Title: Understanding the Challenge: Writing a Literature Review

Crafting a literature review is akin to navigating a labyrinth of scholarly works, theories, and
analyses. It's a task that demands meticulous attention, critical thinking, and comprehensive
understanding. Yet, for many, the endeavor can be daunting, overwhelming even. As such, seeking
assistance from reputable sources becomes not just a choice, but a necessity.

One of the most challenging aspects of writing a literature review is the sheer volume of material
available. Scouring through countless articles, books, and research papers can feel like searching for a
needle in a haystack. Moreover, synthesizing these diverse sources into a coherent narrative requires
both expertise and finesse.

Another hurdle is the need for objectivity and impartiality. A literature review isn't merely a
summary of existing literature; it's an analytical examination that requires the author to critically
evaluate the merits and limitations of each source. This demands a keen eye for detail and a
commitment to academic rigor.

Furthermore, there's the ever-present challenge of organizing the myriad of information gathered.
Creating a logical structure that effectively communicates the progression of ideas while avoiding
redundancy is no small feat. It requires careful planning and strategic thinking.

Given these complexities, it's no wonder that many individuals seek professional assistance when
tasked with writing a literature review. And when it comes to reliable help, one name stands out: ⇒
StudyHub.vip ⇔.

At ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔, we understand the intricacies involved in crafting a literature review. With a

team of seasoned experts, we offer comprehensive support tailored to your specific needs. Whether
you require assistance with literature search, critical analysis, or structuring your review, we've got
you covered.

Our commitment to excellence ensures that your literature review is not just a mere compilation of
sources but a scholarly work that reflects depth, insight, and originality. So, why struggle alone when
you can enlist the expertise of ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔?

In conclusion, writing a literature review is undeniably challenging, but it's not a journey you have to
undertake alone. With the right support and guidance, navigating the complexities of academic
writing becomes a manageable task. Trust ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔ to help you craft a literature review
that meets the highest standards of quality and professionalism.

For further inquiries or assistance, please visit ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔.

