How to do a systematic literature review in nursing: A step-by-step guide
2012, Recherche
Related Papers
New Books List April-June 2009
Pratibha Soni
Joe Kelleher
Emmanuel Adotey
A Herrington
British Journal of Educational Technology
William Brescia
Brian Ferry
Gijsbert Erkens
Modern Language Journal
Maria Cristina Peccianti
Nick Rushby
RELATED PAPERS
Valentina Lupi
Mark Dudgeon
The Modern Language Journal
Anthony Liddicoat
Bellaterra Journal of Teaching Learning Language Literature
Joan Ploettner
Dalia Villalobos
Israt Shuchi
Danielle Ooyoung Pyun
Aleidine Moeller
Maureen Andrade
Child and Adolescent Mental Health
Stephen Scott
Kathryn F Whitmore
Heidi Byrnes
Paula Winke
Mary Jane Treacy
Peter Rowlett
Theresa Y Austin
Sarah Jourdain
Linda Kay Davis
Claudia Fernández
Jinyan Huang
Luisa Pérez
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism
Paul McPherron
Kathryn Murphy-Judy
Aksara: Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan Nonformal
Clara Peter
diana pulido
María del Pilar García Mayo
Patricia Cummins
Barbara Lafford
Ignacio Corona
Lisa Padden
Mohammad Al-Masri
Walcir Cardoso
Cristina Pausini
Manuel Diaz-campos
Loretta Jones
RELATED TOPICS
- We're Hiring!
- Help Center
- Find new research papers in:
- Health Sciences
- Earth Sciences
- Cognitive Science
- Mathematics
- Computer Science
- Academia ©2024
How to do a Systematic Literature Review in Nursing: A step-by-step guide (2nd Edition)
- School of Health & Life Sciences
Research output : Book/Report › Book
Fingerprint
- Literature Review Arts & Humanities 100%
- Nursing Arts & Humanities 89%
- Workbook Arts & Humanities 44%
- Pitfalls Arts & Humanities 29%
- Clinical Practice Arts & Humanities 29%
- Companionship Arts & Humanities 27%
- Healthcare Arts & Humanities 19%
T1 - How to do a Systematic Literature Review in Nursing: A step-by-step guide (2nd Edition)
AU - Bettany-Saltikov, Josette
AU - McSherry, Robert
PY - 2016/4
Y1 - 2016/4
N2 - This is a step-by-step guide to doing a literature review in nursing, or related healthcare professions, that takes you through every step of the process from start to finish. From writing your review question to writing up your review, this practical book is the perfect workbook companion if you are doing your first literature review for study or clinical practice improvement. The book features sample review case studies to help identify good practice as well as the pitfalls to avoid, and the practical explanations will be invaluable at every stage.
AB - This is a step-by-step guide to doing a literature review in nursing, or related healthcare professions, that takes you through every step of the process from start to finish. From writing your review question to writing up your review, this practical book is the perfect workbook companion if you are doing your first literature review for study or clinical practice improvement. The book features sample review case studies to help identify good practice as well as the pitfalls to avoid, and the practical explanations will be invaluable at every stage.
SN - 9780335263806
BT - How to do a Systematic Literature Review in Nursing: A step-by-step guide (2nd Edition)
An official website of the United States government
The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
- Publications
- Account settings
Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .
- Advanced Search
- Journal List
How-to conduct a systematic literature review: A quick guide for computer science research
Angela carrera-rivera.
a Faculty of Engineering, Mondragon University
William Ochoa
Felix larrinaga.
b Design Innovation Center(DBZ), Mondragon University
Associated Data
- No data was used for the research described in the article.
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. A systematic literature review is a method which sets out a series of steps to methodically organize the review. In this paper, we present a guide designed for researchers and in particular early-stage researchers in the computer-science field. The contribution of the article is the following:
- • Clearly defined strategies to follow for a systematic literature review in computer science research, and
- • Algorithmic method to tackle a systematic literature review.
