Title: Navigating the Complexity of Writing a Literature Review on Ethics in Systematic Reviews

Embarking on a literature review is a crucial step in academic research, especially when delving into
the realm of ethics within systematic reviews. It's a task that demands meticulous attention to detail,
comprehensive understanding of the subject matter, and the ability to critically analyze existing
literature. However, navigating through the intricate landscape of scholarly articles and synthesizing
the information into a coherent narrative can often pose significant challenges.

Writing a literature review on ethics in systematic reviews requires more than just summarizing
existing research. It involves identifying relevant studies, evaluating their methodological rigor,
synthesizing findings, and critically analyzing the ethical implications of the research methodologies
employed. Moreover, it demands a nuanced understanding of ethical principles and considerations in
the context of systematic literature reviews.

One of the primary difficulties in writing such a literature review lies in the vast amount of literature
available on the subject. Sorting through numerous articles, books, and other scholarly sources to
identify those that are most pertinent to the research topic can be a daunting task. Additionally,
ensuring that the selected literature is of high quality and relevance adds another layer of complexity
to the process.

Furthermore, synthesizing the information gathered from various sources into a cohesive narrative
requires strong analytical skills and the ability to draw connections between different studies. It
involves identifying common themes, conflicting findings, and gaps in the existing literature while
maintaining a balanced perspective on the subject matter.

Given the complexities involved in writing a literature review on ethics in systematic reviews,
seeking professional assistance can be highly beneficial. ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔ offers specialized
services tailored to assist researchers in navigating the challenges of literature review writing. With a
team of experienced professionals well-versed in academic writing and research methodologies, ⇒
StudyHub.vip ⇔ provides comprehensive support to ensure the success of your literature review
project.

Whether you're struggling to identify relevant literature, synthesize information, or analyze ethical
considerations, ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔ is here to help. Our services are designed to alleviate the burden
of literature review writing, allowing you to focus on the core aspects of your research. Trust ⇒
StudyHub.vip ⇔ to deliver high-quality, customized assistance tailored to your specific needs.

In conclusion, writing a literature review on ethics in systematic reviews is a complex undertaking

that requires careful planning, critical thinking, and analytical skills. By seeking assistance from ⇒
StudyHub.vip ⇔, you can navigate through the challenges with ease and confidence, ensuring the
success of your research endeavors.
The strategy of meta-analysis evolved out of educational research in the 1970s; the term was coined
by Gene Glass to describe the process of utilizing statistics to merge the results of multiple studies (
Hedges 1986 ). They act as a prompt to the writer to give more complete information, and facilitate
the finding of information by the reader. The meeting began with a review of the literature about
abstract structure and content, followed by a review of the checklist items as proposed by the survey
respondents. I was initially skeptical and doubtful that the work could be done as requested. For
example, key stakeholders would dismiss a review if a study is carried out in a relevant geographical
setting but is not included; if a large, high profile study that might not change the findings is not
included; or if an up to date search is required for a guideline to achieve credibility. New studies can
show unexpected effects (eg, attenuation of efficacy) or provide new information about the effects
seen in different circumstances (eg, groups of patients or locations). Competing interests: TL is
employed by The Cochrane Collaboration. The study further assessed how these reviews report on
their methods for search, selection, analysis, and synthesis of ethics literature. Regarding sources, 44
(90%) tools were described in articles that developed a tool, in grey literature (eg, online checklist or
report), or in both, while the other five tools were extended from existing tools, when researchers
conducted systematic reviews on non-randomised studies. The in-depth analysis and corresponding
data presented in this paper focused on the normative and mixed literature, because methodological
particularities, especially concerning analysis and synthesis, have been much less widely discussed
for normative and conceptual literature than for empirical research. BMJ disclaims all liability and
responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. The pooled effect estimate is mostly
represented in the form of a diamond. Basic Assumptions about How Research Should be
Conducted. Guidance for literature search reporting has been diverse, and, in many cases, does not
offer enough detail to authors who need more specific information about reporting search methods
and. See Table 8 for more detailed explanations and case examples. Anex RP, Focht W. Public
participation in life cycle assessment and risk assessment: A shared need. The Importance of the
Literature Review in Research. While the needs of tool users may vary, they could all be somewhat
satisfied by our research. Where possible, continuous outcome measures should be expressed in
familiar units (example 8b), particularly when the standardised mean difference is used (example 8c).
