• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Edmedia2011 lit.sys.review

Edmedia2011 lit.sys.review






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



8 Embeds 1,506

http://moodle2012.ipiaget.org 1278
http://edtech.uvic.ca 155
http://learnelearning.wordpress.com 58
url_unknown 8
https://swc.blackboard.com 3
http://paper.li 2
http://www.slideshare.net 1
http://twitter.com 1


Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.


Edmedia2011 lit.sys.review Edmedia2011 lit.sys.review Presentation Transcript

  • Literature Reviews & Systematic Reviews Dr. Valerie Irvine Co-Director, TIE Research Lab University of Victoria, Canada http://tie.uvic.ca [email_address] Twitter: _valeriei
  • Today’s Session
    • Assumption:
      • Students have prior knowledge of the literature review process
    • Brief review of literature review provided
    • Overview of systematic reviews
  • Types of Reviews
    • Traditional narrative literature reviews
    • Systematic reviews
    • Meta-analysis
    Reference: Kathy Hornby, DMD, MLS, CertMINF (2005). Systematic Reviews session.
  • Common Elements
    • Retrospective
    • Subject to bias and error
    • Should address an important question
    • Identifies gaps in current knowledge
    • Provides information on the outcome of interest
  • Literature Review
    • Helps round out the problem
    • Identifies what has been done
    • Identifies potential methodology and procedures for your study
    • Helps develop theoretical structure
    • Helps stimulate inductive reasoning
  • Literature Review - Steps
    • Write problem statement
    • Consult secondary sources
      • Look for recent reviews of basic problem
    • Determine descriptors
    • Search primary sources
      • Start with current literature and move backward
  • Lit Review – Search Engines
      • PsychLit, PsychInfo, Web of Science, Eric, etc.
      • Depending on your discipline area
      • Google, etc.
  • Lit Review - After the Search
    • List may be huge and difficult to organize
    • Create a working bibliography
    • Use the abstract to help delimit your search
    • Computer software tools to help
      • RefWorks, EndNote, etc.
  • Reading Research
    • Weight by
      • Peer-reviewed journals
      • Book chapters
      • Published abstracts/proceedings
      • Dissertation
      • Internet sources/non-refereed material
  • Impact Factor
    • Represents the average number of times all articles in a journal are cited during one year
    • Not a perfect system because biased with:
      • small fields of study
      • large numbers of journal in a field of study
      • important work that is not cited in scientific journals
  • Impact Factor cont.
    • Better to try to roughly classify journals in a given area by A, B, C
    • Consider rejection rate
    • You are the final judge of the merit of the paper
  • Critical Reading
    • Develop a table of findings to help look for similarities and differences between studies
    • Next slide shows components to record….
  • Components of Chart
    • Statement of problem
    • Participant characteristics
    • Instruments
    • Procedures
    • Variables (IV & DV)
    • Treatment (if an experimental study)
    • Design and analyses
    • Findings
    • Questions raised for future studies
  • Systematic Reviews
    • A systematic review is a literature review focused on a single question which tries to identify, appraise, select and synthesize all high quality research evidence relevant to that question.
      • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_review
  • Systematic Reviews
    • Systematic reviews are generally regarded as the highest level of evidence
    • An understanding of systematic reviews and how to implement them in practice is becoming mandatory for all professionals involved in the delivery of health care.
      • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_review
  • Systematic Reviews
    • Scientific investigations
    • Primary study is the “subject”
    • Strategies to limit bias and error
    • Comprehensive search
    • Explicit reproducible criteria
    • Data synthesis and interpretation of results
  • Differences Between Narrative & Systematic Reviews Cook, DJ, Mulrow, CD, Haynes, RB (1997). Systematic Reviews: Synthesis of Best Evidence for Clinical Decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine, 126(5), 376-80. Feature Narrative Systematic Question Broad Focused Sources/Search Not specified, potentially biased Comprehensive sources & explicit search strategy Selection Not specified, potentially biased Criterion-based selection, uniformly applied Appraisal Variable Rigorous critical appraisal Synthesis Often qualitative Quantitative (but not a statistical synthesis) Inferences Sometimes evidence-based Usually evidence-based
  • Weaknesses in Systematic Reviews
    • Heterogeneity of the studies
      • Designs, populations, interventions, outcomes
    • Uncertainty of whether all relevant studies are included
      • Searching difficulties, publication bias (for significance)
    • Uncertainty as to whether to include unpublished results?
    • Quality assessment issues – assign weights?
  • STEPS…
  • The question
    • The question must be focused
    • Includes
      • Population, problem, setting
      • Intervention
      • Outcome
  • Survey the review literature
    • Check to see if a review has already been done on your question
    • Re-define and focus your question, if necessary
    • Helps to understand the literature in the area prior to conducting the systematic review
  • Develop the protocol
    • The protocol is your research plan and should include elements as defined by the collaboration group (campbell or cochrane)
    • Sample:
      • http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/systematic_reviews/index.php?page=3
  • Locating information
    • Start with the question
    • Decide on sources
    • Develop search strategies
    • Keep records
  • Managing information
    • Use bibliographic software
    • Consider systematic review software
      • DistillerSR
      • EGOR
      • Etc.
  • Sources
    • Databases of primary research articles
    • Hand searching core subject journals
    • Checking cited references
    • Conference proceedings
    • Contacting researchers & experts for recommendations
    • Dissertations
    • Gray Literature
    • Web of Science (citation tracking)
    • Internet
  • Gray Literature Def’n & Sources
    • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_literature
    • Technical reports, white papers, etc.
    • OpenSIGLE system for Information on Grey Literature in Europe
    • Self-archiving (see John Willinsky)
  • Rationale for Thoroughness
    • Missing studies can affect the results
    • Publication bias
      • Tendency for studies with positive results to get published
      • Tendency for studies with no significant difference or negative results to get rejected
  • Government Priorities
    • “ evidence-based decision-making”
  • Tour Protocols & Steps
    • Campbell Collaboration (Education focus) http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/ http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/resources/resource_center.php
    • Cochrane Collaboration (Health focus)
      • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochrane_Collaboration
      • http://www.cochrane.org/
        • Note the “podcasts” as audio summaries of reviews
  • Sample Reviews
    • See Campbell Collaboration Website
      • Click on Review Library http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/library.php
      • Select sample on cyberbullying
  • Questions?