Graphical abstract
Specifications table
Method details
A Systematic Literature Review (SLR) is a research methodology to collect, identify, and critically analyze the available research studies (e.g., articles, conference proceedings, books, dissertations) through a systematic procedure [12] . An SLR updates the reader with current literature about a subject [6] . The goal is to review critical points of current knowledge on a topic about research questions to suggest areas for further examination [5] . Defining an “Initial Idea” or interest in a subject to be studied is the first step before starting the SLR. An early search of the relevant literature can help determine whether the topic is too broad to adequately cover in the time frame and whether it is necessary to narrow the focus. Reading some articles can assist in setting the direction for a formal review., and formulating a potential research question (e.g., how is semantics involved in Industry 4.0?) can further facilitate this process. Once the focus has been established, an SLR can be undertaken to find more specific studies related to the variables in this question. Although there are multiple approaches for performing an SLR ( [5] , [26] , [27] ), this work aims to provide a step-by-step and practical guide while citing useful examples for computer-science research. The methodology presented in this paper comprises two main phases: “Planning” described in section 2, and “Conducting” described in section 3, following the depiction of the graphical abstract.
Defining the protocol is the first step of an SLR since it describes the procedures involved in the review and acts as a log of the activities to be performed. Obtaining opinions from peers while developing the protocol, is encouraged to ensure the review's consistency and validity, and helps identify when modifications are necessary [20] . One final goal of the protocol is to ensure the replicability of the review.
Define PICOC and synonyms
The PICOC (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, and Context) criteria break down the SLR's objectives into searchable keywords and help formulate research questions [ 27 ]. PICOC is widely used in the medical and social sciences fields to encourage researchers to consider the components of the research questions [14] . Kitchenham & Charters [6] compiled the list of PICOC elements and their corresponding terms in computer science, as presented in Table 1 , which includes keywords derived from the PICOC elements. From that point on, it is essential to think of synonyms or “alike” terms that later can be used for building queries in the selected digital libraries. For instance, the keyword “context awareness” can also be linked to “context-aware”.
Planning Step 1 “Defining PICOC keywords and synonyms”.
Formulate research questions
Clearly defined research question(s) are the key elements which set the focus for study identification and data extraction [21] . These questions are formulated based on the PICOC criteria as presented in the example in Table 2 (PICOC keywords are underlined).
Research questions examples.
Select digital library sources
The validity of a study will depend on the proper selection of a database since it must adequately cover the area under investigation [19] . The Web of Science (WoS) is an international and multidisciplinary tool for accessing literature in science, technology, biomedicine, and other disciplines. Scopus is a database that today indexes 40,562 peer-reviewed journals, compared to 24,831 for WoS. Thus, Scopus is currently the largest existing multidisciplinary database. However, it may also be necessary to include sources relevant to computer science, such as EI Compendex, IEEE Xplore, and ACM. Table 3 compares the area of expertise of a selection of databases.
Planning Step 3 “Select digital libraries”. Description of digital libraries in computer science and software engineering.
Define inclusion and exclusion criteria
Authors should define the inclusion and exclusion criteria before conducting the review to prevent bias, although these can be adjusted later, if necessary. The selection of primary studies will depend on these criteria. Articles are included or excluded in this first selection based on abstract and primary bibliographic data. When unsure, the article is skimmed to further decide the relevance for the review. Table 4 sets out some criteria types with descriptions and examples.
Planning Step 4 “Define inclusion and exclusion criteria”. Examples of criteria type.
Define the Quality Assessment (QA) checklist
Assessing the quality of an article requires an artifact which describes how to perform a detailed assessment. A typical quality assessment is a checklist that contains multiple factors to evaluate. A numerical scale is used to assess the criteria and quantify the QA [22] . Zhou et al. [25] presented a detailed description of assessment criteria in software engineering, classified into four main aspects of study quality: Reporting, Rigor, Credibility, and Relevance. Each of these criteria can be evaluated using, for instance, a Likert-type scale [17] , as shown in Table 5 . It is essential to select the same scale for all criteria established on the quality assessment.
