A systematic Literature review paper on analyzing and visualizing data
· There are two main goals to conduct this SLR paper in this course:
o Help you toward your PhD thesis. My experience advising many phd students in different universities is that one of the “easiest” approaches to reach the “difficult” task of finding your research subject in your phd is to start by conducting an SLR in your general subject. It can help you as an output of this work to know what are some of the hot topics or trending research subjects in your area of interest.
o As a phd student or soon to be graduate, publications are key factors in evaluating your profile. A good SLR paper in this course can be publishable whether in a conference or a journal whether directly or through extending the work after the end of the course
· The overall grade for this course paper is 25 or 25% of the overall course grade.
· The paper to be submitted no later than June 10th, a firm-deadline.
· We will follow APA guidelines (Please read relevant material about that)
· It is important to write in your own words. Paper will be evaluated using University integrity checking services.
· Systematic Literature Review has a structured approach that you have to follow. You can find online many references on how to conduct SLR. Below is a table as an example describing SLR steps (https://lib.guides.umd.edu/SR/steps). As an alternative to the 8 steps described below, minimum steps in SLR can be 5 (see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC539417/). You will be graded based on following one of those two SLR templates in completing each step properly.
· You may have issue reaching or accessing some papers. Use University library or any available resources, to the best of your abilities.
· You can always submit progress documents for me to discuss and evaluate (i.e. before your final submission throughout the semester).
· In terms of the subjects to pick from, I will create a discussion board for that in which students should not pick repeated subjects and so you can reserve your subject earlier through the discussion board.
· Verify with me through an email before finalizing your paper subject
· Remember, instead of selecting a paper subject, you can start from framing a question to review or even from few selected keywords.
1. Identify your research question. Formulate a clear, well-defined research question of appropriate scope. Define your terminology. Find existing reviews on your topic to inform the development of your research question, identify gaps, and confirm that you are not duplicating the efforts of previous reviews. Consider using a framework like PICO or SPIDER to define you question scope. Use Database Search Log Excel spreadsheet to record search terms under each concept.
Optional: It is a good idea to register your protocol in a publicly accessible way. This will help avoid other people completing a review on your topic. Similarly, before you start doing a systematic review, it’s worth checking the different registries that nobody else has already registered a protocol on the same topic.
- Cochrane Collaboration – Systematic reviews of health care and clinical interventions
- Campbell Collaboration – Systematic reviews of the effects of social interventions
- F1000 Research – The protocol is published immediately and subjected to open peer review. When two reviewers approve it, the paper is sent to Medline, Embase and other databases for indexing.
- Joanna Briggs Institute – Systematic reviews of healthcare practices to assist in the improvement of healthcare outcomes globally
- Open Science Framework (OSF) Registries – Registry of a protocol on OSF creates a frozen, time-stamped record of the protocol, thus ensuring a level of transparency and accountability for the research. There are no limits to the types of protocols that can be hosted on OSF.
- *** PROSPERO – International prospective register of systematic reviews. This is the primary database for registering systematic review protocols and searching for published protocols. Scoping reviews are not accepted. PROSPERO accepts protocols from all disciplines (e.g., psychology, nutrition) with the stipulation that they must include health-related outcomes.
- Research Registry – Similar to PROSPERO. Based in the UK, fee-based service, quick turnaround time.
- Zenodo – Share your search strategy and research protocol. No limit on the format, size, access restrictions or license.
Example outlining the details and documentation necessary for conducting a systematic review:
Hersi, M., Traversy, G., Thombs, B. D., Beck, A., Skidmore, B., Groulx, S., … Stevens, A. (2019). Effectiveness of stop smoking interventions among adults: protocol for an overview of systematic reviews and an updated systematic review. Systematic Reviews, 8(1), 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0928-
2. Define inclusion and exclusion criteria. Clearly state the criteria you will use to determine whether or not a study will be included in your search. Consider study populations, study design, intervention types, comparison groups, measured outcomes. Use some database-supplied limits such as language, dates, humans, female/male, age groups, and publication/study types (randomized controlled trials, etc.).
3. Search for studies. Run your searches in the databases that you’ve identified as relevant to your topic. Work with a librarian to help you design comprehensive search strategies across a variety of databases. Approach the grey literature methodically and purposefully. Collect ALL of the retrieved records from each search into a reference manager, such as Endnote, Zotero or Mendeley, and de-duplicate the library prior to screening.
Rayyan – export your Endnote results in this screening software
4. Select studies for inclusion based on pre-defined criteria. Start with a title/abstract screening to remove studies that are clearly not related to your topic. Use your inclusion/exclusion criteria to screen the full-text of studies. It is highly recommended that two independent reviewers screen all studies, resolving areas of disagreement by consensus.
5. Extract data from included studies. Use a spreadsheet, or systematic review software (e.g. Rayyan, RevMan), to extract all relevant data from each included study. It is recommended that you pilot your data extraction tool, to determine if other fields should be included or existing fields clarified.
6. Evaluate the risk of bias of included studies. Use a Risk of Bias tool (such as the Cochrane RoB Tool) to assess the potential biases of studies in regards to study design and other factors. Read the Cochrane training materials to learn about the topic of assessing risk of bias in included studies. You can adapt existing tools (PDF p.5) to best meet the needs of your review, depending on the types of studies included.
7. Present results and assess the quality of evidence. Clearly present your findings, including detailed methodology (such as search strategies used, selection criteria, etc.) such that your review can be easily updated in the future with new research findings. Perform a meta-analysis, if the studies allow. Provide recommendations for practice and policy-making if sufficient, high quality evidence exists, or future directions for research to fill existing gaps in knowledge or to strengthen the body of evidence.
For more information, see:
- Liumbruno, G. M., Velati, C., Pasqualetti, P., & Franchini, M. (2013). How to write a scientific manuscript for publication. Blood Transfusion, 11(2), 217–226. https://doi.org/10.2450/2012.0247-12
- Academic Phrasebank – Get some inspiration and find some terms and phrases for writing your manuscript
- GradeProof – Automated high-quality spelling, grammar and rephrasing corrections using artificial intelligence (AI) to improve the flow of your writing. Free and subscription plans available.
8. Find the best journal to publish your work. Identifying the best journal to submit your research to can be a difficult process. To help you make the choice of where to submit, simply insert your title and abstract in any of the journal finder tools listed under the Publishing your Systematic Review tab.