Which Type of Literature Review Requires the Researcher to Have Advanced Statistical Skill?

nine.one. Introduction

Literature reviews play a disquisitional office in scholarship considering science remains, first and foremost, a cumulative endeavour (vom Brocke et al., 2009). As in any academic field of study, rigorous cognition syntheses are condign indispensable in keeping up with an exponentially growing eHealth literature, profitable practitioners, academics, and graduate students in finding, evaluating, and synthesizing the contents of many empirical and conceptual papers. Amid 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 inquiry expanse reveals whatsoever interpretable trends or patterns; (c) aggregating empirical findings related to a narrow research question to support evidence-based practice; (d) generating new frameworks and theories; and (e) identifying topics or questions requiring more investigation (Paré, Trudel, Jaana, & Kitsiou, 2015).

Literature reviews tin can take two major forms. The most prevalent ane 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 cognition that the empirical written report addresses (Sylvester, Tate, & Johnstone, 2013). It may also provide a theoretical foundation for the proposed study, substantiate the presence of the inquiry problem, justify the research as 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 class 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 work, it creates a solid starting indicate for all members of the customs interested in a item expanse or topic (Mulrow, 1987). The so-called "review article" is a journal-length paper which has an overarching purpose to synthesize the literature in a field, without collecting or analyzing any primary data (Green, Johnson, & Adams, 2006).

When appropriately conducted, review articles represent powerful information sources for practitioners looking for state-of-the fine art evidence to guide their decision-making and work practices (Paré et al., 2015). Further, high-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 approximate the bear upon of articles take found that review papers are cited and downloaded more often than any other blazon of published commodity (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 ane to take an overview, if not a detailed knowledge of the area in question, as well as references to the most useful primary sources (Cronin et al., 2008). Although they are not like shooting fish in a barrel to behave, the commitment to complete a review commodity provides a tremendous service to 1's academic customs (Paré et al., 2015; Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). Well-nigh, if not all, peer-reviewed journals in the fields of medical computer science 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-lonely literature review; (b) to depict and contrast the different types of review articles that can contribute to the eHealth knowledge base; (c) to illustrate each review type with ane or ii 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 Procedure and Steps

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

formulating the inquiry question(s) 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 hither in sequential order, one must keep in listen that the review process 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 enquiry question(s) and objective(s): As a first stride, members of the review team must appropriately justify the demand for the review itself (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006), identify the review's master objective(s) (Okoli & Schabram, 2010), and define the concepts or variables at the heart of their synthesis (Cooper & Hedges, 2009; Webster & Watson, 2002). Importantly, they also need to articulate the research question(south) 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 type of information that is needed, inform the search for and selection of relevant literature, and guide or orient the subsequent analysis.

Searching the extant literature: The adjacent step consists of searching the literature and making decisions near the suitability of fabric to exist considered in the review (Cooper, 1988). In that location exist iii main coverage strategies. Outset, exhaustive coverage ways an endeavour is made to exist 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 2d type of coverage consists of presenting materials that are representative of well-nigh other works in a given field or area. Often authors who adopt this strategy volition search for relevant articles in a small number of top-tier journals in a field (Paré et al., 2015). In the third strategy, the review squad concentrates on prior works that take been central or pivotal to a detail 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 important debate (Cooper, 1988).

Screening for inclusion: The following footstep consists of evaluating the applicability of the material 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 determine their relevance (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). A set of predetermined rules provides a ground for including or excluding certain studies. This exercise requires a significant investment on the function of researchers, who must ensure enhanced objectivity and avoid biases or mistakes. As discussed later in this chapter, for certain types of reviews there must exist at least two contained reviewers involved in the screening procedure and a procedure to resolve disagreements must also be in identify (Liberati et al., 2009; Shea et al., 2009).

Assessing the quality of primary studies: In add-on to screening material for inclusion, members of the review team may need to assess the scientific quality of the selected studies, that is, appraise the rigour of the research design and methods. Such formal assessment, which is commonly conducted independently past at to the lowest degree two coders, helps members of the review team 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 analyze the data and interpret the findings (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). Ascribing quality scores to each primary study or because through domain-based evaluations which written report components have or accept non 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 data: The following step involves gathering or extracting applicable information from each primary study included in the sample and deciding what is relevant to the trouble of interest (Cooper & Hedges, 2009). Indeed, the blazon of information that should be recorded mainly depends on the initial research questions (Okoli & Schabram, 2010). However, important information may also exist gathered virtually 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 concluding step, members of the review team must collate, summarize, amass, organize, and compare the prove extracted from the included studies. The extracted information must be presented in a meaningful mode 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 knowledge on a given topic. There exist several methods and techniques for synthesizing quantitative (east.k., frequency assay, meta-analysis) and qualitative (eastward.1000., grounded theory, narrative analysis, meta-ethnography) bear witness (Dixon-Woods, Agarwal, Jones, Immature, & Sutton, 2005; Thomas & Harden, 2008).

ix.three. 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 exist amongst a gear up of main inquiry studies conducted on a particular topic. Our classification scheme is largely inspired from Paré and colleagues' (2015) typology. Below we present and illustrate those review types that we experience are central to the growth and evolution of the eHealth domain.

nine.iii.1. 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 only, a narrative review attempts to summarize or synthesize what has been written on a detail topic merely 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 betoken of view (Baumeister & Leary, 1997). Equally such, reviewers may selectively ignore or limit the attending paid to certain studies in order to brand a betoken. In this rather unsystematic approach, the selection of data from primary articles is subjective, lacks explicit criteria for inclusion and tin can atomic number 82 to biased interpretations or inferences (Green et al., 2006). There are several narrative reviews in the particular eHealth domain, every bit 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 book of literature in a specific subject 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 often more upwardly to date than textbooks, provide a single source for students to reference, and betrayal students to peer-reviewed literature (Green et al., 2006). For researchers, narrative reviews can inspire inquiry ideas by identifying gaps or inconsistencies in a body of noesis, thus helping researchers to determine enquiry questions or formulate hypotheses. Importantly, narrative reviews can as well be used as educational articles to bring practitioners upwards to appointment with certain topics of bug (Greenish et al., 2006).

Recently, at that place have been several efforts to introduce more than rigour in narrative reviews that will elucidate common pitfalls and bring changes into their publication standards. Data systems researchers, amid others, accept contributed to advancing knowledge on how to construction a "traditional" review. For instance, Levy and Ellis (2006) proposed a generic framework for conducting such reviews. Their model follows the systematic information processing arroyo comprised of 3 steps, namely: (a) literature search and screening; (b) data extraction and assay; and (c) writing the literature review. They provide detailed and very helpful instructions on how to conduct each pace of the review process. 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 place main studies within a feasible telescopic, 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 good case of a highly structured narrative review in the eHealth field. These authors synthesized published articles that describe the development process of mobile wellness (m-health) interventions for patients' cancer intendance self-direction. As in most narrative reviews, the scope of the research questions being investigated is broad: (a) how development of these systems are carried out; (b) which methods are used to investigate these systems; and (c) what conclusions can exist drawn every bit a result of the evolution of these systems. To provide clear answers to these questions, a literature search was conducted on 6 electronic databases and Google Scholar. The search was performed using several terms and free text words, combining them in an advisable manner. Iv inclusion and iii exclusion criteria were utilized during the screening process. Both authors independently reviewed each of the identified articles to make up one's mind eligibility and extract study information. A flow diagram shows the number of studies identified, screened, and included or excluded at each phase of study choice. In terms of contributions, this review provides a serial of practical recommendations for m-wellness intervention development.

9.3.2. Descriptive or Mapping Reviews

The chief goal of a descriptive review is to determine the extent to which a body of knowledge in a detail enquiry 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 procedure, including searching, screening and classifying studies (Petersen, Vakkalanka, & Kuzniarz, 2015). Indeed, structured search methods are used to grade a representative sample of a larger grouping of published works (Paré et al., 2015). Further, authors of descriptive reviews extract from each written report sure characteristics of interest, such as publication year, research methods, information collection techniques, and direction or strength of research outcomes (eastward.g., positive, negative, or non-meaning) in the form of frequency assay to produce quantitative results (Sylvester et al., 2013). In essence, each study included in a descriptive review is treated as the unit of measurement of analysis and the published literature as a whole provides a database from which the authors try to identify any interpretable trends or draw overall conclusions about the merits of existing conceptualizations, propositions, methods or findings (Paré et al., 2015). In doing then, a descriptive review may claim that its findings stand for the country of the art in a particular domain (King & He, 2005).

