Tips for Improving the Writing and Reporting Quality of Systematic, Scoping, and Narrative Reviews

Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions

Volumn 39, Issue 1, 2019, Pages 54-57

  Horsley, Tanya ^a,b  

^a ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF CANADA   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

Author keywords

evidence syntheses; narrative; reporting guidelines; scoping; systematic

Indexed keywords

EDUCATION; ERROR; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; NARRATIVE; OCCUPATION; PEER REVIEW; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PUBLICATION; REVIEW; SYNTHESIS; WRITING; LITERATURE; PUBLISHING;

HUMANS; PUBLISHING; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AS TOPIC; WRITING;

EID: 85062410604     PISSN: 08941912     EISSN: 1554558X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/CEH.0000000000000241     Document Type: Review

References (33)

1. Lundberg GD. A Christmas fairy tale. BMJ. 1996;313:1612.
2. Doja A, Horsley T, Sampson M. Productivity in medical education research: An examination of countries of origin. BMC Med Educ. 2014; 14:243.
3. Ellaway RH. Challenges of synthesizing medical education research. BMC Med. 2014;12:193.
4. Thomas A, Lubarsky S, Durning SJ, et al. Knowledge syntheses in medical education: Demystifying scoping reviews. Acad Med. 2017;92:161-166.
5. Van Der Vleuten CPM, Dolmans DHJM, Scherpbier AJJA. The need for evidence in education. Med Teach. 2000;22:246-250.
6. Chalmers I, Hedges LV, Cooper H. A brief history of research synthesis. Eval Health Prof. 2002;25:12-37.
7. Guyatt G, Cook D, Haynes B. Evidence based medicine has come a long way. BMJ. 2004;329:990-991.
8. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: How will we ever keep up PLoS Med. 2010; 7:e1000326.
9. Greenhalgh T, Thorne S, Malterud K. Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews Eur J Clin Invest. 2018; 48:e12931.
10. Eva KW. On the limits of systematicity. Med Educ. 2008;42:852-853.
11. 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.
12. Kastner M, Antony J, Soobiah C, et al. Conceptual recommendations for selecting the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to answer research questions related to complex evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016; 73:43-49.
13. Colquhoun HL, Levac D, O'Brien KK, et al. Scoping reviews: Time for clarity in definition, methods, reporting. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67: 1291-1294.
14. Gough D, Thomas J, Oliver S. Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Syst Rev. 2012;1:28.
15. Tricco AC, Soobiah C, Antony J, et al. A scoping review identifies multiple emerging knowledge synthesis methods, but few studies operationalize the method. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;73:19-28.
16. Oxman AD, Sackett DL, Guyatt GH. Users' guides to the medical literature. I. How to get started. The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1993;270:2093-2095.
17. Gordon M. Are we talking the same paradigm Considering methodological choices in health education systematic review. Med Teach. 2016;38:746-750.
18. Varpio L, Driessen E, Maggio L, et al. Advice for authors from the editors of perspectives on medical education: Getting your research published. Perspect Med Educ. 2018;7:343-347.
19. Lingard L. Joining a conversation: The problem/gap/hook heuristic. Perspect Med Educ. 2015;4:252-253.
20. Sampson M, Shojania KG, Garritty C, et al. Systematic reviews can be produced and published faster. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:531-536.
21. McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, et al. PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:40-46.
22. Harris MR. The librarian's roles in the systematic review process: A case study. J Med Libr Assoc. 2005;93:81-87.
23. Meert D, Torabi N, Costella J. Impact of librarians on reporting of the literature searching component of pediatric systematic reviews. J Med Libr Assoc. 2016;104:267-277.
24. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: Explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700.
25. Olson CA, Bakken LL. Evaluations of educational interventions: Getting them published and increasing their impact. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2013;33:77-80.
26. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, publication of scholarly work in medical journals. Available at: Http://www.icmje.org/icmjerecommendations. pdf. Accessed November 15, 2018.
27. Altman DG, Simera I. Using reporting guidelines effectively to ensure good reporting of health research. In: Moher D, Alman DG, Schulz KF, et al, eds. Guidelines for Reporting Health Research: A User's Manual. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2014:32-40.
28. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1.
29. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Open Med. 2009;3:e123-e130.
30. Gordon M, Gibbs T. STORIES statement: Publication standards for healthcare education evidence synthesis. BMC Med. 2014;12:143.
31. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169: 467-473.
32. Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, et al. RAMESES publication standards: Meta-narrative reviews. BMC Med. 2013;11:20.
33. Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. Narrative Review Checklist; 2018. Available at: Http://cdn.elsevier.com/promis-misc/ANDJ%20Narrative% 20Review%20Checklist.pdf. Accessed November 15, 2018.