Javascript required
Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer
Home / Different Methods to Use in a Literature Review

Different Methods to Use in a Literature Review

9.one. Introduction

Literature reviews play a disquisitional part in scholarship because science remains, first and foremost, a cumulative endeavour (vom Brocke et al., 2009). As in any academic subject field, rigorous knowledge syntheses are becoming indispensable in keeping up with an exponentially growing eHealth literature, assisting practitioners, academics, and graduate students in finding, evaluating, and synthesizing the contents of many empirical and conceptual papers. Amidst other methods, literature reviews are essential for: (a) identifying what has been written on a subject or topic; (b) determining the extent to which a specific enquiry area reveals whatever interpretable trends or patterns; (c) aggregating empirical findings related to a narrow research question to support evidence-based practise; (d) generating new frameworks and theories; and (e) identifying topics or questions requiring more than investigation (Paré, Trudel, Jaana, & Kitsiou, 2015).

Literature reviews can take ii major forms. The most prevalent one is the "literature review" or "background" section within a periodical newspaper or a affiliate in a graduate thesis. This department synthesizes the extant literature and usually identifies the gaps in knowledge that the empirical report addresses (Sylvester, Tate, & Johnstone, 2013). It may also provide a theoretical foundation for the proposed written report, substantiate the presence of the research trouble, justify the research equally one that contributes something new to the cumulated knowledge, or validate the methods and approaches for the proposed study (Hart, 1998; Levy & Ellis, 2006).

The 2d form of literature review, which is the focus of this chapter, constitutes an original and valuable work of research in and of itself (Paré et al., 2015). Rather than providing a base for a researcher's own piece of work, it creates a solid starting point for all members of the community interested in a particular area or topic (Mulrow, 1987). The and then-called "review commodity" is a periodical-length paper which has an overarching purpose to synthesize the literature in a field, without collecting or analyzing whatsoever master information (Greenish, Johnson, & Adams, 2006).

When accordingly conducted, review articles represent powerful information sources for practitioners looking for state-of-the art bear witness to guide their decision-making and work practices (Paré et al., 2015). Further, loftier-quality reviews become frequently cited pieces of work which researchers seek out as a first clear outline of the literature when undertaking empirical studies (Cooper, 1988; Rowe, 2014). Scholars who track and gauge the bear on of articles have found that review papers are cited and downloaded more than often than any other blazon of published article (Cronin, Ryan, & Coughlan, 2008; Montori, Wilczynski, Morgan, Haynes, & Hedges, 2003; Patsopoulos, Analatos, & Ioannidis, 2005). The reason for their popularity may be the fact that reading the review enables one to have an overview, if not a detailed knowledge of the area in question, besides as references to the near useful primary sources (Cronin et al., 2008). Although they are not easy to conduct, the delivery to complete a review commodity provides a tremendous service to one's academic community (Paré et al., 2015; Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). Nigh, if non all, peer-reviewed journals in the fields of medical informatics publish review articles of some type.

The main objectives of this affiliate are fourfold: (a) to provide an overview of the major steps and activities involved in conducting a stand up-alone literature review; (b) to describe and contrast the unlike types of review articles that can contribute to the eHealth knowledge base; (c) to illustrate each review type with one or two examples from the eHealth literature; and (d) to provide a serial of recommendations for prospective authors of review manufactures in this domain.

9.2. Overview of the Literature Review Procedure and Steps

As explained in Templier and Paré (2015), at that place are six generic steps involved in conducting a review article:

  1. formulating the research question(s) and objective(southward),

  2. searching the extant literature,

  3. screening for inclusion,

  4. assessing the quality of primary studies,

  5. extracting data, and

  6. analyzing data.

Although these steps are presented hither in sequential order, one must keep in mind that the review procedure can be iterative and that many activities can be initiated during the planning stage and later refined during subsequent phases (Finfgeld-Connett & Johnson, 2013; Kitchenham & Charters, 2007).

Formulating the inquiry question(due south) and objective(s): As a start step, members of the review team must appropriately justify the need for the review itself (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006), identify the review'southward main objective(south) (Okoli & Schabram, 2010), and define the concepts or variables at the eye of their synthesis (Cooper & Hedges, 2009; Webster & Watson, 2002). Importantly, they also demand to articulate the research question(s) they propose to investigate (Kitchenham & Charters, 2007). In this regard, we concur with Jesson, Matheson, and Lacey (2011) that conspicuously articulated research questions are key ingredients that guide the entire review methodology; they underscore the blazon of information that is needed, inform the search for and option of relevant literature, and guide or orient the subsequent analysis.

Searching the extant literature: The next step consists of searching the literature and making decisions about the suitability of material to be considered in the review (Cooper, 1988). There be three main coverage strategies. Outset, exhaustive coverage ways an endeavor is made to be as comprehensive every bit possible in order to ensure that all relevant studies, published and unpublished, are included in the review and, thus, conclusions are based on this all-inclusive knowledge base. The second type of coverage consists of presenting materials that are representative of well-nigh other works in a given field or expanse. Often authors who adopt this strategy will search for relevant articles in a small number of peak-tier journals in a field (Paré et al., 2015). In the third strategy, the review team concentrates on prior works that take been central or pivotal to a particular topic. This may include empirical studies or conceptual papers that initiated a line of investigation, changed how problems or questions were framed, introduced new methods or concepts, or engendered of import argue (Cooper, 1988).