Planning Step 5 “Define QA assessment checklist”. Examples of QA scales and questions.
Define the “Data Extraction” form
The data extraction form represents the information necessary to answer the research questions established for the review. Synthesizing the articles is a crucial step when conducting research. Ramesh et al. [15] presented a classification scheme for computer science research, based on topics, research methods, and levels of analysis that can be used to categorize the articles selected. Classification methods and fields to consider when conducting a review are presented in Table 6 .
Planning Step 6 “Define data extraction form”. Examples of fields.
The data extraction must be relevant to the research questions, and the relationship to each of the questions should be included in the form. Kitchenham & Charters [6] presented more pertinent data that can be captured, such as conclusions, recommendations, strengths, and weaknesses. Although the data extraction form can be updated if more information is needed, this should be treated with caution since it can be time-consuming. It can therefore be helpful to first have a general background in the research topic to determine better data extraction criteria.
After defining the protocol, conducting the review requires following each of the steps previously described. Using tools can help simplify the performance of this task. Standard tools such as Excel or Google sheets allow multiple researchers to work collaboratively. Another online tool specifically designed for performing SLRs is Parsif.al 1 . This tool allows researchers, especially in the context of software engineering, to define goals and objectives, import articles using BibTeX files, eliminate duplicates, define selection criteria, and generate reports.
Build digital library search strings
Search strings are built considering the PICOC elements and synonyms to execute the search in each database library. A search string should separate the synonyms with the boolean operator OR. In comparison, the PICOC elements are separated with parentheses and the boolean operator AND. An example is presented next:
(“Smart Manufacturing” OR “Digital Manufacturing” OR “Smart Factory”) AND (“Business Process Management” OR “BPEL” OR “BPM” OR “BPMN”) AND (“Semantic Web” OR “Ontology” OR “Semantic” OR “Semantic Web Service”) AND (“Framework” OR “Extension” OR “Plugin” OR “Tool”
Gather studies
Databases that feature advanced searches enable researchers to perform search queries based on titles, abstracts, and keywords, as well as for years or areas of research. Fig. 1 presents the example of an advanced search in Scopus, using titles, abstracts, and keywords (TITLE-ABS-KEY). Most of the databases allow the use of logical operators (i.e., AND, OR). In the example, the search is for “BIG DATA” and “USER EXPERIENCE” or “UX” as a synonym.
Example of Advanced search on Scopus.
In general, bibliometric data of articles can be exported from the databases as a comma-separated-value file (CSV) or BibTeX file, which is helpful for data extraction and quantitative and qualitative analysis. In addition, researchers should take advantage of reference-management software such as Zotero, Mendeley, Endnote, or Jabref, which import bibliographic information onto the software easily.
Study Selection and Refinement
The first step in this stage is to identify any duplicates that appear in the different searches in the selected databases. Some automatic procedures, tools like Excel formulas, or programming languages (i.e., Python) can be convenient here.
In the second step, articles are included or excluded according to the selection criteria, mainly by reading titles and abstracts. Finally, the quality is assessed using the predefined scale. Fig. 2 shows an example of an article QA evaluation in Parsif.al, using a simple scale. In this scenario, the scoring procedure is the following YES= 1, PARTIALLY= 0.5, and NO or UNKNOWN = 0 . A cut-off score should be defined to filter those articles that do not pass the QA. The QA will require a light review of the full text of the article.
Performing quality assessment (QA) in Parsif.al.
Data extraction
Those articles that pass the study selection are then thoroughly and critically read. Next, the researcher completes the information required using the “data extraction” form, as illustrated in Fig. 3 , in this scenario using Parsif.al tool.
Example of data extraction form using Parsif.al.