Ethics of using assistive technology in the care for community-dwelling elderly people: an overview
of the literature. Even the most comprehensive tools could be complemented with items from other
tools. Moreover, all guidelines for carrying out systematic reviews recommend that at least two
subject experts screen the studies identified in the search. Altman, Sally Hopewell, Hilda Bastian,
Iain Chalmers, Peter C. Paper waste - Recycling, incineration or landfilling. The first round of
screening can consume 1 hour per screener for every 100-200 records. Design Literature review
through three approaches: systematic search of journal articles, snowballing search of reviews on
appraisal tools and grey literature search on websites of health technology assessment (HTA)
agencies. Sterne JAC, Higgins JPT, Reeves BC; on behalf of the development group for ROBINS-I.
It’s necessary at least to be a perfect writer, information seeker, and analyst. Updating Cochrane
Reviews: results of the first pilot of a focused update. A review of assessments conducted on bio-
ethanol as a transportation fuel from a net energy, greenhouse gas, and environmental life cycle
perspective.
The power of feedback (Hattie and Timperley 2007 ), with 11463 views and downloads, is a
conceptual analysis primarily drawing from the findings of published systematic reviews (largely
meta-analyses) conducted to address this important question. New information can also include fresh
follow-up data on existing included studies, or information on how the studies were carried out. If
an item was described by a tool in one or several signalling questions, we judged whether the
question(s) was related to methodological quality, reporting or both, independently of what original
studies claimed to be. Identify the most important research that has already been done in the area.
General interpretation of the results and important implications. An analysis of yield from the
previous edition, in relation to databases searched, terms, and languages can make searches more
specific and efficient. We also recommend that authors specifically highlight the limitations of the
systematic review as a way to assist the reader in result interpretation and highlight important
questions for future research. Similarly, only RTI Item Bank, 27 the tool by Genaidy et al 35 and
NICE 41 sufficiently described the item Outcome definition. In order to assist the reader in
appropriate interpretation of the review results it is important to highlight and discuss limitations in
any review publication. Nobody wants to have their reputation damaged by a written literature
review that contains plagiarism. Meta-analysis: A melding of data from multiple studies, usually
involving additional mathematical analyses, with the goal of utilizing this synergy of information
and data size to answer questions that cannot be answered by existing individual studies or to
improve the certainty or impact of known findings by increasing the sample size. Nguyen Thanh Tu
Collection Different types of animal Tissues DMLT.pptx Different types of animal Tissues
DMLT.pptx PunamSahoo3 CapTechTalks Webinar Feb 2024 Darrell Burrell.pptx CapTechTalks
Webinar Feb 2024 Darrell Burrell.pptx CapitolTechU Caldecott Medal Book Winners and Media
Used Caldecott Medal Book Winners and Media Used Colquitt County High School 2023 MAP
Data Analysis - St. Valentine ( 2009 ) provides a comprehensive discussion of criteria suitable for
evaluating research employing a wide range of postpositivist methods. Since we are aware of it,
writing specialists complete every review from scratch. D’Andrea et al identified 44 tools evaluating
the comparative safety and effectiveness of medications, and only assessed whether or not these
tools addressed methodological quality in eight domains. 13 In another review, Ma et al elaborated
for what types of study design a tool was suited. 46 For example, for cohort studies, they
encouraged using five tools, while discouraged the use of another two. Rather than seeking perfect
studies, systematic reviewers must ethically evaluate the extent to which findings reported in
individual studies are grounded in the reported evidence. Finally, the conclusions of the review
should be clearly stated. London: Elsevier. 24. Als-Nielsen B, Gluud LL, Gluud C (2004)
Methodological quality and treatment effects in randomized trials: a review of six empirical studies.
12th Cochrane Colloquium, Ottawa (Canada). This can be because of a pay wall, low Internet
download capacity, or if the full article is only available in a language not understood by the reader.
Although this aspect is important, additional studies can add important information to a review,
which is more than just changing the primary outcome to a more accurate and reliable estimate.
