Literature review
HC 1 – Introduction
Four live working groups; mandatory. Look at Canvas, not rooster.
Knowledge clips are exam material, must watch before WG.
Assignments (with VU supervisors, pass/fail):
- Key concepts; search string; inclusion exclusion criteria
o Deadline: 16/09
o Pass/fail (group)
- Reflection on screening + PRISMA flowchart + full text articles
o Deadline: 30/09
o Pass/fail (group)
- Exam (MC)
o 11/10
o Graded (individual), 30%
o Learn: video-lectures and mandatory readings
- Written review (6000-8000 wrds)
o Deadline 28/10
o Graded (group), 70%
o Assessment criteria on Canvas
HC 2 – Types of literature review
A literature review is a critical assessment of published literature on a particular topic. It requires you
to think critically; critical analysis that you can back up with evidence and reinforce with appropriate
examples, strengths and limitations of the existing research, why and how you can improve the
research. The synthesis of the critical assessment is key! And classification, comparison and/or
evaluation of the current knowledge;
- Substantive findings, issues and themes
- Populations, interventions, outcomes
- Theoretical contributions
- Methodological contributions
- Open questions; questions that are not answered; further investigation
- Contradictions
Review must compare and contrast the existing views. Holistic perspective on the topic; as a whole.
Combining knowledge and understanding what has been written. Review is more than just an
annotated bibliography.
Why would you write a review? There must be a need for the review. You need to show the
relevance of the topic. The literature review must contribute to the existing knowledge base;
- Creating a new dimension or fresh perspectives, e.g.;
o Research agenda; importance and relevance of the topic
o To investigate what works (best); when there is contradictory evidence; outcomes
o Taxonomy; change in direction of phenomenon; what do different methods find; classifying
different findings
o Alternative model / conceptual framework; can the different models be fused as one?; new
ways of thinking
Pagina 1 van 20
,Literature review
- Keep in mind; it is not just a summary!
Types of literature reviews
There are different types of literature reviews. In total, there are 14 types of reviews. The two
extremes are;
- Narrative review
o Undefined methods of searching, critiquing and synthesising the literature
o Has a broad aim, to gain a broad understanding, or to describe
o Searching is usually probing, following one lead into another
o Based on reviewers opinion
- Systematic review
o Explicit rigorous methods of searching, critiquing and synthesising the literature
o A much narrower focus, aim is specified with review question
o Search process is straight and clear, often with a protocol, criteria, quality assessment of
studies
The SALSA framework:
- Search – questioning and finding
- AppriasaL – assessing for quality
- Synthesis – integrating, making sense of the patterns
- Analysis – breaking up, looking for patterns
The key phases of literature reviews
Systematic review phases:
There is a hierarchy of evidence of study methods. Systematic review aims for studies that have
stronger evidence. This is why RCTs are perceived as the gold standard. These are of higher quality.
Pagina 2 van 20
, Literature review
Some authors are critical on the difference of review
types; ‘the rate of development of new approaches to
reviewing is too fast and the overlap of approaches
too great for that to be helpful. (Grough et al. 2012).
According to them, there are two main approaches
that overlap a lot; Configurative and Aggregative.
Configurative reviews try to interpret and
understand a topic, are overlapping rather than
applying concepts, they provide enlightenment.
Aggregative reviews are collecting data to describe and test predefined concepts. They are adding
up, aggregating, to make empirical statements. It is about seeking evidence to form decision making.
This distinction between types of reviews is very important!!
There is a distinction between a systematic review and a systematic approach. A systematic review:
reviewers follow a strict protocol. This assignment:
- The review question does not have to be strictly defined; can be defined iteratively. Keep track of
how this is developed
- Develop a comprehensive searching strategy. If you include articles based on references,
citations or ‘non-systematic’ search, please document this process
- Develop inclusion and exclusion criteria
- Critical assessment on the articles included (e.g. assessing their strenghts and weaknesses)
- Methodological report describing the essential steps in relation to search, eligibility criteria, data
extraction and how analysis and synthesis were performed
HC 3 – Review questions & Exploratory search
The image on top of this page shows the key dimensions on which reviews differ. This also influences
the review question you can use. Important in an Aggregative review is to make sure that the review
is as exhausted as possible; uses all relevant work on the topic, to avoid bias. The use of this review is
instrumental; gain knowledge about how something works. With Configurative review the aim is to
generate a theory, more focussed on ideas. The point is to enlighten and deeper understand the
topic. The outcomes of these reviews are often new understandings and new concepts. The methods
are iterative.
Each of the different review types demand different review questions. But for both review types the
key points are:
- Identifying a review question is a key and iterative process in the literature review methodology.
So finding out which question you want to ask needs adjustment in time
- Review questions should be focused on a specific topic, manageable in the time period, and
answerable from the available literature. These things might not be clear beforehand
- The question should always be as clear and unambiguous as possible, and be formulated in such
a way that is provides guidance throughout the review process
The PICO format is a format that emerged from and is often used in evidence-based clinical practice.
It creates a ‘well-built’ question that identifies 4 concepts:
- the Patient problem (or Population) - the Comparison (if there is one)
- the Intervention (or Exposure → PECO) - the Outcome(s)
Pagina 3 van 20
HC 1 – Introduction
Four live working groups; mandatory. Look at Canvas, not rooster.
