â€å“a Literature Review Was Conducted to Find the Best Research Evidence
J Grad Med Educ. 2016 Jul; eight(iii): 297–303.
The Literature Review: A Foundation for High-Quality Medical Educational activity Inquiry
a These are subscription resources. Researchers should check with their librarian to determine their access rights.
Despite a surge in published scholarship in medical educational activity i and rapid growth in journals that publish educational research, manuscript credence rates continue to fall. two Failure to carry a thorough, accurate, and up-to-date literature review identifying an important problem and placing the written report in context is consistently identified as one of the top reasons for rejection. 3,4 The purpose of this editorial is to provide a road map and practical recommendations for planning a literature review. By understanding the goals of a literature review and post-obit a few bones processes, authors can enhance both the quality of their educational research and the likelihood of publication in the Periodical of Graduate Medical Pedagogy (JGME) and in other journals.
The Literature Review Defined
In medical education, no organization has articulated a formal definition of a literature review for a research newspaper; thus, a literature review can take a number of forms. Depending on the type of article, target journal, and specific topic, these forms volition vary in methodology, rigor, and depth. Several organizations have published guidelines for conducting an intensive literature search intended for formal systematic reviews, both broadly (eg, PRISMA) v and inside medical education, vi and there are excellent commentaries to guide authors of systematic reviews. vii,8
Such work is outside the telescopic of this article, which focuses on literature reviews to inform reports of original medical education research. Nosotros define such a literature review as a synthetic review and summary of what is known and unknown regarding the topic of a scholarly trunk of piece of work, including the current work'south place within the existing knowledge. While this type of literature review may not require the intensive search processes mandated by systematic reviews, it merits a thoughtful and rigorous approach.
Purpose and Importance of the Literature Review
An understanding of the current literature is critical for all phases of a research study. Lingard 9 recently invoked the "journal-every bit-conversation" metaphor equally a way of agreement how one's research fits into the larger medical educational activity conversation. Every bit she described information technology: "Imagine yourself joining a conversation at a social event. Afterwards you hang about eavesdropping to get the drift of what'south being said (the conversational equivalent of the literature review), you bring together the conversation with a contribution that signals your shared interest in the topic, your cognition of what's already been said, and your intention." 9
The literature review helps any researcher "join the chat" by providing context, informing methodology, identifying innovation, minimizing duplicative research, and ensuring that professional standards are met. Understanding the current literature besides promotes scholarship, as proposed by Boyer, 10 by contributing to 5 of the 6 standards by which scholarly work should be evaluated. xi Specifically, the review helps the researcher (1) articulate clear goals, (2) bear witness evidence of adequate grooming, (iii) select appropriate methods, (4) communicate relevant results, and (v) engage in reflective critique.
Failure to conduct a loftier-quality literature review is associated with several problems identified in the medical didactics literature, including studies that are repetitive, non grounded in theory, methodologically weak, and fail to expand noesis across a single setting. 12 Indeed, medical education scholars complain that many studies repeat work already published and contribute picayune new noesis—a likely cause of which is failure to conduct a proper literature review. iii,4
Besides, studies that lack theoretical grounding or a conceptual framework make study blueprint and estimation difficult. xiii When theory is used in medical educational activity studies, it is frequently invoked at a superficial level. As Norman xiv noted, when theory is used accordingly, information technology helps articulate variables that might be linked together and why, and it allows the researcher to make hypotheses and define a study's context and scope. Ultimately, a proper literature review is a first critical stride toward identifying relevant conceptual frameworks.
Another problem is that many medical education studies are methodologically weak. 12 Good research requires trained investigators who can articulate relevant research questions, operationally define variables of interest, and choose the all-time method for specific research questions. Conducting a proper literature review helps both novice and experienced researchers select rigorous research methodologies.
Finally, many studies in medical education are "one-offs," that is, single studies undertaken because the opportunity presented itself locally. Such studies often are not oriented toward progressive knowledge edifice and generalization to other settings. A firm grasp of the literature can encourage a programmatic approach to research.
Approaching the Literature Review
Considering these issues, journals have a responsibleness to need from authors a thoughtful synthesis of their study'south position within the field, and information technology is the authors' responsibility to provide such a synthesis, based on a literature review. The aforementioned purposes of the literature review mandate that the review occurs throughout all phases of a written report, from conception and design, to implementation and assay, to manuscript grooming and submission.
Planning the literature review requires understanding of journal requirements, which vary profoundly past periodical ( table 1). Authors are advised to take note of common issues with reporting results of the literature review. Table 2 lists the most common problems that nosotros accept encountered as authors, reviewers, and editors.
Table 1
Sample of Journals' Writer Instructions for Literature Reviews Conducted as Function of Original Enquiry Articlea
Tabular array 2
Mutual Problem Areas for Reporting Literature Reviews in the Context of Scholarly Articles
Locating and Organizing the Literature
Three resource may facilitate identifying relevant literature: human resources, search tools, and related literature. As the procedure requires time, it is important to begin searching for literature early in the process (ie, the study design phase). Identifying and understanding relevant studies will increase the likelihood of designing a relevant, adaptable, generalizable, and novel study that is based on educational or learning theory and can maximize affect.
Man Resource
A medical librarian can assist interpret research interests into an effective search strategy, familiarize researchers with available information resource, provide information on organizing data, and introduce strategies for keeping current with emerging research. Often, librarians are besides aware of research across their institutions and may exist able to connect researchers with like interests. Reaching out to colleagues for suggestions may help researchers chop-chop locate resources that would not otherwise be on their radar.
During this process, researchers will likely place other researchers writing on aspects of their topic. Researchers should consider searching for the publications of these relevant researchers (see table iii for search strategies). Additionally, institutional websites may include curriculum vitae of such relevant faculty with access to their entire publication record, including hard to locate publications, such as book chapters, dissertations, and technical reports.
