A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies

Health Information and Libraries Journal - Tập 26 Số 2 - Trang 91-108 - 2009
Maria J. Grant1, Andrew Booth
1Salford Centre for Nursing, Midwifery and Collaborative Research (SCNMCR), University of Salford, Salford, UK. [email protected]

Tóm tắt

Abstract

Background and objectives:  The expansion of evidence‐based practice across sectors has lead to an increasing variety of review types. However, the diversity of terminology used means that the full potential of these review types may be lost amongst a confusion of indistinct and misapplied terms. The objective of this study is to provide descriptive insight into the most common types of reviews, with illustrative examples from health and health information domains.

Methods:  Following scoping searches, an examination was made of the vocabulary associated with the literature of review and synthesis (literary warrant). A simple analytical framework—Search, AppraisaL, Synthesis and Analysis (SALSA)—was used to examine the main review types.

Results:  Fourteen review types and associated methodologies were analysed against the SALSA framework, illustrating the inputs and processes of each review type. A description of the key characteristics is given, together with perceived strengths and weaknesses. A limited number of review types are currently utilized within the health information domain.

Conclusions:  Few review types possess prescribed and explicit methodologies and many fall short of being mutually exclusive. Notwithstanding such limitations, this typology provides a valuable reference point for those commissioning, conducting, supporting or interpreting reviews, both within health information and the wider health care domain.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

McKibbon K. A., 1998, Evidence‐based practice., Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 86, 396

10.7326/0003-4819-106-3-485

Cochrane A. L., 1979, Medicines for the Year 2000, 1

Lind J.A Treatise of the Scurvy. In three parts containing an inquiry into the nature causes and cure of that disease. Together with a critical and chronological view of what has been published on the subject.1753a. Available from:http://www.jameslindlibrary.org/trial_records/17th_18th_Century/lind/lind‐experiment.pdf(accessed 10 March 2009).

Lind J.A Treatise of the Scurvy. In three parts containing an inquiry into the nature causes and cure of that disease. Together with a critical and chronological view of what has been published on the subject.1753b. Available from:http://www.jameslindlibrary.org/trial_records/17th_18th_Century/lind/lind‐experiment.pdf(accessed 10 March 2009).

10.1177/0163278702025001003

Alonso P. G., 1968, Conservation and circulation in map libraries: a brief review, Geography and Map Division Bulletin, 74, 15

10.1300/J115v01n02_04

10.1046/j.1365-2532.2001.00309.x

10.1108/07378830610692109

Oxford English Dictionary.Oxford English Dictionary.2008. Available from:http://dictionary.oed.com/(accessed 4 March 2009).

Ankem K., 2008, Evaluation of method in systematic reviews and meta‐analyses published in LIS, Library and Information Research, 32, 91, 10.29173/lirg58

Walton G., 2006, Health Information and Libraries Journal: Strategy for 2007–2010

10.1111/j.1471-1842.2007.00713.x

10.1111/j.1471-1842.2008.00788.x

10.1111/j.1471-1842.2008.00777.x

10.1111/j.1471-1842.2004.00506.x

10.1111/j.1471-1842.2007.00733.x

Ankem K., 2006, Use of information sources by cancer patients: results of a systematic review of the research literature, Information Research, 11

Beverley C. A., 2003, Clinical librarianship: a systematic review of the literature, Health Information and Libraries Journal, 20, 10

10.1111/j.1471-1842.2008.00834.x

10.1046/j.1365-2532.20.s1.3.x

10.1111/j.1471-1842.2007.00740.x

10.1111/j.1471-1842.2007.00762.x

10.1111/j.1470-3327.2005.00614.x

10.1111/j.1471-1842.2008.00821.x

10.1111/j.1471-1842.2007.00731.x

10.18438/B8MS3D

Wagner K. C., 2004, Evaluating the effectiveness of clinical medical librarian programs: a systematic review of the literature, Journal of the Medical Library Association, 92, 14

10.1111/j.1471-1842.2005.00549.x

Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA).Principles for the Organization of the Transportation Research Thesaurus. Available from:http://ntl.bts.gov/tools/trt/trt_principles.html(accessed 9 March 2009).

