Examples of Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria in Literature Review

April 17, 2022 Post a Comment

Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2019; 74: e1403.

Approaching literature review for academic purposes: The Literature Review Checklist

Debora F.B. Leite

^IDepartamento de Ginecologia east Obstetricia, Faculdade de Ciencias Medicas, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, SP, BR

^IIUniversidade Federal de Pernambuco, Pernambuco, PE, BR

^IIIHospital das Clinicas, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Pernambuco, PE, BR

Maria Auxiliadora Soares Padilha

^IIUniversidade Federal de Pernambuco, Pernambuco, PE, BR

Jose G. Cecatti

^IDepartamento de Ginecologia e Obstetricia, Faculdade de Ciencias Medicas, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, SP, BR

Received 2019 Jun 22; Accepted 2019 Sep 17.

Abstract

A sophisticated literature review (LR) tin can result in a robust dissertation/thesis past scrutinizing the main problem examined by the bookish written report; anticipating enquiry hypotheses, methods and results; and maintaining the interest of the audition in how the dissertation/thesis will provide solutions for the current gaps in a item field. Unfortunately, little guidance is available on elaborating LRs, and writing an LR chapter is not a linear procedure. An LR translates students' abilities in data literacy, the linguistic communication domain, and disquisitional writing. Students in postgraduate programs should be systematically trained in these skills. Therefore, this paper discusses the purposes of LRs in dissertations and theses. Second, the paper considers five steps for developing a review: defining the principal topic, searching the literature, analyzing the results, writing the review and reflecting on the writing. Ultimately, this written report proposes a twelve-item LR checklist. By clearly stating the desired achievements, this checklist allows Masters and Ph.D. students to continuously appraise their ain progress in elaborating an LR. Institutions aiming to strengthen students' necessary skills in critical academic writing should also use this tool.

Keywords: Review, Checklist, Academic Operation, Critical Thinking, Learning

INTRODUCTION

Writing the literature review (LR) is often viewed every bit a difficult job that can exist a point of writer's block and procrastination (i) in postgraduate life. Disagreements on the definitions or classifications of LRs (2) may misfile students about their purpose and scope, equally well equally how to perform an LR. Interestingly, at many universities, the LR is still an important element in any academic work, despite the more recent tendency of producing scientific manufactures rather than classical theses.

The LR is not an isolated section of the thesis/dissertation or a copy of the background section of a research proposal. It identifies the state-of-the-art knowledge in a particular field, clarifies information that is already known, elucidates implications of the trouble beingness analyzed, links theory and exercise (iii-5), highlights gaps in the current literature, and places the dissertation/thesis within the inquiry calendar of that field. Additionally, by writing the LR, postgraduate students will comprehend the structure of the subject and elaborate on their cognitive connections (iii) while analyzing and synthesizing data with increasing maturity.

At the same time, the LR transforms the student and hints at the contents of other capacity for the reader. Showtime, the LR explains the research question; second, it supports the hypothesis, objectives, and methods of the inquiry project; and finally, it facilitates a clarification of the student's interpretation of the results and his/her conclusions. For scholars, the LR is an introductory chapter (half dozen). If it is well written, information technology demonstrates the educatee's understanding of and maturity in a particular topic. A audio and sophisticated LR can signal a robust dissertation/thesis.

A consensus on the best method to elaborate a dissertation/thesis has not been achieved. The LR can exist a singled-out affiliate or included in dissimilar sections; information technology tin can be function of the introduction chapter, part of each research topic, or part of each published paper (7). Notwithstanding, scholars view the LR as an integral office of the main body of an academic work because it is intrinsically continued to other sections (Figure ane) and is frequently present. The structure of the LR depends on the conventions of a item discipline, the rules of the department, and the educatee'southward and supervisor's areas of expertise, needs and interests.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is cln-74-e1403-g001.jpg

The LR chapter is an elemental component of thesis and dissertations, and information technology is directly continued to other sections. By assessing the LR affiliate, the reader might anticipate what to look from the remaining sections of the bookish text.

