Specifies the number of studies evaluated orselected
Steps, and targets of constructing a good review article are listed in Table 3 . To write a good review article the items in Table 3 should be implemented step by step. [ 11 – 13 ]
Steps of a systematic review
Formulation of researchable questions | Select answerable questions |
Disclosure of studies | Databases, and key words |
Evaluation of its quality | Quality criteria during selection of studies |
Synthesis | Methods interpretation, and synthesis of outcomes |
It might be helpful to divide the research question into components. The most prevalently used format for questions related to the treatment is PICO (P - Patient, Problem or Population; I-Intervention; C-appropriate Comparisons, and O-Outcome measures) procedure. For example In female patients (P) with stress urinary incontinence, comparisons (C) between transobturator, and retropubic midurethral tension-free band surgery (I) as for patients’ satisfaction (O).
In a systematic review on a focused question, methods of investigation used should be clearly specified.
Ideally, research methods, investigated databases, and key words should be described in the final report. Different databases are used dependent on the topic analyzed. In most of the clinical topics, Medline should be surveyed. However searching through Embase and CINAHL can be also appropriate.
While determining appropriate terms for surveying, PICO elements of the issue to be sought may guide the process. Since in general we are interested in more than one outcome, P, and I can be key elements. In this case we should think about synonyms of P, and I elements, and combine them with a conjunction AND.
One method which might alleviate the workload of surveying process is “methodological filter” which aims to find the best investigation method for each research question. A good example of this method can be found in PubMed interface of Medline. The Clinical Queries tool offers empirically developed filters for five different inquiries as guidelines for etiology, diagnosis, treatment, prognosis or clinical prediction.
As an indispensable component of the review process is to discriminate good, and bad quality researches from each other, and the outcomes should be based on better qualified researches, as far as possible. To achieve this goal you should know the best possible evidence for each type of question The first component of the quality is its general planning/design of the study. General planning/design of a cohort study, a case series or normal study demonstrates variations.
A hierarchy of evidence for different research questions is presented in Table 4 . However this hierarchy is only a first step. After you find good quality research articles, you won’t need to read all the rest of other articles which saves you tons of time. [ 14 ]
Determination of levels of evidence based on the type of the research question
I | Systematic review of Level II studies | Systematic review of Level II studies | Systematic review of Level II studies | Systematic review of Level II studies |
II | Randomized controlled study | Crross-sectional study in consecutive patients | Initial cohort study | Prospective cohort study |
III | One of the following: Non-randomized experimental study (ie. controlled pre-, and post-test intervention study) Comparative studies with concurrent control groups (observational study) (ie. cohort study, case-control study) | One of the following: Cross-sectional study in non-consecutive case series; diagnostic case-control study | One of the following: Untreated control group patients in a randomized controlled study, integrated cohort study | One of the following: Retrospective cohort study, case-control study (Note: these are most prevalently used types of etiological studies; for other alternatives, and interventional studies see Level III |
IV | Case series | Case series | Case series or cohort studies with patients at different stages of their disease states |
Rarely all researches arrive at the same conclusion. In this case a solution should be found. However it is risky to make a decision based on the votes of absolute majority. Indeed, a well-performed large scale study, and a weakly designed one are weighed on the same scale. Therefore, ideally a meta-analysis should be performed to solve apparent differences. Ideally, first of all, one should be focused on the largest, and higher quality study, then other studies should be compared with this basic study.
In conclusion, during writing process of a review article, the procedures to be achieved can be indicated as follows: 1) Get rid of fixed ideas, and obsessions from your head, and view the subject from a large perspective. 2) Research articles in the literature should be approached with a methodological, and critical attitude and 3) finally data should be explained in an attractive way.
IMAGES
COMMENTS
2021, Article review writing format, steps, examples and illustration PDF Compiled by Mohammed Yismaw The purpose of this document is to help students and researchers understand how a review of an academic journal is conducted and reported in different fields of study.
Scientific Article Review Definition of Genre Summaries and critiques are two ways to write a review of a scientific journal article. Both types of writing ask you first to read and understand an article from the primary literature about your topic.
