· Open your article review by citing the article, then write an introduction which states the article’s thesis. Next, summarize the article, followed by your opinion about whether the article was clear, thorough, and useful. Finish with a paragraph that 92%() You need to write bibliographical entries for the sources you use when writing an APA format article review: Web: Author [last name], A.A [first and middle initial]. (Year, Month, Date of Publication) · The fundamental rationale of writing a review article is to make a readable synthesis of the best literature sources on an important research inquiry or a topic. This simple definition of a review article contains the following key elements: The question(s) to be dealt withCited by: 21
How to Write an Article Review - Format, Types & Examples
Try out PMC Labs and tell us what you think. Learn More. In the medical sciences, the importance of review articles is rising. When clinicians want to update their knowledge and generate guidelines about a topic, they frequently use reviews as a starting point. The value of a review is associated with what has been done, what has been found and how these findings are how to write a review of article. The main and fundamental purpose of writing a review is to create a readable synthesis of the best resources available in the literature for an important research question or a current area of research.
Although the idea of writing a review is attractive, how to write a review of article, it is important to spend time identifying the important questions.
Good review methods are critical because they provide an unbiased point of view for the reader regarding the current literature. There is a consensus that a review should be written in a systematic fashion, a notion that is usually followed. In a systematic review with a focused question, the research methods must be clearly described.
An essential part of the review process is differentiating good research from bad and leaning on the results of the better studies. The ideal way to synthesize studies is to perform a meta-analysis. In conclusion, when writing a review, it is best to clearly focus on fixed ideas, how to write a review of article, to use a procedural and critical approach to the literature and to express your findings in an attractive way.
The importance of review articles in health sciences is increasing day by day. Clinicians frequently benefit from review articles to update their knowledge in their field of specialization, and use these articles as a starting point for formulating guidelines.
A few studies have evaluated the quality of review articles. Murlow evaluated 50 review articles published inandand revealed that none of them had complied with clear-cut scientific criteria.
Review articles are divided into 2 categories as narrative, and systematic reviews. Narrative reviews are written in an easily readable format, and allow consideration of the subject matter within a large spectrum. However in a systematic review, a very detailed, and comprehensive literature surveying is performed on the selected topic.
Systematic reviews can be diivded into qualitative, and quantitative reviews. In both of how to write a review of article detailed literature surveying is performed. However in quantitative reviews, study data are collected, and statistically evaluated ie. Before inquring for the method of preparation of a review article, it is more logical how to write a review of article investigate the motivation behind writing the review article in question.
The fundamental rationale of writing a review article is to make a readable synthesis of the best literature sources on an important research inquiry or a topic. This simple definition of a review article contains the following key elements:.
Methods used to find out, and select the best quality researches so as to respond to these questions. For the specification of important questions to be answered, number of literature references to be consulted should be more or less determined.
Discussions should be conducted with colleagues in the same area of interest, and time should be reserved for the solution of the problem s. The PRISMA statement [ 6 ] elaborated to write a well-designed review articles contains a item checklist Table 1. It will be reasonable to fulfill the requirements of these items during preparation of a review article or a meta-analysis. Thus preparation of a comprehensible article with a high-quality scientific content can be feasible. Important differences exist between systematic, and non-systematic reviews which especially arise from methodologies used in the description of the literature sources.
A non-systematic review means use of articles collected for years with the recommendations of your colleagues, while systematic review is based on struggles to search for, and find the best possible researches which will respond to the questions predetermined at the start of the review.
Though a consensus has been reached about the systematic design of the review articles, studies revealed that most of them had not been written in a systematic format. McAlister et al. analyzed review articles in 6 medical journals, and disclosed that in less than one fourth of the review articles, methods of description, evaluation or synthesis of evidence had been provided, one third of them had focused on a clinical topic, and only half of them had provided quantitative data about the extend of the potential benefits.
Use of proper methodologies in review articles is important in that readers assume an objective attitude towards updated information. We can confront two problems while we are using data from researches in order to answer certain questions. Firstly, we can be prejudiced during selection of research articles or these articles might be biased. To minimize this risk, how to write a review of article, methodologies used in our reviews should allow us to define, and use researches with minimal degree of bias.
The second problem is that, most of the researches have been performed with small sample sizes. In statistical methods in meta-analyses, available researches are combined to increase the statistical power of the study. The problematic aspect of a non-systematic review is that our tendency to give biased responses to the questions, in other words we apt to select the studies with known or favourite results, rather than the best quality investigations among them.
As is the case with many research articles, general format how to write a review of article a systematic review on a single subject includes sections of Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion Table 2. Steps, and targets of constructing a good review article are listed in Table 3. To write a good review article the items in Table 3 should be implemented step by step. It might be helpful to divide the research question into components, how to write a review of article.
The most prevalently used format for questions related to the treatment is PICO P - Patient, Problem or Population; I-Intervention; C-appropriate Comparisons, and O-Outcome measures procedure. In a systematic review on a focused question, methods of investigation used should be clearly specified. Ideally, research methods, investigated databases, and key words should be described in the final report. Different databases are used dependent on the topic analyzed. In most of the clinical topics, Medline should be surveyed.