In-Salon Education In-School Education Which Salons have you worked for. We understand the
differences in undertaking dissertation for systematic review and undertaking dissertation for meta
analysis. The summary effect estimate from a random-effects meta-analysis corresponds to the mean
effect, about which the effects in different studies are assumed to vary. In this way, readers of the
systematic review can see for themselves the steps taken to judge both the quality and reproducibility
of the systematic review methods. An analysis of recent advancements in computational biology and
Bioinformatic. The processes of indexing retrieved studies, and extracting and managing the data can
be daunting and some reviews will require specialist analytical software. This is what differentiates a
systematic review from a descriptive review that might be based on, for example, a subset of the
literature that the author is familiar with at the time of writing. 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. 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. Where meta-
analysis is not appropriate, the results may be presented using tables and text. Additionally they
represent a chance to publish without (or before) undertaking primary research. But it is also used in
clinical trials, social studies, etc. The line that runs up the middle of the plot is called “the line of no
effect.” For all effects represented by “ratios” (e.g., odds, risk, or hazards ratios) the line of no effect
is placed at 1 on the horizontal axis. The outcome measured here is all-cause stroke and systemic
embolism, ischemic and unspecified stroke and hemorrhagic stroke. With our level of expertise
coupled with the latest techniques, you’re sure to walk out of our salon feeling confident and happy.
Thus, weakness in the methodology of individual studies can be corrected. Thus, weakness in the
methodology of individual studies can be corrected. Time Needed to Complete Review Usually takes
months or even years to reach a dependable conclusion. The steps involved in a systematic review
are similar to any other research undertaking ( Figure 12.1 ). Figure 12.1 Steps in a systematic
review. We caught up with some of the winners to discover the impact of their work and find out
more about their experiences. Class 3 PhD Joao Fonseca Introducao a Medicina II. Overview.
Introduction Motivation Research question Aims. It is essential to first produce a detailed protocol
which clearly states the review question and the proposed methods and criteria for identifying and
selecting relevant studies, extracting data, assessing study quality, and analysing results. Searches of
bibliographic databases alone tend to miss relevant studies, especially unpublished studies, and so
additional steps should be taken to ensure that all relevant studies are included in the review. Other
organizations with similar objectives have emerged, including the Australian-based Joanna Briggs
Institute (covering best evidence for global health care information), The Campbell Collaboration (a
sister organization to The Cochrane Collaboration) which provides systematic evidence for issues of
broader public policy, and the EPPI centre database providing well-designed evaluations of
interventions in the fields of education and social welfare. Crombie and Davies outline it by first
exploring systematic review. But this is not the case as there are distinct differences despite the
apparent overlap between the two. Hence, it can be said that meta-analysis and systematic review
overlap and when they do the former is always a subset of the latter. 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). Example: The Lawlor and Hopker () review conducted a comprehensive search
including Medline, Embase, Sports Discus, PsycLIT, Cochrane CENTRAL, and the Cochrane
Database of Systematic Reviews.
A well-conducted systematic review might (for a number of reasons) have only included studies on
participants very dissimilar to the patient(s) the clinician has in mind. This has greatly benefited
research scholars, students, and professionals across the globe. Bias occurs if the results of a study
are distorted by flaws in its design or conduct (see Chapter 3), while applicability may be limited by
differences between included patients’ demographic or clinical features, or in how the intervention
was applied, compared to the patients or intervention that are specified in the review question. My
favourite thing to do at the weekend is get up early and go for a swim in the sea. Systematic reviews
should use and report clearly-defined methods, in order to avoid the biases associated with, and
subjective nature of, traditional narrative reviews. You need to work with subject experts to clarify
issues related to the topic; librarians to develop comprehensive search strategies and identify
appropriate databases; reviewers to screen abstracts and read the full text; a statistician who can
assist with data analysis; and a project leader to coordinate and write the final report. One thing that
you will see in a narrative review is a thorough discussion. The summary effect estimate from a
random-effects meta-analysis corresponds to the mean effect, about which the effects in different
studies are assumed to vary. Hence, it can be said that meta-analysis and systematic review overlap
and when they do the former is always a subset of the latter. All systematic reviews, including those
that use meta-analysis, are likely to contain an element of narrative synthesis by summarising in
words the evidence included in the review. HINF 371 - Medical Methodologies Session 12.
Objective. Understand what is meant by “evidence-based medicine” Understand the types of
research informing evidence Understand meta-analyses and compare two meta analyses examples.
Reading. Systematic reviews attempt to summarize all past research to address a specific clinical
question (or questions) using a systematic approach with methods that have been preplanned and
documented in a systematic review protocol (2, 3). In this case, undertaking a meta-analysis would
probably be a poor choice. Meta-analysis A meta-analysis is a statistical analysis that aims to produce
a single summary estimate by combining the estimates reported in the included studies. Such
variability is known as heterogeneity, and is discussed in more detail below. At a minimum, a
narrative summary of the results of the quality assessment should be presented, ideally supported by
a tabular or graphical display. Forest plots The results of a systematic review and meta-analysis
should be displayed in a forest plot. But narrative synthesis doesn’t just describe the included
studies: it also seeks to explain the gathered evidence, for example by looking at similarities and
differences between the study findings and by exploring possible reasons for those similarities and
differences in a systematic way. If different studies measured outcomes in different ways (for
example, using different scales for measuring depression in primary care) it is necessary to
standardise the measurements on a common scale to allow their inclusion in meta-analysis. Usually,
the information presented in this sort of literature is previously known. Omitting studies not
