the types of literature review

the types of literature review

the types of literature review

1. Introduction

The last type of review is looking for research work. This type includes reviews looking for some article and report. This can involve a review of systematic studies as it is done for theory or model, and it can also involve studies relating to case and casual studies. Now, there can be some specific category of review for an article, so it is similar to study type, and the main aim of this review is to find and report the article. Now, the reviewers today take package and print of the article is not available, but maybe the review is still needed to find out the study article; a carbon paper study!

This also includes the analysis of the review. By saying analysis, it means to study the literature and describe what the author has done in his study. Now, he may have conducted research for a certain theory or model and he may have some results regarding the theory, which can provide some conclusion to that result. So, the analysis study will help one to explain the model or theory to the audience who is in need of it, and it also provides guidelines or hints to future researchers on the same topic. This analysis study is also critical for the researcher who is conducting a study based on some previous study or trying to compare his results with the previous author. So, there is a need to compare both studies and review them.

A research can be categorized into many categories. For instance, it can be classified as qualitative or quantitative, and it can be experimental or report type. Now, studies related to these categories have different results and different impacts on the subject. So, there should be a specific review for each specific category. This type of categorization is helpful to the research as it is easy to locate the review that is needed and it also makes the reviewer concentrate on that particular review and avoid unnecessary studies. This categorization of the review can help the students and the researchers who have to conduct a review as a part of their assignment or project. Because the basic difficulty which students face during the review is to find a relevant and related study.

In the literature review, you are not writing the complete history of your topic but rather writing about the existing studies in an organized and precise manner. After the brief explanation of this chapter, it includes the types of literature review. Mainly, it differentiates the review based on the category of research. So basically, it gives an overview of how to conduct a review.

Introduction comprises a brief introduction of the literature review to the beginners. It includes those studies which other authors and scholars have written regarding the topic of your research. It includes the theory and the construct of the research. The purpose of writing this material is to analyze the previous studies conducted by previous researchers and to relate them to your own research work. It highlights the points where previous studies are lacking and where your study will be helpful. It is like building the base for your research.

2. Systematic Literature Review

Decide if the systematic review is appropriate. The systematic review is a powerful research tool which aims to identify and synthesize all evidence relevant to a research question. A well-conducted review will provide a robust and unbiased answer to the question which can then be used to inform policy, practice, or further research. It is important to consider whether a systematic review is appropriate before embarking on one. Systematic reviews are best suited to answering very specific questions. They are most valuable when an important decision needs to be made and there is uncertainty about the decision. This might be a question of efficacy of a new drug, or the cost and benefits of implementing a new service. If the review question is very broad, it may be difficult to define systematic inclusion and exclusion criteria. If inclusion and exclusion criteria are not well defined, the review will have an element of subjectivity and may be criticized for bias in study selection. Similarly, if there is already a well-conducted systematic review addressing the question, it may be better to save time and effort by not duplicating the review. This could be established by searching for existing reviews in relevant databases such as the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. If a recent systematic review is found to address the same question, it may be better to alter the research question to a more specific aspect of the topic which has not been reviewed.

3. Narrative Literature Review

The main benefit of a narrative review is that it simplifies and explains the meaning of a topic in an attempt to form a clearer understanding. This can be extremely useful when trying to make professional decisions. Another benefit of narrative reviews is that they may uncover significant differences between studies that were not apparent before, such as converging evidence for the effectiveness of a certain intervention or exposing a discrepancy in the findings of studies that have all purported to assess the same thing. This can be useful for guiding research agendas. Narrative reviews are also able to make a useful interpretative phase of aggregating research findings and making inferences that extend beyond the individual studies. This is essential for evidence-based practice. Despite the advantages, a major downside to narrative reviews is the potential for bias. This can be from misconstrued selection of articles to suit the desired explanation or having an insufficient methodology for gathering and analyzing information. This can significantly decrease the credibility and reliability of a review.

A narrative description represents a comprehensive review of the literature by refining previous works. This includes exploiting the work of others, which might involve description, interpretation, and explanation, usually resulting in a way that is different from the original work. It provides a way of describing and simplifying the current understanding of a phenomenon. This is often used in the medical sciences where the investigation is tested on human subjects and can assist in developing cause and effect theories. Narrative reviews are also beneficial in the field of policy due to their ability to provide an in-depth analysis of a specific topic. An example of this is Greenhalgh (1997), who examined the NHS reforms and modernization of health service provision in the UK.

4. Meta-analysis Literature Review

Step one in any meta-analysis is to define a focused research question which may be derived from a clinical or policy issue. The rationale for doing a meta-analysis may be to resolve uncertainty of the effects of treatment, to identify sources of variation between study results, to suggest areas for further research, to increase precision of an effect size, or to increase the power of individual studies.

Outcome from meta-analysis studies can be shown more clearly through the use of forest plots. Data aggregation for meta-analysis can take the form of a quantitative review that focuses on the effect size or a more general form of analysis. This depends on the amount of data available and the homogeneity of the studies to be reviewed.

A preferable way of integrating study findings is to use the actual data from the separate studies for a formal research synthesis. This terminology may be used for any method that computes the result of more than one study. It encompasses many methodological tools, one of which is meta-analysis. In comparison to narrative or traditional reviews, it is considered to be a more objective and rigorous method for summarizing the literature. The use of statistical analyses can validate authors’ conclusions and is useful in the detection of bias.

Meta-analysis is a type of literature review that is focused on the accumulation or summarization of data. Data can be gathered from primary studies that have been conducted. In this method, findings from separate studies are not integrated, but rather added together, maintaining the original format and findings. This method does not fully utilize the extant data and can preclude a broader interpretation of the results.

5. Scoping Literature Review

Rather, we demonstrated much reproducibility in the extent and content of systematic reviews. It is possible to conduct them on the same topic in parallel without any prior knowledge of each other with different teams of researchers. When this is intentional and when the various specific reviews are coordinated and communicate with each other, it could result in resource-intensive and accumulated evidence from the same or similar questions overlapping. Although cumulative research and more systematic reviews provide a clear and feasible platform to avoid duplication and optimize the utilization of research resources, an alternative way to satisfy the clarity and feasibility aim is to conduct an overview systematic review implemented by each more specific review. However, in both cases, the line between low-level specific reviews and the overview review is often blurred, which is not a bad thing because more research is likely necessary about a particular topic. We recommend different types of reviews at distinct phases of a research program, which would be a sensible and helpful strategy for many to gain duration. With the increasing acceptance that high-level research questions warrant a form of review, a more scoping review has been sought as a way of clarifying methodology and nomenclature for various types of reviews.

Progress of a developing field raises continuous questions and requirements for reviewing existing evidence, identifying gaps, and deciding priorities. Often, the task is regarded as a high-level investigation and analysis that utilizes iterations to take place. In the health professions, the evidence-based approach encompasses those activities. Therefore, the minimum requirements for systematic reviews are usually met when the specific question is not too narrowly defined. However, scoping reviews are now emerging as a means to give an adequate overview of a diverse range of evidence in order to inform practice, policy, and research. As such, it is now possible for a systematic review to be viewed as an umbrella term for those reviews that use a method to systematically identify and locate the evidence, appraise it, and then synthesize the results and findings. This achievement in itself can be an expensive activity and not different from that of conducting primary research.