Adherence to referencing styles requires a lot of time and knowledge. A practical guide to value of
information analysis. In both stand-alone and embedded historiographies, you must support your
arguments and analyses with examples from the sources. Database: Article ID bap018.. 13. Murphy
MK, Black NA, Lamping DL, McKee CM, Sanderson CFB, et al. (1998) Consensus development
methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. For example, limitations may be combined
with a description of the included studies (i.e., items 6 and 9 from the checklist). Reviews may
utilize a wide range of methods to synthesize the best available evidence in answering a focused
question. Almost one third of all reviews did not report on any essential element of the analysis
methods (what information to extract and how). Further meta-research and conceptual analysis are
needed to inform the development of minimal standards for the analysis and synthesis of normative
literature. Some examples of these possible new methods for review updates are described in web
appendix 2. A systematic review question in the health sciences using the PICO structure could be
phrased as: “For men and women over the age of 50, does the management of a heart attack with
treatment X or treatment Y result in a shorter average hospital stay?” If the question had been defined
simply as, “what is the best treatment for a heart attack?” we would be troubled with still defining
what “best” really means and which treatment options we were considering.
Download citation Published: 19 April 2021 DOI: Share this article Anyone you share the following
link with will be able to read this content: Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this
article. From the first round of the survey, the ranked items were divided into three lists for the
second round. Short answer essay outline breast cancer research paper thesis computer engineering
capstone project ideasWeather essay introduction how to write a business plan free printable research
proposal topics in psychology nursing how to write a reflective essay on an article. Adoption studies
focus on children who were adopted at birth and brought up by parents not genetically related to
them It can tell us about the heritability of mental illness. In addition, the tools for diagnosis studies,
prognosis studies and secondary studies were beyond the scope of our study, and relevant users may
refer to other studies, such as Quigley et al 14, for further information. Literature Review Recent
Posts See All Lit Review Tip. Systematic reviews are poor tools for hypothesis generation: for
instance, to determine what interventions have been used to increase the awareness and acceptability
of a vaccine or to investigate the ways that predictive analytics have been used in health care
management. A practical guide to value of information analysis. Thus, future clarification is also
needed for the personal competencies and skills necessary to realize a valid and informative review
of normative information. Only those reviews that explicitly or implicitly reported on search,
selection, analysis, and synthesis were labeled as (full) systematic reviews. Energy and CO2 life-
cycle analyses of wind turbines - review and applications. The predominance of the abstract in
biomedical literature use is clear. An update requires appraisal and revision of the background,
question, inclusion criteria, and methods of the existing review and the existing certainty in the
evidence. Whatever synthesis methods are undertaken in a review, they should be clearly described
and justified based on the study protocol and the available data included in the review. Concept of
Ethics. The term morals is often mistakenly used when ethics is intended. Finding What Works in
Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. Efficient searching In performing an update, a
search based on the search conducted for the original review is required. SLRs differ from stand-
alone literature reviews because they follow a rigorous review protocol that is objective and
comprehensive so other researchers may replicate the work. Zero in on the research that relates to
your project. The writing committee provided the panel with the option of expressing any additional
comments from the general or specific guidance in the report, and the option for registering their own
view that might differ to the guidance formed and their view would be recorded in an annex.
Depicting the state of art must also include reviews of “relatively bad” reporting quality. The
selection was initially done by one researcher (MM). Washington, DC; The National Academies
Press; 2011. Further meta-research and conceptual analysis are needed to inform the development of
minimal standards for the analysis and synthesis of normative literature. Assessment of the need to
update comparative effectiveness reviews: report of an initial rapid program assessment (2005-2009).
The appraisal of these new data can be carried out in different ways. A scoping review won't help
you limit the number of records you'll need to screen (broad questions lead to large results sets) but
may give you means of dealing with a large set of results. The abstract should make clear the
protocol-defined, pre-specified importance of each outcome reported, and should not report only
those outcomes that have statistically significant or clinically important results. Seven of the 10
templates contained other incident information, such as a description of the incident. What about
cloning children who have died at a young age.
Review of Educational Research (RER) tends to be regarded as the premiere educational research
review journal internationally. Each kind has its special purpose and particularities. Any queries
(other than missing material) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
Overriding parents’ medical decisions for their children: a systematic review of normative literature.
