Are you struggling with writing a literature review for your academic paper? You're not alone.

Crafting a comprehensive and insightful literature review can be a daunting task. It requires thorough
research, critical analysis, and effective synthesis of existing literature on your topic. Many students
find themselves overwhelmed by the sheer volume of information available and the complexity of
organizing it into a coherent narrative.

One effective approach to tackling this challenge is by using a systematic literature review template.
A well-designed template can provide structure and guidance throughout the process, helping you to
streamline your efforts and produce a high-quality review. However, creating such a template from
scratch can be time-consuming and difficult, especially if you're new to the process.

That's where ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔ comes in. Our team of experienced writers specializes in crafting
literature reviews that meet the highest academic standards. We understand the challenges that
students face when it comes to writing literature reviews, and we're here to help.

By ordering a literature review from ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔, you can save yourself time and stress
while ensuring that your paper meets the expectations of your instructors and peers. Our writers will
work closely with you to understand your specific requirements and deliver a review that is tailored
to your needs.

Don't let the difficulty of writing a literature review hold you back. Order from ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔
today and take the first step towards academic success.
Therefore, the abstract should indicate whether the sponsor of the research or the researchers might
have a conflict of interest in respect of the findings of the systematic review, for example, as the
manufacturer of the intervention being evaluated (examples 11a and 11b). Our analysis includes
recommendations from 25 documents: 4 SRO handbooks, 11 textbooks, 5 HTA method documents
and 5 journal articles. Writing an Outline for a Literature Review Students often underestimate the
importance of planning the structure of their papers in advance. Since publication of this review,
further studies have replicated these findings. 8 17 18 Such disparities in diagnosis and treatment
have been attributed to a lack of perceived need for treatment among these populations, 8
differences in symptom presentation 18 and culturally insensitive diagnostic criteria. 19 To date,
most of the existing literature exploring disordered eating and EDs among minority ethnic groups
has been conducted in the USA. This is an open-access article, free of all copyright, and may be
freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for
any lawful purpose. The extent to which the appraisal tools addressed quality items on
methodological quality or reporting. For instance, a thematic review of material on sperm whales
might examine how they are portrayed as “evil” in cultural documents. Studies were included if they
examined consumers’ preference for food naturalness and contained empirical data. In our study,
appraisal tools refer to tools, guidelines, instruments or standards that provide guidance on how to
report or assess any quality concern of NRSIs. Preparing for an update Refresh background,
objectives, inclusion criteria, and methods Before including new studies in the review, authors need
to revisit the background, objectives, inclusion criteria, and methods of the current review. Today,
young researchers wish to start publishing articles early on in their career. Sometimes individuals
must meet them adequately, understand the difficulties and determine their main priorities, deciding
what to examine and how to start writing. In the absence of validated risk of bias tools for
qualitative studies, the team should choose a tool according to Cochrane Qualitative and
Implementation Methods Group (CQIMG) guidance together with expediency (according to ease of
use, prior familiarity, etc) ( table 2, item R15). 41 In comparison to the Critical Appraisal Skills
Programme checklist which was never designed for use in synthesis, 42 the Cochrane qualitative tool
is similarly easy to use and was designed for QES use. Here are suggested steps and some tips for
designing a data collection form, based on the informal collation of experiences from numerous
review authors (Li et al 2015). Step 1. Develop outlines of tables and figures expected to appear in
the systematic review, considering the comparisons to be made between different interventions
within the review, and the various outcomes to be measured. Here are several strategies you can
utilize to assess whether you've thoroughly reviewed the literature: Look for repeating patterns in the
research findings. If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will
take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You could devise a simpler one
page data extraction form for a more simple literature review. It is usually safest to assume that they
were not reported. You may also need to team up with a librarian to help with the search, literature
screeners, a statistician to analyze the data, and the relevant subject experts. 2. Formulate your
question Define your answerable question. Given the iterative nature of scoping reviews, a reflexive
approach will be adopted. If you prefer to design your own coded data extraction form from scratch,
Elamin et al. (2009) offer advice on how to decide what electronic tools to use to extract data for
analytical reviews. The form also included an open field for comments in case any additional items
of interest were identified. Select Databases 3. Select Grey Literature Sources 4. The Preferred
Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009,
was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the
authors did, and what they found. This tool will allow you to create a concise summary of each
research paper; see Table 7.1 for an example of an analysis grid. To evaluate which sources are worth
including in your review, keep in mind the following criteria: Credibility; Innovation; Key insights;
Furthermore, as you read the sources, don’t forget to take notes on everything you can incorporate
into the review later. For the sake of completeness, a web search using Google Scholar will also be
completed. Systematic review, realist synthesis and economic. In addition, references are included at
the bottom of each article and serve as proof of credibility. Corresponding author Correspondence to
Rafael Sarkis-Onofre.
