Full download ebooks at ebookmeta.

com

Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature

Review 3rd Edition Andrew Booth

https://ebookmeta.com/product/systematic-approaches-to-a-
successful-literature-review-3rd-edition-andrew-booth/

OR CLICK BUTTON

DOWLOAD NOW

Download more ebook from https://ebookmeta.com

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Sport and the Christian Religion A Systematic Review of

Literature 1st Edition Nick J. Watson

https://ebookmeta.com/product/sport-and-the-christian-religion-a-
systematic-review-of-literature-1st-edition-nick-j-watson/

Mapping Sustainability Measurement A Review of the

Approaches Methods and Literature 1st Edition Agnieszka
Gehringer Susann Kowalski

https://ebookmeta.com/product/mapping-sustainability-measurement-
a-review-of-the-approaches-methods-and-literature-1st-edition-
agnieszka-gehringer-susann-kowalski/

Doing a Systematic Review A Student s Guide 2nd ed 2nd

Edition Angela Boland

https://ebookmeta.com/product/doing-a-systematic-review-a-
student-s-guide-2nd-ed-2nd-edition-angela-boland/

Comprehensive Systematic Review for Advanced Practice

Nursing Second Edition Cheryl Holly

https://ebookmeta.com/product/comprehensive-systematic-review-
for-advanced-practice-nursing-second-edition-cheryl-holly/
Writing Successful Science Proposals Third Edition
Andrew J. Friedland

https://ebookmeta.com/product/writing-successful-science-
proposals-third-edition-andrew-j-friedland/

1ST TRUE LOVE A Naughty Novelette Kehlani Booth 1st

Edition Kehlani Booth

https://ebookmeta.com/product/1st-true-love-a-naughty-novelette-
kehlani-booth-1st-edition-kehlani-booth/

GET COMFY IN BED A Seductive Short Kehlani Booth 1st

Edition Kehlani Booth

https://ebookmeta.com/product/get-comfy-in-bed-a-seductive-short-
kehlani-booth-1st-edition-kehlani-booth/

Search Pattern: A Systematic Approach to Diagnostic

Imaging Long H. Tu

https://ebookmeta.com/product/search-pattern-a-systematic-
approach-to-diagnostic-imaging-long-h-tu/

And Now for Something Completely Different Critical

Approaches to Monty Python Jeffrey Andrew Weinstock

https://ebookmeta.com/product/and-now-for-something-completely-
different-critical-approaches-to-monty-python-jeffrey-andrew-
weinstock/
 SYSTEMATIC
APPROACHES TO
A SUCCESSFUL
LITERATURE REVIEW
Sara Miller McCune founded SAGE Publishing in 1965 to support
the dissemination of usable knowledge and educate a global
community. SAGE publishes more than 1000 journals and over
800 new books each year, spanning a wide range of subject areas.
Our growing selection of library products includes archives, data,
case studies and video. SAGE remains majority owned by our
founder and after her lifetime will become owned by a charitable
trust that secures the company’s continued independence.

Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Melbourne

 SYSTEMATIC
APPROACHES TO
A SUCCESSFUL
LITERATURE REVIEW
Andrew Booth, Anthea Sutton
Mark Clowes, Marrissa Martyn-St James

THIRD EDITION
SAGE Publications Ltd  Andrew Booth, Anthea Sutton, Mark Clowes and
1 Oliver’s Yard Marrissa Martyn-St James 2022
55 City Road
London EC1Y 1SP Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research,
private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the
SAGE Publications Inc. Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, this publication
2455 Teller Road may not be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form,
Thousand Oaks, California 91320 or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of
the publisher, or in the case of reprographic reproduction, in
SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd accordance with the terms of licences issued by the
B 1/I 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area Copyright Licensing Agency. Enquiries concerning
Mathura Road reproduction outside those terms should be sent to the
New Delhi 110 044 publisher.

SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte Ltd

3 Church Street
#10-04 Samsung Hub
Singapore 049483

Editor: Alysha Owen

Assistant editor: Hannah Cavender-Deere Library of Congress Control Number: 2021937281
Production editor: Manmeet Kaur Tura
Copyeditor: Neville Hankins British Library Cataloguing in Publication data
Proofreader: Christine Bitten
Marketing manager: Ben Griffin-Sherwood A catalogue record for this book is available from
Cover design: Shaun Mercier the British Library
Typeset by: C&M Digitals (P) Ltd, Chennai, India
Printed in the UK

ISBN 978-1-5297-1185-1
ISBN 978-1-5297-1184-4 (pbk)

At SAGE we take sustainability seriously. Most of our products are printed in the UK using responsibly sourced
papers and boards. When we print overseas we ensure sustainable papers are used as measured by the
PREPS grading system. We undertake an annual audit to monitor our sustainability.
 CONTENTS

List of Contentsxiv
About the Authorsxxi
Prefacexxiii
Chapter Overview xxiv
Working your way through this book xxv
Examples of Review Challenges and How This Book Can Help xxix
‘I have a general review topic in mind, but I don’t know where to focus’ xxix
‘I have no idea how much literature exists on my review topic’ xxix
‘I am confident I can find and select studies for my review; however,
I am not sure how to assess the quality of the evidence base’ xxx
‘I am not sure how to select an appropriate method of synthesis for my review’ xxx
‘I realise that I will need to clearly report my methodology when I write up
my review. Should I make notes as I go along to aid with this?’ xxx
Summaryxxx
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) xxx
FAQ 0.1 Is this book for me? xxx
FAQ 0.2 I may not want to undertake a full systematic review but I want
to make my review more systematic. How can I do this? xxxi
FAQ 0.3 How do I find out the meaning of unfamiliar terms used
in the book? xxxi
FAQ 0.4 How can I view images used in this book? xxxi
FAQ 0.5 I’ve completed one of the exercises in the book. Where can I find
the answers? xxxi
Suggestions for Further Information xxxi
Online Resources xxxii

1 Meeting the Review Family: An Overview 1

In a Nutshell – Meeting the Review Family 1
Key Terms Explained 1
Introduction2
What is a Literature Review? 2
Why be systematic? 3
What does it mean for a review to be systematic? 3
When Do I Do a Literature Review? 5
vi Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review

Meet the Review Family 6

Traditional review family 6
Systematic review family 7
Review of reviews family 8
Rapid review family 10
Qualitative review family 11
Mixed methods review family 12
Purpose-specific review family 13
Why Not a Literature Review? 15
What is not a Literature Review? 15
How Do I Prepare to Do a Literature Review? 16
Practical step 1 – choose your topic 16
Practical step 2 – think about your intended purpose 17
Practical step 3 – think about your intended audience 17
Practical step 4 – where will the literature be found? 17
Practical step 5 – what will the literature, and the data, look like? 17
Going Forward 18
Summary18
Toolbox – Published Guidelines/Guidance for Different Review Types 19
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) 20
FAQ 1.1 What if I haven’t identified a review topic yet? 20
FAQ 1.2 What if I don’t know which type of review is most
appropriate for my topic? 20
FAQ 1.3 Where can I find additional resources? 20
Suggestions for Further Information 20

2 Getting Started on Your Literature Review 22

In a Nutshell – Getting Started on Your Literature Review 22
Key Terms Explained 22
Introduction23
Why is the Literature Review so Important? 24
Where Do I Start? 25
Where Does the Literature Review Fit Within the Context of Research? 25
What types of research question are suitable for the literature review? 26
Why Review the Literature? 27
Is my review really necessary? 28
A Brief History of Research Synthesis 29
What is the Place of Theory in the literature review? 30
The traditional narrative review, the systematic review and
‘systematic approaches’ 32
Clarification of Terminology 34
Introducing the SALSA Framework 36
Systematic Approaches 36
How Do I Plan and Conduct My Literature Review? 40
Time41
Quality43
Money43
Managing Your Literature Review 43
Project management challenges 46
 CONTENTS vii

Updates to Existing Reviews 46

At a glance – review update 48
Converting Your Review to a Different Format 50
Skills and resources 50
Study skills and techniques  51
What generic skills will I require for my review? 51
How do I gain needed skills in systematic approaches? 52
Stages of the literature review 55
Tools to support the review process 62
Avoiding common pitfalls 63
Summary64
Key Learning Points 64
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) 65
FAQ 2.1 Should I always aim to be ‘systematic’ when conducting
my literature review? 65
FAQ 2.2 If all reviews are ‘systematic’ should I call my review
a ‘systematic review’? 65
FAQ 2.3 Do I need a minimum amount of literature to conduct
a literature review? 65
FAQ 2.4 Must I only include high-quality literature or particular study
types within my literature review? 65
FAQ 2.5 Should I update an existing review? 66
FAQ 2.6 Will updating a review be cheaper than the original review? 66
FAQ 2.7 What are the main things that could go wrong when
conducting a review? 66
Suggestions for Further Information 67

3 Choosing Your Review Methods 68

In a Nutshell – How to Choose Your Review Methods 68
Key Terms Explained 68
Introduction69
Acknowledging Your Review Constraints 70
A Generic Process for Planning Your Review 74
Our ‘Survival Kit’ of Review Options 75
Mapping review 76
Scoping review 79
Systematic review 79
Scoping meta-review 80
Review of reviews (overview) 81
Review Choice Scenarios 82
Summary88
Key Learning Points 88
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) 89
FAQ 3.1 How can I use other people’s reviews in my own research? 89
FAQ 3.2 Is a scoping review or mapping review automatically
a rapid review? 89
FAQ 3.3 What if scoping reveals studies are poor in quality? 89
FAQ 3.4 What if eligible studies lack detail? 90
FAQ 3.5 What if I am short of time? 90
viii Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review

FAQ 3.6 Should I perform a rapid review? 91

Suggestions for Further Information 91

4 Defining Your Scope 93

In a Nutshell – How to Define Your Review Scope 93
Key Terms Explained 93
Introduction94
Why is defining your scope important? 94
Defining your scope with your audience in mind 97
Frameworks for defining your scope 97
Complex interventions 100
Logic models 104
Further Defining Your Scope 104
Descriptive mapping 106
Data mining and automation 109
Concept mapping 109
Concept analysis 109
Toolbox – Defining Your Scope 112
Tools for data mining 112
Tools for concept mapping 113
Defining Your Scope: Challenges and Pitfalls 114
How wide do I go? (Sampling approaches) 114
How narrow can I stay? (Scope creep) 116
The Review Protocol 116
Examples of review protocols 117
Summary120
Key Learning Points 121
Frequently asked questions (FAQs) 121
FAQ 4.1 None of the frameworks fit my question. How can I formulate
my research idea? 121
FAQ 4.2 With so much literature in my review topic, how can I review
it systematically? 121
FAQ 4.3 My research question is actually four or five questions,
is this a problem? 121
FAQ 4.4 I had identified a defined question but my scoping search
identified nothing on this topic, what shall I do? 122
FAQ 4.5 Is it really necessary to formally complete the review protocol? 122
FAQ 4.6 When is it appropriate to change my review scope? 122
Suggestions for Further Information 122

5 Searching the Literature 124

In a Nutshell – How to Conduct a Literature Search 124
Key Terms Explained 124
Introduction125
Stages in the Literature Searching Process 126
1 Who should conduct the literature search? 127
2 Aims and purpose of literature searching 128
3 How to prepare for your review (the scoping search) 129
 CONTENTS ix

4 How to construct your search strategy 133

5 How to search bibliographic databases 135
6 How to use supplementary searching 139
7 How to manage your references 140
8 How to report the search process 141
Types of literature reviews 146
Translating your review question into a search strategy 146
Toolbox – Searching the Literature 152
Summary153
Key Learning Points 154
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) 154
FAQ 5.1 How do I identify synonyms for my research topic concepts? 154
FAQ 5.2 How do I know when to stop searching? 154
FAQ 5.3 Is it sensible to use NOT in a search strategy? 154
FAQ 5.4 I have completed my searching, but have now discovered an additional
search term that might be useful, what should I do? 155
FAQ 5.5 Should I use abbreviations in my search terms? 155
FAQ 5.6 I have noticed substantial duplication between the databases I have
searched, how do I handle this? 155
FAQ 5.7 Do I need to use a search filter? 155
Suggestions for Further Information 156

6 Assessing the Evidence Base 158

In a Nutshell – Selecting Studies to Include in Your Review and
Assessing Their Quality 158
Key Terms Explained 158
Introduction159
How to Assess the Relevance of Studies to Your Review Question 160
Steps in the study selection process 161
Using software for study selection 162
Assessing Your Included Studies – First Steps 163
Assessing the Evidence Base in Detail 166
Assessing the quality of included studies – what is it and why do we do it? 166
Study designs -- is there a hierarchy of evidence? 167
Quality assessment: validity, reliability and applicability 173
Carrying out quality assessment 175
Toolbox – Quality Assessment Checklists 181
Case study – drafting a checklist 181
Quality assessment of qualitative research 186
Quality assessment for mixed methods reviews 188
Applying quality assessment 189
Issues and challenges in quality assessment 189
Summary191
Key Learning Points 191
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) 191
FAQ 6.1 I am unsure whether to include a study in my review, what can I do? 191
FAQ 6.2 Do I need to record a reason for all the studies I exclude? 192
FAQ 6.3 How do I keep track of what I have included and excluded
and at what stage? 192
x Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review

FAQ 6.4 I am unsure how much effort I will need to spend on quality
assessment and how I should approach it for my review? 192
FAQ 6.5 I am critically appraising a systematic review and I want to assess
the issue of heterogeneity, whereabouts in the review should I look for this? 192
FAQ 6.6 Can I combine my data extraction with my quality assessment,
so I don’t need to read each study twice? 192
Suggestions for Further Information 193

