1 / 53

Davis, C.G. (1998) Rear-end impacts: vehicle and occupant response. JMPT, 21(9): 629-39.

Bronfort, G., W. Assendelft, et al. (2001). Efficacy of spinal manipulation for chronic headache: A systematic review . JMPT 24(7): 457-466. Davis, C.G. (1998) Rear-end impacts: vehicle and occupant response. JMPT, 21(9): 629-39. Literature Reviews. Another Descriptive Design

moses-cohen
Download Presentation

Davis, C.G. (1998) Rear-end impacts: vehicle and occupant response. JMPT, 21(9): 629-39.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Bronfort, G., W. Assendelft, et al. (2001). Efficacy of spinal manipulation for chronic headache: A systematic review. JMPT 24(7): 457-466. Davis, C.G. (1998) Rear-end impacts: vehicle and occupant response. JMPT, 21(9): 629-39.

  2. Literature Reviews Another Descriptive Design (Along with case reports, surveys, and case series)

  3. DESCRIPTIVE DESIGNS

  4. The Literature Review • Summarizes all available literature on a topic to produce a single paper • Imperative to carry out in an objective and critical format • Can cover a broad issue or a very focused clinical question • Example I: Cervical manipulation of whiplash patients • Example II: Cervical manipulation of whiplash patients with signs of VBI

  5. Literature Review • A great deal of information is brought together and written so the reader can clearly understand the topic • Literature reviews provide a new conclusion to the literature . . . a synthesis • Not just rehashing all the articles involved

  6. Purpose • Objectively report current knowledge concerning a certain topic based upon previously published research • Provide a comprehensive overview of the topic • Place information into perspective • Find out what others have to say

  7. Reasons to Read LiteratureReviews • Save time when searching for information about patient care • The author of the literature review has already done most of the work • Provide information for decision makers • Researchers use them to develop hypotheses and to identify pitfalls in previous research

  8. LiteratureReviews • May offer more conclusive results than a single primary research study • Reviewing all studies on a topic tends to neutralize the extremes • May provide a very high level of evidence • Meta-analyses • However, readers must consider the possibility of author bias

  9. Three Classifications • Narrative review • A comprehensive narrative synthesis of previously published information • Qualitative systematic review • A detailed search of the literature based upon a focused question • Employs detailed, rigorous and explicit search methods

  10. Three Classifications Cont. • Quantitative systematic review • Evaluates each reviewed paper and statistically combines the results of the studies

  11. From JMPT Instructions for Authors • Literature reviews • Critical assessments of current knowledge of a particular subject of interest • With emphasis on better correlation • The pointing up of ambiguities • And the delineation of areas that may constitute hypotheses for further study • Meta-analysis is included

  12. Narrative Literature Review • Three types: • Editorials • Are typically written by the journal’s editor or an invited guest • Commentaries • Typically express an opinion (biased) • Overview articles • A narrative review that draws upon the wisdom of the commentator (biased) • AKA unsystematic narrative reviews

  13. Why NarrativeLiterature Reviews? • Usually more up to date than textbooks • However, probably published 2+ years after the research was done • Presents a broad perspective on a given topic • Practitioners can obtain up to date clinical protocols • Often specific authors are solicited to write narrative overviews who are experts • Many times they have conducted related research

  14. Systematic Methods Required • Methods used in creating the paper should be revealed • Inclusion/exclusion criteria explained • Language, timeframe, specific type of tx. • The list of sources used to locate literature should be complete • Regarding chiropractic – Not just PubMed • Should include MANTIS, CINAHL, ICL, and others

  15. Narrative Overviews - Evidence • One of the weakest forms of evidence for making clinical decisions • They deal with broader issues than focused clinical problems • They are potentially more biased • Which is why they are one of the weakest

  16. Qualitative Systematic Literature Review • AKA systematic review • Detailed, rigorous and explicit methods are utilized • Methodology is described step-by-step • Noted for having a focused question or purpose • All original (primary) research studies published on the topic are included

  17. Systematic Review Searching • Multiple databases should be searched • Also hand searches • Should contact authors of previously published research • Attempt to locate articles that may not have been published • “Failed” studies

  18. Systematic Reviewing Process • Papers are reviewed systematically and consistently • Apply the same criteria to each one reviewed • Several independent reviewers are typically involved • Papers are rated using a scoring system • Checklists are typically involved • Then individual studies are integrated

  19. Systematic Review - Evidence • More powerful evidence-based source of clinical information than narrative reviews • Better-quality evidence than • Case reports and case series • Even better than poorly conducted RCTs

  20. Quantitative Systematic Literature Review • Commonly known as a meta-analysis • A systematic review that not only critically evaluates each paper, but also statistically combines the results of the studies • Are very methodological like qualitative systematic reviews

  21. Meta-analyses – Major Benefit • Pooling of data between studies • All of the original patient data from the studies under review are pooled • Creates a larger sample size for statistical testing • Increases “power” of the individual studies • However, it is often difficult to find studies that are similar enough to pool data

  22. Meta-analyses - Evidence • Considered a very high form of evidence for making clinical decisions • More generalizable conclusions are possible • More “power” • Tends to even out extreme values through a process of averaging