Miles M. B., 1984, Qualitative data analysis: a sourcebook of new methods

National Center for Biotechnology Information.Review Literature as Topic.2005. Available from:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=mesh&dopt=Full&list_uids=68012196(accessed 4 March 2009).

EPPI‐Centre.Descriptive Mapping.2006. Available from:http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=175&language=en‐US(accessed 4 March 2009).

Subject Centre for Information and Computer Sciences Outputs—meta‐analysis meta‐synthesis and guidelines.2007. Available from:http://www.ics.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/rlos/systematic_review/Unit4_systematic_review/page_01.htm(accessed 4 March 2009).

Oliver S. Harden A. Rees R. Shepherd J. Brunton G. Garcia J.&Oakley A.An emerging framework for integrating different types of evidence in systematic reviews for public policy.Evaluation & the Health Professions2005 11 428–66.

Oxman A. D. Cook D. J.&Guyatt G. H.How to use an Overview.1994. Available from:http://www.cche.net/usersguides/overview.asp(accessed 4 March 2009).

Booth A., 2006, Brimful of STARLITE: toward standards for reporting literature searches, Journal of the Medical Library Association, 94, 421

Mulrow C. D.&Cook D. J.Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for health care decisions. Philadelphia PA:American College of Physicians 1998.

Booth A.The neglected voice: is there a role for qualitative systematic reviews in EBLIP?Transforming the profession through evidence‐based library and information fractice.Evidence‐Based Library and Information Practice 4th International Conference 6–11 May 2007.2007. Available from:http://eblip4.unc.edu/program.html(accessed 4 March 2009).

10.1108/14678040610679452

Noyes J.et al.Chapter 20: Qualitative research and Cochrane reviews.Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.0.1. September 2008. Available from:http://www.cochrane‐handbook.org(accessed 4 March 2009).

Centre for Reviews and Dissemination.Systematic Reviews: CRD's Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care.2009. Available from: 332005 http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/SysRev/!SSL!/WebHelp/SysRev3.htm(accessed 4 March 2009).

Government Social Research.REA Toolkit: Rapid Evidence Assessment Toolkit Index.2008. Available from:http://www.gsr.gov.uk/professional_guidance/rea_toolkit/(accessed 11 March 2009).

Butler G. Deaton S. Hodgkinson J. Holmes E.&Marshall S.Quick but not Dirty: Rapid Evidence Assessments as a Decision Support Tool in Social Policy.2005. Available from:http://www.gsr.gov.uk/downloads/new_research/archive//quick_not_dirty05.pdf(accessed 4 March 2009).

National Library of Medicine.Medical Subject Headings. Publication Characteristics (Publication Types): Scope Notes.2005. Available from:http://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/pubtypes2006.html(accessed 4 March 2009).

Higgins J. P. T.&Green S.Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.0.1 (updated September 2008).2008. Available from:http://www.cochrane‐handbook.org(accessed 4 March 2009).

10.1002/ebch.117

10.1046/j.1365-2532.20.s1.10.x

Maden M., 2008, Impact and Influence: Evolving to Succeed

Public Health Resource Unit.Ten Questions to Help you Make Sense of Reviews.2006. Available from:http://www.phru.nhs.uk/Doc_Links/S.Reviews%20Appraisal%20Tool.pdf(accessed 4 March 2009).

Medical Library Association.Medical Library Association Policy Statement: Role of Expert Searching in Health Sciences Libraries.2007. Available from:http://www.mlanet.org/resources/expert_search/policy_expert_search.html(accessed 4 March 2009).

10.1111/j.1471-1842.2006.00689.x

Harris M. R., 1993, The librarian's roles in the systematic review process: a case study, Journal of the Medical Library Association, 93, 81

Grant M. J., 2008, Impact and Influence: Evolving to Succeed. HLG Conference

10.1046/j.1471-1842.2003.00411.x

10.18438/B8N613