Según el artículo A Systems Approach to Conduct an Effective Literature Review in Support of Information Systems Research (2006), una revisión de la literatura es:
Hart (1998) defined the literature review as “the use of ideas in the literature to justify the particular approach to the topic, the selection of methods, and demonstration that this research contributes something new” (p. 1). He also noted that for the literature review, “quality means appropriate breadth and depth, rigor and consistency, clarity and brevity, and effective analysis and synthesis” (Hart, 1998, p. 1). J. Shaw (1995) noted that the process of the review should “explain how one piece of research builds on another” (p. 326). Webster and Watson (2002) defined an effective literature review as one that “creates a firm foundation for advancing knowledge. It facilitates theory development, closes areas where a plethora of research exists, and uncovers areas where research is needed” (p. 13).
El artículo The State of Research on Information Systems Success explica la necesidad que existe hoy en día que justifica la realización de una revisión de la literatura:
The increasing number of published books and journals, as well as conferences and workshops has made the research process more complex and time-consuming. Consequently, there is a greater need to describe, synthesize, evaluate, and integrate the results of articles on a particular field of research. The process of conducting a literature review can be regarded as a scientific procedure that should be guided by an appropriate research method (Fettke 2006).
Según el artículo A Systems Approach to Conduct an Effective Literature Review in Support of Information Systems Research (2006), una revisión de la literatura debe incluir las diferentes características:
- methodologically analyze and synthesize quality literature,
- provide a firm foundation to a research topic,
- provide a firm foundation to the selection of research methodology, and
- demonstrate that the proposed research contributes something new to the overall body of knowledge or advances the research field’s knowledge-base.
En el proceso de realización de una revisión de la literatura, un paso que consume mucho tiempo es la lectura. En este artículo se proporcionan algunas técnicas para ayudar a una lectura activa:
- Keep an annotated copy of all the articles, book chapters, or conference proceedings you read in both hardcopy and electronic format. It is unbelievably frustrating to need to refer back to an article and find you do not have ready access to it.
- Highlight everything in the article that is applicable to your research, even if you don’t think you will use the material. It is almost impossible to tell exactly what direction research will take, and it can be very frustrating and time consuming to try to re-locate information you are almost certain you found in a given paper.
- Write notes to yourself about the article you are reading regarding issues, thoughts, or general comments such as “nice methodology for …”, “interesting definition of…,” etc.
- Write a brief (one to two paragraph(s)) annotated bibliography entry that encapsulates the essential points applicable to your research derived from the article. It is important to note that the annotated bibliography is specific to your research and is not the same as the abstract for the article, which summarizes the entire study.
- As one reads literature, be sure to look for and circle any terms or expressions that might serve as keywords that would facilitate the forward or backward searching described earlier.
- Remember, it is important to place each article in the context of the body of knowledge by identifying the applicable model(s), construct(s), theory(ies), and/or literature stream(s) (see section “Cognitive/construct-level” above). Annotate the applicable model(s), etc. on the front of the article.
Existen diferentes tipos de revisión de la literatura. En Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: When One Study Is Just not Enough se define la forma básica de revisión de la literatura, la revisión narrativa:
Review articles have traditionally taken the form of a narrative review, whereby a content expert writes about a particular field, condition, or treatment (5–7). Narrative reviews have many benefits, including a broad overview of relevant information tempered by years of practical knowledge from an experienced author. Indeed, this article itself is in a narrative format, from authors who have published a number of meta-analyses in previous years.
In some circumstances, a reader wants to become very knowledgeable about specific details of a topic and wants some assurance that the information presented is both comprehensive and unbiased. A narrative review typically uses an implicit process to compile evidence to support the statements being made. The reader often cannot tell which recommendations were based on the author's clinical experience, the breadth to which available literature was identified and compiled, and the reasons that some studies were given more emphasis than others. It is sometimes uncertain whether the author of a narrative review selectively cited reports that reinforced his or her preconceived ideas or promoted specific views of a topic. Also, a quantitative summary of the literature is often absent in a narrative review.
