Reviewing the animal literature: how to describe and choose between different types of literature reviews

Author:

Leenaars Cathalijn12ORCID,Tsaioun Katya3,Stafleu Frans2,Rooney Kieron4,Meijboom Franck2,Ritskes-Hoitinga Merel56,Bleich André1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Institute for Laboratory Animal Science, Hannover Medical School, Germany

2. Department of Animals in Science and Society, Utrecht University, the Netherlands

3. Evidence-based Toxicology Collaboration, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (EBTC), USA

4. Charles Perkins Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Australia

5. SYRCLE, Department for Health Evidence (section HTA), Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, The Netherlands

6. AUGUST, Department for Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Denmark

Abstract

Before starting any (animal) research project, review of the existing literature is good practice. From both the scientific and the ethical perspective, high-quality literature reviews are essential. Literature reviews have many potential advantages besides synthesising the evidence for a research question. First, they can show if a proposed study has already been performed, preventing redundant research. Second, when planning new experiments, reviews can inform the experimental design, thereby increasing the reliability, relevance and efficiency of the study. Third, reviews may even answer research questions using already available data. Multiple definitions of the term literature review co-exist. In this paper, we describe the different steps in the review process, and the risks and benefits of using various methodologies in each step. We then suggest common terminology for different review types: narrative reviews, mapping reviews, scoping reviews, rapid reviews, systematic reviews and umbrella reviews. We recommend which review to select, depending on the research question and available resources. We believe that improved understanding of review methods and terminology will prevent ambiguity and increase appropriate interpretation of the conclusions of reviews.

Funder

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek

Federal state of Niedersachsen

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

General Veterinary,Animal Science and Zoology

Reference71 articles.

1. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies

2. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

3. Boland A, Cherry MG, Dickson R. Doing a systematic review – a student's guide. London: Sage, 2014, pp. 210.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3