Cooper Table 11 a Taxonomy of Literature Reviews

9.1. Introduction

Literature reviews play a disquisitional role in scholarship considering science remains, first and foremost, a cumulative endeavor (vom Brocke et al., 2009). Every bit in whatsoever academic subject field, rigorous knowledge syntheses are becoming indispensable in keeping upward with an exponentially growing eHealth literature, assisting practitioners, academics, and graduate students in finding, evaluating, and synthesizing the contents of many empirical and conceptual papers. Amongst other methods, literature reviews are essential for: (a) identifying what has been written on a subject or topic; (b) determining the extent to which a specific research surface area reveals any interpretable trends or patterns; (c) aggregating empirical findings related to a narrow enquiry question to support evidence-based practice; (d) generating new frameworks and theories; and (e) identifying topics or questions requiring more investigation (Paré, Trudel, Jaana, & Kitsiou, 2015).

Literature reviews tin can have two major forms. The most prevalent one is the "literature review" or "background" department within a journal paper or a chapter in a graduate thesis. This department synthesizes the extant literature and normally identifies the gaps in knowledge that the empirical study addresses (Sylvester, Tate, & Johnstone, 2013). It may also provide a theoretical foundation for the proposed study, substantiate the presence of the research problem, justify the research as ane that contributes something new to the cumulated knowledge, or validate the methods and approaches for the proposed study (Hart, 1998; Levy & Ellis, 2006).

The second course of literature review, which is the focus of this chapter, constitutes an original and valuable piece of work of research in and of itself (Paré et al., 2015). Rather than providing a base of operations for a researcher's own work, it creates a solid starting betoken for all members of the community interested in a detail expanse or topic (Mulrow, 1987). The so-called "review article" is a journal-length paper which has an overarching purpose to synthesize the literature in a field, without collecting or analyzing whatsoever main data (Green, Johnson, & Adams, 2006).

When accordingly conducted, review articles represent powerful information sources for practitioners looking for state-of-the art prove to guide their decision-making and work practices (Paré et al., 2015). Farther, high-quality reviews become frequently cited pieces of piece of work which researchers seek out equally a beginning clear outline of the literature when undertaking empirical studies (Cooper, 1988; Rowe, 2014). Scholars who runway and judge the touch of articles have found that review papers are cited and downloaded more often than whatever other type of published article (Cronin, Ryan, & Coughlan, 2008; Montori, Wilczynski, Morgan, Haynes, & Hedges, 2003; Patsopoulos, Analatos, & Ioannidis, 2005). The reason for their popularity may be the fact that reading the review enables one to have an overview, if non a detailed knowledge of the area in question, also as references to the most useful primary sources (Cronin et al., 2008). Although they are not easy to bear, the delivery to complete a review article provides a tremendous service to one's academic community (Paré et al., 2015; Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). Most, if not all, peer-reviewed journals in the fields of medical informatics publish review manufactures of some type.

The main objectives of this chapter are fourfold: (a) to provide an overview of the major steps and activities involved in conducting a stand-alone literature review; (b) to describe and contrast the unlike types of review manufactures that can contribute to the eHealth knowledge base of operations; (c) to illustrate each review type with i or 2 examples from the eHealth literature; and (d) to provide a series of recommendations for prospective authors of review manufactures in this domain.

9.ii. Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps

As explained in Templier and Paré (2015), there are half-dozen generic steps involved in conducting a review commodity:

formulating the research question(south) and objective(s),
searching the extant literature,
screening for inclusion,
assessing the quality of primary studies,
extracting information, and
analyzing information.

Although these steps are presented hither in sequential social club, one must keep in mind that the review procedure tin exist iterative and that many activities tin be initiated during the planning stage and later refined during subsequent phases (Finfgeld-Connett & Johnson, 2013; Kitchenham & Charters, 2007).

Formulating the research question(s) and objective(south): Every bit a beginning step, members of the review team must appropriately justify the need for the review itself (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006), identify the review's primary objective(due south) (Okoli & Schabram, 2010), and ascertain the concepts or variables at the heart of their synthesis (Cooper & Hedges, 2009; Webster & Watson, 2002). Importantly, they too need to articulate the research question(s) they propose to investigate (Kitchenham & Charters, 2007). In this regard, we concur with Jesson, Matheson, and Lacey (2011) that clearly articulated research questions are key ingredients that guide the unabridged review methodology; they underscore the type of information that is needed, inform the search for and pick of relevant literature, and guide or orient the subsequent analysis.

Searching the extant literature: The next step consists of searching the literature and making decisions almost the suitability of material to be considered in the review (Cooper, 1988). In that location be three chief coverage strategies. First, exhaustive coverage means an effort is made to be as comprehensive every bit possible in order to ensure that all relevant studies, published and unpublished, are included in the review and, thus, conclusions are based on this all-inclusive knowledge base. The second type of coverage consists of presenting materials that are representative of most other works in a given field or area. Often authors who adopt this strategy will search for relevant articles in a small number of top-tier journals in a field (Paré et al., 2015). In the third strategy, the review team concentrates on prior works that have been fundamental or pivotal to a particular topic. This may include empirical studies or conceptual papers that initiated a line of investigation, changed how problems or questions were framed, introduced new methods or concepts, or engendered important debate (Cooper, 1988).