Given a decision to update, the process needs to start with an appraisal and revision of the
background, question, inclusion criteria, and methods of the existing review. In the first case, we
don't know what interventions to search for and so have to screen all the articles about awareness
and acceptability. We did not publish a protocol for this descriptive analysis, however. Some
important questions to ask yourself are: What answers does the existing research provide to my own
research questions. The narrative review’s purpose is to identify commonalities, gaps, and
contradictions in the literature. By answering this question, we hope to provide an overview of
which groups and populations have been studied. As mentioned above, writing your literature review
is a process, which I’ll break down into three steps: Finding the most suitable literature
Understanding, distilling and organising the literature Planning and writing up your literature review
chapter Importantly, you must complete steps one and two before you start writing up your chapter.
We suggest decision-makers, researchers and tool developers consider the quality-item level
heterogeneity when selecting a tool or identifying a research gap. There is a need for review authors
to work with experts in informatics to refine these tools and evaluate them rigorously. Performing a
literature review is a critical first step in research to understanding the state-of-the-art and identifying
gaps and challenges in the field. In the last 36 months, she has received honoraria from the Agency
for Healthcare Research and Quality and travel support from the WHO. For instance, we would
consider the inclusion of content experts in the development of the extraction forms to be important
to enhance clinical relevance and applicability. In addition, the tools for diagnosis studies, prognosis
studies and secondary studies were beyond the scope of our study, and relevant users may refer to
other studies, such as Quigley et al 14, for further information. You can use their samples to improve
your literature review or order a custom one. Taylor-Robinson D, Maayan N, Soares-Weiser K, et al.
The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate
health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Make an assessment checklist that closely
aligns with your research protocol, including a consistent scoring system, calculations of the quality
of each study, and sensitivity analysis. Keeping your literature review around 15-30% of your entire
paper is recommended if you haven't been provided with specific guidelines. Keywords used in the
data search included: food, naturalness, natural content, and natural ingredients. However, they are
often unsure of what type of article they wish to write and how to approach this task. Federal
government websites often end in.gov or.mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re
on a federal government site. A third reviewer (SM) may be consulted for arbitration of any
conflicting decisions. We will report on key participant characteristics (e.g., age, gender,
socioeconomic status, comorbidities) and examine which ethnic groups and types of disordered
eating or EDs have been studied. A consensus between review authors may be required before the
form is modified to avoid any misunderstandings or later disagreements. Moreover, all guidelines for
carrying out systematic reviews recommend that at least two subject experts screen the studies
identified in the search. Synthesis describes combining separate components or elements to form a
connected whole. However, if you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and
summarising sources in order. Summary of recommendations for the structure of reporting systematic
reviews in LCA Guidelines and checklists are needed. Gather assess and choose the appropriate
literature. OP18 applicability of appraisal tools of real-world evidence in health technology
assessment: a literature review and content analysis.
The location generally refers to the place where the readers can find the source. To cite a source with
three or more authors, place the information in this format: Author 1’s Last name, First name, et al.
Add “translated by” and follow with the name(s) of the translator(s). Reviews in LCA are likely to
have parameters defined by factors including time frame, geography, and technology type, and so it
is helpful for the authors to discuss where their findings likely can and cannot be applied based on
the scope of the review. While some judgements were required, we have described notable cases in
the results section and do not believe that different decisions in these cases would affect our overall
results or conclusions. When you begin to write your literature review section, you'll be glad you dug
deeper into how the research was designed and constructed because it establishes a means for
developing more substantial analysis and interpretation of the research problem. PDF How to Write a
Literature Review A literature review is a review or discussion of the current published material
available on a particular topic. Single data extraction generated more errors than double data
extraction in systematic reviews. I would love to engage my study under your guidance from the
beginning to the end. In Cochrane, the decision making process is decentralised to the Cochrane
Review Group editorial team, with different approaches applied, often informally. Once the issue is
clarified, sticking to it without giving any unnecessary information is essential. Assessment of
Publication Trends of Systematic Reviews and Randomized Clinical Trials, 1995 to 2017. Five key
themes were found in the literature: poor communication can lead to various negative outcomes,
discontinuity of care, compromise of patient safety, patient dissatisfaction, and inefficient use of
resources. Accounting for ecosystem services in life cycle assessment, Part I: A critical review. One
or more of these strengths and limitations may apply to each of the outcomes of the systematic
review being described in the abstract. Thank you so much for your guide of video and other
instructions for the dissertation writing. Here are two examples of how to cite two authors: Clifton,
Mark, and Frank Riley. An article summary like the above would be appropriate for a stand-alone
summary assignment. One way to prevent plagiarism is to add citations in your project where
appropriate. There should be a double space between each piece of information in the heading.
