How to Write a Literature Review on Quantitative Data

ix.1. Introduction

Literature reviews play a critical role in scholarship considering scientific discipline remains, first and foremost, a cumulative endeavour (vom Brocke et al., 2009). Every bit in any bookish bailiwick, 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 enquiry expanse reveals any interpretable trends or patterns; (c) aggregating empirical findings related to a narrow research question to support prove-based practice; (d) generating new frameworks and theories; and (east) identifying topics or questions requiring more investigation (Paré, Trudel, Jaana, & Kitsiou, 2015).

Literature reviews can accept two major forms. The most prevalent one is the "literature review" or "background" section within a journal paper or a chapter in a graduate thesis. This department synthesizes the extant literature and commonly identifies the gaps in knowledge 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 enquiry problem, justify the inquiry every bit 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'south own work, it creates a solid starting point for all members of the community interested in a particular expanse or topic (Mulrow, 1987). The so-called "review commodity" is a journal-length paper which has an overarching purpose to synthesize the literature in a field, without collecting or analyzing any primary data (Greenish, Johnson, & Adams, 2006).

When accordingly conducted, review articles represent powerful data sources for practitioners looking for country-of-the art evidence to guide their decision-making and work practices (Paré et al., 2015). Farther, high-quality reviews become oft cited pieces of piece of work which researchers seek out as a first clear outline of the literature when undertaking empirical studies (Cooper, 1988; Rowe, 2014). Scholars who runway and estimate the affect of articles accept institute that review papers are cited and downloaded more often than any 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 ane to have an overview, if not a detailed knowledge of the expanse in question, also as references to the most useful primary sources (Cronin et al., 2008). Although they are not easy to conduct, the commitment to complete a review article provides a tremendous service to one'due south academic community (Paré et al., 2015; Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). Near, if not all, peer-reviewed journals in the fields of medical informatics publish review articles of some type.

The main objectives of this chapter are fourfold: (a) to provide an overview of the major steps and activities involved in conducting a stand up-solitary literature review; (b) to describe and contrast the unlike types of review articles that can contribute to the eHealth cognition base; (c) to illustrate each review type with one or 2 examples from the eHealth literature; and (d) to provide a series of recommendations for prospective authors of review articles in this domain.

ix.2. Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps

Every bit explained in Templier and Paré (2015), there are vi generic steps involved in conducting a review article:

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

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

Formulating the research question(s) and objective(s): Equally a get-go step, members of the review team must accordingly justify the need for the review itself (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006), identify the review's main objective(south) (Okoli & Schabram, 2010), and ascertain the concepts or variables at the heart of their synthesis (Cooper & Hedges, 2009; Webster & Watson, 2002). Importantly, they likewise need to clear the research question(s) they propose to investigate (Kitchenham & Charters, 2007). In this regard, we concur with Jesson, Matheson, and Lacey (2011) that clearly 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 assay.

Searching the extant literature: The next stride consists of searching the literature and making decisions about the suitability of material to be considered in the review (Cooper, 1988). In that location exist 3 primary coverage strategies. First, exhaustive coverage ways an effort is made to be as comprehensive as possible in order to ensure that all relevant studies, published and unpublished, are included in the review and, thus, conclusions are based on this spread-out knowledge base. The second type of coverage consists of presenting materials that are representative of most other works in a given field or area. Often authors who adopt this strategy will search for relevant articles in a small number of height-tier journals in a field (Paré et al., 2015). In the third strategy, the review team concentrates on prior works that take been central or pivotal to a 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 argue (Cooper, 1988).

Screening for inclusion: The following step consists of evaluating the applicability of the textile 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 gear up of predetermined rules provides a basis for including or excluding certain studies. This do requires a significant investment on the part of researchers, who must ensure enhanced objectivity and avert biases or mistakes. As discussed later in this chapter, for certain types of reviews there must be at least ii independent reviewers involved in the screening process and a process to resolve disagreements must also be in place (Liberati et al., 2009; Shea et al., 2009).