7 Synthesising and Analysing Quantitative Studies 194

In a Nutshell – How to Synthesise and Analyse Quantitative Studies 194
Key Terms Explained 194
Introduction195
Synthesis–Analysis, Analysis–Synthesis? 196
Overview of approaches to synthesis 196
Extracting quantitative data for your review 197
Planning your synthesis strategy 199
Approaches to synthesis 202
Tabular presentation 205
Numerical presentation 206
Graphical approaches 210
Analysis of quantitative research 218
Use of validity assessment 218
Subgroup analysis 219
Sensitivity analysis 219
Revisiting the Review Question(s) 221
Discussing the limitations of the evidence 222
Publication bias 226
Selective outcome reporting bias 229
Summary231
Key Learning Points 232
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) 232
FAQ 7.1 Do I need to be skilled in statistics to conduct a systematic review? 232
FAQ 7.2 How do I decide which method of meta-analysis to use? 232
FAQ 7.3 Are there any software that will help with data extraction? 233
FAQ 7.4 What software is available for performing a meta-analysis? 233
FAQ 7.5 What if the studies in my meta-analysis are of variable quality? 234
Suggestions for Further Information 234

8 Synthesising and Analysing Qualitative Studies 235

In a Nutshell – How to synthesise and analyse qualitative studies 235
Key Terms Explained 235
Introduction236
Synthesis–analysis: an iterative process 237
Overview of Approaches to Qualitative Synthesis 237
Aggregative, configurative or integrative? 238
A Step-by-Step Guide to Qualitative Synthesis 239
Step 1 – Formulating the question 239
Steps 2 and 3 – Searching and screening the literature 240
Step 4 – Extracting qualitative data for your review 241
 CONTENTS xi

Step 5 – Quality assessment (appraisal) 242

Step 6 – Synthesis 242
Step 7 – Analysis and interpretation 243
Getting Started in Qualitative Synthesis 244
Thematic synthesis 245
Framework synthesis 246
Best fit framework synthesis 247
Progressing to Advanced Forms of Synthesis 249
Meta-ethnography249
Qualitative data analysis 253
Where to next? Advanced forms of analysis 258
Writing Up and Presenting Review Findings 263
Using tables to present your data 263
Using numbers to present your data 264
Using graphics to present your data 264
Rapid QES (rQES) 268
Mega-ethnography and mega-aggregation (review of reviews) 269
Summary270
Key Learning Points 270
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) 271
FAQ 8.1 How do I choose an appropriate method for qualitative synthesis? 271
FAQ 8.2 Which methods of qualitative evidence synthesis are most suitable
for a novice reviewer? 271
FAQ 8.3 Once I have identified all my included papers where should I start? 271
FAQ 8.4 How many studies do I need for my qualitative synthesis? 272
FAQ 8.5 What guidance is available for reporting qualitative synthesis? 272
Suggestions for Further Information 273

9 Synthesising and Analysing Mixed Methods Data 274

In a Nutshell – How to Synthesise and Analyse Mixed Methods Data 274
Key Terms Explained 274
Introduction275
Undertaking a Mixed Methods Review 277
A Step-by-Step Guide to Mixed Methods Synthesis 278
Step 1: Constructing statement of overall goal/research problem 282
Step 2: Scoping the review 283
Step 3: Formulating the review question(s) 283
Step 4: Deciding on the review design 286
Step 5: Determining initial criteria for inclusion/exclusion 286
Step 6: Conducting an extensive literature search 287
Step 7: Selecting final articles for inclusion 287
Step 8: Assessing study quality 288
Step 9: Extracting the data 288
Step 10: Synthesising and integrating the studies 289
Step 11: Interpreting the evidence 290
Step 12: Presenting the results 290
Points of Integration for Quantitative and Qualitative evidence 295
Review team level 295
Integration within the review process 295
xii Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review

Integrating at the review level 296

Integration via the review process 296
Integrating using a common structure, framework or model 301
Integrating through ‘translation’ of the data 302
On the Role of the Narrative Review 303
The usefulness of mixed methods reviews 304
Summary305
Key Learning Points 306
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) 306
FAQ 9.1 Should I perform a rapid mixed methods review? 306
FAQ 9.2 Which methods of integrating quantitative and qualitative
evidence are most suitable for a novice reviewer? 306
FAQ 9.3 Should I publish my mixed methods review as one
publication or two? 306
FAQ 9.4 Why should I consider conducting a mixed methods review? 307
FAQ 9.5 I can’t decide between conducting two separate reviews
of quantitative and qualitative evidence and undertaking a single mixed
methods synthesis. What particular issues should I bear in mind? 307
Suggestions for Further Information 308

10 Writing Up, Presenting and Disseminating Your Review 309

In a Nutshell – How to Write Up, Present and Share Your Review Findings 309
Key Terms Explained 309
Introduction310
Identifying recommendations for action 310
Highlighting recommendations for future research 311
Considering Your Audience 313
Consumers of your review 314
Writing for research funders 316
Writing for policy-makers 316
Writing for practitioners 317
Writing for the research community 317
Writing for the media 318
Writing for the public 319
Reflexivity and acknowledging potential bias 319
A Sample Review Structure 320
Reviews and reporting guidelines 326
Use of tables and figures 329
Use of appendices and other supporting features 330
Accurate referencing 330
Structuring other types of review (scoping/mapping reviews) 330
Publicising Your Review 333
Toolbox for Presenting Your Findings 334
Graded entry format 334
GRADE and GRADE-CERQual 336
The EPICOT+ format for reporting research recommendations 336
Summary337
Key Learning Points 337
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) 338
 CONTENTS xiii

FAQ 10.1 How do I identify reporting guidelines that relate to

my systematic review? 338
FAQ 10.2 Is it mandatory to use reporting guidelines where available? 338
FAQ 10.3 What should I report if I produce an empty review? 338
FAQ 10.4 What outputs can I use to disseminate my review? 339
FAQ 10.5 How can I promote outputs from my review? 339
Suggestions for Further Information 340

References341
Index376
 LIST OF CONTENTS

FIGURES
3.1 AMASSED schema for summary and synthesis 76

4.1 Example of a logic model 105

4.2 Example of a concept map 110
4.3 Example ‘heat map’ visualising themes in a collection of reviews of
well-being. Produced using VOSViewer (vosviewer.com) 113

5.1 Illustration of citation pearl growing 133

5.2 Example of thesaurus searching 136

6.1 Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine 2011 Levels of Evidence 168

7.1 The Cochrane Collaboration logo 207

7.2 The forest plot 213
7.3 The harvest plot 214
7.4 Example of a logic model 216
7.5 Network meta-analysis 218
7.6 Example of a risk-of-bias graph 224
7.7 Example of a risk-of-bias summary 224
7.8 Funnel plot with no evidence of publication bias 229
7.9 Funnel plot with possible publication bias 229
7.10 The Systematic Review Toolbox 233

9.1 Sample PRISMA flow diagram for mixed methods review 294

10.1 PRISMA flow diagram 328

TABLES
0.1 SALSA profile for the rapid review xxvi
0.2 SALSA profiles and ‘At a glance’ features xxviii
1.1 Familiar purposes and functions for conducting a literature review 5
1.2 Common traditional review types with definitions 6
 LIST OF CONTENTS xv

1.3 Common systematic review types with definitions 7

1.4 Common types of reviews of reviews with definitions 9
1.5 Common rapid review types with definitions 10
1.6 Common types of qualitative synthesis with definitions 11
1.7 Common types of mixed methods review with definitions 13
1.8 Common types of purpose-specific review with definitions 14
1.9 Circumstances where alternatives to a literature review may be required 15
1.10 Warning signs of an unsuccessful review 15
1.11 Illustrative characteristics of common review types 19

2.1 Milestones in the history of research synthesis 29

2.2 Examples of the interplay of literature review and theory 30
2.3 Words associated with being ‘systematic’ 33
2.4 Configurative/interpretive or aggregative? 35
2.5 Types of review 37
2.6 Training requirements for systematic approaches 53
2.7 Sample project timetables for 6-, 9- and 12-month literature review projects 55
2.8 Extract from a SMART plan for a review 56
2.9 Tools to support the review process 62
2.10 Common reviewer errors 63

3.1 Typical question types matched to review type 70

3.2 ‘Survival Kit’ of five review options 77
3.3 SALSA profile for a mapping review 78
3.4 SALSA stages for the five reviews included in the ‘Survival Kit’ 83

4.1 The elements of PICOS 98

4.2 Worked examples of PICOS 99
4.3 Extract from a descriptive map categorising physical activity interventions
used in schools 107
4.4 Eight steps of a concept analysis 111
4.5 Types of review: scope 114
4.6 SALSA stages of a mapping, scoping and systematic review 115
4.7 Review protocol examples 117
4.8 Instructions for completing the review protocol template 118

5.1 Key stages of the literature searching process 126

5.2 Electronic databases: subject specific 129
5.3 Grey literature sources 131
5.4 Comparison of features in reference management packages (information
correct at time of publishing) 141
5.5 Anatomy of the search process 145
5.6 Types of review 147

6.1 Assessing the evidence base in different types of reviews 164

6.2 Cross-sectional versus longitudinal studies 171
6.3 Prospective versus retrospective studies 171
6.4 Studies with one group versus studies with more than one group 172
xvi Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review

6.5 Random versus not random allocation 172

6.6 Blind versus open-label studies 173
6.7 Examples of systematic reviews from different disciplines 177
6.8 Key quality assessment checklist resources – quantitative designs 179
6.9 Thirteen questions to help you make sense of a mapping review 182
6.10 Eleven questions to help you make sense of a scoping review 184
6.11 Key quality assessment checklist resources – qualitative designs 187
6.12 Three options for quality assessment in mixed methods reviews 188
6.13 Quality assessment of an article 190

7.1 Matrix for examining possible correlations 199

7.2 Approaches to synthesis in different types of reviews 200
7.3 SALSA approach mapped to narrative synthesis 204
7.4 SALSA approach mapped to meta-analysis 209
7.5 Graphical methods for exploring data 211
7.6 SALSA approach mapped to network meta-analysis 217
7.7 Examining methods of analysis used in reviews 221
7.8 Example of a ‘risk-of-bias’ table for a single study (fictional) 223
7.9 Template to identify threats to validity 225
7.10 Types of reporting bias with definitions 227

8.1 The 7S framework for qualitative searching 240

8.2 SALSA approach mapped to thematic synthesis 246
8.3 SALSA approach mapped to framework synthesis 247
8.4 SALSA approach mapped to the best fit framework synthesis process 249
8.5 SALSA approach mapped to meta-ethnography 250
8.6 Elements of data analysis 253
8.7 Approaches to synthesis in different types of qualitative evidence synthesis 254
8.8 Hypothetical thematic matrix for review on attitudes to peripheral supermarkets 256
8.9 Tactics for testing or confirming review findings 256
8.10 Hypothetical truth table for review on attitudes to peripheral supermarkets 258
8.11 Examining methods of analysis used in qualitative reviews 262
8.12 Components of the GRADE-CERQual approach 266
8.13 The GRADE-CERQual approach – definitions of levels of confidence in a
review finding 267
8.14 Comparison of mega-aggregation and mega-ethnography 270

9.1 Examples of some mixed methods review methods 279

9.2 SALSA stages for the mixed methods reviews 280
9.3 The FAME framework 282
9.4 Mapping of question framework elements used in mixed methods reviews 284
9.5 Exemplar question grid for Exercise 9.1 285
9.6 Examining methods of analysis used in mixed methods reviews 291

10.1 CART criteria for systematic approaches to the literature 312

10.2 Lay explanations of systematic reviews/review findings from media reports 318
 LIST OF CONTENTS xvii

10.3 Noteworthy changes in PRISMA 2020 from the previous (2009) statement 321
10.4 Guidelines for reporting search strategies 324
10.5 Most common standards for reporting reviews 327
10.6 Checklist for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses
extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) 332

BOXES
Box 0.1 Overview of the Structure of this Book xxiv
Box 0.2 At a Glance – Review Type xxvii

Box 2.1 Some Common Types of Review 23

Box 2.2 Issues to Consider Before Starting Your Literature Review 25
Box 2.3 Purposes for a Literature Review 27
Box 2.4 Options When a Review Already Exists on Your Topic 28
Box 2.5 What Does ‘Systematic’ Look Like? 40
Box 2.6 Three Key Questions (TQM) for Planning a Review 41
Box 2.7 The Rapid Review 45
Box 2.8 Justifications for Updating an Existing Review 47
Box 2.9 Agreeing Expectations for an Updated Review 47
Box 2.10 Some Areas of Review Efficiency 59

Box 3.1 How Will I Use Knowledge in My Review? 71

Box 3.2 What Do We Mean by Scoping? 75

Box 4.1 The Three Elements of Defining the Scope 96

Box 4.2 Example of a Review Question Informing Inclusion Criteria 96
Box 4.3 Context–Intervention–Mechanisms–Outcomes (CIMO) framework 99
Box 4.4 Example of a Complex Intervention 101
Box 4.5 Questions That You Could Ask in a Complex Intervention Review 102
Box 4.6 Lumping or Splitting in Our Example Complex Intervention Review? 103
Box 4.7 Exemplar Review of Complex Interventions 104
Box 4.8 Example of Concept Analysis 112
Box 4.9 The Systematic Review (SR) Toolbox 113
Box 4.10 Components of a Protocol 117

Box 5.1 The ISSG Search Filter Resource 138

Box 5.2 Types of Grey Literature 139
Box 5.3 Assembling Your Search Strategy 152
Box 6.1 Four Stages of Quality Assessment 176
Box 6.2 The CASP Set of Critical Appraisal Checklists 179
Box 6.3 Tips on Checklists 181
xviii Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review

