Literature Reviews - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Literature Reviews PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 27bc1-Y2EyO



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Literature Reviews

Description:

Literature Reviews. Save time when ... Literature reviews ... Are very methodological like qualitative systematic reviews. Meta-analyses Major Benefit ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:696
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 54
Provided by: michaelh9
Learn more at: http://w3.palmer.edu
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Literature Reviews


1
Bronfort, G., W. Assendelft, et al. (2001).
Efficacy of spinal manipulation for chronic
headache A systematic review. JMPT 24(7)
457-466.
Davis, C.G. (1998) Rear-end impacts vehicle and
occupant response. JMPT, 21(9) 629-39.
2
Literature Reviews
  • Another Descriptive Design
  • (Along with case reports, surveys,
  • and case series)

3
DESCRIPTIVE DESIGNS
4
The Literature Review
  • Summarizes all available literature on a topic to
    produce a single paper
  • Imperative to carry out in an objective and
    critical format
  • Can cover a broad issue or a very focused
    clinical question
  • Example I Cervical manipulation of whiplash
    patients
  • Example II Cervical manipulation of whiplash
    patients with signs of VBI

5
Literature Review
  • A great deal of information is brought together
    and written so the reader can clearly understand
    the topic
  • Literature reviews provide a new conclusion to
    the literature . . . a synthesis
  • Not just rehashing all the articles involved

6
Purpose
  • Objectively report current knowledge concerning a
    certain topic based upon previously published
    research
  • Provide a comprehensive overview of the topic
  • Place information into perspective
  • Find out what others have to say

7
Reasons to Read Literature Reviews
  • Save time when searching for information about
    patient care
  • The author of the literature review has already
    done most of the work
  • Provide information for decision makers
  • Researchers use them to develop hypotheses and to
    identify pitfalls in previous research

8
Literature Reviews
  • May offer more conclusive results than a single
    primary research study
  • Reviewing all studies on a topic tends to
    neutralize the extremes
  • May provide a very high level of evidence
  • Meta-analyses
  • However, readers must consider the possibility of
    author bias

9
Three Classifications
  • Narrative review
  • A comprehensive narrative synthesis of previously
    published information
  • Qualitative systematic review
  • A detailed search of the literature based upon a
    focused question
  • Employs detailed, rigorous and explicit search
    methods

10
Three Classifications Cont.
  • Quantitative systematic review
  • Evaluates each reviewed paper and statistically
    combines the results of the studies

11
From JMPT Instructions for Authors
  • Literature reviews
  • Critical assessments of current knowledge of a
    particular subject of interest
  • With emphasis on better correlation
  • The pointing up of ambiguities
  • And the delineation of areas that may constitute
    hypotheses for further study
  • Meta-analysis is included

12
Narrative Literature Review
  • Three types
  • Editorials
  • Are typically written by the journals editor or
    an invited guest
  • Commentaries
  • Typically express an opinion (biased)
  • Overview articles
  • A narrative review that draws upon the wisdom of
    the commentator (biased)
  • AKA unsystematic narrative reviews

13
Why Narrative Literature Reviews?
  • Usually more up to date than textbooks
  • However, probably published 2 years after the
    research was done
  • Presents a broad perspective on a given topic
  • Practitioners can obtain up to date clinical
    protocols
  • Often specific authors are solicited to write
    narrative overviews who are experts
  • Many times they have conducted related research

14
Systematic Methods Required
  • Methods used in creating the paper should be
    revealed
  • Inclusion/exclusion criteria explained
  • Language, timeframe, specific type of tx.
  • The list of sources used to locate literature
    should be complete
  • Regarding chiropractic Not just PubMed
  • Should include MANTIS, CINAHL, ICL, and others

15
Narrative Overviews - Evidence
  • One of the weakest forms of evidence for making
    clinical decisions
  • They deal with broader issues than focused
    clinical problems
  • They are potentially more biased
  • Which is why they are one of the weakest