Screening for inclusion: The following step consists of evaluating the applicability of the material identified in the preceding step (Levy & Ellis, 2006; vom Brocke et al., 2009). One time a group of potential studies has been identified, members of the review team must screen them to decide their relevance (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). A set of predetermined rules provides a basis for including or excluding sure studies. This practice requires a significant investment on the function of researchers, who must ensure enhanced objectivity and avert biases or mistakes. As discussed later in this affiliate, for sure types of reviews there must be at least two independent reviewers involved in the screening procedure and a procedure to resolve disagreements must also exist in place (Liberati et al., 2009; Shea et al., 2009).

Assessing the quality of primary studies: In addition to screening material for inclusion, members of the review team may demand to assess the scientific quality of the selected studies, that is, appraise the rigour of the research design and methods. Such formal cess, which is usually conducted independently by at least 2 coders, helps members of the review squad refine which studies to include in the final sample, make up one's mind whether or not the differences in quality may touch on their conclusions, or guide how they analyze the data and interpret the findings (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). Ascribing quality scores to each main study or considering through domain-based evaluations which study components accept or have not been designed and executed appropriately makes information technology possible to reflect on the extent to which the selected study addresses possible biases and maximizes validity (Shea et al., 2009).

Extracting information: The following step involves gathering or extracting applicable information from each primary study included in the sample and deciding what is relevant to the problem of involvement (Cooper & Hedges, 2009). Indeed, the blazon of data that should be recorded mainly depends on the initial research questions (Okoli & Schabram, 2010). Still, important information may also exist gathered about how, when, where and by whom the primary study was conducted, the research design and methods, or qualitative/quantitative results (Cooper & Hedges, 2009).

Analyzing and synthesizing data: Every bit a final step, members of the review team must collate, summarize, aggregate, organize, and compare the testify extracted from the included studies. The extracted data must be presented in a meaningful way that suggests a new contribution to the extant literature (Jesson et al., 2011). Webster and Watson (2002) warn researchers that literature reviews should be much more than lists of papers and should provide a coherent lens to make sense of extant noesis on a given topic. There exist several methods and techniques for synthesizing quantitative (e.thou., frequency assay, meta-assay) and qualitative (e.chiliad., grounded theory, narrative analysis, meta-ethnography) show (Dixon-Woods, Agarwal, Jones, Young, & Sutton, 2005; Thomas & Harden, 2008).

9.3. Types of Review Manufactures and Brief Illustrations

EHealth researchers accept at their disposal a number of approaches and methods for making sense out of existing literature, all with the purpose of casting current enquiry findings into historical contexts or explaining contradictions that might exist among a set up of main research studies conducted on a particular topic. Our classification scheme is largely inspired from Paré and colleagues' (2015) typology. Beneath we present and illustrate those review types that nosotros feel are central to the growth and development of the eHealth domain.

nine.iii.ane. Narrative Reviews

The narrative review is the "traditional" way of reviewing the extant literature and is skewed towards a qualitative interpretation of prior knowledge (Sylvester et al., 2013). Put merely, a narrative review attempts to summarize or synthesize what has been written on a particular topic but does not seek generalization or cumulative knowledge from what is reviewed (Davies, 2000; Green et al., 2006). Instead, the review team often undertakes the task of accumulating and synthesizing the literature to demonstrate the value of a particular point of view (Baumeister & Leary, 1997). Equally such, reviewers may selectively ignore or limit the attention paid to sure studies in guild to make a point. In this rather unsystematic approach, the option of information from primary articles is subjective, lacks explicit criteria for inclusion and tin can lead to biased interpretations or inferences (Green et al., 2006). There are several narrative reviews in the item eHealth domain, every bit in all fields, which follow such an unstructured arroyo (Silva et al., 2015; Paul et al., 2015).

Despite these criticisms, this type of review can be very useful in gathering together a volume of literature in a specific subject area and synthesizing it. As mentioned above, its main purpose is to provide the reader with a comprehensive background for understanding electric current knowledge and highlighting the significance of new research (Cronin et al., 2008). Faculty like to use narrative reviews in the classroom because they are ofttimes more than up to date than textbooks, provide a single source for students to reference, and expose students to peer-reviewed literature (Green et al., 2006). For researchers, narrative reviews tin can inspire research ideas past identifying gaps or inconsistencies in a body of knowledge, thus helping researchers to determine inquiry questions or codify hypotheses. Importantly, narrative reviews can also be used as educational articles to bring practitioners up to date with certain topics of issues (Green et al., 2006).

Recently, in that location have been several efforts to introduce more rigour in narrative reviews that will elucidate common pitfalls and bring changes into their publication standards. Information systems researchers, among others, have contributed to advancing knowledge on how to structure a "traditional" review. For instance, Levy and Ellis (2006) proposed a generic framework for conducting such reviews. Their model follows the systematic data processing approach comprised of iii steps, namely: (a) literature search and screening; (b) information extraction and assay; and (c) writing the literature review. They provide detailed and very helpful instructions on how to acquit each footstep of the review procedure. As another methodological contribution, vom Brocke et al. (2009) offered a series of guidelines for conducting literature reviews, with a particular focus on how to search and extract the relevant body of knowledge. Last, Bandara, Miskon, and Fielt (2011) proposed a structured, predefined and tool-supported method to identify principal studies inside a feasible telescopic, extract relevant content from identified manufactures, synthesize and analyze the findings, and effectively write and present the results of the literature review. Nosotros highly recommend that prospective authors of narrative reviews consult these useful sources before embarking on their work.