Box 7.1 What is Heterogeneity? 195

Box 7.2 Possible Elements for Inclusion in a Data Extraction Form 198
Box 7.3 At a Glance – Narrative Synthesis 203
Box 7.4 The Inherent Advantage of Narrative Synthesis 205
Box 7.5 At a Glance – Meta-analysis 208
Box 7.6 Forest Plot 213
Box 7.7 The Harvest Plot 215
Box 7.8 Logic Model 215
Box 7.9 At a Glance – Network Meta-analysis 217
Box 7.10 Reasons for Considering a Sensitivity Analysis (Quantitative) 220
Box 7.11 Questions to Ask When Assessing the Likelihood of Bias in
Your Review 225
Box 7.12 Suggested Ways of Exploring Dissemination or Publication Biases 226
Box 7.13 The Catalogue/Catalog of Bias 228
Box 7.14 The Funnel Plot 228
Box 7.15 Questions to Detect Possible Outcomes Reporting Bias 230
Box 7.16 Questions to Detect Possible Reporting Bias in Your Own Review 231

Box 8.1 A Simple Illustration of Qualitative Synthesis 237

Box 8.2 The RETREAT mnemonic for choosing a review type 238
Box 8.3 Planning Your Synthesis Strategy 243
Box 8.4 At a Glance – Thematic Synthesis 245
Box 8.5 At a Glance – Framework Synthesis 246
Box 8.6 At a Glance - Best Fit Framework Synthesis 248
Box 8.7 At a Glance – Meta-ethnography 250
Box 8.8 Reasons for Considering a Qualitative Sensitivity Analysis 261
Box 8.9 Tell Tale Tables! 264
Box 8.10 Identifying Methodological Limitations in Your Review 267
Box 8.11 What is a Rapid Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (rQES)? 268
Box 8.12 What are Mega-ethnography and Mega-aggregation? 269

Box 9.1 What is a Mixed Methods Review? 275

Box 9.2 Decision Points When Planning a Mixed Methods Review 276
Box 9.3 Suggested Components for Reporting a Mixed Methods Review  292
Box 9.4 Key Questions When Conducting a Mixed Methods Review 294
Box 9.5 What is Bayesian Meta-analysis/synthesis? 297
Box 9.6 Case Study of a Critical Interpretive Synthesis 297
Box 9.7 Structured Approach for When a Narrative Review is the
Appropriate Tool  304
Box 9.8 Example of a Mixed Methods Review (Medically
Unexplained Symptoms) 304
Box 10.1 The Contribution of Evidence Synthesis to Existing Research 312
Box 10.2 Sample Conflict of Interest Statement 320
Box 10.3 Key Elements in Reporting a Literature Review 321
Box 10.4 Which Reporting Standard Should I Use? 322
 LIST OF CONTENTS xix

Box 10.5 The EQUATOR Network 326

Box 10.6 Methods for Sharing Findings from Systematic Reviews 333
Box 10.7 Suggested Format for Research Recommendations on the Effects of
Treatments (EPICOT+) 337

EXERCISES
Exercise 1.1 Why am I doing a literature review? 5

Exercise 2.1 Features that make a review systematic/unsystematic 33

Exercise 2.2 Identify a systematic review 34
Exercise 2.3 How systematic is that review? 40
Exercise 2.4 Personal skills audit 54
Exercise 2.5 Producing a draft timetable for your review 57
Exercise 2.6 Problem-solving scenarios 60

Exercise 4.1 From starter questions to smarter questions  95

Exercise 4.2 Using a framework to focus your question 100
Exercise 4.3 Examining a review protocol 118
Exercise 4.4 The review protocol template 118

Exercise 5.1 Case study of the search process 144

Exercise 5.2 Examining search strings 146
Exercise 5.3 Planning a literature search for your own review 150
Exercise 5.4 Pearl growing and author searching 151
Exercise 5.5 Sources to search 151

Exercise 6.1 Study selection 162

Exercise 6.2 Assessing the evidence base for your review 165
Exercise 6.3 When is an article worth reading? 166
Exercise 6.4 Study scenario – identifying sources of bias 174
Exercise 6.5 Quality assessment 190

Exercise 7.1 Helpful graphical display 212

Exercise 8.1 Navigating around a Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) 239

Exercise 8.2 Choosing your method of synthesis 252
Exercise 8.3 Helpful display of themes and concepts 265

Exercise 9.1 Completing a PerSPE(c)TiF grid for your question 285

Exercise 9.2 Helpful integration of quantitative and qualitative data 302

Exercise 10.1 The contribution of new research 312

Exercise 10.2 Who would benefit from knowing about my review? 314
Exercise 10.3 Will they understand, believe, care? 315
xx Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review

Exercise 10.4 Being reflexive, individually and as a team 319

Exercise 10.5 Producing a draft report structure 332

RAPID REVIEW TIP

Rapid Review Tip 1 Stakeholder Engagement 51
Rapid Review Tip 2 Existing Reviews 97
Rapid Review Tip 3 Focusing on Important Outcomes 102
Rapid Review Tip 4 Documenting Your Protocol 120
Rapid Review Tip 5 Harness Information Expertise 127
Rapid Review Tip 6 Eligibility Criteria 128
Rapid Review Tip 7 Supplementary Search Sources 134
Rapid Review Tip 8 Applying Date Restrictions 134
Rapid Review Tip 9 Justify All Limitations 134
Rapid Review Tip 10 Using Software to Accelerate Your Rapid Review 141
Rapid Review Tip 11 Title and Abstract Screening 161
Rapid Review Tip 12 Full Text Screening 161
Rapid Review Tip 13 Data Extraction 197
Rapid Review Tip 14 Choosing Appropriate Methods of Synthesis 210
Rapid Review Tip 15 Grading the Certainty of Quantitative Evidence 222
Rapid Review Tip 16 Risk of Bias 223
Rapid Review Tip 17 Grading the Certainty of Qualitative Evidence 267
 ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Andrew Booth is the most senior systematic reviewer at the University of Sheffield and serves
as chief methodologist and co-director to two Evidence Synthesis units within the School of
Health and Related Research (ScHARR) which are funded by the UK National Institute of Health
Research. He is a co-convenor of the international Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation
Methods Group as well as being a member of the Information Retrieval and Rapid Review
Methods Groups. He has acted as an advisor on review methodology to Public Health England
and to the World Health Organization (WHO) and he continues to act as a consultant to the
WHO Health Evidence Network and as an editorial board member of Research Synthesis Methods.
He has been a co-creator of three Masters modules and four ongoing external short courses in
review methods. He has authored 5 books, 80 book chapters and over 230 peer-reviewed articles,
mainly systematic reviews or on review methodology.

Anthea Sutton is a Senior Information Specialist in ScHARR at the University of Sheffield and
has nearly 20 years’ experience of literature searching, information management and meth-
odologies for evidence synthesis projects, including systematic reviews, rapid reviews, scoping
reviews and evidence maps. She co-ordinates a module for postgraduate students on systemati-
cally reviewing the research literature, and has designed and delivered continuing professional
development courses on searching for and synthesising evidence. She has experience of teach-
ing systematic review methodologies, via both face to face and online methods of delivery. She
is the Reviews Editor for Health Information and Libraries Journal, a role that includes advising the
authors on all types of reviews and offering guidance on methodologies and presentation. She is
an author of journal articles on a range of topics, including a recent typology of reviews and the
associated information retrieval requirements, as well as contributing to the conduct of reviews
on a wealth of topics in the fields of health and social care, social science and education. She is
the co-developer and an editor of the Systematic Review Toolbox, a web-based catalogue of tools
that support various tasks within the systematic review and wider evidence synthesis process.

Mark Clowes has been an Information Specialist in ScHARR at the University of Sheffield
since 2015. His role involves scoping and literature searching for a variety of evidence synthe-
sis projects including systematic reviews, rapid reviews and health technology assessments. He
also teaches literature searching skills on ScHARR’s short courses and Masters-level programmes.
Prior to joining ScHARR, he worked in academic libraries for nearly 20 years, with much of this
xxii Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review

time focusing on support for nursing and allied health students. He has a developing interest
in innovative approaches to rapid reviews involving the use of automated techniques, and has
presented on this and related topics at conferences including EAHIL (the European Association
for Health Information and Libraries) and HTAi (Health Technology Assessment International).
He is also current co-chair (2020–2021) of the Information Specialists’ Sub Group (ISSG) of
InterTASC.

Marrissa Martyn-St James has been involved in undertaking systematic reviews with or
without a meta-analysis for over 20 years. She joined ScHARR in 2013 and works on systematic
reviews of clinical effectiveness of healthcare interventions for various UK commissioning bod-
ies. She also teaches systematic review and meta-analysis methods on ScHARR’s Masters-level
programmes and short courses. She is involved in the development of rapid review methods
within ScHARR and has published on this topic in peer-reviewed journals and presented on the
topic at conferences, including HTAi, where her presentation on approaches for selecting meth-
ods for rapid reviews was awarded the HTAi 2019 Best Oral Presentation Award. She has also
worked as a Cochrane Reviewer, producing Cochrane Reviews of treatments for chronic wounds
and interventions for drug-using offenders.
 PREFACE

When we produce a literature review we use clear, step-by-step ways that others could follow to
find the information they need and to look at its strengths and weaknesses. We then try to spot
patterns that link different items together, to summarise what the research does and does not
say, and what that means for our target reader.
These ‘step-by-step ways’ require a ‘system’ so that a literature review is conducted rigorously
and efficiently. We seek to avoid bias and duplicated or wasted research effort, especially given
that much research is paid for from the public purse. By following a ‘system’, those who work
alongside us know what we have done and what remains to be done. Those who come after us
can build upon what we have produced. Although details of the system differ between reviews
these steps collectively ensure that a review is ‘systematic’.
Although one high-profile review type is labelled the ‘systematic review’ we do not mean that
all literature reviews need to be systematic reviews. The systematic review is an ultimate version
of literature review that seeks to take all steps possible to minimise bias. In this book we cover
many types of literature review that may be suited to your particular question. Our original clas-
sification identified 14 common types of literature review (Grant & Booth, 2009) and our recent
update expanded the list to 48 different types (Sutton et al., 2019). However, our full unpub-
lished list has identified over 120 labels for different types of literature review, all systematic, to
some degree or other. We use the phrase ‘systematic approaches’ to capture this wider variety.
The good news is that a limited number of review types, our ‘survival kit’, cover most of your
likely needs. So, our title phrase ‘a successful literature review’ misleadingly covers ‘one from
many types of successful literature review’!
Finally, while no one can guarantee a ‘successful literature review’, we sincerely believe that
your chances of achieving this are optimised by close attention to methods documented by
others, and affirmed by ourselves. You will also benefit from the practical tips we four authors
have gained in collectively completing more than 250 different reviews. Importantly, ‘success’
in producing literature reviews does not split into win/lose terms. Even our best-received litera-
ture reviews offer valuable learning points, while any that are comparatively less ‘successful’
have confirmed the importance of the seven elements that we elsewhere refer to by the acro-
nym RETREAT. These elements are a well-articulated Research question; an understanding of the
knowledge (Epistemology) on which each review is based and the Time, Resources and Expertise
required; the need for a clear sense of Audience and purpose, and the Type (quantity and quality)
of data within eligible studies.
xxiv Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review

CHAPTER OVERVIEW
Having introduced the idea of applying systematic approaches to any type of literature review, we
now outline the contents of each chapter (Box 0.1). We offer a guide to the learning features found
throughout the book, and ideas on how to get started with your own review. The chapter ends with
‘frequently asked questions’ to answer common queries at the beginning of your review process.
Below you will find an outline of each of the chapters in this book.

box 0.1

Overview of the structure of this book

Chapter 1: Meeting the Review Family: An Overview

Chapter 2: Getting Started on Your Literature Review

Chapter 3: Choosing Your Review Methods

Chapter 4: Defining Your Scope

Chapter 5: Searching the Literature

Chapter 6: Assessing the Evidence Base

Chapter 7: Synthesising and Analysing Quantitative Studies

Chapter 8: Synthesising and Analysing Qualitative Studies

Chapter 9: Synthesising and Analysing Mixed Methods Data

Chapter 10: Writing Up, Presenting and Disseminating Your Review

Chapter 1: Meeting the Review Family: An Overview

Chapter 1 introduces our approach to making sense of a bewildering variety of review types. We
find it helpful to think of review types as different ‘family’ groups. Some families are defined by
the type of data they include, others by their purpose and yet others by their type of synthesis.
Understanding these review family groups helps you to steer your own review.

Chapter 2: Getting Started on Your Literature Review

Chapter 2 looks at the role of the literature review in research, examines common types of
review and provides a brief history of research synthesis. We analyse each systematic approach
for key elements of the review process: searching, appraisal, synthesis, analysis and presentation.

Chapter 3: Choosing Your Review Methods

Chapter 3 examines how to choose an appropriate review method for your research topic, focus-
ing on factors to consider, and presenting a practical decision tool, RETREAT, to help you to
choose your review method. Chapter 3 also includes some review scenarios to assist your learning.
 PREFACE xxv

Chapter 4: Defining Your Scope

Chapter 4 demonstrates how to focus your research question, using a framework to define the
scope. It examines the review protocol, presenting tips and guidance to complete your own
protocol. The chapter also explores challenges and pitfalls you may encounter when defining
your scope.

Chapter 5: Searching the Literature

Chapter 5 enables you to translate your research question from Chapter 4 into a search strategy.
It follows the stages in the literature searching process, examining the components of a system-
atic search and allowing you to identify appropriate sources for your own review. The chapter
covers conducting a scoping search, and reviewing and refining your search as necessary. The
chapter includes sample research questions, search strategies and an exercise to plan your own
literature search.

Chapter 6: Assessing the Evidence Base

Chapter 6 covers how to assess the quality and relevance of studies found to address your
research question, presenting how to undertake study screening and to use reference man-
agement software and other tools to track this procedure. The chapter then explores how to
assess your included studies, including the challenges you may face and considering the qual-
ity assessment of included studies required for your review type.

Chapters 7, 8 and 9: Synthesising and Analysing Quantitative, Qualitative and

Mixed Methods Studies

Chapters 7, 8 and 9 allow you to select an appropriate strategy for synthesis to match the type
of data found for your review. These chapters provide an overview of synthesis for quantitative
and qualitative literature and for mixed methods studies. Data extraction is covered for each
different type of data, together with different approaches to displaying your data. Each chapter
then moves on to analysing your findings, allowing you to produce a plan for your own review.
Each chapter includes the important review elements of discussing limitations and recognising
the likelihood of bias.

