How to Write a Review Article
- Types of Review Articles
- Before Writing a Review Article
- Determining Where to Publish
- Searching the Literature
- Citation Management
- Reading a Review Article
Descriptions of Types of Reviews
Reproduced from: Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies . Health Info Libr J . 2009 Jun;26(2):91-108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x. Review. PubMed PMID: 19490148.
| Review Type | Description |
|---|---|
| Aims to demonstrate writer has extensively researched literature and critically evaluated its quality. Goes beyond mere description to include degree of analysis and conceptual innovation. Typically results in hypothesis or model. | |
| Generic term: published materials that provide examination of recent or current literature. Can cover wide range of subjects at various levels of completeness and comprehensiveness. May include research findings. | |
| Map out and categorize existing literature from which to commission further reviews and/or primary research by identifying gaps in research literature. | |
| Technique that statistically combines the results of quantitative studies to provide a more precise effect of the results. | |
| Refers to any combination of methods where one significant component is a literature review (usually systematic). Within a review context it refers to a combination of review approaches for example combining quantitative with qualitative research or outcome with process studies. | |
| Generic term: summary of the [medical] literature that attempts to survey the literature and describe its characteristics. | |
| Method for integrating or comparing the findings from qualitative studies. It looks for 'themes' or 'constructs' that lie in or across individual qualitative studies. | |
| Assessment of what is already known about a policy or practice issue, by using systematic review methods to search and critically appraise existing research. | |
| Preliminary assessment of potential size and scope of available research literature. Aims to identify nature and extent of research evidence (usually including ongoing research). | |
| Tend to address more current matters in contrast to other combined retrospective and current approaches. May offer new perspectives on issue or point out area for further research. | |
| Seeks to systematically search for, appraise and synthesis research evidence, often adhering to guidelines on the conduct of a review. | |
| Combines strengths of critical review with a comprehensive search process. Typically addresses broad questions to produce 'best evidence synthesis'. | |
| Attempt to include elements of systematic review process while stopping short of systematic review. Typically conducted as postgraduate student assignment. | |
| Specifically refers to review compiling evidence from multiple reviews into one accessible and usable document. Focuses on broad condition or problem for which there are competing interventions and highlights reviews that address these interventions and their results. |
Further Reading
Sutton A, Clowes M, Preston L, Booth A. Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements . Health Info Libr J. 2019;36(3):202-222. doi: 10.1111/hir.12276.
- << Previous: What is a Review Article?
- Next: Before Writing a Review Article >>
- The Interprofessional Health Sciences Library
- 123 Metro Boulevard
- Nutley, NJ 07110
- [email protected]
- Visiting Campus
- News and Events
- Parents and Families
- Web Accessibility
- Career Center
- Public Safety
- Accountability
- Privacy Statements
- Report a Problem
- Login to LibApps
- University of Texas Libraries
- UT Libraries
Systematic Reviews & Evidence Synthesis Methods
Types of reviews.
- Formulate Question
- Find Existing Reviews & Protocols
- Register a Protocol
- Searching Systematically
- Supplementary Searching
- Managing Results
- Deduplication
- Critical Appraisal
- Glossary of terms
- Librarian Support
- Video tutorials This link opens in a new window
- Systematic Review & Evidence Synthesis Boot Camp
Not sure what type of review you want to conduct?
There are many types of reviews --- narrative reviews , scoping reviews , systematic reviews, integrative reviews, umbrella reviews, rapid reviews and others --- and it's not always straightforward to choose which type of review to conduct. These Review Navigator tools (see below) ask a series of questions to guide you through the various kinds of reviews and to help you determine the best choice for your research needs.
- Which review is right for you? (Univ. of Manitoba)
- What type of review is right for you? (Cornell)
- Review Ready Reckoner - Assessment Tool (RRRsAT)
- A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. by Grant & Booth
- Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements | Health Info Libr J, 2019
| Label | Description | Search | Appraisal | Synthesis | Analysis | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Critical Review | Aims to demonstrate writer has extensively researched literature and critically evaluated its quality. Goes beyond mere description to include degree of analysis and conceptual innovation. Typically results in hypothesis or model | Seeks to identify most significant items in the field | No formal quality assessment. Attempts to evaluate according to contribution | Typically narrative, perhaps conceptual or chronological | Significant component: seeks to identify conceptual contribution to embody existing or derive new theory | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Literature Review | Generic term: published materials that provide examination of recent or current literature. Can cover wide range of subjects at various levels of completeness and comprehensiveness. May include research findings | May or may not include comprehensive searching | May or may not include quality assessment | Typically narrative | Analysis may be chronological, conceptual, thematic, etc. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Mapping review/ systematic map | Map out and categorize existing literature from which to commission further reviews and/or primary research by identifying gaps in research literature | Completeness of searching determined by time/scope constraints | No formal quality assessment | May be graphical and tabular | Characterizes quantity and quality of literature, perhaps by study design and other key features. May identify need for primary or secondary research | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Meta-analysis | Technique that statistically combines the results of quantitative studies to provide a more precise effect of the results | Aims for exhaustive, comprehensive searching. May use funnel plot to assess completeness | Quality assessment may determine inclusion/exclusion and/or sensitivity analyses | Graphical and tabular with narrative commentary | Numerical analysis of measures of effect assuming absence of heterogeneity | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Mixed studies review/mixed methods review | Refers to any combination of methods where one significant component is a literature review (usually systematic). Within a review context it refers to a combination of review approaches for example combining quantitative with qualitative research or outcome with process studies | Requires either very sensitive search to retrieve all studies or separately conceived quantitative and qualitative strategies | Requires either a generic appraisal instrument or separate appraisal processes with corresponding checklists | Typically both components will be presented as narrative and in tables. May also employ graphical means of integrating quantitative and qualitative studies | Analysis may characterise both literatures and look for correlations between characteristics or use gap analysis to identify aspects absent in one literature but missing in the other | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Overview | Generic term: summary of the [medical] literature that attempts to survey the literature and describe its characteristics | May or may not include comprehensive searching (depends whether systematic overview or not) | May or may not include quality assessment (depends whether systematic overview or not) | Synthesis depends on whether systematic or not. Typically narrative but may include tabular features | Analysis may be chronological, conceptual, thematic, etc. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Qualitative systematic review/qualitative evidence synthesis | Method for integrating or comparing the findings from qualitative studies. It looks for ‘themes’ or ‘constructs’ that lie in or across individual qualitative studies | May employ selective or purposive sampling | Quality assessment typically used to mediate messages not for inclusion/exclusion | Qualitative, narrative synthesis | Thematic analysis, may include conceptual models | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rapid review | Assessment of what is already known about a policy or practice issue, by using systematic review methods to search and critically appraise existing research | Completeness of searching determined by time constraints | Time-limited formal quality assessment | Typically narrative and tabular | Quantities of literature and overall quality/direction of effect of literature | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Scoping review | Preliminary assessment of potential size and scope of available research literature. Aims to identify nature and extent of research evidence (usually including ongoing research) | Completeness of searching determined by time/scope constraints. May include research in progress | No formal quality assessment | Typically tabular with some narrative commentary | Characterizes quantity and quality of literature, perhaps by study design and other key features. Attempts to specify a viable review | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| State-of-the-art review | Tend to address more current matters in contrast to other combined retrospective and current approaches. May offer new perspectives on issue or point out area for further research | Aims for comprehensive searching of current literature | No formal quality assessment | Typically narrative, may have tabular accompaniment | Current state of knowledge and priorities for future investigation and research | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Systematic review | Seeks to systematically search for, appraise and synthesis research evidence, often adhering to guidelines on the conduct of a review | Aims for exhaustive, comprehensive searching | Quality assessment may determine inclusion/exclusion | Typically narrative with tabular accompaniment | What is known; recommendations for practice. What remains unknown; uncertainty around findings, recommendations for future research | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Systematic search and review | Combines strengths of critical review with a comprehensive search process. Typically addresses broad questions to produce ‘best evidence synthesis’ | Aims for exhaustive, comprehensive searching | May or may not include quality assessment | Minimal narrative, tabular summary of studies | What is known; recommendations for practice. Limitations | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Systematized review | Attempt to include elements of systematic review process while stopping short of systematic review. Typically conducted as postgraduate student assignment | May or may not include comprehensive searching | May or may not include quality assessment |
Reproduced from Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies . Health Info Libr J. 2009 Jun;26(2):91-108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
  Literature Reviews
Types of reviews and examplesChoosing a review type.
 Contact a Librarian Ask a Librarian
Definition: "A term used to describe a conventional overview of the literature, particularly when contrasted with a systematic review (Booth et al., 2012, p. 265). Characteristics:
Mitchell, L. E., & Zajchowski, C. A. (2022). The history of air quality in Utah: A narrative review. Sustainability , 14 (15), 9653. doi.org/10.3390/su14159653 Booth, A., Papaioannou, D., & Sutton, A. (2012). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. "An assessment of what is already known about a policy or practice issue...using systematic review methods to search and critically appraise existing research" (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 100).
Learn more about the method: Khangura, S., Konnyu, K., Cushman, R., Grimshaw, J., & Moher, D. (2012). Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Systematic reviews, 1 (1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-10 Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries. (2021). Rapid Review Protocol . Quarmby, S., Santos, G., & Mathias, M. (2019). Air quality strategies and technologies: A rapid review of the international evidence. Sustainability, 11 (10), 2757. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102757 Grant, M.J. & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of the 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal , 26(2), 91-108. https://www.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x Developed and refined by the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre), this review "map[s] out and categorize[s] existing literature on a particular topic, identifying gaps in research literature from which to commission further reviews and/or primary research" (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 97). Although mapping reviews are sometimes called scoping reviews, the key difference is that mapping reviews focus on a review question, rather than a topic Mapping reviews are "best used where a clear target for a more focused evidence product has not yet been identified" (Booth, 2016, p. 14) Mapping review searches are often quick and are intended to provide a broad overview Mapping reviews can take different approaches in what types of literature is focused on in the search Cooper I. D. (2016). What is a "mapping study?". Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA , 104 (1), 76–78. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.1.013 Miake-Lye, I. M., Hempel, S., Shanman, R., & Shekelle, P. G. (2016). What is an evidence map? A systematic review of published evidence maps and their definitions, methods, and products. Systematic reviews, 5 (1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0204-x Tainio, M., Andersen, Z. J., Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., Hu, L., De Nazelle, A., An, R., ... & de Sá, T. H. (2021). Air pollution, physical activity and health: A mapping review of the evidence. Environment international , 147 , 105954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.105954 Booth, A. (2016). EVIDENT Guidance for Reviewing the Evidence: a compendium of methodological literature and websites . ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1562.9842 . Grant, M.J. & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of the 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal , 26(2), 91-108. https://www.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x "A type of review that has as its primary objective the identification of the size and quality of research in a topic area in order to inform subsequent review" (Booth et al., 2012, p. 269).
Learn more about the methods : Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005) Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology , 8 (1), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616 Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O’Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science: IS, 5, 69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 Example : Rahman, A., Sarkar, A., Yadav, O. P., Achari, G., & Slobodnik, J. (2021). Potential human health risks due to environmental exposure to nano-and microplastics and knowledge gaps: A scoping review. Science of the Total Environment, 757 , 143872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143872 A review that "[compiles] evidence from multiple...reviews into one accessible and usable document" (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 103). While originally intended to be a compilation of Cochrane reviews, it now generally refers to any kind of evidence synthesis.
Choi, G. J., & Kang, H. (2022). The umbrella review: a useful strategy in the rain of evidence. The Korean Journal of Pain , 35 (2), 127–128. https://doi.org/10.3344/kjp.2022.35.2.127 Aromataris, E., Fernandez, R., Godfrey, C. M., Holly, C., Khalil, H., & Tungpunkom, P. (2015). Summarizing systematic reviews: Methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare , 13(3), 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000055 Rojas-Rueda, D., Morales-Zamora, E., Alsufyani, W. A., Herbst, C. H., Al Balawi, S. M., Alsukait, R., & Alomran, M. (2021). Environmental risk factors and health: An umbrella review of meta-analyses. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Dealth , 18 (2), 704. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18020704 A meta-analysis is a "technique that statistically combines the results of quantitative studies to provide a more precise effect of the result" (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 98).
Berman, N. G., & Parker, R. A. (2002). Meta-analysis: Neither quick nor easy. BMC Medical Research Methodology , 2(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-2-10 Hites R. A. (2004). Polybrominated diphenyl ethers in the environment and in people: a meta-analysis of concentrations. Environmental Science & Technology , 38 (4), 945–956. https://doi.org/10.1021/es035082g A systematic review "seeks to systematically search for, appraise, and [synthesize] research evidence, often adhering to the guidelines on the conduct of a review" provided by discipline-specific organizations, such as the Cochrane Collaboration (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 102).
Gascon, M., Triguero-Mas, M., Martínez, D., Dadvand, P., Forns, J., Plasència, A., & Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J. (2015). Mental health benefits of long-term exposure to residential green and blue spaces: a systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 12 (4), 4354–4379. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120404354 "Systematized reviews attempt to include one or more elements of the systematic review process while stopping short of claiming that the resultant output is a systematic review" (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 102). When a systematic review approach is adapted to produce a more manageable scope, while still retaining the rigor of a systematic review such as risk of bias assessment and the use of a protocol, this is often referred to as a structured review (Huelin et al., 2015).
Salvo, G., Lashewicz, B. M., Doyle-Baker, P. K., & McCormack, G. R. (2018). Neighbourhood built environment influences on physical activity among adults: A systematized review of qualitative evidence. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 15 (5), 897. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15050897 Huelin, R., Iheanacho, I., Payne, K., & Sandman, K. (2015). What’s in a name? Systematic and non-systematic literature reviews, and why the distinction matters. https://www.evidera.com/resource/whats-in-a-name-systematic-and-non-systematic-literature-reviews-and-why-the-distinction-matters/ 
 Services for...
 
Conducting Research
Systematic Reviews
Using Databases
Finding & Accessing
Writing & Citing
Meet a Librarian
Search Services
Citation Mgmt
Scholarly Communications
Library Updates
Types of Reviews
Review TypologiesThere are many types of evidence synthesis projects, including systematic reviews as well as others. The selection of review type is wholly dependent on the research question. Not all research questions are well-suited for systematic reviews.
Review the table to peruse review types and associated methodologies. Librarians can also help your team determine which review type might be appropriate for your project. Reproduced from Grant, M. J. and Booth, A. (2009), A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26: 91-108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
We want to hear from you! Fill out the Library's User Survey and enter to win. Pharmacy : Types of Review Articles (Literature, Scoping and Systematic)
Their Uniqueness, Characteristics and Differences
The above slides explore:
Systematic Review Management Software
What is the Project's Goal?Always ask yourself:
Conducting a comprehensive search of the literature involves very different methods than a systematic review. If you are unsure as to which project best meets your needs, consult the Pharmacy Liaison Librarian, Caitlin Carter at [email protected] Writing the Protocol (Plan)
Avoid duplication: register your scoping or systematic review protocol (plan)
Literature (Narrative) ReviewsThese resources offer practical insight into literature reviews:
Scoping ReviewsThese resources offer practical insight into scoping reviews:
Systematic ReviewsThese resources offer practical insight into systematic reviews:
Library Support for Systematic Reviews
Research guides by subject Course reserves My library account Book a study room News and events Work for the library Support the library We want to hear from you. You're viewing the newest version of the Library's website. Please send us your feedback !
Occupational Therapy and Rehabilitation Sciences
Choosing a Review TypeFor guidance related to choosing a review type, see:
Types of Evidence Synthesis / Literature ReviewsLiterature reviews are comprehensive summaries and syntheses of the previous research on a given topic. While narrative reviews are common across all academic disciplines, reviews that focus on appraising and synthesizing research evidence are increasingly important in the health and social sciences. Most evidence synthesis methods use formal and explicit methods to identify, select and combine results from multiple studies, making evidence synthesis a form of meta-research. The review purpose, methods used and the results produced vary among different kinds of literature reviews; some of the common types of literature review are detailed below. Common Types of Literature Reviews 1Narrative (literature) review.