Darlow and Wen (2015) provide a skilful example of a highly structured narrative review in the eHealth field. These authors synthesized published articles that depict the evolution procedure of mobile wellness (g-health) interventions for patients' cancer care self-management. As in nearly narrative reviews, the telescopic of the enquiry questions being investigated is broad: (a) how evolution of these systems are carried out; (b) which methods are used to investigate these systems; and (c) what conclusions can be drawn equally a event of the evolution of these systems. To provide clear answers to these questions, a literature search was conducted on six electronic databases and Google Scholar. The search was performed using several terms and free text words, combining them in an appropriate manner. Four inclusion and iii exclusion criteria were utilized during the screening procedure. Both authors independently reviewed each of the identified articles to decide eligibility and extract study information. A flow diagram shows the number of studies identified, screened, and included or excluded at each stage of report pick. In terms of contributions, this review provides a series of practical recommendations for m-health intervention development.

nine.3.2. Descriptive or Mapping Reviews

The master goal of a descriptive review is to determine the extent to which a body of noesis in a particular research topic reveals any interpretable pattern or trend with respect to pre-existing propositions, theories, methodologies or findings (King & He, 2005; Paré et al., 2015). In contrast with narrative reviews, descriptive reviews follow a systematic and transparent process, including searching, screening and classifying studies (Petersen, Vakkalanka, & Kuzniarz, 2015). Indeed, structured search methods are used to course a representative sample of a larger group of published works (Paré et al., 2015). Further, authors of descriptive reviews extract from each study sure characteristics of interest, such as publication yr, research methods, data collection techniques, and direction or strength of research outcomes (e.thou., positive, negative, or non-significant) in the course of frequency analysis to produce quantitative results (Sylvester et al., 2013). In essence, each study included in a descriptive review is treated as the unit of analysis and the published literature every bit a whole provides a database from which the authors endeavor to identify any interpretable trends or draw overall conclusions most the merits of existing conceptualizations, propositions, methods or findings (Paré et al., 2015). In doing so, a descriptive review may claim that its findings stand for the state of the art in a particular domain (King & He, 2005).

In the fields of health sciences and medical informatics, reviews that focus on examining the range, nature and development of a topic surface area are described by Anderson, Allen, Peckham, and Goodwin (2008) every bit mapping reviews. Like descriptive reviews, the research questions are generic and usually relate to publication patterns and trends. In that location is no preconceived plan to systematically review all of the literature although this can be done. Instead, researchers oft nowadays studies that are representative of almost works published in a particular area and they consider a specific time frame to exist mapped.

An instance of this arroyo in the eHealth domain is offered by DeShazo, Lavallie, and Wolf (2009). The purpose of this descriptive or mapping review was to characterize publication trends in the medical informatics literature over a 20-twelvemonth period (1987 to 2006). To reach this aggressive objective, the authors performed a bibliometric analysis of medical informatics citations indexed in medline using publication trends, journal frequencies, impact factors, Medical Subject area Headings (MeSH) term frequencies, and characteristics of citations. Findings revealed that there were over 77,000 medical informatics articles published during the covered period in numerous journals and that the average almanac growth rate was 12%. The MeSH term analysis also suggested a strong interdisciplinary trend. Finally, average impact scores increased over time with two notable growth periods. Overall, patterns in research outputs that seem to narrate the historic trends and current components of the field of medical informatics suggest it may exist a maturing subject (DeShazo et al., 2009).

9.iii.3. Scoping Reviews

Scoping reviews endeavour to provide an initial indication of the potential size and nature of the extant literature on an emergent topic (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005; Daudt, van Mossel, & Scott, 2013; Levac, Colquhoun, & O'Brien, 2010). A scoping review may be conducted to examine the extent, range and nature of enquiry activities in a item expanse, determine the value of undertaking a full systematic review (discussed next), or identify research gaps in the extant literature (Paré et al., 2015). In line with their main objective, scoping reviews unremarkably conclude with the presentation of a detailed enquiry agenda for hereafter works along with potential implications for both practice and research.

Dissimilar narrative and descriptive reviews, the whole point of scoping the field is to be equally comprehensive as possible, including grayness literature (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005). Inclusion and exclusion criteria must be established to assist researchers eliminate studies that are not aligned with the research questions. It is also recommended that at to the lowest degree two independent coders review abstracts yielded from the search strategy and then the total articles for report option (Daudt et al., 2013). The synthesized testify from content or thematic assay is relatively piece of cake to present in tabular course (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005; Thomas & Harden, 2008).