Chapter 10: Writing Up, Presenting and Disseminating Your Review

The final chapter describes the main elements required when writing up and presenting your
review, including identifying recommendations for action and future research. It presents the
key factors to consider, such as audience, and presents a sample review structure.

Working your way through this book

The purpose of this book is to examine review methods and how you can apply systematic
approaches to your own review, making it robust, transparent and, ultimately, a successful lit-
erature review. While the book does not insist that you undertake a conventional systematic
review, it will help you to apply a systematic approach to your own literature reviews.
xxvi Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review

This book offers a step-by step guide to planning, conducting and writing up your literature
review. If you are new to literature reviews, or systematic review methodology, you may find it
useful to work through the book in sequence. If you have identified a particular skills gap, or if
you need to refresh your familiarity with particular processes, you can read a single chapter as a
stand-alone contribution or work through a selection of chapters.
After three chapters that introduce review types and methods, we follow the step-by-step
process of a literature review so that you can apply a systematic approach to your own literature
reviews. Each chapter follows the same structure and includes:

• ‘In a Nutshell’ – summarises the chapter in 4–6 bullet points. What are the key messages
of the chapter?
• Exercises with sample answers (to be found on the companion website).
• Toolbox – highlights specific resources that we have found useful.
• Rapid Review Tips – techniques to consider when required to produce a review within
a rapid timeframe. These tips are based on the recommendations of Garritty et al. (2021)
and appear throughout the book alongside the processes to which they relate; however, we
caution against implementing them without first discussing whether the resulting review
product will meet the needs and expectations of your client (e.g. your academic supervisor
or whoever has commissioned you to conduct your review).
• At the end of the chapter, a summary (1–2 paragraphs summarising the chapter) and key
learning points (4–6 bullet points on the ‘Take home messages’ of the chapter. What
should the reader have learnt from reading the chapter?)
• Frequently asked questions (FAQs) with answers.
• Suggestions for further information (with annotations).

The ‘In a Nutshell’ feature at the beginning of each chapter offers an overview of learning objec-
tives to be covered in each chapter. Once you have read the chapter, refer back to this feature
and reflect on what you have learnt. If you feel that you have not met one of the learning objec-
tives, simply revisit the relevant parts of the chapter.
Two new features distributed throughout the book are the ‘SALSA profile’ and the ‘At
a glance’ feature. We profile common types of literature review against our four-part SALSA
(Search AppraisaL Synthesis and Analysis) schema. You will see how these four processes are
interpreted and implemented for each review type, so that you clearly understand what each
process involves. An example SALSA profile is given in 0.1.

Table 0.1 SALSA profile for the rapid review (Tricco et al., 2017)

SALSA stages Steps required by the method Explanation

1. Needs assessment, topic A critical first step, in seeking to
selection, and topic refinement determine the scope of the request and
the intended purpose for the completed
review, and obtaining a commitment
for collaboration for the duration of the
project
2. Protocol development A research protocol clearly lays out
scope of the review, including research
questions and approaches to be used to
conduct the review
 PREFACE xxvii

SALSA stages Steps required by the method Explanation

Search 3. Literature search Often, a layered approach, identifying
existing systematic reviews updated with
a summary of recent eligible primary
studies
4. Screening and study Often streamlined by using a single
selection reviewer; some reviews verify a sample
of selections using a second reviewer
Appraisal 5. Data extraction Usually single-reviewer extraction,
sometimes checked by a second
reviewer, or double independent
extraction. Data extraction generally
includes sections for the population, the
intervention and the types of measures
(outcomes)
6. Risk-of-bias assessment Sometimes called critical appraisal,
or methodological quality appraisal,
examines how well each included study
has been carried out
Synthesis 7. Knowledge synthesis Ranges from a basic descriptive
narrative summary of studies to a meta-
analysis. When possible, a narrative
Analysis synthesis should report results of
included studies and discuss reasons for
differences among studies
8. Report production and Standard templates for each stage
dissemination of the review that specify minimum
methods, reporting requirements, and/
or standard report sections, help to
streamline production of the report
making the process more transparent

Our ‘At a glance’ feature offers a ‘takeaway’ summary of common types of literature review as a
ready reference. Each feature follows the same structure (see Box 0.2):

box 0.2

At a glance – review type

Definition

Requirements

Research Question
Expertise
Constraints (Time and Resources)
Purpose
Sources
(Continued)
xxviii Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review

Overview of Process

SALSA

Search
AppraisaL
Synthesis
Analysis

Example

Strengths and Limitations

At a Glance

Reviewer expertise 

Information expertise 

Time   

Resources ££

References

Table 0.2 summarises the available ‘SALSA profiles’ and ‘At a glance’ features and points you to
the chapter where each can be found.

Table 0.2 SALSA profiles and ‘At a glance’ features

Review type SALSA profile ‘At a glance’ feature

Bayesian meta-analysis NA Chapter 9
Concept analysis Chapter 4 Chapter 4
Critical interpretive synthesis Chapter 9 Chapter 9
Framework synthesis Chapter 8 Chapter 8
Integrative review NA Chapter 9
Mapping review Chapter 3 Chapter 3
Mega-aggregation NA Chapter 8
Mega-ethnography NA Chapter 8
Meta-analysis NA Chapter 7
Meta-ethnography Chapter 8 Chapter 8
Meta-narrative Chapter 9 Chapter 9
Mixed methods reviews NA Chapter 9
Narrative synthesis NA Chapter 7
Network meta-analysis NA Chapter 7
Overview (review of reviews) Chapter 3 Chapter 3
Rapid QES NA Chapter 8
Rapid realist review See realist review (Chapter 9)
 PREFACE xxix

Review type SALSA profile ‘At a glance’ feature

Realist review Chapter 9 Chapter 9
Review update Chapter 2 Chapter 2
Scoping meta-review Chapter 3 Chapter 3
Scoping review Chapter 3 Chapter 3
Systematic review Chapter 3 Chapter 3
Thematic synthesis Chapter 8 Chapter 8
Note: Rapid review features with handy hints are distributed throughout the book.

For each stage of the literature review, we provide appropriate resources (such as tools, check-
lists, templates, etc.). The ‘Toolbox’ section of each chapter lists these practical resources, with
information on how to use them in your own literature review.
You may find it helpful to complete the exercises as you work through the book, applying
them to your own review as appropriate. If you have queries on any of the topics, please see the
FAQs at the end of each chapter.
Each chapter recaps on ‘Key learning points’. We also provide an annotated list of further
information for each chapter topic, allowing you to follow up a particular systematic approach
if you wish to know more.
Key glossary terms with definitions appear at the start of each chapter and we provide a com-
prehensive glossary in the online resources. Glossary terms are highlighted in bold throughout
the book so that you can check the definition of a particular term as you work through the book.

EXAMPLES OF REVIEW CHALLENGES AND HOW

THIS BOOK CAN HELP
Here are the challenges that you may encounter for your own review, with suggested solutions.

‘I have a general review topic in mind, but I don’t know where to focus’
Look at Chapter 4 to help you to focus your research question. The chapter outlines various
frameworks to use to define the scope of your question.

‘I have no idea how much literature exists on my review topic’

Consider conducting a scoping search on a key database to get an idea of the size of your topic.
The scoping search is described in Chapter 5. Examine how many results you find and estimate
how many results you are likely to find by searching multiple databases. As a rule of thumb
we recommend that you identify the single best database for your topic and then multiply the
number of results found in that single database by between 2.5 and 5.0 depending upon how
multidisciplinary your topic is. This rule of thumb accounts for duplicates across multiple databases
and recognises that each successive database yields fewer unique hits. You may then want to
examine the titles and abstracts of a sample of the results to see how many includable studies
are found in each extra 100 references.
xxx Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review

‘I am confident I can find and select studies for my review; however,

I am not sure how to assess the quality of the evidence base’
Visit Chapter 6. Here we provide an overview of quality assessment, and all the tips and
tools you need to assess quality in your own review. To practise your quality assessment skills,
complete the exercises within this chapter and refer to the feedback on the companion website
to check your understanding.

‘I am not sure how to select an appropriate method of synthesis

for my review’
Read Chapters 7, 8 or 9 depending on whether your question is best answered by quantitative or
qualitative data or a mixture of both. Also revisit the types of review presented in Chapter 2 for
consideration when selecting a method of synthesis. You may find that the type of review you
have chosen accommodates a limited number of recommended synthesis approaches.

‘I realise that I will need to clearly report my methodology

when I write up my review. Should I make notes as I go along to
aid with this?’
Yes, we find it easier to write up a review if we make notes as we go. The chapter on completing
a review protocol (Chapter 4) helps you to do this. A good review protocol outlining your review
methodology, typically written in the future tense, can later be changed to the past tense when
writing up your review to produce a comprehensive account of what you have done.

SUMMARY
This overview has introduced the main features of the book, how they are organised and how
you can make the most of what is on offer. It helps you to navigate your way around the book,
matching the advice to the stage at which you most need it. Above all, it emphasises that you
should be systematic not only in how you conduct your review but also in how you describe
each review type.

frequently asked questions (FAQs)

FAQ 0.1 Is this book for me?

This book is designed for students and researchers undertaking any type of review. It offers a
step-by-step guide. Each chapter offers a stand-alone resource for each particular step and a
‘refresher’ and further ‘pointers’ for each step.
 PREFACE xxxi

FAQ 0.2 I may not want to undertake a full systematic review but I want to
make my review more systematic. How can I do this?
This book is designed for you. It highlights critical steps to take to make your review more sys-
tematic. The book draws on established systematic review methodology, expertise developed
by the scientific and academic community in reviewing the literature in its field, and good
practice for research. Start by looking at Chapter 3 to help you decide which type of review is
appropriate for your question. Each type of review has its own methodology so you can follow
the methodology that you will use as you work your way through the book.

FAQ 0.3 How do I find out the meaning of unfamiliar terms used in the book?
Throughout the book there are terms highlighted in bold. Refer to the online Glossary for
definitions of these terms.

FAQ 0.4 How can I view images used in this book?

The companion website provides access to higher resolution versions of any images and
screenshots reproduced in this book.

FAQ 0.5 I’ve completed one of the exercises in the book. Where can I find the
answers?
All answers to exercises in this book are hosted on the companion website.

suggestions for further information

Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (2018) Guidelines and Standards for Evidence
Synthesis in Environmental Management. Version 5.0 (AS Pullin, GK Frampton, B Livoreil and
G Petrokofsky, eds). Available from: www.environmentalevidence.org/information-for-authors
A useful structured online text walking through the stages of the systematic review in a
readable format.

Sambunjak D, Cumpston M & Watts C (2017) Module 1: Introduction to conducting systematic

reviews. In: Cochrane Interactive Learning: Conducting an intervention review. Available
from: https://training.cochrane.org/interactivelearning/module-1-introduction-conducting-
systematic-reviews
Part of the Cochrane Interactive Learning Course on Conducting an Intervention Review, this
module introduces systematic reviews and why they are useful. This module describes the
various types and preferred format of review questions, and outlines how to conduct a sys-
tematic review.

Sutton A, Clowes M, Preston L & Booth A (2019) Meeting the review family: exploring review
types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Information & Libraries
Journal, 36(3): 202–22. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hir.12276
Overview of over 40 literature review types by the authors of this book, grouping types within
seven ‘families’ and particularly focusing on how to identify studies.
 ONLINE RESOURCES

DISCOVER THIS TEXTBOOK’S ONLINE RESOURCES!

Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review is supported by a wealth of online resources
for both students and lecturers to aid study and support teaching, which are available at https://
study.sagepub.com/booth3e

For students and researchers

A literature review starter template to demonstrate the sections you need to include
for a successful written review.

A source credibility checklist to help you assess and think critically about the sources
you choose.
 ONLINE RESOURCES xxxiii

A source tracker template to help you keep track of your sources and know what you need
to include in your audit trail.

A downloadable exercise workbook and suggested answers so you can interact with
the book’s activities and questions and save your answers for future reference.

A collated list of tried-and-tested tools, including freely available technologies to help

you search databases efficiently, plan your work, and keep track of references.

A project diary template and example so you can start your project with an organized
approach and track your insights along the way.

A complete glossary of terms to help you understand and revise key concepts.

For lecturers

PowerPoint slide templates including approximately 10-15 slides per chapter, which can
be downloaded and customized for use in your own presentations.
 1
MEETING THE REVIEW FAMILY:
AN OVERVIEW

in a nutshell

Meeting the review family

• You will likely need to produce a literature review at one or more important stages of your
career.
• A literature review is not a single definable product; it serves multiple purposes and takes
diverse forms, not all of them systematic.
• You need to know when to choose a particular type of literature review to match your
intended purpose.
• You can think of the numerous types of literature review as different ‘families’ which share
common characteristics.

key terms explained

critical review: a form of research synthesis that aims to demonstrate extensive research
and critical evaluation of quality. It goes beyond mere description to include a degree of
analysis and conceptual innovation and typically results in a hypothesis or model.

integrative review: a form of research synthesis that utilises broad methods to include both
experimental and non-experimental research in order to understand more fully a focus of
interest. Integrative reviews may also combine data from theoretical and empirical literature.

(Continued)
2 Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review

rapid review: a form of research synthesis that accelerates the process of conducting a
conventional systematic review through streamlining or omitting specific methods to pro-
duce evidence for stakeholders in a resource-efficient manner.

systematic review: a form of research synthesis that seeks to systematically search for,
appraise and synthesize research evidence, using strategies to limit bias often adhering to
guidelines on the conduct of a review.

umbrella review: a type of overview (review of reviews) that only includes other system-
atic reviews and meta-analyses. Distinguished in this book from other overviews by only
including reviews from the same organisation or those using a common manual.