Integrative Review
Systematic Review
Meta-Analysis
Scoping Review
Rapid Review
Umbrella Review
1. Adapted from: Eldermire, E. (2021, November 15). A guide to evidence synthesis: Types of evidence synthesis. Cornell University LibGuides. https://guides.library.cornell.edu/evidence-synthesis/types Nolfi, D. (2021, October 6). Integrative Review: Systematic vs. Scoping vs. Integrative. Duquesne University LibGuides. https://guides.library.duq.edu/c.php?g=1055475&p=7725920 Delaney, L. (2021, November 24). Systematic reviews: Other review types. UniSA LibGuides. https://guides.library.unisa.edu.au/SystematicReviews/OtherReviewTypes Further Reading: Exploring Different Types of Literature Reviews
 Integrative Reviews"The integrative review method is an approach that allows for the inclusion of diverse methodologies (i.e. experimental and non-experimental research)." (Whittemore & Knafl, 2005, p. 547).
Scoping ReviewsScoping reviews are evidence syntheses that are conducted systematically, but begin with a broader scope of question than traditional systematic reviews, allowing the research to 'map' the relevant literature on a given topic.
Systematic vs. Scoping Reviews: What's the Difference?YouTube Video 4 minutes, 45 seconds Rapid ReviewsRapid reviews are systematic reviews that are undertaken under a tighter timeframe than traditional systematic reviews.
Types of ReviewsIn this guide.
Clinical Practice Guidelines
PDF Version of Infographic
 Narrative Review
Don't need to be a subject expert, but should have a pretty good concept of the topic once completed Scoping Review
Systematic Review
Rapid Review
Umbrella Review
Does your research request not fit into these categories?Lane Medical Librarians are still able to help! We can also help with book chapters, theses, background literature reviews, etc. Submit a request through our Literature Search Service to get started. A complete list of references for this infographic series is available. 
Review articles: purpose, process, and structure
Cite this article
236k Accesses 452 Citations 63 Altmetric Explore all metrics Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript. Many research disciplines feature high-impact journals that are dedicated outlets for review papers (or review–conceptual combinations) (e.g., Academy of Management Review , Psychology Bulletin , Medicinal Research Reviews ). The rationale for such outlets is the premise that research integration and synthesis provides an important, and possibly even a required, step in the scientific process. Review papers tend to include both quantitative (i.e., meta-analytic, systematic reviews) and narrative or more qualitative components; together, they provide platforms for new conceptual frameworks, reveal inconsistencies in the extant body of research, synthesize diverse results, and generally give other scholars a “state-of-the-art” snapshot of a domain, often written by topic experts (Bem 1995 ). Many premier marketing journals publish meta-analytic review papers too, though authors often must overcome reviewers’ concerns that their contributions are limited due to the absence of “new data.” Furthermore, relatively few non-meta-analysis review papers appear in marketing journals, probably due to researchers’ perceptions that such papers have limited publication opportunities or their beliefs that the field lacks a research tradition or “respect” for such papers. In many cases, an editor must provide strong support to help such review papers navigate the review process. Yet, once published, such papers tend to be widely cited, suggesting that members of the field find them useful (see Bettencourt and Houston 2001 ). In this editorial, we seek to address three topics relevant to review papers. First, we outline a case for their importance to the scientific process, by describing the purpose of review papers . Second, we detail the review paper editorial initiative conducted over the past two years by the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science ( JAMS ), focused on increasing the prevalence of review papers. Third, we describe a process and structure for systematic ( i.e. , non-meta-analytic) review papers , referring to Grewal et al. ( 2018 ) insights into parallel meta-analytic (effects estimation) review papers. (For some strong recent examples of marketing-related meta-analyses, see Knoll and Matthes 2017 ; Verma et al. 2016 ). Purpose of review papersIn their most general form, review papers “are critical evaluations of material that has already been published,” some that include quantitative effects estimation (i.e., meta-analyses) and some that do not (i.e., systematic reviews) (Bem 1995 , p. 172). They carefully identify and synthesize relevant literature to evaluate a specific research question, substantive domain, theoretical approach, or methodology and thereby provide readers with a state-of-the-art understanding of the research topic. Many of these benefits are highlighted in Hanssens’ ( 2018 ) paper titled “The Value of Empirical Generalizations in Marketing,” published in this same issue of JAMS. The purpose of and contributions associated with review papers can vary depending on their specific type and research question, but in general, they aim to Resolve definitional ambiguities and outline the scope of the topic. Provide an integrated, synthesized overview of the current state of knowledge. Identify inconsistencies in prior results and potential explanations (e.g., moderators, mediators, measures, approaches). Evaluate existing methodological approaches and unique insights. Develop conceptual frameworks to reconcile and extend past research. Describe research insights, existing gaps, and future research directions. Not every review paper can offer all of these benefits, but this list represents their key contributions. To provide a sufficient contribution, a review paper needs to achieve three key standards. First, the research domain needs to be well suited for a review paper, such that a sufficient body of past research exists to make the integration and synthesis valuable—especially if extant research reveals theoretical inconsistences or heterogeneity in its effects. Second, the review paper must be well executed, with an appropriate literature collection and analysis techniques, sufficient breadth and depth of literature coverage, and a compelling writing style. Third, the manuscript must offer significant new insights based on its systematic comparison of multiple studies, rather than simply a “book report” that describes past research. This third, most critical standard is often the most difficult, especially for authors who have not “lived” with the research domain for many years, because achieving it requires drawing some non-obvious connections and insights from multiple studies and their many different aspects (e.g., context, method, measures). Typically, after the “review” portion of the paper has been completed, the authors must spend many more months identifying the connections to uncover incremental insights, each of which takes time to detail and explicate. The increasing methodological rigor and technical sophistication of many marketing studies also means that they often focus on smaller problems with fewer constructs. By synthesizing these piecemeal findings, reconciling conflicting evidence, and drawing a “big picture,” meta-analyses and systematic review papers become indispensable to our comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon, among both academic and practitioner communities. Thus, good review papers provide a solid platform for future research, in the reviewed domain but also in other areas, in that researchers can use a good review paper to learn about and extend key insights to new areas. This domain extension, outside of the core area being reviewed, is one of the key benefits of review papers that often gets overlooked. Yet it also is becoming ever more important with the expanding breadth of marketing (e.g., econometric modeling, finance, strategic management, applied psychology, sociology) and the increasing velocity in the accumulation of marketing knowledge (e.g., digital marketing, social media, big data). Against this backdrop, systematic review papers and meta-analyses help academics and interested managers keep track of research findings that fall outside their main area of specialization. JAMS’ review paper editorial initiativeWith a strong belief in the importance of review papers, the editorial team of JAMS has purposely sought out leading scholars to provide substantive review papers, both meta-analysis and systematic, for publication in JAMS . Many of the scholars approached have voiced concerns about the risk of such endeavors, due to the lack of alternative outlets for these types of papers. Therefore, we have instituted a unique process, in which the authors develop a detailed outline of their paper, key tables and figures, and a description of their literature review process. On the basis of this outline, we grant assurances that the contribution hurdle will not be an issue for publication in JAMS , as long as the authors execute the proposed outline as written. Each paper still goes through the normal review process and must meet all publication quality standards, of course. In many cases, an Area Editor takes an active role to help ensure that each paper provides sufficient insights, as required for a high-quality review paper. This process gives the author team confidence to invest effort in the process. An analysis of the marketing journals in the Financial Times (FT 50) journal list for the past five years (2012–2016) shows that JAMS has become the most common outlet for these papers, publishing 31% of all review papers that appeared in the top six marketing journals. As a next step in positioning JAMS as a receptive marketing outlet for review papers, we are conducting a Thought Leaders Conference on Generalizations in Marketing: Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses , with a corresponding special issue (see www.springer.com/jams ). We will continue our process of seeking out review papers as an editorial strategy in areas that could be advanced by the integration and synthesis of extant research. We expect that, ultimately, such efforts will become unnecessary, as authors initiate review papers on topics of their own choosing to submit them to JAMS . In the past two years, JAMS already has increased the number of papers it publishes annually, from just over 40 to around 60 papers per year; this growth has provided “space” for 8–10 review papers per year, reflecting our editorial target. Consistent with JAMS ’ overall focus on managerially relevant and strategy-focused topics, all review papers should reflect this emphasis. For example, the domains, theories, and methods reviewed need to have some application to past or emerging managerial research. A good rule of thumb is that the substantive domain, theory, or method should attract the attention of readers of JAMS . The efforts of multiple editors and Area Editors in turn have generated a body of review papers that can serve as useful examples of the different types and approaches that JAMS has published. Domain-based review papersDomain-based review papers review, synthetize, and extend a body of literature in the same substantive domain. For example, in “The Role of Privacy in Marketing” (Martin and Murphy 2017 ), the authors identify and define various privacy-related constructs that have appeared in recent literature. Then they examine the different theoretical perspectives brought to bear on privacy topics related to consumers and organizations, including ethical and legal perspectives. These foundations lead in to their systematic review of privacy-related articles over a clearly defined date range, from which they extract key insights from each study. This exercise of synthesizing diverse perspectives allows these authors to describe state-of-the-art knowledge regarding privacy in marketing and identify useful paths for research. Similarly, a new paper by Cleeren et al. ( 2017 ), “Marketing Research on Product-Harm Crises: A Review, Managerial Implications, and an Agenda for Future Research,” provides a rich systematic review, synthesizes extant research, and points the way forward for scholars who are interested in issues related to defective or dangerous market offerings. Theory-based review papersTheory-based review papers review, synthetize, and extend a body of literature that uses the same underlying theory. For example, Rindfleisch and Heide’s ( 1997 ) classic review of research in marketing using transaction cost economics has been cited more than 2200 times, with a significant impact on applications of the theory to the discipline in the past 20 years. A recent paper in JAMS with similar intent, which could serve as a helpful model, focuses on “Resource-Based Theory in Marketing” (Kozlenkova et al. 2014 ). The article dives deeply into a description of the theory and its underlying assumptions, then organizes a systematic review of relevant literature according to various perspectives through which the theory has been applied in marketing. The authors conclude by identifying topical domains in marketing that might benefit from additional applications of the theory (e.g., marketing exchange), as well as related theories that could be integrated meaningfully with insights from the resource-based theory. Method-based review papersMethod-based review papers review, synthetize, and extend a body of literature that uses the same underlying method. For example, in “Event Study Methodology in the Marketing Literature: An Overview” (Sorescu et al. 2017 ), the authors identify published studies in marketing that use an event study methodology. After a brief review of the theoretical foundations of event studies, they describe in detail the key design considerations associated with this method. The article then provides a roadmap for conducting event studies and compares this approach with a stock market returns analysis. The authors finish with a summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the event study method, which in turn suggests three main areas for further research. Similarly, “Discriminant Validity Testing in Marketing: An Analysis, Causes for Concern, and Proposed Remedies” (Voorhies et al. 2016 ) systematically reviews existing approaches for assessing discriminant validity in marketing contexts, then uses Monte Carlo simulation to determine which tests are most effective. Our long-term editorial strategy is to make sure JAMS becomes and remains a well-recognized outlet for both meta-analysis and systematic managerial review papers in marketing. Ideally, review papers would come to represent 10%–20% of the papers published by the journal. Process and structure for review papersIn this section, we review the process and typical structure of a systematic review paper, which lacks any long or established tradition in marketing research. The article by Grewal et al. ( 2018 ) provides a summary of effects-focused review papers (i.e., meta-analyses), so we do not discuss them in detail here. Systematic literature review processSome review papers submitted to journals take a “narrative” approach. They discuss current knowledge about a research domain, yet they often are flawed, in that they lack criteria for article inclusion (or, more accurately, article exclusion), fail to discuss the methodology used to evaluate included articles, and avoid critical assessment of the field (Barczak 2017 ). Such reviews tend to be purely descriptive, with little lasting impact. In contrast, a systematic literature review aims to “comprehensively locate and synthesize research that bears on a particular question, using organized, transparent, and replicable procedures at each step in the process” (Littell et al. 2008 , p. 1). Littell et al. describe six key steps in the systematic review process. The extent to which each step is emphasized varies by paper, but all are important components of the review. Topic formulation . The author sets out clear objectives for the review and articulates the specific research questions or hypotheses that will be investigated. Study design . The author specifies relevant problems, populations, constructs, and settings of interest. The aim is to define explicit criteria that can be used to assess whether any particular study should be included in or excluded from the review. Furthermore, it is important to develop a protocol in advance that describes the procedures and methods to be used to evaluate published work. Sampling . The aim in this third step is to identify all potentially relevant studies, including both published and unpublished research. To this end, the author must first define the sampling unit to be used in the review (e.g., individual, strategic business unit) and then develop an appropriate sampling plan. Data collection . By retrieving the potentially relevant studies identified in the third step, the author can determine whether each study meets the eligibility requirements set out in the second step. For studies deemed acceptable, the data are extracted from each study and entered into standardized templates. These templates should be based on the protocols established in step 2. Data analysis . The degree and nature of the analyses used to describe and examine the collected data vary widely by review. Purely descriptive analysis is useful as a starting point but rarely is sufficient on its own. The examination of trends, clusters of ideas, and multivariate relationships among constructs helps flesh out a deeper understanding of the domain. For example, both Hult ( 2015 ) and Huber et al. ( 2014 ) use bibliometric approaches (e.g., examine citation data using multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis techniques) to identify emerging versus declining themes in the broad field of marketing. Reporting . Three key aspects of this final step are common across systematic reviews. First, the results from the fifth step need to be presented, clearly and compellingly, using narratives, tables, and figures. Second, core results that emerge from the review must be interpreted and discussed by the author. These revelatory insights should reflect a deeper understanding of the topic being investigated, not simply a regurgitation of well-established knowledge. Third, the author needs to describe the implications of these unique insights for both future research and managerial practice. A new paper by Watson et al. ( 2017 ), “Harnessing Difference: A Capability-Based Framework for Stakeholder Engagement in Environmental Innovation,” provides a good example of a systematic review, starting with a cohesive conceptual framework that helps establish the boundaries of the review while also identifying core constructs and their relationships. The article then explicitly describes the procedures used to search for potentially relevant papers and clearly sets out criteria for study inclusion or exclusion. Next, a detailed discussion of core elements in the framework weaves published research findings into the exposition. The paper ends with a presentation of key implications and suggestions for the next steps. Similarly, “Marketing Survey Research Best Practices: Evidence and Recommendations from a Review of JAMS Articles” (Hulland et al. 2017 ) systematically reviews published marketing studies that use survey techniques, describes recent trends, and suggests best practices. In their review, Hulland et al. examine the entire population of survey papers published in JAMS over a ten-year span, relying on an extensive standardized data template to facilitate their subsequent data analysis. Structure of systematic review papersThere is no cookie-cutter recipe for the exact structure of a useful systematic review paper; the final structure depends on the authors’ insights and intended points of emphasis. However, several key components are likely integral to a paper’s ability to contribute. Depth and rigorSystematic review papers must avoid falling in to two potential “ditches.” The first ditch threatens when the paper fails to demonstrate that a systematic approach was used for selecting articles for inclusion and capturing their insights. If a reader gets the impression that the author has cherry-picked only articles that fit some preset notion or failed to be thorough enough, without including articles that make significant contributions to the field, the paper will be consigned to the proverbial side of the road when it comes to the discipline’s attention. Authors that fall into the other ditch present a thorough, complete overview that offers only a mind-numbing recitation, without evident organization, synthesis, or critical evaluation. Although comprehensive, such a paper is more of an index than a useful review. The reviewed articles must be grouped in a meaningful way to guide the reader toward a better understanding of the focal phenomenon and provide a foundation for insights about future research directions. Some scholars organize research by scholarly perspectives (e.g., the psychology of privacy, the economics of privacy; Martin and Murphy 2017 ); others classify the chosen articles by objective research aspects (e.g., empirical setting, research design, conceptual frameworks; Cleeren et al. 2017 ). The method of organization chosen must allow the author to capture the complexity of the underlying phenomenon (e.g., including temporal or evolutionary aspects, if relevant). ReplicabilityProcesses for the identification and inclusion of research articles should be described in sufficient detail, such that an interested reader could replicate the procedure. The procedures used to analyze chosen articles and extract their empirical findings and/or key takeaways should be described with similar specificity and detail. We already have noted the potential usefulness of well-done review papers. Some scholars always are new to the field or domain in question, so review papers also need to help them gain foundational knowledge. Key constructs, definitions, assumptions, and theories should be laid out clearly (for which purpose summary tables are extremely helpful). An integrated conceptual model can be useful to organize cited works. Most scholars integrate the knowledge they gain from reading the review paper into their plans for future research, so it is also critical that review papers clearly lay out implications (and specific directions) for research. Ideally, readers will come away from a review article filled with enthusiasm about ways they might contribute to the ongoing development of the field. Helpful formatBecause such a large body of research is being synthesized in most review papers, simply reading through the list of included studies can be exhausting for readers. We cannot overstate the importance of tables and figures in review papers, used in conjunction with meaningful headings and subheadings. Vast literature review tables often are essential, but they must be organized in a way that makes their insights digestible to the reader; in some cases, a sequence of more focused tables may be better than a single, comprehensive table. In summary, articles that review extant research in a domain (topic, theory, or method) can be incredibly useful to the scientific progress of our field. Whether integrating the insights from extant research through a meta-analysis or synthesizing them through a systematic assessment, the promised benefits are similar. Both formats provide readers with a useful overview of knowledge about the focal phenomenon, as well as insights on key dilemmas and conflicting findings that suggest future research directions. Thus, the editorial team at JAMS encourages scholars to continue to invest the time and effort to construct thoughtful review papers. Barczak, G. (2017). From the editor: writing a review article. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 34 (2), 120–121. Article Google Scholar Bem, D. J. (1995). Writing a review article for psychological bulletin. Psychological Bulletin, 118 (2), 172–177. Bettencourt, L. A., & Houston, M. B. (2001). Assessing the impact of article method type and subject area on citation frequency and reference diversity. Marketing Letters, 12 (4), 327–340. Cleeren, K., Dekimpe, M. G., & van Heerde, H. J. (2017). Marketing research on product-harm crises: a review, managerial implications. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (5), 593–615. Grewal, D., Puccinelli, N. M., & Monroe, K. B. (2018). Meta-analysis: error cancels and truth accrues. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46 (1). Hanssens, D. M. (2018). The value of empirical generalizations in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46 (1). Huber, J., Kamakura, W., & Mela, C. F. (2014). A topical history of JMR . Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (1), 84–91. Hulland, J., Baumgartner, H., & Smith, K. M. (2017). Marketing survey research best practices: evidence and recommendations from a review of JAMS articles. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0532-y . Hult, G. T. M. (2015). JAMS 2010—2015: literature themes and intellectual structure. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (6), 663–669. Knoll, J., & Matthes, J. (2017). The effectiveness of celebrity endorsements: a meta-analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (1), 55–75. Kozlenkova, I. V., Samaha, S. A., & Palmatier, R. W. (2014). Resource-based theory in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42 (1), 1–21. Littell, J. H., Corcoran, J., & Pillai, V. (2008). Systematic reviews and meta-analysis . New York: Oxford University Press. Book Google Scholar Martin, K. D., & Murphy, P. E. (2017). The role of data privacy in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (2), 135–155. Rindfleisch, A., & Heide, J. B. (1997). Transaction cost analysis: past, present, and future applications. Journal of Marketing, 61 (4), 30–54. Sorescu, A., Warren, N. L., & Ertekin, L. (2017). Event study methodology in the marketing literature: an overview. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (2), 186–207. Verma, V., Sharma, D., & Sheth, J. (2016). Does relationship marketing matter in online retailing? A meta-analytic approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44 (2), 206–217. Voorhies, C. M., Brady, M. K., Calantone, R., & Ramirez, E. (2016). Discriminant validity testing in marketing: an analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44 (1), 119–134. Watson, R., Wilson, H. N., Smart, P., & Macdonald, E. K. (2017). Harnessing difference: a capability-based framework for stakeholder engagement in environmental innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12394 . Download references Author informationAuthors and affiliations. Foster School of Business, University of Washington, Box: 353226, Seattle, WA, 98195-3226, USA Robert W. Palmatier Neeley School of Business, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX, USA Mark B. Houston Terry College of Business, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA John Hulland You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar Corresponding authorCorrespondence to Robert W. Palmatier . Rights and permissionsReprints and permissions About this articlePalmatier, R.W., Houston, M.B. & Hulland, J. Review articles: purpose, process, and structure. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 46 , 1–5 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0563-4 Download citation Published : 02 October 2017 Issue Date : January 2018 DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0563-4 Share this articleAnyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
 Writing a good review article
Table of Contents As a young researcher, you might wonder how to start writing your first review article, and the extent of the information that it should contain. A review article is a comprehensive summary of the current understanding of a specific research topic and is based on previously published research. Unlike research papers, it does not contain new results, but can propose new inferences based on the combined findings of previous research. Types of review articlesReview articles are typically of three types: literature reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. A literature review is a general survey of the research topic and aims to provide a reliable and unbiased account of the current understanding of the topic. A systematic review , in contrast, is more specific and attempts to address a highly focused research question. Its presentation is more detailed, with information on the search strategy used, the eligibility criteria for inclusion of studies, the methods utilized to review the collected information, and more. A meta-analysis is similar to a systematic review in that both are systematically conducted with a properly defined research question. However, unlike the latter, a meta-analysis compares and evaluates a defined number of similar studies. It is quantitative in nature and can help assess contrasting study findings. Tips for writing a good review articleHere are a few practices that can make the time-consuming process of writing a review article easier:
Writing review articles, especially systematic reviews or meta-analyses, can seem like a daunting task. However, Elsevier Author Services can guide you by providing useful tips on how to write an impressive review article that stands out and gets published!  What are Implications in Research? How to write the results section of a research paperYou may also like.  Descriptive Research Design and Its Myriad Uses Five Common Mistakes to Avoid When Writing a Biomedical Research Paper Making Technical Writing in Environmental Engineering Accessible To Err is Not Human: The Dangers of AI-assisted Academic Writing When Data Speak, Listen: Importance of Data Collection and Analysis Methods Choosing the Right Research Methodology: A Guide for Researchers Why is data validation important in research? Scholarly Sources: What are They and Where can You Find Them?Input your search keywords and press Enter.
Systematic Reviews
Choosing a Review TypeTypes of literature reviews.
This guide focuses on the methodology for systematic reviews (SRs), but an SR may not be the best methodology to use to meet your project's goals. Use the articles listed here or in the Types of Literature Reviews box below for information about additional methodologies that could better fit your project.
Meta-Analyses
NOTE: The term "systematic review" is also used incorrectly as a blanket term for other types of reviews. Methodological Guidance
For issues in systematic reviews, especially in social science or other qualitative research:
Umbrella Reviews
Comparative effectiveness
Scoping Review or Evidence Map Systematically and transparently collect and categorize existing evidence on a broad question of policy or management importance. Seeks to identify research gaps and opportunities for evidence synthesis rather than searching for the effect of an intervention. May critically evaluate existing evidence, but does not attempt to synthesize the results in the way a systematic review would. (see EE Journal and CIFOR ) May take longer than a systematic review.
Hilary Arksey & Lisa O'Malley (2005) Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework http://10.1080/1364557032000119616 Aromataris E, Munn Z, eds. (2020) . JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI. Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews. https://wiki.jbi.global/display/MANUAL/Chapter+11%3A+Scoping+reviews Munn Z, Peters MD, Stern C, Tet al. (2018) Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30453902/ Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al.. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018 Oct 2;169(7):467-473. doi: 10.7326/M18-0850. Epub 2018 Sep 4. PMID: 30178033. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/epdf/10.7326/M18-0850 Bouldin E, Patel SR, Tey CS, et al. Bullying and Children who are Deaf or Hard-of-hearing: A Scoping Review. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33438758 Finn M, Gilmore B, Sheaf G, Vallières F. What do we mean by individual capacity strengthening for primary health care in low- and middle-income countries? A systematic scoping review to improve conceptual clarity. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33407554/ Hirt J, Nordhausen T, Meichlinger J, Braun V, Zeller A, Meyer G. Educational interventions to improve literature searching skills in the health sciences: a scoping review. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33013210/ Rapid Review Useful for addressing issues needing timely decisions, such as developing policy recommendations. Applies systematic review methodology within a time-constrained setting. Employs intentional, methodological "shortcuts" (limiting search terms for example) at the risk of introducing bias. Defining characteristic is the transparency of team methodological choices. Garritty, Chantelle, Gerald Gartlehner, Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit, Valerie J. King, Candyce Hamel, Chris Kamel, Lisa Affengruber, and Adrienne Stevens. “Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group Offers Evidence-Informed Guidance to Conduct Rapid Reviews.” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 130 (February 2021): 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.10.007 . Klerings I , Robalino S , Booth A , et al. Rapid reviews methods series: Guidance on literature search. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine. 19 April 2023. https:// 10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112079 WHO. “WHO | Rapid Reviews to Strengthen Health Policy and Systems: A Practical Guide.” World Health Organization. Accessed February 11, 2022. http://www.who.int/alliance-hpsr/resources/publications/rapid-review-guide/en/ . Dobbins, Maureen. “Steps for Conducting a Rapid Review,” 2017, 25. https://www.nccmt.ca/uploads/media/media/0001/01/a816af720e4d587e13da6bb307df8c907a5dff9a.pdf Norris HC, Richardson HM, Benoit MC, et al. (2021) Utilization Impact of Cost-Sharing Elimination for Preventive Care Services: A Rapid Review. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34157906/ Marcus N, Stergiopoulos V. Re-examining mental health crisis intervention: A rapid review comparing outcomes across police, co-responder and non-police models. Health Soc Care Community. 2022 Feb 1. doi: 10.1111/hsc.13731. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 35103364. Narrative ( Literature ) Review A broad term referring to reviews with a wide scope and non-standardized methodology. See Baethge 2019 below for a method to provide quality assessment, Search strategies, comprehensiveness, and time range covered will vary and do not follow an established protocol. It provides insight into a particular topic by critically examining sources, generally over a particular period of time. Greenhalgh, T., Thorne, S., & Malterud, K. (2018). Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews?. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29578574/
What are the different types of review?Systematic literature reviews (slrs). SLR’s attempt to collate all empirical evidence that fit pre-specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a specific clearly-formulated research question. A SLR uses explicit and reproducible systematic methods that are selected with a view to minimizing bias, thus providing more reliable findings from which conclusions can be drawn and decisions made. The process starts with a research question and a protocol or research plan. A review team searches for studies to answer the question using a highly sensitive search strategy. The retrieved studies are then screened for eligibility using pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria (this is done by at least two people working independently). Next, the reviewers extract the relevant data and assess the quality of the included studies. Finally, the review team synthesizes the extracted study data and presents the results. A SLR may contain meta-analyses (statistical analysis). A SLR which is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available is often known as a living SLR. Rapid reviewsRapid reviews aim to produce a rigorous synthesis quickly (due to time constraints/urgency), based on a pre-defined research question. The review process for rapid reviews is the same as for a more traditional systematic review: the emphasis is on a replicable pre-specified search, and screening methods that minimize the risk of bias, although potentially isn’t as stringent as a formal systematic review. The process operates within pre-specified limits (for example, by restricting searches to articles published during a specific timeframe) and is usually run by a multidisciplinary team with expertise in systematic review methods. Umbrella reviews or Overview of reviewsAn umbrella review is a review of multiple systematic reviews. The process uses explicit and systematic methods to search for, and identify, systematic reviews on related research questions in the same topic area. The purpose of an umbrella review is to synthesize the results of the systematic reviews across important outcomes. Scoping reviewsScoping reviews are exploratory and they typically address a broad question, compared to a systematic review that typically has a more targeted question. Researchers conduct scoping reviews to assess the extent of the available evidence, to organize it into groups and to highlight gaps. If a scoping review finds no studies, this might help researchers to decide that a systematic review is likely to be of limited value and that resources could be better directed elsewhere. Literature reviews or narrative reviewsLiterature, or narrative, reviews provide an overview of what is known about a particular topic. They evaluate the material, rather than simply restating it, but the methods used to do this are not usually prespecified and they are not described in detail in the review. The search might be comprehensive but it does not aim to be exhaustive. Literature reviews are often topic based and can take the form of a discussion. Literature reviews lack precision and replicability and can present their findings in the context of what has come before. Often, this sort of synthesis does not attempt to control for the author’s own bias. The results or conclusion of a literature review is likely to be presented in a narrative format rather than statistical methods. Take a look at the articles about the different types of review on the Covidence blog:
How to Write an Article Review: Practical Tips and Examples Table of contents
What Is an Article Review?Before you get started, learn what an article review is. It can be defined as a work that combines elements of summary and critical analysis. If you are writing an article review, you should take a close look at another author’s work. Many experts regularly practice evaluating the work of others. The purpose of this is to improve writing skills. This kind of work belongs to professional pieces of writing because the process of crafting this paper requires reviewing, summarizing, and understanding the topic. Only experts are able to compose really good reviews containing a logical evaluation of a paper as well as a critique. Your task is not to provide new information. You should process what you have in a certain publication. Different Types of Article ReviewIn academic writing, the landscape of article reviews is diverse and nuanced, encompassing a variety of formats that cater to different research purposes and methodologies. Among these, three main types of article reviews stand out due to their distinct approaches and applications:
Understanding 10 Common TypesDon`t rush looking at meta-analysis vs. systematic review. We recommend that you familiarize yourself with other formats and topics of texts. This will allow you to understand the types of essays better and select them based on your request. For this purpose, we`ll discuss the typology of reviews below. Critical reviewThe critical review definition says that the author must be objective and have arguments for each thought. Sometimes, amateur authors believe that they should “criticize” something. However, it is important to understand the difference since objectivity and the absence of emotional judgments are prioritized. The structure of this type of review article is as follows:
“Stuffing” of the text is based on such elements as methodology, argumentation, evidence, and theory base. The subject of study is stated at the beginning of the material. Then follows the transition to the main part (facts). The final word summarizes all the information voiced earlier. It is a mistake to believe that critical reviews are devoid of evaluation. The author’s art lies in maneuvering between facts. Smooth transition from one argument to another and lays out the conclusions in the reader. That is why such texts are used in science. The critical reviews meaning is especially tangible in medical topics. Literature reviewLiterature is the basis for this type of work ─ books, essays, and articles become a source of information. Thus, the author should rethink the voiced information. After that, it is possible to proceed to conclusions. The methodology aims to find interconnections, repetitions, and even “gaps” in the literature. One important item is the referencing of sources. Footnotes are possible in the work itself or the list of resources used. These types of research reviews often explore myths since there are often inconsistencies in mythology. Sometimes, there is contrary information. In this case, the author has to gather all existing theories. The essence does not always lie in the confirmation of facts. There are other different types of reviews for this purpose. In literary reviews, the object of study may be characters or traditions. This is where the author’s space for discovery opens up. Inconsistencies in the data can tell important details about particular periods or cultures. At the same time, patterns reveal well-established facts. Make sure to outline your work before you write. This will help you with essay writing . Mapping review/systematic mapA mapping review, also known as a systematic map, is a unique approach to surveying and organizing existing literature, providing a panoramic view of the research landscape. This paper systematically categorizes and maps out the available literature on a particular topic, emphasizing breadth over depth. Its primary goal is to present a comprehensive visual representation of the research distribution, offering insights into the overall scope of a subject. One of the strengths of systematic reviews is that they deeply focus on a research question with detailed analysis and synthesis, while mapping review prioritizes breadth. It identifies and categorizes a broad range of studies without necessarily providing in-depth critique or content synthesis. This approach allows for a broader understanding of the field, making it especially useful in the early stages of research. Mapping reviews excel in identifying gaps in the existing body of literature. By systematically mapping the distribution of research, researchers can pinpoint areas where studies are scarce or nonexistent, helping to guide future research directions. This makes mapping reviews a valuable tool for researchers seeking to contribute meaningfully to a field by addressing unexplored or underexplored areas. Meta-analysisMeta-analysis is a powerful statistical technique. It systematically combines the results of multiple studies to derive comprehensive and nuanced insights. This method goes beyond the limitations of individual studies, offering a more robust understanding of a particular phenomenon by synthesizing data from diverse sources. Meta-analysis employs a rigorous methodology. It involves the systematic collection and statistical integration of data from multiple studies. This methodological rigor ensures a standardized and unbiased approach to data synthesis. It is applied across various disciplines, from medicine and psychology to social sciences, providing a quantitative assessment of the overall effect of an intervention or the strength of an association. In evidence-based fields, where informed decision-making relies on a thorough understanding of existing research, meta-analysis plays a pivotal role. It offers a quantitative overview of the collective evidence, helping researchers, policymakers, and practitioners make more informed decisions. By synthesizing results from diverse studies, meta-analysis contributes to the establishment of robust evidence-based practices, enhancing the reliability and