Assessing the quality of master studies: In addition to screening material for inclusion, members of the review squad may need to appraise the scientific quality of the selected studies, that is, assess the rigour of the research pattern and methods. Such formal cess, which is unremarkably conducted independently past at least two coders, helps members of the review team refine which studies to include in the final sample, decide whether or non the differences in quality may affect their conclusions, or guide how they analyze the data and translate the findings (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). Ascribing quality scores to each primary written report or considering through domain-based evaluations which study components accept or have non been designed and executed appropriately makes it possible to reflect on the extent to which the selected study addresses possible biases and maximizes validity (Shea et al., 2009).

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

Analyzing and synthesizing data: As a final step, members of the review squad must collate, summarize, aggregate, organize, and compare the evidence extracted from the included studies. The extracted information must exist 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 exist 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 (eastward.thousand., frequency assay, meta-analysis) and qualitative (e.g., grounded theory, narrative analysis, meta-ethnography) evidence (Dixon-Woods, Agarwal, Jones, Young, & Sutton, 2005; Thomas & Harden, 2008).

9.iii. Types of Review Articles and Cursory Illustrations

EHealth researchers take at their disposal a number of approaches and methods for making sense out of existing literature, all with the purpose of casting electric current research findings into historical contexts or explaining contradictions that might be among a set of chief 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 feel are central 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 estimation of prior knowledge (Sylvester et al., 2013). Put only, a narrative review attempts to summarize or synthesize what has been written on a item topic merely does not seek generalization or cumulative noesis from what is reviewed (Davies, 2000; Green et al., 2006). Instead, the review team often undertakes the task of accumulating and synthesizing the literature to demonstrate the value of a particular point of view (Baumeister & Leary, 1997). As such, reviewers may selectively ignore or limit the attending paid to certain studies in order to brand a point. In this rather unsystematic approach, the option of information from primary manufactures is subjective, lacks explicit criteria for inclusion and tin pb to biased interpretations or inferences (Green et al., 2006). At that place are several narrative reviews in the detail 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 tin exist very useful in gathering together a volume of literature in a specific bailiwick area and synthesizing it. Equally mentioned above, its primary purpose is to provide the reader with a comprehensive background for understanding current noesis and highlighting the significance of new research (Cronin et al., 2008). Faculty similar to use narrative reviews in the classroom because they are often more up to date than textbooks, provide a unmarried source for students to reference, and expose students to peer-reviewed literature (Green et al., 2006). For researchers, narrative reviews can inspire enquiry ideas by identifying gaps or inconsistencies in a body of knowledge, thus helping researchers to determine research questions or formulate hypotheses. Importantly, narrative reviews can besides be used as educational articles to bring practitioners up to date with sure topics of issues (Green et al., 2006).

Recently, there accept been several efforts to introduce more rigour in narrative reviews that volition elucidate common pitfalls and bring changes into their publication standards. Data systems researchers, among others, accept contributed to advancing knowledge on how to structure a "traditional" review. For case, Levy and Ellis (2006) proposed a generic framework for conducting such reviews. Their model follows the systematic information processing approach comprised of three steps, namely: (a) literature search and screening; (b) information extraction and analysis; and (c) writing the literature review. They provide detailed and very helpful instructions on how to conduct each stride 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 identify primary studies within a feasible telescopic, extract relevant content from identified articles, synthesize and clarify 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 earlier embarking on their piece of work.

Darlow and Wen (2015) provide a good example of a highly structured narrative review in the eHealth field. These authors synthesized published manufactures that describe the development process of mobile health (m-health) interventions for patients' cancer intendance cocky-direction. As in most narrative reviews, the telescopic 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 be fatigued as a effect of the development of these systems. To provide articulate answers to these questions, a literature search was conducted on six electronic databases and Google Scholar. The search was performed using several terms and gratuitous text words, combining them in an appropriate manner. Four inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria were utilized during the screening procedure. Both authors independently reviewed each of the identified manufactures to determine eligibility and extract report information. A menstruation diagram shows the number of studies identified, screened, and included or excluded at each stage of study selection. In terms of contributions, this review provides a series of practical recommendations for yard-health intervention development.

