Systematic Review of Literature - Research Paper Example

? Systematic Review Paper of Systematic Review Paper The article, “The systematicreview of literature: Synthesizing evidence for practice” by Lynn Rew is aimed at describing the process of conducting a systematic review of literature to help nursing practitioners in making research findings that are clinically sound and methodologically sound. It seeks to provide the description of the literature process of systematic reviews, including its rationale, attributes for doing such reviews, as well as provide step-by-step directions for doing a systematic review (Rew, 2011). In addition, the article has discussed the practice implications of application of systematic review in nursing and pediatric nursing in particular. The article acknowledges that nurses are often so busy and sometimes may lack the skills and tools necessary to make research findings that are clinically relevant and methodologically sound. This reality notwithstanding, the article states that the key to achieving this crucial goal in the nursing practice is through systematic review of literature. It goes further to provide examples of professional groups that have done reviews which have been very critical in attaining evidence-based practice. A good example is review done by the Cochrane Collaboration in evaluating the effects of medical therapeutics. The article explains that nursing practitioners should be motivated to use as well as produce systematic reviews in order to achieve evidence-based practice (Rew, 2011). The attributes of systematic reviews in the nursing practice have been described in the article. Based on the definition of Meadows-Oliver (2009), the article describes systematic review as a synthesis of literature aimed at answering a research question which has a clear target and can be replicated. Identifying clearly targeted and specific research questions helps the reviewer to critically analyze and search for published sources that respond to research questions. Systematic review also involves delineation of each step of review process in order to enable other reviewers to verify and replicate the findings. In describing the attributes of systematic review, the article has differentiated it from integrative review by stating that the latter’s approach is the only one that allows for the diverse methodologies combination. However, the process delineated from for systematic review is the same as the process for integrative review, and many of the former have included publications with diverse methodologies (Whittemore & Knafl, 2008). The article has extensively described the rationale for conducting systematic reviews. It states that even though most nurses in the clinical practice do not get enough time to engage in original research, they ought to comb the existing relevant literature in order to find evidence regarding the kind of practice that can best work for a specific patient care situation. This method has proved to be appropriate in identifying evidence. However, its critics argue that it is often limited in scope, tends to reflect the bias that is inherent in journals that the nurses have employed or nurse’s bias, and it also lacks a clear focus (Coffman, et al, 2009). The article observes that systematic review corrects these limitations and gives nurses more confidence regarding the evidence that they have obtained from the process (Rew, 2011). A systematic review of available research literature gives the reader an efficient synthesis of research findings concerning a particular topic under study. The article further describes the systematic literature review process; it is worth noting that this process is the same to that of the descriptive research design. The process begins with formulation of the problem that is aimed at describing, synthesizing, and summarizing published findings regarding a particular problem or phenomenon in practice, and presents these findings in ways that answer specific research questions and saves other nursing practitioners the time for obtaining and evaluating the findings themselves (Whittemore and Knafl, 2008). Therefore, the process of systematic review should begin by asking what question or questions does it seek to answer and the specific concepts that are involved in answering these questions. The question should also seek to find out whether the body of knowledge regarding these concepts is currently available. Doing this would enable the review to focus on the search and will also provide boundaries within which the process unfolds (Coffman, et al., 2009). Formulation of the problem as the initial step in systematic review results to a clear statement of the systematic review purpose (Rew, 2011). The article notes that the purpose of systematic review is critical in helping the practitioners to examine a particular aspect(s) of the problem under study. Coffman et al (2009) explain that after identifying the research questions to be responded to and categorically stating the purpose of the systematic review, then the practitioner should determine how and where to conduct the review. The article states that the reviewer should determine the criteria through which a paper or any other relevant literature is included or excluded, as well as the list of literature to search for scientific evidence and the search terms to be included. Apart from determining the sources to be searched, a reviewer can also ask experts about the topic for examining other sources. Since a defining feature of the systematic review is that it can be replicated, the reviewer should strive at keeping careful notes on decisions made throughout the process of systematic review (Whittemore and Knafl, 2008). Prior to starting the actual search, the article advises that the reviewer must determine the criteria for inclusion and exclusion. The reviewer should carefully think about the reasons as to why some publications are relevant for responding to research questions and others are not. Meadows-Oliver (2009) advises that the reviewer should also determine what constitutes adequate evidence regarding the phenomenon in question. The reviewer should ask questions such as whether an editorial or a book chapter on a topic amounts to scientific evidence or whether an opinion essay written by a nursing faculty member constitutes scientific evidence. After determination of the inclusion and exclusion criteria in systematic review, the reviewer should select search terms to be used with the databases or sources that have been selected. The next step involves identification of appropriate databases and sources which requires the reviewer to determine the search engines and sources that are most likely to have articles that can best answer the research questions and thereafter proceed with the search (Coffman et al, 2009). The article has also advised on the data extraction as the systematic process review. It states that after the sources have been identified, the reviewer should start reading, coding, in addition to entering the findings on a data collection instrument (Whittemore and Knafl, 2008). The reviewer should decide what data to be extracted from the sources and what criteria will be used to judge the quality of sources reviewed. Data extraction is then followed with interpretation where the findings are interpreted and conclusions drawn. The final process of systematic review is dissemination of findings like in other researches (Meadows-Oliver, 2009). The article states that a nurse can disseminate the findings formally through publications and presentations or informally at a local nurses’ meeting. The article has immense potential impact on clinical practice. This particular article and the articles reviewed in it can help nurses and pediatric nurses in particular to consult and practice professionally and conduct their own reviews with the help of search engines and other appropriate sources. Since nurses provide care to patients in an environment that is changing constantly and therefore need to have solid rationale for all the things they do in their practice. Nursing practice needs to be evidence-based and systematic review of the literature provides ways to synthesize the knowledge evidence for the practice. In addition, this article will enable nurses in leadership positions including managers and supervisors to understand step-by-step outcome and process of systematic reviews. References Coffman, J et al. (2009). Do school-based asthma education programs improve self-management and health outcomes? Pediatrics, 124, 729–742. Meadows-Oliver, M. (2009). Does qualitative research have a place in evidence-based nursing practice? Journal of Pediatric Health Care, 23, 352–354 Rew, L. (2011). The systematic review of literature: Synthesizing evidence for practice. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 16(1), 64-69. Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2008). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52, 546–553. Read More