Performing a Literature Review: A Challenging Endeavor

Embarking on a literature review can be a daunting task for many individuals, requiring extensive
research, critical analysis, and synthesis of existing knowledge on a particular topic. The complexity
of this process often overwhelms individuals, making it essential to seek assistance to ensure a
comprehensive and well-structured review.

The intricate nature of writing a literature review involves not only identifying relevant sources but
also critically evaluating and integrating them to form a coherent narrative. Additionally, maintaining
a clear focus, avoiding redundancy, and providing valuable insights are integral aspects that demand
attention throughout the writing process.

To alleviate the challenges associated with crafting a literature review, individuals are encouraged to
consider professional assistance. One reputable platform that offers expert support in this regard is ⇒
StudyHub.vip ⇔. The platform boasts a team of skilled writers with expertise in various fields,
ensuring that clients receive high-quality literature reviews tailored to their specific needs.

By opting for ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔, individuals can benefit from a streamlined process that includes
thorough research, meticulous analysis, and the creation of a well-organized literature review. The
platform's commitment to excellence and attention to detail sets it apart as a reliable resource for
those seeking assistance in navigating the complexities of performing a literature review.

In conclusion, performing a literature review is undoubtedly a challenging endeavor that requires

time, effort, and a deep understanding of the subject matter. To ensure a well-crafted and insightful
review, individuals are encouraged to explore the professional services offered by ⇒ StudyHub.vip
⇔, a trusted platform dedicated to delivering top-notch literature reviews tailored to meet the
unique requirements of each client.
Finally, participants concurred that replication methods would be driven by uncertainties expressed
by users of the reviews (eg, patients and public, practitioners, press, professionals, policy makers).
PT, VAW, and HW conceptualised the research question. Table 1 Formal prediction tools: how
potentially relevant new studies can affect review conclusions View this table: View popup View
inline Box 4: Examples of new information other than new trials being important The iconic
Cochrane review of steroids in preterm labour was thought to provide evidence of benefit in infants,
and this question no longer required new trials. Food fortification with multiple micronutrients:
impact on health outcomes in general population. While 93% of patients were aware of the potential
for significant visual impairment secondary to diabetes, only 55% had received DRS in the last year.
We thank the following contributors who provided feedback on a preliminary version of the
PRISMA 2020 checklist: Jo Abbott, Fionn Buttner, Patricia Correia-Santos, Victoria Freeman, Emily
A Hennessy, Rakibul Islam, Amalia (Emily) Karahalios, Kasper Krommes, Andreas Lundh, Dafne
Port Nascimento, Davina Robson, Catherine Schenck-Yglesias, Mary M Scott, Sarah Tanveer and
Pavel Zhelnov. Formulating questions to explore complex interventions within qualitative evidence
synthesis. Methods Study design and population The study was a randomised trial and the web
appendix provides full details of the trial protocol. Dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine for treating
uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D,
Stroup DF, for the QUOROM group. To capture this information, the PRISMA flow diagram now
requests information on these phases of the review process. The PRISMA statement (items 5, 11, 16,
and 23) acknowledges this iterative process. 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. Performance in the MRCP(UK) Examination 2003-4: analysis of pass
rates of UK graduates in relation to self-declared ethnicity and gender. In 1992, Drummond Rennie
5 called for scientific proof of the value of the peer review system. This may include empirical
studies or conceptual papers that initiated a line of investigation, changed how problems or questions
were framed, introduced new methods or concepts, or engendered important debate ( Cooper, 1988
). Eight mentioned the additional use of questionnaires investigating social determinants. 37 40 43 44
47 48 53 59 Specifics of how governments were involved in the process varied considerably. For
example, if you are reviewing literature about women and religion, key themes can include the role
of women in churches and the religious attitude towards women. Outcomes Manuscript quality,
assessed with a 5 point Likert scale (primary: overall quality; secondary: average quality of specific
items in paper). Several early studies evaluated the quality of review reports. Model choice can
importantly affect the summary estimate and its confidence interval; hence the rationale for the
selected model should be provided (see box 5 ). An Introduction to Research Methods in Sociology
by Valerie A. The electronic database search was supplemented by full-text searches of Google
scholar, and hand searching of the journals: British Medical Journal, British Journal of Psychiatry and
the British Journal of Ophthalmology. Accumulative experience and methods development in
reviews other than those of effects are likely to help refine guidance in the future. Methodological
quality Four (6.7%) systematic reviews scored low, 30 (50.0%) scored moderate and 26 (43.3%)
scored high on methodological quality. Design and sampling One study was a cluster randomised
controlled trial with ethnicity as one of the independent variables. 39 All others were prospective or
retrospective cohort studies. Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic. Searches
of grey literature identified a number of conference posters and some work in progress. Effect of
ethnicity and gender on performance in undergraduate medical examinations. A review and meta-
analysis of the impact of intestinal worms on child growth and nutrition.