credibility of findings in various fields. To present your research findings in the most readable way possible, learn how to write a summary of article . If the key purpose of systematic review is to maximize the disclosure of facts, the opposite is true here. Imagine a video shot by a quadcopter from an altitude. The viewer sees a vast area of terrain without focusing on individual details. Overviews follow the same principle. The author gives a general picture of the events or objects described. These types of reviews often seem simple. However, the role of the researcher becomes a very demanding one. The point is not just to list facts. Here, the search for information comes to the fore. After all, it is such reports that, in the future, will provide the basis for researching issues more narrowly. In essence, you yourself create a new source of information ─ students who worry that somebody may critique the author’s article love this type of material. However, there are no questions for the author; they just set the stage for discussions in different fields. An example of this type of report would be a collection of research results from scientists. For example, statistics on the treatment of patients with certain diseases. In such a case, reference is made to scientific articles and doctrines. Based on this information, readers can speak about the effectiveness of certain treatment methods. Qualitative Systematic Review/Qualitative Evidence SynthesisOne of the next types of review articles represents a meticulous effort to synthesize and analyze qualitative studies within a specific research domain. The focus is synthesizing qualitative studies, employing a systematic and rigorous approach to extract meaningful insights. Its significance lies in its ability to provide a nuanced understanding of complex phenomena, offering a qualitative lens to complement quantitative analyses. Researchers can uncover patterns, themes, and contextual nuances that may elude traditional quantitative approaches by systematically reviewing and synthesizing qualitative data. Often, you may meet discussion: is a systematic review quantitative or qualitative? The application of qualitative systematic reviews extends across diverse research domains, from healthcare and social sciences to education and psychology. For example, this approach can offer a comprehensive understanding of patient experiences and preferences in healthcare. In social sciences, it can illuminate cultural or societal dynamics. Its versatility makes it a valuable tool for researchers exploring, interpreting, and integrating qualitative findings to enrich their understanding of complex phenomena within their respective fields. Rapid reviewIf you don’t know how to write an article review , try starting with this format. It is the complete opposite of everything we talked about above. The key advantage and feature is speed. Quick overviews are used when time is limited. The focus can go to individual details (key). Often, the focus is still on the principal points. Often, these types of review papers are critically needed in politics. This method helps to communicate important information to the reader quickly. An example can be a comparison of the election programs of two politicians. The author can show the key differences. Or it can make an overview based on the theses of the opponents’ proposals on different topics. Seeming simplicity becomes power. Such texts allow the reader to make a quick decision. The author’s task is to understand potential interests and needs. Then, highlight and present the most important data as concisely as possible. In addition to politics, such reports are often used in communications, advertising, and marketing. Experienced writers mention the one-minute principle. This means you can count on 60 seconds of the reader’s attention. If you managed to hook them ─ bravo, you have done the job! Scoping reviewIf you read the official scoping review definition, you may find similarities with the systematic type of review. However, recall is a sequential and logical study in the second case. It’s like you stack things on a shelf by color, size, and texture. This type of review can be more difficult to understand. The basic concept is to explore what is called the field of subjects. This means, on the one hand, exploring a particular topic through the existing data about it. The author tries to find gaps or patterns by drawing on sources of information. Another good comparison between systematic and this type of review is imagining as if drawing a picture. In the first case, you will think through every nuance and detail, why it is there, and how it “moves the story.” In the second case, it is as if you are painting a picture with “broad strokes.” In doing so, you can explain your motives for choosing the primary color. For example: “I chose the emerald color because all the cultural publications say it’s a trend”. The same goes for texts. Systematic reviewSometimes, you may encounter a battle: narrative review vs. systematic review. The point is not to compare but to understand the different types of papers. Once you understand their purpose, you can present your data better and choose a more readable format. The systematic approach can be called the most scientific. Such a review relies on the following steps:
It is the fourth point that is key. The writer should carefully process the information before using it. However, 80% of your work’s result depends on this stage’s seriousness. A rigorous approach to data selection produces an array of factual data. That is why this method is so often used in science, education, and social fields. Where accuracy is important. At the same time, the popularity of this approach is growing in other directions. Systematic reviews allow for using different data and methodologies,, but with one important caveat ─ if the author manages to keep the narrative structured and explain the reason for certain methods. It is not about rigor. The task of this type of review is to preserve the facts, which dictates consistency and rationality. Umbrella reviewAn umbrella review is a distinctive approach that involves the review of existing reviews, providing a comprehensive synthesis of evidence on a specific topic. The methodology of an umbrella review entails systematically examining and summarizing findings from multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses. This method ensures a rigorous and consolidated analysis of the existing evidence. The application of an umbrella review is broad, spanning various fields such as medicine, public health, and social sciences. It is particularly useful when a substantial body of systematic reviews exists, allowing researchers to draw overarching conclusions from the collective findings. It allows the summarization of existing reviews and provides a new perspective on individual subtopics of the main object of study. In the context of the umbrella method, the comparison “bird’s eye view” is often cited. A bird in flight can see the whole panorama and shift its gaze to specific objects simultaneously. What becomes relevant at a particular moment? The author will face the same task. On the one hand, you must delve into the offshoots of the researched topic. On the other hand, focus on the topic or object of study as a whole. Such a concept allows you to open up new perspectives and thoughts.  Different types of formatting styles are used for article review writing. It mainly depends on the guidelines that are provided by the instructor, sometimes, professors even provide an article review template that needs to be followed. Here are some common types of formatting styles that you should be aware of when you start writing an article review:
To ensure that your article review paper is properly formatted and meets the requirements, it is crucial to adhere to the specific guidelines for the formatting style you are using. This helps you write a good article review.
How To Write An Article ReviewThere are several steps that must be followed when you are starting to review articles. You need to follow these to make sure that your thoughts are organized properly. In this way, you can present your ideas in a more concise and clear manner. Here are some tips on how to start an article review and how to cater to each writing stage.
Make sure to stay impartial and provide proof to back up your assessment. By adhering to these guidelines, you can create a reflective and well-structured article review. Article Review OutlineHere is a basic, detailed outline for an article review you should be aware of as a pre-writing process if you are wondering how to write an article review. Introduction
Summary section
Critical Review
10 Tips for Writing an Article ReviewHave you ever written such an assignment? If not, study the helpful tips for composing a paper. If you follow the recommendations provided here, the process of writing a summary of the article won’t be so time-consuming, and you will be able to write an article in the most effective manner. The guidelines below will help to make the process of preparing a paper much more productive. Let’s get started!
If you have checked the tips and you still doubt whether you have all the necessary skills and time to prepare this kind of educational work, follow one more tip that guarantees 100% success- ask for professional assistance by asking the custom writing service PapersOwl to craft your paper instead of you. Just submit an order online and get the paper completed by experts.  An Article Review ExampleIf you have a task to prepare an analysis of a certain piece of literature, have a look at the article review sample. There is an article review example for you to have a clear picture of what it must look like. Journal Article on Ayn Rand’s Works Review Example “The purpose of the article is to consider the features of the poetics of Ayn Rand’s novels “Atlas Shrugged,” “We the living,” and “The Fountainhead.” In the analysis of the novels, the structural-semantic and the method of comparative analysis were used. With the help of these methods, genre features of the novels were revealed, and a single conflict and a cyclic hero were identified. In-depth reading allows us to more fully reveal the worldview of the author reflected in the novels. It becomes easier to understand the essence of the author’s ideas about the connection between being and consciousness, embodied in cyclic ideas and images of plot twists and heroes. The author did a good job highlighting the strong points of the works and mentioning the reasons for the obvious success of Ayn Rand.“ You can also search for other relevant article review examples before you start. In conclusion, article reviews play an important role in evaluating and analyzing different scholarly articles. Writing a review requires critical thinking skills and a deep understanding of the article’s content, style, and structure. It is crucial to identify the type of article review and follow the specific guidelines for formatting style provided by the instructor or professor. The process of writing an article review requires several steps, such as reading the article attentively, identifying the thesis, and formulating an introduction. By following the tips and examples provided in this article, students can write a worthy review that demonstrates their ability to evaluate and critique another writer’s work. Learning how to write an article review is a critical skill for students and professionals alike. Before diving into the nitty-gritty of reviewing an article, it’s important to understand what an article review is and the elements it should include. An article review is an assessment of a piece of writing that summarizes and evaluates a work. To complete a quality article review, the author should consider the text’s purpose and content, its organization, the author’s style, and how the article fits into a larger conversation. But if you don’t have the time to do all of this work, you can always purchase a literature review from Papers Owl . Readers also enjoyed WHY WAIT? PLACE AN ORDER RIGHT NOW!Just fill out the form, press the button, and have no worries! We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy.  Scholarly Journal Publishing Guide
DescriptionEditorial review, peer review, providing feedback to authors.
 Unless otherwise noted, content is this guide is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.  The process by which articles will be evaluated is an important part of establishing a journal. Journals may decided to have different processes for different sections of the journal. For example, a commentary column may be reviewed only by the editor while a research article may be subjected to an anonymous peer review process. This section of the guide outlines the different types of review and provides some sample forms to assist in developing the review process. Editorial review is an assessment of an article undertaken by a member of the editorial staff. For some sections of the journal, editorial review may be the only assessment taken of an article. This is more often the case for non-research articles such as book reviews, commentary, opinion etc.(although in some journals these sections are peer-reviewed as well). Editorial review is also a part of the peer-review process. Typically editors will take a first pass at an article to determine if it's worthwhile to send out for peer review. They will typically evaluate if the article is:
Peer Review Process Image credit. © Jessica Lange. Licensed under Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 International For a light read on the perspective of being an editor see: Looser, D.( 2016, June 25). How your journal editor works. Chronicle of Higher Education . Retrieved from: http://chronicle.com/article/How-Your-Journal-Editor-Works/236911?cid=rc_right Peer review is the process by which experts in the subject area review and article and provide their feedback. Journals typically have between 1-3 reviewers per article depending on the journal's review criteria and the availability of reviewers. Journals should establish how they will recruit peer reviewers. For example, will a general call be put out on a listserv? Can anyone volunteer to be a peer reviewer or should there be an application procedure? If there's an application procedure, what's the criteria for acceptance? Table 1: Different Types of Peer Review
* These terms were formerly referred to as single-blind and double-blind. Anonymous is now the preferred term.Source: pkp school, different types of peer review, ensuring an anonymous review. If the journal is using an anonymous review process, it should have instructions to editors and authors to properly anonymize a manuscript. This would include:
Forms and guidelines for peer reviewersJournals will typically provide guidelines for reviewers. This helps the reviews know how they should frame their assessment of the article. Some articles will also provide forms or rubrics for their peer reviewers to fill out. See below for several examples:
In either review scenario (e.g. editorial review or peer review), there is a set of typical language to provide feedback to authors about their article. Journals can assist their peer reviews by providing their own definitions for recommendation decisions. Accept submission
Accept pending revisions (Minor revisions)
Revisions required
Resubmit for review (Major revisions)
Decline submission
McGill Library • Questions? Ask us! Privacy notice 
Types of Review Articles: The Complete List by Antony W June 24, 2024  There are a lot of different types of reviews. In this article, we are going to provide you with the 10 major types of reviews. They include umbrella, scoping, critical, literature, realistic, integrative, mapping, rapid, and quantitative systematic review. We have discussed them below. 1. Umbrella ReviewAn umbrella review is the master review. The review takes evidence from already existing reviews to provide a high-level summary. We use the umbrella review when we have several competitive interventions. The review is of great importance because it turns evidence into practice. Apart from just determining what is known on a topic, the review also determines what remains unknown and recommendations. These recommendations will be used to further carry out an investigation. Information on an umbrella review is most of the time presented using tables. People who are much involved with this type of review are librarians. You could therefore approach a librarian if you need help with the umbrella review. 2. Scoping ReviewsA scoping review is also known as a scooping project. The review is used to categorize existing literature. The literature is grouped according to features, volume, and nature. Most people confuse this review with the mapping review. The mapping review is more of questions while the scooping review is more based on topics. The main reason we have scooping reviews is to identify nature through research. The review is best for realizing opportunities in existing literature, explaining functional definitions, and labeling the body of a research/literature. A lot of time is used when preparing a scoping review. Also, instead of single structured research, you will need multiple structural pieces of research. The research is not as easy as other reviews. 3. Critical ReviewsA critical review will summarize and evaluate ideas and summarize reports on an article. Writers use this review to express what they already know about the subject. Before expressing their view they need to think carefully and consider both weaknesses and strengths in what they are reviewing. The best way to do critical reviews is by scanning the research to be informed and effectively reviewing the literature as you question the information provided in the text. Look at the texts from various angles to be able to evaluate the theories, frameworks, and approaches in the text. The elements of a critical review include the introduction, summary, critique (the main body), conclusion, and references. 4. Literature ReviewsLiterature reviews are writings that academically showcase knowledge and understanding of the literature on a given topic placed in a given setting. Unlike a literature report, a literature review will evaluate essential materials. Apart from the critic’s evaluation, a literature review should also include a brief synopsis. Although the review forms part of a research project, it can still be treated as an independent piece of work. The purpose of having literature reviews is to establish familiarity and get to understand research on a given field before conducting a new investigation. A literature review is the best way to summarize and analyze a theory or investigation, identify gaps that exist in research, and identify areas of controversy. 5. Realist ReviewsA realistic review can also be called a realistic synthesis. Realistic reviews are used to study interventions that are so complex to perceive the limitations of conventional methodology. It also highlights mechanisms, context, and outcomes to explain the intended or unintended differences. Realistic reviews are crucial because they are used to unpack the impact of complex interventions as they strive to answer questions such as “under what circumstance do a given thing work” and “to who does the thing in discussion work for”. 6. Integrative ReviewsAn integrative review will summarize theatrical research to give a better understanding of a given situation. The integrative review methodology can build upon informing research, policy initiation, and nursing science. This review accepts the inclusion of various approaches. The integrative review approach is appropriate when research is more focused on the occurrence of interest and when research supports a vast variety of inquiries. 7. Mapping ReviewsA mapping review will classify trends/themes, categorize trends/themes and characterize patterns in evidence production. A mapping review is supposed to make you thematically understand research on a provided topic. That way, it is possible to assess gaps that could be conveyed by future research. The review is appropriate when there are lots of foregoing literature. 8. Rapid ReviewsA rapid review is a variation of structured review. The structured review can balance constraints even when considerations are corrupt. Rapid reviews are conducted by a lot of institutions in the world. Rapid reviews can examine reports, articles, and books to compare reviews using Scoping reviews. 9. Mixed Study ReviewResearchers use the mixed study review to gather and analyze qualitative and quantitative information under the same topic of study. The mixed study review features various methods of designs that include embedded, explanatory, exploratory, and parallel designs. The review provides answers to questions quantitative and qualitative methods cannot answer. Mixed study reviews can also enrich the researchers’ experience by illuminating issues of study. 10. Quantitative Systematic ReviewsQuantitative Systematic Review is of much use in nursing research. To reduce biases and make the review more trustworthy, reviews based on protocol should be used. That way, reproducibility, and transparency shall be enhanced. Developing quantitative systematic reviews is not hard, the only thing that limits it is inadequate resources. A quantitative systematic review aims to guide researchers as they develop systematic review protocols. Apart from helping researchers develop review protocol, this review also helps them enhance trustworthiness and realize the importance of completing quantitative systematic findings. Since this review is useful in clinical practices, it is important to base it on the planned protocol. That way trustworthiness will also be enhanced. Everything that appears on the quantitative systematic review should be outlined in detail processes used to undertake the review. Some of these details include inclusion, exclusion criteria, and main focus search terms. The method used for data extraction, data analysis, and critical appraisal should also be included to make sure there is transparency. About the author Antony W is a professional writer and coach at Help for Assessment. He spends countless hours every day researching and writing great content filled with expert advice on how to write engaging essays, research papers, and assignments.