published in English can introduce bias as can searching only for those published in academic
journals (6). Define the review question and inclusion criteria A detailed review question supported
by clearly defined inclusion criteria is an essential component of any review. Note that even though
all studies may appear to be retrieved, there are many studies which are not published due to
nonsignificant results. If you revise your inclusion and exclusion criteria after having started
searching and sifting the literature, you may well need to repeat the literature searching and sifting
process from the start again to ensure that excluded studies which meet this new criterion are now
included. Every author or researcher is required to cohere to the given standards of reporting and
conducting (META-EVIDENCE BLOG, 2018). It supports reviewers with study selection, data
extraction and quality assessment. Pubrica Work Sample of Research Proposal Work Sample of
Research Proposal Pubrica An-empirical-examination-of-the-text-structure-of-original-research-
articles-. If a systematic review has not been well conducted, there would be concern regarding the
validity of its findings. You will want the organization be up to date with good reporting practice,
and to ensure that their guidance, handbooks and style guides help you to achieve these standards.
For busy clinicians and health care providers, thank goodness for the systematic review.
Introduction, sometimes method that is to be followed, analysis, opinions, comparisons, conclusion,
and references. Pubrica - has extensive experience in conducting meta-analysis a. What to consider
when critically appraising a systematic review. Commonly used tools include the Cochrane Risk of
Bias tool for RCTs and the QUADAS-2 tool for diagnostic accuracy studies. But this is not the case
as there are distinct differences despite the apparent overlap between the two. But it is not always
required, and sometimes meta-analysis is conducted without the context of systematic analysis, as in
the case of clinical trials. The area of the square is proportional to its weight in the meta-analysis, so
that studies that contribute more weight are represented by larger squares. Report this Document
Download now Save Save How to Do a Systematic Literature Review and Meta-. The inclusion of
meta-analysis in a systematic review depends on the research question, the intervention to be studied,
and the desired outcomes. Pubrica team of researchers and authors develop Scientific Medical. No
language or publication restrictions were applied. There is research and statistics in this sort of
research rather than thoughts and opinions. For example, the participants may not be similar to your
patients or the setting may differ from that in which you work (e.g., community versus acute care),
the intervention may not be one in which you are interested (perhaps it is not feasible to implement
in your setting) and the outcomes may not be relevant (e.g., you may be interested in mortality but
the review has considered only anxiety). Results of the search are screened against the eligibility
criteria, typically by at least two independent people to avoid errors of judgment. By formally
assessing the conflicting study results, it is possible to eventually reach new hypotheses and explore
the reasons for controversy. First, the search results, which generally include titles and abstracts, are
screened to identify potentially relevant studies. What would you like to learn about in this industry.
Examining the heterogeneity of effect estimates within the primary studies is perhaps the most
important task in a meta-analysis. Later when he wrote further text urging health practitioners to
organize knowledge into a useable and reliable format and practice evidence-based medicine, others
took up this challenge. To review or answer this question in a way, the review pattern uses
reproducible, and as the name suggests, systematic methods. Omitting studies not published in
English can introduce bias as can searching only for those published in academic journals (6). Pubrica
Assessing Evidence-Based Practice in Physical Therapy: A Multifaceted Mixed-M. If there is reason
to believe that the intervention would work differently in subgroups of the sample (e.g., populations
at high or low risk), then subgroup analyses should also be conducted. A recent development is the
emergence of Overviews of Reviews (OoRs). PRODUCTS Browse our range of locally made
haircare, styling and personal care products designed to maintain your locks between appointments
and make the most of your expertly crafted look. This is what differentiates a systematic review
from a descriptive review that might be based on, for example, a subset of the literature that the
author is familiar with at the time of writing. Alison Brettle, Research Fellow (Information) Salford
Centre for Nursing, Midwifery and Collaborative Research University of Salford. Aims. In short,
systematic reviews and meta-analysis are both used to reduce bias in studies and provide
comprehensive evidence to a question or a truth (statistical estimate). On completion of the
systematic review, the methods used are documented in the review report, similar to that set out in
primary research. If you are proposing to perform a systematic review these provide invaluable
detailed advice, and useful examples.
You need to work with subject experts to clarify issues related to the topic; librarians to develop
comprehensive search strategies and identify appropriate databases; reviewers to screen abstracts and
read the full text; a statistician who can assist with data analysis; and a project leader to coordinate
and write the final report. These can be particularly useful for informing policy decisions about
which interventions are most effective. The perspectives of those involved in the care for people with
cardiovascular disease can be different to those of other health care professionals. It is based on the
understanding that all similar studies contain a common truth between them to which all individual
studies arrive with a degree of error. Example: Figure 12.2 shows a forest plot, based on results from
the Lawler and Hopker () review, of the effect of exercise compared to no treatment on change in
depressive symptoms, measured using standardised mean differences. An assessment of the
methodological quality of reviews should highlight the limitations of a review. Systematic reviews
result in high-quality secondary data that concretely substantiates the case made. The particular
inclusion and exclusion criteria used will depend on the topic of the systematic review, as well as
theoretical, empirical and methodolog ical issues specific to that literature. Plans to analyse the data
using these techniques should be described and justified before looking at the data, ideally at the
research plan or protocol stage, to avoid introducing bias. The information at the bottom of the forest
plot relates to the data that has been pooled from all the included studies. When multiple studies are
addressing the same problem or question, it’s to be expected that there will be some potential for