Screening for inclusion: The following footstep consists of evaluating the applicability of the textile identified in the preceding footstep (Levy & Ellis, 2006; vom Brocke et al., 2009). In one case a group of potential studies has been identified, members of the review squad must screen them to make up one's mind their relevance (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). A set of predetermined rules provides a basis for including or excluding certain studies. This exercise requires a significant investment on the part of researchers, who must ensure enhanced objectivity and avoid biases or mistakes. As discussed later in this chapter, for certain types of reviews there must be at least two contained reviewers involved in the screening process and a procedure to resolve disagreements must besides be in place (Liberati et al., 2009; Shea et al., 2009).

Assessing the quality of primary studies: In addition to screening material for inclusion, members of the review squad may need to appraise the scientific quality of the selected studies, that is, assess the rigour of the research design and methods. Such formal assessment, which is commonly conducted independently by at least ii coders, helps members of the review team refine which studies to include in the final sample, determine whether or not the differences in quality may affect their conclusions, or guide how they analyze the information and interpret the findings (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). Ascribing quality scores to each primary study or because through domain-based evaluations which study components have or accept not been designed and executed accordingly makes information technology possible to reverberate on the extent to which the selected study addresses possible biases and maximizes validity (Shea et al., 2009).

Extracting data: The post-obit step involves gathering or extracting applicable information from each main study included in the sample and deciding what is relevant to the problem of interest (Cooper & Hedges, 2009). Indeed, the type of data that should be recorded mainly depends on the initial research questions (Okoli & Schabram, 2010). However, important information may also be gathered about how, when, where and past whom the primary report was conducted, the inquiry design and methods, or qualitative/quantitative results (Cooper & Hedges, 2009).

Analyzing and synthesizing data: Every bit a final step, members of the review squad must collate, summarize, aggregate, organize, and compare the show extracted from the included studies. The extracted data must be presented in a meaningful way that suggests a new contribution to the extant literature (Jesson et al., 2011). Webster and Watson (2002) warn researchers that literature reviews should be much more than than lists of papers and should provide a coherent lens to make sense of extant noesis on a given topic. There be several methods and techniques for synthesizing quantitative (e.1000., frequency analysis, meta-assay) and qualitative (east.yard., grounded theory, narrative analysis, meta-ethnography) testify (Dixon-Wood, Agarwal, Jones, Young, & Sutton, 2005; Thomas & Harden, 2008).

9.3. Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations

EHealth researchers have at their disposal a number of approaches and methods for making sense out of existing literature, all with the purpose of casting current inquiry findings into historical contexts or explaining contradictions that might exist among a fix of primary research studies conducted on a particular topic. Our nomenclature scheme is largely inspired from Paré and colleagues' (2015) typology. Beneath nosotros nowadays and illustrate those review types that we feel are central to the growth and development of the eHealth domain.

9.three.1. Narrative Reviews

The narrative review is the "traditional" way of reviewing the extant literature and is skewed towards a qualitative estimation of prior knowledge (Sylvester et al., 2013). Put just, a narrative review attempts to summarize or synthesize what has been written on a particular topic but does non seek generalization or cumulative knowledge from what is reviewed (Davies, 2000; Green et al., 2006). Instead, the review team oft undertakes the job of accumulating and synthesizing the literature to demonstrate the value of a particular betoken of view (Baumeister & Leary, 1997). Equally such, reviewers may selectively ignore or limit the attention paid to certain studies in gild to make a bespeak. In this rather unsystematic approach, the pick of information from primary articles is subjective, lacks explicit criteria for inclusion and can lead to biased interpretations or inferences (Green et al., 2006). There are several narrative reviews in the particular eHealth domain, every bit in all fields, which follow such an unstructured arroyo (Silva et al., 2015; Paul et al., 2015).

Despite these criticisms, this type of review can be very useful in gathering together a volume of literature in a specific bailiwick and synthesizing it. Equally mentioned above, its master purpose is to provide the reader with a comprehensive background for understanding current knowledge and highlighting the significance of new research (Cronin et al., 2008). Faculty like to use narrative reviews in the classroom because they are often more up to date than textbooks, provide a single source for students to reference, and betrayal students to peer-reviewed literature (Light-green et al., 2006). For researchers, narrative reviews tin can inspire enquiry ideas by identifying gaps or inconsistencies in a torso of knowledge, thus helping researchers to decide research questions or codify hypotheses. Chiefly, narrative reviews can likewise be used as educational manufactures to bring practitioners upward to date with certain topics of issues (Light-green et al., 2006).

Recently, there accept been several efforts to introduce more rigour in narrative reviews that will elucidate common pitfalls and bring changes into their publication standards. Data systems researchers, amidst others, have contributed to advancing noesis on how to structure a "traditional" review. For case, Levy and Ellis (2006) proposed a generic framework for conducting such reviews. Their model follows the systematic data processing arroyo comprised of three steps, namely: (a) literature search and screening; (b) data extraction and analysis; and (c) writing the literature review. They provide detailed and very helpful instructions on how to conduct each step of the review process. As another methodological contribution, vom Brocke et al. (2009) offered a series of guidelines for conducting literature reviews, with a item focus on how to search and extract the relevant body of knowledge. Last, Bandara, Miskon, and Fielt (2011) proposed a structured, predefined and tool-supported method to place primary studies within a feasible scope, extract relevant content from identified manufactures, synthesize and analyze the findings, and effectively write and present the results of the literature review. We highly recommend that prospective authors of narrative reviews consult these useful sources before embarking on their work.

