Subject Guides: Reviewing the literature: All reviews

All reviews

A review typically follows the structure provided by JBI, PRISMA, or Cochrane (Tricco et al., 2018). It may use the proforma as guidelines and not follow them prescriptively. If publishing, remember to check the journal you intend to submit to for author guidelines and look at other reviews they have previously published.

The title of a review generally includes the subject being examined followed by a colon, and then the study type. This makes it more likely that your review is retrieved by interested readers.

A Structured Abstract is usually written for a review. This is an abstract written with section headings for each part and is essentially a summary of the review that provides a brief outline of the review. See the Study Skills abstracts and summaries page for details on how to write a structured abstract.

The Introduction to a review

introduces the general topic,
provides background information (possibly with definitions of terms),
narrows the focus to a specific issue or problem. The thesis statement or main claim can be added,
outlines the areas or main points to be discussed and a rationale and statement of objectives or aim statement is included.

Rationale

This outlines the justification for the review. Make your rationale clear and accessible for the non-expert. It is a statement about why your review needs to be done and articulates the research gap.

‘However, there is no evidence synthesis of the ways in which health researchers, as a specific population group, are using social media across platforms, and there remains uncertainty about how to best harness the potential of this medium in health research’ (Dol et al., 2019, Introduction section).

Objectives

This requires an aim statement. It is not a research question but is a statement of what your review will accomplish. Use the word “aim(s)” or “objective”. Leave no room for doubt as to the precise purpose of the review.

'The primary aim of the study was to identify the type of NVC strategies used by nurses to communicate with older adults' (Wanko Keutchafo et al., 2020, Background section).

The research question

The research question structure is dependent on the review type. Follow the guidelines for your chosen review.

The introduction should finish with a statement that searches were conducted for previous reviews on the topic, including the sources searched.

Protocol and registration

A protocol statement says if a protocol exists and its registration number. If using an existing protocol, acknowledge and make reference to it. Some reviews link directly to the protocol. Scoping review protocols are often registered with The Center for Open Science, FigShare or JBI. Systematic review protocols are often registered with Cochrane, PROSPERO or Campbell.

‘A scoping review protocol was created to guide the process and is available from the corresponding author upon request’ (Dol et al., 2019, Overview section).

Eligibility criteria

This states the eligibility criteria of the literature sought. The types of evidence included, along with justification for any limits to the source type are described. It could use framework elements such as PCC, a date range, place, language or study type.

‘We included randomised trials and cluster‐randomised trials investigating training interventions where there was the comparison of interactive training and no or standard training’ (Merriel et al., 2019, Types of studies section).

Information sources

This describes the databases searched with coverage dates.

‘An experienced information specialist (RP) developed comprehensive search strategies for 6 electronic citation databases: MEDLINE (OvidSP, 1946 to May 2018), EMBASE (Elsevier, 1947 to May 2018),…’ (Dol et al., 2019, Search strategy section).

Search strategy

This section outlines the search strategy and limits placed on the search. Some reviews include a full search strategy as an appendix or figure.

‘The basic form of the search terms is: “year-round school*” or “year-round education” or (school AND (“alternative calendar” or “modified calendar” or “balanced calendar”) or (“year-round calendar” AND school). We modified the precise terms, phrases, and Boolean operators to take advantage of the search features, index terms identified in the resource’s thesaurus, and tools within each of 22 specific search/retrieval resource’ (Fitzpatrick & Burns, 2019, Electronic searches section).

Selection of sources of evidence

This section outlines how the sources found were screened, including the criteria and how disputes were resolved.

‘The titles were reviewed against the eligibility criteria by EW. This initial search was monitored, exported into EndNote X9 reference manager, for abstract and full text screening by EW. The duplicated studies were deleted, followed by independent reviewing of the abstracts by EW and JK. Studies deemed ‘unclear’ were advanced to the subsequent screening stage’ (Wanko Keutchafo et al., 2020, Study selection section).

Data charting process

Sometimes referred to as ‘data extraction’, this outlines how the data was charted from the evidence, whether it was done independently or in duplicate, and notes any processes of confirmation. This section also visually presents how the data was selected.

‘Aggregate data have been presented in the results section. As the first author compiled the data for Table 1, 12 articles were removed from the study because they were not primary research (n = 3), measured stereotypy and not SF (n = 5), did not isolate PA from other activities (n = 1), did not include a PA component (n = 2), or did not include a SF component (n = 1). The discarded articles were approved by authors two and five before the analysis was complete’ (Reinders et al., 2019, Chart the data section).

Data items

This section explains what data is obtained from the studies reviewed. It includes a summary of the results based on the inclusion criteria.

‘Extracted data included bibliographic details, country and setting, aim/objective, study design, targeted population, nurses’ nonverbal strategies used while communicating with older adults, older adults’ interpretation of nurses’ nonverbal behaviors, and relevant outcomes of interest’ (Wanko Keutchafo et al., 2020, Data extraction section).

