Crafting a literature review, particularly a systematic one focusing on ethics within a specific

domain, presents numerous challenges. It requires not only a comprehensive understanding of the
subject matter but also the ability to sift through a vast array of scholarly articles, books, and other
sources to extract relevant information. Additionally, synthesizing these findings into a coherent
narrative while adhering to academic standards adds another layer of complexity to the task.

One of the primary difficulties in writing a literature review is the sheer volume of literature
available. Navigating through this sea of information to identify pertinent studies that contribute
meaningfully to the topic can be overwhelming. Moreover, ensuring that the selected literature is
current and of high quality adds further complexity to the process.

Another challenge lies in maintaining objectivity and impartiality throughout the review. It's essential
to critically evaluate each source and analyze its strengths and limitations objectively. This requires a
keen analytical eye and the ability to discern bias or conflicting viewpoints within the literature.

Furthermore, organizing the gathered information in a coherent and logical manner is crucial. A
literature review should not only summarize existing research but also identify gaps, contradictions,
and areas for further investigation. This requires careful planning and structuring of the review to
effectively convey the overarching themes and findings.

Given these challenges, many individuals opt to seek assistance from professional writing services
like ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔. By enlisting the expertise of experienced writers, individuals can ensure
that their literature reviews are meticulously crafted, thoroughly researched, and academically sound.
⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔ offers specialized assistance in writing literature reviews on various topics,
including systematic reviews on ethics.

In conclusion, writing a literature review, particularly a systematic one focusing on ethics, is a

