Chapter 3
Gathering and
Appraising the Literature
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Literature Review
A systematic and critical appraisal
Provides the development and foundation of a research study
Provides the development and foundation of the theoretical framework
ESSENTIAL to evidence-based nursing practice
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Literature Review
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Theoretical or Conceptual Framework
The basis for the development of research questions or hypotheses
Can be viewed as a map for understanding the relationships between or among the variables in quantitative studies
Presents the context for studying the problem
Often illustrated using a diagram
Integral to practice and research
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Sources for Literature Review
Primary: Research articles and books by the original author
Secondary: Published articles or books that are written by persons other than the individual who conducted the research study or developed the theory
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Literature Review: Components of Research Process
Research question and hypothesis
Design and method
Outcome of the analysis
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Outcome of the Analysis
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Goal of the Literature Review
Researcher
Develop the knowledge foundation necessary to design a sound study
Generate research questions and hypotheses
Consumer
Answer a clinical question or solve a problem to improve patient outcomes
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Literature Review: Researcher’s Perspective
Facilitates understanding of the problem by identifying a theoretical or conceptual framework to provide a context
Discover what is known and not known to refine the research question and hypothesis
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Literature Review: Researcher’s Perspective
Assists in the design and methods to be used
Allows interpretation and discussion of the outcome of the analysis by comparison with previous studies
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Literature Review: Consumer’s Perspective
Answer a clinical question or solve a problem to improve patient outcomes by:
Identifying and gathering evidence
Critically appraising and synthesizing evidence
Assessing the usefulness of the evidence in changing practice
Changing practice to improve outcomes or justify current interventions
Developing evidence-based practice projects
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Literature Review: Consumer’s Perspective
First three steps of evidence-based practice process:
Asking clinical questions
Identifying and gathering evidence
Critically appraising and synthesizing the evidence or literature
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
PICO Format
P Problem/patient population; specifically defined group
I Intervention; what intervention or event will be studied?
C Comparison of intervention; with what will the intervention be compared?
O Outcome; what is the effect of the intervention?
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Hierarchy of Preappraised Evidence
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Computerized Decision Support System
Integrates evidence-based clinical information into an electronic medical record. In these systems, specific patient data can be entered and then matched against a knowledge base to generate patient-specific recommendations or assessments.
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Summaries
Clinical practice guidelines and electronic evidence-based textbooks
Evidence-based guidelines that provide recommendations based on high-quality evidence
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Synopsis of Synthesis
Provides a preappraised summary of systematic review
Synopses provide a synthesis of the review; some include a commentary related to strength of the evidence and applicability to a patient population
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Synthesis
Systematic reviews (e.g., a Cochrane review) are a synthesis of research on a clinical topic conducted by multiple experts.
They include quantitative summaries, meta-analysis.
Synopsis of single studies: Keep in mind that a synopsis of a single study, while critically preappraised, still remains a single study. Most often, significant practice changes are not based on the results of a single study.
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Studies
“Synopsis of a Single Study” appraisal conducted by a single expert
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Types of Resources
Print and electronic books, journals, indexes
Refereed or peer-reviewed journal articles are the best choice because they contain the latest information.
Books take longer to publish than journals.
Print indexes are needed for sources not available in online databases.
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
What Is a Refereed or
Peer-Reviewed Journal?
A panel of scholars who are experts review submitted manuscripts.
Usually the reviews are “blind” to promote objectivity; that is, the manuscript to be reviewed does not include the name of the authors.
The reviewers use a set of scholarly criteria to judge whether a manuscript meets the publication standards of the journal.
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Types of Resources
Electronic databases
Used to find journals, publications of professional organizations, and publications of government agencies
CINAHL: Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature
MEDLINE
PubMed
Cochrane Library
Search engines
Electronic databases
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
How Far Back?
A general timeline for most academic or evidence-based practice papers/projects is to go back in the literature at least 3 years, and preferably 5 years.
Some research projects may warrant going back 10 or more years.
Extensive literature reviews on particular topics or a concept clarification methodology study helps limit the length of the search.
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Using Electronic Databases
Find right terms to “plug in”
Controlled vocabulary
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
CINAHL in the EBSCO Interface
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Venn Diagram
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Boolean Operators
Boolean operators define the relationships between words or groups of words in a literature search.
Boolean operators dictate the relationship between words and concepts:
“AND” requires both concepts to be located within the results that are returned.