The information required (study characteristics and findings) from each included study must be acquired and documented through careful reading. Data extraction is valuable, especially if the data requires manipulation or assumptions and inferences. Thus, information can be synthesized from the extracted data for qualitative or quantitative analysis [16] . This documentation supports clarity, precise reporting, and the ability to scrutinize and replicate the examination.
Analysis and Report
The analysis phase examines the synthesized data and extracts meaningful information from the selected articles [10] . There are two main goals in this phase.
The first goal is to analyze the literature in terms of leading authors, journals, countries, and organizations. Furthermore, it helps identify correlations among topic s . Even when not mandatory, this activity can be constructive for researchers to position their work, find trends, and find collaboration opportunities. Next, data from the selected articles can be analyzed using bibliometric analysis (BA). BA summarizes large amounts of bibliometric data to present the state of intellectual structure and emerging trends in a topic or field of research [4] . Table 7 sets out some of the most common bibliometric analysis representations.
Techniques for bibliometric analysis and examples.
Several tools can perform this type of analysis, such as Excel and Google Sheets for statistical graphs or using programming languages such as Python that has available multiple data visualization libraries (i.e. Matplotlib, Seaborn). Cluster maps based on bibliographic data(i.e keywords, authors) can be developed in VosViewer which makes it easy to identify clusters of related items [18] . In Fig. 4 , node size is representative of the number of papers related to the keyword, and lines represent the links among keyword terms.
[1] Keyword co-relationship analysis using clusterization in vos viewer.
This second and most important goal is to answer the formulated research questions, which should include a quantitative and qualitative analysis. The quantitative analysis can make use of data categorized, labelled, or coded in the extraction form (see Section 1.6). This data can be transformed into numerical values to perform statistical analysis. One of the most widely employed method is frequency analysis, which shows the recurrence of an event, and can also represent the percental distribution of the population (i.e., percentage by technology type, frequency of use of different frameworks, etc.). Q ualitative analysis includes the narration of the results, the discussion indicating the way forward in future research work, and inferring a conclusion.
Finally, the literature review report should state the protocol to ensure others researchers can replicate the process and understand how the analysis was performed. In the protocol, it is essential to present the inclusion and exclusion criteria, quality assessment, and rationality beyond these aspects.
The presentation and reporting of results will depend on the structure of the review given by the researchers conducting the SLR, there is no one answer. This structure should tie the studies together into key themes, characteristics, or subgroups [ 28 ].
SLR can be an extensive and demanding task, however the results are beneficial in providing a comprehensive overview of the available evidence on a given topic. For this reason, researchers should keep in mind that the entire process of the SLR is tailored to answer the research question(s). This article has detailed a practical guide with the essential steps to conducting an SLR in the context of computer science and software engineering while citing multiple helpful examples and tools. It is envisaged that this method will assist researchers, and particularly early-stage researchers, in following an algorithmic approach to fulfill this task. Finally, a quick checklist is presented in Appendix A as a companion of this article.
CRediT author statement
Angela Carrera-Rivera: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing-Original. William Ochoa-Agurto : Methodology, Writing-Original. Felix Larrinaga : Reviewing and Supervision Ganix Lasa: Reviewing and Supervision.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
Funding : This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Grant No. 814078.
Carrera-Rivera, A., Larrinaga, F., & Lasa, G. (2022). Context-awareness for the design of Smart-product service systems: Literature review. Computers in Industry, 142, 103730.