challenging task that requires time, expertise, and attention to detail. For those seeking assistance in
navigating these complexities and producing high-quality literature reviews, ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔
offers a reliable solution. With their experienced writers and commitment to excellence, individuals
can trust ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔ to deliver exceptional results.
However, some customers want to make the most out of service. The management of authorship
between versions can sometimes be complicated. This has led to increased discussions on profession-
alism, including ethics and its importance in shaping the public. In a review of existing LCAs
Villanueva and Wenzel (2007) followed a four-phase protocol that included (i) an inventory of
existing LCA studies, (ii) definition of criteria for the selection of LCA studies, (iii) selection of LCA
studies, and (iv) identification of key issues. I am happy with the writing, especially the sources
used. Results for main outcomes (benefits and harms), preferably indicating the number of studies
and participants for each. Electronic forms are useful and can facilitate subsequent analysis.
Cochrane systematic reviews do not include 'systematic' in the title, however. The funding source for
the review should be disclosed in publication to allow the reader to evaluate potential bias from
conflict of interest. If your review type is absent from the service list on the order page, choose the
“Other” option. Nevertheless, our review demonstrates that analysis and synthesis methods can be
described and justified with regard to the specific review objectives. Eligibility criteria for reports
may also include the language of publication, the publication status (e.g., whether to include
unpublished materials and abstracts) and the year of publication (example 3d). Reporting the
findings of updated systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness: how do users want to view
new information. Moreover, all guidelines for carrying out systematic reviews recommend that at
least two subject experts screen the studies identified in the search. Individuals engaged in related
decision making require reliable information on which to base decisions. However, a new large trial
published in the Lancet in 2015 showed that in low and middle income countries, strategies to
promote the uptake of neonatal steroids increased neonatal mortality and suspected maternal
infection. 49 This information needs to somehow be incorporated into the review to maintain its
credibility. CL is Editor-in-Chief of Systematic Reviews, FCL is Protocol Editor of Systematic
Reviews, and RSO is Associate Editor of Systematic Reviews. April 23, 2019 The Importance of
Literature Review in Scientific Research Writing May 10, 2019. Database: Article ID bap018.. 13.
Murphy MK, Black NA, Lamping DL, McKee CM, Sanderson CFB, et al. (1998) Consensus
development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Adherence to referencing
styles requires a lot of time and knowledge. Preparing a systematic review is time and resource
consuming, and provides a snapshot of knowledge at the time of incorporation of data from studies
identified during the latest search. Try to find critical points in existing literature and highlight in
your SLR. In other words, the PRISMA Statement is a road map to help authors best describe what
was done, what was found, and in the case of a review protocol, what are they are planning to do. If
the last author had a differing affiliation, this affiliation was also considered. We sought to identify
general approaches in this area, and not be specific to Cochrane; although inevitably most of the
panel were somehow engaged in Cochrane. Furthermore, all languages other than English, German,
or French were excluded, but this only resulted in the exclusion of three reviews. In Cochrane, this is
referred to as the protocol, and editors are part of this process. Purpose: It serves to provide a
comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge within a particular field. The first one was
composed for screening purposes, and the second one used a refined search string. Consequently, the
most up-to-date version of a tool might be missing, and the extent to which a quality item was
described by a tool might be underestimated.
Dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine for treating uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria. This is
one of the spa treatments given to the hands and feet. We developed the checklist to help authors
report all types of systematic reviews, but recognise that the emphasis is on systematic reviews of
evaluations of interventions where one or more meta-analyses are conducted. A comparison of
statistical methods for identifying out-of-date systematic reviews. You will want to include columns
to note key variables and findings in the study that pertain to your topic and your review. The reason
for the systematic review should be clear in the context of what is already known. TemplateLab
templatelab.com literature review template apa templates templatelab smart 50 Smart Literature
Review Templates (APA). Sitemap case study cover letter creative writing presentation problem
solving rewiew prompts websites tips. Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the
author(s). The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)
statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why
the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. One approach to resolving this
conflict is where “harmonization” of data from relevant studies is performed to allow for further
insights from previously heterogeneous data (Arvizu et al. 2011). Locating previous data appropriate
for harmonization may require a systematic review of the literature ( Moomaw et al. 2011 ), yet there
is currently no consensus regarding how such reviews should be approached. While they addressed
less than half of quality items defined in our research, they were proven robust in many studies. 14
Additionally, for several quality items we found some heterogeneity in content of signalling
questions or criteria among the tools with sufficient description. For most readers, the findings
described in the abstract will also be key, either as the sole part of an article that will be read, or to
determine whether reading the full text is required. However, the debate does illustrate that an
update could represent a review that asks a similar question but has been completely revised. Since
D’Andrea et al have already conducted a systematic review to identify appraisal tools for all types of
non-randomised studies published before November 2019, 13 we updated their review by searching
for articles published between November 2019 and April 2022, with their strings. Disability, human
rights, and the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health: systematic review.
If your review type is absent from the service list on the order page, choose the “Other” option.
Study and report characteristics used as criteria for inclusion. A systematic review is a labor-
intensive team effort. Methods for Development of the Checklist We established a steering
committee (EMB, PPG, SH, DGA). Deworming drugs for soil-transmitted intestinal worms in
children: effects on nutritional indicators, haemoglobin and school performance. A structured
summary or abstract should be provided at the beginning of a review; discussions regarding an
editorial standard for structured summaries in LCA reviews would be worthwhile. Thus, future
clarification is also needed for the personal competencies and skills necessary to realize a valid and
informative review of normative information. During this phase of the research, we clarified
descriptive results and identified themes, patterns, and similarities within the pub- lications. The first
list contained the items with the highest rankings, and participants for the second round were
instructed that these would be contained in the checklist unless they received low rankings in the
second round. If they have not been included, this threatens the validity of the review, and, at worst,
means the review could mislead. They introduce readers to the surrounding literature while also
situating your work within the larger scholarly discussion on that topic. Please include what you were
doing when this page came up and the Cloudflare Ray ID found at the bottom of this page. OP18
applicability of appraisal tools of real-world evidence in health technology assessment: a literature
review and content analysis.
