Which of the Following Is an Important Characteristic of a High-quality Literature Review
J Grad Med Educ. 2016 Jul; eight(3): 297–303.
The Literature Review: A Foundation for Loftier-Quality Medical Instruction Research
a These are subscription resources. Researchers should check with their librarian to determine their access rights.
Despite a surge in published scholarship in medical didactics 1 and rapid growth in journals that publish educational research, manuscript acceptance rates go along to autumn. 2 Failure to deport a thorough, accurate, and upwards-to-date literature review identifying an important problem and placing the written report in context is consistently identified as one of the pinnacle reasons for rejection. iii,4 The purpose of this editorial is to provide a road map and applied recommendations for planning a literature review. By understanding the goals of a literature review and following a few bones processes, authors tin enhance both the quality of their educational inquiry and the likelihood of publication in the Periodical of Graduate Medical Instruction (JGME) and in other journals.
The Literature Review Defined
In medical didactics, no organisation has articulated a formal definition of a literature review for a research newspaper; thus, a literature review can take a number of forms. Depending on the blazon of commodity, target journal, and specific topic, these forms will vary in methodology, rigor, and depth. Several organizations accept published guidelines for conducting an intensive literature search intended for formal systematic reviews, both broadly (eg, PRISMA) five and within medical education, half dozen and there are excellent commentaries to guide authors of systematic reviews. 7,8
Such work is outside the telescopic of this article, which focuses on literature reviews to inform reports of original medical education research. We define such a literature review every bit a synthetic review and summary of what is known and unknown regarding the topic of a scholarly trunk of work, including the electric current piece of work'southward place inside the existing knowledge. While this blazon of literature review may non require the intensive search processes mandated by systematic reviews, it merits a thoughtful and rigorous arroyo.
Purpose and Importance of the Literature Review
An agreement of the current literature is critical for all phases of a research study. Lingard ix recently invoked the "periodical-equally-conversation" metaphor as a way of understanding how one's research fits into the larger medical education conversation. As she described it: "Imagine yourself joining a conversation at a social event. After you hang most eavesdropping to go the migrate of what's being said (the conversational equivalent of the literature review), you lot join the chat with a contribution that signals your shared interest in the topic, your knowledge of what'due south already been said, and your intention." 9
The literature review helps whatsoever researcher "join the conversation" by providing context, informing methodology, identifying innovation, minimizing duplicative research, and ensuring that professional standards are met. Understanding the electric current literature also promotes scholarship, equally proposed past Boyer, 10 by contributing to v of the 6 standards by which scholarly piece of work should be evaluated. eleven Specifically, the review helps the researcher (1) clear clear goals, (2) bear witness prove of adequate grooming, (3) select appropriate methods, (4) communicate relevant results, and (5) engage in cogitating critique.
Failure to conduct a high-quality literature review is associated with several problems identified in the medical instruction literature, including studies that are repetitive, non grounded in theory, methodologically weak, and neglect to expand cognition beyond a single setting. 12 Indeed, medical education scholars complain that many studies repeat piece of work already published and contribute little new noesis—a likely cause of which is failure to comport a proper literature review. 3,4
Likewise, studies that lack theoretical grounding or a conceptual framework make study design and estimation hard. 13 When theory is used in medical instruction studies, it is often invoked at a superficial level. Equally Norman 14 noted, when theory is used appropriately, it helps articulate variables that might be linked together and why, and it allows the researcher to make hypotheses and define a study's context and scope. Ultimately, a proper literature review is a beginning critical footstep toward identifying relevant conceptual frameworks.
Another problem is that many medical pedagogy studies are methodologically weak. 12 Good research requires trained investigators who can articulate relevant research questions, operationally define variables of interest, and cull the best method for specific research questions. Conducting a proper literature review helps both novice and experienced researchers select rigorous inquiry methodologies.
