What Is the Literature Review Methods Section of a Journal Article

9.1. Introduction

Literature reviews play a critical role in scholarship because science remains, offset and foremost, a cumulative endeavour (vom Brocke et al., 2009). As in any academic discipline, rigorous noesis 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. Among other methods, literature reviews are essential for: (a) identifying what has been written on a subject area or topic; (b) determining the extent to which a specific research area reveals any interpretable trends or patterns; (c) aggregating empirical findings related to a narrow enquiry question to support evidence-based practice; (d) generating new frameworks and theories; and (e) identifying topics or questions requiring more than investigation (Paré, Trudel, Jaana, & Kitsiou, 2015).

Literature reviews can have 2 major forms. The nigh prevalent one is the "literature review" or "background" department within a journal newspaper or a chapter in a graduate thesis. This section synthesizes the extant literature and usually identifies the gaps in noesis that the empirical study addresses (Sylvester, Tate, & Johnstone, 2013). Information technology may also provide a theoretical foundation for the proposed study, substantiate the presence of the research problem, justify the enquiry equally one that contributes something new to the cumulated cognition, or validate the methods and approaches for the proposed study (Hart, 1998; Levy & Ellis, 2006).

The second grade 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 of operations for a researcher's own work, it creates a solid starting bespeak for all members of the community interested in a particular area or topic (Mulrow, 1987). The then-called "review article" is a periodical-length paper which has an overarching purpose to synthesize the literature in a field, without collecting or analyzing any principal data (Greenish, Johnson, & Adams, 2006).

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

The main objectives of this chapter are fourfold: (a) to provide an overview of the major steps and activities involved in conducting a stand-alone literature review; (b) to describe and contrast the dissimilar types of review manufactures 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 series of recommendations for prospective authors of review articles in this domain.

9.2. Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps

Equally explained in Templier and Paré (2015), there are vi generic steps involved in conducting a review commodity:

formulating the research question(south) and objective(s),
searching the extant literature,
screening for inclusion,
assessing the quality of primary studies,
extracting data, and
analyzing data.

Although these steps are presented here in sequential gild, one must continue in mind that the review process tin can exist 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 research question(s) and objective(s): Every bit a first step, members of the review squad must appropriately justify the need for the review itself (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006), identify the review's main objective(southward) (Okoli & Schabram, 2010), and define the concepts or variables at the middle of their synthesis (Cooper & Hedges, 2009; Webster & Watson, 2002). Importantly, they also need to articulate the research question(s) they suggest to investigate (Kitchenham & Charters, 2007). In this regard, we concur with Jesson, Matheson, and Lacey (2011) that clearly articulated inquiry questions are primal ingredients that guide the entire review methodology; they underscore the type of information that is needed, inform the search for and selection of relevant literature, and guide or orient the subsequent assay.

Searching the extant literature: The next step consists of searching the literature and making decisions virtually the suitability of material to be considered in the review (Cooper, 1988). There exist 3 chief coverage strategies. Outset, exhaustive coverage means an effort is made to be equally comprehensive as possible in guild 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 near other works in a given field or area. Ofttimes authors who adopt this strategy will search for relevant articles in a pocket-size number of summit-tier journals in a field (Paré et al., 2015). In the third strategy, the review squad concentrates on prior works that accept been cardinal or pivotal to a item 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 debate (Cooper, 1988).

Screening for inclusion: The post-obit step consists of evaluating the applicability of the fabric identified in the preceding step (Levy & Ellis, 2006; vom Brocke et al., 2009). Once a grouping of potential studies has been identified, members of the review team must screen them to make up one's mind their relevance (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). A ready of predetermined rules provides a ground for including or excluding sure studies. This exercise requires a significant investment on the office of researchers, who must ensure enhanced objectivity and avert biases or mistakes. As discussed after in this chapter, for certain types of reviews there must be at least two independent reviewers involved in the screening procedure and a process to resolve disagreements must too be in identify (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 squad may need to assess the scientific quality of the selected studies, that is, appraise the rigour of the inquiry design and methods. Such formal assessment, which is commonly conducted independently by at least two coders, helps members of the review squad refine which studies to include in the last sample, determine whether or not the differences in quality may affect their conclusions, or guide how they clarify the data and interpret the findings (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). Ascribing quality scores to each primary study or considering through domain-based evaluations which study components have or have not been designed and executed appropriately makes it possible to reverberate 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 type of data that should be recorded mainly depends on the initial inquiry questions (Okoli & Schabram, 2010). However, important information may also be gathered nigh 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: As a last step, members of the review squad must collate, summarize, aggregate, organize, and compare the evidence 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 than lists of papers and should provide a coherent lens to make sense of extant knowledge on a given topic. There exist several methods and techniques for synthesizing quantitative (due east.g., frequency assay, meta-analysis) and qualitative (e.g., grounded theory, narrative analysis, meta-ethnography) evidence (Dixon-Wood, Agarwal, Jones, Young, & Sutton, 2005; Thomas & Harden, 2008).

