Writing a literature review can be an intricate and challenging process.

It requires a deep dive into

existing research, critical analysis of each piece, and the synthesis of information to present a
comprehensive overview of a subject. The task becomes even more daunting when one aims to
differentiate between a literature review and a systematic review, each serving distinct purposes in
the realm of academic research.

A literature review is a broad assessment of existing knowledge on a topic. It provides an overview

of current theories, methodologies, and findings, and identifies gaps in the research. It's a qualitative
endeavor that allows for a certain degree of flexibility in how studies are chosen and discussed. The
process, however, demands a considerable amount of time and intellectual effort to understand
various perspectives and weave them into a coherent narrative.

On the other hand, a systematic review is more structured and focuses on answering a specific
research question. It involves a rigorous and methodical search of the literature, applying explicit
criteria to select studies for inclusion. This review type aims to minimize bias through the exhaustive
examination of research findings and often includes a meta-analysis to statistically analyze data
across studies. The meticulous nature of systematic reviews makes them exceptionally time-
consuming and complex, requiring a detailed understanding of the subject matter and methodology.

Given the complexity and the significant time investment required to produce a high-quality
literature review or systematic review, many find the process overwhelming. It's not uncommon for
researchers to seek professional assistance to navigate the intricacies of these reviews.

For those who find themselves in need of help, ordering services from ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔ can be a
valuable resource. This platform offers expert assistance in crafting literature reviews and systematic
reviews, ensuring that your academic work is both thorough and of high quality. By choosing to
work with professional writers who have a deep understanding of the differences and nuances
between these review types, you can save time, reduce stress, and improve the overall quality of your
academic research.
Bias is a systematic deviation from the truth; it may overestimate or underestimate the true effect,
and it may be large or small. Interacting with experts in the field will ensure the best approach and
will help foster new collaborations in your area. In a traditional Literature Review conducted by
experts. For more information on each of these organizations including access to resources and
support offered, please refer to Table 2. If a clinically important question has not yet been addressed
by a systematic review, you might wish to consider undertaking one yourself. Heterogeneity
complicates the interpretation of a meta-analysis; it signals that we might be comparing apples and
oranges. Read an analysis of the 14 review types and a recent follow up article characterising health
related reviews by type grouping them into review families. For all effects represented by absolute
differences (e.g., mean differences), it is placed at 0. Systematic reviews have a necessarily narrow
focus (e.g., “hypothermia to reduce neurological damage following coronary artery bypass surgery,”
Ref. 5); however it may be more informative for clinicians to be able to access a summary of
evidence from a range of related systematic reviews. It is possible at this stage that you need to go
back to your protocol and reconsider if the methods are still fit-for-purpose (Fig. 2). Reading and
Critically Appraising Systematic Reviews. Read this article on why systematic reviews and narrative
reviews should be seen as complimentary. The line that runs up the middle of the plot is called “the
line of no effect.” For all effects represented by “ratios” (e.g., odds, risk, or hazards ratios) the line
of no effect is placed at 1 on the horizontal axis. We don’t know if it prevents maternal deaths, as
this would require very large studies to detect an effect. Here’s Three Tips to Steer Clear of Potential
Issues. Hypothermia to reduce neurological damage following coronary artery bypass surgery.
Importantly, both inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria must be clearly outlined when a systematic
review is undertaken. Gilgun Qualitative Research and Family Psychology by Jane F. The
perspectives of those involved in the care for people with cardiovascular disease can be different to
those of other health care professionals. Later when he wrote further text urging health practitioners
to organize knowledge into a useable and reliable format and practice evidence-based medicine,
others took up this challenge. For example, the effect of a disease on several populations across the
world, by comparing other modest research studies completed in specific countries or continents.
This is something that needs to be paid careful attention to. When this interval crosses the line of no
effect, the effect could be null or could even run in the opposite direction. Read more PUB-Effective
Strategies to Monitor Clinical Risks Using Biostatistics March 9, 2021 Effective strategies to monitor
clinical risks using biostatistics Read more. Remember, working on a systematic reviews is a team
sport. It should be noted, however, that the upper CI for ischemic and unidentified stroke is very
close to the line of no effect (0.99). When making decisions related to practice, it is important to
consider that should the true effect lie at this point, then this would mean that newer anticoagulants
only very marginally reduce the risk for a composite end point of stroke and systemic embolism as
compared with warfarin. Should our teenagers at risk of offending visit a Prison. Most studies
account for this within their results. Gilgun Qualitative Research and Family Psychology by Jane F.
