A young researcher's guide to a systematic review Series: Part04 - Types of articles: A guide for young researchers Key takeaways:
A model is presented here for writing systematic reviews of argument-based literature: Such reviews aim to improve ethically relevant decisions in healthcare, research or policy.
They are better tools than informal reviews or samples of literature with respect to the identification of the reasons relevant to a conceptual question, and they enable the setting of agendas for conceptual and empirical research necessary for sound policy-making. This model comprises prescriptions for writing the systematic review's review question and eligibility criteria, the identification of the relevant literature, the type of data to extract on reasons and publications, and the derivation and presentation of results.
This paper explains how to adapt the model to the review question, literature reviewed and intended readers, who may be decision-makers or academics. Obstacles to the model's application are described and addressed, and limitations of the model are identified.
Such reviews emerged in the s in social science and were developed to a high level of sophistication in medicine and epidemiology. The literature that addresses questions in these fields is large and of varying quality; some is difficult to retrieve. Policy-makers and professionals in healthcare and research may lack the time or skills to collect, appraise and synthesise all the relevant literature.
Systematic reviews undertake this substantial task and answer the question in a form accessible to decision-makers.
The point of the process's systematic nature is to collect all the relevant literature and to minimise bias in characterising it. Box 1 Four steps for writing a systematic review Formulate the review question and eligibility criteria. Identify all of the literature that meets the eligibility criteria.
Extract and synthesise data.
Derive and present results: The genre was subsequently transferred to qualitative research and the overlapping and burgeoning field of empirical bioethics, which uses empirical frequently qualitative studies to answer empirical questions relevant to bioethics.
Some have recently advocated applying the genre to argument-based literature in clinical and research ethics, and in bioethics generally, again to improve decision-making, and there have been two such applications.
We agree with McCullough et al 9 that clinicians could benefit from systematic reviews of clinical ethics literature. However, as we argue at length elsewhere, there is a need for a much more sweeping adaptation of the systematic review technique, and engagement with the many technical and conceptual issues, for such reviews to accomplish their goals in clinical and policy decision-making.
Their review of a seven-article literature addresses the following question: Regarding step 4, they consider that the answer to the review question is the answer most commonly given by the included publications, when greater weight is given to answers based on higher-scoring reasoning.
We call their outline model for writing systematic reviews a systematic review of quality-weighted conclusions. In these cases, the literature's answer to the review question places no burden of proof on those who disagree.
Of course, when an empirical literature is inadequate, its answer will also be potentially misleading and uninteresting; the correct safeguard in both cases inadequate empirical and reason-based literatures is for the review to conclude only that further research is needed to answer the question.
To date, however, the assessment of the quality of reasons and of argument-based literature is much less standardised than, for example, the assessment of the quality of clinical trials and the literature that reports their results.Systematic reviews traditionally answer an empirical question based on an unbiased assessment of all the empirical studies that address it.
Such reviews emerged in the s in social science and were developed to a high level of sophistication in medicine and epidemiology. systematic review, insofar as it is a systematic review of (quality- weighted) conclusions, also has normative problems: it may mislead when there are mutually incompatible, but maximally.
For example, some quantitatively focused researchers subscribe to a ‘Cochrane’ approach as the only method to undertake a ‘systematic review’, with other researchers having a more pragmatic view, recognising the different purposes of a review and ways of applying systematic methods to undertake a review of the literature.
rehabilitation based on a systematic review therapy, (3) open and closed kinetic chain quadriceps exercises, (4) strength and neuromuscular training, (5) electrostimulation and electromyographic feedback, (6) guidelines) and for writing the evidence statement. The working. The aims of this systematic review were to identify and summarise both randomised controlled trial and observational evidence on associations between endocrine therapies and a wide range of specific clinical cardiovascular disease outcomes in women with a history of early breast cancer, to describe the differences between findings from.
This article will describe the type of literature review which examines the literature on a subject with methods that are both explicit and transparent, and which follows a standard protocol or set series of stages.
The aim is to reduce bias and provide a comprehensive body of knowledge on a particular subject, and/or evidence for a particular intervention.