One of the almost highly cited scoping reviews in the eHealth domain was published past Archer, Fevrier-Thomas, Lokker, McKibbon, and Straus (2011). These authors reviewed the existing literature on personal wellness record (phr) systems including design, functionality, implementation, applications, outcomes, and benefits. Seven databases were searched from 1985 to March 2010. Several search terms relating to phrsouthward were used during this process. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts to determine inclusion status. A 2d screen of full-text articles, once again by two independent members of the research team, ensured that the studies described phrsouth. All in all, 130 articles met the criteria and their information were extracted manually into a database. The authors concluded that although at that place is a large amount of survey, observational, cohort/panel, and anecdotal testify of phr benefits and satisfaction for patients, more than inquiry is needed to evaluate the results of phr implementations. Their in-depth analysis of the literature signalled that there is little solid testify from randomized controlled trials or other studies through the utilise of phrs. Hence, they suggested that more research is needed that addresses the current lack of understanding of optimal functionality and usability of these systems, and how they can play a beneficial office in supporting patient self-management (Archer et al., 2011).

nine.iii.4. Forms of Aggregative Reviews

Healthcare providers, practitioners, and policy-makers are nowadays overwhelmed with large volumes of data, including research-based show from numerous clinical trials and evaluation studies, assessing the effectiveness of health information technologies and interventions (Ammenwerth & de Keizer, 2004; Deshazo et al., 2009). It is unrealistic to expect that all these disparate actors will take the time, skills, and necessary resources to identify the bachelor evidence in the area of their expertise and consider it when making decisions. Systematic reviews that involve the rigorous application of scientific strategies aimed at limiting subjectivity and bias (i.e., systematic and random errors) can respond to this challenge.

Systematic reviews attempt to aggregate, appraise, and synthesize in a single source all empirical show that run into a set of previously specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a clearly formulated and often narrow inquiry question on a item topic of interest to support prove-based practice (Liberati et al., 2009). They attach closely to explicit scientific principles (Liberati et al., 2009) and rigorous methodological guidelines (Higgins & Greenish, 2008) aimed at reducing random and systematic errors that can lead to deviations from the truth in results or inferences. The use of explicit methods allows systematic reviews to aggregate a big torso of research prove, assess whether furnishings or relationships are in the same direction and of the same full general magnitude, explain possible inconsistencies betwixt written report results, and decide the strength of the overall evidence for every event of interest based on the quality of included studies and the general consistency amid them (Cook, Mulrow, & Haynes, 1997). The main procedures of a systematic review involve:

  1. Formulating a review question and developing a search strategy based on explicit inclusion criteria for the identification of eligible studies (usually described in the context of a detailed review protocol).

  2. Searching for eligible studies using multiple databases and information sources, including grey literature sources, without any language restrictions.

  3. Selecting studies, extracting information, and assessing run a risk of bias in a duplicate manner using two independent reviewers to avoid random or systematic errors in the process.

  4. Analyzing data using quantitative or qualitative methods.

  5. Presenting results in summary of findings tables.

  6. Interpreting results and drawing conclusions.

Many systematic reviews, just not all, use statistical methods to combine the results of contained studies into a single quantitative estimate or summary issue size. Known as meta-analyses, these reviews use specific data extraction and statistical techniques (eastward.thou., network, frequentist, or Bayesian meta-analyses) to calculate from each study by outcome of interest an upshot size forth with a confidence interval that reflects the degree of uncertainty behind the point approximate of consequence (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009; Deeks, Higgins, & Altman, 2008). Afterward, they utilize fixed or random-effects assay models to combine the results of the included studies, appraise statistical heterogeneity, and summate a weighted boilerplate of the effect estimates from the different studies, taking into account their sample sizes. The summary event size is a value that reflects the average magnitude of the intervention effect for a particular outcome of interest or, more mostly, the strength of a relationship betwixt 2 variables across all studies included in the systematic review. Past statistically combining information from multiple studies, meta-analyses tin can create more than precise and reliable estimates of intervention effects than those derived from individual studies alone, when these are examined independently every bit detached sources of information.

The review by Gurol-Urganci, de Jongh, Vodopivec-Jamsek, Atun, and Car (2013) on the effects of mobile telephone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments is an illustrative case of a loftier-quality systematic review with meta-analysis. Missed appointments are a major cause of inefficiency in healthcare commitment with substantial monetary costs to health systems. These authors sought to appraise whether mobile phone-based appointment reminders delivered through Brusque Message Service (sms) or Multimedia Messaging Service (mms) are effective in improving rates of patient omnipresence and reducing overall costs. To this end, they conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases using highly sensitive search strategies without linguistic communication or publication-type restrictions to place all rcts that are eligible for inclusion. In society to minimize the adventure of omitting eligible studies not captured by the original search, they supplemented all electronic searches with manual screening of trial registers and references contained in the included studies. Report choice, information extraction, and risk of bias assessments were performed inde­­pen­dently past two coders using standardized methods to ensure consistency and to eliminate potential errors. Findings from eight rcts involving 6,615 participants were pooled into meta-analyses to calculate the magnitude of effects that mobile text message reminders have on the rate of attendance at healthcare appointments compared to no reminders and telephone call reminders.

Meta-analyses are regarded as powerful tools for deriving meaningful conclusions. Withal, at that place are situations in which information technology is neither reasonable nor appropriate to pool studies together using meta-analytic methods simply because in that location is extensive clinical heterogeneity between the included studies or variation in measurement tools, comparisons, or outcomes of involvement. In these cases, systematic reviews can employ qualitative synthesis methods such equally vote counting, content assay, classification schemes and tabulations, as an alternative approach to narratively synthesize the results of the independent studies included in the review. This class of review is known as qualitative systematic review.