In the fields of wellness sciences and medical informatics, reviews that focus on examining the range, nature and evolution of a topic area are described past Anderson, Allen, Peckham, and Goodwin (2008) as mapping reviews. Like descriptive reviews, the research questions are generic and usually relate to publication patterns and trends. There is no preconceived programme to systematically review all of the literature although this can be done. Instead, researchers often nowadays studies that are representative of nearly works published in a particular expanse and they consider a specific time frame to exist mapped.

An example of this arroyo in the eHealth domain is offered past 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 xx-year menses (1987 to 2006). To attain this ambitious objective, the authors performed a bibliometric analysis of medical information science citations indexed in medline using publication trends, journal frequencies, impact factors, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) term frequencies, and characteristics of citations. Findings revealed that in that location were over 77,000 medical information science articles published during the covered menstruation in numerous journals and that the average annual growth rate was 12%. The MeSH term assay also suggested a strong interdisciplinary tendency. Finally, average affect scores increased over fourth dimension with two notable growth periods. Overall, patterns in research outputs that seem to characterize the historic trends and electric current components of the field of medical informatics suggest it may be a maturing discipline (DeShazo et al., 2009).

ix.3.iii. Scoping Reviews

Scoping reviews attempt 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 exist conducted to examine the extent, range and nature of inquiry activities in a item area, decide the value of undertaking a full systematic review (discussed next), or identify enquiry 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 inquiry agenda for future works along with potential implications for both practice and research.

Unlike narrative and descriptive reviews, the whole indicate of scoping the field is to be equally comprehensive every bit possible, including greyness literature (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005). Inclusion and exclusion criteria must be established to help researchers eliminate studies that are not aligned with the research questions. It is besides recommended that at to the lowest degree ii independent coders review abstracts yielded from the search strategy and then the full articles for study selection (Daudt et al., 2013). The synthesized evidence from content or thematic assay is relatively like shooting fish in a barrel to present in tabular form (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005; Thomas & Harden, 2008).

One of the about 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 tape (phr) systems including design, functionality, implementation, applications, outcomes, and benefits. Seven databases were searched from 1985 to March 2010. Several search terms relating to phrs were used during this process. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts to decide inclusion status. A second screen of full-text articles, again by ii independent members of the enquiry team, ensured that the studies described phrsouth. All in all, 130 articles met the criteria and their data were extracted manually into a database. The authors concluded that although there is a large amount of survey, observational, cohort/console, and anecdotal evidence of phr benefits and satisfaction for patients, more than research is needed to evaluate the results of phr implementations. Their in-depth analysis of the literature signalled that at that place is little solid evidence from randomized controlled trials or other studies through the use of phrsouth. 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 can play a beneficial function in supporting patient self-direction (Archer et al., 2011).

9.3.4. Forms of Aggregative Reviews

Healthcare providers, practitioners, and policy-makers are nowadays overwhelmed with large volumes of data, 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 expect that all these disparate actors volition have the fourth dimension, skills, and necessary resource to place 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 reply to this challenge.

Systematic reviews attempt to aggregate, appraise, and synthesize in a single source all empirical testify that meet a set of previously specified eligibility criteria in order to reply a clearly formulated and often narrow research question on a detail topic of interest to support evidence-based exercise (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 pb to deviations from the truth in results or inferences. The utilise of explicit methods allows systematic reviews to aggregate a large body of research testify, assess whether effects or relationships are in the same direction and of the aforementioned general magnitude, explain possible inconsistencies between report results, and determine the forcefulness of the overall testify for every result of interest based on the quality of included studies and the general consistency among them (Cook, 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 (usually 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 risk of bias in a duplicate mode using 2 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 not all, use statistical methods to combine the results of independent studies into a single quantitative estimate or summary effect size. Known as meta-analyses, these reviews utilise specific data extraction and statistical techniques (due east.g., network, frequentist, or Bayesian meta-analyses) to calculate from each study by outcome of involvement an consequence size along with a confidence interval that reflects the caste of dubiety behind the point gauge of consequence (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009; Deeks, Higgins, & Altman, 2008). Afterward, they use fixed or random-effects analysis models to combine the results of the included studies, assess statistical heterogeneity, and calculate a weighted average of the effect 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 involvement or, more mostly, the strength of a human relationship betwixt two variables beyond all studies included in the systematic review. By statistically combining information from multiple studies, meta-analyses tin create more precise and reliable estimates of intervention effects than those derived from individual studies alone, when these are examined independently as discrete sources of information.