Darlow and Wen (2015) provide a skillful instance of a highly structured narrative review in the eHealth field. These authors synthesized published articles that draw the development process of mobile health (thousand-health) interventions for patients' cancer intendance self-management. As in most narrative reviews, the scope of the inquiry questions being investigated is broad: (a) how evolution of these systems are carried out; (b) which methods are used to investigate these systems; and (c) what conclusions can be drawn as a event of the development of these systems. To provide articulate answers to these questions, a literature search was conducted on six electronic databases and Google Scholar. The search was performed using several terms and free text words, combining them in an appropriate manner. 4 inclusion and three exclusion criteria were utilized during the screening process. Both authors independently reviewed each of the identified articles to decide eligibility and excerpt study information. A period diagram shows the number of studies identified, screened, and included or excluded at each stage of study selection. In terms of contributions, this review provides a serial of practical recommendations for grand-health intervention evolution.

nine.3.2. Descriptive or Mapping Reviews

The primary goal of a descriptive review is to determine the extent to which a body of knowledge in a particular research topic reveals any interpretable blueprint or trend with respect to pre-existing propositions, theories, methodologies or findings (King & He, 2005; Paré et al., 2015). In contrast with narrative reviews, descriptive reviews follow a systematic and transparent procedure, including searching, screening and classifying studies (Petersen, Vakkalanka, & Kuzniarz, 2015). Indeed, structured search methods are used to form a representative sample of a larger group of published works (Paré et al., 2015). Farther, authors of descriptive reviews extract from each written report certain characteristics of interest, such as publication year, inquiry methods, information collection techniques, and direction or force of research outcomes (e.g., positive, negative, or non-significant) in the form of frequency analysis to produce quantitative results (Sylvester et al., 2013). In essence, each written report included in a descriptive review is treated as the unit of measurement of analysis and the published literature equally a whole provides a database from which the authors attempt to place any interpretable trends or draw overall conclusions about the merits of existing conceptualizations, propositions, methods or findings (Paré et al., 2015). In doing so, a descriptive review may claim that its findings represent the state of the fine art in a particular domain (Male monarch & He, 2005).

In the fields of wellness sciences and medical informatics, reviews that focus on examining the range, nature and evolution of a topic area are described by Anderson, Allen, Peckham, and Goodwin (2008) as mapping reviews. Like descriptive reviews, the research questions are generic and normally relate to publication patterns and trends. There is no preconceived plan to systematically review all of the literature although this can be done. Instead, researchers oft present studies that are representative of well-nigh works published in a item area and they consider a specific time frame to exist mapped.

An example of this approach in the eHealth domain is offered past DeShazo, Lavallie, and Wolf (2009). The purpose of this descriptive or mapping review was to characterize publication trends in the medical computer science literature over a twenty-year menses (1987 to 2006). To achieve this ambitious objective, the authors performed a bibliometric analysis of medical computer science citations indexed in medline using publication trends, journal frequencies, impact factors, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) term frequencies, and characteristics of citations. Findings revealed that in that location were over 77,000 medical informatics articles published during the covered period in numerous journals and that the boilerplate annual growth rate was 12%. The MeSH term analysis likewise suggested a strong interdisciplinary trend. Finally, average impact scores increased over time with two notable growth periods. Overall, patterns in research outputs that seem to narrate the historic trends and current components of the field of medical informatics suggest information technology may be a maturing bailiwick (DeShazo et al., 2009).

nine.3.three. Scoping Reviews

Scoping reviews endeavor to provide an initial indication of the potential size and nature of the extant literature on an emergent topic (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005; Daudt, van Mossel, & Scott, 2013; Levac, Colquhoun, & O'Brien, 2010). A scoping review may exist conducted to examine the extent, range and nature of inquiry activities in a detail expanse, determine the value of undertaking a full systematic review (discussed next), or identify research gaps in the extant literature (Paré et al., 2015). In line with their primary objective, scoping reviews usually conclude with the presentation of a detailed research agenda for future works forth with potential implications for both exercise and inquiry.

Unlike narrative and descriptive reviews, the whole betoken of scoping the field is to be as comprehensive equally possible, including greyness literature (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005). Inclusion and exclusion criteria must be established to assist researchers eliminate studies that are not aligned with the research questions. It is also recommended that at to the lowest degree 2 contained coders review abstracts yielded from the search strategy and so the total articles for report option (Daudt et al., 2013). The synthesized evidence from content or thematic analysis is relatively easy to present in tabular class (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005; Thomas & Harden, 2008).