9.3. Types of Review Articles and Cursory Illustrations

EHealth researchers have at their disposal a number of approaches and methods for making sense out of existing literature, all with the purpose of casting current research findings into historical contexts or explaining contradictions that might be amongst a set of primary research studies conducted on a particular topic. Our nomenclature scheme is largely inspired from Paré and colleagues' (2015) typology. Below nosotros nowadays and illustrate those review types that we feel are key to the growth and development of the eHealth domain.

9.3.1. Narrative Reviews

The narrative review is the "traditional" way of reviewing the extant literature and is skewed towards a qualitative interpretation of prior noesis (Sylvester et al., 2013). Put simply, a narrative review attempts to summarize or synthesize what has been written on a particular topic but does non 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 bespeak of view (Baumeister & Leary, 1997). As such, reviewers may selectively ignore or limit the attention paid to certain studies in order to brand a point. In this rather unsystematic approach, the option of information from chief articles is subjective, lacks explicit criteria for inclusion and can lead to biased interpretations or inferences (Dark-green et al., 2006). There are several narrative reviews in the particular eHealth domain, as in all fields, which follow such an unstructured approach (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 area and synthesizing it. As mentioned above, its primary purpose is to provide the reader with a comprehensive background for understanding current knowledge and highlighting the significance of new research (Cronin et al., 2008). Kinesthesia like to use narrative reviews in the classroom because they are oftentimes more upward to date than textbooks, provide a single source for students to reference, and expose students to peer-reviewed literature (Dark-green et al., 2006). For researchers, narrative reviews can inspire research ideas past identifying gaps or inconsistencies in a torso of knowledge, thus helping researchers to make up one's mind research questions or formulate hypotheses. Chiefly, narrative reviews tin also be used equally educational manufactures to bring practitioners up to date with sure topics of issues (Dark-green et al., 2006).

Recently, at that place have been several efforts to introduce more rigour in narrative reviews that will elucidate mutual pitfalls and bring changes into their publication standards. Data 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 three steps, namely: (a) literature search and screening; (b) data extraction and analysis; and (c) writing the literature review. They provide detailed and very helpful instructions on how to conduct each step of the review process. Equally 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 primary studies within a feasible scope, extract relevant content from identified articles, synthesize and analyze the findings, and effectively write and present the results of the literature review. We highly recommend that prospective authors of narrative reviews consult these useful sources before embarking on their work.

Darlow and Wen (2015) provide a expert case of a highly structured narrative review in the eHealth field. These authors synthesized published articles that draw the development process of mobile wellness (m-health) interventions for patients' cancer care self-direction. Equally in most narrative reviews, the scope of the research questions being investigated is wide: (a) how development of these systems are carried out; (b) which methods are used to investigate these systems; and (c) what conclusions tin can be drawn as a effect of the evolution of these systems. To provide clear answers to these questions, a literature search was conducted on half-dozen electronic databases and Google Scholar. The search was performed using several terms and costless text words, combining them in an appropriate manner. Four inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria were utilized during the screening process. Both authors independently reviewed each of the identified articles to determine eligibility and excerpt 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 serial of applied recommendations for m-health intervention development.