9.3.two. Descriptive or Mapping Reviews

The main goal of a descriptive review is to determine the extent to which a body of knowledge in a detail research topic reveals whatever interpretable pattern or trend with respect to pre-existing propositions, theories, methodologies or findings (Rex & He, 2005; Paré et al., 2015). In dissimilarity 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 form a representative sample of a larger group of published works (Paré et al., 2015). Further, authors of descriptive reviews extract from each study certain characteristics of interest, such equally publication year, research methods, data collection techniques, and management or strength of research outcomes (e.g., positive, negative, or non-significant) in the form 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 measurement of analysis and the published literature as a whole provides a database from which the authors attempt to identify any interpretable trends or describe overall conclusions nigh the merits of existing conceptualizations, propositions, methods or findings (Paré et al., 2015). In doing so, a descriptive review may claim that its findings represent the state of the art in a particular domain (Rex & 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 past Anderson, Allen, Peckham, and Goodwin (2008) every bit mapping reviews. Like descriptive reviews, the research questions are generic and usually relate to publication patterns and trends. In that location is no preconceived program to systematically review all of the literature although this can be washed. Instead, researchers ofttimes nowadays studies that are representative of about works published in a particular area and they consider a specific time frame to exist 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 narrate publication trends in the medical information science literature over a 20-yr period (1987 to 2006). To achieve this ambitious objective, the authors performed a bibliometric analysis of medical informatics 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 period in numerous journals and that the average annual growth rate was 12%. The MeSH term analysis also suggested a stiff interdisciplinary tendency. Finally, average bear upon scores increased over fourth dimension with 2 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 it may be a maturing discipline (DeShazo et al., 2009).

9.3.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 be conducted to examine the extent, range and nature of research 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 master objective, scoping reviews usually conclude with the presentation of a detailed research agenda for future works along with potential implications for both practice and research.

Different narrative and descriptive reviews, the whole point 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 assistance researchers eliminate studies that are not aligned with the enquiry questions. It is also recommended that at least two independent 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 present in tabular course (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005; Thomas & Harden, 2008).

I of the nigh highly cited scoping reviews in the eHealth domain was published past Archer, Fevrier-Thomas, Lokker, McKibbon, and Straus (2011). These authors reviewed the existing literature on personal health record (phr) systems including pattern, functionality, implementation, applications, outcomes, and benefits. Vii 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 determine inclusion status. A 2d screen of total-text articles, again by 2 independent members of the research team, ensured that the studies described phrs. 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 big corporeality of survey, observational, accomplice/console, and anecdotal bear witness of phr benefits and satisfaction for patients, more inquiry is needed to evaluate the results of phr implementations. Their in-depth analysis of the literature signalled that there is little solid evidence from randomized controlled trials or other studies through the use of phrs. Hence, they suggested that more research is needed that addresses the current lack of understanding of optimal functionality and usability of these systems, and how they tin play a benign function in supporting patient self-management (Archer et al., 2011).

9.3.4. Forms of Aggregative Reviews

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

Systematic reviews effort to aggregate, appraise, and synthesize in a single source all empirical show that meet a fix of previously specified eligibility criteria in lodge to answer a clearly formulated and often narrow inquiry question on a item topic of involvement to support evidence-based practice (Liberati et al., 2009). They adhere closely to explicit scientific principles (Liberati et al., 2009) and rigorous methodological guidelines (Higgins & Greenish, 2008) aimed at reducing random and systematic errors that can lead to deviations from the truth in results or inferences. The utilize of explicit methods allows systematic reviews to amass a large torso of enquiry evidence, appraise whether effects or relationships are in the same management and of the same full general magnitude, explain possible inconsistencies between study results, and make up one's mind the force of the overall prove for every outcome of interest based on the quality of included studies and the general consistency amid them (Cook, Mulrow, & Haynes, 1997). The main procedures of a systematic review involve:

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 data sources, including grayness literature sources, without any linguistic communication restrictions.
Selecting studies, extracting data, and assessing risk of bias in a duplicate manner using two contained 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 gauge or summary outcome size. Known as meta-analyses, these reviews use specific information extraction and statistical techniques (e.g., network, frequentist, or Bayesian meta-analyses) to summate from each written report past outcome of involvement an effect size along with a confidence interval that reflects the degree of incertitude behind the point gauge of effect (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009; Deeks, Higgins, & Altman, 2008). Subsequently, they use stock-still or random-furnishings analysis models to combine the results of the included studies, assess statistical heterogeneity, and calculate a weighted boilerplate of the consequence estimates from the different studies, taking into account their sample sizes. The summary outcome size is a value that reflects the boilerplate magnitude of the intervention effect for a particular upshot of interest or, more than generally, the strength of a human relationship between two 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 alone, when these are examined independently every bit detached sources of data.

The review by Gurol-Urganci, de Jongh, Vodopivec-Jamsek, Atun, and Car (2013) on the furnishings of mobile telephone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments is an illustrative case of a high-quality systematic review with meta-analysis. 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 engagement reminders delivered through Short Bulletin Service (sms) or Multimedia Messaging Service (mms) are effective in improving rates of patient attendance and reducing overall costs. To this cease, they conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases using highly sensitive search strategies without language or publication-type restrictions to place all rcts that are eligible for inclusion. In order to minimize the chance of omitting eligible studies not captured past the original search, they supplemented all electronic searches with manual screening of trial registers and references independent in the included studies. Written report selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were performed independently by two 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 summate the magnitude of effects that mobile text message reminders have on the charge per unit of attendance at healthcare appointments compared to no reminders and telephone phone call reminders.

Meta-analyses are regarded every bit powerful tools for deriving meaningful conclusions. Yet, at that place are situations in which it is neither reasonable nor appropriate to pool studies together using meta-analytic methods only because there is all-encompassing clinical heterogeneity between the included studies or variation in measurement tools, comparisons, or outcomes of interest. In these cases, systematic reviews can utilise qualitative synthesis methods such equally vote counting, content analysis, classification schemes and tabulations, every bit an alternative approach to narratively synthesize the results of the independent 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 utilize of handheld computers by healthcare professionals and their impact on access to information and clinical conclusion-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 (due east.thousand., forward searches); and (c) subsequently carried out study choice, information extraction, and risk of bias assessments in a duplicate manner to eliminate potential errors in the review process. Heterogeneity between the included studies in terms of reported outcomes and measures precluded the utilise of meta-analytic methods. To this cease, the authors resorted to using narrative analysis and synthesis to draw the effectiveness of handheld computers on accessing information for clinical cognition, adherence to condom and clinical quality guidelines, and diagnostic decision-making.

In recent years, the number of systematic reviews in the field of health informatics has increased considerably. Systematic reviews with discordant findings tin crusade great confusion and make information technology difficult for decision-makers to interpret the review-level testify (Moher, 2013). Therefore, at that place is a growing demand for appraisement and synthesis of prior systematic reviews to ensure that decision-making is constantly informed by the best available accumulated testify. 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 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 measurement of assay in umbrella reviews is the systematic review rather than the main study (Becker & Oxman, 2008). Unlike systematic reviews that have a narrow focus of inquiry, umbrella reviews focus on broader research topics for which at that place are several potential interventions (Smith, Devane, Begley, & Clarke, 2011). A recent umbrella review on the effects of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with heart failure critically appraised, compared, and synthesized testify from xv systematic reviews to investigate which types of home telemonitoring technologies and forms of interventions are more effective in reducing mortality and infirmary admissions (Kitsiou, Paré, & Jaana, 2015).

