Main Characteristics to Conduct an Effective Systematic Literature Review
Creators: name: Junaid, Muhammad
name: Mehboob Charity Vision International Eye and General Hospital,Mansehra,Pakistan
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2022
Subjects: Systematic Literature Review
Health Communication
Research Methodology
Community Medicine

description: Assignment for Research Methodology

 

On

 

Main Characteristics to Conduct an Effective Systematic Literature Review

 

 

By

MUHAMMAD JUNAID

(Student ID: LUC20220319001)

 

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Medical Sciences

Specialization: Community Medicines

 

 

 

 

 

Faculty of Medical Sciences

 

LINCOLN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE 

MALAYSIA

 

 

 

June , 2022


 



Table of Contents

Introduction. 3

Definition. 4

Aim and Purpose. 4

Systematic reviews—why?. 5

Key Components 5

Main Characteristics 5

Justifications for using a systematic approach. 6

Process of Systematic Literature Review. 7

Main Findings. 9

Conclusions 9

References 10

 

 


 



Introduction 

A literature review is a crucial part of any academic investigation. Fundamentally, new understanding is predicated on established work. To push the limits of human understanding, we must first recognize where they now lie. By analysing the relevant literature and pinpointing research gaps, we can grasp the breadth and depth of the existing body of work. By summarizing, analysing, and synthesizing a body of related material, we can test a specific theory and/or develop new hypotheses. Assessing the validity and quality of previous research in relation to a standard allows us to spot problems like inconsistencies and contradictions (Rother, 2007). As scientific inquiries, literature reviews should be trustworthy and able to be replicated. Because the method for literature reviews is rarely discussed and not enough guidance is offered on how to perform effective reviews, the field of planning suffers from an acute dearth of high-quality systematic reviews. A literature review can be based on any number of different types of published works, including books, academic dissertations, computerized bibliographic databases, scientific journals, and other online sources. PsycINFO and PubMed are just two online databases that could prove useful as a jumping off point. Full-text articles can be found in databases like EBSCOhost, ScienceDirect, and ProQuest, while abstracts are all that's available in others. It is common practice for reviews of published works to include both scientific and so-called "gray literature" (Dziopa & Ahern, 2011). This is a reference to material that has not been previously published or has been published without bias (e.g., theses, government reports, fact sheets, articles). Publication bias can be mitigated by conducting a comprehensive search, but it shouldn't be ignored entirely when writing a literature review. While reading content from Google Scholar, Science.gov, the Social Science Research Network, or PsycEXTRA, it's important to keep in mind that these search engines also present the content without peer review, which means they have less credibility when it comes to the information they are releasing. 

Researcher use a "rigorous" and "systematic" approach to evaluate the relevant literature in your field in a thorough and methodical way. A systematic literature review looks at the information found in the literature as well as the methods, strategies, and resources used to find that literature (Xiao & Watson, 2019). In a systematic literature review, the criteria you used to choose which sources to use and which to leave out are just as important as the sources themselves. A systematic literature review, like any other study of literature, is conducted to provide a comprehensive picture of your topic area, to demonstrate how much research has already been conducted on it, and to demonstrate what concepts and research methodologies are currently being applied. With the help of the literature review, you can zero in on the exact area that needs more research. Even though authors may disagree on which method is best for a literature review, most of them know at least two of them: the classic and the systematic (Deckx et al., 2018). Where they mostly disagree is in how the information and sources for the review are chosen. Since it is the more methodical of the two, the systematic literature review is the one to beat. The ability of the researcher to select and assess data and draw conclusions is seen as important to the traditional approach. Thus, a systematic literature review is a useful tool for reducing the incorrect and potentially biased reports of conventional reviews.

Definition

A literature review (a) defines a particular issue, concept, theory, or phenomenon; (b) gathers published literature on a subject; (c) summarizes key findings of the problem's current state of knowledge; and (d) offers subsequent actions for solving it (Rowley & Slack, 2004). Review of the literature "builds a solid basis for the advancement of knowledge. A successful literature review speeds up the creation of theories, identifies areas where there is a dearth of research, and closes those gaps" (Okoli, 2015). A systematic literature review is described as a "systematic, explicit and reproducible approach for locating, analyzing and synthesizing the current corpus of finished and recorded work done by researchers, academics, and practitioners". In order to "find, evaluate, and synthesize all the empirical data that meets pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a given research question," a systematic literature review is conducted (Mallett et al., 2012). A meta-analysis is a statistical evaluation of the information offered from numerous studies or other sources that make an effort to pose or address the same subject.