One of the virtually highly cited scoping reviews in the eHealth domain was published by Archer, Fevrier-Thomas, Lokker, McKibbon, and Straus (2011). These authors reviewed the existing literature on personal health tape (phr) systems including blueprint, functionality, implementation, applications, outcomes, and benefits. Seven databases were searched from 1985 to March 2010. Several search terms relating to phrs were used during this process. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts to make up one's mind inclusion status. A second screen of full-text articles, again by two independent members of the research squad, ensured that the studies described phrs. All in all, 130 articles met the criteria and their data were extracted manually into a database. The authors concluded that although at that place is a large amount of survey, observational, cohort/panel, and anecdotal evidence of phr benefits and satisfaction for patients, more than enquiry is needed to evaluate the results of phr implementations. Their in-depth analysis of the literature signalled that there is little solid evidence from randomized controlled trials or other studies through the employ of phrs. Hence, they suggested that more research is needed that addresses the current lack of understanding of optimal functionality and usability of these systems, and how they tin play a beneficial role in supporting patient self-management (Archer et al., 2011).

ix.3.four. Forms of Aggregative Reviews

Healthcare providers, practitioners, and policy-makers are nowadays overwhelmed with large volumes of information, including research-based bear witness from numerous clinical trials and evaluation studies, assessing the effectiveness of health information technologies and interventions (Ammenwerth & de Keizer, 2004; Deshazo et al., 2009). Information technology is unrealistic to await that all these disparate actors will have the time, skills, and necessary resources to identify the available prove in the area of their expertise and consider information technology when making decisions. Systematic reviews that involve the rigorous application of scientific strategies aimed at limiting subjectivity and bias (i.e., systematic and random errors) can respond to this challenge.

Systematic reviews effort to aggregate, assess, and synthesize in a single source all empirical evidence that see a fix of previously specified eligibility criteria in club to answer a clearly formulated and often narrow research question on a particular topic of interest to back up evidence-based practice (Liberati et al., 2009). They adhere closely to explicit scientific principles (Liberati et al., 2009) and rigorous methodological guidelines (Higgins & Light-green, 2008) aimed at reducing random and systematic errors that can lead to deviations from the truth in results or inferences. The use of explicit methods allows systematic reviews to aggregate a large body of research testify, appraise whether effects or relationships are in the same direction and of the aforementioned full general magnitude, explicate possible inconsistencies betwixt study results, and decide the strength of the overall evidence for every outcome of interest based on the quality of included studies and the full general consistency amidst them (Cook, Mulrow, & Haynes, 1997). The principal procedures of a systematic review involve:

Formulating a review question and developing a search strategy based on explicit inclusion criteria for the identification of eligible studies (normally described in the context of a detailed review protocol).
Searching for eligible studies using multiple databases and information sources, including grey literature sources, without any language restrictions.
Selecting studies, extracting information, and assessing risk of bias in a duplicate fashion using two independent reviewers to avoid random or systematic errors in the process.
Analyzing information using quantitative or qualitative methods.
Presenting results in summary of findings tables.
Interpreting results and cartoon conclusions.

Many systematic reviews, but not all, use statistical methods to combine the results of independent studies into a single quantitative approximate or summary effect size. Known as meta-analyses, these reviews utilise specific data extraction and statistical techniques (e.g., network, frequentist, or Bayesian meta-analyses) to calculate from each study by outcome of interest an outcome size forth with a confidence interval that reflects the caste of uncertainty behind the point estimate of event (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009; Deeks, Higgins, & Altman, 2008). Subsequently, they apply fixed or random-furnishings analysis models to combine the results of the included studies, assess statistical heterogeneity, and calculate a weighted average of the effect estimates from the dissimilar studies, taking into business relationship their sample sizes. The summary effect size is a value that reflects the boilerplate magnitude of the intervention event for a detail outcome of interest or, more generally, the strength of a relationship between 2 variables beyond all studies included in the systematic review. Past statistically combining data from multiple studies, meta-analyses can create more than precise and reliable estimates of intervention effects than those derived from private studies solitary, when these are examined independently as discrete sources of information.

The review by Gurol-Urganci, de Jongh, Vodopivec-Jamsek, Atun, and Auto (2013) on the effects of mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments is an illustrative instance of a high-quality systematic review with meta-analysis. Missed appointments are a major cause of inefficiency in healthcare delivery with substantial budgetary costs to health systems. These authors sought to assess whether mobile phone-based appointment reminders delivered through Short Bulletin Service (sms) or Multimedia Messaging Service (mms) are effective in improving rates of patient attendance and reducing overall costs. To this terminate, they conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases using highly sensitive search strategies without language or publication-type restrictions to identify all rcts that are eligible for inclusion. In order to minimize the chance of omitting eligible studies non captured past the original search, they supplemented all electronic searches with transmission screening of trial registers and references contained in the included studies. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were performed independently past two coders using standardized methods to ensure consistency and to eliminate potential errors. Findings from eight rctsouth involving 6,615 participants were pooled into meta-analyses to calculate the magnitude of furnishings that mobile text message reminders accept on the rate of attendance at healthcare appointments compared to no reminders and phone telephone call reminders.

Meta-analyses are regarded equally powerful tools for deriving meaningful conclusions. However, there are situations in which it is neither reasonable nor advisable to puddle studies together using meta-analytic methods simply because there is extensive clinical heterogeneity between the included studies or variation in measurement tools, comparisons, or outcomes of interest. In these cases, systematic reviews can utilize qualitative synthesis methods such every bit vote counting, content analysis, classification schemes and tabulations, as an alternative arroyo to narratively synthesize the results of the independent studies included in the review. This grade of review is known equally qualitative systematic review.