error. Systematic reviews have a necessarily narrow focus (e.g., “hypothermia to reduce neurological
damage following coronary artery bypass surgery,” Ref. 5); however it may be more informative for
clinicians to be able to access a summary of evidence from a range of related systematic reviews.
This is what differentiates a systematic review from a descriptive review that might be based on, for
example, a subset of the literature that the author is familiar with at the time of writing. But narrative
synthesis doesn’t just describe the included studies: it also seeks to explain the gathered evidence,
for example by looking at similarities and differences between the study findings and by exploring
possible reasons for those similarities and differences in a systematic way. Empirical evidence shows
that, in systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials, results presented as risk ratios or odds
ratios are more consistent than those expressed as risk differences. To keep on the right track one
should follow the proper reporting guidelines like standards (MECCIR) and (PRISMA). 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. On completion of the
systematic review, the methods used are documented in the review report, similar to that set out in
primary research. Prior to completing the review, it would be advisable to consider rerunning the
search to check for any recently published studies that the first search may have missed. 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. Related Posts: The Differences Between Pottery and Ceramics What Are The Differences
Between Dumplings and Wontons. That way one’s opinion is not influenced by the other. The first
stage of any systematic review should be to define the research question. Please see our Privacy
Policy for more information. If the endpoint is binary (for example, disease versus no disease, or
dead versus alive) then risk ratios, odds ratios or risk differences may be calculated. Similarly, a well-
conducted systematic review might not have been recently updated and its findings might not
therefore be based on current primary research. It uses explicit, systematic methods that are selected
with a view to minimizing bias, thus providing more reliable findings from which conclusions can be
drawn and decisions made (Antman 1992, Oxman 1993). A meta analysis of the literature or a
literature review. Descriptive Vs. Inferential Statistics: The Main Differences. Should this be the
case, there may be reasons to suspect that the findings are not applicable to the patient(s) in question.
Omitting studies not published in English can introduce bias as can searching only for those
published in academic journals (6). Assess the quality of the included studies Assessment of study
quality is an important component of a systematic review. Do you have a clear idea of the type of
research finding that will be relevant to addressing your research question(s). There is also no set way
or method that you need to follow for the review. It is worth checking that, based on issues around
risk of bias, you agree with the conclusions made by the systematic review authors. But it can also
be misleading if it is performed with data that are not sufficiently similar, or with data whose
methodological quality is poor (for example, because the study participants were not properly
randomized). The general application of systematic review is high in healthcare industries, as it
where the review originated. But narrative synthesis doesn’t just describe the included studies: it
also seeks to explain the gathered evidence, for example by looking at similarities and differences
between the study findings and by exploring possible reasons for those similarities and differences in
a systematic way. Or, you can decide to explore a different research method (perhaps more
qualitative). Bias can be minimized during the conduct of studies (e.g., through randomizing
participants, allocation concealment, blinding patients, researchers and healthcare personnel,
withdrawals and drop-outs, reporting of outcomes, etc.), and these are tangible things that can be
assessed in a systematic review to form judgments about the risk of bias, and how believable the
results of the studies are. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI
training, and similar technologies. 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. Define the review question and inclusion criteria A detailed review question supported
by clearly defined inclusion criteria is an essential component of any review. Systematic reviews are
an essential tool to allow individuals and policy makers to make evidence-based decisions and to
inform the development of clinical guidelines. The summary effect estimate from a random-effects
meta-analysis corresponds to the mean effect, about which the effects in different studies are
assumed to vary. A further consideration is the type of studies on which the results have been based.
Other available databases have specific focuses: the exact databases, and number of databases, that
should be searched is dependent upon the review question. Examining the heterogeneity of effect
estimates within the primary studies is perhaps the most important task in a meta-analysis. The
interpretation of data and conclusions drawn should be grounded in the risk of bias of the included
studies, so as to reflect the believability of the findings, as well as the direction and precision of
results relating to the benefits and harms of the interventions assessed. Unlike traditional reviews,
systematic reviews are very comprehensive and don’t rely on a single author’s point of view, thus
avoiding bias. Forest plots The results of a systematic review and meta-analysis should be displayed
in a forest plot. The consensus reporting guidelines for different study designs proposed by
EQUATOR ( ) are a useful starting point. Should this be the case, there may be reasons to suspect
that the findings are not applicable to the patient(s) in question. The steps involved in a systematic
review are similar to any other research undertaking ( Figure 12.1 ). Figure 12.1 Steps in a systematic
review. For example, the participants may not be similar to your patients or the setting may differ
from that in which you work (e.g., community versus acute care), the intervention may not be one in
which you are interested (perhaps it is not feasible to implement in your setting) and the outcomes
may not be relevant (e.g., you may be interested in mortality but the review has considered only
anxiety). Here’s Three Tips to Steer Clear of Potential Issues. The methods of an OSR are similar to
those of a systematic review with the exception that where systematic reviews focus on primary
research studies, OoRs evaluate and combine information from systematic reviews. Thus, combining
the results of various studies will provide an estimate of this common value. There are many possible
approaches and techniques for a review so a review organization’s handbook and evidence-based
guidance on the process could save you time. Extract relevant data Data should be extracted using a
standardised form designed specifically for the review, in order to ensure that data are extracted
consistently across different studies.