INTRODUCTION
Whether you are an undergraduate or postgraduate student, an established academic or
a professional practitioner, you will, no doubt, have had to write a ‘literature review’ at
some point in your career. Early in our student lives, typically while still at school, we learn
to identify a single printed source, perhaps a book or newspaper article, and to critically
evaluate that source. However, a more important step is when we start to look not just at
individual items but at whole sets of items, to evaluate them as a whole and to identify how
they contradict or confirm one another. Our search for an overall summary of findings, a
whole picture, forces us to assemble different sources within a single line of argument. We
cannot simply rely on ‘islands’ of individual knowledge without considering the ‘continents’
that link those islands together.

WHAT IS A LITERATURE REVIEW?

Fink (2019) neatly defines a literature review as a ‘systematic, explicit, and reproducible method
for identifying, evaluating, and synthesising the existing body of completed and recorded work
produced by researchers, scholars, and practitioners’. This definition is not the easiest to under-
stand but, as with most good definitions, every word matters. Put simply, it means that we use
clear, step-by-step ways that others too could follow:

• to find the textual information we need;

• to look at its collective strengths and weaknesses;
• to spot patterns that link the different items together; and
• to summarise what it does/does not say and what that means for our target reader.

In the next chapter we show you that you can remember these steps as ‘SALSA’ (Search,
AppraisaL, Synthesis, Analysis). Each SALSA step is so important that we spend at least one
chapter on each (Chapters 5, 6 and 7–9). Other important steps either come before SALSA –
stating what question you are trying to answer (including defining your scope) (Chapter 4) – or
follow SALSA, when choosing how to ensure that your findings reach their target audience(s)
(Chapter 10).
 Meeting the Review Family: An Overview 3

Why be systematic?
We have already referred several times to ‘systematic’ and the need to follow a ‘step-by-step
approach’. ‘Systematic’ not only features within our title but also captures the most important
idea in the whole book. Although there is a specific type of literature review called a ‘system-
atic review’, as the most extreme form of being systematic, what is important for you as reader
is our first ‘Take home message’: all literature reviews can and should be systematic – that is,
conducted using a ‘system’, planned from the start and clearly reported when you write up
your review.
Why should we always aim to be systematic? Some good reasons are scientific and others
practical. Importantly, the more systematic we are, the less likely we are to introduce bias. If
you introduce bias then people do not know whether they can believe what you have found
or not. More importantly, they cannot even tell which parts, if any, they can trust. At least if
you conduct your review systematically, even though the methods you use and the studies you
include are not perfect, a reader can decide for themselves which findings are largely certain and
which remain uncertain. In fact, a helpful review author should tell readers the limitations of
the review and the limitations of the included studies. All research, by definition, follows some
‘system’, although some systems are more formalised and pre-planned than others. Being sys-
tematic moves you from ‘creative writing’ to genuine research:

Who would want reviews to be unsystematic, if by ‘systematic’ we mean no more than ‘prop-
erly carried out, taking account of all the relevant evidence, and making reliable judgements
about its validity and implications’? On this definition, to produce a systematic review is simply
to do the job of reviewing well. (Hammersley, 2013)

Working systematically also helps you, and others in your team, to be efficient. You all know
what the team has completed, what you are currently working on and what remains to be done.
You always have a good idea of how much progress you have made with your review.

What does it mean for a review to be systematic?

Our work over many years for different governmental agencies and organisations reveals five
different ways that a review may be considered systematic. While not all review types tick all
five boxes, because methods develop at different rates with different levels of popularity, we can
safely say that the more boxes that they tick, the more likely they are to be truly systematic.
First, an accepted step-by-step methodology. In some cases this is outlined in a procedures
manual, in other cases a definitive textbook acts as a source book for the orthodox methodol-
ogy. Additional authors add different variations and adaptations for their own purposes, but
anchored to the original source. Finally, a definitive paper may offer guidance on a specific
review type, drawing on the authors’ extensive experience. So, for example, the review manuals
of the Cochrane Collaboration, the Campbell Collaboration, and the Centre for Environmental
Evidence offer ‘recipes’ for systematic reviews. The Joanna Briggs Institute and the Centre for
Environmental Evidence cover diverse review types. Those interested, specifically, in realist syn-
thesis (Pawson, 2006a) or meta-ethnography (Noblit & Hare, 1988) could consult seminal texts.
Papers on scoping reviews (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005) and on the integrative review (Whittemore &
4 Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review

Knafl, 2005) offer a place to start for those methodologies. While illustrative, at this point, we
shall return to most of these texts in more detail.
Second, a systematic approach is more likely to follow a pre-established review protocol.
A review protocol serves multiple purposes, including protecting against conscious or uninten-
tional changes of scope during the course of the review itself. A review team (or supervisor and
student) usually communicate plans for the review in a review protocol so that they share a
common view of the intended product. The review protocol also helps other scholars and fund-
ing agencies to avoid duplication of effort and/or waste of money. Having a systematic plan or
protocol also makes project management easier, either in managing the whole review team, or
for you and your supervisor to keep you to your planned timescales. Protocols should always
exist for a systematic review. However, increasingly protocols are seen for rapid reviews, map-
ping reviews and scoping reviews as well as for most qualitative reviews. While you
might consider a protocol a time-intensive luxury within the context of a rapid review, per-
versely it becomes more important. You need to employ exemplary communication on what
you have, or have not done, and any shortcuts that you have taken to save time. A review
protocol may be registered in a formal registry, in an institutional repository, on a funder’s
website or an open access sharing site (Tawfik et al., 2020). Protocols for potentially impactful or
strategically important reviews may even be accepted by some journals as a publishable output
in their own right.
The third characteristic of a systematic approach is a consensual reporting guideline.
Reporting guidelines were previously published opportunistically by interested researchers but
now involve a comprehensive literature search, expert input and formal deliberation and con-
sensus (Moher et al., 2010). Published guidelines exist for most types of review and are gathered
together in a specialist repository labelled EQUATOR (www.equator-network.org see Resource
Break 10.5). Even where a complete reporting guideline does not yet exist, guidelines exist for
specific review components (e.g. the literature search or figures and tables). The time and effort
required to produce these itemised lists usually signals that a review type is now substantive
enough to merit its own reporting guidelines.
A fourth characteristic of a review type that uses a systematic approach is that someone
is likely to have developed a quality assessment checklist by which to gauge its quality.
Frequently these are confused with reporting guidelines (above). However, the difference is best
illustrated with reference to the intended user. A reporting guideline targets the producer of a
literature review, a quality assessment checklist is aimed at the consumer/reader of that review. As
we shall see in Chapter 6, quality assessment checklists have a key role to play when we review
multiple studies of the same type, side by side. However, at this point, we highlight how a
checklist helps a reader to answer the basic question – is this a good example or a poor example
of this type of review? A review type with its own checklist has usually acquired a measure
of popularity – increasingly, people argue that checklists should be developed in the same struc-
tured way required for reporting guidelines (Whiting et al., 2017).
A final characteristic of a systematic approach is a published survey or audit of examples of a
review type, to analyse the review methods used. These surveys may be conducted before a meth-
odology manual or reporting guideline is published, flagging up that a review type has become
popular. Both are signalling that it is now timely to pin down the characteristics of that review
type. So, for example, qualitative evidence synthesis is examined in periodic published audits
(e.g. Hannes & Macaitis, 2012; France et al., 2014; Dalton et al., 2017). Similarly, realist synthesis
 Meeting the Review Family: An Overview 5

is explored in general (Berg & Nanavati, 2016) and, specifically, in connection with the ‘real-
ist search’ (Booth et al., 2020). These audits help to agree cumulative good practice, to iden-
tify examples of innovative methods or, more controversially, to arbitrate which variations are
legitimate and which should be curtailed or discouraged. Where published studies are analysed
specifically for their methodology you may see the report published as a meta-epidemiological
study (Marshall et al., 2019).
As we repeat throughout this book, these characteristics do not require all literature reviews
to be ‘systematic reviews’ – we are opening up a menu of options from which to choose. You
are not a very good chef if you serve French fries with every dish! Perhaps you have tried
cooking something having only seen someone else prepare it – omitting one or more steps,
following the steps in the wrong order, using the wrong ingredients or using the wrong equip-
ment results in an inferior product. An experienced chef knows all the steps and what the
dish should look like and can adapt a standard recipe to specific requirements – for example,
dietary preferences or intolerances. Upon completing this book you will not only have gained
a good knowledge of how best to produce ‘a systematic literature review’ but also share our
tips, tricks and methods choices.

WHEN DO I DO A LITERATURE REVIEW?

As already mentioned, literature reviews are versatile and are used for diverse purposes (Tricco et al.,
2018b). Table 1.1 lists some of those purposes. Read through the table and complete Exercise 1.1.

exercise 1.1

Why am I doing a literature review?

Look through Table 1.1 and see if you recognise any reasons why you might want to conduct
a literature review. Can you identify any added or spin-off benefits that you might gain from
your review that you had not previously considered?

Table 1.1 Familiar purposes and functions for conducting a literature review

Purpose Function
Do I want to know how much literature and what types of Mapping the landscape
literature exist in a specific topic area?
Do I want to get a feel for the current state of knowledge in an Sensitisation to new areas
unfamiliar topic area?
Do I want to know the major studies and main authors in a Spotting the landmarks
specific topic area?
Do I want to locate my own research within the context of what Positioning one’s research
has already gone before?

(Continued)
6 Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review

Table 1.1 (Continued)

Purpose Function
Do I want to see how different disciplines or professions have Comparing ideas
taken forward the same ideas or concepts?
Do I want to identify the main theories that authors have Exploring theory
applied to a particular topic area?
Do I want to explore different approaches to tackling the same Brainstorming approaches
methodology or problem?
Do I want to learn lessons from current practice? Taking stock
Do I want to identify unexplored areas or gaps in research? Seizing opportunities

MEET THE REVIEW FAMILY

We have already identified that literature reviews are versatile, that they take diverse forms and
that they can be used for different purposes (Tricco et al., 2018b). As a team we picture different
review types as the branches of a review ‘family tree’. Some branches share closer similarities
than others. This chapter will identify the seven main families and list some high-profile review
types. However, a full listing is available elsewhere (Sutton et al., 2019) and we return to other
review types throughout the remainder of this book.

Traditional review family

Reviews have existed in the academic and policy worlds for many years. Increasing recognition
of the limitations of the ‘traditional review’ has led methodologists to develop alternatives. This
does not mean that these historic forms are no longer useful for the specific purpose that they
were originally designed. Table 1.2 summarises some prominent members of the traditional family.

Table 1.2 Common traditional review types with definitions

Label Definition Source

Critical Aims to demonstrate writer has extensively researched literature Grant & Booth
review and critically evaluated its quality. Goes beyond mere description (2009)
to include analysis and conceptual innovation. Typically results in
hypothesis or model
Integrative Approach (primarily within nursing research) that allows for Whittemore &
review inclusion of diverse methodologies (i.e. experimental and Knafl (2005)
non-experimental research)
Narrative Summarises the literature in a way which is not explicitly systematic, Baethge et al.
review particularly when contrasted with a systematic review (2019)
State of the Tends to address current matters in contrast to combined Grant & Booth
Art Review retrospective/current approaches. May offer new perspectives on (2009)
issue or point out area for further research
 Meeting the Review Family: An Overview 7

One traditional type of review, the critical review, seeks to offer extensive coverage of a spe-
cific topic together with critical insight into the quality of its supporting literature (De Klerk &
Pretorius, 2019). Where the emphasis is more summative (i.e. where are we now?), rather than
looking back at how a particular field has developed (where have we come from?), a review may
be labelled as a ‘state-of-the-art review’. Of more recent pedigree, the integrative review/integrative
synthesis, particularly common within nursing, seeks to make collective sense of the quantitative
and qualitative literature. Perhaps most common within the traditional review family is the narra-
tive review, particularly contrasted with the systematic review (Baethge et al., 2019). Interestingly,
guidelines for narrative reviews are becoming increasingly systematic, reflecting pressures within
the academic domain to accommodate systematic approaches (Baethge et al., 2019).

Systematic review family

Systematic reviews (Table 1.3) follow a formal review method, following methodological guide-
lines for conduct, quality assessment and reporting, typically as documented in a manual or
handbook. For example, Cochrane reviews ‘adhere to a structured format that is described in the
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions’ (Higgins et al., 2021). Systematic
reviews within healthcare now extend beyond treatments to other types of intervention (e.g.
diagnostic techniques), to other types of question (e.g. causation or harm) and to other types of
evidence, such as economic evaluations and qualitative research (qualitative evidence syntheses)
(Munn et al., 2018b). The last two decades have seen systematic methods extend beyond
healthcare to education (Zawacki-Richter et al., 2020), environmental science (Collaboration
for Environmental Evidence (CEE), 2018), information science (Xie et al., 2020), information
systems (Okoli & Schabram, 2010), social sciences (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006) and social care
(Macdonald, 2010) and software engineering (Kitchenham, 2004) among others. International
collaborations for systematic reviews exist in Environmental Evidence (https://www.environ
mentalevidence.org/), Healthcare (https://www.cochrane.org/), Nursing (https://joannabriggs.
org/), International Development (https://www.3ieimpact.org/) and Social Science (https://
campbellcollaboration.org/).