A rigorous case of one such review in the eHealth domain is presented by Mickan, Atherton, Roberts, Heneghan, and Tilson (2014) on the apply of handheld computers by healthcare professionals and their affect on admission to data and clinical decision-making. In line with the methodological guidelines for systematic reviews, these authors: (a) developed and registered with prospero (www.crd.york.air-conditioning.u.k./prospero/) an a priori review protocol; (b) conducted comprehensive searches for eligible studies using multiple databases and other supplementary strategies (e.g., forrard searches); and (c) subsequently carried out study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments in a indistinguishable manner to eliminate potential errors in the review process. Heterogeneity between the included studies in terms of reported outcomes and measures precluded the use of meta-analytic methods. To this terminate, the authors resorted to using narrative assay and synthesis to draw the effectiveness of handheld computers on accessing data for clinical knowledge, adherence to prophylactic and clinical quality guidelines, and diagnostic decision-making.

In recent years, the number of systematic reviews in the field of health informatics has increased considerably. Systematic reviews with discordant findings tin cause nifty confusion and brand it difficult for decision-makers to interpret the review-level bear witness (Moher, 2013). Therefore, there is a growing need for appraisal and synthesis of prior systematic reviews to ensure that decision-making is constantly informed by the best available accumulated show. Umbrella reviews, also known as overviews of systematic reviews, are tertiary types of evidence synthesis that aim to reach this; that is, they aim to compare and contrast findings from multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Becker & Oxman, 2008). Umbrella reviews by and large attach to the same principles and rigorous methodological guidelines used in systematic reviews. However, the unit of analysis in umbrella reviews is the systematic review rather than the master written report (Becker & Oxman, 2008). Different systematic reviews that accept a narrow focus of research, umbrella reviews focus on broader research topics for which there are several potential interventions (Smith, Devane, Begley, & Clarke, 2011). A recent umbrella review on the effects of domicile telemonitoring interventions for patients with heart failure critically appraised, compared, and synthesized testify from 15 systematic reviews to investigate which types of habitation telemonitoring technologies and forms of interventions are more than effective in reducing bloodshed and infirmary admissions (Kitsiou, Paré, & Jaana, 2015).

ix.3.5. Realist Reviews

Realist reviews are theory-driven interpretative reviews developed to inform, enhance, or supplement conventional systematic reviews past making sense of heterogeneous bear witness nigh circuitous interventions practical in diverse contexts in a way that informs policy decision-making (Greenhalgh, Wong, Westhorp, & Pawson, 2011). They originated from criticisms of positivist systematic reviews which centre on their "simplistic" underlying assumptions (Oates, 2011). As explained in a higher place, systematic reviews seek to place causation. Such logic is advisable for fields similar medicine and instruction where findings of randomized controlled trials can be aggregated to see whether a new treatment or intervention does meliorate outcomes. However, many argue that it is not possible to plant such straight causal links betwixt interventions and outcomes in fields such as social policy, direction, and information systems where for whatsoever intervention there is unlikely to be a regular or consistent upshot (Oates, 2011; Pawson, 2006; Rousseau, Manning, & Denyer, 2008).

To circumvent these limitations, Pawson, Greenhalgh, Harvey, and Walshe (2005) take proposed a new approach for synthesizing knowledge that seeks to unpack the mechanism of how "complex interventions" work in particular contexts. The basic research question — what works? — which is usually associated with systematic reviews changes to: what is it about this intervention that works, for whom, in what circumstances, in what respects and why? Realist reviews have no particular preference for either quantitative or qualitative evidence. Every bit a theory-building approach, a realist review usually starts by articulating likely underlying mechanisms and and so scrutinizes available prove to notice out whether and where these mechanisms are applicable (Shepperd et al., 2009). Primary studies plant in the extant literature are viewed as case studies which can test and alter the initial theories (Rousseau et al., 2008).

The principal objective pursued in the realist review conducted past Otte-Trojel, de Bont, Rundall, and van de Klundert (2014) was to examine how patient portals contribute to health service delivery and patient outcomes. The specific goals were to investigate how outcomes are produced and, nearly importantly, how variations in outcomes can be explained. The research team started with an exploratory review of background documents and research studies to identify ways in which patient portals may contribute to health service delivery and patient outcomes. The authors identified six master ways which correspond "educated guesses" to be tested against the data in the evaluation studies. These studies were identified through a formal and systematic search in four databases between 2003 and 2013. 2 members of the inquiry team selected the articles using a pre-established listing of inclusion and exclusion criteria and following a two-pace procedure. The authors and so extracted information from the selected articles and created several tables, one for each outcome category. They organized information to bring forward those mechanisms where patient portals contribute to outcomes and the variation in outcomes across dissimilar contexts.