  23. Writing a Narrative Review of the Literature • Select topic that you are very interested in • Need to have momentum to finish • Select topic with a feasible focus • “Headaches” would be impossible – too broad • Better – “chiropractic management of muscle tension headaches” – more focused • Get help from experienced (published) colleagues or faculty • Possibly offer co-authorship in return

  24. Step One • Perform a preliminary literature search • This applies for any research endeavor • To see what has already been published on the topic • There may already be a review published about the topic • However, may still be able to get a review published using a different perspective

  25. General Guidelines • Use the required writing elements for a narrative review • Be well structured • Synthesize the available evidence • Convey a clear message • Use an objective and scientific approach • Follow the “Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals” formatting guidelines

  26. Guidelines Cont. • The necessary elements of a narrative review are similar to those required of any form of scholarly article • Standard “anatomy” • Title, Structured Abstract, Introduction, Method, Results, Discussion, Acknowledgements, References, Tables, Figures, and Figure captions

  27. Title • Clearly describe the topic being reviewed • May include the words “literature review” or “review of the literature” • Example from JMPT • Alcohol and low-back pain: A systematic literature review

  28. Structured Abstract • Objective: Author should clearly state the purpose of the paper • Background: A description of what prompted the review or why it was written. Presentation of a context for the review. • Methods: Brief description of the methods used for the review.

  29. Structured Abstract Cont. • Discussion: Description of what information the review presents to the reader. • Conclusion: Summary of what the review contributes to the literature. What new conclusion can be drawn as a result of the synthesis of the literature.

  30. Key Words • Use medical subheadings (MeSH) when possible • Additional words that may be unique to this topic

  31. Introduction • State the research purpose or focus • Convince readers of the need or importance of the study • Hasn’t been reported previously • Inadequately reported • Incorrectly reported • Define any unusual terms that are used

  32. Methods • A step-by-step description of how the study was carried out • List databases that were searched • Typically must search at least two applicable databases in order to obtain a reasonable breadth and depth on a topic • Articles harvested from reference sections • Other sources for references • Conference proceedings, communications with authors, books, etc.

  33. Describing Information Sources • Name the database that was searched • List search terms • Define an inclusion timeframe • Provide a starting year and an ending year and month • Example • A MEDLINE search was carried out using the terms “neck pain” and “manipulation” from 1966 through March, 2004.

  34. Parameters For The Literature Search • Inclusion and exclusion criteria must be established to focus the search • For example, exclude surgery related studies or drug trials • Use “Limits” in PubMed and “Advanced Search” in MANTIS • Choose language, date, discipline, etc. • Search strategy should be described so another reviewer could duplicate results

  35. Results • This section presents the outcome of the search process • The number of articles that were retrieved • How many of the articles were excluded from the review • Which of the inclusion criteria they failed to meet

  36. Discussion • The synthesis is the most demanding element of a narrative review • All of the information retrieved in the literature search is combined into comprehensive paragraphs • Notes must be kept for each study reviewed including the following information: • The purpose of the study being reviewed

  37. Discussion cont. • A synopsis of the content • The research design or methods used in the study • A brief review of the findings

  38. Most reviews have a table of articles that were utilized

  39. Synthesis • The synthesis is the heart of the narrative review design • Consequently it is important to ensure that a meaningful integration is accomplished • Based on the literature reviewed, the author should offer an interpretation • Also a critical appraisal of the papers reviewed may be in order

  40. Appendix A • Check sheets or guides are helpful when critically appraising the articles • Green BN, Johnson CD, Adams A. Writing Narrative Literature Reviews for Peer-reviewed Journals: Secrets of the Trade. J Sports Chiropr Rehabil 2001:15(1) • 1 = Absent, 2 = Present but not complete, 3 = Present and complete

  41. Initial Impression • Does the review appear to be relevant to an issue of interest? • Don’t waste your time reading articles that aren’t relevant or interesting There are plenty available that are relevant

  42. Abstract • Is the specific purpose of the review stated? • Is context for the overview provided? • Is the type of research design stated? • Are the search methods clearly summarized? • Are the important findings clearly discussed? • Are the major conclusions and recommendations clearly outlined?

  43. Introduction • Is the specific purpose of the review clearly stated based upon a brief review of the literature? • Is the need/importance and context of this study established? • Are novel terms defined?

  44. Methods • Were the electronic databases used to conduct the literature searches identified (MEDLINE, CINAHL, etc.)? • Were the search years stated? • Were the search terms stated? • Were standard terms used as search terms, including Medical Subject Headings? • Were the guidelines for including and excluding articles in the literature review clearly identified?

  45. Results - Discussion • Were the results summarized in a comprehensible manner? • Was the critical appraisal of each study the same and reproducible? • Was the quality of the included articles assessed objectively? • Was the variation in the findings of the studies critically analyzed?

  46. Discussion Cont. • Was the meaning of the results addressed? • Do the authors tie in the results of the study with previous research in a meaningful manner? • Were the weak points and untoward events that occurred during the course of the study addressed by the authors?

  47. Conclusions • Was a clear summary of pertinent findings provided? • Were the authors’ conclusions supported by the evidence provided? • Were specific directives for new research initiatives proposed? • Specific implications to the practice environment are addressed?

  48. References • Are references relevant, current and appropriate in number? • Are all papers reviewed cited in the references?

More Related