Somehow in line with the aforementioned neglect of important method reporting is the fact that only
39 % of reviews discussed their limitations. A series of small group discussions followed each
question, deliberating content, and forming recommendations, as well as recognising uncertainties.
Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Sampson M, Tricco AC, et al. The Creative Commons
Public Domain Dedication waiver ( ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless
otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. Life cycle assessment (LCA): Also known as life cycle
analysis, LCA is a standardized framework, (ISO 2006a, 2006b) that can improve our understanding
of the impacts of a system or product through the stages of its manufacturing, utilization, and
disposal. Altman, Sally Hopewell, Hilda Bastian, Iain Chalmers, Peter C. Seven of the 10 templates
contained other incident information, such as a description of the incident. If you’d also rather trust
an expert than write an overview yourself, there’s good news. General interpretation of the results
and important implications. A limitation of our review is that we only searched the databases
PubMed, PhilPapers, and Google Scholar. With information on how sufficiently a tool describes a
quality item, tool users might broaden their horizons on quality concerns of non-randomised studies
to be considered and might select a tool that more completely satisfies their needs. Disability, human
rights, and the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health: systematic review.
Formal prediction tools: how potentially relevant new studies can affect review conclusions View
inline Box 4: Examples of new information other than new trials being important The iconic
Cochrane review of steroids in preterm labour was thought to provide evidence of benefit in infants,
and this question no longer required new trials. In the first approach, we conducted a systematic
review to identify articles on appraisal tools, through a database search using Medline.
Recommendations were presented to an invited forum of individuals with varying levels of expertise
in systematic reviews from McMaster University (of over 40 people), widely known for its
contributions to the field of research evidence synthesis. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic
Reviews of Interventions. 2nd Edition ed. Chichester: Wiley; 2019. Summary-of-findings tables in
Cochrane reviews improved understanding and rapid retrieval of key information. Process-based
LCA, in which data are obtained based on parameters of known, physically utilized components, can
be further divided into attributional and consequential types ( Finnveden et al. 2009 ). In contrast,
input-output models are based on economic inputs to a system, such as the EIOLCA model created
by the Green Design Institute at Carnegie Mellon University (2008). Cook and Campbell’s ( 1979 )
constructs of internal validity, construct validity, external validity and statistical conclusion are
amenable for evaluating postpositivist research. Third, identify patterns in approaches to your topic.
The funding source for the review should be disclosed in publication to allow the reader to evaluate
potential bias from conflict of interest. This approach would allow systematic reviews to continue to
evolve and build on the work of a range of authors over time, and for contributors to be given credit
for contributions to this previous work. Provides editors with a list of potential reviewers. For
example, the guidelines manual of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)
stated that: “The study addresses an appropriate and clearly focused question”. 41 The tool did not
explain the standard of appropriateness and clearness. Hence, ethical considerations of how interests
of different stakeholders are represented in a research review have become critical (Franklin 1999;
Hammersley 2003; Harlen and Crick 2004; Popkewitz 1999 ). Ethics in the rheumatology literature: a
systematic review.