Table 3
Strategies for Finding Related Researcher Publications in Databases and Search Engines
Search Tools and Related Literature
Researchers will locate the bulk of needed information using databases and search engines. Excellent resources are bachelor to guide researchers in the mechanics of literature searches. 15,16
Because medical education research draws on a variety of disciplines, researchers should include search tools with coverage beyond medicine (eg, psychology, nursing, instruction, and anthropology) and that cover several publication types, such as reports, standards, conference abstracts, and book chapters (see the box for several information resources). Many search tools include options for viewing citations of selected articles. Examining cited references provides additional articles for review and a sense of the influence of the selected article on its field.
Once relevant manufactures are located, it is useful to mine those articles for additional citations. Ane strategy is to examine references of central articles, especially review articles, for relevant citations.
Getting Organized
Every bit the aforementioned resources will likely provide a tremendous corporeality of information, organization is crucial. Researchers should determine which details are most of import to their study (eg, participants, setting, methods, and outcomes) and generate a strategy for keeping those details organized and accessible. Increasingly, researchers utilize digital tools, such as Evernote, to capture such information, which enables accessibility across digital workspaces and search capabilities. Employ of citation managers can also exist helpful as they store citations and, in some cases, can generate bibliographies ( table 4).
Table 4
Citation Managers
Knowing When to Say When
Researchers ofttimes ask how to know when they have located plenty citations. Unfortunately, there is no magic or ideal number of citations to collect. I strategy for checking coverage of the literature is to inspect references of relevant articles. As researchers review references they volition outset noticing a repetition of the aforementioned articles with few new manufactures appearing. This can indicate that the researcher has covered the literature base on a detail topic.
Putting It All Together
In preparing to write a inquiry paper, it is of import to consider which citations to include and how they will inform the introduction and word sections. The "Instructions to Authors" for the targeted journal will often provide guidance on structuring the literature review (or introduction) and the number of total citations permitted for each article category. Reviewing articles of similar type published in the targeted journal can likewise provide guidance regarding construction and boilerplate lengths of the introduction and discussion sections.
When selecting references for the introduction consider those that illustrate core background theoretical and methodological concepts, as well equally recent relevant studies. The introduction should be brief and present references non as a laundry list or narrative of available literature, but rather as a synthesized summary to provide context for the current study and to place the gap in the literature that the study intends to fill up. For the give-and-take, citations should be thoughtfully selected to compare and contrast the present study's findings with the current literature and to signal how the present study moves the field forward.
To facilitate writing a literature review, journals are increasingly providing helpful features to guide authors. For example, the resources available through JGME include several articles on writing. 17 The journal Perspectives on Medical Education recently launched "The Author's Arts and crafts," which is intended to assist medical educators improve their writing. Additionally, many institutions accept writing centers that provide web-based materials on writing a literature review, and some even accept writing coaches.
Conclusion
The literature review is a vital part of medical educational activity research and should occur throughout the research process to help researchers design a strong study and effectively communicate study results and importance. To accomplish these goals, researchers are advised to plan and execute the literature review carefully. The guidance in this editorial provides considerations and recommendations that may better the quality of literature reviews.
References
one. Lee Thou, Whelan JS, Tannery NH, Kanter SL, Peters As. fifty years of publication in the field of medical education. Med Teach . 2013; 35 7: 591– 598. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2. Norman Grand. Taking stock. Adv Wellness Sci Educ Theory Pract . 2014; 19 4: 465– 467. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3. Artino AR, Jr, West DC, Gusic ME. Foreword: the more things modify, the more than they stay the same. Acad Med . 2015; 90 suppl 11: Si– Siii. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
iv. Bordage G. Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical instruction reports. Acad Med . 2001; 76 9: 889– 896. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med . 2009; 6 7: e1000097. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6. Harden R, Grant J, Buckley Grand, Hart I. BEME. Guide No. ane: best evidence medical education. Med Teach . 1999; 21 6: 553– 562. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7. Cook DA, Westward CP. Conducting systematic reviews in medical education: a stepwise arroyo. Med Educ . 2012; 46 10: 943– 952. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
eight. Hammick M, Dornan T, Steinert Y. Conducting a best testify systematic review. Part 1: from idea to data coding. BEME Guide No. 13. Med Teach . 2010; 32 one: iii– 15. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
ix. Lingard L. Joining a conversation: the problem/gap/hook heuristic. Perspect Med Educ . 2015; 4 5: 252– 253. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
ten. Boyer EL. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate . San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2016. [Google Scholar]
11. Hofmeyer A, Newton K, Scott C. Valuing the scholarship of integration and the scholarship of awarding in the academy for health sciences scholars: recommended methods. Health Res Policy Syst . 2007; 5: 5. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12. Albert K, Hodges B, Regehr G. Research in medical educational activity: balancing service and science. Adv Wellness Sci Educ Theory Pract . 2007; 12 one: 103– 115. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13. Bordage Chiliad. Conceptual frameworks to illuminate and magnify. Med Educ . 2009; 43 4: 312– 319. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14. Norman Yard. Editorial—how bad is medical teaching inquiry anyway? Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract . 2007; 12 one: 1– five. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
fifteen. Haig A, Dozier G. BEME. Guide No. 3: systematic searching for show in medical pedagogy—role 2: constructing searches. Med Teach . 2003; 25 five: 463– 484. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
sixteen. Maggio LA, Tannery NH, Kanter SL. AM concluding page: how to perform an effective database search. Acad Med . 2011; 86 8: 1057. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Articles from Journal of Graduate Medical Education are provided here courtesy of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education
neighbourmanthaten.blogspot.com
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4936839/