of your report should be dedicated to
explaining the methods used to complete the review. Whether the review uses current
methodological standards is important in deciding if the update will influence the review findings,
quality, reliability, or credibility sufficiently to justify the effort in updating it. It typically includes a
title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and references. Systematic reviews
synthesise relevant research around a particular question. Then ask yourself, “has someone written a
systematic literature review on my question already?” If so, yours may not be needed. We
recommend this structured question format for systematic reviews; however it can also guide other
review types or studies. A classic systematic literature review can take different approaches:
Effectiveness reviews assess the extent to which a medical intervention or therapy achieves its
intended effect. Snowballing In the second approach, we searched for published reviews on appraisal
tools for NRSIs. A structured summary or abstract should be provided at the beginning of a review;
discussions regarding an editorial standard for structured summaries in LCA reviews would be
worthwhile. Even people going straight to a PDF or full text are likely to start, and perhaps end,
with reading the abstract. Careful planning will also help you to provide insightful analysis. First,
users may narrow down the scope of tools based on their own needs, for example, excluding tools
for a different study design. To help you out in this blog, I have introduced you to the basics of the
literature review as well as certain steps to follow for writing a systematic literature review. OpenUrl
CrossRef PubMed Web of Science Shojania K, Sampson M, Ansari M, et al. Other disciplines such
as medicine, ecology, and software engineering have both recognized the utility of systematic
reviews and created standardized protocols for conducting and reporting systematic reviews.
Consequently, the weight of this study is only 6.7%, which is lower than the others. Limitations may
include: risk of bias common to many or all studies, such as lack of blinding for subjective outcomes
(example 9b) or unavailability of data (example 9a); inconsistency of effect or association, as
demonstrated by high heterogeneity (examples 9c and 9d); imprecision, e.g., due to few events or
small sample sizes; indirectness of the evidence, such as the use of an intermediate or short-term
outcome (examples 9b and 9c); and likely publication bias (example 9c).
The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst Rev.
2021;10(1):89. EQUATOR Network: Reporting guidelines under development for systematic
reviews.. Accessed 11 Feb 2021. F uture research teams might want to replicate your review in order
to follow up on your findings. A literature review simply provides a summary of the literature
available on a topic. Google does not filter the evidence in this manner. 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. Before starting out on a systematic review, check to
see if someone has done it already. We like that! Why don't we give you complete access. The
analysis steps might be important in a systematic review where you have pre-set what your research
question is and your criteria for including studies. A young researcher's guide to a systematic review
6 min read. Ranjit Singh, IIIT Allahabad Systematic Literature Review Paper COMMENTS
PRISMA Checklist The PRISMA 2020 statement comprises a 27-item checklist addressing the
introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of a systematic review report. In brief, the
abstract should be an unbiased representation of the full report. 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. Most
systematic reviews preregister the research plan, meaning that the authors submit their planned
methods to a registry like PROSPERO prior to conducting the study. Writing an embedded literature
review will clarify your understanding of the material and demonstrate your thorough research skills.
The methodology followed should be explained clearly and logically. Firefox or Internet Explorer
only - does not work in Chrome. Even the most comprehensive tools could be complemented with
items from other tools. Additional work to better conceptualize bias specific to LCA would be
useful. To ensure that your work is efficient and effective, you should follow a clear process. Then
ask yourself, “has someone written a systematic literature review on my question already?” If so,
yours may not be needed. Carefully select sources that will provide current and credible information
on your topic. Analysis: Involves critically evaluating and summarizing key findings, methodologies,
and debates found in academic literature. This approach can be seriously misleading, however, and
should be discouraged. Consult your library subject guide to review databases appropriate for your
topic. In fact I believe that anyone conducting research should know these principles. We then
outline the fundamental steps for assessing the appropriateness of meta-analytic technique for your
review and an explanation of statistical tools available for data analysis and presentation. An. Bias
across studies Publication bias is often the main type of bias across studies; it can be a concern when
published studies do not accurately reflect the actual range of studies that have been performed (
Ioannidis 2008 ). Convincing evidence from controlled and uncontrolled studies on the lipid-
lowering effect of a statin. On the other hand, traditional is thought to heavily depend on the
researcher’s decisions regarding the data selection and, consequently, evaluation and results. Because
I’ve found my go-to-place for any academic help.