nine.3.5. Realist Reviews

Realist reviews are theory-driven interpretative reviews developed to inform, enhance, or supplement conventional systematic reviews past making sense of heterogeneous bear witness almost complex interventions applied in diverse contexts in a way that informs policy decision-making (Greenhalgh, Wong, Westhorp, & Pawson, 2011). They originated from criticisms of positivist systematic reviews which center on their "simplistic" underlying assumptions (Oates, 2011). As explained higher up, systematic reviews seek to identify causation. Such logic is appropriate for fields like medicine and education where findings of randomized controlled trials tin be aggregated to see whether a new handling or intervention does improve outcomes. However, many argue that it is non possible to constitute such direct causal links between interventions and outcomes in fields such as social policy, management, and data systems where for whatever intervention there is unlikely to be a regular or consistent outcome (Oates, 2011; Pawson, 2006; Rousseau, Manning, & Denyer, 2008).

To circumvent these limitations, Pawson, Greenhalgh, Harvey, and Walshe (2005) take proposed a new approach for synthesizing knowledge that seeks to unpack the mechanism of how "circuitous interventions" work in particular contexts. The basic research question — what works? — which is usually associated with systematic reviews changes to: what is it near this intervention that works, for whom, in what circumstances, in what respects and why? Realist reviews take no particular preference for either quantitative or qualitative testify. As a theory-building arroyo, a realist review usually starts by articulating likely underlying mechanisms and then scrutinizes available show to find out whether and where these mechanisms are applicable (Shepperd et al., 2009). Principal studies establish in the extant literature are viewed every bit example studies which can examination and alter the initial theories (Rousseau et al., 2008).

The main 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, well-nigh importantly, how variations in outcomes can be explained. The research team started with an exploratory review of background documents and research studies to identify means in which patient portals may contribute to wellness service delivery and patient outcomes. The authors identified six primary ways which stand for "educated guesses" to be tested against the data in the evaluation studies. These studies were identified through a formal and systematic search in four databases between 2003 and 2013. Two members of the inquiry team selected the articles using a pre-established list of inclusion and exclusion criteria and following a two-stride procedure. The authors then extracted information from the selected articles and created several tables, i for each outcome category. They organized information to bring forward those mechanisms where patient portals contribute to outcomes and the variation in outcomes beyond different contexts.

9.3.half dozen. Critical Reviews

Lastly, disquisitional reviews aim to provide a disquisitional 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, inquiry methods or results (Baumeister & Leary, 1997; Kirkevold, 1997). Unlike other review types, critical reviews attempt to take a reflective account of the enquiry that has been done in a particular area of interest, and appraise its credibility by using appraisal instruments or disquisitional interpretive methods. In this way, disquisitional reviews attempt to constructively inform other scholars about the weaknesses of prior research and strengthen knowledge development past giving focus and management 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 place eligible reviews and afterwards used a validated instrument to conduct an in-depth quality appraisal. Results point that the bulk of systematic reviews in this particular expanse suffer from important methodological flaws and biases that impair their internal validity and limit their usefulness for clinical and decision-making purposes. To this finish, they provide a number of recommendations to strengthen knowledge development towards improving the design and execution of future reviews on home telemonitoring.

9.four. Summary

Tabular array 9.i outlines the primary types of literature reviews that were described in the previous sub-sections and summarizes the master characteristics that distinguish one review blazon from another. Information technology also includes key references to methodological guidelines and useful sources that can be used by eHealth scholars and researchers for planning and developing reviews.

Tabular array ix.1

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

Equally shown in Tabular array 9.1, each review type addresses unlike kinds of inquiry questions or objectives, which afterward define and dictate the methods and approaches that need to be used to reach the overarching goal(southward) 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 oft relatively gratuitous to use a diverseness of approaches to search, identify, and select relevant scientific manufactures, depict their operational characteristics, present how the individual studies fit together, and formulate conclusions. On the other mitt, systematic reviews are characterized past their high level of systematicity, rigour, and use of explicit methods, based on an "a priori" review plan that aims to minimize bias in the analysis 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.g., descriptive reviews) or involve a synthesis approach that may include the critical assay of prior research (Paré et al., 2015). Hence, in order to select the almost advisable type of review, it is disquisitional to know before embarking on a review project, why the enquiry synthesis is conducted and what blazon of methods are best aligned with the pursued goals.