9.3.ii. Descriptive or Mapping Reviews

The master goal of a descriptive review is to determine the extent to which a trunk of knowledge 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 dissimilarity 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 form a representative sample of a larger group of published works (Paré et al., 2015). Farther, authors of descriptive reviews extract from each study certain characteristics of interest, such as publication year, research methods, data collection techniques, and management or strength of research outcomes (due east.chiliad., positive, negative, or non-significant) in the grade 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 attempt to place any interpretable trends or draw overall conclusions about the merits of existing conceptualizations, propositions, methods or findings (Paré et al., 2015). In doing so, a descriptive review may claim that its findings correspond the state of the fine 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 evolution of a topic area are described by Anderson, Allen, Peckham, and Goodwin (2008) as mapping reviews. Like descriptive reviews, the inquiry questions are generic and usually relate to publication patterns and trends. At that place is no preconceived plan to systematically review all of the literature although this can be washed. Instead, researchers often present studies that are representative of about works published in a detail area and they consider a specific time frame to be mapped.

An example of this approach 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 computer science literature over a xx-yr catamenia (1987 to 2006). To achieve this ambitious objective, the authors performed a bibliometric analysis of medical computer science citations indexed in medline using publication trends, periodical frequencies, bear upon factors, Medical Bailiwick Headings (MeSH) term frequencies, and characteristics of citations. Findings revealed that there were over 77,000 medical computer science articles published during the covered period in numerous journals and that the boilerplate annual growth rate was 12%. The MeSH term analysis as well suggested a stiff interdisciplinary tendency. Finally, average impact scores increased over time with two notable growth periods. Overall, patterns in research outputs that seem to characterize the historic trends and current components of the field of medical informatics suggest information technology may be a maturing discipline (DeShazo et al., 2009).

9.iii.three. Scoping Reviews

Scoping reviews endeavor 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 particular area, 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 usually conclude with the presentation of a detailed inquiry calendar for future works forth with potential implications for both practice and research.

Unlike narrative and descriptive reviews, the whole betoken of scoping the field is to be as comprehensive as possible, including grey literature (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005). Inclusion and exclusion criteria must be established to help researchers eliminate studies that are non aligned with the inquiry questions. It is also recommended that at least two contained coders review abstracts yielded from the search strategy and so the full articles for study selection (Daudt et al., 2013). The synthesized bear witness from content or thematic analysis is relatively easy to nowadays in tabular form (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005; Thomas & Harden, 2008).

One of the virtually highly cited scoping reviews in the eHealth domain was published by Archer, Fevrier-Thomas, Lokker, McKibbon, and Straus (2011). These authors reviewed the existing literature on personal health 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 procedure. Ii authors independently screened titles and abstracts to determine inclusion status. A second screen of full-text articles, again by 2 contained members of the research team, ensured that the studies described phrs. All in all, 130 manufactures met the criteria and their information were extracted manually into a database. The authors ended that although there is a large corporeality of survey, observational, cohort/panel, and anecdotal bear witness of phr benefits and satisfaction for patients, more than inquiry is needed to evaluate the results of phr implementations. Their in-depth assay of the literature signalled that in that location is little solid evidence from randomized controlled trials or other studies through the utilise of phrs. Hence, they suggested that more enquiry is needed that addresses the current lack of understanding of optimal functionality and usability of these systems, and how they tin play a benign function in supporting patient self-direction (Archer et al., 2011).

9.3.four. Forms of Aggregative Reviews

Healthcare providers, practitioners, and policy-makers are nowadays overwhelmed with large volumes of information, including research-based evidence from numerous clinical trials and evaluation studies, assessing the effectiveness of health data technologies and interventions (Ammenwerth & de Keizer, 2004; Deshazo et al., 2009). It is unrealistic to look that all these disparate actors will accept the time, skills, and necessary resource to place the available 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 claiming.

Systematic reviews endeavour to aggregate, appraise, and synthesize in a unmarried source all empirical bear witness that come across a set of previously specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a clearly formulated and oft narrow enquiry question on a particular topic of involvement to support testify-based practice (Liberati et al., 2009). They adhere closely to explicit scientific principles (Liberati et al., 2009) and rigorous methodological guidelines (Higgins & Green, 2008) aimed at reducing random and systematic errors that tin can lead to deviations from the truth in results or inferences. The use of explicit methods allows systematic reviews to aggregate a large body of research evidence, assess whether effects or relationships are in the aforementioned direction and of the same general magnitude, explain possible inconsistencies between study results, and determine the strength of the overall prove for every outcome of interest based on the quality of included studies and the general consistency among them (Melt, Mulrow, & Haynes, 1997). The main procedures of a systematic review involve:

Formulating a review question and developing a search strategy based on explicit inclusion criteria for the identification of eligible studies (normally described in the context of a detailed review protocol).
Searching for eligible studies using multiple databases and information sources, including grey literature sources, without any language restrictions.
Selecting studies, extracting data, and assessing take a chance of bias in a duplicate manner using ii independent reviewers to avoid random or systematic errors in the process.
Analyzing data using quantitative or qualitative methods.
Presenting results in summary of findings tables.
Interpreting results and drawing conclusions.