You are hereTypes of peer review. Peer review is “a process where scientists (“peers”) evaluate the quality of other scientists’ work. By doing this, they aim to ensure the work is rigorous, coherent, uses past research and adds to what we already know.” This quote comes from an explainer on The Conversation, which you can read here .  Peer review brings academic research to publication in the following ways:
Types of peer review
To learn more about the different types of peer review, see page 14 of Peer Review: The Nuts and Bolts of Peer Review , from Sense about Science. A full list of Sage’s journals can be found here . Each journal will have its own set of instructions and submission guidelines for authors, so please double check the manuscript submission guidelines of the journal you are reviewing for in order to ensure that you understand the method of peer review being used.
This device is too smallIf you're on a Galaxy Fold, consider unfolding your phone or viewing it in full screen to best optimize your experience.
These 5 Business Types Have the Highest Odds of Success in 2024Updated June 24, 2024 - First published on June 23, 2024  By: Dana George
Check out our pick for the best cash back credit card of 2024 Starting a business is a huge undertaking. Anyone who goes into business would like assurances that theirs will be a huge success. Unfortunately, there are no guarantees, no matter what type of business a person starts. 1. Technology businessesWhy they're likely to succeed: Despite recent layoffs, the tech sector will continue to grow. Rapid advancements fuel the need for professionals who can do everything -- from teaching others how to make the most of their technology to teaching professionals how to make repairs. Business ideas
2. Janitorial servicesWhy they're likely to succeed: For hundreds of years, there's been a demand for people who can efficiently clean a building or residence. The cleaning equipment may be different, but a top-notch cleaning company can easily fill their business bank account with cash.
3. Renewable energy expertsWhy they're likely to succeed: The Earth is heating up, and everything, from weather patterns to air turbulence, has been impacted. In response to the warming planet, the global focus has shifted to creating renewable energy and reducing carbon footprints.
4. Pet care servicesBusiness credit card comparison. Consider these business credit cards that offer a convenient and efficient way to separate personal and business expenses, simplifying accounting and tax reporting. Additionally, business cards can provide valuable perks such as rewards points, cashback, and expense tracking tools, enhancing financial management and the potential to help save money in the long run.
5. Online businessesWhy they're likely to succeed: The shift toward online shopping and learning means you have a larger pool of potential customers than ever.
Often, a business's success comes down to customer demand and satisfaction. To fill customer demand, research the business you're considering to ensure customers need your goods or services. If you want a business to thrive, focus on making your customers so happy with your service that they'll recommend you to others. Finally, the magic ingredient that helps any business succeed is passion. If you're passionate about what you do, it's sure to show. Alert: our top-rated cash back card now has 0% intro APR until 2025This credit card is not just good – it’s so exceptional that our experts use it personally. It features a lengthy 0% intro APR period, a cash back rate of up to 5%, and all somehow for no annual fee! Click here to read our full review for free and apply in just 2 minutes. Our Research ExpertDana is a full-time personal finance writer, with more than two decades of experience. Her focus is on helping readers feel less alone as they navigate their personal finances and offering actionable insights. Share this page We're firm believers in the Golden Rule, which is why editorial opinions are ours alone and have not been previously reviewed, approved, or endorsed by included advertisers. The Ascent, a Motley Fool service, does not cover all offers on the market. The Ascent has a dedicated team of editors and analysts focused on personal finance, and they follow the same set of publishing standards and editorial integrity while maintaining professional separation from the analysts and editors on other Motley Fool brands. Related Articles  By: Cole Tretheway | Published on June 7, 2024  By: Lyle Daly | Published on June 5, 2024  By: Christy Bieber | Published on June 5, 2024 By: Lyle Daly | Published on June 4, 2024 The Ascent is a Motley Fool service that rates and reviews essential products for your everyday money matters. Copyright © 2018 - 2024 The Ascent. All rights reserved. Advertisement Supported by Who Won the Debate? Biden Stumbles Left Trump on TopA halting debate performance by President Biden left Democratic strategists reeling, raising questions about his fitness to stay in the race.
 By Alan Rappeport Reporting from Washington In the first presidential debate of the year between the leading Democratic and Republican candidates, President Biden and former President Donald J. Trump clashed on inflation, taxes, Ukraine and the future of democracy. A halting performance from Mr. Biden and a relatively steady and measured delivery by Mr. Trump left Democrats deeply concerned about Mr. Biden’s prospects. Personal attacks overshadowed discussions of policy during the debate, with the candidates sparring over who had a better golf game, their respective cognitive abilities and their legal problems. On cable news and social media, strategists from both parties wondered if Mr. Biden could continue in the race against Mr. Trump. Few Democrats could muster an upbeat assessment of the president’s performance. Here is a sampling of the reaction. “It was a really disappointing debate performance from Joe Biden. I don’t think there’s any other way to slice it. His biggest issue was to prove to the American people that he had the energy, the stamina — and he didn’t do that,” Kate Bedingfield, Mr. Biden’s former White House communications director, said on CNN. “Biden is even whiffing on his easy pitches — abortion and Jan. 6. I mean, my God,” said Matt Gorman, a Republican strategist and former senior adviser to the presidential campaign for Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina. “Look, I debated Joe 7 times in 2020. He’s a different guy in 2024,” Andrew Yang, a Democratic presidential candidate in 2020, said on the social media platform X, adding the hashtag #swapJoeout. We are having trouble retrieving the article content. Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. Already a subscriber? Log in . Want all of The Times? Subscribe .
Healthiest Oats Ranked, According to a Dietitian:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/image-70f484bba39c42cbb162c0961ac3f1ed.png "what are the three types of article reviews") Dougal Waters / Getty Images Oat ( Avena sativa L. ) is a cereal grain that produces edible seeds known as oats. Eating oats can boost the nutrient density of your diet and protect your health in several ways. Studies show that eating oats may reduce heart disease risk by lowering LDL cholesterol, supporting the health of the digestive system, and boosting feelings of fullness after eating. However, with so many types of oats to choose from, shopping for them can be a confusing process. While most oat products are nutritious, some are better for your health than others. 1. Oat GroatsR.Tsubin / Getty Images Oat groats, also known as whole oats, are oat kernels that have had their tough outer shells known as hulls removed. Oat groats are the least processed of all oat products and all oats, including steel-cut and rolled oats, begin as oat groats. Oat groats are slightly higher in fiber and protein than steel-cut and rolled oats, though they contain similar amounts of vitamins and minerals. Here's the nutrition breakdown of a 1/4 cup serving of dry oat groats:
Oat groats may be a better choice for blood sugar control than more processed oat products as they have a lower glycemic index (GI), which is a measure of a food's impact on blood sugar. The GI ranks foods on a scale of 0-100. Low-GI foods score less than 55, moderate GI foods score between 56-69, and high-GI foods score 70 or greater. Studies show that intact oat products, such as oat groats, have a GI value of around 43.4, which is considered low. Because oat groats have an intact grain structure, it's harder for your body to digest and absorb them, which lowers their impact on your blood sugar. They're also a good source of iron , a mineral needed for oxygen transportation, growth and development, cellular function, and the production of certain hormones. Oat groats have a chewy texture and take about 30 minutes to prepare by boiling on the stovetop. Try swapping out your regular bowl of cereal for oat groats topped with nuts and berries for a nutritious and delicious way to start your day. 2. Oat Branannabogush / Getty Images Oat bran is made by grinding whole oat grains and separating the outer bran layer from the rest of the grain . Oat bran is high in fiber, containing at least 16% fiber by weight, and is also rich in β-glucan, a type of soluble fiber that lowers cholesterol by increasing cholesterol excretion through the stool and preventing its absorption in the digestive tract. Findings from a 2022 review of 13 studies suggested that supplementation with oat β-glucan is effective for significantly lowering total and LDL cholesterol levels in people with high cholesterol . A 1/4 cup serving of oat bran provides:
Oat bran is lower in calories and carbs than other oat products, making it a good choice for those looking to reduce their carbohydrate intake. Since it's low in calories and a good source of fiber, it's popular amongst those looking to boost weight loss. In addition to fiber, oat bran is a good source of zinc , which plays an important role in immune function and skin health. Oat bran can be enjoyed as a hot cereal and can also be used to boost the fiber intake of home-baked products like bread , muffins, and crackers. 3. Steel Cut Oatsbhofack2 / Getty Images After oat groats, steel-cut oats are the least processed type of oat product you can buy. Steel-cut oats are made by chopping oat groats into smaller pieces, which results in an oat product with a chewier texture and higher fiber content than rolled oats. Here's the nutrition breakdown for a 1/4 cup serving of dry steel-cut oats:
Like oat groats, steel-cut oats are a good source of iron . They also provide a good source of fiber and protein, though slightly lower in these nutrients than oat groats. Steel-cut oats have a GI of around 53, making them a good choice for maintaining healthy blood sugar regulation. Steel-cut oats take longer to prepare than rolled oats, with an average cooking time of 20-30 minutes on the stovetop. Soaking steel-cut oats overnight can help cut back on cooking time and also help reduce antinutrients found in oats, like phytates, tannins, and oxalates, which interfere with the absorption of nutrients like zinc and iron. 4. Rolled OatsArx0nt / Getty Images Rolled oats, commonly known as "old fashioned" oats, are one of the most popular types of oat products. They're made by steaming and flattening oat groats, which improves the texture of the oats and decreases cooking time. Rolled oats have a soft texture and are much quicker to prepare than steel-cut oats or oat groats, with a cook time averaging around five minutes. Though they're slightly lower in fiber and protein than oat groats and steel-cut oats, they're still a healthy choice. A 1/4 cup serving of raw rolled oats contains:
Because rolled oats are more processed than steel-cut oats or oat groats, they're easier to digest and have a higher glycemic index. Rolled oats have a GI of around 56, which is considered a moderate GI. To reduce the impact of rolled oats on your blood sugar, try eating oats alongside foods high in fiber and protein. Fiber and protein help slow digestion, which reduces the rate at which sugar is absorbed into the bloodstream. For example, try making a savory breakfast bowl by topping rolled oats with protein-rich eggs and fiber-rich sautéed vegetables for a blood sugar-friendly breakfast idea. 5. Instant OatsInstant oats are popular amongst those looking for a quick breakfast option that saves them time in the kitchen. Quick oats are rolled very thin and are sometimes pre-cooked, which cuts down on cooking time. Most instant oats take just a minute or two to prepare. Instant oats can be found individually packaged in single servings and come in a variety of flavors such as cinnamon sugar, maple, and strawberries and cream. Though instant oats provide important nutrients, flavored instant oats can be very high in added sugar, which can be problematic when consumed in large quantities. Here's the nutrition breakdown for a single-serving package of Quaker Maple and Brown Sugar instant oatmeal:
Because they're lower in fiber and protein, instant oats have a more significant effect on blood sugar than steel-cut oats or oat groats. Many instant oat products are also high in added sugar, which can increase their effect on blood sugar levels. Some instant oatmeal products can contain several teaspoons of added sugar per serving and can harm health if consumed regularly. Studies show that diets high in added sugar contribute to several health issues, from promoting weight gain to increasing the risk of heart disease . If you want the convenience of instant oats without added sugar , try plain quick-cooking rolled oats. Quick-cooking rolled oats are rolled oats that have been rolled out to a thinner consistency than traditional rolled oats, which cuts back on cooking time. Quick cooking rolled oats usually take under five minutes to prepare, making them a convenient choice. 6. Oat FlourYelenaYemchuk / Getty Images If you're looking for a way to add oats into your diet but aren't a fan of oatmeal or oat bran, consider trying oat flour. Oat flour provides the same nutrients and beneficial compounds as oats, including β-glucan, which can help support healthy blood sugar regulation, reduce cholesterol levels, and promote digestive health by encouraging the growth of beneficial probiotic bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract. A 1/4 cup serving of oat flour provides:
Oat flour is higher in protein and fiber than all-purpose flour and provides a decent amount of minerals such as zinc and iron. It also makes an excellent all-purpose flour substitute for people with celiac disease and non-celiac gluten intolerance, as it's naturally gluten-free . Oat flour has a mild, slightly nutty flavor and is delicious in baked goods like cookies, breads, and muffins. Because it's lighter than all-purpose flour, you'll need to use slightly more when using it in place of all-purpose flour in recipes. It's often recommended to use 1¼ cups of unpacked oat flour for every one cup of unpacked all-purpose flour. Tips for Consuming OatsOats are nutritious and versatile and can be used to create quick, filling dishes, including sweet and savory recipes. Here are a few ways to enjoy oats:
There are many other ways to incorporate oat products, like oat groats, rolled oats, oat bran, and oat flour into your diet. Try keeping a variety of oat products in your pantry so you always have a healthy option on hand. A Quick ReviewOats are a good source of several nutrients, including fiber, iron, and protein, and can be incorporated into both sweet and savory recipes. There are several types of oat products, some of which are more nutritious than others. While oat groats, steel-cut oats, rolled oats, and oat bran make healthy choices, it's important to watch out for high levels of added sugar in flavored instant oat products. Paudel D, Dhungana B, Caffe M, Krishnan P. A review of health-beneficial properties of oats . Foods . 2021;10(11):2591. doi:10.3390/foods10112591 Joyce SA, Kamil A, Fleige L, Gahan CGM. The cholesterol-lowering effect of oats and oat beta glucan: modes of action and potential role of bile acids and the microbiome . Front Nutr . 2019;6:171. doi:10.3389/fnut.2019.00171 U.S. Department of Agriculture. FoodData Central. BOB'S RED MILL, WHOLE GRAIN OAT GROATS . Ahmed J, Riaz M, Imtiaz R. Glycemic index and glycemic load values . Pak J Med Sci . 2021;37(4):1246-1247. doi:10.12669/pjms.37.4.4555 Zhang K, Dong R, Hu X, Ren C, Li Y. Oat-based foods: chemical constituents, glycemic index, and the effect of processing . Foods . 2021;10(6):1304. doi:10.3390/foods10061304 National Institutes of Health: Office of Dietary Supplements. Iron . Yu J, Xia J, Yang C, et al. Effects of oat beta-glucan intake on lipid profiles in hypercholesterolemic adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials . Nutrients . 2022;14(10):2043. doi:10.3390/nu14102043 U.S. Department of Agriculture: FoodData Central. Oat bran, raw . National Institutes of Health: Office of Dietary Supplements. Zinc . U.S. Department of Agriculture. FoodData Central. STEEL-CUT ORGANIC QUICK COOK OATS, STEEL-CUT . Alemayehu GF, Forsido SF, Tola YB, Teshager MA, Assegie AA, Amare E. Proximate, mineral and anti-nutrient compositions of oat grains (Avena sativa) cultivated in Ethiopia: implications for nutrition and mineral bioavailability . Heliyon . 2021;7(8):e07722. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07722 U.S. Department of Agriculture: FoodData Central. Old fashioned oats . Murillo S, Mallol A, Adot A, et al. Culinary strategies to manage glycemic response in people with type 2 diabetes: A narrative review . Front Nutr . 2022;9:1025993. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2022.1025993 Quaker. Maple brown sugar instant oats . Yi SY, Steffen LM, Terry JG, et al. Added sugar intake is associated with pericardial adipose tissue volume . Eur J Prev Cardiol . 2020;27(18):2016-2023. doi:10.1177/2047487320931303 DiNicolantonio JJ, O’Keefe JH. Added sugars drive insulin resistance, hyperinsulinemia, hypertension, type 2 diabetes and coronary heart disease . Mo Med . 2022;119(6):519-523. PMID: 36588634 Joyce SA, Kamil A, Fleige L, Gahan CGM. The cholesterol-lowering effect of oats and oat beta glucan: modes of action and potential role of bile acids and the microbiome . Front Nutr . 2019;6:171. doi:10.3389/fnut.2019.00171 U.S. Department of Agriculture: FoodData Central. Oat flour . Related ArticlesT3’s New Aire 360 Is Simplifying the Way I Style My HairBy Paige Stables  All products are independently selected by our editors. If you buy something, we may earn an affiliate commission. For a recent Hamptons getaway, I packed not one… not two… but three hot tools in my carry-on bag: a Dyson Supersonic blow-dryer , a GHD Platinum flatiron , and a Dyson Airwrap . All three were necessary to bring along. (Hold any eye-rolling, please.) All three were, in fact, used to style my hair throughout the long weekend. And though I’m not a light packer—evidently, I like to be fully accessorized—I would happily only pack a single tool if it could create the different styles (straight and polished, a voluminous blowout , soft waves) I regularly wear and keep my bangs sleek. T3’s brand-new Aire 360 might just be the solution. At first glance, T3’s pretty-in-pastel-pink gadget looks familiar. To the Dyson Airwrap (I hold both side-by-side) and the numerous other air stylers on the market, certainly, but also to the brand’s existing Airebrush Duo that launched in 2021. That’s because it’s a similar concept: there’s a base complete with three heat settings, a cool shot function, and three speed settings, plus four attachments (a concentrated dryer nozzle, an oval brush—it’s the same design as the 2021 version —and two curling barrels for creating waves in opposite directions). What makes it unique: “Our barrels are ceramic, not plastic, so the heat management is different,” T3 cofounder Julie Chung tells me at the launch event. She emphasizes, “It's not tech for the sake of tech.” What that means: the Aire 360 gets HOT. (Warning: Do not touch the attachments after styling—except on the heat-proof ends—or they will burn you.) But not too hot for your hair: T3 did independent testing on the tool to determine exactly how high they could turn up the heat to lock in a style—without causing hair damage. According to the brand’s research, tools over 320 degrees Fahrenheit will cause damage, specifically to wet hair. The highest setting on the Aire 360 is well under that at about 237 degrees Fahrenheit (Remember to keep your fingers—and ears—at a distance from the barrels!), whereas most curling irons reach nearly 400 degrees Fahrenheit. Even so, prepping with a heat protectant is still imperative to shield your hair from potential damage.  