Interestingly, many postgraduate students choose to submit their LR to peer-reviewed journals. As LRs are disquisitional evaluations of current knowledge, they are indeed publishable material, even in the form of narrative or systematic reviews. Nevertheless, systematic reviews take specific patterns¹ (eight) that may not entirely fit with the questions posed in the dissertation/thesis. Additionally, the scope of a systematic review may be too narrow, and the strict criteria for study inclusion may omit important information from the dissertation/thesis. Therefore, this essay discusses the definition of an LR is and methods to develop an LR in the context of an academic dissertation/thesis. Finally, we suggest a checklist to evaluate an LR.

WHAT IS A LITERATURE REVIEW IN A THESIS?

Conducting research and writing a dissertation/thesis translates rational thinking and enthusiasm (9). While a stiff trunk of literature that instructs students on inquiry methodology, data analysis and writing scientific papers exists, little guidance on performing LRs is available. The LR is a unique opportunity to appraise and contrast various arguments and theories, not just summarize them. The inquiry results should not be discussed within the LR, but the postgraduate student tends to write a comprehensive LR while reflecting on his or her own findings (ten).

Many people believe that writing an LR is a lonely and linear process. Supervisors or the institutions assume that the Ph.D. student has mastered the relevant techniques and vocabulary associated with his/her subject and conducts a cocky-reflection well-nigh previously published findings. Indeed, while elaborating the LR, the student should aggregate diverse skills, which mainly rely on his/her own commitment to mastering them. Thus, less supervision should be required (11). Notwithstanding, the parameters described to a higher place might not currently be the case for many students (11,12), and the lack of formal and systematic training on writing LRs is an important concern (11).

An institutional environment devoted to active learning will provide students the opportunity to continuously reflect on LRs, which volition course a dialogue between the postgraduate student and the current literature in a particular field (13). Postgraduate students will be interpreting studies by other researchers, and, according to Hart (1998) (iii), the outcomes of the LR in a dissertation/thesis include the following:

To identify what research has been performed and what topics crave farther investigation in a detail field of knowledge;
To decide the context of the problem;
To recognize the primary methodologies and techniques that take been used in the past;
To identify the current research projection within the historical, methodological and theoretical context of a item field;
To identify significant aspects of the topic;
To elucidate the implications of the topic;
To offer an alternative perspective;
To discern how the studied subject is structured;
To improve the student'south subject field vocabulary in a particular field; and
To characterize the links between theory and practice.

A sound LR translates the postgraduate pupil's expertise in bookish and scientific writing: information technology expresses his/her level of condolement with synthesizing ideas (11). The LR reveals how well the postgraduate student has proceeded in three domains: an constructive literature search, the linguistic communication domain, and disquisitional writing.

Effective literature search

All students should be trained in gathering appropriate data for specific purposes, and information literacy skills are a cornerstone. These skills are defined as "an individual's ability to know when they need data, to identify information that can assistance them address the effect or problem at hand, and to locate, evaluate, and utilise that information effectively" (14). Librarian support is of vital importance in coaching the appropriate apply of Boolean logic (AND, OR, NOT) and other tools for highly efficient literature searches (e.g., quotation marks and truncation), every bit is the appropriate direction of electronic databases.

Language domain

Academic writing must be curtailed and precise: unnecessary words distract the reader from the essential content (15). In this context, reading about issues afar from the research topic (sixteen) may increase students' general vocabulary and familiarity with grammar. Ultimately, reading diverse materials facilitates and encourages the writing procedure itself.

Critical writing

Critical judgment includes critical reading, thinking and writing. It supposes a student'south analytical reflection about what he/she has read. The student should delineate the basic elements of the topic, characterize the near relevant claims, identify relationships, and finally contrast those relationships (17). Each scientific document highlights the perspective of the writer, and students volition become more confident in judging the supporting show and underlying premises of a written report and constructing their own counterargument as they read more manufactures. A paucity of integration or contradictory perspectives indicates lower levels of cognitive complexity (12).

Thus, while elaborating an LR, the postgraduate student should achieve the highest category of Bloom's cognitive skills: evaluation (12). The author should non simply summarize data and understand each topic just as well be able to make judgments based on objective criteria, compare resources and findings, identify discrepancies due to methodology, and construct his/her own argument (12). As a result, the student will be sufficiently confident to show his/her own vocalism.

Writing a consequent LR is an intense and complex activeness that reveals the training and long-lasting academic skills of a writer. It is not a lonely or linear process. However, students are unlikely to be prepared to write an LR if they have not mastered the aforementioned domains (ten). An institutional environment that supports student learning is crucial.

Unlike institutions use distinct methods to promote students' learning processes. First, many universities advise modules to develop behind the scenes activities that enhance cocky-reflection nigh full general skills (e.thousand., the skills nosotros have mastered and the skills nosotros need to develop further), behaviors that should be incorporated (east.m., self-criticism nigh one'due south own thoughts), and each student'southward role in the advocacy of his/her field. Lectures or workshops about LRs themselves are useful because they draw the purposes of the LR and how it fits into the whole picture of a student'due south piece of work. These activities may explain what type of give-and-take an LR must involve, the importance of defining the correct scope, the reasons to include a particular resource, and the chief role of disquisitional reading.

Some pedagogic services that promote a continuous improvement in study and academic skills are equally of import. Examples include workshops most time management, the accomplishment of personal objectives, active learning, and foreign languages for nonnative speakers. Additionally, opportunities to converse with other students promotes an sensation of others' experiences and difficulties. Ultimately, the supervisor'due south function in providing feedback and setting deadlines is crucial in developing students' abilities and in strengthening students' writing quality (12).

HOW SHOULD A LITERATURE REVIEW Be DEVELOPED?

A consensus on the appropriate method for elaborating an LR is not bachelor, but four main steps are generally accepted: defining the principal topic, searching the literature, analyzing the results, and writing (half-dozen). We suggest a fifth step: reflecting on the data that has been written in previous publications (Figure 2).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is cln-74-e1403-g002.jpg

The five steps in performing a solid LR for dissertations or thesis. The commencement three steps are divided into subsections, the fourth step suggests writing strategies, and the fifth step comprises some signaling questions to practice and evaluate critical writing. These steps are non a straightforward rule, and previous steps may need to be repeated to improve the quality of the LR.

Offset step: Defining the main topic

Planning an LR is straight linked to the research main question of the thesis and occurs in parallel to students' training in the three domains discussed above. The planning stage helps organize ideas, delimit the telescopic of the LR (11), and avert the wasting of fourth dimension in the procedure. Planning includes the following steps:

Reflecting on the scope of the LR: postgraduate students volition have assumptions about what cloth must be addressed and what data is not essential to an LR (13,eighteen). Cooper's Taxonomy of Literature Reviews² systematizes the writing procedure through six characteristics and nonmutually sectional categories. The focus refers to the reviewer's most important points of interest, while the goals business organisation what students want to accomplish with the LR. The perspective assumes answers to the student's own view of the LR and how he/she presents a particular result. The coverage defines how comprehensive the pupil is in presenting the literature, and the organization determines the sequence of arguments. The audience is defined every bit the group for whom the LR is written.
Designating sections and subsections: Headings and subheadings should exist specific, explanatory and have a coherent sequence throughout the text (four). They simulate an inverted pyramid, with an increasing level of reflection and depth of statement.
Identifying keywords: The relevant keywords for each LR section should be listed to guide the literature search. This list should mirror what Hart (1998) (3) advocates as subject vocabulary. The keywords will likewise be useful when the educatee is writing the LR since they guide the reader through the text.
Delineating the fourth dimension interval and language of documents to be retrieved in the 2d stride. The most recently published documents should be considered, merely relevant texts published earlier a predefined cutoff year can be included if they are classic documents in that field. Extra care should be employed when translating documents.

Second footstep: Searching the literature

The ability to gather acceptable information from the literature must be addressed in postgraduate programs. Librarian support is of import, particularly for accessing difficult texts. This step comprises the following components:

Searching the literature itself: This procedure consists of defining which databases (electronic or dissertation/thesis repositories), official documents, and books will be searched and and then actively conducting the search. Data literacy skills take a key part in this stage. While searching electronic databases, controlled vocabulary (eastward.g., Medical Subject Headings, or MeSH, for the PubMed database) or specific standardized syntax rules may demand to be applied.

In addition, ii other approaches are suggested. Get-go, a review of the reference list of each document might be useful for identifying relevant publications to exist included and important opinions to be assessed. This step is besides relevant for referencing the original studies and leading authors in that field. Moreover, students can directly contact the experts on a particular topic to consult with them regarding their experience or employ them as a source of additional unpublished documents.

Earlier submitting a dissertation/thesis, the electronic search strategy should be repeated. This process volition ensure that the nigh recently published papers will be considered in the LR.

Selecting documents for inclusion: More often than not, the most recent literature will be included in the form of published peer-reviewed papers. Assess books and unpublished textile, such as conference abstracts, bookish texts and government reports, are too important to assess since the grey literature too offers valuable information. However, since these materials are not peer-reviewed, we recommend that they are carefully added to the LR.

This task is an important exercise in time management. First, students should read the title and abstract to empathize whether that document suits their purposes, addresses the enquiry question, and helps develop the topic of interest. And so, they should scan the full text, decide how information technology is structured, group information technology with similar documents, and verify whether other arguments might exist considered (v).

Third pace: Analyzing the results

Critical reading and thinking skills are important in this step. This step consists of the post-obit components:

Reading documents: The student may read various texts in depth according to LR sections and subsections (defining the main topic), which is not a passive action (1). Some questions should exist asked to do critical analysis skills, equally listed below. Is the research question evident and articulated with previous noesis? What are the authors' enquiry goals and theoretical orientations, and how exercise they interact? Are the authors' claims related to other scholars' research? Exercise the authors consider unlike perspectives? Was the research projection designed and conducted properly? Are the results and discussion plausible, and are they consistent with the research objectives and methodology? What are the strengths and limitations of this work? How do the authors support their findings? How does this piece of work contribute to the current research topic? (1,19)
Taking notes: Students who systematically take notes on each document are more than readily able to establish similarities or differences with other documents and to highlight personal observations. This approach reinforces the educatee's ideas well-nigh the side by side step and helps develop his/her own academic phonation (1,13). Voice recognition software (sixteen), heed maps (5), flowcharts, tables, spreadsheets, personal comments on the referenced texts, and annotation-taking apps are all available tools for managing these observations, and the educatee him/herself should use the tool that best improves his/her learning. Additionally, when a student is considering submitting an LR to a peer-reviewed journal, notes should be taken on the activities performed in all five steps to ensure that they are able to exist replicated.

4th pace: Writing

The recognition of when a student is able and gear up to write after a sufficient period of reading and thinking is likely a hard task. Some students tin can produce a review in a single long piece of work session. However, as discussed above, writing is not a linear process, and students do not need to write LRs according to a specific sequence of sections. Writing an LR is a fourth dimension-consuming job, and some scholars believe that a period of at least six months is sufficient (6). An LR, and academic writing in general, expresses the writer's proper thoughts, conclusions about others' work (vi,10,13,16), and decisions most methods to progress in the chosen field of knowledge. Thus, each educatee is expected to nowadays a different learning and writing trajectory.

In this step, writing methods should exist considered; then, editing, citing and correct referencing should complete this stage, at least temporarily. Freewriting techniques may be a good starting point for brainstorming ideas and improving the understanding of the information that has been read (1). Students should consider the following parameters when creating an agenda for writing the LR: 2-hour writing blocks (at minimum), with prespecified tasks that are possible to complete in one section; brusque (minutes) and long breaks (days or weeks) to allow sufficient time for mental rest and reflection; and short- and long-term goals to motivate the writing itself (20). With increasing experience, this scheme can vary widely, and information technology is not a straightforward dominion. Importantly, each field of study has a dissimilar way of writing (1), and each department has its own preferred styles for citations and references.

Fifth stride: Reflecting on the writing

In this step, the postgraduate pupil should ask him/herself the same questions as in the analyzing the results stride, which can take more time than anticipated. Ambiguities, repeated ideas, and a lack of coherence may not be noted when the pupil is immersed in the writing job for long periods. The whole attempt will likely be a piece of work in progress, and continuous refinements in the written material volition occur one time the writing process has begun.