A rigorous example of one such review in the eHealth domain is presented by Mickan, Atherton, Roberts, Heneghan, and Tilson (2014) on the use of handheld computers by healthcare professionals and their impact on access to data and clinical decision-making. In line with the methodological guide­lines for systematic reviews, these authors: (a) developed and registered with prospero (world wide web.crd.york.air-conditioning.uk/prospero/) an a priori review protocol; (b) conducted comprehensive searches for eligible studies using multiple databases and other supplementary strategies (e.g., forward searches); and (c) subsequently carried out study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments in a duplicate manner to eliminate potential errors in the review process. Heterogeneity between the included studies in terms of reported outcomes and measures precluded the utilise of meta-analytic methods. To this stop, the authors resorted to using narrative analysis and synthesis to describe the effectiveness of handheld computers on accessing information for clinical cognition, adherence to safety and clinical quality guidelines, and diagnostic decision-making.

In recent years, the number of systematic reviews in the field of health informatics has increased considerably. Systematic reviews with discordant findings can crusade great confusion and make information technology difficult for decision-makers to interpret the review-level evidence (Moher, 2013). Therefore, at that place is a growing need for appraisal and synthesis of prior systematic reviews to ensure that decision-making is constantly informed by the best bachelor accumulated evidence. Umbrella reviews, likewise known as overviews of systematic reviews, are tertiary types of evidence synthesis that aim to accomplish this; that is, they aim to compare and contrast findings from multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Becker & Oxman, 2008). Umbrella reviews by and large adhere to the same principles and rigorous methodological guidelines used in systematic reviews. However, the unit of analysis in umbrella reviews is the systematic review rather than the primary written report (Becker & Oxman, 2008). Unlike systematic reviews that have a narrow focus of inquiry, umbrella reviews focus on broader research topics for which there are several potential interventions (Smith, Devane, Begley, & Clarke, 2011). A recent umbrella review on the effects of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with heart failure critically appraised, compared, and synthesized bear witness from 15 systematic reviews to investigate which types of home telemonitoring technologies and forms of interventions are more constructive in reducing mortality and infirmary admissions (Kitsiou, Paré, & Jaana, 2015).

9.iii.5. Realist Reviews

Realist reviews are theory-driven interpretative reviews developed to inform, enhance, or supplement conventional systematic reviews by making sense of heterogeneous prove most complex interventions practical in diverse contexts in a way that informs policy decision-making (Greenhalgh, Wong, Westhorp, & Pawson, 2011). They originated from criticisms of positivist systematic reviews which heart on their "simplistic" underlying assumptions (Oates, 2011). Every bit explained above, systematic reviews seek to place causation. Such logic is appropriate for fields like medicine and education where findings of randomized controlled trials can be aggregated to run across whether a new treatment or intervention does ameliorate outcomes. All the same, many argue that it is not possible to establish such directly causal links between interventions and outcomes in fields such as social policy, management, and information systems where for any intervention at that place is unlikely to be a regular or consistent outcome (Oates, 2011; Pawson, 2006; Rousseau, Manning, & Denyer, 2008).

To circumvent these limitations, Pawson, Greenhalgh, Harvey, and Walshe (2005) have proposed a new approach for synthesizing cognition that seeks to unpack the mechanism of how "complex interventions" work in particular contexts. The basic enquiry question — what works? — which is usually associated with systematic reviews changes to: what is it about this intervention that works, for whom, in what circumstances, in what respects and why? Realist reviews have no particular preference for either quantitative or qualitative prove. As a theory-building approach, a realist review commonly starts by articulating likely underlying mechanisms and and so scrutinizes available evidence to find out whether and where these mechanisms are applicable (Shepperd et al., 2009). Primary studies found in the extant literature are viewed equally example studies which tin can exam and modify the initial theories (Rousseau et al., 2008).

The principal objective pursued in the realist review conducted by Otte-Trojel, de Bont, Rundall, and van de Klundert (2014) was to examine how patient portals contribute to health service delivery and patient outcomes. The specific goals were to investigate how outcomes are produced and, most importantly, how variations in outcomes tin can exist explained. The inquiry team started with an exploratory review of groundwork documents and enquiry studies to place means in which patient portals may contribute to health service delivery and patient outcomes. The authors identified vi main ways which stand for "educated guesses" to be tested against the data in the evaluation studies. These studies were identified through a formal and systematic search in four databases between 2003 and 2013. Two members of the research team selected the articles using a pre-established list of inclusion and exclusion criteria and following a two-pace procedure. The authors then extracted data from the selected manufactures and created several tables, one for each outcome category. They organized information to bring forward those mechanisms where patient portals contribute to outcomes and the variation in outcomes across different contexts.

ix.3.6. Critical Reviews

Lastly, critical reviews aim to provide a disquisitional evaluation and interpretive analysis of existing literature on a particular topic of interest to reveal strengths, weaknesses, contradictions, controversies, inconsistencies, and/or other important bug with respect to theories, hypotheses, inquiry methods or results (Baumeister & Leary, 1997; Kirkevold, 1997). Unlike other review types, critical reviews attempt to have a reflective business relationship of the research that has been done in a particular area of interest, and assess its brownie by using appraisement instruments or critical interpretive methods. In this way, critical reviews attempt to constructively inform other scholars about the weaknesses of prior research and strengthen cognition evolution past giving focus and management to studies for further comeback (Kirkevold, 1997).

