The Purpose Of Conducting A Systematic Literature Rev 210715

The Purpose Of Conducting A Systematic Review Of Literature Is To Comp

The purpose of conducting a systematic review of literature is to comprehensively and rigorously summarize existing research on a specific topic, providing an evidence-based foundation for decision-making and identifying gaps for future studies. Unlike a traditional literature review, a systematic review follows a predefined protocol, employs a systematic search strategy, and critically appraises studies for inclusion based on predefined criteria. The key steps involve formulating a research question, searching multiple databases, screening and selecting relevant studies, extracting data, assessing study quality, and synthesizing the findings. Writing a systematic review requires adherence to a structured format, ensuring transparency and replicability of the process. For guidance on systematic review writing, you can refer to .

Paper For Above instruction

A systematic review is a rigorous and methodical approach to synthesizing research evidence on a specific topic. Its primary purpose is to collate, evaluate, and synthesize existing studies to provide a comprehensive understanding of the current state of knowledge. This process not only aids in evidence-based decision-making but also highlights areas where further research is necessary. Unlike traditional narrative reviews, which can be subjective and selective, systematic reviews follow a predefined protocol designed to minimize bias and enhance transparency.

The core purpose of a systematic review is multifaceted. First, it consolidates research findings across multiple studies, allowing practitioners, policymakers, and scholars to access a reliable and synthesized source of information. Second, it helps identify consistent patterns and discrepancies in the literature, which can inform practice guidelines and policy development. Third, it uncovers gaps in the existing research landscape, thus guiding future investigations and resource allocation.

To ensure robustness, systematic reviews adhere to a structured process. The first step involves formulating a clear and focused research question, often utilizing frameworks like PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome). Next, researchers develop a detailed protocol specifying inclusion and exclusion criteria, search strategies, and data extraction methods. A comprehensive search is conducted across multiple databases such as PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science to capture all relevant studies. The retrieved articles are then screened for eligibility, with duplicates removed and studies appraised for quality and relevance based on predefined criteria.

Data extraction follows, wherein key information such as study design, sample size, outcomes, and findings are systematically recorded, usually in standardized forms. The quality of each study is critically assessed using tools like the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool or the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, depending on study type. The synthesis of data, often through meta-analysis or thematic analysis, integrates the findings into a coherent summary. Transparency throughout this process is vital; documenting each step ensures replicability and minimizes potential biases.

Writing the systematic review involves organizing the results into logical sections, including an introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. The introduction establishes the review’s scope and significance. Methods describe all procedures followed, allowing others to replicate or evaluate the process. The results present synthesized findings, often with visual aids like tables and graphs. In the discussion, the implications are interpreted, limitations are acknowledged, and recommendations for future research are made. Ensuring clarity, objectivity, and thoroughness throughout enhances the review’s credibility.

Guidance on systematic review methodologies can be found in established standards such as the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, which promote comprehensive and transparent reporting. Adhering to these standards ensures that reviews meet the highest quality criteria, improving their utility for evidence-based practices and policy formulation.

References

  • Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLOS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097.
  • Higgins, J. P. T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J., & Welch, V. A. (Eds.). (2019). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2nd edition. John Wiley & Sons.
  • Evans, M. (2013). Research skills for students: Publication

    manuals for scientific writing. Routledge.

  • Garrard, J. (2016). Health sciences literature review made easy. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
  • Khan, K. S., Kunz, R., Kleijnen, J., & Antes, G. (2003). Four steps to increase the trustworthiness of systematic reviews. BMJ, 326(7384), 25-28.
  • Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., et al. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ, 349, g7647.
  • Craig, J., & Poulsen, B. (2016). Critical appraisal of systematic reviews in health care. Evidence-Based Medicine, 21(4), 111-114.
  • Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-108.
  • Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71.
  • Sampson, M., McGowan, J., Cogo, E., et al. (2009). An evidence based approach to systematic review methodology. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 9, 1.

Related Assignments