9.5. Final Remarks

In calorie-free of the increased use of evidence-based practice and enquiry generating stronger show (Grady et al., 2011; Lyden et al., 2013), review manufactures take get essential tools for summarizing, synthesizing, integrating or critically appraising prior knowledge in the eHealth field. Equally mentioned earlier, when rigorously conducted review articles represent powerful information sources for eHealth scholars and practitioners looking for land-of-the-art testify. The typology of literature reviews we used herein will allow eHealth researchers, graduate students and practitioners to proceeds a amend agreement of the similarities and differences betwixt review types.

We must stress that this classification scheme does not privilege whatsoever specific type of review every bit existence of higher quality than some other (Paré et al., 2015). Equally explained to a higher place, each type of review has its own strengths and limitations. Having said that, nosotros realize that the methodological rigour of whatsoever review — be it qualitative, quantitative or mixed — is a critical aspect 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 9.2. 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 approach for data extraction and synthesis or non, it is important that the review documents in an explicit and transparent mode the steps and arroyo that were used in the process of its development. Adjacent, validity characterizes the degree to which the review procedure was conducted accordingly. It goes beyond documentation and reflects decisions related to the selection of the sources, the search terms used, the menstruation of time covered, the articles selected in the search, and the awarding of backward and forwards searches (vom Brocke et al., 2009). In short, the rigour of any review article is reflected by the explicitness of its methods (i.due east., transparency) and the soundness of the approach used. Nosotros refer those interested in the concepts of rigour and quality to the piece of 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 master 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 business relationship volition serve as a valuable source for those conducting, evaluating or using reviews in this important and growing domain.