This can be done either through conducting the review via an organization such as the Cochrane
Collaboration, or Campbell Collaboration, by registering the protocol in a dedicated database such as
PROSPERO (see link above), or through publishing with a journal. In systematic reviews, specific
details are extracted from every study included, such as numbers of participants, methods, analysis
techniques, and key outcomes.
As we move forward in the book, we’ll consider why a study like Villegas et al. ( 2007 ) was judged
to have a low risk of bias across all dimensions, where as a study like Cot et al. ( 1995 ) was
classified as having a high risk of bias and flagged for not providing enough information. It is a good
practice to publish systematic review protocols to enhance the transparency of the process and avoid
duplication. Very useful video (8.24mins) from McGill University on the different types of review -
narrative, systematic and scoping. This is sometimes referred to as being like combining apples and
oranges (10). By application of scientific strategies, it is possible to minimize error and bias to
provide a more reliable and precise estimate of an intervention’s effectiveness. Figure 3.4: Drugs for
preventing malaria in pregnancy: conceptual framework. Do the confidence intervals from each
study form a vertical column, even if the point estimates shift between them. Where meta-analysis is
not appropriate, the results may be presented using tables and text. Having established the protocol,
the next step is to search relevant electronic databases, reference lists and other sources as
determined by the search strategy, to seek studies meeting the eligibility criteria. Values greater than
75% may indicate that a change in the meta-analysis method (random vs fixed effects) is needed.
Unlike traditional reviews, systematic reviews are very comprehensive and don’t rely on a single
author’s point of view, thus avoiding bias. Examining the evidence in anesthesia literature: a critical
appraisal of systematic reviews. Main Objective Answer and discuss topics that have straight
answers, such as clinical discussions with no biases. Step 3: Screen the Research All the research that
the teams select must be screened thoroughly to see relevancy and usefulness; this is where you
decide whether or not the studies are eligible to be used in the review. This kind of networking can
be instrumental in acquiring the diverse skill mix required of coauthors to produce a well-researched
and relevant review. For example, you might place more confidence in results that are based on
randomized controlled trials at a low risk of bias than those at a high risk of bias or other study
designs such as controlled before and after studies. Basically, if a study is repeated 100 times, the
effect size is expected to be within this interval 95% of the time. Should this be the case, there may
be reasons to suspect that the findings are not applicable to the patient(s) in question. This process is
more ad hoc for literature reviews. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the
methodological quality of systematic reviews. A meta-analysis should be carried out in the manner of
a systematic review. Bias can be minimized during the conduct of studies (e.g., through randomizing
participants, allocation concealment, blinding patients, researchers and healthcare personnel,
withdrawals and drop-outs, reporting of outcomes, etc.), and these are tangible things that can be
assessed in a systematic review to form judgments about the risk of bias, and how believable the
results of the studies are. This also helps avoid formulating decisions exclusively based on the
outcomes or studies of your findings. April 23, 2019 The Importance of Literature Review in
Scientific Research Writing May 10, 2019. These approaches include a comprehensive search of all
potentially relevant articles and the use of explicit, reproducible criteria in the selection of articles for
a systematic review. Every author or researcher is required to cohere to the given standards of
reporting and conducting (META-EVIDENCE BLOG, 2018). These elements of the research
question will be further set out through the eligibility criteria for the review. Traditional Research
Methods Of Quantitative And. Research.pdf Research.pdf New microsoft word document (2) New
microsoft word document (2) Quality issues in mixed methods research (with an emphasis on
teaching) - Ala. CRD’s Guidance for those Carrying out or Commissioning Reviews. The results of a
meta-analysis are typically summarized in a forest plot like the one shown in Figure 3.7. Let’s take a
look at this helpful guide from Ried ( 2006 ) that breaks it all down.
This also helps avoid formulating decisions exclusively based on the outcomes or studies of your
findings. The interpretation of data and conclusions drawn should be grounded in the risk of bias of
the included studies, so as to reflect the believability of the findings, as well as the direction and
precision of results relating to the benefits and harms of the interventions assessed. Finding a good
review can save you hours of searching and will give you a ready-made search strategy to update or
modify. Preregistration gives other researchers confidence that the team is not selectively choosing
advantageous results at the end to make an interesting paper. To keep on the right track one should
follow the proper reporting guidelines like standards (MECCIR) and (PRISMA). Number of People
Per Review Group of three or more, depending on the research team. For instance, the intervention
may work differently in different contexts, and the included studies were gathered from all over the
world. If studies included in a review are at a high risk of bias, one may place less confidence in
their findings. Unlike traditional reviews, systematic reviews are very comprehensive and don’t rely
on a single author’s point of view, thus avoiding bias. Main Objective Answer and discuss topics that
have straight answers, such as clinical discussions with no biases. Campbell, cited by Pearson (2007),
advocated experimental approach because of its. In this case, undertaking a meta-analysis would
probably be a poor choice. Figure 3.3: Malaria chemoprevention for pregnant women living in
endemic areas. The information at the bottom of the forest plot relates to the data that has been
pooled from all the included studies. Perhaps for these reasons, many published systematic reviews
are produced by teams working in collaboration with the support of a specialist systematic review
organization (see Table 2) in order to achieve these many and varied tasks. One study result is
described and plotted per row, and the overall effect (i.e., the “pooled” or “meta” effect) of all the
studies is displayed at the bottom. Our modules will assist you throughout your university journey.