Table 1.3 Common systematic review types with definitions

Label Definition Source

Campbell Review Academic research paper that uses ‘evidence www.campbellcollaboration.
synthesis’, which can include meta-analysis, org/
to look for answers to a pre-defined question
[in the social sciences]. Its purpose is to sum
up the best available research on that specific
question. Reviews can also show when not
enough research has been carried out, and
where more research is needed
Cochrane Review A systematic review of research in healthcare www.cochranelibrary.com/
and health policy that is published in the about/about-cochrane-reviews
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

(Continued)
8 Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review

Table 1.3 (Continued)

Label Definition Source

Joanna Briggs Aims to provide a comprehensive, unbiased https://wiki.jbi.global/display/
Institute (JBI) synthesis of many relevant studies in MANUAL/1.1+Introduction+to+
Review a single document using rigorous and JBI+Systematic+reviews
transparent methods. Aims to synthesise
and summarise existing knowledge
and to uncover ‘all’ evidence relevant to
a question
Meta-analysis Can be combined with systematic reviews to Gurevitch et al. (2018)
assess the magnitude of the outcome across
relevant primary studies and to analyse the
causes of variation among study outcomes
(effect sizes)
Network meta- Starts with network of evidence (e.g. Hoaglin et al. (2011)
analysis relevant studies that have compared those
interventions directly) within … a diagram in
which each node represents an intervention
(or perhaps a group of interventions), and
each link or edge connects interventions
that are directly compared within one or
more studies
Systematic review Application of strategies that limit bias Hong & Pluye (2018)
in the assembly, critical appraisal, and
synthesis of all relevant studies on a
specific topic
Other members of Systematic reviews of diagnostic test e.g. Munn et al. (2018b)
the review family accuracy; systematic review of epidemiology
studies (also known as: prevalence and/or
incidence review; etiology and/or risk review);
prognostic review; psychometric review;
review of economic evaluations

Review of reviews family

With the growth of review production an increasing number of topics are already covered
by reviews, or commissioners require larger topic areas covered by multiple existing reviews.
Increasingly, commissioners ask for a review of existing review evidence on their topic or ques-
tion. These syntheses are known as reviews of reviews or overviews of reviews (Table 1.4). You
can use existing reviews in multiple ways. Reviews produced according to common standards
(e.g. multiple Cochrane Intervention reviews or Joanna Briggs Institute reviews) may be com-
bined within an umbrella review (Pollock et al., 2016). You can combine reviews that follow
different standards, often produced serendipitously, within a review of reviews or overview.
Finally, you can ‘recycle’ existing reviews to combine the studies they contain within a de
novo review. In all of these circumstances the publication dates of the contributing reviews
and, subsequently, of the review of reviews are critical and therefore closely related to assess-
ments of review quality and issues relating to review updates (Robinson et al., 2014). Recently,
these issues have extended to qualitative reviews (syntheses of qualitative research) with the
 Meeting the Review Family: An Overview 9

emergence of mega-ethnography (Toye et al., 2017) and mega-aggregation (Hendricks

et al., 2021).

Table 1.4 Common types of reviews of reviews with definitions

Label Definition Source

Cochrane Overviews Use explicit and systematic Pollock et al. (2021b)
of Reviews (Cochrane methods to search for and identify
Overviews) multiple systematic reviews on
related research questions in the
same topic area for the purpose
of extracting and analysing their
results across important outcomes.
Thus, the unit of searching,
inclusion and data analysis is the
systematic review
Overview (Review of Aim to provide ‘user-friendly’ Pollock et al. (2016; 2019)
reviews) summaries of the breadth of
research relevant to a decision
without decision-makers needing
to assimilate the results of multiple
systematic reviews themselves. Often
broader in scope than an individual
systematic review, so that they can
examine broad…options in ways
that can be aligned with the choices
that decision-makers often make. In
comparison to a synthesis of primary
studies, overviews can be conducted
more quickly
Mega-aggregation Method for synthesis of multiple Hendricks (2019); Hendricks
qualitative evidence syntheses et al. (2021)
‘developed and utilised to identify
evidence gaps and to inform future
research from the evidence collated
within included systematic reviews’.
The mega-aggregative approach
includes 5 phases containing 10
steps including categorisation and
aggregation of evidence into a
predefined framework
Mega-ethnography Synthesis of multiple QES using the Toye et al. (2017)
methods of meta-ethnography to
create a conceptual output, with a
focus on theory development
Umbrella review Specific type of review of reviews Aromataris et al. (2015)
(overview) that combines and
synthesises reviews produced
according to common standards,
e.g. Cochrane reviews, Campbell
reviews or Joanna Briggs Institute
reviews
10 Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review

Rapid review family

Rapid reviews have grown in popularity partly in recognition that decision-making can-
not always tolerate the lead-in time that a full systematic review might require and partly
because a good enough just-in-time review offers a practical way to be evidence based.
Rapid reviews are designed to either accelerate or abbreviate the review process. Within the
rapid review family are variants that represent rapid versions of mainstream review products
(Table 1.5). So, for example, the rapid evidence synthesis typically represents a form of rapid
effectiveness systematic review, the rapid qualitative evidence synthesis seeks to conduct a
qualitative synthesis within an abbreviated timeframe and a rapid realist synthesis represents
a rapid form of realist synthesis. More specifically, a rapid evidence assessment is a sys-
tematised review of evidence designed to meet the needs of policy-makers.
Unfortunately, and perhaps inevitably, the adjective rapid is often used as an apology or
excuse for poorly conducted versions of the full version – to stave off potential criticism of meth-
ods and to excuse not having conducted a review that follows the full review methods. For this
reason, it is preferable to define an abbreviated review in terms of its focus or ambition, rather
than its speed. Within the medical education domain the ‘focused systematic review’ has gained
some traction (Gordon et al., 2018).

Table 1.5 Common rapid review types with definitions

Label Definition Source

Rapid review A form of knowledge synthesis that accelerates the Hamel et al. (2020)
process of conducting a [conventional] systematic
review through streamlining or omitting specific
methods to produce evidence for stakeholders in a
resource-efficient manner
Focused review A form of knowledge synthesis in which the Gordon et al. (2018)
components of the systematic process are applied to
facilitate the analysis of a focused research question
Rapid evidence [T]ype of knowledge synthesis in which components Tricco et al. (2015)
synthesis of the systematic review process are simplified or
omitted to produce information in a short period
of time
Rapid qualitative A rapid synthesis of qualitative evidence that employs Biesty et al. (2020)
evidence synthesis methods which are ‘accelerated and streamlined’ so
that completion is earlier than with typical QES review
methods
Rapid realist Applies a realist approach to knowledge synthesis Booth (2016)
synthesis (also (‘What works for whom under what circumstances?’)
known as: rapid to produce a product that is useful to policy-makers in
realist review) responding to time-sensitive and/or emerging issues
within limited time and resources
Rapid evidence [A] process that is faster and less rigorous than a betterevaluation.org
assessment full systematic review but more rigorous than ad hoc
searching, it uses a combination of key informant
interviews and targeted literature searches to produce
a report in a few days or weeks
 Another Random Document on
Scribd Without Any Related Topics
 CHAPTER XXI
LOVE IN EXILE