“OR” allows the grouping together of like terms or synonyms.
“NOT” eliminates terms from the search.
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Appraising the Evidence
Organized
Strong knowledge base
Quantitative (meta-analyses) and qualitative (meta-syntheses) systematic reviews
“Does the literature search seem adequate?”
“Does the report demonstrate scholarly writing?”
The key to a strong literature review is a careful search of published and unpublished literature.
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Clinical Guidelines
www.guidelines.gov
www.cochrane.org
Websites of national organizations, for example:
www.ons.org
www.americanheart.org
www.strokeassociation.org
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
WARNING
Searching with Google, Ask.com, Lycos, or other search engines is an inefficient use of time. It can be very difficult, especially for beginners, to judge the scholarly merit of information obtained this way.
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Librarian: Your New Best Friend
Visit your university or institution’s library and ask a librarian for help accessing electronic databases. Librarians are experts and usually are glad to help.
Learn to use at least two databases.
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
How Far Back Should a Search Go?
Usually 5 years is good, but some advanced projects may require searches that go back 10+ years.
Although systematic reviews contain secondary sources, they can give a scholarly overview of a topic and are helpful in deciding how far back to search.
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Critiquing the Literature Review
Are all the relevant concepts and variables included in the literature review?
Does the search strategy include an appropriate and adequate number of databases and other resources to identify key published and unpublished research and theoretical sources?
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Critiquing the Literature Review
Are both theoretical and research literature included?
Is there an appropriate theoretical or conceptual framework that guides the development of the research study?
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Critiquing the Literature Review
Are primary sources mainly used?
What gaps or inconsistencies in knowledge does the literature review uncover?
Does the literature review build on earlier studies?
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Critiquing the Literature Review
Does the summary of each reviewed study reflect the essential components of the study design?
Type and size of sample
Reliability and validity of instruments
Consistency of data collection procedures
Appropriate data analysis
Identification of limitations
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Critiquing the Literature Review
The critique of each reviewed study should include
Strengths
Weaknesses
Limitations of the design
Conflicts
Gaps in information
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Critiquing the Literature Review
Does the synthesis summary follow a logical sequence that presents the overall strengths and weaknesses of the reviewed studies and arrive at a logical conclusion?
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Critiquing the Literature Review
Is the literature review presented in an organized format that flows logically?
The literature review should clearly outline the need for the particular research study or evidence-based practice project.
Does the literature review follow the proposed purpose of the research study or evidence-based practice project?
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Critiquing the Literature Review
Does the literature review generate research questions or hypotheses or answer a clinical question?
HELPFUL HINT:
Making a table using critical appraisal criteria is a helpful way to organize information.
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Which source provides the most information on evidence-based practice?
CINAHL
MEDLINE
PsycINFO
Cochrane Systematic Review
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
ANSWER: D
RATIONALE: Cochrane Systematic Review according to the Search for Evidence critical thinking decision path. CINAHL is great for nursing research, MEDLINE is great for medical research, and PsycINFO is used for research on human behavior. But the systematic review, even though it is a secondary source, is a higher-level information resource. Evidence-based nursing would be a higher and better selection. Although systematic reviews are considered to be examples of secondary sources because they represent a body of completed research studies that have been critically appraised and synthesized by a team other than the original researchers, they often represent the best available evidence on a particular clinical issue.
*
A nurse researcher finds four useful resources. What is an appropriate next action?
Decide whether the four resources provide a strong enough base for the topic.
Review the resources in the articles.
Talk to the librarian.
Expand the topic.
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
ANSWER: B
RATIONALE: Review references in the resources. Although a few articles may be comprehensive, it is not likely. Before talking to the librarian, review the references in the resources. They often lead to another path of resources. And if all else fails, you may need to expand your topic.
*
The author of the nursing theory on which you are basing a review is in attendance at a social function. What might you do next?
Introduce yourself and ask a few questions about your topic.
Introduce yourself and ask for an appointment at a later date.
Listen on the fringe of the discussion.
Realize that this is a social function and do not talk “business.”
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
*
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
ANSWER: B
RATIONALE: Introduce yourself and ask for an appointment at a later date. This would be most appropriate after you explain your intention. The theorist may prefer to discuss your project at the function, but asking for an appointment allows the theorist some flexibility. Never underestimate yourself by not introducing yourself. Also, a nursing function is an opportunity to meet other nurses and to discuss pertinent topics.
*