Authors who address questions on aetiology, diagnostic test accuracy, or prognosis may need to
modify items or include other items in their abstract to reflect the essentials of the full report. The
evolving state of reviews in LCA Variety of review types. They’ll be glad to develop new custom
literature review examples for your personally. However, it’s critically important to decide on your
structure and develop a detailed outline before you write anything. If you have an adverb,
preposition, or conjunction that needs a slight adjustment, we may be able to suggest an edit. Do not
reinvent the wheel each time you start something new. The best way to assess this is to ask them to
explain the chapter back to you. Introduction OK. You’ve got to write a literature review. At this
point consider: Does your study extend current research. Established frameworks for extracting data
have been created.
Follow this with the information covered above for entire Web sites. Example: The Bible. Authorized
King James Version, Oxford UP, 1998. The data items included publication year, tool format (eg,
checklist or rating scale), targeted study design (eg, all NRSIs, cohort studies, etc), target
interventions (eg, all or surgical interventions), originality (ie, whether a tool was developed based on
an existing tool) and scope. They are found directly next to the information that was borrowed and
are very brief to avoid causing distraction while reading a project. There are many situations in
which you might have to summarize an article or other source: As a stand-alone assignment to show
you’ve understood the material To keep notes that will help you remember what you’ve read To give
an overview of other researchers’ work in a literature review When you’re writing an academic text
like an essay, research paper, or dissertation, you’ll integrate sources in a variety of ways. Or it might
trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates. Two reviewers (AW-R and
HT) will pilot the data charting form on a sample of randomly selected papers (10% of included
papers). The authors identified two issues regarding data extraction that could be assisted by
automation methods: contacting authors of included studies for additional information using
metadata and better integration of software tools to automatically exchange data between different
software. Many current methodological guidance documents for systematic reviewers lack
comprehensiveness and clarity regarding the development and piloting of data extraction forms and
the data extraction process. You should be able to answer it based only on a review of existing
publications. JABSOM Library Systematic Review Toolbox Data extraction. Paraphrasing Use your
own words, and do not copy and paste the abstract The library's tutorials about plagiarism are
excellent, and will help you with paraphasing correctly Annotated Bibliographies Annotated
bibliographies can help you clearly see and understand the research before diving into organizing and
writing your literature review. Mechanical rules appear unworkable, but there is no clear unified
approach on when to update, and how implement this. Translated by Alan Sullivan and Timothy
Murphy, edited by Sarah Anderson, Pearson, 2004. Hopefully, this sample outline will help you to
structure your own paper. Electronic searches for text can provide a useful aid to locating
information within a report. The campbell collaboration was founded on the principle that systematic
reviews on the effects of interventions will inform and help improve policy and services. Point the
way in fulfilling a need for additional research. Once you have your topic and have accessed the
literature, the next stages (analysis, synthesis and evaluation) are challenging. Thus, discussion
among the authors is a sensible first step. For tables: Label the table as “Table” followed by an arabic
numeral such as “1.” Table 1 is the table closest to the beginning of the paper. It may not be clear that
two reports relate to the same study until data collection has commenced. This already contains the
author’s own summary of their work, and it tells you what to expect from the article. In some cases,
study investigators may find it more convenient to provide IPD rather than conduct additional
analyses to obtain the specific statistics requested. It’s acceptable to include quotes, but they
shouldn’t crowd your paper. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.
Additional file 4 lists all documents that fulfilled our inclusion criteria. This can be used to better
inform healthcare planning and resource allocation. It is best to collect the original outputs from
articles before converting effect sizes. Do not use any indents at the beginning of the block quote.
Accessed 18 Jun. 2018. Thursday, February 23: The Clark Library is closed today. The list of
textbooks was also based on a previous study not intended to cover the literature in full. The
ClinicalTrials.gov results database: update and key issues. BMC medical research methodology.
2020;20(1):259. doi: 4. Mathes T, Klasen P, Pieper D. Here’s a free detailed template for recording
data extraction, from Dalhousie University. February 4, 2023 17 min read Share the article As every
student knows, writing informative essay and research papers is an integral part of the educational
program. Also, at this stage, it’s a good idea to allocate rough word count limits for each section, so
that you can identify word count problems before you’ve spent weeks or months writing. You can
use a subheading for each theme, time period, or methodological approach. Export to Word with
perfect indentation and spacing set up for you. Start by listing the first name that appears on the
book in last name, first name format; subsequent author names appear in normal order (first name last
name format). When you include common knowledge in your paper, omit a reference. In the last 36
months, he received royalties from Systematic Approaches To a Successful Literature Review (Sage
3rd edition), honoraria from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and travel support
from the WHO. Optical character recognition software can convert most of the text. Any lit review
is only as good as the research it discusses; make sure your sources are well-chosen and your
research is thorough. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding
necessary. Note that more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order.