If meta-analysis was done, include summary measures and confidence intervals. Methodological
quality Among the four domains, the Study design domain was the most ignored domain by
appraisal tools, as only 4 of the 11 relevant items were described with sufficient details by more than
four tools. Based on our personal experiences with reviews of normative information, it is also
important to clarify the expectations and needs of the intended readership. Meta-analysis: A melding
of data from multiple studies, usually involving additional mathematical analyses, with the goal of
utilizing this synergy of information and data size to answer questions that cannot be answered by
existing individual studies or to improve the certainty or impact of known findings by increasing the
sample size. Real-life applications for deriving a so-called best answer from LCA data have arrived.
Fortunately, knowledge from other disciplines can be leveraged to improve systematic reviews in
LCA. These notes will be used in creating one or more tables to display key elements of the studies
reviewed and in forming impressions about the strength and the direction of evidence on the topic of
your review. Reporting guidelines of health research studies are frequently used inappropriately. This
guidance could help groups identify and prioritise reviews for updating and hence use their finite
resources to greatest effect. Overriding parents’ medical decisions for their children: a systematic
review of normative literature. Article titles should clearly identify the manuscript as a review with
or without meta-analysis, and keyword listings for both individual reports and database structure
should include the terms meta-analysis and systematic review. Authors who address questions on
aetiology, diagnostic test accuracy, or prognosis may need to modify items or include other items in
their abstract to reflect the essentials of the full report. A schematic for our view of how systematic
reviews and meta-analyses fit into the overall organization of knowledge in the scientific community
is provided in figure 1. Did the review use valid methods and was it well conducted. The figure
provides a status category, and some options for classifying reviews into each of these categories,
and builds on a previous decision tool and earlier work developing an updating classification system.
15 16 We provide a narrative for each step. Implications of socio-cultural contexts for the ethics of
clinical trials. Establishing the cost-effectiveness of new pharmaceuticals under conditions of
uncertainty—when is there sufficient evidence. In the first approach, we conducted a systematic
review to identify articles on appraisal tools, through a database search using Medline. The structure
will help you to clearly express your ideas and demonstrate how your sources are connected. A
systematic review is guided filtering and synthesis of all available evidence addressing a specific,
focused research question, generally about a specific intervention or exposure. Table 5 Review
methodology (if explicitly stated) of the reviews Full size table Reported methods for search,
selection, analysis, and synthesis Table 6 presents detailed data on how often the reviews were
transparent about methodological criteria for search, selection, analysis, and synthesis. Deonto logica
l ethic s is commonly contra sted with consequentialism and virtue ethics. The PUGs guidance can
help individuals or academic teams working outside of a commissioning agency or Cochrane, who
are considering writing a systematic review for a journal or to prepare for a research project.
Literature Reviews as Ways of Hearing the Conversation. Large group, round table discussions
deliberated further these small group developments. Citation impact was highly variable for reporting
guidelines of health research: a citation analysis. This framework allows iterative searching over a
reduced number of data sources and no requirement to assess individual studies for risk of bias. As
yet, there has been limited external validation of these tools to determine which approach would be
most effective and when. We look forward to further discussion of the STARR-LCA checklist items
through input from the LCA community, including advancements in LCA methodology. Watson,
2002), they are less common in software engineer-.
Quantifying the total environmental impacts of an industrial symbiosis - a comparison of process-,
hybrid and input-output life cycle assessment. The first list contained the items with the highest
rankings, and participants for the second round were instructed that these would be contained in the
checklist unless they received low rankings in the second round. A systematic review published in
the Lancet examined the effects of artemisinin based combination treatments compared with
monotherapy for treating malaria and showed clear benefit. 21 Assessment: this established the
treatment globally and is no longer a current question and no update is required. Systematic reviews
(SRs) aim to identify and process information from published material in a systematic, transparent,
and reproducible manner. A systematic literature review is a method which sets out a series of steps
to methodically organize the review. A practical guide to understanding systematic reviews and
meta-analyses. For example, some scholars have examined the social aspects of a topic while others
have explored its economic aspects. London: Elsevier. 24. Als-Nielsen B, Gluud LL, Gluud C (2004)
Methodological quality and treatment effects in randomized trials: a review of six empirical studies.
12th Cochrane Colloquium, Ottawa (Canada). See Table 2. We labeled such reviews as semi-
systematic reviews. Finally, 9 (18%) tools were designed for specific interventions or diseases while
all other tools were generic in nature. An authorship team publishing an update in a scientific or
medical journal is likely to manage the new edition of a review in the same way as with any other
publication, and follow the ICMJE authorship criteria. 56 If the previous author or author team steps
down, then they should be acknowledged in the new version. Preferred reporting items for
systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1..
Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, Chaimani A, Schmid CH, Cameron C, et al. Methods Search
The review was based on two PubMed searches (15 April 2015, 27 April 2015), with additional
searches in PhilPapers (29 April 2015) and Google Scholar (30 April 2015). After meeting Kenneth
and experiencing his bubbling personality and his passion to learn to read, one of the Community
Students Learning Center’s employees decided to sponsor him so that he could become a part of the
program. On the other hand if you opt for a synthesis by considering the interventions and
populations which are not similar. Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed
under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Analysis: Involves critically
evaluating and summarizing key findings, methodologies, and debates found in. Results We
identified 84 reviews published between 1997 and 2015 in 65 different journals and demonstrated an
increasing publication rate for this type of review. First, here a wide variety of disciplines are on
offer. Nevertheless, we present slightly adapted PRISMA ratings as part of our results. We also
recommend an assessment of bias both for each study included in the reviewand across the entire
review. A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment. Some may be screening literature
to identify the articles that are systematic reviews. Sitemap case study cover letter creative writing
presentation problem solving rewiew prompts websites tips. The 26 columns represent the 26 quality
items as shown in table 2. He indeed fulfilled his one quest in life-he learned how to read. The
approach or format used to present the differences in findings might vary with the target user group.
58 Publishers need to ensure that all previous versions of the review remain publically accessible.
Box 2: Examples of how different organisations decide on updating systematic reviews Agency for
healthcare research and quality (us). Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews
Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians
seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice
guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.. Most journals require a PRISMA checklist
accompany submissions of systematic review. Systematically evaluating the impact of diagnosis-
related groups (DRGs) on health care delivery: a matrix of ethical implications.