Some systematic reviews include a meta-analysis, which is quantitative technique for combining the
results of multiple studies to estimate a pooled effect size that takes variations in study size and
quality into consideration. Gough D, Oliver S, Thomas J (2012) Introducing Systematic Reviews, p
6-7. For full interpretation of data, there are a whole raft of factors that should be considered
together (not simply the statistical answer to your question); these issues are incorporated into the
GRADE approach (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) for
assessing the evidence (15). Basically, if a study is repeated 100 times, the effect size is expected to
be within this interval 95% of the time. Where there is a high degree of heterogeneity (variability
between studies, either in types of participants, interventions or outcomes, or study design, risk of
bias or results), it may not be appropriate to combine their results using meta-analysis. As with most
journal articles, Cochrane reviews begin with an Abstract and a Plain language summary, which can
be helpful for newcomers to a the topic. Most studies account for this within their results.
Descriptive Vs. Inferential Statistics: The Main Differences. Pearson, M. (2007) “Systematic reviews
in social policy: to go forward, do we first need. The goal of a systematic review is to be
comprehensive and to include every relevant article. Systematic reviews are currently considered as
one of the highest forms of research evidence and it can be tempting to view a systematic review as
providing “the definitive answer” to a clinical question. These present, for each comparison and
outcome, both the study effects (and CIs) derived from individual studies and a pooled effect of all
the studies. The rows of the forest plot represent the individual studies included for that comparison
and outcome.
The name lagged behind, appearing first in 1996, apparently referring to the tree-line optics typical
of most forest plots. Heterogeneity in a forest plot refers to the diversity in effect size estimates
across studies. You may also check the final price on our Language Editing Simulator. What
methodology you choose can make or break your work getting out into the world, so let’s take a look
at two main types: systematic review and meta-analysis. To review or answer this question in a way,
the review pattern uses reproducible, and as the name suggests, systematic methods. In this example,
141 were people assigned to the intervention group in Study A. However, students could gain a
reasonable idea from citations and journal rankings (albeit rough). Consequently, the weight of this
study is only 6.7%, which is lower than the others. It is possible at this stage that you need to go
back to your protocol and reconsider if the methods are still fit-for-purpose (Fig. 2). Reading and
Critically Appraising Systematic Reviews. When the outcome is something bad, like death, the
intervention should be designed to reduce the risk, which is represented by a risk ratio less than 1.
Delete Replies Reply Sam Young 17 May 2018 at 05:45 Thanks David. Like any other aspect of
research, however, systematic reviews must define and follow a method that can be replicated. Not
every study is designed or implemented equally, however, so review authors must also evaluate the
potential for bias in each study to help the reader make sense of the findings. As we move forward in
the book, we’ll consider why a study like Villegas et al. ( 2007 ) was judged to have a low risk of
bias across all dimensions, where as a study like Cot et al. ( 1995 ) was classified as having a high
risk of bias and flagged for not providing enough information. Overviews of systematic reviews are
also useful because they provide summaries of groups of related systematic reviews (e.g.,
summarizing the evidence of the effectiveness of a number of different interventions for a certain
outcome or disease). If you look at the diamond at the bottom of the plot, the middle of the diamond
is the point estimate of the effect size and the widest points of the diamond represent the CIs.
Hammersley M (2005) “Is the evidence-based practice movement doing more good than. Please take
a moment and use the link to the right to download and skim through the article. When this interval
crosses the line of no effect, the effect could be null or could even run in the opposite direction.
Although, there are advantages associated with the process it is often very time consuming.
Exclusion criteria were (a) healthy persons used as controls, (b) patients following heart
transplantation, (c) absence of quantitative description of end points, (d) lack of clear and
reproducible results, and (e) trials in the abstract form without a published manuscript in a peer-
reviewed journal. It’s a good idea to do the same for a literature review, even if not a strict
requirement. Can we trust that findings of educational research identify what will work for us. For
example, “What has already been written on subject X?”, then narrowing down to the research
question. Figure 3.4: Drugs for preventing malaria in pregnancy: conceptual framework. Chalmers, I.