Eleven of the 13 showed unadjusted significant effects of ethnicity on outcomes. Problem
formulation -- which topic or field is being examined and what are its component issues? 2. Two
review authors independently applied the tool to each included study, and recorded supporting
information and justifications for judgements of risk of bias for each domain (low; high; some
concerns). Recent guidance on when to consider updating systematic reviews 13 is relevant for
assessing when replication of previous systematic reviews is likely to have value, for example, when
new evidence has become available. They provide detailed and very helpful instructions on how to
conduct each step of the review process. This is explored further in the second subtheme; treatment
orientation. The findings address the need to invest in high-quality research standards in order to
identify interventions that have a real impact on patient safety. A literature review is important
because it: Explains the background of research on a topic. When combined with complementary
methods, such as, social autopsy, the explanatory potential of VA is extended to identify contributory
factors in conjunction with information on levels and causes of deaths in populations. HPs were more
likely to refer patients if they believed that the LMPs were effective and would improve patient
outcomes. On the nature of cross-disciplinary integration: a philosophical framework. Although other
reviews identified similar determinants of LMP utilisation (eg, the availability of link workers and
transitional supports, and HP scepticism about programme effectiveness), these reviews focused
mainly on social and psychological health, 17 18 or specific physical conditions (eg, cardiovascular
disease), 66 or were not based on recent evidence. 66 As was the case with our review, existing
reviews were limited by a paucity of robust evidence. For example, the results may help to generate
hypotheses about potential modifying factors that can be tested in future studies, or help identify
“active” intervention ingredients that might be combined and tested in a future randomised trial.
This is known as “bias due to missing results” and arises from “reporting biases” such as selective
non-publication and selective non-reporting of results (see box 4 ). 81 Direct methods for assessing
the risk of bias due to missing results include comparing outcomes and analyses pre-specified in
study registers, protocols, and statistical analysis plans with results that were available in study
reports. Find Models Use the exercise of reviewing the literature to examine how authors in your
discipline or area of interest have composed their literature review sections. An evaluation of the
current state of research on the topic, including a discussion of any gaps in existing knowledge.
Australian Governemnt, 2012. ? Laws RA, Fanaian M, Jayasinghe UW, et al. The official positions
of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry: indications of use and reporting of DXA for
body composition. While the demographic characteristics of cohorts varied from being 100% white
35 to 97% black and minority ethnic, 34 overall the samples represented a broad range of individuals
which may enhance the generalisability of the findings. A systematic review published in the Lancet
examined the effects of artemisinin based combination treatments compared with monotherapy for
treating malaria and showed clear benefit. 21 Assessment: this established the treatment globally and
is no longer a current question and no update is required. BMJ Books, 2003:1-13. ? Altman DG. The
scandal of poor medical research. Analysis: Involves critically evaluating and summarizing key
findings, methodologies, and debates found in academic literature. Assessment of a method to detect
signals for updating systematic reviews. Robust evaluation of these interventions should include
impact on residents, families and staff and include economic analysis. Use a citation manager, such
as EndNote as the repository for your citations. Comparative effectiveness review No. 211.
Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2013. ? Wong J, Beglaryan H. This article
provides guidance for researchers systematically reviewing and meta-analysing the existing evidence
on a specific prediction model, discusses good practice when quantitatively summarising the
predictive performance of the model across studies, and provides recommendations for interpreting
meta-analysis estimates of model performance. OpenUrl PubMed ? Martin L, Birdsell L, Macdonald
N, et al. Assessing chronic disease management in European health systems. country reports.
Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2015. ? Australian Health Ministers’
Advisory Council. The guarantor affirms that the manuscript is an honest, accurate and transparent
account of the study being reported; that no important aspects of the study have been omitted; and
that any discrepancies from the study as planned (and, if eligible, registered) have been explained.
If authors did not prepare a review protocol, or prepared one but are not willing to make it
accessible, this should be stated to prevent users spending time trying to locate the document.
Improving end-of-life care in the care home sector. Given this, the purpose of a literature review is
to: Place each work in the context of its contribution to understanding the research problem being
studied. Publishing protocols of systematic reviews: comparing what was done to what was planned.
You should always look at examples from your own discipline and talk to professors or mentors in
your field to be sure you understand your discipline’s conventions, for literature reviews as well as
for any other genre. The lack of evidence for patient-safety interventions does not mean that these
interventions do not work; it primarily addresses the lack of valid effect. Providing a brief summary
of the characteristics and risk of bias among studies contributing to each synthesis (meta-analysis or
other) should help readers understand the applicability and risk of bias in the synthesised result.
Further, it is well known that performance measures such as the C statistic are relatively insensitive
to improvements in predictive performance. The excluded studies: were published in a language
other than English; investigated patients with specific symptoms (eg, chest pain); investigated
conventional telephone triage or video-call triage; included the initial decisions being made by health
professionals or were carried out in the context of acute or emergency departments. Examples of
item 13d of PRISMA 2020 checklist Example 1: meta-analysis “As the effects of functional
appliance treatment were deemed to be highly variable according to patient age, sex, individual
maturation of the maxillofacial structures, and appliance characteristics, a random-effects model was
chosen to calculate the average distribution of treatment effects that can be expected. There are very
limited data on the correlation between degree of sarcopenia and muscle function, which has a non-
linear relationship in older non-cancer populations. Disagreement about inclusion was solved by
discussion. Present the key characteristics of each study in a table or figure (considering a format
that will facilitate comparison of characteristics across the studies). Most of the studies were
conducted in North America impacting on the generalisability of findings to the UK population; it is
possible that DRS uptake may be greater in the UK where it is offered free at the point of delivery.
The linear predictor is the weighted sum of the values of the predictors in the validation study, where
the weights are the regression coefficients of the prediction model under investigation. 23
Heterogeneity in reported C statistics might also appear when predictor effects differ across studies
(eg, due to different measurement methods of predictors), or when different definitions (or different
derivations) of the C statistic have been used. Investigating heterogeneity across studies When the
discrimination or calibration performance of a prediction model is heterogeneous across validation
studies, it is important to investigate potential sources of heterogeneity. Potential reasons for this
pitfall are concerns about the quality of included studies, unavailability of relevant summary
statistics due to incomplete reporting, 18 or simply a lack of methodological guidance. Pre-cachexia
and cachexia at diagnosis of stage III non-small-cell lung carcinoma: an exploratory study comparing
two consensus-based frameworks. Interdisciplinary integration in Europe: the case of the fifth
framework programme. Results The consensus meeting was attended in person by 36 of the 54
research team members who were invited. For example, if you are reviewing literature about
inequalities in migrant health outcomes, key themes might include healthcare policy, language
barriers, cultural attitudes, legal status, and economic access. This strategy might not always be
reliable, such that sensitivity analyses remain paramount in any meta-analysis. In most cases, the
brevity of the educational intervention meant that many of the complex issues surrounding end-of-
life care could only have been dealt with at a superficial level or not addressed at all and would thus
be unlikely to change staff behaviour or attitudes, although they might raise awareness of the need
for end-of-life care. Probiotics for antibiotic-associated diarrhoea (PAAD): a prospective
observational study of antibiotic-associated diarrhoea (including Clostridium difficile-associated
diarrhoea) in nursing homes. Although the implications of these biases on the conduct and reporting
of systematic reviews themselves are unclear, some research has identified that selective outcome
reporting may occur also in the context of systematic reviews. 16 Terminology The terminology used
to describe a systematic review and meta-analysis has evolved over time. Barriers, facilitators and
attitudes influencing health promotion activities in general practice: an explorative pilot study.