However searching through Embase and CINAHL can be also appropriate. While determining appropriate terms for surveying, how to write a review of article, PICO elements of the issue to be sought may guide the process. Since in general we are interested in more than one outcome, P, and I can be key elements.
In this case we should think about synonyms of P, how to write a review of article, and I elements, and combine them with a conjunction AND. A good example of this method can be found in PubMed interface of Medline. The Clinical Queries tool offers empirically developed filters for five different inquiries as guidelines for etiology, diagnosis, treatment, prognosis or clinical prediction.
As an indispensable component of the review process is to discriminate good, and bad quality researches from each other, and the outcomes should be based on better qualified researches, as far as possible. A hierarchy of evidence for different research questions is presented in Table 4.
However this hierarchy is only a first step. Rarely all researches arrive at the same conclusion. In this case a solution should be found. However it is risky to make a decision based on the votes of absolute majority. Indeed, a well-performed large scale study, and a weakly designed one are weighed on the same scale. Therefore, ideally a meta-analysis should be performed to solve apparent differences.
Ideally, first of all, one should be focused on the largest, and higher quality study, then other studies should be compared with this basic study. In conclusion, during writing process of a review article, the procedures to be achieved can be indicated as follows: 1 Get rid of fixed ideas, and obsessions from your head, and view the subject from a large perspective. National Center for Biotechnology InformationU.
National Library of Medicine Rockville PikeBethesda MDUSA. NCBI Skip to main content Skip to navigation Resources How To About NCBI Accesskeys My NCBI Sign in to NCBI Sign Out. PMC US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health.
Search database PMC All Databases Assembly Biocollections BioProject BioSample BioSystems Books ClinVar Conserved Domains dbGaP dbVar Gene Genome GEO DataSets GEO Profiles GTR HomoloGene Identical Protein Groups MedGen MeSH NCBI Web Site NLM Catalog Nucleotide OMIM PMC PopSet Protein Protein Clusters Protein Family Models PubChem BioAssay PubChem Compound PubChem Substance PubMed SNP SRA Structure Taxonomy ToolKit ToolKitAll ToolKitBookgh Search term.
Journal List Turk J Urol v. Turk J Urol. doi: PMCID: PMC Ömer Gülpınar and Adil Güçal Güçlü. Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer, how to write a review of article.
Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine İbni Sina Hospital, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey. liamg ulcug. Received Mar 6; Accepted May This article has been cited by other articles in PMC. Abstract In the medical sciences, the importance of review articles is rising.
Keywords: How to write, review, writing. This simple definition of a review article contains the following key elements: The question s to be dealt with Methods used to find out, and select the best quality researches so as to respond to these questions.
To synthetize available, but quite different researches For the specification of important questions to be answered, number of literature references to be consulted should be more or less determined.
Table 1. PRISMA statement: A item checklist. Additional analyses 16 Describe methods of additional analyses such as sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regressionif done, indicating which were pre-specified. Results Study selection 17 Give numbers of studies screened, how to write a review of article, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
Study characteristics 18 For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted such as study size, PICOS, follow-up period and provide the citation. Risk of bias within studies 19 Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome-level assessment see item 12 Results of individual studies 20 For all outcomes considered benefits and harmspresent, for each study, simple summary data for each intervention group and effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot a type of graph used in meta-analyses which demonstrates relat, ve success rates of treatment outcomes of multiple scientific studies analyzing the same topic Syntheses of resxults 21 Present the results of each meta-analyses including confidence intervals and measures of consistency Risk of bias across studies 22 Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies see item Additional analyses 23 Give results of additional analyses, if done such as sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression see item 16 Discussion Summary of evidence 24 Summarize the main findings, including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups such as healthcare providers, users, and policy makers Limitations 25 Discuss limitations at study and outcome level such as how to write a review of article of biasand at review level such as incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias Conclusions 26 Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research Funding Funding 27 Indicate sources of funding or other support such as supply of data for the systematic review, and the role of funders for the systematic review.
Open in a separate window. Contents and format Important differences exist between systematic, and non-systematic reviews which especially arise from methodologies used in the description of the literature sources. Table 2. Structure of a systematic review.
10 Simple Rules to Write A Scientific Literature Review Article
, time: 19:44How to write a review article?
You need to write bibliographical entries for the sources you use when writing an APA format article review: Web: Author [last name], A.A [first and middle initial]. (Year, Month, Date of Publication) · The fundamental rationale of writing a review article is to make a readable synthesis of the best literature sources on an important research inquiry or a topic. This simple definition of a review article contains the following key elements: The question(s) to be dealt withCited by: 21 · Open your article review by citing the article, then write an introduction which states the article’s thesis. Next, summarize the article, followed by your opinion about whether the article was clear, thorough, and useful. Finish with a paragraph that 92%()
No comments:
Post a Comment