En A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies se definen los siguientes tipos de revisiones de la literatura:
| Label | Description | Methods used (SALSA) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | Typically narrative with tabular accompaniment | What is known; uncertainty around findings; limitations of methodology |
| Umbrella review | 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 | Identification of component reviews, but no search for primary studies | Quality assessment of studies within component reviews and/or of reviews themselves | Graphical and tabular with narrative commentary | What is known; recommendations for practice. What remains unknown; recommendations for future research |
A veces la revisión narrativa no es suficiente. En esos casos se puede realizar un mapeo sistemático o una revisión sistemática. En Research synthesis in veterinary science: Narrative reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analysis se comparan los pasos de una revisión narrativa y una revisión sistemática:
| The steps in systematic review | Systematic reviews | Narrative integrative review |
|---|---|---|
| Pre-step: Assemble a review team and develop a systematic review protocol | Required. Methodological content experts required to ensure sources of heterogeneity are identified. Research synthesis experts ensure that bias reduction tools are employed | Not required but likely a good practice. Useful reviews can be done by a single person |
| Step 1: Define the review question | Required that the question is defined as if a primary study: PICOS: P, Population; I, Intervention; C, Comparator; O, Outcome; (optionally) S, Study design. PECOS: P, Population; E, Exposure; C, Comparator; O, Outcome; S, Study. PIT: P, Population; I, Index test(s); T, Target. PO: P, Population; O, Outcome | Often not applicable as the review is either an expert opinion or the scope is broad, such as the epidemiology of, the pathogenicity of, treatment options for, etc. |
| Step 2: Conduct an extensive search for studies. | Required | Not required but likely a good practice. Authors should still report how the data were obtained even if based on expert opinion. |
| Step 3: Selecting relevant studies from the results of the search | Required | Not required but likely a good practice. Difficult to do if scope is not defined |
| Step 4: Collecting data from relevant studies | Required. Feasibility often limited by reporting approach used in primary studies. | Not required but likely a good practice. |
| Step 5: Assess the risk of bias in relevant studies | Required. Feasibility often limited by reporting approach used in primary studies. | Not required but likely a good practice. |
| Step 6: Synthesize the results | Required. Quantitative approaches required, and qualitative approaches strongly recommended and based on the definition of the review question. Feasibility limited by reporting approach used in primary studies, when narrative approaches are then used. | Usually qualitative and narrative as quantitative assessment is not applicable. For example, reviews that aim to summarize the epidemiology, pathogenicity or treatment options of a disease are not answering a particular testable question and therefore do not lend themselves to a quantitative synthesis. |
| Step 7: Presenting the results | Required, a list of the characteristics of the included studies and sources of heterogeneity | Often limited to listing citations, and readers would need to obtain the papers to be aware of sources of clinical or methodological heterogeneity. |
| Step 8: Interpret the results and discussion | Required, but rarely as extensive or prescriptive as narrative reviews. For example, studies might indicate that a treatment is effective but not that it should be used. | Often extensive, as this is the main purpose of the review. |
En algunos casos, cuando el análisis de la literatura solo se centra en los datos relacionados con el proceso de publicación, el estudio se denomina bibliometric review, como por ejemplo:
- Mapping the scientific research on open data: A bibliometric review
- How undertake a literature review through Bibliometrics. An example with review about "user innovation"
- Who is pirating medical literature? A bibliometric review of 28 million Sci-Hub downloads
Referencias
The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis
Cita: H.M. Cooper, L.V. Hedges. Second Edition, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 1994.
The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students
Cita: Diana Ridley. Second Edition, Sage Publications, 2012.
Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper
Cita: Arlene Fink. Fourth Edition, Sage Publications, 2014.
Google Books: Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper
Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis: A Step-by-Step Approach
Cita: Harris Cooper. Fifth Edition, Sage Publications, 2017.
Google Books: Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis: A Step-by-Step Approach
Herramientas
- StArt (State of the Art through Systematic Review)
- SciMAT (Science Mapping Analysis Tool)
- NVivo
- Parsifal
- Rayyan QCRI