The review by Gurol-Urganci, de Jongh, Vodopivec-Jamsek, Atun, and Motorcar (2013) on the effects of mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments is an illustrative case of a high-quality systematic review with meta-assay. Missed appointments are a major cause of inefficiency in healthcare delivery with substantial budgetary costs to health systems. These authors sought to assess whether mobile phone-based appointment reminders delivered through Brusque Message Service (sms) or Multimedia Messaging Service (mms) are effective in improving rates of patient attendance and reducing overall costs. To this stop, they conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases using highly sensitive search strategies without language or publication-type restrictions to identify all rctsouth that are eligible for inclusion. In order to minimize the take chances 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. Written report pick, data extraction, and take chances of bias assessments were performed independently by 2 coders using standardized methods to ensure consistency and to eliminate potential errors. Findings from eight rctdue south involving 6,615 participants were pooled into meta-analyses to calculate the magnitude of effects that mobile text message reminders have on the charge per unit of omnipresence at healthcare appointments compared to no reminders and phone call reminders.

Meta-analyses are regarded as powerful tools for deriving meaningful conclusions. Notwithstanding, there are situations in which it is neither reasonable nor advisable to pool studies together using meta-analytic methods simply because there is extensive clinical heterogeneity betwixt the included studies or variation in measurement tools, comparisons, or outcomes of interest. In these cases, systematic reviews can employ qualitative synthesis methods such as vote counting, content analysis, nomenclature schemes and tabulations, every bit an alternative arroyo to narratively synthesize the results of the contained studies included in the review. This form 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 information 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.ac.britain/prospero/) an a priori review protocol; (b) conducted comprehensive searches for eligible studies using multiple databases and other supplementary strategies (e.g., forwards searches); and (c) afterwards carried out study option, information extraction, and take a chance of bias assessments in a duplicate manner to eliminate potential errors in the review procedure. Heterogeneity between the included studies in terms of reported outcomes and measures precluded the apply of meta-analytic methods. To this cease, the authors resorted to using narrative analysis and synthesis to depict the effectiveness of handheld computers on accessing information for clinical knowledge, adherence to safety and clinical quality guidelines, and diagnostic decision-making.

In recent years, the number of systematic reviews in the field of health computer science has increased considerably. Systematic reviews with discordant findings tin cause great defoliation and arrive difficult for decision-makers to interpret the review-level evidence (Moher, 2013). Therefore, there is a growing need for appraisal and synthesis of prior systematic reviews to ensure that decision-making is constantly informed by the best available accumulated testify. Umbrella reviews, as well known as overviews of systematic reviews, are tertiary types of evidence synthesis that aim to achieve this; that is, they aim to compare and contrast 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 primary written report (Becker & Oxman, 2008). Unlike systematic reviews that take 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 contempo umbrella review on the effects of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with eye failure critically appraised, compared, and synthesized evidence from 15 systematic reviews to investigate which types of home telemonitoring technologies and forms of interventions are more effective in reducing mortality and hospital admissions (Kitsiou, Paré, & Jaana, 2015).

ix.three.five. Realist Reviews

Realist reviews are theory-driven interpretative reviews developed to inform, heighten, or supplement conventional systematic reviews by making sense of heterogeneous evidence about complex interventions applied in diverse contexts in a way that informs policy conclusion-making (Greenhalgh, Wong, Westhorp, & Pawson, 2011). They originated from criticisms of positivist systematic reviews which centre on their "simplistic" underlying assumptions (Oates, 2011). As explained in a higher place, systematic reviews seek to identify causation. Such logic is advisable for fields like medicine and pedagogy where findings of randomized controlled trials can exist aggregated to see whether a new handling or intervention does improve outcomes. However, many argue that it is not possible to establish such direct causal links between interventions and outcomes in fields such as social policy, management, and information systems where for whatsoever intervention there is unlikely to be a regular or consequent outcome (Oates, 2011; Pawson, 2006; Rousseau, Manning, & Denyer, 2008).

To circumvent these limitations, Pawson, Greenhalgh, Harvey, and Walshe (2005) take proposed a new approach for synthesizing knowledge that seeks to unpack the mechanism of how "complex interventions" piece of work in particular contexts. The basic inquiry 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 testify. As a theory-building approach, a realist review normally starts by articulating likely underlying mechanisms and then 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 every bit case studies which can exam and modify the initial theories (Rousseau et al., 2008).