History: The chronological progression of the field, the literature, or an idea that is necessary to
understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
However, neither Snilstveit et al. (2012) nor McEwan (2015) find evidence for negative effects of the
one?laptop?per?child program on early grade literacy outcomes.” 197 Item 23b. Discuss any
limitations of the evidence included in the review Explanation: Discussing the completeness,
applicability, and uncertainties in the evidence included in the review should help readers interpret
the findings appropriately. Chronic disease. Canberra: AIHW, 2019. ? Australian Institute of Health
and Welfare. Data extraction and quality assessment One researcher (WG) extracted the data from
the included systematic reviews, using a standardised form (see online supplementary appendix 1 ).
References 1. ? Barello S, Graffigna G, Vegni E. Global health can be advanced by cross-
disciplinary collaboration within and beyond the health sciences. In other words, there are different
ways you can weave these three ingredients into your literature review. One study was removed
from the long-list because there were no data to extract. 12 Methodological quality was judged
according to the CASP criteria 13 for trials. This model is sometimes referred to as the “common-
effects” or “equal-effects” model. 103 A fixed-effect model can also be interpreted under a different
assumption, that the true intervention effects are different and unrelated. Preferred reporting items
for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. The Literature Review Definition
A literature review surveys prior research published in books, scholarly articles, and any other
sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, and by so doing, provides a
description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works in relation to the research problem being
investigated. Influence of eicosapentaenoic acid supplementation on lean body mass in cancer
cachexia. Literature reviews can take two major forms. The most prevalent one is the “literature
review” or “background” section within a journal paper or a chapter in a graduate thesis. Canadian
Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, 2012. ? Buttner F, Winters M, Delahunt E, et al.
Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed. Fig 1 Flowchart for
systematically reviewing and, if considered appropriate, meta-analysis of the validation studies of a
prediction model. Historical literature reviews focus on examining research throughout a period of
time, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, phenomena emerged in the
literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. For people with dementia,
an integrative literature review highlighted a range rather than definitive characteristics of dying and
little consensus regarding the value of prognostic indicators. 32. Articles were most frequently
excluded because they did not report on referral to LMPs. To help you come up with an overall
organizational framework for your review, consider the following scenario: You’ve decided to focus
your literature review on materials dealing with sperm whales. To conclude, our main objective in
this chapter was to demystify the various types of literature reviews that are central to the continuous
development of the eHealth field. Proceedings of the 5th ACM conference on Bioinformatics,
computational biology, and health informatics. 2014:88-95.. ? Elliott JH, Turner T, Clavisi O, et al.
These have been selected as essential because we consider their reporting important for users to
assess the trustworthiness and applicability of a review’s findings, or their reporting would aid in
reproducing the findings. Applying CASP, none of the studies generated valid findings and they are
too poorly described for the findings to be helpful in other settings. In the modified version
developed, the blinding section was disregarded as studies containing VA do not usually involve
blinding, and so inclusion of this component would have had a misleading adverse impact on the
quality assessment. Here are some examples: Chronological: The simplest approach is to trace the
development of the topic over time, which helps familiarize the audience with the topic (for instance
if you are introducing something that is not commonly known in your field). Development of the
Literature Review Four Basic Stages of Writing 1. Wong SS, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB,
Ramkissoonsingh R. Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence
Explanation: Discussing how the results of the review relate to other relevant evidence should help
readers interpret the findings. Barriers to the implementation included: delays in system start-ups;
marketing not being aligned with practice expectations; challenges in integrating eConsult with
existing systems and low numbers of eConsultations. Reporting in at least half the studies was
incomplete: the type of data collected and method of data collection were frequently unclear or
poorly described. The study showed that, 2?years after the launch of an evidence-based health
website, nationwide primary care usage decreased by 12%. The total O:E ratio provides a rough
indication of the overall model calibration (across the entire range of predicted risks). Journals and
publishers might impose word and section limits, and limits on the number of tables and figures
allowed in the main report.
