![]() The fundamental rationale of writing a review article is to make a readable synthesis of the best literature sources on an important research inquiry or a topic. īefore inquring for the method of preparation of a review article, it is more logical to investigate the motivation behind writing the review article in question. However in quantitative reviews, study data are collected, and statistically evaluated (ie. In both of them detailed literature surveying is performed. Systematic reviews can be diivded into qualitative, and quantitative reviews. Since it is a result of a more detailed literature surveying with relatively lesser involvement of author’s bias, systematic reviews are considered as gold standard articles. However in a systematic review, a very detailed, and comprehensive literature surveying is performed on the selected topic. Narrative reviews are written in an easily readable format, and allow consideration of the subject matter within a large spectrum. Review articles are divided into 2 categories as narrative, and systematic reviews. Later on this guideline was updated, and named as PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). In 1996 an international group that analyzed articles, demonstrated the aspects of review articles, and meta-analyses that had not complied with scientific criteria, and elaborated QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses) statement which focused on meta-analyses of randomized controlled studies. Murlow evaluated 50 review articles published in 1985, and 1986, and revealed that none of them had complied with clear-cut scientific criteria. A few studies have evaluated the quality of review articles. As is the case with all other researches, the value of a review article is related to what is achieved, what is found, and the way of communicating this information. The institutions which provide financial support for further investigations resort to these reviews to reveal the need for these researches. Clinicians frequently benefit from review articles to update their knowledge in their field of specialization, and use these articles as a starting point for formulating guidelines. The importance of review articles in health sciences is increasing day by day. In conclusion, when writing a review, it is best to clearly focus on fixed ideas, to use a procedural and critical approach to the literature and to express your findings in an attractive way. The ideal way to synthesize studies is to perform a meta-analysis. An essential part of the review process is differentiating good research from bad and leaning on the results of the better studies. A ‘methodological filter’ is the best method for identifying the best working style for a research question, and this method reduces the workload when surveying the literature. ![]() In a systematic review with a focused question, the research methods must be clearly described. There is a consensus that a review should be written in a systematic fashion, a notion that is usually followed. ![]() Good review methods are critical because they provide an unbiased point of view for the reader regarding the current literature. Although the idea of writing a review is attractive, it is important to spend time identifying the important questions. The main and fundamental purpose of writing a review is to create a readable synthesis of the best resources available in the literature for an important research question or a current area of research. Before asking ‘how,’ the question of ‘why’ is more important when starting to write a review. The value of a review is associated with what has been done, what has been found and how these findings are presented. When clinicians want to update their knowledge and generate guidelines about a topic, they frequently use reviews as a starting point. In the medical sciences, the importance of review articles is rising. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |