Welcome to our website dedicated to assisting scholars and researchers in the daunting task of

conducting literature reviews. Delving into the vast expanse of academic literature can be a
challenging endeavor, especially when aiming for a systematic approach. Crafting a comprehensive
literature review requires meticulous planning, thorough research, and keen analytical skills.

Undoubtedly, one of the most arduous aspects of academic writing is synthesizing existing research
to form a cohesive narrative. A literature review demands not only a deep understanding of the
subject matter but also the ability to critically evaluate numerous sources and identify gaps in the
existing knowledge. Moreover, the process involves sifting through an extensive array of scholarly
articles, books, and other publications, which can be overwhelming and time-consuming.

Fortunately, our platform offers a solution to alleviate the burden of literature review writing. At ⇒
StudyHub.vip ⇔, we specialize in providing expert assistance to researchers seeking to streamline
their literature review process. With a team of experienced writers and researchers, we offer
personalized support tailored to your specific requirements.

By entrusting your literature review to us, you can rest assured that you will receive a meticulously
crafted document that meets the highest academic standards. Our writers are adept at synthesizing
complex information, conducting thorough literature searches, and presenting findings in a clear and
coherent manner.

Whether you are embarking on a research project, writing a thesis, or preparing a manuscript for
publication, our services can help you save time and achieve your academic goals. With our
assistance, you can focus on advancing your research agenda while we take care of the tedious task
of literature review writing.