The primary 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 commitment and patient outcomes. The specific goals were to investigate how outcomes are produced and, near chiefly, how variations in outcomes can be explained. The research team started with an exploratory review of background documents and research studies to place ways in which patient portals may contribute to wellness service commitment and patient outcomes. The authors identified half-dozen main ways which correspond "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 enquiry team selected the articles using a pre-established list of inclusion and exclusion criteria and following a two-step procedure. The authors then extracted information from the selected articles and created several tables, ane for each outcome category. They organized information to bring forward those mechanisms where patient portals contribute to outcomes and the variation in outcomes across unlike contexts.

9.3.6. Disquisitional Reviews

Lastly, critical reviews aim to provide a critical evaluation and interpretive assay of existing literature on a particular topic of interest to reveal strengths, weaknesses, contradictions, controversies, inconsistencies, and/or other important issues with respect to theories, hypotheses, research methods or results (Baumeister & Leary, 1997; Kirkevold, 1997). Unlike other review types, critical reviews effort to accept a reflective account of the research that has been done in a particular area of interest, and assess its credibility past using appraisement instruments or critical interpretive methods. In this manner, critical reviews try to constructively inform other scholars about the weaknesses of prior research and strengthen noesis development by giving focus and direction to studies for further 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 afterwards used a validated instrument to acquit an in-depth quality appraisement. Results signal 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 conclusion-making purposes. To this end, they provide a number of recommendations to strengthen knowledge evolution towards improving the design and execution of future reviews on abode 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 chief characteristics that distinguish one review type from another. It also includes key references to methodological guidelines and useful sources that can be used by eHealth scholars and researchers for planning and developing reviews.

Table 9.1

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

Equally shown in Table nine.1, each review type addresses unlike kinds of research questions or objectives, which subsequently ascertain and dictate the methods and approaches that need to be used to attain the overarching goal(due south) of the review. For example, in the case of narrative reviews, at that place 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, draw their operational characteristics, present how the individual studies fit together, and formulate conclusions. On the other hand, systematic reviews are characterized past their high level of systematicity, rigour, and apply of explicit methods, based on an "a priori" review plan that aims to minimize bias in the analysis and synthesis process (Higgins & Dark-green, 2008). Some reviews are exploratory in nature (e.grand., scoping/mapping reviews), whereas others may be conducted to discover patterns (eastward.g., descriptive reviews) or involve a synthesis arroyo that may include the critical assay of prior research (Paré et al., 2015). Hence, in guild to select the nigh advisable type of review, information technology is critical to know before embarking on a review projection, why the research synthesis is conducted and what type of methods are best aligned with the pursued goals.

9.v. Concluding Remarks

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

We must stress that this nomenclature scheme does not privilege whatsoever specific type of review as being of higher quality than some other (Paré et al., 2015). As explained above, each blazon of review has its own strengths and limitations. Having said that, nosotros realize that the methodological rigour of any review — be information technology qualitative, quantitative or mixed — is a critical aspect that should be considered seriously by prospective authors. In the nowadays context, the notion of rigour refers to the reliability and validity of the review process described in section 9.2. For i thing, reliability is related to the reproducibility of the review process and steps, which is facilitated past a comprehensive documentation of the literature search process, extraction, coding and assay performed in the review. Whether the search is comprehensive or not, whether information technology involves a methodical approach for data extraction and synthesis or not, information technology is of import 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 appropriately. Information technology goes across documentation and reflects decisions related to the selection of the sources, the search terms used, the menstruation 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 whatever review commodity is reflected past the explicitness of its methods (i.eastward., 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 diverse types of review manufactures.

To conclude, our main objective in this affiliate was to demystify the diverse types of literature reviews that are fundamental to the continuous development of the eHealth field. It is our promise that our descriptive business relationship will serve equally a valuable source for those conducting, evaluating or using reviews in this important and growing domain.