Many systematic reviews, but non all, use statistical methods to combine the results of contained studies into a single quantitative estimate or summary effect size. Known as meta-analyses, these reviews utilise specific data extraction and statistical techniques (e.k., network, frequentist, or Bayesian meta-analyses) to calculate from each study past upshot of involvement an effect size along with a confidence interval that reflects the degree of uncertainty behind the point guess of outcome (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009; Deeks, Higgins, & Altman, 2008). Subsequently, they apply stock-still or random-furnishings assay models to combine the results of the included studies, assess statistical heterogeneity, and calculate a weighted average of the result estimates from the different studies, taking into business relationship their sample sizes. The summary effect size is a value that reflects the average magnitude of the intervention effect for a particular outcome of interest or, more by and large, the strength of a relationship between ii variables across all studies included in the systematic review. By statistically combining data from multiple studies, meta-analyses tin can create more precise and reliable estimates of intervention furnishings than those derived from individual studies lone, when these are examined independently as discrete sources of information.

The review by Gurol-Urganci, de Jongh, Vodopivec-Jamsek, Atun, and Car (2013) on the furnishings of mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments is an illustrative example of a high-quality systematic review with meta-assay. Missed appointments are a major crusade of inefficiency in healthcare delivery with substantial monetary costs to health systems. These authors sought to assess whether mobile phone-based appointment reminders delivered through Short Message Service (sms) or Multimedia Messaging Service (mms) are effective in improving rates of patient attendance and reducing overall costs. To this end, they conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases using highly sensitive search strategies without language or publication-type restrictions to identify all rcts that are eligible for inclusion. In order to minimize the risk of omitting eligible studies not captured past the original search, they supplemented all electronic searches with manual screening of trial registers and references contained in the included studies. Study option, 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 8 rctdue south involving 6,615 participants were pooled into meta-analyses to calculate the magnitude of effects that mobile text bulletin reminders accept on the rate of attendance at healthcare appointments compared to no reminders and phone phone call reminders.

Meta-analyses are regarded as powerful tools for deriving meaningful conclusions. However, there are situations in which it is neither reasonable nor appropriate to pool studies together using meta-analytic methods simply considering there is extensive clinical heterogeneity betwixt the included studies or variation in measurement tools, comparisons, or outcomes of involvement. In these cases, systematic reviews tin use qualitative synthesis methods such as vote counting, content analysis, classification schemes and tabulations, as an culling arroyo to narratively synthesize the results of the contained studies included in the review. This form of review is known every bit qualitative systematic review.

A rigorous example of i such review in the eHealth domain is presented past Mickan, Atherton, Roberts, Heneghan, and Tilson (2014) on the utilise of handheld computers past healthcare professionals and their impact on access to information and clinical decision-making. In line with the methodological guidelines for systematic reviews, these authors: (a) developed and registered with prospero (www.crd.york.ac.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) later on carried out study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments in a duplicate manner to eliminate potential errors in the review procedure. Heterogeneity betwixt the included studies in terms of reported outcomes and measures precluded the use of meta-analytic methods. To this cease, the authors resorted to using narrative assay and synthesis to depict the effectiveness of handheld computers on accessing information for clinical noesis, adherence to safety and clinical quality guidelines, and diagnostic decision-making.

