There are a different types of reviews- Narrative, Focussed, Scoping, Systematic, Umbrella reviews, etc
Are aims of each of these type of reviews are different? Or are they chosen merely based on researchers feasibility in terms of time, energy and available resources? Which of these is apt for a postgraduate medical thesis or for that matter even for a PhD thesis?
Dear Krishna,
There are various types of review as mentioned by you in your question. We usually follow the Data Considerations while selecting an appropriate review in medical sciences.
1. Do I have a clearly defined clinical question with established inclusion and exclusion criteria?
2. Do I have a team of at least three people assembled?
3. Do I have time to go through as many search results as we might find?
4. Do I have resources to get foreign language articles appropriately translated?
5. Do I have the statistical resources to analyze and pool data?
If you answered “No” to any of the first four questions, a traditional Literature Review will be more appropriate to do.
If you answered “No” to the last question, a meta-analysis will not be an appropriate methodology for your review.
Otherwise we usually prefer Systemetic Review.
Note:
1. Scoping reviews are particularly useful when a body of literature has not yet been comprehensively reviewed, or exhibits a complex or heterogeneous nature not amenable to a more precise systematic review of the evidence.
2. Rapid reviews have emerged as a streamlined approach to synthesizing evidence in a timely manner -typically for the purpose of informing emergent decisions faced by decision makers in health care settings.
3. Umbrella reviews focuses on broad condition or problem for which there are competing interventions and highlights reviews that address these interventions and their result.
Regards,
Regards,
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Thesis Research