References

Ammenwerth Eastward., de Keizer N. An inventory of evaluation studies of it 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 South., Goodwin North. Asking the right questions: scoping studies in the commissioning of enquiry on the organisation and delivery of wellness services. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2008;6(seven):1–12. [PMC free article: PMC2500008] [PubMed: 18613961] [CrossRef]
Archer N., Fevrier-Thomas U., Lokker C., McKibbon K. A., Straus Southward.Eastward. Personal health records: a scoping review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association. 2011;18(4):515–522. [PMC complimentary article: PMC3128401] [PubMed: 21672914]
Arksey H., O'Malley Fifty. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Inquiry Methodology. 2005;8(1):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 Data Systems (ecis 2011); June 9 to 11; Helsinki, Finland. 2011.
Baumeister R. F., Leary M.R. Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology. 1997;1(three):311–320.
Becker L. A., Oxman A.D. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Light-green S., editors. Hoboken, nj: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Overviews of reviews; pp. 607–631.
Borenstein M., Hedges Fifty., Higgins J., Rothstein H. Introduction to meta-analysis. Hoboken, nj: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2009.
Melt D. J., Mulrow C. D., Haynes B. Systematic reviews: Synthesis of all-time evidence for clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1997;126(5):376–380. [PubMed: 9054282]
Cooper H., Hedges L.5. In: The handbook of inquiry synthesis and meta-assay. 2d ed. Cooper H., Hedges L. V., Valentine J. C., editors. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2009. Inquiry synthesis as a scientific procedure; pp. three–17.
Cooper H. M. Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Cognition 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(i):38–43. [PubMed: 18399395]
Darlow S., Wen Chiliad.Y. Evolution testing of mobile health interventions for cancer patient cocky-management: A review. Health Computer science Journal. 2015 (online before impress). [PubMed: 25916831] [CrossRef]
Daudt H. K., van Mossel C., Scott S.J. Enhancing the scoping written report methodology: a large, inter-professional team'south experience with Arksey and O'Malley'due south framework. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2013;13:48. [PMC complimentary article: PMC3614526] [PubMed: 23522333] [CrossRef]
Davies P. The relevance of systematic reviews to educational policy and do. Oxford Review of Education. 2000;26(3-4):365–378.
Deeks J. J., Higgins J. P. T., Altman D.K. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Greenish Southward., 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.M. Publication trends in the medical informatics literature: twenty years of "Medical Computer science" in mesh. bmc Medical Informatics and Conclusion Making. 2009;9:7. [PMC complimentary commodity: PMC2652453] [PubMed: 19159472] [CrossRef]
Dixon-Woods M., Agarwal Due south., Jones D., Young B., Sutton A. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy. 2005;x(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 gratuitous article: PMC3424349] [PubMed: 22591030]
Grady B., Myers K. M., Nelson E. L., Belz North., Bennett L., Carnahan L. … Guidelines Working Group. Evidence-based practise for telemental health. Telemedicine Journal and East Health. 2011;17(2):131–148. [PubMed: 21385026]
Greenish 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 gratis article: PMC2647067] [PubMed: 19674681]
Greenhalgh T., Wong Yard., Westhorp G., Pawson R. Protocol–realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis: evolving standards (rameses). bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2011;11:115. [PMC free article: PMC3173389] [PubMed: 21843376]
Gurol-Urganci I., de Jongh T., Vodopivec-Jamsek V., Atun R., Car J. Mobile phone messaging reminders for omnipresence at healthcare appointments. Cochrane Database Organization Review. 2013;12 cd007458. [PMC costless 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., Greenish S., editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: Cochrane volume 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.
King West. R., He J. Understanding the role and methods of meta-analysis in IS research. Communications of the Clan for Information Systems. 2005;16:i.
Kirkevold M. Integrative nursing research — an of import strategy to further the development of nursing science and nursing exercise. Periodical of Advanced Nursing. 1997;25(five):977–984. [PubMed: 9147203]
Kitchenham B., Charters S. ebse Technical Report Version 2.3. Keele & Durham. united kingdom: Keele University & University of Durham; 2007. Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering.
Kitsiou S., Paré 1000., Jaana M. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with chronic diseases: a critical assessment of their methodological quality. Periodical of Medical Net Research. 2013;15(7):e150. [PMC free article: PMC3785977] [PubMed: 23880072]