Critical appraisal of sources of evidence

Whether critical appraisal of evidence is required depends on the review type. Follow the guidelines for your chosen review.

Search results

This describes how many sources were found and selected. A description of the search process along with a flowchart presents how sources were selected. The PRISMA flow chart or a variation is generally used to visually display the selection process for this section.

‘Two hundred and fifty-seven (257) studies met the eligibility criteria following the deletion of 478 duplicates from the 735 studies identified at the title screening stage (see Fig. 1)’ (Wanko Keutchafo et al., 2020, Results section).

Characteristics/appraisal/results of sources of evidence

Sometimes reviews have separate sections here or they may provide a general section that outlines, compares and contrasts the findings from the review. Interpretation of the findings is not provided here. The review might first compare and contrast the articles obtained generally, then according to specific characteristics.

The Discussion section of a review is written in the same way as a Discussion in other research papers. This is described in detail on the Study Skills discussion section page.

Study implications

All review types can make recommendations for further research.

Conclusion

The conclusions need to match the review objectives and questions, summarising what was found.

Reference list

Check the author guidelines for the journal you plan to publish in to find the required referencing style. For example, the JBI Evidence Synthesis journal requires references in Vancouver, while other journals may have developed their own particular style. It is a good idea to use EndNote to manage references, as it is easy and quick to alter the reference style in a document.

Additional files/appendixes

It is encouraged to make data open under the FAIR access to Australia’s research outputs policy statement. For a review, this may include the data extracted from studies, the full search strategy, a list of excluded sources, clean datasets in a form able to be re-analysed, metadata or analytic software code. It is important to check the copyright restrictions as well, for example records exported from databases may include copyrighted material and is therefore unable to be shared. These files can be appended to the review text or shared on a site such as FigShare and linked to in the article.

‘The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00120/full#supplementary-material’ (Reinders et al., 2019, Supplementary material section).

Here are some excellent tips and step-by-step processes to help develop your writing skills:

Behzadi, P., & Gajdács, M. (2021). Writing a strong scientific paper in medicine and the biomedical sciences: A checklist and recommendations for early career researchers. Biologia Futura, 72(4), 395-407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42977-021-00095-z

Mensh, B., & Kording, K. (2017). Ten simple rules for structuring papers. PLoS Computational Biology, 13(9), e1005619-e1005619. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005619

Thistlethwaite, J. E., & Anderson, E. (2021). Writing for publication: Increasing the likelihood of success. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 35(5), 784-790. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2020.1798899

Watson, R. (Ed.). (2019, August 23). Writing for publication: An easy-to-follow guide for nurses. Wiley. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/pb-assets/assets/14667657/Writing_for_Publication-1509467251000.pdf

Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Thomas, J., Higgins, J. P. T., Deeks, J. J., & Clarke, M. J. (2022). Introduction. In J. P. T. Higgins, J. Thomas, M. Cumpston, T. Li, M. J. Page, & V. A. Welch (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Version 6.3). Cochrane. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-i#section-i-1

Dol, J., Tutelman, P. R., Chambers, C. T., Barwick, M., Drake, E. K., Parker, J. A., Parker, R., Benchimol, E. I., George, R. B., & Witteman, H. O. (2019). Health researchers’ use of social media: Scoping review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(11), Article e13687. https://doi.org/10.2196/13687

Fitzpatrick, D., & Burns, J. (2019). Single-track year-round education for improving academic achievement in U.S. K-12 schools: Results of a meta-analysis. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 15(3), e1053. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1053

Merriel, A., Ficquet, J., Barnard, K., Kunutsor, S. K., Soar, J., Lenguerrand, E., Caldwell, D. M., Burden, C., Winter, C., Draycott, T., & Siassakos, D. (2019). The effects of interactive training of healthcare providers on the management of life‐threatening emergencies in hospital. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012177.pub2.

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., McGuinness, L. A., Stewart, L. A., Thomas, J., Tricco, A. C., Welch, V. A., Whiting, P., & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

Peters, M. D. J., Godfrey, C. M., McInerney, P., Munn, Z., Tricco, A. C., & Khalil, H. (2020). Scoping reviews. In E. Aromatis & Z. Munn (Eds.), JBI manual for evidence synthesis. The Joanna Briggs Institute. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-01

Reinders, N. J., Branco, A., Wright, K., Fletcher, P. C., & Bryden, P. J. (2019). Scoping review: Physical activity and social functioning in young people with autism spectrum disorder. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 120. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00120

Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl, E. A., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M. G., Garritty, C., Lewin, S., Godfrey, C. M., Macdonald, M. T., Langlois, E. V., Soares-Weiser, K., Moriarty, J., Clifford, T., Tunçalp, Ö., & Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467-473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850

Wanko Keutchafo, E. L., Kerr, J., & Jarvis, M. A. (2020). Evidence of nonverbal communication between nurses and older adults: A scoping review. BMC Nursing, 19, Article 53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-020-00443-9