Navigating the intricacies of writing a literature review, especially when delving into the hierarchy of

evidence, can be a daunting task for many. It requires not only a thorough understanding of the topic
at hand but also the ability to critically analyze and synthesize existing research to form a cohesive
narrative.

One of the primary challenges in writing a literature review is sifting through the vast amount of
scholarly articles, studies, and other sources to identify relevant information. This process can be
time-consuming and overwhelming, particularly for individuals who may not have prior experience in
conducting academic research.

Furthermore, organizing the gathered information in a logical and coherent manner while adhering to
the guidelines of the chosen citation style adds another layer of complexity to the task. Balancing the
inclusion of key findings, theoretical frameworks, and methodological approaches within the
confines of a literature review can be a delicate balancing act.

In addition, distinguishing between high-quality research and less credible sources is essential for
ensuring the validity and reliability of the literature review. This requires a discerning eye and the
ability to critically evaluate the methodology, results, and conclusions of each study.

Given the challenges associated with writing a literature review, many individuals opt to seek
assistance from professional writing services. ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔ offers expert guidance and
support to those navigating the intricacies of academic writing. With a team of experienced writers
and researchers, they can help streamline the process and ensure that your literature review meets the
highest standards of quality and rigor.

By entrusting your literature review to ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔, you can alleviate the stress and
uncertainty associated with this task, allowing you to focus on other aspects of your academic or
professional endeavors. With their expertise and dedication to excellence, ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔ is
your trusted partner in achieving academic success.
The data may have to come from a variety of formats. 5: Assess the risk of bias in the included
studies This ensures that all the studies reviewed are relevant and reliable. Not all CPGs clearly rate
the quality and value of the specific evidence they are using. Pragmatic RCTs (PRCTs) have begun
to gain more popularity for this reason. For Physicians, whose daily activity depends on available
clinical evidence to support decision-making, this really helps them to know which evidence to trust
the most. This can lead to a misrepresentation of the true effects of treatment. There are literally
hundreds of studies on caffeine and exercise. In practice, Cochrane Reviews help practitioners in
evaluating whether a health-care treatment or intervention will do more good than harm, and whether
it will be better than another. In most clinical situations, the chance of an outcome changes with
time. Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices. It would be like putting
lipstick on pig and entering it in beauty contest. Cheers. The randomization reduces selection bias
and other judgemental errors. Was there a risk of bias, for example, in selecting participants for
treatment or comparison. By the end, ensure you have communicated the planned message to your
intended audience. From OSF Registries, Generalized Systematic Review Registration is available.
Information from pharmaceutical companies and the quality, quantity, and cost of physicians’
prescribing: A systematic review. A wider review can include results from studies of various
scientific designs. The BMJ list the following as key advantages of a systematic review: The
methods that scientists use to find and select studies reduce bias and are more likely to produce
reliable and accurate conclusions. Times are changing, but understanding the strength, quality, type,
and details of the evidence base will remain a necessity. Keyboard warriors and Monday morning
quarterbacks notwithstanding, if you want to really change a field and I mean really change it, you
have to do original research. Based on your location and number of trainees, we can discuss rates for
an in-person session. All About Variables Defining a Variable Types of Variables Creating New
Categorical Variables Independent versus Dependent Variables Here is what we covered in this
section. The role of editors and peer reviewers The decisions of journal editors and peer reviewers
can also lead to publication bias. Therefore, the decision to use a checklist such as PRISMA or
CASP is dependent on the purpose of your literature review. A single, well-designed, well-run RCT
of a diverse population will likely produce more relevant and higher quality findings than a meta-
analysis of smaller or poorly-designed studies. Avoid Ambiguity when Reporting Previous Research
Lit Review Tip. The number of participants, the length of the original study, and many other factors
can make it hard to compare the findings of two or more studies. Turn in your references as an
EndNote library to the drop box for class: \masterhitinstructional ICS280. Researchers must carry out
these reviews in a specific way, because they must ensure the recommendations that follow will
result in the best healthcare for patients. Clinical practice guidelines also examine the quality of the
evidence and interpret it in order to provide clear recommendations for practice (and often, research
and policy as well). Otherwise you might spend hours extracting data that is never used.