Often, when an educational intervention is piloted, additional resources are allocated for staff
capacity building. The protocol is created following whatever guideline you select. Funding bias,
methodological bias, outcome bias and confirmatory bias are common forms of publication bias in
educational research. Statements in the manuscript should not be construed as endorsement by the
US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or the US Department of Health and Human
Services. As yet, there has been limited external validation of these tools to determine which
approach would be most effective and when. Realist review - a new method of systematic review
designed for complex policy interventions. Participant co-reviewers exercise greater control
throughout the review process to ensure that the review remains relevant to generating actionable
knowledge for transforming their practice (Bassett and McGibbon 2013 ). In most cases, qualitative
analyses aimed to develop overarching normative issues, reasons, or principles that allowed
summarizing the more detailed normative information. The pool of writers on this platform
encompasses experts in every literature review type. Corticosteroids for managing tuberculous
meningitis. Formal prediction tools: how potentially relevant new studies can affect review
conclusions View inline Box 4: Examples of new information other than new trials being important
The iconic Cochrane review of steroids in preterm labour was thought to provide evidence of benefit
in infants, and this question no longer required new trials. Fill out the form, provide task
specifications, and get an overview compliant with them. If an item was described by a tool in one
or several signalling questions, we judged whether the question(s) was related to methodological
quality, reporting or both, independently of what original studies claimed to be. Systematic reviewers
use publicly accessible documents as evidence and are seldom required to seek an institutional ethics
approval before commencing a systematic review. Prohibiting sexual contact Regulating
confidentiality Regulation from the federal government License. Fourth, analyze the patterns you
noted by considering similarities and differences between sources. An update requires appraisal and
revision of the background, question, inclusion criteria, and methods of the existing review and the
existing certainty in the evidence. Overriding parents’ medical decisions for their children: a
systematic review of normative literature. Box 1: Examples of what factors might change in an
updated systematic review A systematic review of steroid treatment in tuberculosis meningitis used
GRADE methods and split the composite outcome in the original review of death plus disability into
its two components. Expenses were not reimbursed for US federal government attendees, in line
with US government policy. ICMJE criteria for authorship read and met: EMB PPG DGA SH HB IC
PCG TL DT. That’s why we’ve introduced relevant additional features: “Top Writer” (one of the top-
30) and “Premium Writer” (one of the top-10). Interestingly, the study finds no statistically
significant differences in mean scores between ethical beliefs and behaviours, implying a high level
of correspondence and causal relationship between the two variables. I discuss a variety of ethical
considerations of conducting systematic reviews informed by rights-based theories, ethics of care
and Foucauldian ethics. Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. ? Cochrane. Editorial and publishing policy
resource.. 2016. ? Moher D, Tsertsvadze A. Therefore, tool users who assess NRSIs beyond
methodological quality or reporting should consider criteria in addition to those mentioned in our
study, for selecting a tool. Review of Educational Research (RER) tends to be regarded as the
premiere educational research review journal internationally. All authors read and approved the final
manuscript. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating
network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. The PRISMA
Statement and its extensions are an evidence-based, minimum set of recommendations designed
primarily to encourage transparent and complete reporting of SRs.
Before accepting funding for conducting a systematic review, educational researchers must carefully
reflect on the following questions. Therefore, the search had to be intentionally broad in order to
capture any review done related to topics of medical ethics or bioethics, even if this included
reviews that solely analyzed and synthesized empirical literature. Further research as well as
interdisciplinary discussion and consent are needed to define detailed best practice recommendations
for the respective steps of a review of normative information. Consequentialism or utilitarianism
focuses on maximising benefit and minimising harm by undertaking a cost-benefit analysis of
potential positive and negative impacts of research on all stakeholders. This guidance helps authors
of systematic reviews, commissioners, and editors decide when to update a systematic review, and
then how to go about updating the review. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication
waiver ( ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to
the data. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( ) applies to the data made
available in this article, unless otherwise stated. We have suggested reporting a minimum set of items.
We do not advocate that abstracts replace full articles in informing decision making, but we
recognise that for many time-pressed readers, or for those with limited access to the full texts of
reports, it is important that abstracts contain as much information as is feasible within the word limit
of abstracts. Previous reviews also compared appraisal tools but from different perspectives. A
deontological viewpoint is underpinned by rights-based theories that emphasise universal adherence
to the principles of beneficence (do good), non-maleficence (prevent harm), justice, honesty and
gratitude. The meeting began with a review of the literature about abstract structure and content,
followed by a review of the checklist items as proposed by the survey respondents. Maybe you’re on
the verge of getting a doctorate and want a literature review to be just ideal. Systematic Reviews:
Step 8: Write the Review The PRISMA Checklist will help you report the details of your systematic
review. CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. If you use competent help writing a
literature review, this problem will vanish. Consequently, the most up-to-date version of a tool might
be missing, and the extent to which a quality item was described by a tool might be underestimated.
Basic Assumptions about How Research Should be Conducted. Were the inclusion criteria
appropriate for the review question? 3. The scoring process was independently conducted by two
researchers (LJ and MH) using NVivo V.12, and all discrepancies were solved through discussion
between the two. Where possible, given space limitations, the number of studies and participants for
each main outcome should be stated, particularly if only a small proportion of the total number of
studies or patients in the systematic review contributed information on a particular outcome. Step 2:
identify relevant new methods, studies, and other information Are there any new relevant methods.