1 https://parsif.al/
Data Availability
Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences pp 805–826 Cite as
Conducting a Systematic Review: A Practical Guide
- Freya MacMillan 2 ,
- Kate A. McBride 3 ,
- Emma S. George 4 &
- Genevieve Z. Steiner 5
- Reference work entry
- First Online: 13 January 2019
2235 Accesses
1 Citations
It can be challenging to conduct a systematic review with limited experience and skills in undertaking such a task. This chapter provides a practical guide to undertaking a systematic review, providing step-by-step instructions to guide the individual through the process from start to finish. The chapter begins with defining what a systematic review is, reviewing its various components, turning a research question into a search strategy, developing a systematic review protocol, followed by searching for relevant literature and managing citations. Next, the chapter focuses on documenting the characteristics of included studies and summarizing findings, extracting data, methods for assessing risk of bias and considering heterogeneity, and undertaking meta-analyses. Last, the chapter explores creating a narrative and interpreting findings. Practical tips and examples from existing literature are utilized throughout the chapter to assist readers in their learning. By the end of this chapter, the reader will have the knowledge to conduct their own systematic review.
- Systematic review
- Search strategy
- Risk of bias
- Heterogeneity
- Meta-analysis
- Forest plot
- Funnel plot
- Meta-synthesis
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .
Buying options
- Available as PDF
- Read on any device
- Instant download
- Own it forever
- Available as EPUB and PDF
- Durable hardcover edition
- Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
- Free shipping worldwide - see info
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Barbour RS. Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog? BMJ. 2001;322(7294):1115–7.
Article Google Scholar
Butler A, Hall H, Copnell B. A guide to writing a qualitative systematic review protocol to enhance evidence-based practice in nursing and health care. Worldviews Evid-Based Nurs. 2016;13(3):241–9.
Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126(5):376–80.
Dixon-Woods M, Bonas S, Booth A, Jones DR, Miller T, Sutton AJ, … Young B. How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective. Qual Res. 2006;6(1):27–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106058867 .
Greenhalgh T. How to read a paper: the basics of evidence-based medicine. 4th ed. Chichester/Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010.
Google Scholar
Hannes K, Lockwood C, Pearson A. A comparative analysis of three online appraisal instruments’ ability to assess validity in qualitative research. Qual Health Res. 2010;20(12):1736–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732310378656 .
Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]). The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/
Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, … Sterne JAC. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928 .
Hillier S, Grimmer-Somers K, Merlin T, Middleton P, Salisbury J, Tooher R, Weston A. FORM: an Australian method for formulating and grading recommendations in evidence-based clinical guidelines. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:23. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-23 .
Humphreys DK, Panter J, Ogilvie D. Questioning the application of risk of bias tools in appraising evidence from natural experimental studies: critical reflections on Benton et al., IJBNPA 2016. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017; 14 (1):49. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-017-0500-4 .
King R, Hooper B, Wood W. Using bibliographic software to appraise and code data in educational systematic review research. Med Teach. 2011;33(9):719–23. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159x.2011.558138 .
Koelemay MJ, Vermeulen H. Quick guide to systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2016;51(2):309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2015.11.010 .
Lucas PJ, Baird J, Arai L, Law C, Roberts HM. Worked examples of alternative methods for the synthesis of qualitative and quantitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:4–4. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-7-4 .
MacMillan F, Kirk A, Mutrie N, Matthews L, Robertson K, Saunders DH. A systematic review of physical activity and sedentary behavior intervention studies in youth with type 1 diabetes: study characteristics, intervention design, and efficacy. Pediatr Diabetes. 2014;15(3):175–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/pedi.12060 .
MacMillan F, Karamacoska D, El Masri A, McBride KA, Steiner GZ, Cook A, … George ES. A systematic review of health promotion intervention studies in the police force: study characteristics, intervention design and impacts on health. Occup Environ Med. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2017-104430 .
Matthews L, Kirk A, MacMillan F, Mutrie N. Can physical activity interventions for adults with type 2 diabetes be translated into practice settings? A systematic review using the RE-AIM framework. Transl Behav Med. 2014;4(1):60–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-013-0235-y .
Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2001;1:2. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-1-2 .
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 .
Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 .
Mulrow CD, Cook DJ, Davidoff F. Systematic reviews: critical links in the great chain of evidence. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126(5):389–91.
Peters MDJ. Managing and coding references for systematic reviews and scoping reviews in EndNote. Med Ref Serv Q. 2017;36(1):19–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2017.1259891 .