A systematic review is a critical assessment and evaluation of all research studies that address a
particular clinical issue. Whitney School of Nursing University of Wyoming. Outline. Sources of
literature for SoTL Inquiry methods to evaluate teaching and student learning Ethical issues in SoTL.
Developed by systematically and objectively surveying emergent scientific literature and clinical
practice guidelines; relevant information is captured, appraised, and synthesized rapidly via multiple
daily updates. Whether they look at the findings of an investigation, a review, or a meta-analysis,
healthcare professionals must always interpret the findings with care. Science, particularly original
investigations (i.e., RCTs), are the only way to objectively resolve disputes. The most recent meta-
analysis of antidepressant medication found no significant difference in efficacy between
antidepressants. 21 If you decide to offer Anne an antidepressant, therapeutic guidelines recommend
choosing one on the basis of the adverse effects profile. The practice of evidence-based medicine
means integrating individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from
systematic research. Now we’ve got to get the relevant data out of the paper so it can be analysed.
So what did change the prevailing view of androgens. The researchers use an organized method of
locating, assembling, and evaluating a body of literature on a particular topic using a set of specific
criteria. It is the main step toward synthesizing conclusions. One of the first examples of how
systematic reviews can influence clinical practice is embodied in the Cochrane logo, demonstrating
the benefit to neonates of giving corticosteroids to women at risk of delivering prematurely. Because
a systematic review is comprehensive and the inputs are critically reviewed, it is consistently placed
in the top of the hierarchy of evidence. We will be adding sections on the evidence for specific
treatment modalities. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service
Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose
alone cannot usually be used to identify you. It is helpful for establishing whether a certain
technique or drug works and is safe. Quality CPGs use the highest quality evidence available to help
inform practical clinical actions to improve patient outcomes. However, the inclusion and exclusion
criteria for participation can be quite strict and the high level of control is not consistent with real-
world conditions, which can reduce the generalizability of findings to the population of interest.
Similarly, the independence of guideline developers has been scrutinised. 12 However, reporting of
guideline authors’ conflicts of interest is still poor. 13,14 In the current climate of diminishing public
funding for independent research, the issue of entanglement of conflicts is likely to become even
more prominent. I find it easiest to extract onto paper first, but try both and go with whichever
works best for you. Choosing the best study type to answer your question will assist you in finding
the best evidence. If done well, this approach can strengthen the findings because it provides the
researcher with the opportunity to control for confounding variables and bias, take measures to
improve response rates, and select their sample. They provide a meticulous process through which
researchers can synthesize data from a range of studies. 1: Define the research question Researchers
must first decide what research question they need an answer for. Therefore, demonstrating success
and strong relationships with their customers (ie prescribers) are essential. Your eligibility criteria is
what you plan to include and exclude from your review and should be guided by your research
question and objectives. This kind of research is key to learning about a treatment’s effectiveness.
Searchable by keyword as well as disease, finding, procedure or drug. Preferred Reporting Items for
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) website Includes links to key documents
including the PRISMA 2020 Statement, Checklist, Flow Diagram, and Explanatation and
Elaboration, and all PRISMA Extensions. The highest quality evidence (level 1 evidence) is the
systematic review. Without RCTs, there are no reviews or meta-analyses.
