Annotated Bibliography And Literature Review
rachealbizz1
SystematicReviewprocess.pptxAims
To consider systematic reviews beginning with some comparison with narrative reviews
To consider the order and approach to undertaking a systematic review
Explore ways in which the evidence which is included might be ranked
Consider the process of evaluation in terms the credibility of the systematic review
Types of Literature Reviews
Narrative Review:
Widely used in social science
Used for identifying key concepts or specific terms
Outlining particular theories and concepts understood by the author
Broad and general
Systematic Review:
Used in a variety of disciplines to contribute to practice understanding (EBP)
Help synthesis a range of research
In-depth
4
Types of Literature Reviews
5
Narrative review
Related to concepts, theories and methods
Concepts: terms and ideas used to describe phenomenon
Theories: Ideas to explain specific phenomenon
Empirical research: Observing phenomena
Methodology: Philosophical approach to research
Methods: A range of method, such as questionnaires, observations, and interviews
Systematic Review
Evidence Based Practice
Health e.g. International Cochrane Collaboration/National Institution for Health and Care Excellence
Allows a critical appraisal of the most robust evidence/what is known and not known about an intervention
Synthesis of available evidence
A rigorous approach – clear research approach, criteria, and presentation of information
Systematic Review
1. Formulate Research Question
PICOS:
Population(s)
Interventions(or Exposures).
Comparison(s):.
Outcome(s)
Study Design
2. Develop Research Protocol
3. Conduct Literature Search
4. Select Studies
5. Appraise Studies
6. Extract Data
7. Analyse Results
8. Interpret Results
University of Minnesota, 2017
8
Systematic Review
PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist
An evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
http://prisma-statement.org/PRISMAStatement/Checklist.aspx
9
Systematic Review
Hughes et al., 2018
10
Systematic Review characteristics
Aim to answer a particular question or hypothesis
As exhaustive as possible process to identify all known resources
Studies are chosen through specific inclusion and exclusion criteria
Evidence will by characterised in terms of the strength of the method/ethics/findings
Traditionally biased towards quantitative, but increasingly more towards qualitative or mixed methods
The literature review is usually written thematically
Process of creating a Systematic Review
Lichtenberger Engineering Library, 2018
Judging the quality of Evidence
Evidence can be categorised in terms of quality levels:
Evidence from all relevant Randomised Controlled Trials (RCT)
Evidence from at least one well-designed RCT
(i) Evidence from well designed controlled Trial (without Randomisation)
(ii) Evidence from well designed cohort or case-control analysis OR with one central research group
(iii) Evidence from Multiple time series with or without interventions OR controlled experiments
Opinion of respected authorities, clinical experiences, descriptive studies, and expert communities
(Street 2001)
Traditional bias towards quantitative methods
The debate about the validity of methods influences this
Consideration of medical intervention and areas such as welfare developments are seen to be measured quantitatively
However, there as been growth in the place of qualitative method to understand the impact of lived experience which questions this paradigm
The social sciences give credibility to quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods approaches
University College Dublin, 2014
Questions for assessing quality
Conceptual Framework:
Are the aims clearly state and research questions clearly identified?
Does the author link the work to an existing body of knowledge?
Study Design and Methods:
Are the methods appropriate and clearly described?
In the context of the study well set out? Did the research design account for possible bias?
Are the limitations of research explicitly identified?
Ethics process:
Has a process been recognised, outlined, and followed?
Further questions for assessing quality…
Research Analysis:
Are the results clearly described, valid and reliable?
Is the analysis clearly described?
Conclusions:
Are all the possible influences on the observed outcomes considered?
Are conclusions linked with the aims of the study?
Are conclusions linked to the analysis and interpretation of the data
Further resources:
https://casp-uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/CASP-Systematic-Review-Checklist_2018.pdf
https ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22RoYWe93cs
The systematic review has been considered the best source of research evidence
The approach which has been taken is influenced by grading the quality of research, which is controversial
Systematic reviews can include a high numbers of papers dependent upon search inclusion and exclusion techniques, but ideally should not
Links with evidence based practice in terms of bringing practice together
Consider your systematic review:
Give a brief account of how the search and analysis was conducted
What are the main conclusions?
What does this tell you about the literature review process?
18
References
Cook, D. J., Mulrow, C. D., and Haynes, R. B. Systematic Reviews: Synthesis of Best Evidence for Clinical Decisions. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126:376–380. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-126-5-199703010-00006 (Accessed 19th September 2019)
Hughes, B., O’Brien, M, Flynn, A. and Knighting, K. (2018) ‘The engagement of young people in their own advance care planning process : a systematic narrative synthesis.’, Palliative Medicine, 32(7), pp. 1147–1166.
Lichtenberger Engineering Library (2018) Systematic reviews. Available at: https://www.lib.uiowa.edu/eng/systematic-reviews / (Accessed 19th September 2019)
Pai, M., McCulloch M., Gorman J. D., Pai N., Enanoria W., Kennedy G., Tharyan P., Colford J. M. Jr. (2004) Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: an illustrated step-by-step guide. National Medical Journal of India, 17(2): 86-95.
Street, A. (2001) How Can We Argue for Evidence in Nursing?, Contemporary Nurse, 11:1, 5-8, DOI: 10.5172/conu.11.1.5 (Accessed 19th September 2019)
University College Dublin (2014) Teaching and learning. Available at: https://www.ucd.ie/teaching/resources/researchintoteaching/clarifyingthequestion/ (Accessed 19th September 2019)
University of Minnesota (2017) Writing a systematic review. Available at: https:// hsl.lib.umn.edu/biomed/help/systematic-review (Accessed 04th October 2019)