LITERATURE REVIEW CHECKLIST

In contrast to review papers, the LR of a dissertation/thesis should non be a standalone piece or work. Instead, it should present the student equally a scholar and should maintain the interest of the audience in how that dissertation/thesis volition provide solutions for the current gaps in a particular field.

A checklist for evaluating an LR is convenient for students' continuous academic evolution and research transparency: it conspicuously states the desired achievements for the LR of a dissertation/thesis. Here, we present an LR checklist developed from an LR scoring rubric (11). For a critical analysis of an LR, nosotros maintain the v categories but offer twelve criteria that are not scaled (Figure three). The criteria all have the same importance and are not mutually exclusive.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is cln-74-e1403-g003.jpg

The LR checklist comprises 12 criteria that should ideally be present in the LR section of a dissertation or thesis. Some signaling questions (SQ) are listed below each benchmark to facilitate the judgment of whether a particular item was achieved. The checklist represents the learning outcomes of the LR.

Offset category: Coverage

1. Justified criteria exist for the inclusion and exclusion of literature in the review

This criterion builds on the main topic and areas covered by the LR (18). While experts may exist confident in retrieving and selecting literature, postgraduate students must convince their audience about the adequacy of their search strategy and their reasons for intentionally selecting what textile to encompass (11). References from different fields of knowledge provide singled-out perspective, but narrowing the scope of coverage may be important in areas with a large body of existing knowledge.

Second category: Synthesis

2. A critical exam of the land of the field exists

A critical examination is an assessment of distinct aspects in the field (1) forth with a effective argument. Information technology is not a negative critique just an expression of the student's understanding of how other scholars have added to the topic (1), and the pupil should analyze and contextualize contradictory statements. A writer's personal bias (beliefs or political involvement) accept been shown to influence the construction and writing of a document; therefore, the cultural and paradigmatic background guide how the theories are revised and presented (13). However, an honest judgment is of import when because different perspectives.

3. The topic or problem is clearly placed in the context of the broader scholarly literature

The broader scholarly literature should be related to the chosen chief topic for the LR (how to develop the literature review section). The LR can comprehend the literature from ane or more disciplines, depending on its telescopic, but information technology should always offer a new perspective. In improver, students should exist careful in citing and referencing previous publications. Every bit a rule, original studies and chief references should generally be included. Systematic and narrative reviews present summarized information, and information technology may be important to cite them, particularly for bug that should be understood just do not crave a detailed description. Similarly, quotations highlight the exact statement from another publication. However, excessive referencing may disclose lower levels of assay and synthesis by the student.

4. The LR is critically placed in the historical context of the field

Situating the LR in its historical context shows the level of comfort of the student in addressing a item topic. Instead of only presenting statements and theories in a temporal approach, which occasionally follows a linear timeline, the LR should authentically characterize the pupil's academic work in the land-of-fine art techniques in their detail field of knowledge. Thus, the LR should reinforce why the dissertation/thesis represents original work in the chosen enquiry field.

five. Ambiguities in definitions are considered and resolved

Distinct theories on the same topic may exist in different disciplines, and 1 subject may consider multiple concepts to explain one topic. These misunderstandings should be addressed and contemplated. The LR should not synthesize all theories or concepts at the same time. Although this approach might demonstrate in-depth reading on a particular topic, it tin reveal a student'southward disability to comprehend and synthesize his/her research problem.

6. Of import variables and phenomena relevant to the topic are articulated

The LR is a unique opportunity to articulate ideas and arguments and to purpose new relationships between them (10,11). More importantly, a sound LR will outline to the audience how these of import variables and phenomena will exist addressed in the current academic piece of work. Indeed, the LR should build a bidirectional link with the remaining sections and ground the connections betwixt all of the sections (Effigy 1).

7. A synthesized new perspective on the literature has been established

The LR is a 'creative research' (13) in which the student elaborates his/her own discourse, builds on previous cognition in the field, and describes his/her own perspective while interpreting others' piece of work (13,17). Thus, students should articulate the current cognition, not accept the results at face up value (11,13,17), and improve their own cognitive abilities (12).