The Skye boatmen took their Prince safely to the mainland, and were
not ashamed because they wept at parting from him. And then the
Stuart and Sir Jasper’s heir set out again along the lone tracks that
taught them understanding of each other—understanding of the
world that does not show its face among the crowded haunts where
men lie and slander and drive hard bargains one against the other.
Their bodies were hard, for wind and weather had toughened them
till they were lean and rugged as upland trees that have grown
strong with storm. Their courage was steady, because all except life
was lost. And at their hearts there was a quick, insistent music, as if
the pipes were playing. They were fighting against long odds, and
they were northern born; and the world, in some queer way, went
not amiss with them.
Rupert, in between the journeys and the vigils shared with the
Prince, was often abroad on the errands that had grown dear to him
since coming into Scotland. He would ride here, ride there, with
night and danger for companions, gathering news of the enemies,
the friends, who could be counted on. And he found constantly the
stirring knowledge that, though he had not been keen to ride to
hounds in Lancashire, he was hot to take his fences now.
On one of these days he rode in, tired and spent, bringing news
from the braes of Glenmoriston, and found the Stuart smoking his
pipe, while he skinned a deer that he had shot.
“You are killing yourself for loyalty,” said the Prince, glancing at him
with a sudden, friendly smile.
“By your leave, sir,” said Rupert, as if he talked of Murray’s plain
arithmetic, “I am alive at last.”
“You’re made of the martyr’s stuff,” said the other.
“Your Highness, they called me the scholar there in Lancashire, and
I knew what that meant. I am trying to outride the shame.”
Rupert was tired out. The Prince was tired at heart, because of
Culloden, because of Miss MacDonald, whom he was not to see
again, and all the dreams that had tumbled from the high skies to
sordid earth. Neither of them had tasted food for six-and-thirty
hours. And at these times men are apt to find a still, surprising
companionship, such as the tramps know who foot it penniless along
the roads.
“We have found our kingdom, you and I,” said the Prince, with
sudden intuition—“here on the upland tracks, where a man learns
something of the God who made him.”
Rupert looked out across the mountains, blue-purple in the
gloaming, and caught the other’s mood, and spoke as a friend does
to a friend, when the heart needs a confidant. “It is all a riddle,” he
said slowly. “I thought all lost, after Culloden—and yet I’ve tasted
happiness, tasted it for the first time in my life. To carry your life on
the saddle with me, to keep open eyes when I’m sick for sleep, to
know that the Stuart trusts me—I tell you, I have tasted glory.”
The Prince turned his head aside. This was the loyalty known to him
since he first set foot in Scotland, the service he claimed, he knew
not why, from gentle and simple of his well-wishers. And he was
remembering how many of these eager folk had died on his behalf,
was forgetting that he, too, had gone sleepless through peril and
disaster because he carried at his saddle-bow, not one life only, but
a kingdom’s fate.
“Your news from Glenmoriston, sir?” he asked sharply.
“Pleasant news. A man has died for you, with gallantry.”
“You call it pleasant news?”
“Listen, your Highness! It was one Roderick MacKenzie—he was a
merchant in Edinburgh, and left the town to follow you; and he
found his way, after Culloden, to the hills about Glenmoriston. He
was alone, and a company of the enemy surprised him; and he
faced them, and killed two before they overcame him; and he died
in anguish, but found strength to lift himself just before the end. He
knew that he was like you, in height and face, and cried, ‘God
forgive you, you have killed your Prince!’”
“It was brave; it was well meant. But, sir, it is not pleasant news.”
“He bought your safety. They are carrying his head to London to
claim the ransom. And the troops have left the hills, your Highness—
they believe you dead.”
“I wish their faith were justified,” said the other, with the bitterness
that always tortured him when he heard that men had died on his
behalf. “Your pardon,” he added by and by. “I should thank you for
the news—and yet I cannot.”
The next day they climbed the brae and went down the long,
heathery slope that took them to Glenmoriston; and nowhere was
there ambush or pursuit, as Rupert had foretold—only crying of the
birds on hilly pastures, and warmth of the July sun as it ripened the
ling to full bloom, and humming of the bees among the early bell-
heather.
They came to the glen at last, and ahead of them, a half-mile away,
there was blue smoke rising from the chimney of a low, ill-thatched
farmstead. And the Prince touched Rupert’s arm as they moved
forward.
“Lord, how hunger drums at a man’s ribs!” he said, with a tired
laugh. “If there were all the Duke’s army lying in wait for us yonder,
we should still go on, I think. There may be collops there, and eggs
—all the good cheer that Mrs. MacDonald thought scanty when we
came to the laird’s house at Kingsborough.”
“By your leave,” said Rupert gravely, “it does not bear speaking of. I
begin to understand how Esau felt when he sold his birthright for a
mess of pottage.”
They reached the house, and they found there six outlaws of the
hills, ready with the welcome Rupert had made secure before he led
the Prince here. They had entrenched themselves in this wild glen,
had ridden abroad, robbing with discretion, but never hurting a man
who was too poor to pay tribute. Their name was a byword for
cattle-lifting, and they lived for plunder. Yet, somehow, when the
Stuart came among them, with thirty thousand pounds easy in the
gaining, they disdained blood-money.
For all that, another hope of the Prince’s crumbled and went by him,
after he had greeted his new hosts. There were neither eggs nor
collops in the house—only a dish of oatmeal, without milk to ease its
roughness. The Glenmoriston men explained that Cumberland’s
soldiery had been about the glen, had raided their cattle and sheep,
had laid bare the countryside.
“For all that,” said the Prince, unconquerable in disaster, “I thank you
for your oatmeal. As God sees me, you have stilled a little of the
ache I had.”
And the Glenmoriston men liked the way of him. And when, next
day, he and Rupert went up the hills and stalked a deer, and brought
it home for the cooking, their loyalty was doubled.
Through the days that followed the outlaws found leisure to prove
the guests they harboured. In the hill countries a man’s reputation
stands, not on station or fair words, but on the knowledgable, quiet
outlook his neighbours bring to bear on him. And ever a little more
the outlaws liked these two, who were lean and hard and weather-
bitten as themselves.
The Prince would not claim shelter in the house, because long use
had taught him to prefer a bed among the heather. And Rupert,
lying near by o’ nights, learned more of the Stuart than all these last
disastrous days had taught him. When a man sleeps in the open,
forgetting there may be a listener, he is apt to lose his hold on the
need for reticence that house-walls bring.
The Prince, half between sleep and waking, would lift himself on an
elbow, would murmur that men had died for him—men better than
himself, who had followed him for loyalty and not for hire, men
whom he should have shepherded to better purpose. And then he
would snatch an hour or two of sleep, and would wake again with a
question, sharp and hurried and unquiet.
“Where’s Miss MacDonald? She’s in danger. The seas are riding high
—they’re riding high, I say!—and there’s only my poor plaid to cover
her.”
And so it was always when the Prince rambled in his sleep. There
was never a complaint on his own behalf, never a wild lament that
he was skulking, a broken man, among the mountains after coming
near to London and high victory. He had two griefs only, in the night
hours that probe to the heart of a man—passionate regret for the
slain, passionate regard for Miss MacDonald’s safety.
And once the Prince, though he lay in a dead sleep, began to speak
of Miss MacDonald with such praise, such settled and devout regard,
that Rupert got up from the heather and went out into the still
summer night, lest he pried too curiously into sacred things. And as
he went up and down the glen, scenting the subtle odours that steal
out at night-time, his thoughts ran back to Lancashire. It seemed
long since he had roamed the moors in bygone summers, with just
these keen, warm scents about him, counting himself the scholar,
aching for Nance Demaine, dreaming high, foolish dreams of a day
that should come which would prove him fit to wear her favour.
And he was here, leaner and harder than of old, with a deed or two
to his credit. And he had learned a week ago, while riding on the
Prince’s business, that Lady Royd and Nance had come to
Edinburgh, intent on sharing the work of brave women there who
were aiding fugitives, by means fair or crafty, to reach the shores of
France. He knew that his father and Maurice were safely overseas;
and a sudden hope flashed across the hard, unremitting purpose
that had kept his knees close about the saddle these last days.
When the Prince was secure, when these hazards were over—the
hazards that had grown strangely pleasant—there might be leisure
to return to earlier dreams, to wake and find them all come true.
For an hour Rupert paced the glen, with gentler thoughts for
company than he had known since he first killed a man at the siege
of Windyhough. Then, with a shrug of the shoulders, he
remembered to-morrow and its needs, and went back and settled
himself to sleep; but he did not lie so near to the Prince as before,
lest he overhear him talk again of Miss MacDonald.
The next day news came that the soldiery were out among the hills
again. The gallant head of Roderick MacKenzie, who had earned a
long respite for his Prince, had been taken to London, and men who
knew the Stuart had sworn that it bore little likeness to him; and
news had been sped north, by riders killing a horse at every
journey’s end, that the Prince was still at large among the Highlands.
The Glenmoriston men were unmoved by this new trouble. They
explained, with careless humour, that their glen was already so
stripped of food as to be scarce worth living in; and they went out
with their guests into the unknown perils waiting for them as if they
went to revelry. And the Prince learned afresh that a man, when his
back is to the wall, had best not seek friends among the sleek and
prosperous, who have cherished toys to love, but among the outlaws
and the driven folk who know the open road of life.
It was by aid of the Glenmoriston men, their knowledge of the
passes, that the fugitives came safe to Lochiel’s country of Lochaber,
that, after dangers so close-set as to be almost laughable—so long
the odds against them were—they reached the shore of Loch
Moidart and found a French privateer beating about the coast. Those
on board the ship were keeping an anxious look-out toward both
land and sea; they had been advised that the Prince, with luck,
might reach Moidart about noon, and they knew, from sharp
experience during their voyage to the bay, that the enemy’s
gunboats were thick as flies about the Western Isles.
It was an odd company that gathered on the strand while the ship
beat inshore with the half of a light, uncertain wind. The Prince was
there, Lochiel and Rupert, and a small band of loyal gentry who had
been in hiding round about their homes. Yet a beggar in his rags and
tatters might have joined them and claimed free passage to the
French coast, so far as outward seeming went. Their clothes were
made up of odds and ends, begged or borrowed during the long
retreat. All were itching from the attacks of the big, lusty fleas that
abound along the loyal isles. The one sign that proved them the
Stuart’s gentlemen was a certain temperate ease of carriage, a large
disdain of circumstance, a security, gay and dominant, in the faith
that preferred beggarman’s rags to fine raiment bought by treachery.
They did not fear, did not regret, though they were leaving all that
meant home and the cosy hearth.
The Prince, while the French ships were beating inshore, took
Lochiel aside. Through the wild campaign they had been like twin
brothers, these two, showing the same keen faith, the like courage
under hardship.
“Lochiel, you know the country better than I. You’re bred to your
good land, while I was only born to it. You will tell me where the Isle
of Skye lies from here.”
“Yonder,” said the other, pointing across the grey-blue haze of
summer seas.
And the Prince stood silent, thinking of the victory there in Skye—the
victory that had left him wearier than Culloden’s sick defeat had
done. And Lochiel, who had had his own affairs to attend to lately,
and had been aloof from gossip, wondered as he saw the trouble in
the other’s face.
The Prince turned at last. “Lochiel,” he said, with a tired smile, “how
does the Usurper’s proclamation run? Thirty thousand pounds on my
head—dead or alive! Well, alive or dead, I wish this tattered body of
mine were still in Skye—in Skye, Lochiel, where I left the soul of
me.”
“You are sad, your Highness——”
“Sad? Nay, I’ve waded deeper than mere sadness, like the Skye
mists out yonder. Well, we stand where we stand, friend,” he added,
with sharp return from dreams, “and the ship is bringing to.”
There was still a little while before the boats were lowered from the
shore, and the Prince, pacing up and down the strand, encountered
Rupert. “A fine ending!” he said, with temperate bitterness. “I landed
in Lochaber from France with seven gentlemen. I go back with a few
more. This is the fruit of your toil, Mr. Royd—and of mine.”
And, “No, by your leave,” said Rupert. “Your Highness has lit a fire
that will never die—a fire of sheer devotion——”
“Ah! the courtier speaks.”
Rupert’s voice broke, harshly and without any warning. He saw his
Prince in evil case, when he should have been a conqueror. He
remembered the night rides, the faith, that had had the crowning of
the Stuart as their goal. “A broken heart speaks—a heart broken in
your service, sir,” he said.
The man’s strength, his candid, deep simplicity, struck home to the
Prince, bringing a foolish mist about his eyes. “Your love goes deep
as that?” he said.
“It goes deeper than my love of life, your Highness.”
So then, after a silence, the other laid a strong kindly hand on his
shoulder. “You’ll go far and well for me, sir—but put away that
superstition of the broken heart. Believe me, for I know”—he
glanced across the misty stretch of sea that divided him from Skye
—“there are broken hopes, and broken dreams, and disaster sobbing
at one’s ears, but a man—a man, sir, does not permit his heart to
break. You and I—I think we have our pride.”
When the boats grounded on the beach, the Prince waited till his
gentlemen got first aboard, and at last there were only himself and
Rupert left standing on the shore.
“You will precede me, Mr. Royd. It is my privilege just now to follow,
not to lead,” said the Prince.
“Your Highness, I stay, by your leave.”
The mist had been creeping down from the tops for the past hour,
and now the light, outer fringe of it had reached the water-line. The
waiting boat lay in a haze of mystery; the privateer beyond showed
big and wraithlike, though a shrouded sunlight still played on the
crests of mimic waves. And the Stuart and Rupert stood regarding
each other gravely at this last meeting for many weeks to come.
“You stay?” echoed the Prince. “Sir, you have done so much for me—
and I looked to have your company during the crossing; and,
indeed, you must be ill of your exertions to decline safety now.”
Rupert glanced at the ship, then at the Stuart’s face. There was
temptation in the longing, to be near his Prince until France was
reached, but none in the thought of personal safety. “I lay awake
last night,” he said slowly, “and it grew clear, somehow, that I was
needed here in Scotland. There’s the country round Edinburgh, your
Highness—packed thick with loyal men who are waiting their chance
to find a ship across to France—and I hold so many threads that
Oliphant of Muirhouse would have handled better, if he had lived.”
“Why, then,” said the Prince, yielding to impulse after these months
of abnegation, “we’ll let our friends set sail without us. These gentry
did me service. You shall teach me to return it.”
“Your Highness, it would ruin all! I can ride where you cannot,
because I’m of slight account——”
“So you, too, have your mathematics, like the rest,” put in the other
wearily—“and all your sums add up to the one total—that I must be
denied the open hazard. I tell you, Mr. Royd, it is no luxury to take
ship across to France and leave my friends in danger.”
The mist was thickening, and Lochiel, growing anxious on account of
the delay, leaped ashore and came to where the two were standing.
And the Prince, returning to the prose of things, knew that he must
follow the road of tired retreat mapped out for him since Derby.
“Lochiel,” he said grimly, “I was planning an escape—from safety.
And your eyes accuse me, because my heart is with this gentleman
who chooses to stay in Scotland.”
And then he told what Rupert had in mind; and Lochiel, for all the
urgency, halted a moment to appraise this lean, tranquil man who
met the call of destiny as if it were an invitation to some pleasant
supper-party.
“It was so Oliphant carried himself, Mr. Royd,” he said gravely. “God
knows I wish you well.”
They parted. And Rupert watched their boat reach the privateer,
watched the ship’s bulk glide huge and ghostly into the mists. He
was hard and zealous, had chosen his road deliberately; but he was
human, too, and a sense of utter loneliness crept over him. The
Cause was lost. Many of his friends would not tread French or
Scottish ground again, because the soil lay over them. He had not
tasted food that day, and the mist seemed to be soaking into the
bones of him. And loyalty, that had brought him to this pass, showed
like a dim, receding star which mocked him as a will-o’-the-wisp
might do.
For all that, he was born and bred a Royd, and the discipline of
many months was on his side. And, little by little, he regained that
steadiness of soul—not to be counterfeited or replaced by any other
joy—which comes to the man whose back is to the wall, with a mob
of dangers assaulting him in front.
The Glenmoriston men had been offered their chance of a passage
to France with the Prince, but had declined it, preferring their own
country and the dangerous life that had grown second nature to
them. And Rupert, knowing the glen to which they had ridden after
speeding the Stuart forward, waited till the mists had lifted a little
and found his way to them.
They crossed themselves when he appeared among them as they
sat on the slope of the brae, cooking the midday meal; but when he
proved himself no ghost and explained the reason of his coming,
and his need to be set on the way to Edinburgh, they warmed afresh
to his view of that difficult business named life. He shared their
meal, and afterwards one of their number, Hector, by name, led him
out along the first stage of his journey south.
The mists had cleared by this time, leaving the braesides russet
where the sun swept the autumn brackens, but the mood they bring
to Highlandmen was strong on Rupert’s guide. Hector could find no
joy in life, no talk to ease the going. Instead, he fell into a low,
mournful chant; and the words of it were not calculated to raise
drooping spirits:
“But I have seen a dreary dream
Beyond the Isle o’ Skye,
I saw a dead man won the fight.
And I think that man was I.”
A little chill crossed Rupert’s courage, as if a touch of east wind had
come from the heart of the warm skies. He had seen many dreary
dreams of late; had fared beyond the Isle o’ Skye; what if Hector
were “seeing far,” and this dirge were an omen of the coming days?
And then he laughed, because in the dangerous tracks men make
their own omens or disdain them altogether.
“You’re near the truth, Hector,” he broke in; “but it’s only a half-dead
man. There’s life yet in him.”
And Hector glowered at him; for the Highland folk, when they are
hugging sadness close, cherish it as a mother does her first-born
babe. For all that, he brought Rupert safely, after three days’
marching, to the next post of his journey, and passed him on to
certain outlaws whose country lay farther south; and by this sort of
help, after good and evil weather and some mischances by the way,
Rupert came at last to Edinburgh and reached the house where he
knew that Lady Royd and Nance were lodging.
The house lay very near to Holyrood; and as he went down the
street Rupert halted for a while, forgetful of his errand. The
tenderest moon that ever lit a troubled world looked down on this
palace of departed glories. The grey pile was mellowed, transfigured
by some light o’ dreams. It was as if the night knew all about the
Stuarts who would haunt Holyrood so long as its walls stood; knew
their haplessness, their charm, their steadfast hold on the fine,
unthrifty faith they held; knew the answer that some of them, who
had gone before, had found in the hereafter that does not weigh
with the shopkeepers’ scales.
There is a soul in such walls as Holyrood’s, and Rupert stood as if he
held communion with a friend whose sympathies ran step by step
with his. Here Mary Stuart had stood alone, a queen in name, facing
the barbarous, lewd nobles who were, by title of mere courtesy, her
gentlemen. Here she had seen Rizzio hurried down the twisting stair,
had supped with her fool-husband, Darnley. From here she had gone
out, the queen of hearts and tragedy, to that long exile which was to
end at Fotheringay.
Here, too, the Prince had kept high state, a year ago, and all
Edinburgh had flocked to dance a Stuart measure. He came fresh
from his first battle, crowned with victory and charm of person; and
the clans were rising fast; and hope shone bright toward London and
the crown.
Rupert looked at the grey pile and felt all this, as one listens to the
silence of a friend who does not need to speak. And then a drift of
cloud came across the moon, and Holyrood lay wan and grey. It was
as if a sudden gust had quenched all the candles that had lit the
ballroom here when the yellow-haired laddie came dancing south.
And still the fugitive tarried. He had been used so long to night
roads and the constant peril that this dim light, and the wind piping
at his ear, pleased him more than any blaze of candles and lilt of
dance-music. Deep knowledge came to him, bred of the hazards
that had made him hard and lean. He sorrowed no more for Derby
and Culloden; his present thirst and hunger went by him, as things
of slight account; for he remembered the long months of hiding, the
intimacy he had been privileged to share with Prince Charles
Edward. There had been no glamour of the dance, no pomp, about
these journeyings through the Highlands; there had been no swift,
eager challenge and applause from ladies’ eyes; and yet Rupert had
tested, as few had done, the fine edge and temper of the Stuart
charm.
Here, under the shadow of grey Holyrood, he loitered to recall their
wayfaring together. There had been winter journeyings through
incessant rain, or snow, or winds that raved down mountain passes;
there had been summer travels through the heather, with the sun
beating pitilessly on them, over the stark length of moors that had
none but brackish water and no shade. They had slept o’ nights with
danger for a pillow and the raw wind for coverlet. And through it all
the Prince had shown a brave, unanswerable front to the sickness of
defeat, the hiding when he longed for action. If food and drink were
scarce, he sang old clan songs or recalled light jests and stories that
had once roused the French Court to laughter. If danger pressed so
closely from all four quarters of the hill that escape seemed
hopeless, his cheeriness infected those about him with a courage
finer than their own.
Looking back on these days, Rupert knew that no ball at Holyrood
here, no triumph-march to London, could have proved the Stuart as
those Highland journeyings had done. The Prince and he had
learned the way of gain in loss, and with it the gaiety that amazes
weaker men.
From Holyrood—the moon free of clouds and the grey walls finding
faith again—a friendly message came to him. He caught the Stuart
glamour up—the true, abiding glamour that does not yield to this
world’s limitations. What he had read in the library at Windyhough
was now a triumph-song that he had found voice to sing.
He came to the house where Lady Royd was lodging, and knocked
at the door; and presently a trim Scots lassie opened to him, and
saw him standing there in the moonlight of the street, his face
haggard, his clothes, made up of borrowed odds and ends,
suggesting disrepute. She tried to close the door in his face; but
Rupert had anticipated this, and pushed his way inside.
“Is Miss Demaine in the house?” he asked.
The maid recovered a little of her courage and her native tartness.
“She is, forbye. Have you come buying old claes, or are you looking
just for a chance to steal siller from the hoose?”
Rupert caught at the help she gave him. “There’s the quick wit ye
have, my lass,” he said.
“Ah, now, you’ll not be ‘my lassing’ me! I’ll bid ye keep your station,
as I keep mine.”
“Well, then, my dear, go up to your mistress—the young mistress, I
mean—and tell her there’s a pedlar wanting her—a pedlar from the
hills of Lancashire. Tell her he comes buying and selling white
favours.”
“So you’re just one of us,” said the maid, with surprising change of
front. Then, her Scots caution getting the better of her again, “Your
voice is o’ the gentry-folk,” she added, “but you’re a queer body i’
your claes. How should I know what you’d be stealing while I ran up
to tell the mistress?”
Rupert, for answer, closed and barred the door behind him, and
pointed up the stair. And then the maid, by the masterful, quiet way
of him, knew that he came peddling honesty.
And by and by Nance came down, guessing who had come, because
twice during the past month Rupert had sent word to her by
messengers encountered haphazard in the Highland country.
At the stairfoot she halted, and never saw what clothes he wore. She
looked only at his hard, tired face, at the straight carriage of him, as
if he stood on parade. And, without her knowing it, or caring either
way, a welcome, frank and luminous, brought a sudden beauty to
the face that had been magical enough to him in the far-off
Lancashire days.
The warmth of the lighted hall, the sense of courage and well-being
that Nance had always brought him, were in sharp contrast with the
night and the ceaseless peril out of doors. He went to her, and took
her two hands, and would not be done with reading what her eyes
had to tell him. There could be no doubting what had come to them
—the love deep, and to the death, and loyal; the love, not to be
bought or counterfeited, that touches common things with radiance.
Rupert was giddy with it all. He had only to stoop and claim her,
without question asked or answered. And yet he would not. He
fought against this sudden warmth that tempted him to forget his
friends—those driven comrades who trusted him to see them safely
on board ship to the French coast. He put Nance away, as a courtier
might who fears to hurt his queen, and only the strength of him
redeemed his ludicrous and muddied clothes.
“You are not proved yet?” said Nance, with a gentle laugh of raillery
and comradeship. “And yet the men who come in from the Highlands
—the men we have helped to safety, Lady Royd and I—bring another
tale of you.”
Good women and bad are keen to play the temptress when they see
a man hard set by the peril of his own wind-driven, eager heart; for
Eve dies hard in any woman.
“There are others,” he said stubbornly—“loyal men who trust me to
bring them into Edinburgh.”
“Scruples?” She mocked him daintily. “Women are not won by
scruples.”
He looked at her with the disarming, boyish smile that she
remembered from old days—the smile which hid a purpose hard as
steel. “Then women must be lost, Nance,” he answered suavely.
Nance looked at him. He had changed since the days when her least
whim had swayed him more than did the giving of her whole heart
now. He was steady and unyielding, like a rock against which the
winds beat idly. And suddenly a loneliness came over her, a wild
impatience of men’s outlook. She recalled the day at Windyhough,
just after Sir Jasper had ridden out, when Lady Royd had
complained that honour was more to a man than wife-love and his
home’s need of him. She remembered how, with a girl’s untutored
zeal, she had blamed Sir Jasper’s wife because she could not realise
the high romance of it. But now she understood.
“You rode out to prove yourself—for my sake and the Cause?” she
said, with cool disdain.
“Yes, Nance.”
“And you found—adventure. And your name is one to kindle hero-
worship wherever loyal fugitives meet and speak of you. Oh, you
shall have your due, Rupert! But in the doing of it the hard
endeavour grew dear in itself—dearer than life, than—than little
Nance Demaine, for whose sake you got to horse.”
He flushed, knowing she spoke truth; and he stood at bay, ashamed
of what should have been his pride. And then he returned, by habit,
to the mood taught him by night-riding and the over-arching skies.
“Men love that way,” he said bluntly.
Nance was twisting and untwisting the kerchief she held between
her capable, strong fingers. She had not guessed till now the
bitterness of tongue she could command.
“Oh, yes, my dear; we learned it together, did we not, in the library
at Windyhough? There was a book of Richard Lovelace, his poems,
and he was very graceful when he bade his wife farewell:
“‘I could not love thee, dear, so much
Loved I not honour more.’
And honour took him to the open—to the rousing hunt—and his wife
stayed on at home.”
Rupert, unskilled in the lore that has tempted many fools afield, was
dismayed by the attack. In his simplicity, he had looked for praise
when he put temptation by him and asked only for a God-speed till
the road of his plain duty was ended and he was free to claim her.
He did not know—how should he?—that women love best the gifts
that never reach their feet.
“Nance,” he said, “what ails you women? It was so at Windyhough,
when the Loyal Meet rode out, and mother cried as if they’d found
dishonour.”
“What ails us?” She was not bitter now, but helpless, and her eyes
were thick with tears. “Our birthright ails us. We’re like children
crying in the dark, and the night’s lonely round us, and we are far
from home. And the strong hand comes to us, and we cast it off,
because we need its strength. And then we go crying in the dark
again, and wonder why God made us so. And—and that is what ails
us,” she added, with a flash of sharp, defiant humour. And her eyes
clouded suddenly. “I—I have lost a father to the Cause. It is hard to
be brave these days, Rupert.”
So then he looked neither before nor after, but took the straight way
and the ready with her. And by and by the yapping of a pampered
dog broke the silence of the house, and Lady Royd’s voice sounded,
low and querulous, from the stairhead.
“Nance, where are you? Poor Fido is not well—not well at all.”
For the moment Rupert believed that he was home at Windyhough
again. Fido’s bark, the need paramount that his wants must be
served at once, were like old days.
“They have not told her you are here,” said Nance. “I’ll run up and
break the news.”
When Rupert came into the parlour up above, Fido, true to old habit,
ran yapping round him, and bit his riding-boots; for he hated men,
because they knew him for a lap-dog. And, after the din had died
down a little, Rupert stepped to his mother’s side, and stooped to
kiss her hand. And she looked him up and down; and the
motherhood in her was keen and proved, but she could forego old
habits as little as could Fido.
“Dear heart, what clothes to wear in Edinburgh!” she cried. “It’s as
well you’re not known in the town for a Royd.”
“Yes, it’s as well, mother,” he answered dryly.
“You are thinner than you were, Rupert, and straighter in the
shoulders, and—and many things have happened to you.”
“I rode out for happenings.”
“Oh, yes, you’re so like your father; and they tell me what you’ve
done——”
“And you, mother?” he broke in. “There are gentlemen of the
Prince’s who would not be safe in France to-day without your help—
yours and Nance’s.”
“There, my dear, you fatigue me! I have done so little. It grew dull in
Lancashire, waiting for news of your father. It was all so simple—
Fido, my sweet, you will not bark at Rupert; he’s a friend—and then
I had my own fortune, you see, apart from Windyhough, and one
must spend money somehow, must one not? So I began playing at
ships—just like a child gone back to the nursery—and Nance here
was as big a baby as myself.”
If Rupert had changed, so had Lady Royd. There was no faded
prettiness now about her face, but there were lines of beauty.
Behind her light handling of these past weeks in Edinburgh there
was a record of sleepless nights, of harassed days, of discomfort and
peril undertaken willingly. She had spent money in providing means
of passage for the exiles; but she had spent herself, too, in ceaseless
stratagem and watchfulness.
“It was all so piquant,” she went on, in the old, indolent tone. “So
many gallant men supped here, Rupert, before taking boat. And they
brought each his tale of battle in the hills. And their disguises were
so odd, almost as odd as the clothes you’re wearing now, my dear.”
“The Prince’s were little better when I last saw him,” laughed the
other.
“Ah, now, you will sit down beside me—here—and Nance shall sit
there, like Desdemona listening to Othello. And you will tell us of the
Prince. You were very near his person during the Highland flight,
they tell me.”
So Rupert, because he had that one night’s leisure at command,
forgot his own perils in telling of the Stuart’s. He had no art of
narrative, except the soldier’s plain telling of what chanced; but, step
by step, he led them through the broken days, talking seldom of
himself, but constantly of Prince Charles Edward, until the bare
record of their wanderings became a lively and abiding tribute to the
Stuart’s strength. And when he had done Lady Royd was crying
softly, while Nance felt a strange loyalty play round her like a windy
night about the moors of Lancashire.
“He was like that!” said Lady Royd at last. “He was like that, while,
God forgive me! I was picturing him all the while in love-locks,
dancing a minuet.”
“The sword-dance is better known, mother, where we have been,”
said Rupert, with pleasant irony.
Late that night, when Nance had left them together for a while, Lady
Royd came and laid a hand on her son’s arm. “You have done
enough,” she said. “Oh, I know! There are still many broken men,
waiting for a passage. They must take their chance, Rupert. Your
father was not ashamed to cross to France, with my help.”
He put an arm about her, for he had learned tenderness in a hard
school. “Mother, he was not ashamed, because his work was done
here. Mine is not. What Oliphant knew of the byways—what the last
months have taught me—I cannot take the knowledge with me, to
rust in France. I am pledged to these gentry of the Prince’s.”
“Then I shall go on playing at ships here—till you come to ask a
passage.”
And her face was resolute and proud, as if this son of hers had
returned a conqueror.
The next day, after nightfall, Rupert went out again, through
Edinburgh’s moonlit streets, toward the northern hills and the perils
that he coveted. And just before he went Nance Demaine came
down into the hall, and stood beside him in the gusty candlelight.
Old days and new were tangled in her mind; she was aware only of
a great heart-sickness and trouble, so that she did not halt to ask
herself if it were maidenly or prudent to come down for another long
good-bye. In some muddled way she remembered Will Underwood,
his debonair and easy claiming of her kerchief, remembered their
meeting on the heath, and afterwards Will lying in the courtyard at
Windyhough, his body tortured by a gaping wound. She had given
him her kerchief then for pity, and now Rupert was going out
without claiming the token she would have given him for love.
Rupert seemed oddly forgetful of little things these days, she told
herself.
“Would you not wear my favour—for luck?” she asked.
And then, giving no time for answer, she began feverishly to knot
her kerchief into a white cockade; and then again she thought better
of it, and untied the blue scarf that was her girdle, and snipped a
piece from it with the scissors hanging at her waist.
“It is the dear Madonna’s colour; and I think you ride for faith,” she
said, with a child’s simplicity. “Rupert, I do not know how or why, but
I let you go very willingly. I did not understand until to-night how—
how big a man’s love for a woman is.”
They were not easy days that followed. Rupert was among the
Midlothian hills—farther afield sometimes—snatching sleep and food
when he could, shepherding the broken gentry, leaving nothing
undone that a man’s strength and single purpose could accomplish.
And in the house near Holyrood Lady Royd and Nance were helping
the fugitives he sped forward to get on shipboard. And ever, as they
plied this trade of separation under peril, a knowledge and a trust
went up and down between Edinburgh and the northern hills—a
trust that did not go on horseback or on foot, because its wings
were stretched for flight above ground.
And near the year’s end, with an easterly haar that made the town
desolate, the last fugitive came to the house that lay near Holyrood.
He should have been spent with well-doing, foot-sore and saddle-
sore with journeyings among the hills; but, instead he carried
himself as if he had found abundant health.
“I’ve done my work, mother,” he said, stooping to Lady Royd’s hand.
“It’s as well, my dear. Nance and I were nearly tired of playing at
ships.”
That night they got aboard at Leith; and, after a contrary and
troubled crossing, they came into harbour on the French coast. The
night was soft and pleasant, like the promises that France had made
the Stuart—the promises made and broken a score of times before
ever the Prince landed in the Western Isles. A full moon was making
a track of amethyst and gold across the gentle seas, and a faint, salt
breeze was blowing.
“Are you content?” asked Nance.
“Content? My dear, what else?”
And yet she saw his glance rove out across the moonlit track that led
to England; and a jealous trouble, light as the sea-breeze, crossed
her happiness; and she conquered it, because she had learned in
Edinburgh the way of a man’s heart.
“You’re dreaming of the next Rising?” she said, with a low, tranquil
laugh. “I shall forgive you—so long as you let me share your
dreams.”