9.3.half dozen. Critical Reviews

Lastly, critical reviews aim to provide a critical evaluation and interpretive analysis of existing literature on a particular topic of interest to reveal strengths, weaknesses, contradictions, controversies, inconsistencies, and/or other important bug with respect to theories, hypotheses, research methods or results (Baumeister & Leary, 1997; Kirkevold, 1997). Unlike other review types, disquisitional reviews effort to accept a reflective account of the inquiry that has been done in a particular area of interest, and assess its credibility past using appraisal instruments or critical interpretive methods. In this way, critical reviews attempt to constructively inform other scholars about the weaknesses of prior research and strengthen cognition development by giving focus and management to studies for farther improvement (Kirkevold, 1997).

Kitsiou, Paré, and Jaana (2013) provide an example of a critical review that assessed the methodological quality of prior systematic reviews of abode telemonitoring studies for chronic patients. The authors conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases to identify eligible reviews and afterward used a validated instrument to conduct an in-depth quality appraisal. Results indicate that the majority of systematic reviews in this particular area suffer from important methodological flaws and biases that impair their internal validity and limit their usefulness for clinical and decision-making purposes. To this terminate, they provide a number of recommendations to strengthen noesis development towards improving the design and execution of hereafter reviews on dwelling house telemonitoring.

ix.4. Summary

Table 9.i outlines the main types of literature reviews that were described in the previous sub-sections and summarizes the main characteristics that distinguish i review blazon from another. Information technology besides includes cardinal references to methodological guidelines and useful sources that can be used by eHealth scholars and researchers for planning and developing reviews.

Table nine.one

Typology of Literature Reviews (adapted from Paré et al., 2015).

Every bit shown in Table 9.1, each review type addresses different kinds of research questions or objectives, which afterward define and dictate the methods and approaches that demand to be used to achieve the overarching goal(s) of the review. For example, in the case of narrative reviews, there is greater flexibility in searching and synthesizing articles (Green et al., 2006). Researchers are oft relatively gratuitous to use a diversity of approaches to search, identify, and select relevant scientific articles, describe their operational characteristics, present how the individual studies fit together, and formulate conclusions. On the other manus, systematic reviews are characterized by their high level of systematicity, rigour, and apply of explicit methods, based on an "a priori" review plan that aims to minimize bias in the assay and synthesis procedure (Higgins & Light-green, 2008). Some reviews are exploratory in nature (e.g., scoping/mapping reviews), whereas others may be conducted to discover patterns (east.yard., descriptive reviews) or involve a synthesis approach that may include the disquisitional analysis of prior research (Paré et al., 2015). Hence, in guild to select the almost appropriate blazon of review, it is disquisitional to know before embarking on a review project, why the research synthesis is conducted and what type of methods are best aligned with the pursued goals.

nine.v. Concluding Remarks

In light of the increased use of evidence-based practice and research generating stronger evidence (Grady et al., 2011; Lyden et al., 2013), review articles accept become essential tools for summarizing, synthesizing, integrating or critically appraising prior knowledge in the eHealth field. As mentioned earlier, when rigorously conducted review articles stand for powerful information sources for eHealth scholars and practitioners looking for state-of-the-art evidence. The typology of literature reviews we used herein will allow eHealth researchers, graduate students and practitioners to gain a better understanding of the similarities and differences between review types.

Nosotros must stress that this classification scheme does not privilege any specific type of review as being of higher quality than some other (Paré et al., 2015). Every bit explained above, each type of review has its own strengths and limitations. Having said that, we realize that the methodological rigour of any review — exist it qualitative, quantitative or mixed — is a disquisitional aspect that should be considered seriously by prospective authors. In the present context, the notion of rigour refers to the reliability and validity of the review process described in section 9.2. For one thing, reliability is related to the reproducibility of the review process and steps, which is facilitated by a comprehensive documentation of the literature search process, extraction, coding and analysis performed in the review. Whether the search is comprehensive or not, whether it involves a methodical approach for data extraction and synthesis or not, it is important that the review documents in an explicit and transparent manner the steps and arroyo that were used in the procedure of its development. Adjacent, validity characterizes the degree to which the review process was conducted accordingly. It goes across documentation and reflects decisions related to the selection of the sources, the search terms used, the menses of time covered, the articles selected in the search, and the awarding of backward and forrad searches (vom Brocke et al., 2009). In short, the rigour of any review article is reflected by the explicitness of its methods (i.east., transparency) and the soundness of the approach used. We refer those interested in the concepts of rigour and quality to the piece of work of Templier and Paré (2015) which offers a detailed set of methodological guidelines for conducting and evaluating various types of review manufactures.

To conclude, our main objective in this affiliate was to demystify the various types of literature reviews that are fundamental to the continuous evolution of the eHealth field. Information technology is our hope that our descriptive account will serve as a valuable source for those conducting, evaluating or using reviews in this important and growing domain.