Third category: Methodology

8. The principal methodologies and research techniques that take been used in the field are identified and their advantages and disadvantages are discussed

The LR is expected to distinguish the research that has been completed from investigations that remain to exist performed, address the benefits and limitations of the main methods applied to date, and consider the strategies for addressing the expected limitations described above. While placing his/her research within the methodological context of a item topic, the LR will justify the methodology of the study and substantiate the student'south interpretations.

9. Ideas and theories in the field are related to enquiry methodologies

The audience expects the author to clarify and synthesize methodological approaches in the field. The findings should be explained according to the strengths and limitations of previous enquiry methods, and students must avert interpretations that are non supported past the analyzed literature. This criterion translates to the student's comprehension of the applicability and types of answers provided by different enquiry methodologies, even those using a quantitative or qualitative enquiry arroyo.

Fourth category: Significance

ten. The scholarly significance of the research problem is rationalized

The LR is an introductory section of a dissertation/thesis and volition present the postgraduate student as a scholar in a particular field (11). Therefore, the LR should discuss how the inquiry problem is currently addressed in the discipline existence investigated or in different disciplines, depending on the scope of the LR. The LR explains the academic paradigms in the topic of interest (xiii) and methods to accelerate the field from these starting points. However, an backlog number of personal citations—whether referencing the student's research or studies past his/her research squad—may reverberate a narrow literature search and a lack of comprehensive synthesis of ideas and arguments.

11. The practical significance of the research trouble is rationalized

The applied significance indicates a student'due south comprehensive agreement of research terminology (e.g., risk versus associated factor), methodology (e.g., efficacy versus effectiveness) and plausible interpretations in the context of the field. Notably, the academic argument near a topic may not ever reflect the debate in real life terms. For example, using a quantitative approach in epidemiology, statistically significant differences between groups do not explicate all of the factors involved in a particular trouble (21). Therefore, excessive faith in p-values may reflect lower levels of critical evaluation of the context and implications of a enquiry problem by the student.

5th category: Rhetoric

12. The LR was written with a coherent, articulate structure that supported the review

This category strictly relates to the linguistic communication domain: the text should exist coherent and presented in a logical sequence, regardless of which organizational (xviii) approach is chosen. The first of each section/subsection should country what themes will be addressed, paragraphs should be carefully linked to each other (10), and the first judgement of each paragraph should generally summarize the content. Additionally, the pupil's statements are clear, audio, and linked to other scholars' works, and precise and concise language that follows standardized writing conventions (east.g., in terms of active/passive vocalisation and verb tenses) is used. Attention to grammer, such as orthography and punctuation, indicates prudence and supports a robust dissertation/thesis. Ultimately, all of these strategies provide fluency and consistency for the text.

Although the scoring rubric was initially proposed for postgraduate programs in pedagogy research, we are convinced that this checklist is a valuable tool for all academic areas. It enables the monitoring of students' learning curves and a concentrated effort on any criteria that are not yet accomplished. For institutions, the checklist is a guide to support supervisors' feedback, improve students' writing skills, and highlight the learning goals of each program. These criteria do non form a linear sequence, just ideally, all twelve achievements should exist perceived in the LR.

CONCLUSIONS

A single right method to classify, evaluate and guide the elaboration of an LR has non been established. In this essay, we have suggested directions for planning, structuring and critically evaluating an LR. The planning of the scope of an LR and approaches to complete it is a valuable endeavour, and the 5 steps correspond a rational starting point. An institutional environment devoted to agile learning will support students in continuously reflecting on LRs, which will form a dialogue between the writer and the current literature in a particular field (xiii).

The completion of an LR is a challenging and necessary process for understanding one's ain field of expertise. Knowledge is always transitory, but our responsibility equally scholars is to provide a critical contribution to our field, allowing others to recall through our work. Good researchers are grounded in sophisticated LRs, which reveal a writer's training and long-lasting bookish skills. We recommend using the LR checklist as a tool for strengthening the skills necessary for critical bookish writing.