In recent years, the number of systematic reviews in the field of wellness informatics has increased considerably. Systematic reviews with discordant findings can cause cracking confusion and brand it hard for decision-makers to translate the review-level bear witness (Moher, 2013). Therefore, there is a growing need for appraisement and synthesis of prior systematic reviews to ensure that determination-making is constantly informed by the all-time available accumulated evidence. Umbrella reviews, also known as overviews of systematic reviews, are tertiary types of evidence synthesis that aim to accomplish this; that is, they aim to compare and dissimilarity findings from multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Becker & Oxman, 2008). Umbrella reviews generally adhere to the same principles and rigorous methodological guidelines used in systematic reviews. However, the unit of assay in umbrella reviews is the systematic review rather than the chief study (Becker & Oxman, 2008). Unlike systematic reviews that have a narrow focus of inquiry, umbrella reviews focus on broader research topics for which in that location are several potential interventions (Smith, Devane, Begley, & Clarke, 2011). A contempo umbrella review on the furnishings of abode telemonitoring interventions for patients with heart failure critically appraised, compared, and synthesized evidence from xv systematic reviews to investigate which types of abode telemonitoring technologies and forms of interventions are more than effective in reducing mortality and infirmary admissions (Kitsiou, Paré, & Jaana, 2015).

9.three.5. Realist Reviews

Realist reviews are theory-driven interpretative reviews developed to inform, enhance, or supplement conventional systematic reviews by making sense of heterogeneous evidence virtually circuitous interventions applied in various contexts in a way that informs policy conclusion-making (Greenhalgh, Wong, Westhorp, & Pawson, 2011). They originated from criticisms of positivist systematic reviews which eye on their "simplistic" underlying assumptions (Oates, 2011). Every bit explained in a higher place, systematic reviews seek to identify causation. Such logic is advisable for fields like medicine and education where findings of randomized controlled trials can be aggregated to see whether a new treatment or intervention does improve outcomes. However, many argue that information technology is not possible to plant such direct causal links betwixt interventions and outcomes in fields such equally social policy, management, and data systems where for any intervention there is unlikely to be a regular or consequent consequence (Oates, 2011; Pawson, 2006; Rousseau, Manning, & Denyer, 2008).

To circumvent these limitations, Pawson, Greenhalgh, Harvey, and Walshe (2005) accept proposed a new approach for synthesizing noesis that seeks to unpack the mechanism of how "complex interventions" work in detail contexts. The basic research question — what works? — which is usually associated with systematic reviews changes to: what is information technology virtually 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 evidence. As a theory-building approach, a realist review usually starts by articulating likely underlying mechanisms then scrutinizes available testify to find out whether and where these mechanisms are applicable (Shepperd et al., 2009). Main studies found in the extant literature are viewed as case studies which tin exam and modify the initial theories (Rousseau et al., 2008).

The master 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 wellness service delivery and patient outcomes. The specific goals were to investigate how outcomes are produced and, almost chiefly, how variations in outcomes can be explained. The research team started with an exploratory review of background documents and research studies to identify ways in which patient portals may contribute to health service delivery and patient outcomes. The authors identified vi main means which represent "educated guesses" to be tested against the data in the evaluation studies. These studies were identified through a formal and systematic search in 4 databases between 2003 and 2013. Two members of the research team selected the manufactures using a pre-established list of inclusion and exclusion criteria and post-obit a ii-stride process. The authors so extracted information from the selected manufactures and created several tables, one for each event category. They organized information to bring forrard those mechanisms where patient portals contribute to outcomes and the variation in outcomes across dissimilar contexts.

9.iii.six. Critical Reviews

Lastly, disquisitional reviews aim to provide a critical 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, research methods or results (Baumeister & Leary, 1997; Kirkevold, 1997). Unlike other review types, disquisitional reviews attempt to take a cogitating business relationship of the research that has been done in a particular area of involvement, and assess its credibility by using appraisement instruments or critical interpretive methods. In this fashion, critical reviews attempt to constructively inform other scholars well-nigh the weaknesses of prior research and strengthen noesis evolution by giving focus and direction to studies for farther improvement (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 musical instrument to conduct an in-depth quality appraisal. Results indicate that the majority of systematic reviews in this particular area suffer from important methodological flaws and biases that impair their internal validity and limit their usefulness for clinical and controlling purposes. To this end, they provide a number of recommendations to strengthen knowledge evolution towards improving the design and execution of futurity reviews on dwelling house telemonitoring.

9.4. Summary

Table 9.1 outlines the main types of literature reviews that were described in the previous sub-sections and summarizes the main characteristics that distinguish one review type from another. Information technology also includes fundamental references to methodological guidelines and useful sources that tin be used by eHealth scholars and researchers for planning and developing reviews.

