The Results Section Literature Review is a crucial component of any academic or research paper.

It
involves a comprehensive examination and analysis of existing literature related to the results
obtained from the study. However, crafting a literature review for the results section can be an
arduous task for many researchers and students alike.

Writing a literature review requires extensive research, critical thinking, and analytical skills. It
involves synthesizing information from various sources, evaluating their relevance, and presenting a
coherent narrative that supports the findings of the study. Moreover, it demands meticulous attention
to detail and adherence to academic conventions and standards.

One of the biggest challenges in writing a literature review for the results section is ensuring that it
effectively contextualizes and interprets the findings in relation to existing scholarship. This requires
a deep understanding of the subject matter and the ability to identify relevant studies that contribute
to the understanding of the research problem.

Furthermore, organizing the literature review in a logical and coherent manner can be daunting,
especially when dealing with a vast amount of information. Striking the right balance between
summarizing existing research and providing critical analysis can be challenging for many writers.

Given the complexity and challenges associated with writing a literature review for the results
section, it's no surprise that many researchers and students seek assistance. ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔
offers professional writing services to help you tackle this daunting task with ease. Our team of
experienced writers specializes in crafting high-quality literature reviews that adhere to academic
standards and guidelines.

By entrusting your literature review to ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔, you can save time and effort while
ensuring that your paper meets the highest standards of quality and excellence. Don't let the
challenges of writing a literature review hinder your academic success. Order now and experience
the difference that our expert writers can make!
INTRODUCTION Information generated from a well conducted systematic review provides the
highest level of evidence to guide clinical practice. 1 There has been an increased number of
systematic reviews being published in biomedical journals in recent times (according to PubMed,
over 40,000 last year). 2, 3 Hence, it is important that such manuscripts are written in an easily
understandable style to allow the clinical effectiveness information to be disseminated effectively.
While all reviews combat information overload in the health sciences by summarizing the literature
on a topic, different types of reviews have different approaches. It should indicate whether the
studies identified were sufficient to address all of the objectives of the review, and whether all
relevant types of participants, interventions and outcomes have been investigated. Review authors
should avoid repeating all the results of the synthesis, but be careful to ensure that all summary
statements made in the Discussion are supported by and consistent with the results presented
elsewhere in the review. An example of such a policy recommendation can be found in united states
of america, where gonzalez (2001) identifies the 1998 boyer. The language will be as plain and as
unambiguous as possible. If relevant, any tools or checklists used (such as ROB-ME, ) should be
cited.See Chapter 13 for a description of methods for assessing risk of bias due to missing results in
a synthesis. Giving a summary of data from studies is acceptable only when comparisons are being
made. Authors should make themselves aware of the restrictions in place on funding of Cochrane
Reviews by commercial sources where conflicts of interest may arise. Plus, by compiling all findings
together in a clear, and straightforward manner, you allow the results to start speaking for
themselves. Look at how the review is done by covering key information from the study while. We
thank Sue Brennan, Rachel Churchill, Robin Featherstone, Ruth Foxlee, Kayleigh Kew, Nuala
Livingstone and Denise Mitchell for their feedback on this chapter. Sometimes scoping reviews are
an exploratory preparation step for a systematic review, and sometimes they are a standalone project.
Avoiding Deja Vu All Over Again Avoiding Deja Vu All Over Again No Full Text. Like an abstract,
a PLS gives an overview of your study, but is specifically written and formatted to be easy for non-
experts to understand. The findings of the study quality assessment should be then described in
order for the peer reviewers and readers to determine the robustness of the evidence from the review.
If the systematic review is registered, authors should cite the review’s registration record number
Data, code and other materials: Cochrane requires, as a condition for publication, that the data
supporting the results in systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews be made available for users, and that authors provide a data availability statement. Some
reviews present these as separately headed sections. Sensitivity analysis: If any sensitivity analyses
were performed to explore the robustness of meta-analysis results, review authors should specify the
basis of each analysis (e.g. removal of studies at high risk of bias, imputing alternative estimates of
missing standard deviations). Beware that the Abstract needs to be able to standalone, being fully
interpretable without the need for referring to the main article text. Regardless, Bem (2003) suggests
the following basic structure for discussing each new result. The PRISMA Flow Diagram can be
downloaded in Word files. Learn how to write imrad outline for your reports and follow the
guidelines precisely. Using common lisp, this is equivalent to: When do i use the imrad format.