Article format guide: Review, Technical Review and RoadmapA. ticle format guide: Review, Technical Review and Roadmap Please follow the below specifications when writing a Review, article for ...
This chapter covers the fol lowing topics: A step-by-step process for writing a critical review Make your academic 'voice' clear when writing a critical review Critical review language
Write the literature review in the past tense; the research has already been completed. The article cannot "do", "find", or "say" anything. The authors are the people who conducted the study. The above format is a guideline. It may be necessary to change the verbs or to expand an idea. Sample format, Page 2 of 2.
PDF | This short note provides step-by-step guidelines to write a review article or a book chapter. I explain in particular a convenient method to build... | Find, read and cite all the research ...
Writing a Critical Review You are probably familiar with the review genre such as film reviews or book reviews. A critical review is similar, as it is based on a close and detailed reading and evaluation of a text or comparison of multiple texts on the same topic. The type of texts you may be asked to review could include books, articles, reports, websites, or films.
Learn the tips and tricks of writing a scientific review article from experienced authors and editors in this comprehensive guide.
How to write a review paper to our readers, but it will also enhance its scientific impact on environmental science. Mastering the skills needed to write a good sci-entific review also pays dividends when writing up the literature review featured in the introduction of primary-research papers.
Guidelines for Writing a Research Critique Begin your critique by identifying the article's title, author(s), date of publication, and the name of the journal or other publication in which it appeared.
The scholarly critique or review, on the other hand, usually offers an actively engaged response to a scholarly writer's ideas, which represents more than simply an opinion, and the informed engagement that the reviewer offers is always supported by thoughtful reasoning and proof. Hence, writing an article review is a way for university students to display their knowledge of a scholarly ...
Writing an Article Review. This document is written to give students advice on how to write an article review and is composed of four parts: Part 1 describes the purpose of an article review and gives examples of how the Introduction, Body and Conclusion stages function to achieve that purpose. Part 2 focusses on how information is organised ...
Published on: March 22, 2024. This guide aims to demystify the review paper format, presenting practical tips to help you accelerate the writing process. From understanding the structure to synthesising literature effectively, we'll explore how to create a compelling review article swiftly, ensuring your work is both impactful and timely.
A comprehensive guide on how to approach, write, and format an article reviewAn article review is both a summary and an evaluation of another writer's article. Teachers often assign article reviews to introduce students to the work of...
2. Read the article thoroughly: Carefully read the article multiple times to get a complete understanding of its content, arguments, and conclusions. As you read, take notes on key points, supporting evidence, and any areas that require further exploration or clarification. 3. Summarize the main ideas: In your review's introduction, briefly ...
Abstract Scientific review articles are comprehensive, focused reviews of the scientific literature written by subject matter experts. The task of writing a scientific review article can seem overwhelming; however, it can be managed by using an organized approach and devoting sufficient time to the process. The process involves selecting a topic about which the authors are knowledgeable and ...
A good review article provides readers with an in-depth understanding of a field and highlights key gaps and challenges to address with future research. Writing a review article also helps to expand the writer's knowledge of their specialist area and to develop their analytical and communication skills, amongst other benefits.
Abstract: Review article is one of the most important forms of scientific writing. In the era of ever increasing number of scientific publications, it is essential that timely review articles are written to summarise the important details of the recent research works and relate them to past research done on the similar topic.
An article review is a critical assessment of a scholarly article or research paper. It involves analyzing the content, methodology, and findings of the article and providing an evaluation of its strengths and weaknesses. The review typically includes a summary of the article's main points, an evaluation of its contribution to the subject ...
How to Write a Review Article The review article is the Rodney Dangerfield of medical writing. Review articles get no respect. Yet, surprisingly, many respected academicians write review articles, for both subscriber-based and controlled-circulation journals. Why do they do so? The answer is that, by writing review articles, the academician clinicians assert their claims—mark their territory ...
Wondering how to write an article review? 👉 Check out our step-by-step guide! You'll find the article review format, template, & examples.
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. This simple definition of a review article contains the following key elements: The question (s) to be dealt with.
Preprint Article (Section 10.8) Latimier, A., Peyre, H., & Ramus, F. (2020). A meta-analytic review of the benefit of spacing out retrieval practice episodes on retention.