A systematic literature review (SLR) selects, identifies, and evaluates studies that address a specific question or problem (Deckx et al., 2018). The review's criteria must be specified with precision, and a specific method or approach must be developed before the review can begin. It was an open and extensive search spanning numerous databases and gray literature sources, so it could be reproduced by other researchers. Researcher will need to put some consideration into crafting a search strategy that targets a specific question or problem. The evaluation details the categories of information that were sought, analyzed, and reported throughout designated time frames.

Aim and Purpose

The purpose of the LR is to lay the groundwork for the rest of the study. The accumulated body of knowledge will serve as a guide for future studies, a tool for spotting research gaps, and a springboard for new studies to fill those gaps and provide credence to theories (Park et al., 2020). For the purpose of finding as much relevant research on a specific research topic as feasible, systematic literature reviews employ exact processes to establish what can be reliably claimed on the basis of these studies. A variety of reliable results can be obtained by following well-defined and well-organized procedures. So, compared to other ways of examining scientific findings, systematic reviews are less likely to contain bias (Ahn & Kang, 2018).

Systematic reviews—why?

When confronted with a problem, any researcher who is competent should know how to perform a comprehensive systematic review of the literature in order to determine the strengths, weaknesses, and potential of the existing literature (Elliott et al., 2017). If not an answer, the content will at least point you in the right direction by emphasizing the value of original investigation. Real experimental initiatives should show the same level of rigor in evaluating quantitative and qualitative data as any laboratory experiment by doing a comprehensive analysis of the material beforehand. Recent decades have seen systematic, in-depth literature reviews replace traditional, expert opinions (Aromataris & Pearson, 2014). It is said by proponents of the authoritative/opinionated review that this method makes it possible for the reviewer to filter out quantitatively and qualitatively weak studies. Nevertheless, this method unreasonably allows for the introduction of evidence that is biased, incorrect, and "unreliable." Careful planning and implementation of the study design can reduce the chances of error in a systematic review, as is the case with any experimental investigation.

Key Components

Among the crucial elements of a systematic review are:

•       Using predetermined eligibility criteria to choose studies

•       Extensive literature research to discover all relevant works, both existent and yet to be written.

•       Evaluation of the bias risk for the included studies

•       Independent and impartial presentation of the findings

•       An examination of the evidence's and the review's limitations.

Systematic reviews are useful for assessing the quality of both qualitative and quantitative evidence (Jesson et al., 2011). It is important to synthesis different types of evidence using the right methods. Systematic review was developed as a method to lessen prejudice and increase openness. Methods need to be well-documented in order to be replicated.

Main Characteristics

By conducting a systematic literature review, we may compare and contrast results, locate areas of overlap, and zero in on topics that need more in-depth study (Chen, 2017). In addition, they give researchers in the field of psychology the opportunity to assess the consistency and generalizability of the data in relation to certain scientific topics. To answer a narrow empirical question, such "Does the Rational Emotive Therapy intervention improve the well-being of people diagnosed with depression?" meta-analysis can be quite helpful. The following traits are present in all (or the majority of) systematic literature reviews:

1.     Well specified a priori objectives;

2.     Clear, previously established guidelines for which papers to include and which to discard;

3.     A planned search strategy and systematic process-following in the information-gathering process;

4.     Clearly indicated in the review, predefined characteristic criteria were applied to all the sources used (Boland et al., 2017);

5.     A thorough assessment of the research' quality that were reviewed;

6.     A list of the literature sources that were excluded and an explanation of why;

7.     Information analysis and synthesis, including meta-analysis and qualitative synthesis of the results.

8.     Citations of the selected text's inconsistencies and errors.

Justifications for using a systematic approach 

Clarity, validity, and auditability are the three main reasons to use a systematic approach to literature reviews.

Clarity

Considerations of scope and terminology are made clearer with a targeted research question and precise search techniques (Paez, 2017). Clarity in this context indicates that the review should have a defined structure, document methodologies, and describe the search process. The results of the literature review will be more readily accessible and understandable. Also, it will make it possible for others to grasp what you have done and the reasoning behind why certain research resources have been included while others have been omitted. It is advised that you be extremely clear about the goals you have for your literature study. Maintain coherence throughout the review, and provide evidence for each of your claims to help the reader understand your reasoning.

Validity

To be taken seriously as research, a literature review needs to include an impartial discussion of the sources under consideration. It's important to demonstrate why you chose to include certain papers and theories in your literature review by including multiple perspectives (Thomas et al., 2020). When conducting your evaluation, watch out for and/or avoid the following pitfalls:

Selection bias, the practice of excluding information that contradicts your theory or your personal belief.