In conclusion, writing a literature review is undoubtedly a challenging endeavor that requires time,
effort, and expertise. If you find yourself overwhelmed by the task, don't hesitate to seek assistance
from ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔. Our team of skilled professionals is here to support you every step of the
way, ensuring that your literature review is comprehensive, well-structured, and academically
rigorous.
Concerning the evaluation component, time-sliced evaluation is the current most objective technique
used to validate the results. Output contains the citations and references from the publications
you’ve uploaded. Journal of Biomedical informatics 39 ( 6 ): 600 - 611. There are several different
options for searching in Embase (via embase.com). In the search example below, we show how you
can structure the search in a similar way as in Medline Ovid. However, this technique suffers from
several limitations which suggests the requirement of developing new evaluation methods and
metrics to evaluate the generated output. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 33 ( 2 ): 157 - 186.
When analyzing the result set, it became apparent that, while. In: International conference on
discovery science. Adding a number after N will determine how many words you want to “allow”
between your two terms. Therefore, the existing reviews merely cover a subset of LBD literature and
do not provide a comprehensive classification of the LBD discipline. Perspectives in Biology and
Medicine 30 ( 1 ): 7 - 18. For example, the statistician may be most active during the statistical
synthesis phase if a meta analysis is being performed. I’m talking about systematic reviews and
meta-analyses. In: 12th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, ISSI 2009. 165
- 172. For a sentence to qualify as a potential interaction sentence, the authors have followed a rule-
based mechanism. Journals also often demand that a search be updated if several months have passed
since the article was submitted. Consider how each source approaches your topic in addition to their
collective points of intersection and separation. Also look for publication patterns by investigating if
certain approaches to the topic were common during a specific time. Fig. 7. Codes and number of
articles related to the artifact-mediated communication principle. Figure 3.3: Malaria
chemoprevention for pregnant women living in endemic areas. For instance, Kim et al. (2016) have
used directed gene-gene network to clearly illustrate the discovery pathways suggested by their LBD
methodology. UCASD. Overall, as listed in Table 5, four codes from our coding sys-. Therefore,
usually an entire team of professionals will work together to produce a systematic review. Although
we found more sources, the recommendations were con-. With this software, systematic review
teams can screen citations, full text review, risk of bias, and etc for a systematic review.
Nevertheless, the selection of the input needs to be precise and cross-checked against the research
objectives as different data types reflect different perspectives ( Lee et al., 2015 ) and information
content ( Kostoff et al., 2004 ). Filtering and ranking are two important constituents of the process
component. Otherwise, you might do your literature review using a research paper management
platform such as Mendeley, Papers, Qippa, Cita, Sente, and others. Step 8. Data Extraction with
Exclusion and Inclusion Criteria: 1. Moreover, Kostoff et al. (2004) have analysed the information
content in various fields of a paper using four metrics; total number of phrases, number of unique
phrases, factor matrix filtering and multi-link hierarchical clustering. Using the Cochrane
methodology, the course is perfect for new and experienced review authors alike. Use the Please Log
In or Create an Account button to create a Cochrane account or connect an exising accountto the
University's subscription.
Journal of Biomedical Informatics 42 ( 4 ): 633 - 643. However, validating all the derived
associations of the LBD process using laboratory experiments is infeasible. She obtained the add
qualification from American board in infectious disease. Biomedical Discovery and Collaboration 5:
21 - 49. Let’s consider systematic and literature reviews side-by-side to understand how systematic
reviews are unique. Afterwards, filtered novel associations are qualitatively evaluated. Using
Smartwatches to Assist Students with Intellectual and Developmental Dis. In total, we obtained 176
papers for this review (listed in ). Context: In the last decade, software development has been
characterized by two major approaches: agile. If you search without quotation marks, the terms are
not kept together as a phrase. Communications of the Association of Information Systems, 37 (43),
879-910. For this purpose, the metrics such as precision at k, recall at k, 11-point average
interpolated precision, and Mean Reciprocal Rank have been used in the literature. Communications
of the Association of Information Systems, 37 (43), 879-910. For example, in the study of Vlietstra
et al. (2017), they have developed the reference set from the results of a systematic literature review
to compare their results. Scopus also covers 250 million quality web sources, including 13 million
patents. Data will be collected regarding the reasons for exclusion. Medline and Embase cover an
extremely wide range of topics. From here, identify the purpose or thesis for your topic. For this
reason, most systematic reviews are conducted by teams, given the large scope of the data initially
collected for most research topics. When you test search, you simultaneously discover what
terminology is common in the field, and thus find more search terms. Since it purposely seeks to
solve a research question, although a systematic literature review uses the already available
investigation on a subject, it is considered original work and utterly necessary for the scientific
community. In: Bioinformatics, computational biology, and health informatics. New York. ACM.
317 - 326. Different studies have extracted different details from the research papers for analysis. To
see which publications that have cited these articles, click on Citation Report, which you’ll find on
the right side of the search box. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 16: 57. SLRs differ
from stand-alone literature reviews because they follow a rigorous review protocol that is objective
and comprehensive so other researchers may replicate the work. If you have a question or comment
about Okanagan College Library's LibGuides site as a whole, please contact the site administrator.
Moreover, it is also vital to evaluate the efficiency of the visualisation technique by performing user-
based evaluations ( Santos, 2008 ). At the moment, KI does not have a license for these kinds of
programs. A few examples. You will also describe your search strategy, inclusion criteria, and overall
methodology so that your review is reputable and replicable.
Institute for Enterprise Systems, University of Mannheim, L 15, 1-6, 68131 Mannheim, Germany.
Watson, 2002), they are less common in software engineer-. This comprehensive range of resources
includes over 3,000 records across seven publication types: Evidence Based Recommended