Kitsiou, Paré, and Jaana (2013) provide an example of a critical review that assessed the methodological quality of prior systematic reviews of home telemonitoring studies for chronic patients. The authors conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases to identify eligible reviews and subsequently used a validated instrument to conduct an in-depth quality appraisal. Results point that the majority of systematic reviews in this particular surface area suffer from important methodological flaws and biases that impair their internal validity and limit their usefulness for clinical and conclusion-making purposes. To this end, they provide a number of recommendations to strengthen knowledge development towards improving the pattern and execution of futurity reviews on home telemonitoring.

9.4. Summary

Table 9.1 outlines the primary types of literature reviews that were described in the previous sub-sections and summarizes the main characteristics that distinguish one review blazon from some other. It also includes key references to methodological guidelines and useful sources that can exist used by eHealth scholars and researchers for planning and developing reviews.

Table 9.1. Typology of Literature Reviews (adapted from Paré et al., 2015).

Table 9.i

Typology of Literature Reviews (adjusted from Paré et al., 2015).

As shown in Table ix.1, each review blazon addresses different kinds of research questions or objectives, which subsequently define and dictate the methods and approaches that need to be used to achieve the overarching goal(due south) of the review. For example, in the example of narrative reviews, there is greater flexibility in searching and synthesizing articles (Greenish et al., 2006). Researchers are oftentimes relatively gratuitous to employ a multifariousness of approaches to search, place, and select relevant scientific manufactures, describe their operational characteristics, nowadays how the individual studies fit together, and formulate conclusions. On the other hand, systematic reviews are characterized past their loftier level of systematicity, rigour, and employ of explicit methods, based on an "a priori" review plan that aims to minimize bias in the analysis and synthesis procedure (Higgins & Greenish, 2008). Some reviews are exploratory in nature (eastward.g., scoping/mapping reviews), whereas others may exist conducted to discover patterns (due east.grand., descriptive reviews) or involve a synthesis approach that may include the critical analysis of prior research (Paré et al., 2015). Hence, in order to select the most appropriate type of review, information technology is critical to know before embarking on a review project, why the research synthesis is conducted and what blazon of methods are best aligned with the pursued goals.

ix.5. Last Remarks

In light of the increased use of evidence-based practise and research generating stronger show (Grady et al., 2011; Lyden et al., 2013), review manufactures have become essential tools for summarizing, synthesizing, integrating or critically appraising prior cognition in the eHealth field. As mentioned earlier, when rigorously conducted review articles represent powerful information sources for eHealth scholars and practitioners looking for land-of-the-art prove. The typology of literature reviews nosotros used herein will allow eHealth researchers, graduate students and practitioners to gain a better understanding of the similarities and differences between review types.

We must stress that this nomenclature scheme does not privilege any specific blazon of review as beingness of college quality than some other (Paré et al., 2015). Every bit explained above, each type of review has its ain strengths and limitations. Having said that, we realize that the methodological rigour of any review — exist it qualitative, quantitative or mixed — is a critical aspect that should exist considered seriously by prospective authors. In the present context, the notion of rigour refers to the reliability and validity of the review process described in section ix.ii. For one affair, reliability is related to the reproducibility of the review process and steps, which is facilitated by a comprehensive documentation of the literature search process, extraction, coding and analysis performed in the review. Whether the search is comprehensive or not, whether it involves a methodical approach for information extraction and synthesis or not, information technology is important that the review documents in an explicit and transparent manner the steps and approach that were used in the process of its development. Next, validity characterizes the degree to which the review process was conducted appropriately. It goes beyond documentation and reflects decisions related to the choice of the sources, the search terms used, the menstruum of time covered, the articles selected in the search, and the awarding of backward and forward searches (vom Brocke et al., 2009). In brusk, the rigour of whatsoever review article is reflected by the explicitness of its methods (i.e., transparency) and the soundness of the approach used. Nosotros refer those interested in the concepts of rigour and quality to the work of Templier and Paré (2015) which offers a detailed gear up of methodological guidelines for conducting and evaluating various types of review articles.

To conclude, our master objective in this chapter was to demystify the various types of literature reviews that are central to the continuous evolution of the eHealth field. It is our promise that our descriptive account will serve as a valuable source for those conducting, evaluating or using reviews in this important and growing domain.

References

  • Ammenwerth East., de Keizer North. An inventory of evaluation studies of it in health care. Trends in evaluation enquiry, 1982-2002. International Periodical of Medical Informatics. 2004;44(1):44–56. [PubMed: 15778794]

  • Anderson S., Allen P., Peckham South., Goodwin N. Asking the correct questions: scoping studies in the commissioning of enquiry on the organisation and delivery of health services. Wellness Research Policy and Systems. 2008;vi(vii):i–12. [PMC free article: PMC2500008] [PubMed: 18613961] [CrossRef]

  • Archer N., Fevrier-Thomas U., Lokker C., McKibbon Thou. A., Straus Southward.E. Personal health records: a scoping review. Journal of American Medical Computer science Association. 2011;xviii(4):515–522. [PMC free article: PMC3128401] [PubMed: 21672914]

  • Arksey H., O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2005;8(ane):19–32.

  • A systematic, tool-supported method for conducting literature reviews in information systems. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Information Systems (ecis 2011); June 9 to 11; Helsinki, Finland. 2011.

  • Baumeister R. F., Leary Thou.R. Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology. 1997;one(3):311–320.

  • Becker L. A., Oxman A.D. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Hoboken, nj: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Overviews of reviews; pp. 607–631.

  • Borenstein Grand., Hedges L., Higgins J., Rothstein H. Introduction to meta-analysis. Hoboken, nj: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2009.

  • Cook D. J., Mulrow C. D., Haynes B. Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1997;126(5):376–380. [PubMed: 9054282]

  • Cooper H., Hedges L.V. In: The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. second ed. Cooper H., Hedges L. 5., Valentine J. C., editors. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2009. Research synthesis as a scientific process; pp. 3–17.

  • Cooper H. 1000. Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in Society. 1988;one(1):104–126.

  • Cronin P., Ryan F., Coughlan M. Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach. British Journal of Nursing. 2008;17(1):38–43. [PubMed: 18399395]

  • Darlow S., Wen K.Y. Development testing of mobile wellness interventions for cancer patient self-management: A review. Health Computer science Journal. 2015 (online earlier print). [PubMed: 25916831] [CrossRef]

  • Daudt H. M., van Mossel C., Scott S.J. Enhancing the scoping written report methodology: a big, inter-professional person team'southward experience with Arksey and O'Malley's framework. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2013;xiii:48. [PMC costless commodity: PMC3614526] [PubMed: 23522333] [CrossRef]

  • Davies P. The relevance of systematic reviews to educational policy and practice. Oxford Review of Education. 2000;26(3-4):365–378.

  • Deeks J. J., Higgins J. P. T., Altman D.G. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Hoboken, nj: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses; pp. 243–296.

  • Deshazo J. P., Lavallie D. L., Wolf F.Grand. Publication trends in the medical informatics literature: 20 years of "Medical Informatics" in mesh. bmc Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2009;nine:7. [PMC complimentary commodity: PMC2652453] [PubMed: 19159472] [CrossRef]

  • Dixon-Wood One thousand., Agarwal S., Jones D., Immature B., Sutton A. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy. 2005;10(1):45–53. [PubMed: 15667704]

  • Finfgeld-Connett D., Johnson East.D. Literature search strategies for conducting knowledge-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews. Journal of Avant-garde Nursing. 2013;69(1):194–204. [PMC free article: PMC3424349] [PubMed: 22591030]

  • Grady B., Myers K. 1000., Nelson Due east. L., Belz N., Bennett L., Carnahan L. … Guidelines Working Grouping. Show-based practice for telemental health. Telemedicine Journal and Eastward Health. 2011;17(2):131–148. [PubMed: 21385026]

  • Dark-green B. N., Johnson C. D., Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine. 2006;5(3):101–117. [PMC gratuitous article: PMC2647067] [PubMed: 19674681]

  • Greenhalgh T., Wong One thousand., Westhorp K., Pawson R. Protocol–realist and meta-narrative prove synthesis: evolving standards (rameses). bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2011;11:115. [PMC free commodity: PMC3173389] [PubMed: 21843376]

  • Gurol-Urganci I., de Jongh T., Vodopivec-Jamsek V., Atun R., Automobile J. Mobile telephone messaging reminders for omnipresence at healthcare appointments. Cochrane Database Arrangement Review. 2013;12 cd007458. [PMC costless article: PMC6485985] [PubMed: 24310741] [CrossRef]

  • Hart C. Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination. London: SAGE Publications; 1998.

  • Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: Cochrane volume series. Hoboken, nj: Wiley-Blackwell; 2008.

  • Jesson J., Matheson L., Lacey F.Yard. Doing your literature review: traditional and systematic techniques. Los Angeles & London: SAGE Publications; 2011.

  • King W. R., He J. Understanding the role and methods of meta-analysis in IS research. Communications of the Clan for Information Systems. 2005;16:1.

  • Kirkevold M. Integrative nursing research — an important strategy to farther the development of nursing science and nursing practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 1997;25(five):977–984. [PubMed: 9147203]

  • Kitchenham B., Charters South. ebse Technical Report Version two.iii. Keele & Durham. britain: Keele University & University of Durham; 2007. Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software applied science.

  • Kitsiou S., Paré G., Jaana Grand. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with chronic diseases: a critical assessment of their methodological quality. Journal of Medical Net Research. 2013;fifteen(vii):e150. [PMC free article: PMC3785977] [PubMed: 23880072]

  • Kitsiou Due south., Paré G., Jaana M. Furnishings of abode telemonitoring interventions on patients with chronic eye failure: an overview of systematic reviews. Periodical of Medical Net Research. 2015;17(iii):e63. [PMC free article: PMC4376138] [PubMed: 25768664]

  • Levy Y., Ellis T.J. A systems approach to acquit an constructive literature review in back up of data systems enquiry. Informing Science. 2006;9:181–211.