Publication bias, when one uses too few sources or relies too heavily on a single database (Pati & Lorusso, 2018).

Be sure to examine a variety of sources for the materials you include in the literature review to prevent publication bias.

Auditability

An essential component of a systematic literature review is auditability, which refers to maintaining accurate records of your search methods. Other people will be able to confirm your results if you accurately document your search tactics. The reader will be able to comprehend how you found and selected the sources for your review thanks to the records (Roine et al., 2001). That will add to the authority of your review. An essential component of the review procedure is auditability. The evaluation must be thorough, methodical, and consistent.

Process of Systematic Literature Review

The following is the standard operating procedure for designing, conducting, and reporting a literature review that follows a systematic approach:

1. Review Question Design: Why is this evaluation required? What has to be clarified? The abbreviation PICO can help you remember the four parts of a well-formulated research question for a systematic review (Schiavenato & Chu, 2021):



Population(s) or problem(s)

Intervention(s)

Comparison(s)

Outcome(s)


2. Define inclusion and exclusion criteria: Explain how the research studies that will be used were selected. The selection of inclusion and exclusion criteria must precede the actual review. There is no missing information that would be required for a study to qualify for inclusion (Meline, 2006). Criteria for not include a study are known as "exclusion criteria." Selecting publications with an appropriate study design is essential.

3. Research Areas: Create a search strategy with the objective of locating as many sources as possible that are relevant to the problem you are investigating as quickly as feasible. Researchers can look through the "grey literature," databases like Scopus or Web of Science, academic repositories for theses, reference lists and citation lists of included articles, books, and contacts with specialists.

4. Study selection: Based on the results of your search, choose the studies that best satisfy the inclusion criteria. Reviewers initially sift through the titles and abstracts, which could number in the thousands (Aromataris & Pearson, 2014). If they don't find any obvious red flags, they move on to the entire texts. At least two reviewers are usually involved in this process, and a methodology is set up in case there is a disagreement about a given study (often a third reviewer stepping in). There was an explanation for every study that was deemed ineligible.

5. Assess study quality: In a systematic review, assessing the quality of the evidence is as crucial as analyzing the acquired data. The results of a poorly conducted study should be viewed with skepticism due to the likelihood of bias resulting from the research methods.

6. Extract data: Extracting data entails methodically gathering information from the chosen studies. You must gather two different sorts of data from each study:

•       Details on the procedures and outcomes of the study. Depending on your research question, the specific details will vary, but they might include the year, sample size, context, and conclusions (Krnic Martinic et al., 2019). It is necessary to get in touch with the study's authors if any data are missing.

•       Your assessment of the evidence's quality, taking into account bias risk.

7. Analyse and present results: Use a standardized method to examine the information and draw conclusions about the research that was included. Try to perform a sensitivity analysis. A quantitative study that includes the results of every investigation is referred to as a "meta-analysis."

8. Analyze the findings: Consider the review's flaws, the credibility of the data it revealed, the way in which the subject is addressed, and the potential new lines of inquiry that have opened up as a result. The writing of SR protocols can now follow some standards thanks to the creation of a reporting guideline (Selçuk, 2019). The purpose of this recommendation is to guarantee that SRs' standard operating procedures cover methods for phases 1 through 7. There is also a reporting guideline that specifies what information should be included in articles on systematic reviews (Peters et al., 2015). The PRISMA chart is a crucial part of these guidelines since it shows how many studies were reviewed, where those studies came from, how many were removed and why, and how many were included in the final analysis.

Main Findings

•       Results, quality, and design may all be evaluated across a wide range of studies with the use of a systematic review (Sarkis-Onofre et al., 2021).

•       Just as any experimental study might be flawed, so can a systematic review.

•       If you ask a broad question, you'll get a broad answer. 

•       When conducting a literature search, it is important to take precautions to ensure that all essential information is collected.

•       Accompanying a thorough search with thorough documentation is essential.

•       Evaluate the literature and provide constructive criticism to help strengthen future research designs (Nightingale, 2009).

•       Think about the fresh insight(s) you can provide the field with your evaluation.

