With an ever-increasing plethora of studies being published in the health sciences, it is challenging if not impossible for busy clinicians and researchers alike to keep up with the literature.
The publisher's final edited version of this article is available at J Adv Nurs See other articles in PMC that cite the published article. Abstract This paper offers a discussion of the reading and writing practices that define systematic review.
Background Although increasingly popular, systematic review has engendered a critique of the claims made for it as a more objective method for summing up research findings than other kinds of reviews.
Discussion An alternative understanding of systematic review is as a highly subjective, albeit disciplined, engagement between resisting readers and resistant texts. Reviewers of research exemplify the resisting reader when they exclude reports on grounds of relevance, quality, or methodological difference.
Research reports exemplify resistant texts as they do not simply yield their findings, but rather must be made docile to review. These acts of resistance make systematic review possible, but challenge claims of its greater capacity to control bias.
Conclusion An understanding of the reading and writing practices that define systematic review still holds truth and objectivity as regulative ideals, but is aware of the reading and writing practices that both enable and challenge those ideals.
Journal articles and books regularly appear promoting the need for, instructing readers on how to conduct, reporting the results of, and even reviewing such reviews. Conceived as a cornerstone of evidence-based practice, the systematic review is appealing because of its promise to permit valid albeit provisional conclusions to be drawn about clinical problems from the ever increasing number of research findings addressing those problems.
Whether the problem is medication non-adherence, the management of chronic illness, or accounting for health and social disparities, systematic review holds out, and often fulfils, the promise of arriving at working research conclusions and workable practice solutions.
Yet like most trends in method, systematic review has engendered a critique focused on claims made for it as a more objective method for summing up research findings than other kinds of reviews. As proposed in this paper, the objectivity claimed for systematic review is challenged by an alternative understanding of it as a highly subjective, albeit disciplined, engagement between reviewers — conceived as resisting readers — and research reports, conceived as resistant texts.
|A young researcher's guide to a systematic review Editage Insights||However, it should be noted that, in most instances, the term systematic phonics appears to refer to synthetic phonics because of the specific instruction methods it uses.|
On the system in, and objectivity of, systematic review What makes a review systematic as opposed to unsystematic is the use of an explicit and auditable protocol for review.
As typically described in instructional literature on systematic review e. Reviewers organize their reports of systematic reviews to conform to this sequence of stages. If what makes a review systematic is adherence to a protocol, what makes a review unsystematic is simply that it does not adhere to a protocol.
The fact that a review is unsystematic, however, does not make it a less worthy review than one that is systematic.
For example, reviews for research require only that the literature selected be relevant to the case being made for a proposed or completed study, that no relevant report be excluded, and that the literature reviewed be accurately represented in making that case.
There is no mandate to be systematic, that is, to move through the stages prescribed for a systematic review of research, in reviews for research Maxwell Yet, the term systematic review is used to convey something more than the use and communication of a prescribed system to conduct reviews of research.
Such misalignments fail to distinguish: The deployment of the terms qualitative or narrative — to signal unsystematic reviews — or their deployment with the term systematic, to designate reviews in which quantitative meta-analyses could not be conducted e. Systematic reviews especially when conceived as involving the use of quantitative methods to synthesize quantitative findings continue to be promoted for their greater objectivity than unsystematic reviews.
Procedural objectivity, however, does not remove the subjectivity of the process, nor does it even guarantee the transparency or replicability of review outcomes claimed to distinguish systematic from unsystematic review MacLure The only thing transparent and reproducible is adherence to a prescribed protocol for conducting reviews.
Although systematic reviews are by definition methodical in that they mandate adherence to an orderly and communicable system for conducting them, no one method, nor one execution of any one of these methods, is used to conduct any one of the stages prescribed for them.
The activities constituting each stage of the systematic review process and its outcomes vary with reviews and reviewers. Systematic reviews ostensibly addressing the same research question will not include the same reports nor necessarily come to the same conclusions Ezzo et al. Owing to the lack of consensus on what constitutes quality, the controversy surrounding the proper use of quality criteria in systematic reviews, and the sheer volume and diversity of checklists and guides available to appraise quality e.
In short, like any other literature review, systematic reviews reflect the perspectives, preferences and propensities of reviewers in the very way that they conceive problems, pose research questions, select the reports of studies that will be reviewed, treat these reports, and compare and combine the findings in them.
Systematic reviews are procedurally objective in that the steps taken are communicable and, therefore, repeatable as steps, but the objectivity of review outcomes ultimately resides in a disciplined subjectivity.
Resisting readers and resistant texts To understand the partiality of systematic review requires recognizing it as an engagement between reviewers — conceived as resisting readers — and research reports, conceived as resistant texts.
As shown in ethnographic studies, and in critiques and reflexive accounts, of the systematic review process TraynorMykhalovskiyMacLureMoreiraSandelowski et al. Research reports are generally viewed as indexes of the studies conducted.
The findings in these reports are generally conceived as indexes of the experiences or events researchers studied, and the results of systematic review, as indexes of these findings. Research reports are treated in systematic reviews as sources of extractable and ultimately synthesizable data that are seen to represent the experiences and events under study.
Yet, reports, the findings in them, and the results of systematic reviews are also texts produced in the varied reading and writing practices constituting inquiry.
Reviews of literature have been described as gatekeeping, policing and, ultimately, political enterprises LatherMacLure whereby reviewers decide what reports are relevant to a review and, if deemed relevant, worthy to include in that review.
As they encounter the volume of reports typically generated by a multi-channel search of multiple databases, reviewers continually adjust research questions, search terms, and selection criteria in order to claim comprehensiveness within the search and selection parameters they themselves created.
Systematic reviews are labour-intensive, making it critical that the numbers of reports not exceed the resources available to review them.Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review of literature is to determine the major theories of literacy, both reading and writing, guiding the practices reported in published articles within The Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy.
for teaching the alphabetic principle, reading, spelling and writing will be the primary focus of the course, with a particular emphasis on phonological training/word-attack skills as well as systematic, explicit multisensory instruction relative to the structure of.
A systematic review is a highly rigorous review of existing literature that addresses a clearly formulated question. This article discusses the types of systematic review, systematic review protocol and its registration, and the best approach to conducting and writing a systematic review.
A systematic review to examine the relationship of anxiety and depression to exacerbations of COPD, that result in hospital admissions, and if there are Quality appraisal Advice gained from Jo Jordon and from reading around the area Version 3, March 2 Writing up.
A systematic review answers a defined research question by collecting and summarising all empirical evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria. A meta-analysis is the use of statistical methods to summarise the results of these studies. An understanding of the reading and writing practices that define systematic review still holds truth and objectivity as regulative ideals, but is aware of the reading and writing practices that both enable and challenge those ideals.