• Users Online: 124
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents  
EDITORIAL
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 7  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 53-54

Types of reviews in the field of healthcare literature


Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Dental and Allied Sciences, Department of Prosthodontics, Sinhgad Dental College and Hospital, Pune, Maharashtra, India

Date of Web Publication1-Nov-2018

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Jayant N Palaskar
Department of Prosthodontics, Sinhgad Dental College and Hospital, S. No. 44/1, Off Sinhgad Road, Vadgaon (Bk), Pune - 411 041, Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jdas.jdas_52_18

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Palaskar JN. Types of reviews in the field of healthcare literature. J Dent Allied Sci 2018;7:53-4

How to cite this URL:
Palaskar JN. Types of reviews in the field of healthcare literature. J Dent Allied Sci [serial online] 2018 [cited 2018 Nov 20];7:53-4. Available from: http://www.jdas.in/text.asp?2018/7/2/53/244762





Writing a review is very common in healthcare literature. In general, all the information about one particular topic is gathered, and different views of various authors are put together in an article; a well-written article can be very useful reference for students as well as researchers in understanding the topic.

Archie Cochrane first described the need for conducting reviews of randomized control trials and to maintain those records as an authentic reference for any informed decision in healthcare. This lead to the formation of Cochrane Collaboration in 1992 which maintains and monitors all Cochrane systematic reviews relating to healthcare. Time and protocols required for such reviews lead to various types of reviews in healthcare.

There are 14 types of reviews exists in healthcare literature. Different types of reviews have some differences in its structure and methodology which differentiates one review type from another.

Grant and Booth[1] analyzed and described different reviews in detail which are as follows:

Critical review – Aims to demonstrate writer has extensively researched literature and critically evaluated its quality. Goes beyond mere description to include the degree of analysis and conceptual innovation. Typically results in hypothesis or model

Literature review – Generic term: published materials that provide an examination of the recent or current literature. Can cover a wide range of subjects at various levels of completeness and comprehensiveness.

May include research findings

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

Meta-analysis – Technique that statistically combines the results of quantitative studies to provide a more precise effect of the results

Overview – Generic term: summary of the [medical] literature that attempts to survey the literature and describe its characteristics

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

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

Scoping review – Preliminary assessment of potential size and scope of available research literature. Aims to identify the nature and extent of research evidence (usually including on-going research)

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

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 review – Attempt to include the elements of systematic review process while stopping short of systematic review. Typically conducted as postgraduate student assignment

Umbrella review – Specifically refers to review compiling evidence from multiple reviews into one accessible and usable document. Focuses on a broad condition or problem for which there are competing interventions and highlights reviews that address these interventions and their results.

Researchers may understand further intricacies of these reviews and select the appropriate type of review suitable for their particular topic of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J 2009;26:91-108.  Back to cited text no. 1
    




 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed138    
    Printed3    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded35    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]