T3 Aire 360 Allure senior beauty editor Paige Stables styles her hair with T3's new Aire 360. And like most other “blowout brushes,” heated air is flowing through the attachments, but “air is not just air,” says Chung. Like the brand’s other Best of Beauty-winning dryers, the SoftAire Drying Concentrator attachment emits ion-enriched air to speed up drying time. When I went to put the Aire 360 to the test on my fine, wavy hair, I was impressed before I even pulled the tool out of its millennial pink vegan leather storage bag. Each attachment has a dedicated pocket in the pouch. Chung tells me it’s called the “Ashley bag” internally, named after her friend who expressed the need for a proper, non-bulky, and elevated place to keep all the gadgets (because, with most hot tools, you get a bulky box… or nothing) between uses and easily on the go. Inside the bag, I reached for the dryer attachment first (this eliminates the need to have a separate blow-dryer on hand—hallelujah!) and started by rough-drying my hair. “A good way to avoid over-blow-drying is to rough-dry your hair first to get a good amount of the moisture out and then smooth it with a boar-bristle brush,” Rachel Bodt , a colorist in New York City, previously told Allure . The delicate gust (on the medium setting) was enough to sweep my bangs into formation.  Allure senior beauty editor Paige Stables' hair after styling it with the T3 Aire 360. Once my hair was about 80% dry, I grabbed the Custom Oval Brush attachment to get volume at the roots, smooth the ends, and polish my bangs. Unlike a traditional round brush, you don’t have to be a professional to operate it (I type this from experience), and the flexible bristles easily glide through my hair for a sleek finish after just a few passes. I was pleased with the flowy, polished finish but could have added more of a bend with the round brush, too. Another day, I took things a step further, testing out the curling barrels. Each barrel rotates in opposite directions (to curl your hair away from your face and not have to do gymnastics with your arms). One minor caveat: I have been spoiled by Dyson’s curling barrels clicking back and forth into different airflow directions, whereas with T3's design, you have to swap out the entire attachment—but it requires very minimal effort to interchange the two. Once locked in, T3’s barrels do all the work for you, creating pristine curls (in about five to seven seconds). Hairstylist Xavier Velasquez advises grabbing one-inch sections and hitting the cool shot “for five to ten seconds” before releasing the curl for the best results. Velasquez explains, “You don’t have to twist or twirl the [curling barrels].” Instead he “pushes and pulls the tool in and out.” Allure’s associate manager of special projects Talia Gutierrez was initially drawn to the Aire 360 for its oval blow-dry brush attachment. “The bristles allow for a tight grip around my thick hair, shortening the number of passes needed to smooth my otherwise wavy, coarse hair,” says Gutierrez. That said, she was even more impressed by the curling barrels: “My hair can typically hold a curl for days, but it usually requires the heat of a curling iron, and with T3's new tool on the highest heat and airflow settings, I was able to get shiny, large, bouncy ringlets that lasted.”  By Sophie Saint Thomas  By Aliza Kelly  That was the brand’s big goal: “The curls will last. No hacks. Full stop,” says Chung. And we can confirm they do—on both the finest and thickest hair. After wearing soft waves to a night at the ballet, I woke up to “bedhead” that looked more like a fresh, wavy blowout. And that is no small feat. You can shop the T3 Aire 360 for $300 on t3micro.com and sephora.com . Read more haircare reviews.
Now watch Brooke Shields' hair care routine. Follow Allure on Instagram and TikTok , or subscribe to our newsletter to stay up to date on all things beauty.  Allure Daily Beauty BlastBy signing up you agree to our User Agreement (including the class action waiver and arbitration provisions ), our Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement and to receive marketing and account-related emails from Allure. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.  By Talia Gutierrez  By Jennifer Hussein  By Sarah Han  By Annie Blay More From Forbes25 companies hiring now for fully remote jobs in 2024.
When searching for remote work, ensure that the company provides holistic wellbeing and career ... [+] support as well Within the United States, the professional, scientific, and computer-related occupations have the highest shares of job postings for hybrid roles, and most importantly, fully remote work, according to recent findings from a National Bureau of Economic Research study . Across these sectors can be found companies who have taken innovative approaches to hiring and proactive employee retention, ensuring employee wellbeing is consistently upheld, including fully remote, hybrid options, unlimited PTO, and even offering access to meditation, yoga, and wellness classes. Some of these employers have been highlighted by FlexJobs as being most active in posting the highest number of remote jobs, hiring fully remote and flexible roles since the start of the year. The industries represented by these employers span the most popular industries for remote work, mirroring the sectors listed in the NBER study, such as healthcare, consulting, technology, finance, and social media. They also are highly diverse and span a wide range of career paths and interests, so you are sure to find something suitable for your career goals: Here are 25 from their full list, and some noteworthy highlights for a few of these employers: Best High-Yield Savings Accounts Of 2024Best 5% interest savings accounts of 2024, 1. robert half international. Robert Half, a recruitment agency and HR consulting firm, is listed as being the one of the "Best Workplaces for Parents" in 2023, was included in Fortune's "Most Admired Companies" in 2024, and provides strong career development support and an almost four-star rating on Glassdoor. Veeva is an international cloud-computing company specifically focused on the life sciences industry. They also have a work-from-anywhere policy , while investing in their global offices for occasional meetings. AECOM is an infrastructure consulting firm, covering several projects on a multinational level, including large-scale construction management, urban planning, and engineering. The employer was also listed as one of the Most Admired Companies. 4. CVS HealthA household name for many, CVS Health is the second-largest healthcare company, being beaten only by UnitedHealth Group. It provides health solutions including CVS Pharmacy, Aetna Health, and CVS Speciality, with associated apps. CVS Health expresses commitment to diversity including employees with disabilities, and is transparent about its hiring process on its website. HubSpot, a leading provider in digital marketing, sales and customer service tools, training, and support, is based internationally and takes a very flexible, innovative approach to employee location, providing three options for candidates when they join the company. This makes it very attractive for those who desire fully remote work, as well as those who wish to come into the office from time to time. All roles are eligible to be fully remote, however you have the option of also selecting their flex plan (coming into the local office more than twice a quarter), or their office-based plan if you would prefer in-person work and the office is local to you. Some of the other employers listed who are hiring and support fully remote and flexible working for their roles, include:
Many of these employers not only offer remote jobs, but they are proactive about providing you with the opportunity to thrive while working from home, so you do not feel isolated, and to ensure that your role is fully supported so you can deliver your best work. For example, some employers such as HubSpot provide a stipend for working from home, in addition to a Slack hub and extra training resources to enable you to thrive in your job. Some employers offer a WFH stipend and flexible location options as part of their fully remote ... [+] policy When searching for employers who are hiring for fully remote jobs, remember to consider the bigger picture. Is remote an afterthought, something that they've shoved into their policy as a way to attract talent, but hasn't been fully thought through? Or is remote working part of a more extensive employee support and development package, in which your wellbeing and professional growth is holistically championed? 
Join The ConversationOne Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts. Forbes Community GuidelinesOur community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space. In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's Terms of Service. We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil. Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:
User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:
So, how can you be a power user?
Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's Terms of Service. Warning: The NCBI web site requires JavaScript to function. more...  An official website of the United States government The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site. The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health. Lau F, Kuziemsky C, editors. Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. Victoria (BC): University of Victoria; 2017 Feb 27.  Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet].Chapter 9 methods for literature reviews. Guy Paré and Spyros Kitsiou . 9.1. IntroductionLiterature reviews play a critical role in scholarship because science remains, first and foremost, a cumulative endeavour ( vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). As in any academic discipline, rigorous knowledge syntheses are becoming indispensable in keeping up 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. Among 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 area reveals any interpretable trends or patterns; (c) aggregating empirical findings related to a narrow research 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 can take two major forms. The most prevalent one is the “literature review” or “background” section within a journal paper or a chapter in a graduate thesis. This section synthesizes the extant literature and usually 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 one 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 form of literature review, which is the focus of this chapter, constitutes an original and valuable work of research in and of itself ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Rather than providing a base for a researcher’s own work, it creates a solid starting point for all members of the community interested in a particular area 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 any primary data ( Green, Johnson, & Adams, 2006 ). When appropriately conducted, review articles represent powerful information sources for practitioners looking for state-of-the art evidence to guide their decision-making and work practices ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Further, high-quality reviews become frequently cited pieces of work which researchers seek out as a first clear outline of the literature when undertaking empirical studies ( Cooper, 1988 ; Rowe, 2014 ). Scholars who track and gauge the impact of articles have found that review papers are cited and downloaded more often than any 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 not a detailed knowledge of the area in question, as well as references to the most useful primary sources ( Cronin et al., 2008 ). Although they are not easy to conduct, the commitment 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 articles 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 different types of review articles that can contribute to the eHealth knowledge base; (c) to illustrate each review type with one or two examples from the eHealth literature; and (d) to provide a series of recommendations for prospective authors of review articles in this domain. 9.2. Overview of the Literature Review Process and StepsAs explained in Templier and Paré (2015) , there are six generic steps involved in conducting a review article:
Although these steps are presented here in sequential order, one must keep in mind that the review process can be iterative and that many activities can 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(s): As a first step, members of the review team must appropriately justify the need for the review itself ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ), identify the review’s main objective(s) ( Okoli & Schabram, 2010 ), and define the concepts or variables at the heart of their synthesis ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ; Webster & Watson, 2002 ). Importantly, they also 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 entire review methodology; they underscore the type of information that is needed, inform the search for and selection 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 about the suitability of material to be considered in the review ( Cooper, 1988 ). There exist three main coverage strategies. First, exhaustive coverage means an effort is made to be as comprehensive as 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 central 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 step consists of evaluating the applicability of the material identified in the preceding step ( Levy & Ellis, 2006 ; vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). Once a group of potential studies has been identified, members of the review team must screen them to determine 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 independent reviewers involved in the screening process and a procedure to resolve disagreements must also 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 team may need to assess the scientific quality of the selected studies, that is, appraise the rigour of the research design and methods. Such formal assessment, which is usually conducted independently by at least two 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 data and interpret the findings ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). Ascribing quality scores to each primary study or considering through domain-based evaluations which study components have or have not been designed and executed appropriately makes it possible to reflect on the extent to which the selected study addresses possible biases and maximizes validity ( Shea et al., 2009 ). Extracting data: The following step involves gathering or extracting applicable information from each primary 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 by whom the primary study was conducted, the research design and methods, or qualitative/quantitative results ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ). Analyzing and synthesizing data : As a final step, members of the review team must collate, summarize, aggregate, organize, and compare the evidence 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 lists of papers and should provide a coherent lens to make sense of extant knowledge on a given topic. There exist several methods and techniques for synthesizing quantitative (e.g., frequency analysis, meta-analysis) and qualitative (e.g., grounded theory, narrative analysis, meta-ethnography) evidence ( Dixon-Woods, Agarwal, Jones, Young, & Sutton, 2005 ; Thomas & Harden, 2008 ). 9.3. Types of Review Articles and Brief IllustrationsEHealth 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 research findings into historical contexts or explaining contradictions that might exist among a set of primary research studies conducted on a particular topic. Our classification scheme is largely inspired from Paré and colleagues’ (2015) typology. Below we present and illustrate those review types that we feel are central to the growth and development of the eHealth domain. 9.3.1. Narrative ReviewsThe narrative review is the “traditional” way of reviewing the extant literature and is skewed towards a qualitative interpretation of prior knowledge ( Sylvester et al., 2013 ). Put simply, a narrative review attempts to summarize or synthesize what has been written on a particular topic but does not seek generalization or cumulative knowledge from what is reviewed ( Davies, 2000 ; Green et al., 2006 ). Instead, the review team often undertakes the task of accumulating and synthesizing the literature to demonstrate the value of a particular point of view ( Baumeister & Leary, 1997 ). As such, reviewers may selectively ignore or limit the attention paid to certain studies in order to make a point. In this rather unsystematic approach, the selection 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, as in all fields, which follow such an unstructured approach ( 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 subject area and synthesizing it. As mentioned above, its primary 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 expose students to peer-reviewed literature ( Green et al., 2006 ). For researchers, narrative reviews can inspire research ideas by identifying gaps or inconsistencies in a body of knowledge, thus helping researchers to determine research questions or formulate hypotheses. Importantly, narrative reviews can also be used as educational articles to bring practitioners up to date with certain topics of issues ( Green et al., 2006 ). Recently, there have been several efforts to introduce more rigour in narrative reviews that will elucidate common pitfalls and bring changes into their publication standards. Information systems researchers, among others, have contributed to advancing knowledge on how to structure a “traditional” review. For instance, Levy and Ellis (2006) proposed a generic framework for conducting such reviews. Their model follows the systematic data processing approach 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 particular 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 identify primary studies within a feasible scope, extract relevant content from identified articles, 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 good example of a highly structured narrative review in the eHealth field. These authors synthesized published articles that describe the development process of mobile health ( m-health ) interventions for patients’ cancer care self-management. As in most narrative reviews, the scope of the research questions being investigated is broad: (a) how development of these systems are carried out; (b) which methods are used to investigate these systems; and (c) what conclusions can be drawn as a result of the development of these systems. To provide clear 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. Four inclusion and three exclusion criteria were utilized during the screening process. Both authors independently reviewed each of the identified articles to determine eligibility and extract study information. A flow 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 series of practical recommendations for m-health intervention development. 9.3.2. Descriptive or Mapping ReviewsThe 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 pattern 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 ). Further, authors of descriptive reviews extract from each study certain characteristics of interest, such as publication year, research methods, data collection techniques, and direction or strength 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 study included in a descriptive review is treated as the unit of analysis and the published literature as a whole provides a database from which the authors attempt to identify 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 art in a particular domain ( King & He, 2005 ). In the fields of health 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 usually 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 often present studies that are representative of most works published in a particular area and they consider a specific time frame to be mapped. An example of this approach in the eHealth domain is offered by DeShazo, Lavallie, and Wolf (2009). The purpose of this descriptive or mapping review was to characterize publication trends in the medical informatics literature over a 20-year period (1987 to 2006). To achieve this ambitious objective, the authors performed a bibliometric analysis of medical informatics citations indexed in medline using publication trends, journal frequencies, impact factors, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) term frequencies, and characteristics of citations. Findings revealed that there were over 77,000 medical informatics articles published during the covered period in numerous journals and that the average annual growth rate was 12%. The MeSH term analysis also 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 characterize the historic trends and current components of the field of medical informatics suggest it may be a maturing discipline (DeShazo et al., 2009). 