Conclusions

Such retrospective studies' conclusions may have some degree of legitimacy based on the data that were used in them and the outcomes that emerged from those data. In fact, systematic literature reviews are frequently used as the primary "practice making guidelines" in many health care disciplines and are thought to be one of our best methods for summarizing and synthesizing evidence about a particular research question. Therefore it comes as no surprise that systematic reviews are becoming more and more popular among researchers and that publications are following suit. This is also seen in the evolution of ever-more-detailed instructions and procedures for compiling systematic literature reviews. The movement for evidence-based research is a recent development, and researchers have only recently begun to use it. Although though conducting a systematic review is a challenging and time-consuming task, it may be helpful in guiding nurses as they assess the most recent research on specific nursing interventions. It is crucial to assess the review's caliber before implementing this evidence, nevertheless. Researchers must comprehend the differences between a systematic review and a conventional literature review as well as the procedures that should be followed by those conducting a systematic review in order to maintain scientific rigor in order to evaluate this type of research critically.

 


 

References

Ahn, E., & Kang, H. (2018). Introduction to systematic review and meta-analysis. Korean journal of anesthesiology, 71(2), 103-112.

Aromataris, E., & Pearson, A. (2014). The systematic review: an overview. AJN The American Journal of Nursing, 114(3), 53-58.

Boland, A., Dickson, R., & Cherry, G. (2017). Doing a systematic review: A student's guide. Doing a Systematic Review, 1-304.

Chen, C. (2017). Science mapping: a systematic review of the literature. Journal of data and information science, 2(2), 1-40.

Deckx, L., van den Akker, M., Buntinx, F., & van Driel, M. (2018). A systematic literature review on the association between loneliness and coping strategies. Psychology, health & medicine, 23(8), 899-916.

Dziopa, F., & Ahern, K. (2011). A systematic literature review of the applications of Q-technique and its methodology. Methodology.

Elliott, J. H., Synnot, A., Turner, T., Simmonds, M., Akl, E. A., McDonald, S., . . . Hilton, J. (2017). Living systematic review: 1. Introduction—the why, what, when, and how. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 91, 23-30.

Jesson, J., Matheson, L., & Lacey, F. M. (2011). Doing your literature review: Traditional and systematic techniques.

Krnic Martinic, M., Pieper, D., Glatt, A., & Puljak, L. (2019). Definition of a systematic review used in overviews of systematic reviews, meta-epidemiological studies and textbooks. BMC medical research methodology, 19, 1-12.

Mallett, R., Hagen-Zanker, J., Slater, R., & Duvendack, M. (2012). The benefits and challenges of using systematic reviews in international development research. Journal of development effectiveness, 4(3), 445-455.

Meline, T. (2006). Selecting studies for systemic review: Inclusion and exclusion criteria. Contemporary issues in communication science and disorders, 33(Spring), 21-27.

Nightingale, A. (2009). A guide to systematic literature reviews. Surgery (Oxford), 27(9), 381-384.

Okoli, C. (2015). A guide to conducting a standalone systematic literature review. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37.

Paez, A. (2017). Gray literature: An important resource in systematic reviews. Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine, 10(3), 233-240.

Park, C., Majeed, A., Gill, H., Tamura, J., Ho, R. C., Mansur, R. B., . . . Wong, E. (2020). The effect of loneliness on distinct health outcomes: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Psychiatry Research, 294, 113514.

Pati, D., & Lorusso, L. N. (2018). How to write a systematic review of the literature. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 11(1), 15-30.

Peters, J. P., Hooft, L., Grolman, W., & Stegeman, I. (2015). Reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of otorhinolaryngologic articles based on the PRISMA statement. PLoS One, 10(8), e0136540.

Roine, R., Ohinmaa, A., & Hailey, D. (2001). Assessing telemedicine: a systematic review of the literature. Cmaj, 165(6), 765-771.

Rother, E. T. (2007). Systematic literature review X narrative review. Acta paulista de enfermagem, 20, v-vi.

Rowley, J., & Slack, F. (2004). Conducting a literature review. Management research news, 27(6), 31-39.

Sarkis-Onofre, R., Catalá-López, F., Aromataris, E., & Lockwood, C. (2021). How to properly use the PRISMA Statement. Systematic Reviews, 10(1), 1-3.

Schiavenato, M., & Chu, F. (2021). PICO: What it is and what it is not. Nurse education in practice, 56, 103194.

Selçuk, A. A. (2019). A guide for systematic reviews: PRISMA. Turkish archives of otorhinolaryngology, 57(1), 57.

Thomas, J., Utley, J., Hong, S.-Y., Korkmaz, H., & Nugent, G. (2020). A Review of the Research. Handbook of Research on STEM Education.

Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (2019). Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. Journal of planning education and research, 39(1), 93-112.