Tabular array ix.one

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

Equally shown in Tabular array 9.i, each review type addresses dissimilar kinds of research questions or objectives, which afterward define and dictate the methods and approaches that demand to be used to attain the overarching goal(southward) of the review. For instance, in the case of narrative reviews, there is greater flexibility in searching and synthesizing articles (Light-green et al., 2006). Researchers are often relatively free to use a diversity of approaches to search, identify, and select relevant scientific articles, describe their operational characteristics, nowadays how the individual studies fit together, and formulate conclusions. On the other hand, systematic reviews are characterized by their loftier level of systematicity, rigour, and utilise of explicit methods, based on an "a priori" review program that aims to minimize bias in the assay and synthesis process (Higgins & Green, 2008). Some reviews are exploratory in nature (e.g., scoping/mapping reviews), whereas others may be conducted to discover patterns (e.chiliad., descriptive reviews) or involve a synthesis approach that may include the critical analysis of prior enquiry (Paré et al., 2015). Hence, in order to select the most appropriate blazon of review, it is critical to know before embarking on a review project, why the inquiry synthesis is conducted and what type of methods are best aligned with the pursued goals.

9.five. Final Remarks

In light of the increased employ of evidence-based practise and research generating stronger bear witness (Grady et al., 2011; Lyden et al., 2013), review articles take go essential tools for summarizing, synthesizing, integrating or critically appraising prior knowledge in the eHealth field. Equally mentioned earlier, when rigorously conducted review manufactures represent powerful data sources for eHealth scholars and practitioners looking for state-of-the-art evidence. The typology of literature reviews we used herein will allow eHealth researchers, graduate students and practitioners to gain a better understanding of the similarities and differences betwixt review types.

We must stress that this classification scheme does non privilege any specific type of review as being of higher quality than another (Paré et al., 2015). Every bit explained in a higher place, each type of review has its own strengths and limitations. Having said that, we realize that the methodological rigour of any review — be it qualitative, quantitative or mixed — is a critical attribute that should be 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 9.ii. For 1 thing, reliability is related to the reproducibility of the review procedure and steps, which is facilitated by a comprehensive documentation of the literature search procedure, extraction, coding and analysis performed in the review. Whether the search is comprehensive or not, whether it involves a methodical arroyo for data extraction and synthesis or not, it is important that the review documents in an explicit and transparent manner the steps and approach that were used in the process of its evolution. Next, validity characterizes the degree to which the review process was conducted accordingly. It goes beyond documentation and reflects decisions related to the selection of the sources, the search terms used, the menstruum of fourth dimension covered, the articles selected in the search, and the application of backward and forward searches (vom Brocke et al., 2009). In short, the rigour of any review article is reflected by the explicitness of its methods (i.e., transparency) and the soundness of the approach used. We refer those interested in the concepts of rigour and quality to the work of Templier and Paré (2015) which offers a detailed set of methodological guidelines for conducting and evaluating various types of review articles.