References

Ammenwerth East., de Keizer N. An inventory of evaluation studies of it in health care. Trends in evaluation enquiry, 1982-2002. International Journal of Medical Informatics. 2004;44(1):44–56. [PubMed: 15778794]
Anderson Due south., Allen P., Peckham S., Goodwin North. Asking the right questions: scoping studies in the commissioning of research on the organization and delivery of health services. Wellness Research Policy and Systems. 2008;6(7):1–12. [PMC free commodity: PMC2500008] [PubMed: 18613961] [CrossRef]
Archer N., Fevrier-Thomas U., Lokker C., McKibbon Thousand. A., Straus S.Eastward. Personal health records: a scoping review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association. 2011;18(iv):515–522. [PMC free article: PMC3128401] [PubMed: 21672914]
Arksey H., O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2005;8(1):19–32.
A systematic, tool-supported method for conducting literature reviews in information systems. Newspaper presented at the Proceedings of the 19th European Briefing on Information Systems (ecis 2011); June nine to 11; Helsinki, Finland. 2011.
Baumeister R. F., Leary 1000.R. Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology. 1997;1(3):311–320.
Becker L. A., Oxman A.D. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Hoboken, nj: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Overviews of reviews; pp. 607–631.
Borenstein M., Hedges L., 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 best bear witness for clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1997;126(v):376–380. [PubMed: 9054282]
Cooper H., Hedges 50.V. In: The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. 2nd ed. Cooper H., Hedges L. V., Valentine J. C., editors. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2009. Research synthesis equally a scientific process; pp. 3–17.
Cooper H. Yard. Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Cognition in Guild. 1988;one(1):104–126.
Cronin P., Ryan F., Coughlan Yard. Undertaking a literature review: a step-past-step approach. British Journal of Nursing. 2008;17(1):38–43. [PubMed: 18399395]
Darlow S., Wen K.Y. Development testing of mobile health interventions for cancer patient cocky-direction: A review. Health Informatics Journal. 2015 (online before print). [PubMed: 25916831] [CrossRef]
Daudt H. M., van Mossel C., Scott South.J. Enhancing the scoping written report methodology: a big, inter-professional team's experience with Arksey and O'Malley's framework. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2013;13:48. [PMC free article: PMC3614526] [PubMed: 23522333] [CrossRef]
Davies P. The relevance of systematic reviews to educational policy and practice. Oxford Review of Education. 2000;26(3-4):365–378.
Deeks J. J., Higgins J. P. T., Altman D.Chiliad. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Dark-green S., editors. Hoboken, nj: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Analysing information 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 Information science" in mesh. bmc Medical Information science and Determination Making. 2009;9:7. [PMC complimentary article: PMC2652453] [PubMed: 19159472] [CrossRef]
Dixon-Woods M., Agarwal South., Jones D., Young B., Sutton A. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative bear witness: a review of possible methods. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy. 2005;x(one):45–53. [PubMed: 15667704]
Finfgeld-Connett D., Johnson E.D. Literature search strategies for conducting knowledge-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2013;69(1):194–204. [PMC gratis article: PMC3424349] [PubMed: 22591030]
Grady B., Myers Thousand. Chiliad., Nelson Eastward. L., Belz N., Bennett 50., Carnahan Fifty. … Guidelines Working Group. Testify-based exercise for telemental wellness. Telemedicine Journal and E Health. 2011;17(2):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;v(iii):101–117. [PMC free article: PMC2647067] [PubMed: 19674681]
Greenhalgh T., Wong G., Westhorp Chiliad., Pawson R. Protocol–realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis: evolving standards (rameses). bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2011;xi:115. [PMC gratis article: PMC3173389] [PubMed: 21843376]
Gurol-Urganci I., de Jongh T., Vodopivec-Jamsek V., Atun R., Machine J. Mobile phone messaging reminders for omnipresence at healthcare appointments. Cochrane Database System Review. 2013;12 cd007458. [PMC gratuitous article: PMC6485985] [PubMed: 24310741] [CrossRef]
Hart C. Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science enquiry 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 Fifty., Lacey F.G. Doing your literature review: traditional and systematic techniques. Los Angeles & London: SAGE Publications; 2011.
Male monarch W. R., He J. Agreement the function and methods of meta-analysis in IS inquiry. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2005;16:1.
Kirkevold M. Integrative nursing research — an of import strategy to farther the development of nursing science and nursing practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 1997;25(5):977–984. [PubMed: 9147203]
Kitchenham B., Charters S. ebse Technical Report Version 2.3. Keele & Durham. u.k.: Keele University & University of Durham; 2007. Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering.
Kitsiou S., Paré Thousand., Jaana M. 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(7):e150. [PMC complimentary article: PMC3785977] [PubMed: 23880072]
Kitsiou Due south., Paré G., Jaana G. Effects of dwelling telemonitoring interventions on patients with chronic heart failure: an overview of systematic reviews. Periodical of Medical Internet Research. 2015;17(three):e63. [PMC free article: PMC4376138] [PubMed: 25768664]