9.3.3. Scoping ReviewsScoping reviews attempt 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 be conducted to examine the extent, range and nature of research activities in a particular area, 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 main objective, scoping reviews usually conclude with the presentation of a detailed research agenda for future works along with potential implications for both practice and research. Unlike narrative and descriptive reviews, the whole point of scoping the field is to be as comprehensive as possible, including grey literature (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). Inclusion and exclusion criteria must be established to help researchers eliminate studies that are not aligned with the research questions. It is also recommended that at least two independent coders review abstracts yielded from the search strategy and then the full articles for study selection ( Daudt et al., 2013 ). The synthesized evidence from content or thematic analysis is relatively easy to present in tabular form (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Thomas & Harden, 2008 ). One of the most 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 record ( phr ) systems including design, functionality, implementation, applications, outcomes, and benefits. Seven databases were searched from 1985 to March 2010. Several search terms relating to phr s were used during this process. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts to determine inclusion status. A second screen of full-text articles, again by two independent members of the research team, ensured that the studies described phr s. All in all, 130 articles met the criteria and their data were extracted manually into a database. The authors concluded that although there is a large amount of survey, observational, cohort/panel, and anecdotal evidence of phr benefits and satisfaction for patients, more research 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 use of phr s. 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 can play a beneficial role in supporting patient self-management ( Archer et al., 2011 ). 9.3.4. Forms of Aggregative ReviewsHealthcare providers, practitioners, and policy-makers are nowadays overwhelmed with large volumes of information, including research-based evidence from numerous clinical trials and evaluation studies, assessing the effectiveness of health information technologies and interventions ( Ammenwerth & de Keizer, 2004 ; Deshazo et al., 2009 ). It is unrealistic to expect that all these disparate actors will have the time, skills, and necessary resources to identify the available evidence in the area of their expertise and consider it 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 attempt to aggregate, appraise, and synthesize in a single source all empirical evidence that meet a set of previously specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a clearly formulated and often narrow research question on a particular topic of interest to support evidence-based practice ( Liberati et al., 2009 ). They adhere closely to explicit scientific principles ( Liberati et al., 2009 ) and rigorous methodological guidelines (Higgins & 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 evidence, assess whether effects or relationships are in the same direction and of the same general magnitude, explain possible inconsistencies between study results, and determine the strength of the overall evidence for every outcome of interest based on the quality of included studies and the general consistency among them ( Cook, Mulrow, & Haynes, 1997 ). The main procedures of a systematic review involve:
Many systematic reviews, but not all, use statistical methods to combine the results of independent studies into a single quantitative estimate or summary effect size. Known as meta-analyses , these reviews use specific data extraction and statistical techniques (e.g., network, frequentist, or Bayesian meta-analyses) to calculate from each study by outcome of interest an effect size along with a confidence interval that reflects the degree of uncertainty behind the point estimate of effect ( Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009 ; Deeks, Higgins, & Altman, 2008 ). Subsequently, they use fixed or random-effects analysis models to combine the results of the included studies, assess statistical heterogeneity, and calculate a weighted average of the effect estimates from the different studies, taking into account their sample sizes. The summary effect size is a value that reflects the average magnitude of the intervention effect for a particular outcome of interest or, more generally, the strength of a relationship between two variables across all studies included in the systematic review. By statistically combining data from multiple studies, meta-analyses can create more precise and reliable estimates of intervention effects than those derived from individual studies alone, when these are examined independently as discrete sources of information. The review by Gurol-Urganci, de Jongh, Vodopivec-Jamsek, Atun, and Car (2013) on the effects of mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments is an illustrative example of a high-quality systematic review with meta-analysis. Missed appointments are a major cause of inefficiency in healthcare delivery with substantial monetary costs to health systems. These authors sought to assess whether mobile phone-based appointment reminders delivered through Short Message Service ( sms ) or Multimedia Messaging Service ( mms ) are effective in improving rates of patient attendance and reducing overall costs. To this end, they conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases using highly sensitive search strategies without language or publication-type restrictions to identify all rct s that are eligible for inclusion. In order to minimize the risk of omitting eligible studies not captured by the original search, they supplemented all electronic searches with manual screening of trial registers and references contained in the included studies. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were performed independently by two coders using standardized methods to ensure consistency and to eliminate potential errors. Findings from eight rct s involving 6,615 participants were pooled into meta-analyses to calculate the magnitude of effects that mobile text message reminders have on the rate of attendance at healthcare appointments compared to no reminders and phone call reminders. Meta-analyses are regarded as powerful tools for deriving meaningful conclusions. However, there are situations in which it is neither reasonable nor appropriate to pool 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 use qualitative synthesis methods such as vote counting, content analysis, classification schemes and tabulations, as an alternative approach to narratively synthesize the results of the independent studies included in the review. This form of review is known as qualitative systematic review. A rigorous example of one such review in the eHealth domain is presented by Mickan, Atherton, Roberts, Heneghan, and Tilson (2014) on the use of handheld computers by healthcare professionals and their impact on access to information and clinical decision-making. In line with the methodological guidelines for systematic reviews, these authors: (a) developed and registered with prospero ( www.crd.york.ac.uk/ prospero / ) an a priori review protocol; (b) conducted comprehensive searches for eligible studies using multiple databases and other supplementary strategies (e.g., forward searches); and (c) subsequently carried out study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments in a duplicate 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 end, the authors resorted to using narrative analysis and synthesis to describe the effectiveness of handheld computers on accessing information for clinical knowledge, adherence to safety 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 can cause great confusion and make it difficult for decision-makers to interpret the review-level evidence ( 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 evidence. Umbrella reviews , also known as overviews of systematic reviews, are tertiary types of evidence synthesis that aim to accomplish this; that is, they aim to compare and contrast findings from multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses ( Becker & Oxman, 2008 ). Umbrella reviews generally adhere 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 primary study ( Becker & Oxman, 2008 ). Unlike systematic reviews that have a narrow focus of inquiry, 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 home telemonitoring interventions for patients with heart failure critically appraised, compared, and synthesized evidence from 15 systematic reviews to investigate which types of home telemonitoring technologies and forms of interventions are more effective in reducing mortality and hospital admissions ( Kitsiou, Paré, & Jaana, 2015 ). 9.3.5. Realist ReviewsRealist reviews are theory-driven interpretative reviews developed to inform, enhance, or supplement conventional systematic reviews by making sense of heterogeneous evidence about complex interventions applied 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 above, systematic reviews seek to identify causation. Such logic is appropriate for fields like medicine and education where findings of randomized controlled trials can be aggregated to see whether a new treatment or intervention does improve outcomes. However, many argue that it is not possible to establish such direct causal links between interventions and outcomes in fields such as social policy, management, and information systems where for any intervention there is unlikely to be a regular or consistent outcome ( Oates, 2011 ; Pawson, 2006 ; Rousseau, Manning, & Denyer, 2008 ). To circumvent these limitations, Pawson, Greenhalgh, Harvey, and Walshe (2005) have 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. As a theory-building approach, a realist review usually starts by articulating likely underlying mechanisms and then scrutinizes available evidence to find out whether and where these mechanisms are applicable ( Shepperd et al., 2009 ). Primary studies found in the extant literature are viewed as case studies which can test and modify the initial theories ( Rousseau et al., 2008 ). The main objective pursued in the realist review conducted by 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, most 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 main ways which represent “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. Two members of the research team selected the articles using a pre-established list of inclusion and exclusion criteria and following a two-step procedure. The authors then extracted data 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 different contexts. 9.3.6. Critical ReviewsLastly, 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 issues with respect to theories, hypotheses, research methods or results ( Baumeister & Leary, 1997 ; Kirkevold, 1997 ). Unlike other review types, critical reviews attempt to take a reflective account of the research that has been done in a particular area of interest, and assess its credibility by 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 knowledge development by giving focus and direction to studies for further 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 home telemonitoring studies for chronic patients. The authors conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases to identify eligible reviews and subsequently 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 end, they provide a number of recommendations to strengthen knowledge development towards improving the design and execution of future reviews on home telemonitoring. 9.4. SummaryTable 9.1 outlines the main types of literature reviews that were described in the previous sub-sections and summarizes the main characteristics that distinguish one review type from another. It also includes key references to methodological guidelines and useful sources that can be used by eHealth scholars and researchers for planning and developing reviews. Typology of Literature Reviews (adapted from Paré et al., 2015). As shown in Table 9.1 , each review type addresses different kinds of research questions or objectives, which subsequently define and dictate the methods and approaches that need 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 often relatively free 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 hand, systematic reviews are characterized by their high level of systematicity, rigour, and use of explicit methods, based on an “a priori” review plan that aims to minimize bias in the analysis and synthesis process (Higgins & Green, 2008). Some reviews are exploratory in nature (e.g., scoping/mapping reviews), whereas others may be conducted to discover patterns (e.g., descriptive reviews) or involve a synthesis approach that may include the critical analysis of prior research ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Hence, in order to select the most appropriate type of review, it is critical 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. 9.5. Concluding RemarksIn light of the increased use of evidence-based practice and research generating stronger evidence ( Grady et al., 2011 ; Lyden et al., 2013 ), review articles have become essential tools for summarizing, synthesizing, integrating or critically appraising prior knowledge in the eHealth field. As mentioned earlier, when rigorously conducted review articles represent 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. We must stress that this classification scheme does not privilege any specific type of review as being of higher quality than another ( Paré et al., 2015 ). As explained above, each type of review has its own strengths and limitations. Having said that, we realize that the methodological rigour of any review — be it qualitative, quantitative or mixed — is a critical 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 approach that were used in the process of its development. Next, validity characterizes the degree to which the review process was conducted appropriately. It goes beyond documentation and reflects decisions related to the selection of the sources, the search terms used, the period of time covered, the articles selected in the search, and the application of backward and forward searches ( vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). In short, the rigour of any review article is reflected by the explicitness of its methods (i.e., transparency) and the soundness of the approach used. We refer those interested in the concepts of rigour and quality to the work of Templier and Paré (2015) which offers a detailed set of methodological guidelines for conducting and evaluating various types of review articles. To conclude, our main objective in this chapter was to demystify the various types of literature reviews that are central to the continuous development of the eHealth field. It 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.
This publication is licensed under a Creative Commons License, Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0): see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
In this Page
Related information
Recent Activity
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. Turn recording back on Connect with NLM National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure Help Accessibility Careers I tried 18 of Trader Joe's ice creams and frozen desserts, and I'd buy almost all of them again
 From ice-cream sandwiches to uniquely flavored cartons, Trader Joe's sells an array of frozen desserts. Step into Trader Joe's , and you'll find an impressive selection of ice cream year-round. So, I tried as many of the chain's frozen treats as I could get my hands on to figure out which ones are worth buying. Here's how each treat stacked up. Editor's Note: This story was originally published in August 2022, and most recently updated on June 28, 2024. Product availability may vary from year to year. The horchata-inspired ice cream was a creative take on a Spanish and Mexican drink.Like true horchata, this ice cream derives its flavor from a sweet-rice and cinnamon base. Though the beverage traditionally doesn't contain any dairy, this dessert had a creamier flavor. Its taste captured the beverage's yummy flavor.The horchata ice cream reminded me of leftover cereal milk with cinnamon, and I was absolutely here for it. It was sweet and tasty, yet incredibly light on the tongue. There were also tiny pieces of horchata-flavored cookies mixed in throughout that added a pop of cinnamon. VERDICT: This was a perfect 10. I hope Trader Joe's keeps it around so I can buy it again and again. Trader Joe's premium French-vanilla ice cream would make a great sundae base.It may seem silly to review vanilla ice cream, especially when Trader Joe's has so many inspired flavors, but this one deserves a shout-out. I was impressed by the quality right off the bat. The consistency was smooth and rich, plus it tasted luxurious.The authentic vanilla flavor struck the right balance of sweet and creamy without being overwhelming. This would be great with baked goods or other sweet toppings, like chocolate or caramel sauce. VERDICT: I don't usually reach for vanilla ice cream, but this will be my go-to for birthday parties and other gatherings. I could see real espresso in Trader Joe's Coffee Bean Blast.This ice cream felt high quality — it didn't rely on sugar or extracts for flavor. The overall texture was as smooth as gelato. There was even finely ground espresso mixed in for an artisan flair. It tasted like a delicious cup of dark roast.This ice cream tasted more like coffee than the average, java-flavored carton — which was a good thing. It was incredible on its own, but if you wanted to elevate the dessert, pile it on one of Trader Joe's chocolate lava cakes . VERDICT: This delicious ice cream sported just the right balance of roasted-coffee flavor and sweetness. These sandwiches made with brownie crisps and coffee ice cream upgraded an iconic treat.These sandwiches have a lot going for them. They're portable, sport a tasty center of coffee ice cream, and use brownies in place of wafers. Plus the chocolate chips on top made every bite satisfyingly chewy. The chocolate flavor was a bit disappointing.Even though the texture was on point, the chocolaty flavor of the brownies was underwhelming. The brownie crisps might've been better mixed into ice cream, but they didn't impress as the star of the show. That said, I probably wouldn't have noticed or cared so much if the coffee ice cream wasn't so good. The difference was stark. VERDICT: These were still pretty tasty, if not for the coffee ice cream alone, but I wouldn't choose them over the chocolate-chip-cookie sandwiches. I didn't miss the dairy in these chocolate-fudge oat bars.Every once in a while, I try to limit my dairy intake for personal reasons. And these chocolate-fudge oat bars satisfied my craving for a sweet, chocolaty treat that didn't leave me feeling heavy. These bars are a great pick if you want a dairy-free frozen treat.The oat base offered a smooth mouthfeel and subtle sweetness without an obvious aftertaste. The chocolaty flavor wasn't as bold as a traditional Fudgsicle and tasted slightly less sweet, but for a dairy-free option, it still satisfied. To take these to the next level, I'd dip them in a vegan chocolate shell made of melted chocolate chips and coconut oil . VERDICT: I'd definitely buy these again and recommend them to anyone looking for a chocolaty, vegan treat. The ube ice cream would be an Instagrammable treat.Ube is a purple yam native to the Philippines. The flavor was extracted into a puree for this ice cream and gives the treat its gorgeous lilac color. There's been so much buzz around this