topic: [[Researching]] Lon Setnik, MD FACEP MHPE created: 2024-01-01 #on/research | #on/literaturereview | #note/idea| #on/process _“The purpose of the literature review section of a manuscript is not to report what is known about your topic. The purpose is to identify what remains unknown” (Lingard and Watling, 2021, p. 31) and leverage the unknown to create a need for the research in the mind of the reader._ ## MAP THE GAP: ### the outcome The literature review that we create will end up looking like: - Knowledge Claim (We know that...) - Knowledge Claim (We know that...) - Knowledge Claim (We know that...) - Gap (However, But, or Notwithstanding ...) ### the finished example: “Despite such clear uptake of and enthusiasm in the CW initiative and some early successes in lowering low-value care through local interventions,10 14 studies have shown limited largescale change in ordering rates of low-value care since the launch of these campaigns.15 16 The issue of implementing CW recommendations and evaluating the effects of these recommendations has received much less attention. Recommendations alone will not change practice.17 18 Recent commentaries have suggested that the focus of the campaign should be on identifying and applying evidence-based strategies to effectively reduce low-value care.13 19 There is substantial evidence and guidance on how to implement evidence-based strategies. However, few conceptual frameworks exist to guide de-implementation, and those that do exist focus on team culture or organisational change20 or target change in a specific clinical setting,21 making it difficult to generalise the frameworks across a myriad of healthcare settings and contexts.” (Grimshaw et al., 2020, p. 410) ## Steps in a review: When composing a review of the literature, it is difficult to determine how much literature to review. In order to address this problem, we have developed a model that provides parameters around the literature review, especially as it might be designed for a quantitative or mixed methods study that employs a standard literature review section. For a qualitative study, the literature review might explore aspects of the central phenomenon being addressed and divide it into topical areas. But the literature review for a qualitative study, as discussed earlier, can be placed in a proposal in several ways (e.g., as a rationale for the research problem, as a separate section, as something threaded throughout the study, as compared with the results of a project). For a quantitative study or the quantitative strand of a mixed methods study, write a review of the literature that contains sections about the literature related to major independent variables, major dependent variables, and studies that relate the independent and dependent variables (more on variables in Chapter 3). This approach seems appropriate for dissertations and for conceptualizing the literature to be introduced in a journal article. (Creswell & Creswell, 2018 p. 44) - [ ] Identify key questions - [ ] Decide type of review (Table 1: Grant & Booth, 2009) - [ ] Database queries - [ ] skim the articles: record the highlights using the template: source review - single note for each article - [ ] map the literature - [ ] draft summaries of the most relevant articles - [ ] organize the review by most important or relevant ideas - [ ] create purpose-driven summary of topic (for your purpose) - if an understudied field, argue why the gap is important. In a well studied field, argue that the gap exists. - [ ] Characterize the gap (Lingard & Watling, 2021, p. 18) ### Types of Reviews: ![[Review Types 1.jpg]] ![[Review Types 2.jpg]] **Most primary research will do a mapping review/systematic map** #### Mapping Reviews: “Mapping reviews can be distinguished from scoping reviews (see below) because the subsequent outcome may involve either further review work or primary research and this outcome is not known beforehand.” (Grant and Booth, 2009, p. 97) “Systematic maps may characterize studies in other ways such as according to theoretical perspective, population group or the setting within which studies were undertaken. In addition to describing the research field, a systematic map can also provide the basis for an informed decision about whether to undertake the in-depth review and synthesis on all of the studies or just a subset.” (Grant and Booth, 2009, p. 97) “Perceived weaknesses. Mapping reviews are necessarily time constrained and lack the synthesis and analysis of more considered approaches. Studies may be characterized at a broad descriptive level and thus oversimplify the picture or mask considerable variation (heterogeneity) between studies and their findingsdepending on the degree of specificity of the coding process. Mapping reviews do not usually include a quality assessment process; characterizing studies only on the basis of study design.” (Grant and Booth, 2009, p. 98) #### Systematic descriptive maps “‘Systematic descriptive maps’ can answer questions about what research is available on a given topic, and identify future directions for research in the area by uncovering gaps in the research field. By simply describing, rather than scrutinising in-depth and critically appraising the research, reviewers can address a much broader field of research than is possible when conducting a narrower synthesis of research findings.” (Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre, 2010, p. 12) “each study is given standard treatment at write-up” (Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre, 2010, p. 15) “The synthesis is usually presented in the form of a structured narrative, summary tables or a statistical combination (meta-analysis).” (Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre, 2010, p. 15) ### Characterizing the gap ![[characterize the gap.jpg]] ## Summary: The literature review process is iterative, zoom in/zoom out, ask why, how to achieve what we are looking for, and how to document, organize, and summarize what we have found, and what we haven't found. # Sources: Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). _Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches_ (Fifth edition). SAGE. Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre. (2010). _EPPI-Centre methods for conducting systematic reviews_. Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. _Health Information & Libraries Journal_, _26_(2), 91–108. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x) Grimshaw, J. M., Patey, A. M., Kirkham, K. R., Hall, A., Dowling, S. K., Rodondi, N., Ellen, M., Kool, T., Dulmen, S. A. van, Kerr, E. A., Linklater, S., Levinson, W., & Bhatia, R. S. (2020). De-implementing wisely: Developing the evidence base to reduce low-value care. _BMJ Quality & Safety_, _29_(5), 409–417. [https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2019-010060](https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2019-010060) Lingard, L., & Watling, C. (2021). _Story, Not Study: 30 Brief Lessons to Inspire Health Researchers as Writers_ (Vol. 19). Springer International Publishing. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71363-8](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71363-8)