Also, only one researcher (MH) traced versions of tools, by following reference lists of the identified
studies and by visiting websites of the online tools. Chamberlain C, O'Mara-Eves A, Porter J,
Coleman T, Perlen SM, Thomas J, McKenzie JE. Visit Citation Machine.net! Our Citation Machine
MLA generator, which is an MLA citation website, will create all of your citations in just a few
clicks. Other times, the author may have to seek examples to prove their point. Only those who
completed round one were invited to participate in rounds two and three. As much as possible,
questions should be asked in a way that minimizes subjective interpretation and judgement to
facilitate data comparison and adjudication. Specifically, whenever a QES is abbreviated or
accelerated, a team should ensure that the review question is agreed by a minimum number of
knowledge users with expertise or experience that reflects all the important review perspectives and
with authority to approve the final version 2 5 11 ( table 2, item R1). An in-depth academic
publishing course for young researchers. A systematic review of trial-level meta-analyses measuring
the strength of association between surrogate end-points and overall survival in oncology. Take notes
and cite your sources As you read, you should also begin the writing process. Holding degrees in
more than 50 subjects, they know how to create masterpieces. Comparing environmental impacts for
livestock products: a review of life cycle assessments. Sitemap case study creative writing
presentation problem solving rewiew prompts websites tips. This may be detrimental to the quality
of systematic reviews and makes it difficult to aspiring reviewers to prepare high quality data
extraction forms and ensure reliable and valid extraction procedures.
Content note example: Even Maurice Sendak’s work (the mastermind behind Where the Wild Things
Are and numerous other popular children’s picture books) can be found on the banned books list.
Excel may require less time investment to create an extraction form, but it may take longer for you to
match and compare data between extractors. Therefore, and to use peer reviewers’ time most
effectively, editors need to consider when to peer review an update and the type of peer reviewer
most useful for a particular update (for example, topic specialist, methodologist). Use existing
systematic reviews on your topic to identify what information to collect if you are not sure what to
do. The Modern Language Association is an organization that was created to develop guidelines on
everything language and literature related. Emphasize the major contradictions and points of
disagreement. But if you need to fill in the data by yourself, add some text that’s obvious and easy to
search for so you can find. Given this information, the agency, editors, or authors need to judge
whether the update will influence the review findings or credibility sufficiently to justify the effort
in updating it. Approaches range from qualitative work such as grouping and summarizing of expert
opinions, to quantitative synthesis, in which the published data are adjusted to a common value or
other statistical methods are utilized as part of a meta-analysis. Argumentative Review This form
examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply embedded
assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the literature. The introduction should
clearly establish the focus and purpose of the literature review. In place of the author’s name, the
translator’s name appears. Systematic reviews are especially important in evidence-based medicine.
We also suggest that peer and editorial review processes related to the abstract should explicitly
check this. It’s basically a hint for the following researchers. Locating Life Stories: Beyond East-
West Binaries in (Auto) Biographical Studies. Abstracts should not replace full articles in informing
decision making, but for time-pressed readers and those with limited access to full text reports, the
abstract must stand alone in presenting a clear and truthful account of the research. A scoping review
of comparisons between abstracts and full reports in primary biomedical research. For example,
different measurement scales might be used, results may be presented separately for different
subgroups, and outcomes may have been measured at different follow-up time points. This means
that you will not just simply list your sources and go into detail about each one of them, one at a
time. No. As you read widely but selectively in your topic area, consider instead what themes or
issues connect your sources together. Since a study may have been reported in several sources, a
comprehensive search for studies for the review may identify many reports from a potentially
relevant study (Mayo-Wilson et al 2017a, Mayo-Wilson et al 2018). Analysis: Involves critically
evaluating and summarizing key findings, methodologies, and debates found in academic literature.
Your title must be typed with upper and lowercase letters and centered in the upper part of the page;
use no more than 12 words, and avoid using abbreviations and useless words. In some cases it may
be preferable to use metrics that are comparable across multiple included studies, which may not be
clear until data collection for all studies is complete. And a review does not necessarily mean that
your reader wants you to give your personal opinion on whether or not you liked these sources. The
study used publicly available cross-sectional data from the National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey. You can argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach or combine
various theorical concepts to create a framework for your research. For professionals, they are useful
reports that keep them up to date with what is current in the field. BMC medical research
methodology. 2020;20(1):259. doi: 4. Mathes T, Klasen P, Pieper D. The methodology followed
should be explained clearly and logically.