(2005) 'If evidence-informed policy works in practice, does it matter if it. So, here in this systematic
review vs literature review comparison piece, we’ve given you all that you need to know about these
review types and where you should use them. The processes of indexing retrieved studies, and
extracting and managing the data can be daunting and some reviews will require specialist analytical
software. Main Objective Answer and discuss topics that have straight answers, such as clinical
discussions with no biases.
Data extraction is also often independently performed by two authors with disagreements being
solved by arbitration and discussion. These can be particularly useful for informing policy decisions
about which interventions are most effective. For a systematic review to be deemed “systematic,” it
needs to follow a set protocol, in order to be replicable, transparent, and (as much as possible) free
from bias. For example, Radeva-Petrova et al. ( 2014 ) include the following passage in their plain
language summary. So, here in this systematic review vs literature review comparison piece, we’ve
given you all that you need to know about these review types and where you should use them.
Additionally, they both support conclusions based on expert reviews, case-controlled studies, data
analysis, etc., versus mere opinions and musings. The information at the bottom of the forest plot
relates to the data that has been pooled from all the included studies. In this case, the result is
considered not “statistically significant.”. Secondly, even if a systematic review has been well-
conducted it might have identified significant limitations or gaps in the current evidence base, and
rightly recommend that its findings are interpreted with caution (although this is a good rationale for
conducting some new research!). As part of the publishing process, you should expect peer review,
copy editor support and the database or journal to be rated as of international standard. Systematic
reviews attempt to summarize all past research to address a specific clinical question (or questions)
using a systematic approach with methods that have been preplanned and documented in a
systematic review protocol (2, 3). The risk of antenatal parasitemia is 286 events per every 1,000
people. Statistical analysis (or meta-analysis) may or may not be used to analyze the results of the
included studies. Clinical Governance and Risk Management: Achieving safe, effective patient-
focused care and services. Additionally they represent a chance to publish without (or before)
undertaking primary research. Here’s Three Tips to Steer Clear of Potential Issues. Hence for final
analysis, only about 10% of the original selection of articles made it through the entire screening
process. For example, the review could be about the effectiveness of treatment. However, all good
research should begin and end with a systematic review and all available studies should be assessed,
even if an apparently “definitive” trial is available. The data are then summarized through narrative
and tables and, where appropriate, statistical tests to combine included studies (meta-analyses) may
be undertaken to provide statistical summaries of the study results. So what is the difference between
systematic review and literature review. In short, the evidence against or for the question at hand is
summarized. Requirement Through understanding of the topic with relevant studies as backup and
statistical analysis. Should this be the case, there may be reasons to suspect that the findings are not
applicable to the patient(s) in question. Remember, working on a systematic reviews is a team sport.
Gilgun Qualitative Research and Family Psychology by Jane F. The methods of an OSR are similar
to those of a systematic review with the exception that where systematic reviews focus on primary
research studies, OoRs evaluate and combine information from systematic reviews. If there is reason
to believe that the intervention would work differently in subgroups of the sample (e.g., populations
at high or low risk), then subgroup analyses should also be conducted. This kind of networking can
be instrumental in acquiring the diverse skill mix required of coauthors to produce a well-researched
and relevant review.
Chalmers, I. (2005) 'If evidence-informed policy works in practice, does it matter if it. You may also
check the final price on our Language Editing Simulator. Synthesize the extracted data and place
them in relevant spots. These elements of the research question will be further set out through the
eligibility criteria for the review. Although not all systematic reviews conduct meta-analyses, many
do and present their findings in the form of forest plots. The Process of Systematic Reviews Here is
how you would get a systematic review started, described in steps. Systematic Review Vs Literature
Review: The Comparison Table To better understand the two types of reviews, we thought it would
be better to use a side-by-side comparison. Meta-analysis might prove to be a bad choice when the
answer to the review question is better with qualitative data. You may find that systematic review
software will help you to manage this stage (see Ref. 7 for further guidance on choosing appropriate
software). There is research and statistics in this sort of research rather than thoughts and opinions.
For example, the review could be about the effectiveness of treatment. For instance, the intervention
may work differently in different contexts, and the included studies were gathered from all over the
world. The perspectives of those involved in the care for people with cardiovascular disease can be
different to those of other health care professionals. For example, Radeva-Petrova et al. ( 2014 )
include the following passage in their plain language summary. Systematic reviews evaluate the
impact of well intentioned interventions. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data
mining, AI training, and similar technologies. Hence, narrower CIs allow us to be more confident
that the estimated effect size is close to the true effect size. Let’s consider systematic and literature
reviews side-by-side to understand how systematic reviews are unique. For more information on
each of these organizations including access to resources and support offered, please refer to Table 2.