FINIS

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES:
Obvious typographical errors have been corrected.
Inconsistencies in hyphenation have been standardized.
Archaic or alternate spelling has been retained from the original.
 *** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE LONE
ADVENTURE ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in
these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it
in the United States without permission and without paying
copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of
Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything
for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as
creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research.
Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given
away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with
eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject
to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
 PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free

distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or
any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree
to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be
bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund
from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in
paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be

used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people
who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a
few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic
works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.
See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with
Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law
in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do
not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing,
performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the
work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of
course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely
sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated
with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this
agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached
full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge
with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the
United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the
terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying,
performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this
work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes
no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in
any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™
work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears,
or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is
accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
 This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived

from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a
notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright
holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the
United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must
comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted

with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted
with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning
of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a
part of this work or any other work associated with Project
Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this

electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you
provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work
in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in
the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or
expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or
a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original
“Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must
include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in
paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing

access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive
from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
 about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt
that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project
Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or
destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
Project Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™

electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe
and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating
the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may
be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to,
incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a
copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for

the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3,
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the
Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim
all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR
NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR
BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH
1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK
OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL
NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT,
CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF
YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you

discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving
it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by
sending a written explanation to the person you received the work
from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must
return the medium with your written explanation. The person or
entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide
a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work
electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to
give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in
lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may
demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,