Where multiple results remained, we listed all available outcomes (without results) and asked our
content expert to independently rank these based on relevance to the review question, and the
validity and reliability of the measures used. The purpose is to develop a body of literature that
establishes a contrarian viewpoint. If the trial did not report the cluster-adjusted estimated or the
ICC, we imputed an ICC from a similar study included in the review, adjusting if the nature or size
of the clusters was different (e.g. households compared to classrooms). Report how many reviewers
assessed the certainty of evidence, whether multiple reviewers worked independently, and any
processes used to resolve disagreements between assessors. If authors did not prepare a review
protocol, or prepared one but are not willing to make it accessible, this should be stated to prevent
users spending time trying to locate the document. The right structure will vary from study to study,
depending on various factors. Whittington CJ, Kendall T, Fonagy P, Cottrell D, Cotgrove A, et al.
Development of palliative care in nursing homes: evaluation of a Danish project. Essential elements
If statistical synthesis methods were used, reference the software, packages, and version numbers
used to implement synthesis methods (such as metan in Stata 16, 117 metafor (version 2.1-0) in R
118 ). If it was not possible to conduct a meta-analysis, describe and justify the synthesis methods
(such as combining P values was used because no or minimal information beyond P values and
direction of effect was reported in the studies) or summary approach used. They were suggested or
designed to share information with patients using different styles, such as a separate patient display,
39, 46 a projector, 42, 44 a portable tablet, 41, 43, 45 a touch-based screen, 41, 42, 47, 48 or a shared
computer display that can be viewed by both doctors and patients. 40 The papers envisioned some
potential benefits of suggested designs. Geneva, 2012. 20. ? Ye Y, Wamukoya M, Ezeh A, et al.
Methods The review was conducted using a systematic search strategy. Toward systematic review
automation: a practical guide to using machine learning tools in research synthesis. As a result, the
impact of the intervention on these outcome measures is difficult to assess. Any recommendations
about social or physical distancing, and the use of face masks, should be based on the best available
evidence. Improving the quality of reporting of meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials: The
QUOROM statement. Bridging basic and clinical science with policy studies: The Partners with
Transdisciplinary Tobacco Use Research Centers experience. Robust evaluation of these interventions
should include impact on residents, families and staff and include economic analysis. Patient
engagement in the inpatient setting: a systematic review. Strengths and weaknesses of this review
This review was based on a systematic study of two major databases. Extending the PRISMA
statement to equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-E 2012): explanation and elaboration.
Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of
randomised trials of healthcare interventions. OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 29. ? Leon M, Doolan
DC, Laing R, Malins J, Salman H. Health research is responsible for improvements in healthcare. We
therefore approximated the standard error of the total O:E ratio (19 validation studies) using the
equations provided in appendix 7. Effectiveness of exercise-referral schemes to promote physical
activity in adults: systematic review. The integrated implementation of two end-of-life care tools in
nursing homes in the UK: an in-depth evaluation. Methodological quality Four (6.7%) systematic
reviews scored low, 30 (50.0%) scored moderate and 26 (43.3%) scored high on methodological
quality. Aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a meta-analysis with a particular
focus on subgroups. Techno-optimism? In general, most articles were very optimistic about designing
and implementing intelligent online triage tools, predicting potential for substantial advantages even
when the systems were performing badly.