References

Ammenwerth E., de Keizer N. An inventory of evaluation studies of information engineering in health care. Trends in evaluation inquiry, 1982-2002. International Journal of Medical Information science. 2004;44(i):44–56. [PubMed: 15778794]
Anderson S., Allen P., Peckham Southward., Goodwin N. Asking the right questions: scoping studies in the commissioning of research on the organisation and commitment of health services. Wellness Research Policy and Systems. 2008;6(7):one–12. [PMC free commodity: PMC2500008] [PubMed: 18613961] [CrossRef]
Archer North., Fevrier-Thomas U., Lokker C., McKibbon Thousand. A., Straus S.Eastward. Personal health records: a scoping review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association. 2011;18(iv):515–522. [PMC free article: PMC3128401] [PubMed: 21672914]
Arksey H., O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Enquiry Methodology. 2005;8(i):nineteen–32.
A systematic, tool-supported method for conducting literature reviews in data systems. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 19th European Briefing on Information Systems (ecis 2011); June 9 to 11; Helsinki, Finland. 2011.
Baumeister R. F., Leary M.R. Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology. 1997;1(3):311–320.
Becker L. A., Oxman A.D. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Greenish Southward., editors. Hoboken, nj: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Overviews of reviews; pp. 607–631.
Borenstein One thousand., Hedges L., Higgins J., Rothstein H. Introduction to meta-analysis. Hoboken, nj: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2009.
Melt D. J., Mulrow C. D., Haynes B. Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1997;126(5):376–380. [PubMed: 9054282]
Cooper H., Hedges L.V. In: The handbook of research synthesis and meta-assay. 2nd ed. Cooper H., Hedges L. V., Valentine J. C., editors. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2009. Inquiry synthesis as a scientific process; pp. 3–17.
Cooper H. Yard. Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Cognition in Social club. 1988;one(one):104–126.
Cronin P., Ryan F., Coughlan Yard. Undertaking a literature review: a footstep-past-step approach. British Journal of Nursing. 2008;17(1):38–43. [PubMed: 18399395]
Darlow Southward., Wen M.Y. Evolution testing of mobile health interventions for cancer patient self-management: A review. Wellness Informatics Journal. 2015 (online before print). [PubMed: 25916831] [CrossRef]
Daudt H. Thou., van Mossel C., Scott Due south.J. Enhancing the scoping report methodology: a large, inter-professional person squad's experience with Arksey and O'Malley's framework. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2013;xiii:48. [PMC complimentary article: PMC3614526] [PubMed: 23522333] [CrossRef]
Davies P. The relevance of systematic reviews to educational policy and practice. Oxford Review of Education. 2000;26(3-4):365–378.
Deeks J. J., Higgins J. P. T., Altman D.Thousand. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Green Southward., editors. Hoboken, nj: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Analysing information and undertaking meta-analyses; pp. 243–296.
Deshazo J. P., Lavallie D. L., Wolf F.M. Publication trends in the medical informatics literature: 20 years of "Medical Informatics" in mesh. bmc Medical Computer science and Decision Making. 2009;ix:7. [PMC free article: PMC2652453] [PubMed: 19159472] [CrossRef]
Dixon-Woods Thousand., Agarwal Due south., Jones D., Immature B., Sutton A. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. Journal of Health Services Enquiry and Policy. 2005;ten(one):45–53. [PubMed: 15667704]
Finfgeld-Connett D., Johnson E.D. Literature search strategies for conducting knowledge-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2013;69(1):194–204. [PMC gratis article: PMC3424349] [PubMed: 22591030]
Grady B., Myers K. M., Nelson Due east. 50., Belz North., Bennett Fifty., Carnahan 50. … Guidelines Working Group. Evidence-based practise for telemental wellness. Telemedicine Periodical and E Health. 2011;17(2):131–148. [PubMed: 21385026]
Green B. N., Johnson C. D., Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine. 2006;5(three):101–117. [PMC free commodity: PMC2647067] [PubMed: 19674681]
Greenhalgh T., Wong G., Westhorp G., Pawson R. Protocol–realist and meta-narrative bear witness synthesis: evolving standards (rameses). bmc Medical Inquiry Methodology. 2011;eleven:115. [PMC gratis article: PMC3173389] [PubMed: 21843376]
Gurol-Urganci I., de Jongh T., Vodopivec-Jamsek 5., Atun R., Automobile J. Mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments. Cochrane Database Organization Review. 2013;12 cd007458. [PMC free article: PMC6485985] [PubMed: 24310741] [CrossRef]
Hart C. Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science inquiry imagination. London: SAGE Publications; 1998.
Higgins J. P. T., Dark-green S., editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: Cochrane volume series. Hoboken, nj: Wiley-Blackwell; 2008.
Jesson J., Matheson L., Lacey F.Yard. Doing your literature review: traditional and systematic techniques. Los Angeles & London: SAGE Publications; 2011.
King Due west. R., He J. Agreement the role and methods of meta-analysis in IS research. Communications of the Association for Data Systems. 2005;xvi:ane.
Kirkevold Yard. Integrative nursing research — an important strategy to further the development of nursing science and nursing practice. Periodical of Advanced Nursing. 1997;25(v):977–984. [PubMed: 9147203]
Kitchenham B., Charters S. ebse Technical Report Version two.3. Keele & Durham. uk: Keele Academy & University of Durham; 2007. Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering.