Steiner GZ, Mathersul DC, MacMillan F, Camfield DA, Klupp NL, Seto SW, … Chang DH. A systematic review of intervention studies examining nutritional and herbal therapies for mild cognitive impairment and dementia using neuroimaging methods: study characteristics and intervention efficacy. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2017;2017:21. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/6083629 .
Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, … Higgins JP. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919 .
Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042 .
Tong A, Palmer S, Craig JC, Strippoli GFM. A guide to reading and using systematic reviews of qualitative research. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2016;31(6):897–903. https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfu354 .
Uman LS. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2011;20(1):57–9.
Download references
Author information
Authors and affiliations.
School of Science and Health and Translational Health Research Institute (THRI), Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW, Australia
Freya MacMillan
School of Medicine and Translational Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Kate A. McBride
School of Science and Health, Western Sydney University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Emma S. George
NICM and Translational Health Research Institute (THRI), Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW, Australia
Genevieve Z. Steiner
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Corresponding author
Correspondence to Freya MacMillan .
Editor information
Editors and affiliations.
School of Science and Health, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW, Australia
Pranee Liamputtong
Rights and permissions
Reprints and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this entry
Cite this entry.
MacMillan, F., McBride, K.A., George, E.S., Steiner, G.Z. (2019). Conducting a Systematic Review: A Practical Guide. In: Liamputtong, P. (eds) Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_113
Download citation
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_113
Published : 13 January 2019
Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN : 978-981-10-5250-7
Online ISBN : 978-981-10-5251-4
eBook Packages : Social Sciences Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences
Share this entry
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
- Publish with us
Policies and ethics
- Find a journal
- Track your research
How-To Create an Orthopaedic Systematic Review: A Step-by-Step Guide Part I: Study Design
Affiliations.
- 1 Maimonides Medical Center, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Brooklyn, NY.
- 2 Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, Rubin Institute for Advanced Orthopedics, Baltimore, Maryland.
- 3 Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland, OH.
- 4 Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, Rubin Institute for Advanced Orthopedics, Baltimore, Maryland; Northwell Health Orthopaedics, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, NY. Electronic address: [email protected].
- PMID: 38552865
- DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2024.03.059
Systematic reviews are conducted through a consistent and reproducible method to search, appraise, and summarize information. Within the evidence-based pyramid, systematic reviews can be at the apex when incorporating high-quality studies, presenting the strongest form of evidence given their synthesis of results from multiple primary studies to level IV evidence, depending on the studies they incorporate. When combined and supplemented with a meta-analysis using statistical methods to pool the results of three or more studies, systematic reviews are powerful tools to help answer research questions. The aim of this review is to serve as a guide on how to: 1) design; 2) execute; and 3) publish an orthopaedic arthroplasty systematic review and meta-analysis. In Part I, we discuss how to develop an appropriate research question as well as source and screen databases. To date, commonly used databases to source studies include PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science. Although not all-encompassing, this paper serves as a starting point for those interested in performing and/or critically reviewing lower extremity arthroplasty systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Keywords: Arthroplasty research; Clinical orthopaedic research; Meta-analysis; Study design; Systematic review.
Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
A step-by-step guide to doing a literature review in nursing, or related healthcare professions, that takes you through every step of the process from start to finish. ... How To Do A Systematic Literature Review In Nursing: A Step-By-Step Guide: A Step-By-Step Guide Open University Press: Author: Bettany-Saltikov, Josette: Edition: illustrated:
New from Open University Press How to do a Systematic Literature Review in Nursing A step-by-step guide Josette Bettany-Saltikov Teesside University, UK "This is an excellent book. There are copious examples and illustrations and these should inspire confidence in the novice and remind the expert what the essential features of a good ...
Co-published with Nursing Standard, this handy book: • Goes into detail about the precise and practical steps required to carry out a systematic literature review. • Uses a workbook format, with 3 running examples that you can work through gradually as you carry out your review. • Offers suggestions and tips to help you write up your own ...