16
Qualitative Systematic Literature Review
  • AKA systematic review
  • Detailed, rigorous and explicit methods are
    utilized
  • Methodology is described step-by-step
  • Noted for having a focused question or purpose
  • All original (primary) research studies published
    on the topic are included

17
Systematic Review Searching
  • Multiple databases should be searched
  • Also hand searches
  • Should contact authors of previously published
    research
  • Attempt to locate articles that may not have been
    published
  • Failed studies

18
Systematic Reviewing Process
  • Papers are reviewed systematically and
    consistently
  • Apply the same criteria to each one reviewed
  • Several independent reviewers are typically
    involved
  • Papers are rated using a scoring system
  • Checklists are typically involved
  • Then individual studies are integrated

19
Systematic Review - Evidence
  • More powerful evidence-based source of clinical
    information than narrative reviews
  • Better-quality evidence than
  • Case reports and case series
  • Even better than poorly conducted RCTs

20
Quantitative Systematic Literature Review
  • Commonly known as a meta-analysis
  • A systematic review that not only critically
    evaluates each paper, but also statistically
    combines the results of the studies
  • Are very methodological like qualitative
    systematic reviews

21
Meta-analyses Major Benefit
  • Pooling of data between studies
  • All of the original patient data from the studies
    under review are pooled
  • Creates a larger sample size for statistical
    testing
  • Increases power of the individual studies
  • However, it is often difficult to find studies
    that are similar enough to pool data

22
Meta-analyses - Evidence
  • Considered a very high form of evidence for
    making clinical decisions
  • More generalizable conclusions are possible
  • More power
  • Tends to even out extreme values through a
    process of averaging

23
(No Transcript)
24
(No Transcript)
25
Writing a Narrative Review of the Literature
  • Select topic that you are very interested in
  • Need to have momentum to finish
  • Select topic with a feasible focus
  • Headaches would be impossible too broad
  • Better chiropractic management of muscle
    tension headaches more focused
  • Get help from experienced (published) colleagues
    or faculty
  • Possibly offer co-authorship in return

26
Step One
  • Perform a preliminary literature search
  • This applies for any research endeavor
  • To see what has already been published on the
    topic
  • There may already be a review published about the
    topic
  • However, may still be able to get a review
    published using a different perspective

27
General Guidelines
  • Use the required writing elements for a narrative
    review
  • Be well structured
  • Synthesize the available evidence
  • Convey a clear message
  • Use an objective and scientific approach
  • Follow the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts
    Submitted to Biomedical Journals formatting
    guidelines

28
Guidelines Cont.
  • The necessary elements of a narrative review are
    similar to those required of any form of
    scholarly article
  • Standard anatomy
  • Title, Structured Abstract, Introduction, Method,
    Results, Discussion, Acknowledgements,
    References, Tables, Figures, and Figure captions

29
Title
  • Clearly describe the topic being reviewed
  • May include the words literature review or
    review of the literature
  • Example from JMPT
  • Alcohol and low-back pain A systematic
    literature review

30
Structured Abstract
  • Objective Author should clearly state the
    purpose of the paper
  • Background A description of what prompted the
    review or why it was written. Presentation of a
    context for the review.
  • Methods Brief description of the methods used
    for the review.

31
Structured Abstract Cont.
  • Discussion Description of what information the
    review presents to the reader.
  • Conclusion Summary of what the review
    contributes to the literature. What new
    conclusion can be drawn as a result of the
    synthesis of the literature.

32
Key Words
  • Use medical subheadings (MeSH) when possible
  • Additional words that may be unique to this topic

33
Introduction
  • State the research purpose or focus
  • Convince readers of the need or importance of the
    study
  • Hasnt been reported previously
  • Inadequately reported
  • Incorrectly reported
  • Define any unusual terms that are used

34
Methods
  • A step-by-step description of how the study was
    carried out
  • List databases that were searched
  • Typically must search at least two applicable
    databases in order to obtain a reasonable breadth
    and depth on a topic
  • Articles harvested from reference sections
  • Other sources for references
  • Conference proceedings, communications with
    authors, books, etc.