flavor ever since it dropped in 2019. For over a week, I checked my Trader Joe's to find a carton, and when I finally did, this was the last one. The hype was absolutely worth it.This ice cream offered such a unique flavor experience. It tasted like a cross between pistachio and toasted coconut, with notes of white chocolate. It was absolutely delicious. I particularly liked that the sweetness was quite mellow, which allowed the flavor to seem more nutty than sugary. VERDICT: Two thumbs up from me. Trader Joe's signature sweet spread and vanilla ice cream come together in this Speculoos cookie-butter carton.This wouldn't be a Trader Joe's roundup without something featuring cookie butter. This ice cream was packed with semi-solidified chunks of actual cookie butter, so every bite was caramelly and buttery, with the inviting hint of cinnamon and ginger spice. It tasted delicious, but the texture wasn't my favorite.As expected, this flavor was unmistakably sweet and tasty. However, some of the cookie-butter pieces had a slightly waxy texture that left an odd taste on the sides of my mouth. This wasn't off-putting enough to ruin the whole thing, but it definitely kept me from wanting more than a scoop or two at a time. VERDICT: If you're like me and obsess over the Speculoos cookie butter, this would be right up your alley. Trader Joe's cold-brew-coffee and boba nondairy frozen dessert was unique.I'm always intrigued by unique, vegan treats. Made with a base of coconut milk, this frozen dessert was flavored like cold brew and sported the small tapioca pearls you can find at some beverage shops. This ice cream didn't quite taste like cold brew.This had more of a sweet, milky taste, like a latte , rather than an intense coffee flavor of a cold brew, but it was still quite yummy. I wasn't sold on the texture, which was more icy than creamy. Granted, this isn't technically ice cream, just a frozen dessert. There were plenty of chewy tapioca pearls, which would be great for boba fans, but folks who've never had bubble tea may find them a bit overwhelming. VERDICT: I wouldn't reach for this again, but it was a decent vegan option. Trader Joe's wildberry-cheesecake ice cream was more berry than cake.Between the fresh berry purée, sweet-cream ice cream, and cheesecake pieces, every spoonful of this carton screamed perfection. It appeared delightfully decadent, yet bright and inviting. The taste lived up to my expectations.The blueberries and raspberries added a brightness that really popped against the rich ice cream. And even though the cheesecake pieces were quite small, they made each bite all the more exciting. VERDICT: This ice cream doesn't need toppings to be worth your while. I wish it came by the gallon, but for my sake, it's best that it doesn't. Trader Joe's tangerine cream bars were an elevated take on a childhood classic.I haven't eaten a creamsicle in about 20 years, so seeing these ice pops brought me back. Instead of a traditional orange-sherbet coating, this used a tangerine shell, so the color was more of a natural yellow, like fresh-squeezed juice. These tangy pops were both tart and sweet.This pop was more tart than I anticipated, but this made the sweet vanilla ice cream at the center all the more satisfying. VERDICT: I'd gladly buy these every summer, just for the nostalgic taste. The oat-milk strawberry frozen dessert would be a vegan ice-cream lover's dream.This dessert had an oat-milk base and almond-brittle chunks. I'm not vegan, but I still thank my lucky stars there are plant-based frozen desserts that don't have an off-putting aftertaste. Even though the mix-ins were disappointing, the flavor was incredible.The texture was light and fluffy, almost mousse-like. The strawberry flavor reminded me of yogurt , with a candied sweetness that was mellow enough to not be cloying. However, the advertised almond brittle was more like candied nuts. I appreciated the attempt to cut through the fruity sweetness and add some dimension, but its overall presence seemed unnecessary. Not all ice creams need texture, and the brittle makes this product unfriendly to many people with nut allergies. VERDICT: I'm not rushing to buy this again, but I wouldn't turn it away if I were offered some. The Peanuts for Chocolate ice cream was seemingly made for fans of peanut-butter cups.With punny-named, multidimensional flavors, Trader Joe's may be in its Ben and Jerry's era, and I'm not mad about it. If you love the chain's dark-chocolate peanut-butter cups, this ice cream was made for you. It had a superrich, chocolate ice-cream base with ribbons of actual peanut butter and soft pieces of peanut-butter Joe-Joe's. The combination was as tasty as I expected.The iconic flavor combo hit again. However, the mix-ins seemed inconsistent. Some bites tasted like pure peanut butter , which caught me off guard. It also could've used more Joe-Joe's chunks. VERDICT: On the whole, this was passable — just not something I'm in a hurry to buy again. Trader Joe's ice-cream sandwiches made with chocolate-chip cookies were the best I've ever had.In college, I'd buy cookie ice-cream sandwiches, so this box of four caught my eye. Even better, they tasted just as yummy as the "fresh" ones. Everything about this treat hit the mark.The chocolate-chip cookies were soft and chewy, like they were freshly baked, but stayed intact through every bite without crumbling or getting soggy. The chocolate chips lining the outside of each sandwich added some texture that made this fun to eat. And, of course, the vanilla ice cream was the perfect complement to the notes of brown sugar. VERDICT: I enjoyed these even more than the brownie-crisp sandwiches. The vegan cookies-and-creme coconut bonbons are a convenient, dairy-free treat.Like a regular bonbon, these featured a great-tasting chocolate shell that gave way to a vanilla center. I was worried the coconut "ice cream" would make these taste like a frozen Mounds bar, but Trader Joe's expertly masked that flavor. In my opinion, the flavor didn't quite live up to its description.Despite this treat's impressive taste, the mixed-in cookie bits didn't offer much besides a vaguely chocolaty nuance, so it didn't quite achieve the cookies-and-creme flavor advertised on the box. That wasn't a dealbreaker, though. For a vegan ice-cream snack , these hit the spot. Plus, each bonbon was a multi-bite treat, so one was more than enough to satisfy me. VERDICT: I'd definitely buy these again for weeks when I want to limit my dairy intake. Trader Joe's chocolate-and-vanilla-bean gelato looked tasty in its container.This gelato looked so pretty in the carton that I didn't want to scoop it up. When I opened the container, I saw four pinwheel-like swirls of chocolate and vanilla gelato covered with ribbons of fudge resembling snowy mountain tops. It reminded me of the displays in Italian gelato shops. This gelato tasted like it came from a café.I'm no gelato expert, but I'd say this was worth buying. Texture-wise, it was thicker than ice cream but softer on the palate (gelato is made with less milk fat than ice cream, which might explain this). It wasn't as icy as traditional ice cream, but was closer to smooth frozen yogurt or soft serve. I usually go for exciting gelato flavors, like pistachio or salted caramel, so the chocolate and vanilla were a bit underwhelming to me. But that doesn't make this bad. It's just something I'm unlikely to reach for again in the future. VERDICT: I thought the flavors were sort of boring, so I'll likely skip this in the future. However, it's worth trying if you're new to gelato. Trader Joe's organic freezer pops looked like an adult take on a classic summertime treat.As someone who grew up in the '90s, I can say with authority that back then, nothing was better than enjoying a bright blue, red, green, or purple ice pop on a hot day. So, I was really excited when I saw these colorful ice pops in Trader Joe's freezer section. The ice pops, which come in cherry-limeade, berry, and orange flavors, had a modern feel. Like the freezer pops I enjoyed as a kid, these had a bright, fruity taste. The packaging advises shaking the bag of ice pops before freezing them to avoid awkward juice pooling. I skipped this step, but the flavor of the freezer pops seemed fine to me. The colorful freezer pops made me feel like a little kid again.The packaging notes that this take on handheld ice pops is made with 100% juice. However, I don't know if that makes much of a difference as far as flavor goes, since most ice pops taste just like juice to me. By far, my favorite flavor was cherry limeade. The combination of citrusy and tart flavors tasted so grown-up. On that note, I'd gladly stick one of these pops into a cranberry cocktail for an added punch of flavor. VERDICT : It's worth having a bag of these ice pops in the freezer for hot summer days. Trader Joe's fudgy cookie-dough ice cream was full of sweet, delicious morsels.Trader Joe's fudgy cookie-dough ice cream was creamy and chock full of slightly crumbly chocolate-chip cookie-dough nuggets. I intended to sample just a spoonful but ended up returning for a full bowl. The fudgy cookie-dough ice cream will be a movie night go-to.The swirls of fudge made this ice cream an absolute standout that's worth buying. The faintest hint of sea salt from the fudge swirl enhanced the vanilla ice cream and made the chocolate chips pop. It's the kind of detail you don't think would make a big difference in overall flavor, but it made this ice cream much more memorable. If Trader Joe's threw brownies into the mix, this could give Ben & Jerry's popular Half Baked ice cream (another chocolate-heavy cookie-dough flavor) a run for its money. VERDICT: This flavor only comes around during the summer, so I plan to stock up every June. Trader Joe's s'mores bars seemed like an easy-to-serve version of the campfire classic.Snacks like this are the reason I love Trader Joe's. I was excited to see a baked good complete with a pre-torched marshmallow. I thought these s'mores bars, made with a fudgy brownie sandwiched between a graham-cracker crust and toasted-marshmallow topping, would have the vibes of a great camping trip and a bougie café treat. Per the package instructions, you can either thaw these bars at room temperature for two hours or heat them in a conventional oven or air fryer. I chose the first option because I didn't want to turn on either appliance and heat my apartment on a hot summer day. Looking back, though, I'd go with the oven option to get the full s'mores experience. After two hours, the bars were still sort of cold, but I indulged anyway. Lucky for me, they were still quite tasty. The s'mores bars were a hit, though I wish the graham-cracker layer was thicker.I devoured two bars in the amount of time it takes to toast a marshmallow on a campfire, which should tell you everything you need to know. These were delicious. The brownie layer was satisfyingly chewy and fudgy, with an intense, chocolaty flavor. The marshmallow component was fluffy, like the jarred stuff you get in the store, and tasted exactly as I'd expected. However — this may sound nitpicky — there's something about a warm, gooey marshmallow that a room-temperature one can't compare to. The graham-cracker layer held together decently under the marshmallow, but I wished it were a bit thicker or had a standout cinnamony flavor — as it was, it got a bit buried under the other two layers. To me, it tasted more like a simple pie crust. Still, it worked as an anchor to tone down all the sweetness. VERDICT: I'm a picky s'mores traditionalist, so it's hard to say this truly delivers the vibe of the campfire classic. I think of this as a marshmallow brownie more than a play on s'mores. I also wish these came individually wrapped so I didn't feel pressured to finish them all during the workweek. Otherwise, they're worth every penny. I'd buy this again to avoid baking anything. Click to keep reading other Trader Joe's taste tests in this series .
|
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
3. Types of Review Articles. The first step in writing a good literature review is to decide on the particular type of review to be written; hence, it is important to distinguish and understand the various types of review articles.
Systematic review: Seeks to systematically search for, appraise and synthesis research evidence, often adhering to guidelines on the conduct of a review. Systematic search and review: Combines strengths of critical review with a comprehensive search process. Typically addresses broad questions to produce 'best evidence synthesis'. Systematized ...
There are many types of reviews --- narrative reviews, scoping reviews, systematic reviews, integrative reviews, umbrella reviews, rapid reviews and others --- and it's not always straightforward to choose which type of review to conduct.These Review Navigator tools (see below) ask a series of questions to guide you through the various kinds of reviews and to help you determine the best choice ...
Types of reviews and examples. Definition: "A term used to describe a conventional overview of the literature, particularly when contrasted with a systematic review (Booth et al., 2012, p. 265). Characteristics: Example: Mitchell, L. E., & Zajchowski, C. A. (2022). The history of air quality in Utah: A narrative review.
This site explores different review methodologies such as, systematic, scoping, realist, narrative, state of the art, meta-ethnography, critical, and integrative reviews. The LITR-EX site has a health professions education focus, but the advice and information is widely applicable. Types of Reviews. Review the table to peruse review types and ...
Outlines other types of reviews like rapid reviews, mixed methods reviews, overview of reviews, etc. For each review, includes: definition, process, timeframe, limitations, + links to useful resources for conducting the review.
A well-written review article must summarize key research findings, reference must-read articles, describe current areas of agreement as well as controversies and debates, point out gaps in current knowledge, depict unanswered questions, and suggest directions for future research ( 1 ). During the last decades, there has been a great expansion ...
Three common types of review articles submitted to CMEJ. Often associated with Cochrane Reviews, this type of review aims to answer a narrowly focused question and uses a predetermined structured method to search, screen, select, appraise and summarize findings. Tang KS, Cheng DL, Mi E, Greenberg PB.
The review purpose, methods used and the results produced vary among different kinds of literature reviews; some of the common types of literature review are detailed below. Common Types of Literature Reviews 1 Narrative (Literature) Review. A broad term referring to reviews with a wide scope and non-standardized methodology
Rapid Review. Knowledge synthesis that accelerates the process of conducting a traditional systematic review; Streamlines or omits specific steps to produce evidence for stakeholders in a resource-efficient manner; Umbrella Review. Review of reviews; Synthesizes evidence from other published systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses on a broad topic
Types of Literature Reviews: Critically Appraised Topic (CATs) : A critically appraised topic (or CAT) is a short summary of evidence on a topic of interest, usually focused around a clinical question. A CAT is like a shorter and less rigorous version of a systematic review, summarizing the best available research evidence on a topic.
Classic literature reviews help advance a subject area. In this article, we discuss the types of review articles and what kinds of review articles are likely to be impactful. In the case of theme- based reviews, we suggest that framework-based reviews that use a framework such as TCCM (Theory, Context, Characteristics, Methods) are generally ...
Reporting. Three key aspects of this final step are common across systematic reviews. First, the results from the fifth step need to be presented, clearly and compellingly, using narratives, tables, and figures. Second, core results that emerge from the review must be interpreted and discussed by the author.
Types of review articles. Review articles are typically of three types: literature reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. A literature review is a general survey of the research topic and aims to provide a reliable and unbiased account of the current understanding of the topic.
Systematic Reviews. With a clearly defined question, systematically and transparently searches for a broad range of information to synthesize, in order to find the effect of an intervention. uses a protocol. has a clear data extraction and management plan. Time-intensive and often take months to a year or more to complete, even with a multi ...
An umbrella review is a review of multiple systematic reviews. The process uses explicit and systematic methods to search for, and identify, systematic reviews on related research questions in the same topic area. The purpose of an umbrella review is to synthesize the results of the systematic reviews across important outcomes.
Different Types of Article Review. In academic writing, the landscape of article reviews is diverse and nuanced, encompassing a variety of formats that cater to different research purposes and methodologies. Among these, three main types of article reviews stand out due to their distinct approaches and applications: Narrative.
What are the different types of reviews? Although systematic reviews are one of the most well-known review types, there are a variety of different types of reviews that vary in terms of scope, comprehensiveness, time constraints, and types of studies included. Type of Review. Description. Time to Complete. Search Strategy.
Peer review. Peer review is the process by which experts in the subject area review and article and provide their feedback. Journals typically have between 1-3 reviewers per article depending on the journal's review criteria and the availability of reviewers. Journals should establish how they will recruit peer reviewers.
Review articles can be of three types, broadly speaking: literature reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Review articles can be of varying lengths depending upon the journal and subject area. For narrative reviews or literature reviews, the length could range anywhere between 8000 to 40,0006 words while systematic reviews are usually ...
In this article, we are going to provide you with the 10 major types of reviews. They include umbrella, scoping, critical, literature, realistic, integrative, mapping, rapid, and quantitative systematic review. We have discussed them below. 1. Umbrella Review. An umbrella review is the master review.
Peer review brings academic research to publication in the following ways: Evaluation - Peer reviewing research helps publications select the highest quality articles.; Integrity - Peer review ensures the integrity of the publishing process and the scholarly record.; Quality - The filtering process and revision advice offered by verified experts within the academic field improves the ...
Small businesses account for 99.9% of U.S. firms. There may be no guarantees, but here are five with a better-than-average chance of success.
51% of Americans are middle-class, according to a recent report by Pew Research. The middle class shrank by 10% over the 52-year period ending in 2023. Near-zero marginal cost business models and ...
"Biden is even whiffing on his easy pitches — abortion and Jan. 6. I mean, my God," said Matt Gorman, a Republican strategist and former senior adviser to the presidential campaign for ...
Use oat groats, steel-cut oats, or rolled oats in place or rice, farro, or quinoa to create savory grain bowls; Top oat grouts, rolled oats, or steel-cut oats with fruit and nuts for a filling ...
Find out why senior beauty editor Paige Stables only needs T3's new multi-purpose hot tool instead of her usual three gadgets to create bouncy waves, sleek hair, and a great blowout. Read her ...
2. Veeva. Veeva is an international cloud-computing company specifically focused on the life sciences industry. They also have a work-from-anywhere policy, while investing in their global offices ...
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 research findings into historical contexts or explaining contradictions that might exist among a set of primary research studies conducted on a particular topic.
I tried every Trader Joe's ice-cream flavor and frozen dessert I could find and reviewed them. The chain's horchata-inspired and ube-flavored ice creams were both unique, delicious options. Trader ...