Literature Review dalam Bahasa Melayu biasanya dikenali sebagai. Giving a summary of data from
studies is acceptable only when comparisons are being made. One way to do this is to begin the
literature review by summarizing your argument even before you begin to make it. “In this article, I
will describe two apparently contradictory phenomena, present a new theory that has the potential to
resolve the apparent contradiction, and finally present a novel hypothesis to test the theory.” Another
way is to open each paragraph with a sentence that summarizes the main point of the paragraph and
links it to the preceding points. Your strategy will depend on your field and your research question,
but sources generally fall into these four categories: Databases: Search multiple databases of peer-
reviewed literature, such as PubMed or Scopus. Eligible study designs should be described, with a
focus on specific features of a study’s design rather than design labels (e.g. how groups were
formed, whether the intervention was assigned to individuals or clusters of individuals) ( Reeves et
al 2017 ).
The standard structure of the main text of a paper, abbreviated in the acronym IMRaD, applies
equally to systematic reviews as it does to any other kinds of research types including laboratory
experiments and clinical trials. If the review considered equity, discuss the equity-related
implications for practice and policy. Forest plots created in RevMan typically illustrate: 1. Abstract
the abstract is a short version of the full paper. PDF How to write a systematic literature review: a
guide for medical students systematic literature review attempts 'to identify, appraise and synthesize
all the empirical evidence that meets pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a given research
question' (Cochrane definition, 2013). Step 6: Synthesize the data Synthesizing the data means
bringing together the information you collected into a single, cohesive story. When using either of
these tools, some specific information is needed in this section of the Methods. Quick overview of
the process: Steps and resources from the UMB HSHSL Guide. For these reasons, transparent
reporting is an essential component of all systematic reviews. Subscribe and get curated reads that
will help you write an excellent manuscript. Implications for how research might be done and
reported (e.g. the need for randomized trials rather than other types of study, for better descriptions
of interventions, or for the routine collection of patient-important outcomes) should be distinguished
from what future research should be done (e.g. research in particular subgroups of people, or an as-
yet-untested experimental intervention). In applied research, it might describe a phenomenon or
theory, then describe how that phenomenon or theory applies to some important real-world situation,
and finally suggest a way to test whether it does, in fact, apply to that situation. Journals and
publishers might impose word and section limits, and limits on the number of tables and figures
allowed in the main report. MJP and JEM presented proposals at the development meeting.
Literature reviews are set up similarly to other academic texts, with an introduction, a main body,
and a conclusion. The Abstract of a systematic review: The most important section of the manuscript
is the Abstract as editors and peer reviewers as well as most general readership tend to scrutinise this
part of the manuscript in the first instance. The following publication has been used to supply
annotated examples of the abstract, introduction, discussion and conclusion. What are new research
results and discussion sample research paper to explore based on your findings. More detailed
assessments, including the consensus responses to each signalling question and comments to support
each response, can be made available as an additional file in a publicly available data repository.
Hence, the challenge here is for these articles to provide the relevant information documenting
accurately with as little print space as possible. They mostly come from the book or at least the
reliable source. Ultimately, we hope that uptake of the guideline will lead to more transparent,
complete, and accurate reporting of systematic reviews, thus facilitating evidence based decision
making. References: Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Abstracts of
Cochrane Reviews are made freely available on the internet and published in bibliographic databases
that index the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (e.g. MEDLINE, Embase). Some readers
may be unable to access the full review, or the full text may not have been translated into their
language, so abstracts may be the only source they have to understand the review results ( Beller et
al 2013 ). In the Results section, a brief narrative summary of the included studies should be
presented. Steps of a Systematic Review Image by TraceyChandler. An example of such a policy
recommendation can be found in united states of america, where gonzalez (2001) identifies the 1998
boyer. Implications for practice: In this section, review authors should provide a general
interpretation of the evidence so that it can inform healthcare or policy decisions. Wherever possible,
results should be presented in a consistent format (e.g. an estimate of effect such as a risk ratio or
mean difference with a confidence interval, which may be calculable from the available data even if
not presented in the primary study). A template PRISMA flow diagram is provided, which can be
modified depending on whether the systematic review is original or updated ( fig 1 ).