Finally, many studies in medical educational activity are "one-offs," that is, single studies undertaken because the opportunity presented itself locally. Such studies frequently are not oriented toward progressive cognition edifice and generalization to other settings. A firm grasp of the literature can encourage a programmatic arroyo to research.
Approaching the Literature Review
Considering these issues, journals accept a responsibility to demand from authors a thoughtful synthesis of their study's position within the field, and it is the authors' responsibility to provide such a synthesis, based on a literature review. The aforementioned purposes of the literature review mandate that the review occurs throughout all phases of a study, from conception and design, to implementation and assay, to manuscript grooming and submission.
Planning the literature review requires understanding of journal requirements, which vary greatly by periodical ( tabular array 1). Authors are advised to take note of common problems with reporting results of the literature review. Tabular array ii lists the most mutual problems that we have encountered as authors, reviewers, and editors.
Table 1
Sample of Journals' Writer Instructions for Literature Reviews Conducted every bit Part of Original Research Commoditya
Table 2
Common Problem Areas for Reporting Literature Reviews in the Context of Scholarly Articles
Locating and Organizing the Literature
3 resources may facilitate identifying relevant literature: human resources, search tools, and related literature. As the process requires time, it is important to begin searching for literature early in the procedure (ie, the study design stage). Identifying and agreement relevant studies will increment the likelihood of designing a relevant, adaptable, generalizable, and novel study that is based on educational or learning theory and can maximize impact.
Human Resources
A medical librarian can help interpret enquiry interests into an effective search strategy, familiarize researchers with bachelor information resources, provide information on organizing information, and introduce strategies for keeping current with emerging inquiry. Ofttimes, librarians are besides enlightened of enquiry beyond their institutions and may be able to connect researchers with like interests. Reaching out to colleagues for suggestions may help researchers apace locate resources that would non otherwise be on their radar.
During this process, researchers will likely identify other researchers writing on aspects of their topic. Researchers should consider searching for the publications of these relevant researchers (run into tabular array 3 for search strategies). Additionally, institutional websites may include curriculum vitae of such relevant kinesthesia with access to their entire publication record, including difficult to locate publications, such equally book capacity, dissertations, and technical reports.
Tabular array three
Strategies for Finding Related Researcher Publications in Databases and Search Engines
Search Tools and Related Literature
Researchers will locate the majority of needed information using databases and search engines. Splendid resource are bachelor to guide researchers in the mechanics of literature searches. fifteen,sixteen
Because medical instruction enquiry draws on a multifariousness of disciplines, researchers should include search tools with coverage across medicine (eg, psychology, nursing, education, and anthropology) and that comprehend several publication types, such equally reports, standards, conference abstracts, and book chapters (see the box for several information resource). Many search tools include options for viewing citations of selected articles. Examining cited references provides additional articles for review and a sense of the influence of the selected article on its field.
Once relevant manufactures are located, it is useful to mine those articles for additional citations. I strategy is to examine references of central articles, especially review articles, for relevant citations.
Getting Organized
As the aforementioned resources volition likely provide a tremendous amount of information, organization is crucial. Researchers should determine which details are most important to their study (eg, participants, setting, methods, and outcomes) and generate a strategy for keeping those details organized and accessible. Increasingly, researchers utilize digital tools, such as Evernote, to capture such information, which enables accessibility across digital workspaces and search capabilities. Use of citation managers can also be helpful every bit they shop citations and, in some cases, can generate bibliographies ( table 4).
Table 4
Commendation Managers
Knowing When to Say When
Researchers oft ask how to know when they have located enough citations. Unfortunately, there is no magic or platonic number of citations to collect. One strategy for checking coverage of the literature is to audit references of relevant articles. As researchers review references they will start noticing a repetition of the same articles with few new articles appearing. This tin bespeak that the researcher has covered the literature base on a particular topic.