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

References

Ammenwerth E., de Keizer N. An inventory of evaluation studies of information technology in health intendance. Trends in evaluation research, 1982-2002. International Journal of Medical Informatics. 2004;44(1):44–56. [PubMed: 15778794]
Anderson S., Allen P., Peckham S., Goodwin Due north. Asking the correct questions: scoping studies in the commissioning of inquiry on the arrangement and delivery of health services. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2008;half dozen(vii):1–12. [PMC free article: PMC2500008] [PubMed: 18613961] [CrossRef]
Archer Northward., Fevrier-Thomas U., Lokker C., McKibbon K. A., Straus S.East. Personal health records: a scoping review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association. 2011;xviii(4):515–522. [PMC free article: PMC3128401] [PubMed: 21672914]
Arksey H., O'Malley Fifty. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2005;8(1):19–32.
A systematic, tool-supported method for conducting literature reviews in data systems. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Data Systems (ecis 2011); June nine to xi; Helsinki, Finland. 2011.
Baumeister R. F., Leary Yard.R. Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology. 1997;i(3):311–320.
Becker L. A., Oxman A.D. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Greenish S., editors. Hoboken, nj: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Overviews of reviews; pp. 607–631.
Borenstein M., 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 all-time prove for clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1997;126(5):376–380. [PubMed: 9054282]
Cooper H., Hedges L.V. In: The handbook of inquiry synthesis and meta-analysis. 2nd ed. Cooper H., Hedges L. Five., Valentine J. C., editors. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2009. Research synthesis as a scientific procedure; pp. iii–17.
Cooper H. Chiliad. Organizing cognition syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in Social club. 1988;1(1):104–126.
Cronin P., Ryan F., Coughlan 1000. Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach. British Journal of Nursing. 2008;17(1):38–43. [PubMed: 18399395]
Darlow S., Wen 1000.Y. Development testing of mobile health interventions for cancer patient self-management: A review. Health Informatics Journal. 2015 (online earlier impress). [PubMed: 25916831] [CrossRef]
Daudt H. One thousand., van Mossel C., Scott Due south.J. Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team'due south feel with Arksey and O'Malley'due south framework. bmc Medical Enquiry Methodology. 2013;thirteen:48. [PMC costless article: PMC3614526] [PubMed: 23522333] [CrossRef]
Davies P. The relevance of systematic reviews to educational policy and practice. Oxford Review of Education. 2000;26(3-four):365–378.
Deeks J. J., Higgins J. P. T., Altman D.Thousand. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Green Due south., editors. Hoboken, nj: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses; pp. 243–296.
Deshazo J. P., Lavallie D. 50., Wolf F.M. Publication trends in the medical informatics literature: 20 years of "Medical Informatics" in mesh. bmc Medical Information science and Conclusion Making. 2009;ix:7. [PMC free article: PMC2652453] [PubMed: 19159472] [CrossRef]
Dixon-Woods M., Agarwal S., Jones D., Young 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 E.D. Literature search strategies for conducting cognition-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2013;69(one):194–204. [PMC complimentary commodity: PMC3424349] [PubMed: 22591030]
Grady B., Myers K. M., Nelson E. L., Belz N., Bennett L., Carnahan L. … Guidelines Working Grouping. Bear witness-based practice for telemental health. Telemedicine Periodical and E Health. 2011;17(ii):131–148. [PubMed: 21385026]
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(three):101–117. [PMC free article: PMC2647067] [PubMed: 19674681]
Greenhalgh T., Wong Chiliad., Westhorp G., Pawson R. Protocol–realist and meta-narrative testify synthesis: evolving standards (rameses). bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2011;11:115. [PMC costless article: PMC3173389] [PubMed: 21843376]
Gurol-Urganci I., de Jongh T., Vodopivec-Jamsek V., Atun R., Automobile J. Mobile telephone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments. Cochrane Database System Review. 2013;12 cd007458. [PMC complimentary article: PMC6485985] [PubMed: 24310741] [CrossRef]
Hart C. Doing a literature review: Releasing the social scientific discipline research imagination. London: SAGE Publications; 1998.
Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: Cochrane book series. Hoboken, nj: Wiley-Blackwell; 2008.
Jesson J., Matheson L., Lacey F.M. Doing your literature review: traditional and systematic techniques. Los Angeles & London: SAGE Publications; 2011.
Male monarch West. R., He J. Agreement the role and methods of meta-assay in IS research. Communications of the Association for Data Systems. 2005;16:1.
Kirkevold M. Integrative nursing inquiry — an important strategy to further the development of nursing science and nursing practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 1997;25(5):977–984. [PubMed: 9147203]
Kitchenham B., Charters Due south. ebse Technical Study Version 2.3. Keele & Durham. britain: Keele Academy & Academy of Durham; 2007. Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering.
Kitsiou Southward., Paré Yard., Jaana Chiliad. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with chronic diseases: a critical assessment of their methodological quality. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2013;15(seven):e150. [PMC gratis article: PMC3785977] [PubMed: 23880072]