Dealing with peer review comments: In dealing with peer review comments, it is important that
responses should be submitted within the time period given by the editors dealing with the
submission. These opening sentences provide the “transitions” that many beginning researchers have
difficulty with. For Search Professionals PRISMA provides a list of items to consider when
reporting results. Look at journal guidelines before submitting your article. There may be difference
of opinion over how particular issues should be handled, e.g. heterogeneity is not always easily
explained and there may be unexplained heterogeneity that is unavoidable. Conclusion examples in
research paper case study on a cervical cancer patient essay english international language. Although
you do not have to provide a definitive explanation or detailed theory for your results, you at least
need to outline one or more possible explanations. A second preliminary issue is how multiple
responses were combined to produce the primary variables in the analyses. There are tools like the
PRISMA 2020 checklist and PRISMA Statement provide guidance as to what to include in a review.
They can provide syntheses of the state of knowledge in a field, from which future research
priorities can be identified; they can address questions that otherwise could not be answered by
individual studies; they can identify problems in primary research that should be rectified in future
studies; and they can generate or evaluate theories about how or why phenomena occur. In a short
report with a single study, this might require no more than a sentence. Researchers can create a
method and framework that will be tested. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of
systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and
explanations. Reporting bias assessment: Any methods used to assess the risk of bias due to missing
results should be described. Moreover, examining a single or small set of related interventions,
exposures, or outcomes, will simplify the assessment of studies and the synthesis of the findings.
Summary of main results: It is useful to provide a concise description of results for the main
outcomes of the review, but this should not simply repeat text provided elsewhere. These may
include a network diagram, contribution matrix, forest plot or rankogram (see Chapter 11 for more
details). Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2023; 156: 42-52. Abstracts should be targeted primarily at
healthcare decision makers (clinicians, consumers and policy makers) rather than just to researchers.
A third preliminary issue is the reliability of the measures. Abstracts of Cochrane Reviews are made
freely available on the internet and published in bibliographic databases that index the Cochrane
Database of Systematic Reviews (e.g. MEDLINE, Embase). Some readers may be unable to access
the full review, or the full text may not have been translated into their language, so abstracts may be
the only source they have to understand the review results ( Beller et al 2013 ). Nowadays, it is
common to employ a structured abstract with different subheadings on the Objective, Methods,
Results and Conclusion. 6 This is complementary to the structure of the main text and allows for the
initially drafted Abstract to serve as a building block for the writing of the main text. Systematic
Reviews to support Evidence-Based Medicine. Everything in the reference list is double-spaced both
within and between references. Before starting out on a systematic review, check to see if someone
has done it already. Implications for research: This section of a Cochrane Review is often used by
people making decisions about future research, and review authors should try to write something that
will be useful for this purpose. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis
protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. A review is an overview of the research that’s already been
completed on a topic. The memory aid imrad can help you to focus on the 4 key sections of an
academic abstract: This post provides some quick tips following the imrad structure. This might
mean multiple questionnaires, written vignettes that participants read and respond to, perceptual
stimuli, and so on.
Also, the unattributed reproduction of text from other sources should be avoided. Examples such as
the amount of semesters completed, and gpa of the student. People making decisions about health
care are the target audience for Cochrane Reviews. Any specific methods used to develop the search
strategy, such as automated text analysis or peer review, should also be noted, including methods
used to translate the search strategy for use in different databases. If there is more than one, the
headings are “Appendix A,” “Appendix B,” and so on, and they appear in the order they were first
mentioned in the text of the report. Our virtual tour is mobile-friendly and offers GPS directions to
all campus locations. Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, Synnot A, Nunn J, Hill S, Goodare H,
Watts C, Morley R. Precise writing means drafting the text with accuracy especially with respect to
the methodological and statistical aspects. Look at journal guidelines before submitting your article.
Download figure Open in new tab Download powerpoint We recommend authors refer to PRISMA
2020 early in the writing process, because prospective consideration of the items may help to ensure
that all the items are addressed. They answered the question “What is the effectiveness of probiotics
in reducing eczema symptoms and improving quality of life in patients with eczema?” In this
context, a probiotic is a health product that contains live microorganisms and is taken by mouth.