Kitsiou S., Paré G., Jaana 1000. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of habitation telemonitoring interventions for patients with chronic diseases: a critical assessment of their methodological quality. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2013;15(7):e150. [PMC complimentary article: PMC3785977] [PubMed: 23880072]
Kitsiou S., Paré G., Jaana M. Effects of home telemonitoring interventions on patients with chronic centre failure: an overview of systematic reviews. Journal of Medical Cyberspace Inquiry. 2015;17(3):e63. [PMC complimentary article: PMC4376138] [PubMed: 25768664]
Levy Y., Ellis T.J. A systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in support of data systems research. Informing Science. 2006;9:181–211.
Liberati A., Altman D. G., Tetzlaff J., Mulrow C., Gøtzsche P. C., Ioannidis J. P. A. et al. Moher D. The prisma statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate wellness care interventions: Caption and elaboration. Register of Internal Medicine. 2009;151(4):W-65. [PubMed: 19622512]
Lyden J. R., Zickmund Southward. L., Bhargava T. D., Bryce C. 50., Conroy M. B., Fischer G. Southward. et al. McTigue 1000. M. Implementing health data engineering in a patient-centered fashion: Patient experiences with an online evidence-based lifestyle intervention. Journal for Healthcare Quality. 2013;35(5):47–57. [PubMed: 24004039]
Mickan S., Atherton H., Roberts Due north. W., Heneghan C., Tilson J.K. Use of handheld computers in clinical practise: a systematic review. bmc Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2014;14:56. [PMC free article: PMC4099138] [PubMed: 24998515]
Moher D. The problem of duplicate systematic reviews. British Medical Journal. 2013;347(5040) [PubMed: 23945367] [CrossRef]
Montori 5. M., Wilczynski N. L., Morgan D., Haynes R. B., Hedges T. Systematic reviews: a cross-sectional report of location and citation counts. bmc Medicine. 2003;1:2. [PMC free article: PMC281591] [PubMed: 14633274]
Mulrow C. D. The medical review commodity: land of the scientific discipline. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1987;106(3):485–488. [PubMed: 3813259] [CrossRef]
Okoli C., Schabram K. A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of data systems inquiry. ssrn Electronic Journal. 2010
Otte-Trojel T., de Bont A., Rundall T. M., van de Klundert J. How outcomes are achieved through patient portals: a realist review. Journal of American Medical Computer science Association. 2014;21(iv):751–757. [PMC gratis commodity: PMC4078283] [PubMed: 24503882]
Paré G., Trudel Yard.-C., Jaana M., Kitsiou S. Synthesizing information systems cognition: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Direction. 2015;52(two):183–199.
Patsopoulos N. A., Analatos A. A., Ioannidis J.P. A. Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2005;293(19):2362–2366. [PubMed: 15900006]
Paul K. M., Greene C. M., Newton-Dame R., Thorpe Fifty. Due east., Perlman Due south. E., McVeigh K. H., Gourevitch One thousand.Northward. The state of population health surveillance using electronic health records: A narrative review. Population Health Direction. 2015;18(three):209–216. [PubMed: 25608033]
Pawson R. Evidence-based policy: a realist perspective. London: SAGE Publications; 2006.
Pawson R., Greenhalgh T., Harvey G., Walshe K. Realist review—a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Journal of Wellness Services Inquiry & Policy. 2005;10(Suppl 1):21–34. [PubMed: 16053581]
Petersen K., Vakkalanka S., Kuzniarz L. Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update. Information and Software Technology. 2015;64:1–18.
Petticrew M., Roberts H. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malden, ma: Blackwell Publishing Co; 2006.
Rousseau D. M., Manning J., Denyer D. Evidence in direction and organizational science: Assembling the field's full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses. The Academy of Management Annals. 2008;2(1):475–515.
Rowe F. What literature review is non: multifariousness, boundaries and recommendations. European Periodical of Information Systems. 2014;23(iii):241–255.
Shea B. J., Hamel C., Wells G. A., Bouter L. One thousand., Kristjansson Eastward., Grimshaw J. et al. Boers M. amstar is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2009;62(10):1013–1020. [PubMed: 19230606]
Shepperd S., Lewin Southward., Straus S., Clarke M., Eccles M. P., Fitzpatrick R. et al. Sheikh A. Can we systematically review studies that evaluate complex interventions? PLoS Medicine. 2009;vi(eight):e1000086. [PMC gratis article: PMC2717209] [PubMed: 19668360]
Silva B. M., Rodrigues J. J., de la Torre Díez I., López-Coronado 1000., Saleem K. Mobile-health: A review of current state in 2015. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2015;56:265–272. [PubMed: 26071682]
Smith V., Devane D., Begley C., Clarke Yard. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2011;11(i):15. [PMC free article: PMC3039637] [PubMed: 21291558]
Sylvester A., Tate 1000., Johnstone D. Beyond synthesis: re-presenting heterogeneous research literature. Behaviour & It. 2013;32(12):1199–1215.
Templier Thou., Paré 1000. A framework for guiding and evaluating literature reviews. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2015;37(half dozen):112–137.
Thomas J., Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2008;eight(1):45. [PMC free article: PMC2478656] [PubMed: 18616818]
Reconstructing the giant: on the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Information Systems (ecis 2009); Verona, Italy. 2009.
Webster J., Watson R.T. Analyzing the past to prepare for the time to come: Writing a literature review. Management Information Systems Quarterly. 2002;26(two):11.
Whitlock E. P., Lin J. Southward., Chou R., Shekelle P., Robinson K.A. Using existing systematic reviews in complex systematic reviews. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2008;148(x):776–782. [PubMed: 18490690]

smithlecests.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK481583/