They are guaranteed to have in-depth knowledge and practical and research expertise in the field.
Agree with manuscript results and conclusions: EMB PPG DGA SH HB IC PCG TL DT. Ethical
considerations in participatory systematic reviews should pay attention to the extent to which
practitioner co-reviewers feel empowered to drive the agenda of the review to address their own
questions, change their own practices through the learning afforded by participating in the experience
of the synthesis and have practitioner voices heard through the review (Suri 2014 ). Cochrane
Database Syst Rev 2014; suppl 2: 29 - 31. In most cases, updated reviews are most useful to
stakeholders when there is new information or methods that result in a change in findings. Relevant
documents obtained through this approach were translated using Google Translate. For example,
both D’Andrea et al 13 and our study found that intervention measurement, outcome measurement
and confounding were frequently addressed by existing tools. Might cloned children be able to
choose their own destiny. This becomes particularly important with global access to information
where critical contextual information, that is common practice in a particular context but not
necessarily in other contexts, may be taken-for-granted by the authors of the primary research report
and hence may not get explicitly mentioned.
Adherence to referencing styles requires a lot of time and knowledge. Hence, ethical issues
associated with what and how systematic reviews are produced and used have serious implications.
Therefore, tool users who assess NRSIs beyond methodological quality or reporting should consider
criteria in addition to those mentioned in our study, for selecting a tool. A multicomponent decision
tool for prioritising the updating of systematic reviews. In brief, the abstract should be an unbiased
representation of the full report. The abstract should record the name of the database with which the
review is registered, and the registration number. The in-depth analysis and corresponding data
presented in this paper focused on the normative and mixed literature, because methodological
particularities, especially concerning analysis and synthesis, have been much less widely discussed
for normative and conceptual literature than for empirical research. Also, Ma et al 46 and Quigley et
al 14 both recommended ROBINS-I, MINORS and JBI, and all these tools ranked top 10 for
addressing and sufficiently describing methodological quality in our study. A systematic review of
empirical bioethics methodologies. This will serve as the basis for your thesis statement. Professional
business plan writing services near me. Overall, only 1 % and 8 % did not fulfill any criteria related
to search and selection, respectively. Guided by teleological ethics, systematic reviewers must
conduct a cost-benefit analysis with a critical consideration of the purpose and scope of the review
and its potential benefits to various groups of stakeholders. Depending on the review type, the
review process may vary. The project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020
research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 825162. Ethical and professional
challenges in mental health care in low- and middle-income countries. STRENGTHS AND
LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY This literature review identified 49 appraisal tools for non-
randomised studies of interventions, through both the systematic approach (ie, database search) and
the non-systematic approaches (ie, snowballing and grey literature search). LCA of renewable energy
for electricity generation systems - A review. The topics and commentary in our STARR-LCA
checklist are guided largely by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-
Analyses: The PRISMA Statement ( Moher et al. 2009 ) and elaboration document (Liberati et al.
2009), which are widely used general guidelines for systematic reviews in medicine. Indeed, if any
study has been retracted, it is important the authors assess the reasons for its retraction. A systematic
review published in the Lancet examined the effects of artemisinin based combination treatments
compared with monotherapy for treating malaria and showed clear benefit. 21 Assessment: this
established the treatment globally and is no longer a current question and no update is required. Any
revisions should be outlined and commented upon in subsequent publications and the protocol
described should be transparent and complete enough to allow for replication. Be sure to include
some background information on the actual topic in the introduction. For example, early in the life of
a new intervention, there might be a plethora of studies, and surveillance would be needed more
frequently. Interest in systematic reviews of the literature, with or without meta-analysis, is
increasing in many disciplines including LCA. Systematic Reviews: Literature Review Systematic
Reviews: Literature Review When performing literature searches for a systematic review it's
important to use a wide range of resources and searching methods in order to identify all relevant
studies. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press; 2010. If the question is current and clearly
defined, the systematic review needs to have used valid methods and be well conducted. This
feedback was all considered and carefully addressed by the writing committee. Unlike embedded
literature reviews, which appear as part of a larger piece of work, stand-alone literature reviews are a
self-contained piece of writing that can be read on their own (Figure A.2). Once researchers have
selected a topic, the first step in their research methodology is often the stand-alone literature review.