  • Liberati A., Altman D. G., Tetzlaff J., Mulrow C., Gøtzsche P. C., Ioannidis J. P. A. et al. Moher D. The prisma argument for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Register of Internal Medicine. 2009;151(4):W-65. [PubMed: 19622512]

  • Lyden J. R., Zickmund S. 50., Bhargava T. D., Bryce C. L., Conroy Chiliad. B., Fischer Chiliad. Southward. et al. McTigue K. Grand. Implementing health information technology in a patient-centered manner: Patient experiences with an online evidence-based lifestyle intervention. Journal for Healthcare Quality. 2013;35(5):47–57. [PubMed: 24004039]

  • Mickan S., Atherton H., Roberts North. W., Heneghan C., Tilson J.G. Use of handheld computers in clinical practice: a systematic review. bmc Medical Informatics and Conclusion Making. 2014;xiv:56. [PMC free article: PMC4099138] [PubMed: 24998515]

  • Moher D. The problem of duplicate systematic reviews. British Medical Journal. 2013;347(5040) [PubMed: 23945367] [CrossRef]

  • Montori V. Yard., Wilczynski N. L., Morgan D., Haynes R. B., Hedges T. Systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of location and citation counts. bmc Medicine. 2003;1:2. [PMC free article: PMC281591] [PubMed: 14633274]

  • Mulrow C. D. The medical review article: state of the science. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1987;106(3):485–488. [PubMed: 3813259] [CrossRef]

  • Okoli C., Schabram Grand. A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of data systems research. ssrn Electronic Journal. 2010

  • Otte-Trojel T., de Bont A., Rundall T. Thousand., van de Klundert J. How outcomes are achieved through patient portals: a realist review. Journal of American Medical Information science Clan. 2014;21(4):751–757. [PMC gratis article: PMC4078283] [PubMed: 24503882]

  • Paré G., Trudel M.-C., Jaana M., Kitsiou S. Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management. 2015;52(two):183–199.

  • Patsopoulos Due north. A., Analatos A. A., Ioannidis J.P. A. Relative citation impact of various written report designs in the health sciences. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2005;293(19):2362–2366. [PubMed: 15900006]

  • Paul 1000. One thousand., Greene C. Grand., Newton-Matriarch R., Thorpe 50. E., Perlman S. E., McVeigh K. H., Gourevitch M.N. The state of population health surveillance using electronic health records: A narrative review. Population Wellness Management. 2015;18(3):209–216. [PubMed: 25608033]

  • Pawson R. Evidence-based policy: a realist perspective. London: SAGE Publications; 2006.

  • Pawson R., Greenhalgh T., Harvey G., Walshe K. Realist review—a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy. 2005;x(Suppl 1):21–34. [PubMed: 16053581]

  • Petersen K., Vakkalanka S., Kuzniarz 50. Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering science: An update. Information and Software Technology. 2015;64:1–xviii.

  • Petticrew M., Roberts H. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A applied guide. Malden, ma: Blackwell Publishing Co; 2006.

  • Rousseau D. M., Manning J., Denyer D. Evidence in direction and organizational science: Assembling the field'southward full weight of scientific cognition through syntheses. The Academy of Management Annals. 2008;2(ane):475–515.

  • Rowe F. What literature review is not: diversity, boundaries and recommendations. European Journal of Information Systems. 2014;23(3):241–255.

  • Shea B. J., Hamel C., Wells G. A., Bouter L. Chiliad., Kristjansson E., Grimshaw J. et al. Boers M. amstar is a reliable and valid measurement tool to appraise the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Periodical of Clinical Epidemiology. 2009;62(x):1013–1020. [PubMed: 19230606]

  • Shepperd S., Lewin South., Straus S., Clarke One thousand., Eccles M. P., Fitzpatrick R. et al. Sheikh A. Tin can we systematically review studies that evaluate complex interventions? PLoS Medicine. 2009;half dozen(8):e1000086. [PMC free article: PMC2717209] [PubMed: 19668360]

  • Silva B. Grand., Rodrigues J. J., de la Torre Díez I., López-Coronado M., Saleem Thousand. Mobile-wellness: A review of current state in 2015. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2015;56:265–272. [PubMed: 26071682]

  • Smith Five., Devane D., Begley C., Clarke M. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. bmc Medical Inquiry Methodology. 2011;11(1):xv. [PMC free article: PMC3039637] [PubMed: 21291558]

  • Sylvester A., Tate M., Johnstone D. Beyond synthesis: re-presenting heterogeneous enquiry literature. Behaviour & Information Technology. 2013;32(12):1199–1215.

  • Templier M., Paré G. A framework for guiding and evaluating literature reviews. Communications of the Association for Data Systems. 2015;37(6):112–137.

  • Thomas J., Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2008;8(ane):45. [PMC free article: PMC2478656] [PubMed: 18616818]

  • Reconstructing the behemothic: on the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Information Systems (ecis 2009); Verona, Italy. 2009.

  • Webster J., Watson R.T. Analyzing the past to prepare for the time to come: Writing a literature review. Management Information Systems Quarterly. 2002;26(ii):11.

  • Whitlock E. P., Lin J. S., Chou R., Shekelle P., Robinson Yard.A. Using existing systematic reviews in circuitous systematic reviews. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2008;148(x):776–782. [PubMed: 18490690]

mcelhoneglact1989.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK481583/