Kitsiou Southward., Paré One thousand., Jaana One thousand. Effects of habitation telemonitoring interventions on patients with chronic heart failure: an overview of systematic reviews. Periodical of Medical Cyberspace Research. 2015;17(3):e63. [PMC free article: PMC4376138] [PubMed: 25768664]
Levy Y., Ellis T.J. A systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in back up of data systems research. 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 statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate wellness care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2009;151(four):W-65. [PubMed: 19622512]
Lyden J. R., Zickmund S. Fifty., Bhargava T. D., Bryce C. L., Conroy M. B., Fischer M. South. et al. McTigue K. M. Implementing health information engineering science in a patient-centered manner: Patient experiences with an online show-based lifestyle intervention. Journal for Healthcare Quality. 2013;35(5):47–57. [PubMed: 24004039]
Mickan South., Atherton H., Roberts North. W., Heneghan C., Tilson J.K. Employ of handheld computers in clinical practice: a systematic review. bmc Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2014;fourteen: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. Thou., Wilczynski North. 50., Morgan D., Haynes R. B., Hedges T. Systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of location and citation counts. bmc Medicine. 2003;1:ii. [PMC complimentary article: PMC281591] [PubMed: 14633274]
Mulrow C. D. The medical review article: state of the science. Register of Internal Medicine. 1987;106(3):485–488. [PubMed: 3813259] [CrossRef]
Okoli C., Schabram Yard. A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of information systems research. ssrn Electronic Journal. 2010
Otte-Trojel T., de Bont A., Rundall T. Chiliad., van de Klundert J. How outcomes are achieved through patient portals: a realist review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Clan. 2014;21(four):751–757. [PMC free article: PMC4078283] [PubMed: 24503882]
Paré M., Trudel M.-C., Jaana M., Kitsiou Southward. Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management. 2015;52(two):183–199.
Patsopoulos N. A., Analatos A. A., Ioannidis J.P. A. Relative citation impact of diverse study designs in the health sciences. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2005;293(19):2362–2366. [PubMed: 15900006]
Paul Thousand. 1000., Greene C. Grand., Newton-Matriarch R., Thorpe L. E., Perlman S. E., McVeigh K. H., Gourevitch K.N. The country of population wellness surveillance using electronic health records: A narrative review. Population Health Direction. 2015;18(3):209–216. [PubMed: 25608033]
Pawson R. Testify-based policy: a realist perspective. London: SAGE Publications; 2006.
Pawson R., Greenhalgh T., Harvey Grand., Walshe K. Realist review—a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Journal of Health Services Enquiry & Policy. 2005;10(Suppl one):21–34. [PubMed: 16053581]
Petersen Yard., Vakkalanka S., Kuzniarz L. Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update. Information and Software Engineering. 2015;64:1–eighteen.
Petticrew M., Roberts H. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malden, ma: Blackwell Publishing Co; 2006.
Rousseau D. M., Manning J., Denyer D. Evidence in management and organizational science: Assembling the field's full weight of scientific cognition through syntheses. The Academy of Direction Annals. 2008;2(ane):475–515.
Rowe F. What literature review is not: diversity, boundaries and recommendations. European Journal of Data Systems. 2014;23(3):241–255.
Shea B. J., Hamel C., Wells Thousand. A., Bouter 50. One thousand., Kristjansson E., Grimshaw J. et al. Boers M. amstar is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2009;62(10):1013–1020. [PubMed: 19230606]
Shepperd S., Lewin S., Straus S., Clarke Grand., Eccles M. P., Fitzpatrick R. et al. Sheikh A. Can nosotros systematically review studies that evaluate complex interventions? PLoS Medicine. 2009;6(8):e1000086. [PMC gratis article: PMC2717209] [PubMed: 19668360]
Silva B. G., Rodrigues J. J., de la Torre Díez I., López-Coronado Thousand., Saleem K. Mobile-health: A review of current land in 2015. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2015;56:265–272. [PubMed: 26071682]
Smith 5., Devane D., Begley C., Clarke Thou. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2011;xi(1):15. [PMC free article: PMC3039637] [PubMed: 21291558]
Sylvester A., Tate M., Johnstone D. Beyond synthesis: re-presenting heterogeneous research literature. Behaviour & Information Engineering science. 2013;32(12):1199–1215.
Templier Grand., Paré G. A framework for guiding and evaluating literature reviews. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2015;37(6):112–137.
Thomas J., Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative inquiry in systematic reviews. bmc Medical Enquiry Methodology. 2008;8(one):45. [PMC free article: PMC2478656] [PubMed: 18616818]
Reconstructing the giant: 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 future: Writing a literature review. Management Information Systems Quarterly. 2002;26(2):eleven.
Whitlock Due east. P., Lin J. S., Chou R., Shekelle P., Robinson K.A. Using existing systematic reviews in circuitous systematic reviews. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2008;148(10):776–782. [PubMed: 18490690]

griffinberstend.blogspot.com

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