Systematic literature review methods section


  1. Systematic reviews
  2. Systematic reviews: Data Extraction/Coding/Study characteristics/Results
  3. Systematic reviews | Karolinska Institutet Universitetsbiblioteket
  4. Study characteristics: PRISMA Item 18

Data availability statements should include information on where data supporting the results reported in the article can be found including, where applicable, hyperlinks to publicly archived datasets analysed or generated during the study.

Global dropdown menu

By data we mean the minimal dataset that would be necessary to interpret, replicate and build upon the findings reported in the article. We recognise it is not always possible to share research data publicly, for instance when individual privacy could be compromised, and in such instances data availability should still be stated in the manuscript along with any conditions for access. Data availability statements can take one of the following forms or a combination of more than one if required for multiple datasets :.

More examples of template data availability statements, which include examples of openly available and restricted access datasets, are available here. BioMed Central also requires that authors cite any publicly available data on which the conclusions of the paper rely in the manuscript. Data citations should include a persistent identifier such as a DOI and should ideally be included in the reference list.

Systematic reviews

Citations of datasets, when they appear in the reference list, should include the minimum information recommended by DataCite and follow journal style. For example:. If you wish to co-submit a data note describing your data to be published in BMC Research Notes , you can do so by visiting our submission portal. Data notes support open data and help authors to comply with funder policies on data sharing.

Co-published data notes will be linked to the research article the data support example. For more information please email our Research Data Team. See our editorial policies for a full explanation of competing interests. If you are unsure whether you or any of your co-authors have a competing interest please contact the editorial office. If you do not have any competing interests, please state "The authors declare that they have no competing interests" in this section. All sources of funding for the research reported should be declared. The role of the funding body in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript should be declared.

The individual contributions of authors to the manuscript should be specified in this section.

  • Systematic Methods for Literature Reviews: Systematic Review Methods (SRM).
  • small business plan essay.
  • Systematic review.
  • Related Reading;

Guidance and criteria for authorship can be found in our editorial policies. Please use initials to refer to each author's contribution in this section, for example: "FC analyzed and interpreted the patient data regarding the hematological disease and the transplant. RH performed the histological examination of the kidney, and was a major contributor in writing the manuscript.

Systematic reviews: Data Extraction/Coding/Study characteristics/Results

All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Please acknowledge anyone who contributed towards the article who does not meet the criteria for authorship including anyone who provided professional writing services or materials. Authors should obtain permission to acknowledge from all those mentioned in the Acknowledgements section.

See our editorial policies for a full explanation of acknowledgements and authorship criteria. You can add institution or country information for each author if you wish, but this should be consistent across all authors. Please note that individual names may not be present in the PubMed record at the time a published article is initially included in PubMed as it takes PubMed additional time to code this information. You may choose to use this section to include any relevant information about the author s that may aid the reader's interpretation of the article, and understand the standpoint of the author s.

This may include details about the authors' qualifications, current positions they hold at institutions or societies, or any other relevant background information. Please refer to authors using their initials. Note this section should not be used to describe any competing interests. Footnotes can be used to give additional information, which may include the citation of a reference included in the reference list.

Systematic reviews | Karolinska Institutet Universitetsbiblioteket

They should not consist solely of a reference citation, and they should never include the bibliographic details of a reference. They should also not contain any figures or tables. Footnotes to the text are numbered consecutively; those to tables should be indicated by superscript lower-case letters or asterisks for significance values and other statistical data. Footnotes to the title or the authors of the article are not given reference symbols. See our editorial policies for author guidance on good citation practice.

  • liberty round table essay contest?
  • Systematic Literature Review;
  • Systematic Reviews: A How-To Guide.
  • cloning thesis statement.
  • Components of a Systematic Review!
  • senior customer service manager cover letter;
  • william shakespeare essays.

Web links and URLs: All web links and URLs, including links to the authors' own websites, should be given a reference number and included in the reference list rather than within the text of the manuscript. They should be provided in full, including both the title of the site and the URL, as well as the date the site was accessed, in the following format: The Mouse Tumor Biology Database. Accessed 20 May If an author or group of authors can clearly be associated with a web link, such as for weblogs, then they should be included in the reference.

Meat consumption and mortality - results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. BMC Medicine. Clinical implications of dysregulated cytokine production. Dig J Mol Med. Hence, good literature reviews are an inevitably needed part of providing the modern scientists with a broad spectrum of knowledge.

In order to help, this blog post will introduce you to the basics of literature reviews and explain a specific methodological approach towards writing one, known as the systematic literature review. Literature review is a term associated with the process of collecting, checking and re analysing data from the existing literature with a particular search question in mind.

The latter could be for example:. A literature review a defines a specific issue, concept, theory, phenomena; b compiles published literature on a topic; c summarises critical points of current knowledge about the problem and d suggests next steps in addressing it. Literature reviews can be based on all sorts of information found in scientific journals, books, academic dissertations, electronic bibliographic databases and the rest of the Internet.

Besides scientific literature, literature reviews often include the so called gray literature. This refers to the material that is either unpublished or published in non-commercial form e. Excluding it completely from a literature review is inappropriate because the search should be always as complete as possible in order to reduce the risk of publication bias.

Study characteristics: PRISMA Item 18

However, when reviewing the material on for example Google Scholar , Science. When performing literature reviews, the use of appropriately selected terminology is essential, since it allows the researchers much clearer communication. In psychology, without some commonly agreed lists of terms, we would all get lost in the variety of concepts and vocabularies that could be applied. Other tools to make search strategy more comprehensive and focused are also truncations — a tool for searching terminologies that have same initial roots e.

It is worth noting that the databases slightly differ in how they label the index terms and utilize specific search tools in their systems. Among authors, there is not much coherence about different types of literature reviews but in general, most recognize at least two: traditional and systematic. The main difference between them is situated in the process of collecting and selecting data and the material for the review.

Systematic literature review, as the name implies, is the more structured of the two and is thought to be more credible. Systematic protocol of the systematic literature review can be therefore understood as an optional solution for controlling the incomplete and possibly biased reports of traditional reviews. In other words, to reduce bias, the rationale, the hypothesis, and the methods of data collection are prepared before the review and are used as a guide for performing the process. Just like it is for the traditional literature reviews, the goal is to identify, critically appraise, and summarize the existing evidence concerning a clearly defined problem.

Furthermore, they include the possibility of evaluating consistency and generalization of the evidence regarding specific scientific questions and are, therefore, also of great practical value within the psychological field. The process of performing a systematic literature review consists of several stages and can be reported in a form of an original research article with the same name i. Example of the objective: The objective of this literature revision is to systematically review and analyse the current research on the effects of music on the anxiety levels of children in hospital settings.

Example of a structured research question: What are the most important factors associated with the development of PTSD in soldiers? An international initiative that seeks to improve reliability and value of medical research literature by promoting transparent and accurate reporting of research studies. PRISMA is an evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. PRISMA focuses on the reporting of reviews evaluating randomized trials, but can also be used as a basis for reporting systematic reviews of other types of research, particularly evaluations of interventions.

The objective of the STARD initiative is to improve the accuracy and completeness of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy, to allow readers to assess the potential for bias in the study internal validity and to evaluate its generalisability external validity. An international, collaborative initiative of epidemiologists, methodologists, statisticians, researchers and journal editors involved in the conduct and dissemination of observational studies.