Knowledge clips are exam material, must watch before WG.
Assignments (with VU supervisors, pass/fail):
- Key concepts; search string; inclusion exclusion criteria
o Deadline: 16/09
o Pass/fail (group)
- Reflection on screening + PRISMA flowchart + full text articles
o Deadline: 30/09
o Pass/fail (group)
- Exam (MC)
o 11/10
o Graded (individual), 30%
o Learn: video-lectures and mandatory readings
- Written review (6000-8000 wrds)
o Deadline 28/10
o Graded (group), 70%
o Assessment criteria on Canvas
HC 2 – Types of literature review
A literature review is a critical assessment of published literature on a particular topic. It requires you
to think critically; critical analysis that you can back up with evidence and reinforce with appropriate
examples, strengths and limitations of the existing research, why and how you can improve the
research. The synthesis of the critical assessment is key! And classification, comparison and/or
evaluation of the current knowledge;
- Substantive findings, issues and themes
- Populations, interventions, outcomes
- Theoretical contributions
- Methodological contributions
- Open questions; questions that are not answered; further investigation
- Contradictions
Review must compare and contrast the existing views. Holistic perspective on the topic; as a whole.
Combining knowledge and understanding what has been written. Review is more than just an
annotated bibliography.
Why would you write a review? There must be a need for the review. You need to show the
relevance of the topic. The literature review must contribute to the existing knowledge base;
- Creating a new dimension or fresh perspectives, e.g.;
o Research agenda; importance and relevance of the topic
o To investigate what works (best); when there is contradictory evidence; outcomes
o Taxonomy; change in direction of phenomenon; what do different methods find; classifying
different findings
o Alternative model / conceptual framework; can the different models be fused as one?; new
ways of thinking
Pagina 1 van 20
,Literature review
- Keep in mind; it is not just a summary!
Types of literature reviews
There are different types of literature reviews. In total, there are 14 types of reviews. The two
extremes are;
- Narrative review
o Undefined methods of searching, critiquing and synthesising the literature
o Has a broad aim, to gain a broad understanding, or to describe
o Searching is usually probing, following one lead into another
o Based on reviewers opinion
- Systematic review
o Explicit rigorous methods of searching, critiquing and synthesising the literature
o A much narrower focus, aim is specified with review question
o Search process is straight and clear, often with a protocol, criteria, quality assessment of
studies
The SALSA framework:
- Search – questioning and finding
- AppriasaL – assessing for quality
- Synthesis – integrating, making sense of the patterns
- Analysis – breaking up, looking for patterns
The key phases of literature reviews
Systematic review phases:
There is a hierarchy of evidence of study methods. Systematic review aims for studies that have
stronger evidence. This is why RCTs are perceived as the gold standard. These are of higher quality.
Pagina 2 van 20
, Literature review
Some authors are critical on the difference of review
types; ‘the rate of development of new approaches to
reviewing is too fast and the overlap of approaches
too great for that to be helpful. (Grough et al. 2012).
According to them, there are two main approaches
that overlap a lot; Configurative and Aggregative.
Configurative reviews try to interpret and
understand a topic, are overlapping rather than
applying concepts, they provide enlightenment.
Aggregative reviews are collecting data to describe and test predefined concepts. They are adding
up, aggregating, to make empirical statements. It is about seeking evidence to form decision making.
This distinction between types of reviews is very important!!
There is a distinction between a systematic review and a systematic approach. A systematic review:
reviewers follow a strict protocol. This assignment:
- The review question does not have to be strictly defined; can be defined iteratively. Keep track of
how this is developed
- Develop a comprehensive searching strategy. If you include articles based on references,
citations or ‘non-systematic’ search, please document this process
- Develop inclusion and exclusion criteria
- Critical assessment on the articles included (e.g. assessing their strenghts and weaknesses)
- Methodological report describing the essential steps in relation to search, eligibility criteria, data
extraction and how analysis and synthesis were performed
HC 3 – Review questions & Exploratory search
The image on top of this page shows the key dimensions on which reviews differ. This also influences
the review question you can use. Important in an Aggregative review is to make sure that the review
is as exhausted as possible; uses all relevant work on the topic, to avoid bias. The use of this review is
instrumental; gain knowledge about how something works. With Configurative review the aim is to
generate a theory, more focussed on ideas. The point is to enlighten and deeper understand the
topic. The outcomes of these reviews are often new understandings and new concepts. The methods
are iterative.
Each of the different review types demand different review questions. But for both review types the
key points are:
- Identifying a review question is a key and iterative process in the literature review methodology.
So finding out which question you want to ask needs adjustment in time
- Review questions should be focused on a specific topic, manageable in the time period, and
answerable from the available literature. These things might not be clear beforehand
- The question should always be as clear and unambiguous as possible, and be formulated in such
a way that is provides guidance throughout the review process
The PICO format is a format that emerged from and is often used in evidence-based clinical practice.
It creates a ‘well-built’ question that identifies 4 concepts:
- the Patient problem (or Population) - the Comparison (if there is one)
- the Intervention (or Exposure → PECO) - the Outcome(s)
Pagina 3 van 20