Writer CONTRIBUTIONS

Leite DFB has initially conceived the idea and has written the first typhoon of this review. Padilha MAS and Cecatti JG accept supervised data interpretation and critically reviewed the manuscript. All authors have read the draft and agreed with this submission. Authors are responsible for all aspects of this bookish piece.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful to all of the professors of the 'Getting Started with Graduate Research and Generic Skills' module at University College Cork, Cork, Ireland, for suggesting and supporting this article. Funding: DFBL has granted scholarship from Brazilian Federal Agency for Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education (CAPES) to take role of her Ph.D. studies in Ireland (process number 88881.134512/2016-01). There is no participation from sponsors on authors' determination to write or to submit this manuscript.

Footnotes

No potential conflict of interest was reported.

¹The questions posed in systematic reviews normally follow the 'PICOS' acronym: Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, Study pattern.

²In 1988, Cooper proposed a taxonomy that aims to facilitate students' and institutions' understanding of literature reviews. Vi characteristics with specific categories are briefly described: Focus: research outcomes, enquiry methodologies, theories, or practices and applications; Goals: integration (generalization, conflict resolution, and linguistic span-building), criticism, or identification of central issues; Perspective: neutral representation or espousal of a position; Coverage: exhaustive, exhaustive with selective citations, representative, central or pivotal; System: historical, conceptual, or methodological; and Audience: specialized scholars, full general scholars, practitioners or policymakers, or the general public.

REFERENCES

one. Fitzmaurice M, O'Farrell C. Developing your academic writing skills: a handbook. In: Dublin TC, editor., editor. Dublin, Ireland; pp. 1–36 p.. [Google Scholar]

2. Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an assay of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26(two):91–108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

3. Hart C. 1998. Chapter one. The literature review in research. In: Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination; pp. p. 1–25. [Google Scholar]

iv. Kumar R. Reviewing the Literature. Res Methodol A footstep-by-footstep Guid beginners. 2011:31–42. [Google Scholar]

5. Rowley J, Slack F. Conducting a Literature Review. Manag Res News. 2004;27(vi):31–nine. doi: 10.1108/01409170410784185. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

6. Randolph JJ. A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review. Pract Assessment Res Eval. 2009;14(thirteen):ane–13. [Google Scholar]

7. Paltridge B. Thesis and dissertation writing: An examination of published communication and actual practise. English Specif Purp. 2002;21(two):125–43. doi: 10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00025-9. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

8. Harris JD, Quatman CE, Manring MM, Siston RA, Flanigan DC. How to write a systematic review. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(xi):2761–viii. doi: 10.1177/0363546513497567. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

10. Meth P, Williams G. Doing Evolution Research. 2006. Chapter 22. Literature Reviews and Bibliographic Searches. In: pp. p. 209–21. [Google Scholar]

11. Boote DN, Beile P. Scholars Before Researchers: On the Centrality of the Dissertation Literature Review in Enquiry Training. Educ Res. 2005;34(half-dozen):3–15. doi: ten.3102/0013189X034006003. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

12. Granello DH. Promoting Cerebral Complication in Graduate Written Work: Using Bloom'due south Taxonomy every bit a Pedagogical Tool to Ameliorate Literature Reviews. Couns Educ Superv. 2001;40:292–307. doi: ten.1002/j.1556-6978.2001.tb01261. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

thirteen. Montuori A. Literature Review As Creative Inquiry: Reframing Scholarship Every bit a Creative Process. J Transform Educ. 2005;three(4):374–93. doi: 10.1177/1541344605279381. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

16. Robbins SP. Finding your voice as an academic author (and writing clearly) J Soc Work Educ. 2016;52(2):133–5. doi: 10.1080/10437797.2016.1151267. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

17. Torraco RJ. Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples. Hum Resour Dev Rev. 2005;4(3):356–67. doi: ten.1177/1534484305278283. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

18. Cooper HM. Organizing knowledge synthesis: a taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowl Soc. 1988;1(1):104. [Google Scholar]

20. Kotz D, Cals JW. Effective writing and publishing scientific papers - Role I: How to become started. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(4):397. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.01.002. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

21. Halsey LG, Curran-Everett D, Vowler SL, Drummond GB. The fickle P value generates irreproducible results. Nat Methods. 2015;12(3):179–85. doi: ten.1038/nmeth.3288. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Clinics are provided here courtesy of Hospital das Clinicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Sao Paulo

ridgemagain.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6862708/