Putting It All Together
In preparing to write a research paper, information technology is important to consider which citations to include and how they will inform the introduction and discussion sections. The "Instructions to Authors" for the targeted journal will oftentimes provide guidance on structuring the literature review (or introduction) and the number of full citations permitted for each article category. Reviewing manufactures of similar blazon published in the targeted journal can also provide guidance regarding structure and average lengths of the introduction and discussion sections.
When selecting references for the introduction consider those that illustrate cadre background theoretical and methodological concepts, as well as contempo relevant studies. The introduction should be brief and present references not as a laundry list or narrative of available literature, but rather equally a synthesized summary to provide context for the current report and to identify the gap in the literature that the report intends to fill up. For the discussion, citations should be thoughtfully selected to compare and contrast the present written report'due south findings with the current literature and to indicate how the present study moves the field forward.
To facilitate writing a literature review, journals are increasingly providing helpful features to guide authors. For example, the resources bachelor through JGME include several articles on writing. 17 The journal Perspectives on Medical Educational activity recently launched "The Author's Arts and crafts," which is intended to help medical educators improve their writing. Additionally, many institutions have writing centers that provide web-based materials on writing a literature review, and some even have writing coaches.
Conclusion
The literature review is a vital part of medical education research and should occur throughout the research process to help researchers blueprint a strong written report and effectively communicate written report results and importance. To achieve these goals, researchers are advised to plan and execute the literature review advisedly. The guidance in this editorial provides considerations and recommendations that may ameliorate the quality of literature reviews.
References
1. Lee Grand, Whelan JS, Tannery NH, Kanter SL, Peters Every bit. 50 years of publication in the field of medical teaching. Med Teach . 2013; 35 7: 591– 598. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2. Norman Thou. Taking stock. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract . 2014; 19 four: 465– 467. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3. Artino AR, Jr, West DC, Gusic ME. Foreword: the more things change, the more they stay the aforementioned. Acad Med . 2015; xc suppl 11: Si– Siii. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. Bordage G. Reasons reviewers reject and have manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports. Acad Med . 2001; 76 9: 889– 896. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA Grouping. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med . 2009; 6 7: e1000097. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
six. Harden R, Grant J, Buckley G, Hart I. BEME. Guide No. 1: best evidence medical educational activity. Med Teach . 1999; 21 6: 553– 562. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
vii. Cook DA, West CP. Conducting systematic reviews in medical instruction: a stepwise arroyo. Med Educ . 2012; 46 10: 943– 952. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8. Hammick G, Dornan T, Steinert Y. Conducting a best evidence systematic review. Function 1: from thought to data coding. BEME Guide No. thirteen. Med Teach . 2010; 32 1: iii– 15. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. Lingard L. Joining a conversation: the problem/gap/hook heuristic. Perspect Med Educ . 2015; 4 five: 252– 253. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10. Boyer EL. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate . San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2016. [Google Scholar]
eleven. Hofmeyer A, Newton M, Scott C. Valuing the scholarship of integration and the scholarship of awarding in the academy for health sciences scholars: recommended methods. Health Res Policy Syst . 2007; 5: 5. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12. Albert M, Hodges B, Regehr Thousand. Research in medical education: balancing service and science. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract . 2007; 12 one: 103– 115. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13. Bordage G. Conceptual frameworks to illuminate and magnify. Med Educ . 2009; 43 4: 312– 319. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
xiv. Norman K. Editorial—how bad is medical didactics research anyway? Adv Wellness Sci Educ Theory Pract . 2007; 12 1: 1– 5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15. Haig A, Dozier Thou. BEME. Guide No. iii: systematic searching for evidence in medical education—part ii: amalgam searches. Med Teach . 2003; 25 5: 463– 484. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16. Maggio LA, Tannery NH, Kanter SL. AM last page: how to perform an constructive database search. Acad Med . 2011; 86 eight: 1057. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Articles from Journal of Graduate Medical Education are provided here courtesy of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Pedagogy
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4936839/
0 Response to "Which of the Following Is an Important Characteristic of a High-quality Literature Review"
Post a Comment