Levy Y., Ellis T.J. A systems approach to conduct an constructive literature review in support of information systems research. Informing Science. 2006;nine:181–211.
Liberati A., Altman D. Thousand., Tetzlaff J., Mulrow C., Gøtzsche P. C., Ioannidis J. P. A. et al. Moher D. The prisma argument for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2009;151(iv):W-65. [PubMed: 19622512]
Lyden J. R., Zickmund Southward. 50., Bhargava T. D., Bryce C. L., Conroy M. B., Fischer M. Due south. et al. McTigue K. Yard. Implementing health data technology in a patient-centered manner: Patient experiences with an online evidence-based lifestyle intervention. Journal for Healthcare Quality. 2013;35(five):47–57. [PubMed: 24004039]
Mickan Southward., Atherton H., Roberts N. Westward., Heneghan C., Tilson J.K. Apply of handheld computers in clinical practice: a systematic review. bmc Medical Computer science and Conclusion Making. 2014;14:56. [PMC free article: PMC4099138] [PubMed: 24998515]
Moher D. The problem of indistinguishable systematic reviews. British Medical Journal. 2013;347(5040) [PubMed: 23945367] [CrossRef]
Montori V. G., Wilczynski N. Fifty., Morgan D., Haynes R. B., Hedges T. Systematic reviews: a cross-sectional written report of location and citation counts. bmc Medicine. 2003;1:2. [PMC free article: PMC281591] [PubMed: 14633274]
Mulrow C. D. The medical review article: state of the science. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1987;106(three):485–488. [PubMed: 3813259] [CrossRef]
Okoli C., Schabram K. A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of information systems research. 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. Periodical of American Medical Computer science Clan. 2014;21(four):751–757. [PMC free commodity: PMC4078283] [PubMed: 24503882]
Paré G., Trudel M.-C., Jaana M., Kitsiou Due south. Synthesizing information systems cognition: A typology of literature reviews. Data & Management. 2015;52(2):183–199.
Patsopoulos N. A., Analatos A. A., Ioannidis J.P. A. Relative citation touch of various study designs in the health sciences. Journal of the American Medical Clan. 2005;293(19):2362–2366. [PubMed: 15900006]
Paul M. M., Greene C. G., Newton-Dame R., Thorpe L. E., Perlman Due south. E., McVeigh K. H., Gourevitch M.Due north. The country of population health surveillance using electronic health records: A narrative review. Population Health Direction. 2015;xviii(3):209–216. [PubMed: 25608033]
Pawson R. Evidence-based policy: a realist perspective. London: SAGE Publications; 2006.
Pawson R., Greenhalgh T., Harvey G., Walshe Chiliad. Realist review—a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Journal of Health Services Inquiry & Policy. 2005;10(Suppl one):21–34. [PubMed: 16053581]
Petersen K., Vakkalanka S., Kuzniarz 50. Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software applied science: An update. Data and Software Technology. 2015;64:1–18.
Petticrew M., Roberts H. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malden, ma: Blackwell Publishing Co; 2006.
Rousseau D. Yard., Manning J., Denyer D. Evidence in management and organizational scientific discipline: Assembling the field's full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses. The Academy of Direction Register. 2008;two(1):475–515.
Rowe F. What literature review is non: diversity, boundaries and recommendations. European Periodical of Information Systems. 2014;23(3):241–255.
Shea B. J., Hamel C., Wells G. A., Bouter L. Thousand., Kristjansson E., Grimshaw J. et al. Boers K. amstar is a reliable and valid measurement tool to appraise the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2009;62(ten):1013–1020. [PubMed: 19230606]
Shepperd S., Lewin South., Straus S., Clarke M., Eccles Thou. P., Fitzpatrick R. et al. Sheikh A. Tin we systematically review studies that evaluate complex interventions? PLoS Medicine. 2009;6(8):e1000086. [PMC gratuitous commodity: PMC2717209] [PubMed: 19668360]
Silva B. M., Rodrigues J. J., de la Torre Díez I., López-Coronado Yard., Saleem Yard. Mobile-health: A review of electric current state in 2015. Journal of Biomedical Computer science. 2015;56:265–272. [PubMed: 26071682]
Smith V., Devane D., Begley C., Clarke Yard. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. bmc Medical Inquiry Methodology. 2011;xi(1):15. [PMC free article: PMC3039637] [PubMed: 21291558]
Sylvester A., Tate Chiliad., Johnstone D. Beyond synthesis: re-presenting heterogeneous research literature. Behaviour & Information Technology. 2013;32(12):1199–1215.
Templier M., Paré G. A framework for guiding and evaluating literature reviews. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2015;37(six):112–137.
Thomas J., Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. bmc Medical Inquiry Methodology. 2008;8(1):45. [PMC free article: PMC2478656] [PubMed: 18616818]
Reconstructing the behemothic: on the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process. Newspaper presented at the Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Information Systems (ecis 2009); Verona, Italia. 2009.
Webster J., Watson R.T. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. Management Information Systems Quarterly. 2002;26(two):xi.
Whitlock E. P., Lin J. S., Chou R., Shekelle P., Robinson G.A. Using existing systematic reviews in complex systematic reviews. Register of Internal Medicine. 2008;148(10):776–782. [PubMed: 18490690]

harrisdrowed.blogspot.com

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