TCH is supported by an Australian NHMRC Senior Research Fellowship (1154607). Conclusion
examples in research paper case study on a cervical cancer patient essay english international
language. Specifying the dates of coverage of all databases searched and the date of the last search
for which studies were fully incorporated can help users determine how up to date the review is. The
role of the comparator intervention(s) in standard practice should also be made clear. Try to explain
points of similarity or difference by considering the authors’ individual historical perspectives, source
usage, methodology, or structure. Instead of “Materials,” it can be “Questionnaires,” “Stimuli,” and
so on. At a minimum, it consists of a participants subsection and a design and procedure subsection.
This section of the guide will not address every element of formal literature reviews but some of
those that are unique to this type of research and those that seem to engender the most questions..
Results. The results section provides details about your search results, your process for reviewing
those. In addition to summarizing the effects of interventions, review authors should also summarize
the results of any subgroup analyses (or meta-regression), sensitivity analyses, and assessments of the
risk of bias due to missing results (if performed) that are relevant to each synthesis. Literature
reviews are set up similarly to other academic texts, with an introduction, a main body, and a
conclusion. If you’re writing a systematic review as a student for an assignment, you might not have
a team. This feeling of discomfort was called cognitive dissonance by social psychologist Leon
Festinger (1957), who suggested that individuals will be motivated to remove this dissonance in
whatever way they can (p. 191). It is also important that relevant information pertaining to the design
and conduct of a systematic review is reported in the manuscript in order for the internal validity of
the findings to be accepted. A systematic review should provide an answer to the research question,
it is not a broad overview of current trends and gaps in research. The abstract presents the research
question, a summary of the method, the basic results, and the most important conclusions.
INTRODUCTION. Survey camp is a basic necessity camp for civil engineering students to
comprehend how an engineering plan is created. Sometimes, you may want to include a fifth
component, the type of study design. Researchers can create a method and framework that will be
tested. Therefore, you just follow the outline, and everything will be in the proper order.
The summary is often followed by a discussion of the theoretical implications of the research. This
chapter builds on an earlier version of the Handbook ( Version 5, Chapter 4: Guide to the contents of
a Cochrane protocol and review), edited by Julian Higgins and Sally Green. Be sure to provide the
most important points without misrepresenting your study or misleading the reader. Systematic
Reviews and Meta-analysis: Understanding the Best Evidence in Primary Healthcare. Sample of
research paper imrad format, wika ng pambansang kaunlaran essay help, sample leave application
letter for festival, ielts essay number of words. Simplicity and clarity are also vital to readability.
Like other literature reviews, historiographies can be embedded or stand-alone. Types of reviews 1.
Define your research question 2. Synthesis methods other than meta-analysis were commonly used
but seldom specified: survey of systematic reviews. Many journals expect scientific research papers
to be written in the traditional format, which is also referred to as the imrad format (introduction,
materials and methods, results, and discussion). Explain why this has been the case and how these
approaches enhance or limit current understandings of the topic. Analyses and data management are
preferably conducted within Cochrane’s authoring tool, RevMan, for which computational methods
are publicly available. PRISMA 2020 provides the main reporting items for new Cochrane Reviews.
In general, you use them as comparison and justification. Further guidance on planning eligibility
criteria is presented in Chapter 3. III.3.4.2 Outcome measures Review authors should specify the
critical and important outcomes of interest to the review, and define acceptable ways of measuring
them. Contextualization: Enables researchers to understand how their work fits into the broader
academic conversation and contributes to the existing body of knowledge. If you want to know more
about statistics, methodology, or research bias, make sure to check out some of our other articles
with explanations and examples. These sections correspond to the same sections in a completed
review, and further details are outlined in Section III.3. The required reporting items have been
incorporated into a template for protocols for Cochrane Reviews, which is available in Cochrane’s
review production tool, RevMan (see the RevMan Knowledge Base ). Synthesizing means bringing
together different information to tell a single, cohesive story. This is followed by a discussion of the
strengths and limitations of the systematic review in the next paragraphs. Glossary of terms
Systematic review —A review that uses explicit, systematic methods to collate and synthesise
findings of studies that address a clearly formulated question 43 Statistical synthesis —The
combination of quantitative results of two or more studies. She replied that she only had one
question: “Should I tip?” (p. 3). They introduce readers to the surrounding literature while also
situating your work within the larger scholarly discussion on that topic. Communications of the
Association of Information Systems, 37 (43), 879-910. Similarities will work towards strengthening
previously believed viewpoints. Patient and public involvement: Patients and the public were not
involved in this methodological research. Where meta-analysis is planned, details should be specified
of the meta-analysis model (e.g. fixed-effect or random-effects), the specific method used (e.g.