This framework allows iterative searching over a reduced number of data sources and no requirement
to assess individual studies for risk of bias. The work is made available under the Creative Commons
CC0 public domain dedication. Keeping the logical sequence is very important, so having a good
writing example will be a serious advantage. Systematic review formats utilized in other disciplines
Guidelines for performing and reporting the results of systematic reviews are utilized in areas of
research including software engineering ( Staples and Niazi 2007 ), ecology ( Pullin and Stewart
2006 ), and medicine (e.g., van Tulder et al. 2003; Centre for Reviews and Dissemination 2009 ). A
schematic for our view of how systematic reviews and meta-analyses fit into the overall organization
of knowledge in the scientific community is provided in figure 1. This information is often presented
graphically in a flow diagram like this one from Radeva-Petrova et al. ( 2014 ). In systematic
reviews, specific details are extracted from every study included, such as numbers of participants,
methods, analysis techniques, and key outcomes. However, when users focus on a specific type of
concern (eg, causal effect or data quality), some methodological guidance investigating the specific
issue or tools beyond the healthcare field (eg, social science) really exist 59 60 and may be referred
to by users. Last but not least, it must also blend the studies' findings in a systematic way. Research
Questions: Please define the research questions for your study in the first step. Step 2. Definitions: In
general, we use some formal words in our study, therefore it’s a good idea to provide definitions for
these terms to make things clearer. TemplateLab systematic literature review using prisma a step by
step guide Checklist of items to include when reporting a systematic review (with SOLUTION: Casp
Systematic Review Checklist Pdf VIDEO Systematic literature review Introduction to Systematic
Literature Review by Dr. K. G. Priyashantha SYSTEMATIC AND LITERATURE REVIEWS
Writing Systematic Literature Review papers Systematic Literature Review, by Prof. From here,
identify the purpose or thesis for your topic. We look forward to further discussion of the STARR-
LCA checklist items through input from the LCA community, including advancements in LCA
methodology. Identifying signals for updating systematic reviews: a comparison of two methods;
report no 11-EHC042-EF. Background paper for The Cochrane Collaboration’s Strategic Session
Paris, France, 18 April 2012.. ? Hemila H, Chalker E. A copy of this completed form will be
available via the intranet to help others carrying out reviews in the future and to avoid duplicating
work already undertaken in the centre. PRISMA Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews
and Meta-Analyses The PRISMA Statement, which includes the PRISMA Checklist and Flow
Diagram, help to standardise systematic reviews around the world. Our team consists of the best
experts with tremendous academic writing experience. Data extraction and synthesis Two
independent researchers searched, screened and reviewed all included studies and tools, summarised
quality items and scored whether and to what extent a quality item was described by a tool, for
either methodological quality or reporting. News Production Workflows in Data- driven, Algorithmic
Journalism: A Systema. Using the PRISMA statement and its extensions to write protocols or the
completed review. Meeting participants discussed the items and agreed whether they should be
included and how each item should be worded. 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). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;( 10 ):
CD007482. Download citation Published: 19 April 2021 DOI: Share this article Anyone you share
the following link with will be able to read this content: Sorry, a shareable link is not currently
available for this article. If chemoprevention has some preventive effect, less parasitemia should be
observed among women exposed to the medication (i.e., treatment). Few interventions are 100%
effective, so scientists often talk about reductions in the risk of bad outcomes like malaria. The
search should be documented as it occurs and changes noted and justified. The updated search
strategy will need to take into account changes in the review question or inclusion criteria, for
example, and might be further adjusted based on knowledge of running the original search strategy.
Also look for publication patterns by investigating if certain approaches to the topic were common
during a specific time. PRISMA primarily focuses on the reporting of reviews evaluating the effects
of interventions, but can also be used as a basis for reporting systematic reviews with objectives
other than evaluating interventions (e.g. evaluating aetiology.
You may want to add these new headings to your Matrix to remind you to critically appraise the
sources according to this new criteria. Document your systematic literature review research question
criteria info sources search keywords searches systematic literature review templates for
documenting your question criteria information sources search strategy and searches. 2 writing a
systematic literature review. Generally published to share these results with a wide audience for
consideration and implementation. Heterogeneity in a forest plot refers to the diversity in effect size
estimates across studies. To our knowledge, this is the first study that compared level of sufficient
descriptions of appraisal tools at quality-item levels. The updated search strategy will need to take
into account changes in the review question or inclusion criteria, for example, and might be further
adjusted based on knowledge of running the original search strategy. Read the full text or download
the PDF: 178 IMAGES systematic literature review checklist systematic literature review checklist
50 Smart Literature Review Templates (APA). If they have not been included, this threatens the
validity of the review, and, at worst, means the review could mislead. The decision needs to take
into account whether the review addresses a current question, uses valid methods, and is well
conducted; and whether there are new relevant methods, new studies, or new information on
existing included studies. The topics and commentary in our STARR-LCA checklist are guided
largely by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA
Statement ( Moher et al. 2009 ) and elaboration document (Liberati et al. 2009), which are widely
used general guidelines for systematic reviews in medicine. Campbell offers editorial and
methodological support to review authors throughout the process of producing a systematic review.