Kitsiou S., Paré 1000., Jaana M. Effects of home telemonitoring interventions on patients with chronic heart failure: an overview of systematic reviews. Periodical of Medical Internet Research. 2015;17(three):e63. [PMC costless article: PMC4376138] [PubMed: 25768664]
Levy Y., Ellis T.J. A systems approach to carry an effective literature review in support of information systems research. Informing Scientific discipline. 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. Register of Internal Medicine. 2009;151(four):Due west-65. [PubMed: 19622512]
Lyden J. R., Zickmund Southward. Fifty., Bhargava T. D., Bryce C. Fifty., Conroy 1000. B., Fischer G. Southward. et al. McTigue K. M. Implementing wellness it 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 Due north. W., Heneghan C., Tilson J.K. Apply of handheld computers in clinical practise: a systematic review. bmc Medical Information science and Decision Making. 2014;14:56. [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. M., Wilczynski Due north. Fifty., Morgan D., Haynes R. B., Hedges T. Systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of location and citation counts. bmc Medicine. 2003;one:2. [PMC costless commodity: PMC281591] [PubMed: 14633274]
Mulrow C. D. The medical review article: land of the science. Register of Internal Medicine. 1987;106(3):485–488. [PubMed: 3813259] [CrossRef]
Okoli C., Schabram K. A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of information systems enquiry. ssrn Electronic Journal. 2010
Otte-Trojel T., de Bont A., Rundall T. G., van de Klundert J. How outcomes are achieved through patient portals: a realist review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association. 2014;21(4):751–757. [PMC free article: PMC4078283] [PubMed: 24503882]
Paré G., Trudel M.-C., Jaana M., Kitsiou Southward. Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management. 2015;52(2):183–199.
Patsopoulos N. A., Analatos A. A., Ioannidis J.P. A. Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. Journal of the American Medical Clan. 2005;293(xix):2362–2366. [PubMed: 15900006]
Paul M. M., Greene C. M., Newton-Dame R., Thorpe L. E., Perlman S. E., McVeigh K. H., Gourevitch Thousand.N. The state of population health surveillance using electronic health records: A narrative review. Population Health Management. 2015;18(iii):209–216. [PubMed: 25608033]
Pawson R. Bear witness-based policy: a realist perspective. London: SAGE Publications; 2006.
Pawson R., Greenhalgh T., Harvey G., Walshe M. Realist review—a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Journal of Health Services Inquiry & Policy. 2005;10(Suppl 1):21–34. [PubMed: 16053581]
Petersen Yard., Vakkalanka S., Kuzniarz L. Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software technology: An update. Information and Software Technology. 2015;64:1–18.
Petticrew K., 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 management and organizational science: Assembling the field's full weight of scientific cognition through syntheses. The Academy of Management Annals. 2008;two(1):475–515.
Rowe F. What literature review is not: variety, 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 Due east., Grimshaw J. et al. Boers M. amstar is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Periodical of Clinical Epidemiology. 2009;62(10):1013–1020. [PubMed: 19230606]
Shepperd S., Lewin Due south., Straus S., Clarke 1000., Eccles M. P., Fitzpatrick R. et al. Sheikh A. Can nosotros systematically review studies that evaluate circuitous interventions? PLoS Medicine. 2009;6(eight):e1000086. [PMC gratis article: PMC2717209] [PubMed: 19668360]
Silva B. M., Rodrigues J. J., de la Torre Díez I., López-Coronado M., Saleem One thousand. Mobile-wellness: A review of current state in 2015. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2015;56:265–272. [PubMed: 26071682]
Smith V., Devane D., Begley C., Clarke M. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. bmc Medical Inquiry Methodology. 2011;11(one):15. [PMC free article: PMC3039637] [PubMed: 21291558]
Sylvester A., Tate Yard., Johnstone D. Beyond synthesis: re-presenting heterogeneous inquiry literature. Behaviour & Information Engineering. 2013;32(12):1199–1215.
Templier M., Paré M. A framework for guiding and evaluating literature reviews. Communications of the Clan for Information Systems. 2015;37(6):112–137.
Thomas J., Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. bmc Medical Enquiry Methodology. 2008;8(1):45. [PMC gratuitous commodity: PMC2478656] [PubMed: 18616818]
Reconstructing the giant: on the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search procedure. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 17th European Briefing on Information Systems (ecis 2009); Verona, Italian republic. 2009.
Webster J., Watson R.T. Analyzing the by to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. Management Data Systems Quarterly. 2002;26(2):11.
Whitlock Eastward. P., Lin J. Southward., Chou R., Shekelle P., Robinson G.A. Using existing systematic reviews in circuitous systematic reviews. Register of Internal Medicine. 2008;148(10):776–782. [PubMed: 18490690]

hopkinsglanking.blogspot.com

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