Protocols will also set out how studies will be searched for, and how (and which) data will be
collected, analyzed and combined. These present, for each comparison and outcome, both the study
effects (and CIs) derived from individual studies and a pooled effect of all the studies. Both are
used to summarize information, data, research, or literature that already exists. Figure 3 illustrates
this process, and is an example of application of the PRISMA (preferred reporting items for
systematic reviews and meta-analyses) checklist ( ). When the outcome is something bad, like death,
the intervention should be designed to reduce the risk, which is represented by a risk ratio less than
1. They’re both highly regarded as generally resulting in reliable findings, though there are
differences, which we’ll discuss below. However, all good research should begin and end with a
systematic review and all available studies should be assessed, even if an apparently “definitive” trial
is available. Perhaps for these reasons, many published systematic reviews are produced by teams
working in collaboration with the support of a specialist systematic review organization (see Table 2)
in order to achieve these many and varied tasks. Is it safe, as school leaders, to rely on a lone expert
voice. Characteristics of systematic review vs literature review. Values greater than 75% may indicate
that a change in the meta-analysis method (random vs fixed effects) is needed.
One thing that you will see in a narrative review is a thorough discussion. Emphasis on how
systematic reviews support evidence-based practice. Usually, another team does the screening
process using the inclusion and exclusion criteria. As with screening, the independent assessment by
two review authors is a method to reduce bias in this process. An annotated bibliography might
suffice for a literature review. A meta-analysis should be carried out in the manner of a systematic
review. Or, you can decide to explore a different research method (perhaps more qualitative). The data
are then summarized through narrative and tables and, where appropriate, statistical tests to combine
included studies (meta-analyses) may be undertaken to provide statistical summaries of the study
results. A summary of what support a nonexhaustive selection of organizations can provide for your
review is given in Table 2. Systematic reviews are currently considered as one of the highest forms
of research evidence and it can be tempting to view a systematic review as providing “the definitive
answer” to a clinical question. Step 2: Get the Research Started Designated review teams will go
through studies with a sensitive and productive search strategy. Secondly, even if a systematic
review has been well-conducted it might have identified significant limitations or gaps in the current
evidence base, and rightly recommend that its findings are interpreted with caution (although this is
a good rationale for conducting some new research!). Every author or researcher is required to cohere
to the given standards of reporting and conducting (META-EVIDENCE BLOG, 2018). Preventing
Juvenile Delinquency: A Systematic Review p 7. This Section Could Be More Important Than You
Think. The methods of an OSR are similar to those of a systematic review with the exception that
where systematic reviews focus on primary research studies, OoRs evaluate and combine information
from systematic reviews. It should be noted, however, that the upper CI for ischemic and
unidentified stroke is very close to the line of no effect (0.99). When making decisions related to
practice, it is important to consider that should the true effect lie at this point, then this would mean
that newer anticoagulants only very marginally reduce the risk for a composite end point of stroke
and systemic embolism as compared with warfarin. On the left of the forest plot you will find a list
of these included studies (commonly given a study ID consisting of the first author’s name and the
year in which the study was published). Please take a moment and use the link to the right to
download and skim through the article. The processes of indexing retrieved studies, and extracting
and managing the data can be daunting and some reviews will require specialist analytical software.
Education Naima Ferdous July 26, 2021 Systematic and literature reviews are used to give a piece
of summary information; both reviews also synthesize evidence. The authors suggest tables to
consolidate evidence, but also remind us that the use of quantitative evidence to evaluate qualitative
data is not necessarily useful. For this reason, most systematic reviews are conducted by teams,
given the large scope of the data initially collected for most research topics. By defining your way
towards the approach to meta-analysis prior, one can minimize the occurrence of bias introduction. If
chemoprevention has some preventive effect, less parasitemia should be observed among women
exposed to the medication (i.e., treatment). Few interventions are 100% effective, so scientists often
talk about reductions in the risk of bad outcomes like malaria. Pearson, M. (2007) “Systematic
reviews in social policy: to go forward, do we first need. Consequently, the weight of this study is
only 6.7%, which is lower than the others. For full interpretation of data, there are a whole raft of
factors that should be considered together (not simply the statistical answer to your question); these
issues are incorporated into the GRADE approach (Grading of Recommendations Assessment,
Development and Evaluation) for assessing the evidence (15). Gilgun Qualitative Research and
Family Psychology by Jane F. Although not all systematic reviews conduct meta-analyses, many do
and present their findings in the form of forest plots.