The structure of the review may be different if the focus is on summary information, providing an
expert opinion, critiquing available literature, or re-evaluating existing data. We like that! Why don't
we give you complete access. Cooper University of Washington, Department of Mechanical
Engineering Michael S. Secondly, a literature review should also help in knowing all the studies that
meet the eligibility criteria through a detailed search strategy. The introduction should also state the
purpose and aims of the review. There are established strategies for defining such answerable search
questions. Systematic evaluations should include the following. This will make it easier for you to
write the review article. The Campbell Collaboration Offers standards and support for authors of
systematic reviews. Therefore, systematic literature reviews are unavoidably the most required
section of offering over other peer researchers the broad spectrum of knowledge. Gotzsche, Toby
Lasserson, David Tovey, for the PRISMA for Abstracts Group Published: April 9, 2013 Reader
Comments Citation: Beller EM, Glasziou PP, Altman DG, Hopewell S, Bastian H, Chalmers I, et al.
(2013) PRISMA for Abstracts: Reporting Systematic Reviews in Journal and Conference Abstracts.
Overview of the 4 domains and 26 quality items, with numbers and proportions of appraisal tools
that addressed or sufficiently described them Figure 2 illustrates whether and to what extent the
identified tools addressed quality items in terms of methodological quality or reporting. A diagram
illustrating how the three approaches complemented each other is shown in online supplemental
appendix 1. It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been
peer-reviewed. However, when users focus on a specific type of concern (eg, causal effect or data
quality), some methodological guidance investigating the specific issue or tools beyond the
healthcare field (eg, social science) really exist 59 60 and may be referred to by users. Moreover, all
guidelines for carrying out systematic reviews recommend that at least two subject experts screen the
studies identified in the search. The nature of the peer review could be described within the
published article. Simply following an example may not be enough, so asking a writing expert for
help is a good option. An update requires appraisal and revision of the background, question,
inclusion criteria, and methods of the existing review and the existing certainty in the evidence.
The relative risk is 0.39, which means that malaria chemoprevention is associated with a 61%
decrease in parasitemia. On the other hand, traditional is thought to heavily depend on the
researcher’s decisions regarding the data selection and, consequently, evaluation and results. Third,
identify patterns in approaches to your topic. For example, the strengths and limitations may be
stated at the end of the Results, under a separate heading, or with the Discussion or Conclusions,
depending on journal requirements. This link opens in a new window Contact a Librarian Ask a
Librarian Definition: A literature review is a systematic examination and synthesis of existing
scholarly research on a specific topic or subject. Systematic review, including meta-analysis, is
increasingly utilized in life cycle assessment (LCA). Living systematic reviews: an emerging
opportunity to narrow the evidence-practice gap. To write a strong embedded literature review, you
should approach your research systematically. In the second stage, publications were excluded based
on their. The funding source for the review should be disclosed in publication to allow the reader to
evaluate potential bias from conflict of interest. In this case, the result is considered not “statistically
significant.”. Embedded historiographies are shorter and may only need to be two or three
paragraphs. London: Elsevier. 24. Als-Nielsen B, Gluud LL, Gluud C (2004) Methodological quality
and treatment effects in randomized trials: a review of six empirical studies. 12th Cochrane
Colloquium, Ottawa (Canada). The use of standardized, systematic methods and pre-selected
eligibility criteria reduce the risk of bias in identifying, selecting and analyzing relevant studies. Click
an item below to see how it applies to Step 8: Write the Review. You may start by defining inclusion
parameters (e.g., qualitative vs. quantitative studies, date published, location of study, etc.). You
should also record keywords to search for your topic and build search strings that will help you find
sources (e.g., exercise AND mental health AND adolescents). Interpretation of tests of heterogeneity
and bias in meta-analysis. Database: Article ID bap018.. 13. Murphy MK, Black NA, Lamping DL,
McKee CM, Sanderson CFB, et al. (1998) Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical
guideline development. Thus, in this context, the importance of a systematic review is to consolidate
and characterise the research topic by thoroughly examining and evaluating the most recent
experimental work on the topic. Step 3: assess the effect of updating the review Will the adoption of
new methods change the findings or credibility. JC, HM, RM, CM, KS-W, and MT are, or were at
that time, employed by the Cochrane Central Executive. Reduced osmolarity oral rehydration
solution for treating dehydration caused by acute diarrhoea in children. Most of the trials were of 24
weeks' duration or less, limiting assessment of long-term safety.” 9c. “Meta-analyses for some
outcomes had large statistical heterogeneity or evidence for publication bias. For instance, the
intervention may work differently in different contexts, and the included studies were gathered from
all over the world. Because of differences in how we extract data from sources and what information
is relevant, the analysis within and structure of our literature reviews will vary. If a methodological
expert librarian, statistician, etc. When you order our services, we promise you the following u2013
Plagiarism free, always on Time, outstanding customer support, written to Standard, Unlimited
Revisions support and High-quality Subject Matter Experts. The Editors require the submission of a
populated checklist from the relevant reporting guidelines, including the PRISMA checklist or the
most appropriate PRISMA extension. Each study’s point estimate of the relative risk is plotted
around a line of “no effect.” A risk of 1 means that there is no difference between the intervention
and control groups. Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your
institution Search form Advanced search Search responses Search blogs When and how to update.