Clinical practice guidelines also examine the quality of the evidence and interpret it in order to
provide clear recommendations for practice (and often, research and policy as well). Meta-Analysis:
Alone or as part of a systematic review, quantitative datasets are collected, analyzed, and aggregated
into a meta-analysis. Science, particularly original investigations (i.e., RCTs), are the only way to
objectively resolve disputes. Her depression has been building on the background of difficulties at
work, a poor relationship with her daughter, and the deteriorating health of her parents. A major part
of research is conducting a literature review. This is particularly true in the areas of substance use
disorder and mental health. An association may be fortuitous or may be produced by various other
circumstances; the presence of an association does not necessarily imply a causal relationship. Some
CPGs have not included a sufficiently comprehensive literature search to retrieve all forms of
research on a clinical issue, and some have not been appropriately vetted by experts and patient
groups. Here’s Three Tips to Steer Clear of Potential Issues. In today’s article, we will delve more
deeply into the categories and specific types of evidence upon which the practices are based.
Statistical applications with linear regression analyses 34. Placebo (control) is given to one of the
groups whereas the other is treated with medication. You can learn more about how we ensure our
content is accurate and current by reading our editorial policy. Reports of case series usually contain
detailed information about the individual patients. The outcome is called “levels of evidence” or
“levels of evidence hierarchy”. Case Control Study: Similar to a cohort study, a case control study
identifies a group of people who have experienced an outcome (the cases) and compares it with a
group that did not experience that outcome (the control). The findings also inform policies set by
state healthcare systems, such as whether they should fund a new drug. Variations of this pyramid
exist with Cochrane Reviews sometimes at the top (i.e., it’s still a Review no matter what adjective
you place in front of it). Produced by the U.S. National Library of Medicine and searchable via the
Ovid interface. It All Starts Here. Health Sciences Library Website Provides access to all electronic
and print resources available from the library Medicine Subject Guide. Differences among
international pharyngitis guidelines: Not just academic. My podcast changed me Can 'biological race'
explain disparities in health. The others will then be secondary research questions. One downside of
this type of research is that the researcher has no control over the variables that were collected or the
information that is available. Focusing once more on the healthcare and medical field, see how
different study designs fit into particular questions, that are not necessarily located at the tip of the
pyramid. A systematic review typically includes a description of the findings of the collection of
research studies. (AHRQ Glossary of Terms). Researchers must carry out these reviews in a specific
way, because they must ensure the recommendations that follow will result in the best healthcare for
patients. Broken record shout out: Your statistician can help with this. These features are especially
relevant for transparency in laboratory-based and basic science research. Just as an addition, it seems
counterintuitive that a write up on EBM wouldn't have references.
This includes demographic information (for example, age, gender, ethnic origin) and information on
diagnosis, treatment, response to treatment, and follow-up after treatment. (OCEBM Table of
Evidence Glossary). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols
(PRISMA-P) 2015 Statement Provides a 17-item checklist to facilitate the preparation and reporting
of a robust protocol for the systematic review. As shown in Figure 2.1, studies at the base of the
pyramid involving laboratory and animal research are at the lowest level of evidence because they
tend to be focused on understanding how things work at the cellular level and it is difficult to
establish a direct link between the research findings and implications for practice. CINAHL
Complete Nursing and allied health research including nursing journals and publications from the
National League for Nursing and the American Nurses Association. A single, well-designed, well-
run RCT of a diverse population will likely produce more relevant and higher quality findings than a
meta-analysis of smaller or poorly-designed studies. Either way, what is typically grouped at the top
of the evidence pyramid are Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Reply Delete Replies Reply Acho
Abongwa June 6, 2019 at 12:05 PM Im humbled I could add value to your work. A meta-analysis
may also conclude, for example, that antibiotics are effective in treating a disease, but they are
unlikely to specify the type, dosage, or how a specific antibiotic will affect an individual. Excel or a
reference management software, like EndNote, work well. As previously mentioned, results that are
negative or inconclusive, for example, may remain unpublished. While quality of guidelines
internally is improving, much more work is still needed. The Office of Dietary Supplements (ODS) of
the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't.
Placebo (control) is given to one of the groups whereas the other is treated with medication.
Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Remember to consider your patient’s
values and your own experience in this process. So what did change the prevailing view of
androgens. You may also have to critically appraise the research articles you select as you consider
their evidence in writing the literature review. They decide what and how to include the available
evidence. Using Webulator Applications to Compute Sample Size 1. For example, you could breed
genetically modified mice and compare them to regular mice in order to examine the influence of
specific genes on behavior. The aggregation of the findings of multiple studies means the conclusions
of a meta-analysis hold greater statistical significance than those of any of the included single
studies. Focusing once more on the healthcare and medical field, see how different study designs fit
into particular questions, that are not necessarily located at the tip of the pyramid. Avoid Ambiguity
when Reporting Previous Research Lit Review Tip. Because a systematic review is comprehensive
and the inputs are critically reviewed, it is consistently placed in the top of the hierarchy of evidence.
The proportion of females involved in all clinical trials during this period was consistent with that of
the Mesa Grande study and males sought treatment for alcoholism at a far higher rate than women
during the years the analysis covered. Although RCTs are in the second tier of the pyramid above, it
is not unusual to find hierarchies which place RCTs in the top level. The researchers use an organized
method of locating, assembling, and evaluating a body of literature on a particular topic using a set
of specific criteria. Pharmaceutical companies recover the investments for discovery and
development by selling successful products.
Every care is taken to reproduce articles accurately, but the publisher accepts no responsibility for
errors, omissions or inaccuracies contained therein or for the consequences of any action taken by
any person as a result of anything contained in this publication. Levels of evidence. Oxford: Oxford
Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, 2011. Roz McConnaughy School of Medicine Library May
2019. You can blog until your blue in the face and it won’t change a damn thing. Repeated
Measures, Split Plots, and Mixed Model ANOVAS Your Turn to Practice. For example: Was the
randomization in the trial double-blinded. G-I-N has developed high-level standards for guideline
development. In a Cochrane review, specially trained search coordinators do this. However, only
15% of those subjects were female and many of the constituent studies included only men. That
would be like describing the United States by doing a meta-analysis of the 50 states. All
stakeholders, including patients, clinicians, administrators and policymakers, must be part of this
process. From January 2018, it was superseded by AJGP: Australian Journal of General Practice. A
meta-analysis may also conclude, for example, that antibiotics are effective in treating a disease, but
they are unlikely to specify the type, dosage, or how a specific antibiotic will affect an individual.
The Office of Dietary Supplements (ODS) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Logistic
Regression Analysis using PROC LOGISTIC VI. You’ll repeat steps and retrieve papers and data
that you then don’t use. Much of the evidence we rely on, especially in the therapeutic domain, is
generated by pharmaceutical companies who develop and test their products. Whitney School of
Nursing University of Wyoming. Outline. Sources of literature for SoTL Inquiry methods to evaluate
teaching and student learning Ethical issues in SoTL. The previous steps must be complete before
carrying out this step. 7: Address any publication bias Publication bias is when researchers
specifically choose, or cherry-pick, a study for inclusion. Not only is the racial make-up entirely
different between these states, but geography, political leanings, and average income differ. It pools
numerical analyses from studies of similar design. From OSF Registries, Generalized Systematic
Review Registration is available. Creatine gave respect to the supplement industry that otherwise
was known more for selling protein powder that tasted like dirty socks soaked in sour milk. The
randomization reduces selection bias and other judgemental errors. The purpose of a protocol is to
outline your systematic review process in a clear and transparent manner to reviewers and readers.
The data may have to come from a variety of formats. 5: Assess the risk of bias in the included
studies This ensures that all the studies reviewed are relevant and reliable. However, even this type
of report has its pitfalls. The Cochrane Library is a collection of systematic reviews that the
international medical community respects. Medical Journal 3(1) there is an agreed hierarchy of 'levels
of evidence'. Her depression has been building on the background of difficulties at work, a poor
relationship with her daughter, and the deteriorating health of her parents.