Mantel Haenszel, inverse variance, Peto), and a rationale presented for the options selected.
However, with the availability of online appendices to transparently and fully report the details of
the methods, results and other aspects of the work undertaken allows for a succinct print or PDF
article. It can be tough to face previously held beliefs that your systematic review can go on to
discredit. The readability of Cochrane Reviews should compare to that of a well-written article in a
general medical journal.
When using either of these tools, some specific information is needed in this section of the Methods.
I then had four likert scale questions that had to do with them. Embedded literature reviews,
meanwhile, are part of a larger piece of writing, such as an essay, thesis, or scholarly article. SLRs
may be quantitative (by only reviewing quantitative studies), qualitative (by only reviewing
qualitative studies), or mixed methods (by reviewing both quantitative and qualitative studies).
Systematic reviews therefore generate various types of knowledge for different users of reviews
(such as patients, healthcare providers, researchers, and policy makers). 1 2 To ensure a systematic
review is valuable to users, authors should prepare a transparent, complete, and accurate account of
why the review was done, what they did (such as how studies were identified and selected) and
what they found (such as characteristics of contributing studies and results of meta-analyses).
Authors should make themselves aware of the restrictions in place on funding of Cochrane Reviews
by commercial sources where conflicts of interest may arise. However, we strongly advise against
trying to pass AI-generated text off as your own work. It is often used in health care and the natural
sciences. Unleashing the Power of AI Tools for Enhancing Research, International FDP on. In other
words, your literature review must be balanced. Embedded literature reviews are usually placed near
the beginning of your essay in order to provide your reader with important context as well as to
situate your work within the wider body of research on your topic. How can the results be used, and
by whom, to accomplish some real-world goal. 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. If relevant, any objectives relating to the evaluation of economic
or qualitative evidence should be stated. Systematic reviews are characterized by a methodical and
replicable methodology and presentation. Note that a “report” could be a journal article, preprint,
conference abstract, study register entry, clinical study report, dissertation, unpublished manuscript,
government report or any other document providing relevant information. Source: tse1.mm.bing.net
The memory aid imrad can help you to focus on the 4 key sections of an academic abstract: Cricket
essay research format the paper a of organization imrad stat test example essay, upsc essay paper
questions expository essay on cell phones introduction of no homework policy argumentative essay,
nike hr case study economics grade 12 essays pdf 2018. To get the most out of an article for the least
amount of effort, reading a research article should be done strategically. What makes a systematic
review different from other types of reviews is that the research methods are designed to reduce bias.
Elements of a Systematic Review Elements of a Systematic Review. There are different PRISMA
flow diagram templates for new and updated reviews, as well as different templates for reviews with
and without grey literature searches. Imrad provides an easy roadmap for editors, reviewers, and
readers to follow in reading your paper. Lecturer: NIK ALOESNITA NIK MOHD ALWI Group
Member: SITI MAIMUNAH BT NIKMAT LEONG SEE HIM HEE SITI NURSYAMIMI BT
MOHD NAIM. At the same time, it should avoid irrelevant details such as the fact that the study
was conducted in Classroom 37B of the Industrial Technology Building or that the questionnaire was
double-sided and completed using pencils. Many journals expect scientific research papers to be
written in the traditional format, which is also referred to as the imrad format (introduction,
materials and methods, results, and discussion). Additional headings should be included where
appropriate to describe additional methods implemented in the review, e.g. those specific to the
analysis of qualitative or economic evidence. The use of standardized, systematic methods and pre-
selected eligibility criteria reduce the risk of bias in identifying, selecting and analyzing relevant
studies. Or if you are proposing a new theory, then of course you should discuss findings that are
consistent with that theory. Writing a shorter manuscript is more effortful than writing a longer
report. Do you assume ikea kitchen cabinet doors custom appears to be like nice.