Practices, Evidence Summaries, Best Practice Information Sheets, Systematic Reviews, Consumer
Information Sheets, Systematic Review Protocols, and Technical Reports. In: 12th International
Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, ISSI 2009. 165 - 172. One way is to search directly
in a given database’s thesaurus. Overall, combined ranking measure are more flexible as they rely on
multiple characteristics to prioritise the derived associations. Additionally, some studies have
attempted to utilise evidences from curated databases (e.g., CTD, StringDB) as an alternative for co-
occurrence in time-sliced evaluation. On the contrary to the existing traditional reviews, systematic
reviews follow a rigorous and transparent approach to ensure the future replicability of results
through the use of a clear systematic review protocol, and to minimise the bias in results by focusing
on empirical evidence to present results, not preconceived knowledge ( Mallett et al., 2012 ).
However, such evaluations are rarely performed in existing literature. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Vol. 3314: 794 - 799. Most of the filtering techniques examined in the discipline are at word-level.
However, when the relevant literature is vast, systematic literature review follows systematic
judgments that are fully informed and minimally prejudiced. The main reason for this is that the
LBD process detects novel knowledge that has not been publicly published anywhere and thus
needs to be proven that they are useful. To date, such domain independent LBD methodologies have
been rarely experimented. Otherwise, you might do your literature review using a research paper
management platform such as Mendeley, Papers, Qippa, Cita, Sente, and others. Step 8. Data
Extraction with Exclusion and Inclusion Criteria: 1. However, this evaluation technique suffers from
two major limitations; (1) The association is proven to valid if the starting and linking term co-occur
in future publications (that do not co-occur in the training set). Primary research methods include
interviews, internet surveys, and focus groups. Registration forms are used in almost all walks of life
for several purposes. Re. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 42 ( 4 ): 633 - 643. Codes related to the
iterative and incremental design and development principle. Additionally, you can show mapping as
per different keywords that make sense for reviewers and readers. In clinical research, it is common
to use the PICO-structure: P opulation, I ntervention, C ontrol and O utcome. These should ideally
be articles that correspond to your research question as closely as possible. Screening for a literature
review is typically less intensive. Codes related to the iterative and incremental design and
development principle. Literature review can be a continual process; as more information comes to
light, researchers may reassess or reframe their research questions. If you search without quotation
marks, the terms are not kept together as a phrase. We excluded other types of articles such as
reviews, books, book chapters, papers reporting lessons learned, keynotes, and editorials. Radeva-
Petrova et al. ( 2014 ) summarized the problem of malaria during pregnancy, explained the
hypothesized mechanism by which chemoprevention prevents malaria, framed why this review is
important, and listed the objectives of the study. In systematic reviews, specific details are extracted
from every study included, such as numbers of participants, methods, analysis techniques, and key
outcomes.
Moreover, Kostoff et al. (2004) have analysed the information content in various fields of a paper
using four metrics; total number of phrases, number of unique phrases, factor matrix filtering and
multi-link hierarchical clustering. The second limitation of time-sliced evaluation can be alleviated to
some extent through domain expert involvement by further evaluating the rejected associations.
More than 60% of titles are from countries other than the US Abstracts go back to 1966. Literature
review can be a continual process; as more information comes to light, researchers may reassess or
reframe their research questions. It is considered that MeSH descriptors are accurate and medically
relevant as National Library of Medicine (NLM) employs trained indexers to assign them to the
Medline articles. For example, kinesiologists studying heart disease will review the literature to
identify acceptable measurement methods, whereas anthropologists researching intersections of
culture and technology need to examine the literature to identify different categories of analysis.
First, carefully examine your topic to gain necessary background information. These should ideally
be articles that correspond to your research question as closely as possible. Moreover, we identi?ed
the research type of each paper as pre-. To date, such domain independent LBD methodologies have
been rarely experimented. Using the meta-synthesis method, she has been able to detect mixed
conceptions, homonyms, and the hierarchy of concepts that should construct these two phenomena.
A systematic literature review is a more transparent and less biased review that is utilized to address
empirical questions. LION LBD system ( Pyysalo et al., 2018 ) that supports multiple scoring
functions to facilitate flexible ranking mechanism can be taken as an example. These resources are
further categorised as; (1) Resources that provide background domain knowledge, and (2) Resources
that are used in content analysis. Approach the grey literature methodically and purposefully.
Changes in approach over time can be seen after publication information has been compared, so be
sure to place the authors within their own historical context too. Ovid is a database platform used for
many different databases. Literature-Based Discovery (LBD) supports cross-disciplinary knowledge
discovery to elicit these hidden associations to recommend new scientific knowledge. The most
widely used evaluation technique is replicating Swanson’s medical discoveries. Codes related to the
iterative and incremental design and development principle. Many of the reviews in these databases
can be accessed by searching within PubMed using the Clinical Queries feature. A logging system is
needed to make sure all relevant studies. You may also want to use a program that can help you
screen your references, such as Rayyan. However, this technique suffers from several limitations
which suggests the requirement of developing new evaluation methods and metrics to evaluate the
generated output. This is part of the 'systematic' nature of this type of publication. Find additional
examples of useful tools at Systematic Review Toolbox. For example, Crichton et al. (2018) have
considered Adamic-Adar, Common Neighbours and Jaccard Index to compare their results as these
algorithms are considered to be competitive and challenging baselines in link prediction discipline.
In: Joint European conference on machine learning and knowledge discovery in databases. Electronic
forms are useful and can facilitate subsequent analysis. As for the evaluation component, we outline
the evaluation techniques, their generalisability, and the quantitative measures used to validate results.