35
Describing Information Sources
  • Name the database that was searched
  • List search terms
  • Define an inclusion timeframe
  • Provide a starting year and an ending year and
    month
  • Example
  • A MEDLINE search was carried out using the terms
    neck pain and manipulation from 1966 through
    March, 2004.

36
Parameters For The Literature Search
  • Inclusion and exclusion criteria must be
    established to focus the search
  • For example, exclude surgery related studies or
    drug trials
  • Use Limits in PubMed and Advanced Search in
    MANTIS
  • Choose language, date, discipline, etc.
  • Search strategy should be described so another
    reviewer could duplicate results

37
Results
  • This section presents the outcome of the search
    process
  • The number of articles that were retrieved
  • How many of the articles were excluded from the
    review
  • Which of the inclusion criteria they failed to
    meet

38
Discussion
  • The synthesis is the most demanding element of a
    narrative review
  • All of the information retrieved in the
    literature search is combined into comprehensive
    paragraphs
  • Notes must be kept for each study reviewed
    including the following information
  • The purpose of the study being reviewed

39
Discussion cont.
  • A synopsis of the content
  • The research design or methods used in the study
  • A brief review of the findings

40
Most reviews have a table of articles that were
utilized
41
Synthesis
  • The synthesis is the heart of the narrative
    review design
  • Consequently it is important to ensure that a
    meaningful integration is accomplished
  • Based on the literature reviewed, the author
    should offer an interpretation
  • Also a critical appraisal of the papers reviewed
    may be in order

42
Appendix A
  • Check sheets or guides are helpful when
    critically appraising the articles
  • Green BN, Johnson CD, Adams A. Writing Narrative
    Literature Reviews for Peer-reviewed Journals
    Secrets of the Trade. J Sports Chiropr Rehabil
    200115(1)
  • 1 Absent, 2 Present but not complete, 3
    Present and complete

43
Initial Impression
  • Does the review appear to be relevant to an issue
    of interest?
  • Dont waste your time reading articles that
    arent relevant or interesting There are plenty
    available that are relevant

44
Abstract
  • Is the specific purpose of the review stated?
  • Is context for the overview provided?
  • Is the type of research design stated?
  • Are the search methods clearly summarized?
  • Are the important findings clearly discussed?
  • Are the major conclusions and recommendations
    clearly outlined?

45
Introduction
  • Is the specific purpose of the review clearly
    stated based upon a brief review of the
    literature?
  • Is the need/importance and context of this study
    established?
  • Are novel terms defined?

46
Methods
  • Were the electronic databases used to conduct the
    literature searches identified (MEDLINE, CINAHL,
    etc.)?
  • Were the search years stated?
  • Were the search terms stated?
  • Were standard terms used as search terms,
    including Medical Subject Headings?
  • Were the guidelines for including and excluding
    articles in the literature review clearly
    identified?

47
Results - Discussion
  • Were the results summarized in a comprehensible
    manner?
  • Was the critical appraisal of each study the same
    and reproducible?
  • Was the quality of the included articles assessed
    objectively?
  • Was the variation in the findings of the studies
    critically analyzed?

48
Discussion Cont.
  • Was the meaning of the results addressed?
  • Do the authors tie in the results of the study
    with previous research in a meaningful manner?
  • Were the weak points and untoward events that
    occurred during the course of the study addressed
    by the authors?

49
Conclusions
  • Was a clear summary of pertinent findings
    provided?
  • Were the authors conclusions supported by the
    evidence provided?
  • Were specific directives for new research
    initiatives proposed?
  • Specific implications to the practice environment
    are addressed?

50
References
  • Are references relevant, current and appropriate
    in number?
  • Are all papers reviewed cited in the references?

51
Overall Impressions
  • Do the merits of this review of the literature
    outweigh the flaws?
  • Were the authors unbiased in their approach to
    the review?
  • Will the results of the paper help me in my
    philosophical or evidence based approach to
    patient care?

52
(No Transcript)
53
(No Transcript)
About PowerShow.com