How to do a Systematic Literature Review in Nursing: A step- by-step guide. Authors: Josette Bettany-Saltikov. Published: May 2016 Pages: 248. eISBN: 9780335263813 | ISBN: 9780335263806. Open eBook. Book Description. Table of Contents. Book description: This is a step-by-step guide to doing a literature review in nursing, or related healthcare ...
2 Asking an answerable and focused review question. 3 Creating the protocol for your systematic review. 4 Writing the background to your review. 5 Specifying your objectives and inclusion and exclusion criteria. 6 Conducting a comprehensive and systematic literature search. 7 Working with your primary papers:Stage 1 - Selecting the studies to ...
Conducting a comprehensive and systematic literature search. Working with your primary papers: Stage 1 - Selecting the studies to include in your systematic review (Stage 1) Working with your primary papers: Stage 2 - Appraising the methodological quality of your included research studies. Working with your primary papers: Stage 3 - Extracting ...
a Systematic Literature Review A Guide for Healthcare Researchers, Practitioners and Students. Edward Purssell School of Health Sciences City, University of London London UK Niall McCrae Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing Midwifery & Palliative Care King's College London London UK ISBN 978-3-030-49671-5 ISBN 978-3-030-49672-2 (eBook)
T1 - How to do a Systematic Literature Review in Nursing: A step-by-step guide (2nd Edition) AU - Bettany-Saltikov, Josette. AU - McSherry, Robert. PY - 2016/4. Y1 - 2016/4. N2 - This is a step-by-step guide to doing a literature review in nursing, or related healthcare professions, that takes you through every step of the process from start to ...
Systematic literature review In contrast to the traditional or narrative review, systematic reviews use a more rigorous and well-defined approach to reviewing the literature in a specific subject area. Systematic reviews are used to answer well-focused questions about clinical practice. i^irahoo (2006) suggests that a systematic review should
He is a regular writer for Salisbury Review magazine. In partnershipPurssell and McCrae have written several papers on research methodology and literature reviewing for healthcare journals. Both have extensive experience of teaching literature reviewing at all academic levels, and explaining complex concepts in a way that is accessible to all
A systematic review aims to bring evidence together to answer a pre-defined research question. This involves the identification of all primary research relevant to the defined review question, the critical appraisal of this research, and the synthesis of the findings.13 Systematic reviews may combine data from different.
Abstract. 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. A systematic literature review is a method which sets out a series of steps to methodically organize the review. In this paper, we present a guide designed for researchers and in ...
The steps involved in the systematic literature review are as follows: 1) Formulating the research question, 2) Developing inclusion and exclusion criteria, 3) Search strategy, 4) Study selection ...
Systematic reviews are characterized by a methodical and replicable methodology and presentation. They involve a comprehensive search to locate all relevant published and unpublished work on a subject; a systematic integration of search results; and a critique of the extent, nature, and quality of evidence in relation to a particular research question.
Abstract. It can be challenging to conduct a systematic review with limited experience and skills in undertaking such a task. This chapter provides a practical guide to undertaking a systematic review, providing step-by-step instructions to guide the individual through the process from start to finish. The chapter begins with defining what a ...
How to Do a Systematic Literature Review in Nursing a Step-By-step Guide - Free download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. how to do a systematic literature review in nursing a step-by-step guide.
HOW TO DO A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW IN NURSING: A STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE Πλήρη PDF ePub DOC RTF WORD PPT TXT Ebook iBooks Kindle Rar Zip Mobipocket Mobi Online Διαδικτυακή ...
Abstract. Keywords: Systematic reviews are conducted through a consistent and reproducible method to search, appraise, and summarize information. Within the evidence-based pyramid, systematic reviews can be at the apex when incorporating high-quality studies, presenting the strongest form of evidence given their synthe ….