Reviewing the literature

Free

Loading

  1. Joanna Smithane,
  2. Helen Noble2
  1. 1 School of Healthcare, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
  2. 2 School of Nursing and Midwifery, Queens'southward University Belfast, Belfast, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Joanna Smith
    , School of Healthcare, Academy of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK; j.e.smith1{at}leeds.ac.uk

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Implementing testify into do requires nurses to identify, critically assess and synthesise enquiry. This may crave a comprehensive literature review: this article aims to outline the approaches and stages required and provides a working example of a published review.

Are at that place dissimilar approaches to undertaking a literature review?

Literature reviews aim to reply focused questions to: inform professionals and patients of the best available show when making healthcare decisions; influence policy; and place future inquiry priorities. Although over fourteen types of reviews accept been identified,1 literature reviews can be broadly divided into narrative (descriptive) reviews, scoping reviews, rapid bear witness assessments (rapid reviews) and systematic reviews. In terms of rigour, if viewed as a continuum, narrative and systematic reviews would be at opposing ends of the continuum with scoping and rapid reviews at the midpoint. Narrative reviews usually provide a summary of a small selection of studies in guild to support empirical research, are frequently difficult to replicate and can exist biased because the review may non be comprehensive.1 The systematic review is considered the 'gilded standard' considering they effort to identify, assess and synthesise all empirical evidence that meets specific inclusion criteria to reply a highly focused clinical question2; consequently a comprehensive systematic search of a wide range of sources of evidence is undertaken. Systematic reviews ordinarily adhere to clear guidance from established centres such as Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) based in the UK2 and the Public Health Agency of Canada.3 Scoping reviews include a comprehensive search strategy but dissimilar systematic reviews do not synthesise the evidence. Scoping reviews are ofttimes used to map the literature in a wide context prior to undertaking a more focused systematic review.2 Rapid evidence assessments are used to summarise and synthesise research findings inside the constraints of fourth dimension and resources, and differ from systematic review in relation to the extensiveness of the search strategies and methods used to undertake the assay.2 However, the review should be as thorough as possible within the given constraints and undertaken in a systematic style.

What stages are required to undertake a literature review?

The rationale for the review should be established; consider why the review is of import and relevant to patient care/condom or service commitment. For example, Noble et al's4 review sought to sympathize and make recommendations for practise and research in relation to dialysis refusal and withdrawal in patients with end-stage renal disease, an area of care previously poorly described. If appropriate, highlight relevant policies and theoretical perspectives that might guide the review. In one case the central problems related to the topic, including the challenges encountered in clinical practice, have been identified formulate a clear question, and/or develop an aim and specific objectives. The type of review undertaken is influenced past the purpose of the review and resources available. Yet, the stages or methods used to undertake a review are similar across approaches and include:

  • Formulating clear inclusion and exclusion criteria, for example, patient groups, ages, weather/treatments, sources of bear witness/research designs;

  • Justifying data bases and years searched, and whether strategies including hand searching of journals, conference proceedings and research not indexed in data bases (grey literature) volition exist undertaken;

  • Developing search terms, the PICU (P: patient, problem or population; I: intervention; C: comparing; O: upshot) framework is a useful guide when developing search terms;

  • Developing search skills (eg, understanding Boolean Operators, in particular the apply of AND/OR) and knowledge of how data bases index topics (eg, MeSH headings). Working with a librarian experienced in undertaking wellness searches is invaluable when developing a search.

Once studies are selected, the quality of the research/bear witness requires evaluation. Using a quality appraisal tool, such as the Disquisitional Appraisal Skills Plan (CASP) tools,5 results in a structured approach to assessing the rigour of studies being reviewed.3 Approaches to information synthesis for quantitative studies may include a meta-assay (statistical analysis of data from multiple studies of similar designs that accept addressed the same question), or findings can exist reported descriptively.6 Methods applicable for synthesising qualitative studies include meta-ethnography (themes and concepts from unlike studies are explored and brought together using approaches similar to qualitative data assay methods), narrative summary, thematic analysis and content assay.7 Table ane outlines the stages undertaken for a published review that summarised research well-nigh parents' experiences of living with a kid with a long-term condition.eight

View this table:

  • View inline

Tabular array 1

An instance of rapid evidence assessment review

In summary, the type of literature review depends on the review purpose. For the novice reviewer undertaking a review tin can be a daunting and complex procedure; by following the stages outlined and being systematic a robust review is doable. The importance of literature reviews should non be underestimated—they assistance summarise and make sense of an increasingly vast body of research promoting all-time testify-based exercise.

References

  1. ↵
  2. ↵

    Eye for Reviews and Dissemination. Guidance for undertaking reviews in wellness care. 3rd edn. York: CRD, York Academy, 2009.

  3. ↵
  4. ↵
  5. ↵
  6. ↵
  7. ↵
  8. ↵

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which volition take you to the Copyright Clearance Middle'south RightsLink service. You lot will exist able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Copyright information: