Specifies the number of studies evaluated orselected
Steps, and targets of constructing a good review article are listed in Table 3 . To write a good review article the items in Table 3 should be implemented step by step. [ 11 – 13 ]
Steps of a systematic review
Formulation of researchable questions | Select answerable questions |
Disclosure of studies | Databases, and key words |
Evaluation of its quality | Quality criteria during selection of studies |
Synthesis | Methods interpretation, and synthesis of outcomes |
It might be helpful to divide the research question into components. The most prevalently used format for questions related to the treatment is PICO (P - Patient, Problem or Population; I-Intervention; C-appropriate Comparisons, and O-Outcome measures) procedure. For example In female patients (P) with stress urinary incontinence, comparisons (C) between transobturator, and retropubic midurethral tension-free band surgery (I) as for patients’ satisfaction (O).
In a systematic review on a focused question, methods of investigation used should be clearly specified.
Ideally, research methods, investigated databases, and key words should be described in the final report. Different databases are used dependent on the topic analyzed. In most of the clinical topics, Medline should be surveyed. However searching through Embase and CINAHL can be also appropriate.
While determining appropriate terms for surveying, PICO elements of the issue to be sought may guide the process. Since in general we are interested in more than one outcome, P, and I can be key elements. In this case we should think about synonyms of P, and I elements, and combine them with a conjunction AND.
One method which might alleviate the workload of surveying process is “methodological filter” which aims to find the best investigation method for each research question. A good example of this method can be found in PubMed interface of Medline. The Clinical Queries tool offers empirically developed filters for five different inquiries as guidelines for etiology, diagnosis, treatment, prognosis or clinical prediction.
As an indispensable component of the review process is to discriminate good, and bad quality researches from each other, and the outcomes should be based on better qualified researches, as far as possible. To achieve this goal you should know the best possible evidence for each type of question The first component of the quality is its general planning/design of the study. General planning/design of a cohort study, a case series or normal study demonstrates variations.
A hierarchy of evidence for different research questions is presented in Table 4 . However this hierarchy is only a first step. After you find good quality research articles, you won’t need to read all the rest of other articles which saves you tons of time. [ 14 ]
Determination of levels of evidence based on the type of the research question
I | Systematic review of Level II studies | Systematic review of Level II studies | Systematic review of Level II studies | Systematic review of Level II studies |
II | Randomized controlled study | Crross-sectional study in consecutive patients | Initial cohort study | Prospective cohort study |
III | One of the following: Non-randomized experimental study (ie. controlled pre-, and post-test intervention study) Comparative studies with concurrent control groups (observational study) (ie. cohort study, case-control study) | One of the following: Cross-sectional study in non-consecutive case series; diagnostic case-control study | One of the following: Untreated control group patients in a randomized controlled study, integrated cohort study | One of the following: Retrospective cohort study, case-control study (Note: these are most prevalently used types of etiological studies; for other alternatives, and interventional studies see Level III |
IV | Case series | Case series | Case series or cohort studies with patients at different stages of their disease states |
Rarely all researches arrive at the same conclusion. In this case a solution should be found. However it is risky to make a decision based on the votes of absolute majority. Indeed, a well-performed large scale study, and a weakly designed one are weighed on the same scale. Therefore, ideally a meta-analysis should be performed to solve apparent differences. Ideally, first of all, one should be focused on the largest, and higher quality study, then other studies should be compared with this basic study.
In conclusion, during writing process of a review article, the procedures to be achieved can be indicated as follows: 1) Get rid of fixed ideas, and obsessions from your head, and view the subject from a large perspective. 2) Research articles in the literature should be approached with a methodological, and critical attitude and 3) finally data should be explained in an attractive way.
Writing literature reviews, what is a literature review.
"A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area, and sometimes information in a particular subject area within a certain time period. A literature review can be just a simple summary of the sources, but it usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis. A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information. It might give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations. Or it might trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates. And depending on the situation, the literature review may evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant." Source: The Writing Center at UNC-Chapel Hill. (2013). Literature Reviews. Retrieved from https://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/literature-reviews/ This link opens in a new window
Check out these resources:
Written by: Katherine Watson
Starting a literature review can be a daunting task. A literature review is a foundational aspect of a dissertation, but you may also be asked to produce a standalone literature review. You may be unfamiliar with the term literature review, and the first thing to note is that it is not that different to essays you are used to writing….
A literature review is a critical summary of existing work on a chosen topic. Importantly, it is not a list or description of ALL texts relevant to your topic. Your literature review should pick up on important ideas, debates, theories, methods and omissions across this body of literature. Rather than repeating or re-wording this information, a literature review represents your own evaluations and comparisons between these texts and should highlight your key take-aways from those readings.
It is important to be selective, you don’t have time to read everything. Tips on how to be a more effective and efficient reader can be found on Read Right, Write Right.
While the body of literature may be large, you will typically find repetition and common ground between texts. Make a note of these similarities, as well as where approaches or arguments diverge and contrast.
Weed out any sources which are not relevant after your reading and consolidate your list/table of core literature.
This is your opportunity to elaborate on your record of core literature by producing your own summary and reflection of the texts. Return to any notes you’ve written already and re-read relevant sections of the texts if necessary. Don’t just repeat their arguments (though you may note down a small number of quotations). Keep your focal topic at the front of your mind!
The questions listed below can be used as prompts to get you thinking critically:
As you think, WRITE ! What to do with all of those notes will help you process your ideas, and these notes will likely find their way into your literature review as your start to write it up formally.
Scott Horsley
Maria Aspan
Fed Chair Jerome Powell prepares to deliver remarks at a conference on Nov. 8, 2023, in Washington, D.C. The Fed is set to cut interest rates for the first time since 2020 on Wednesday — but will need to decide on the size of the move. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images hide caption
The Federal Reserve is about to start cutting interest rates for the first time since 2020, but a big question looms: How far will they go?
It won't be an easy call. For more than a year, the Fed has kept borrowing costs at their highest level in more than two decades. That's made it more expensive to get a car loan, finance a business, or carry a balance on a credit card.
Now that the Fed has made clear it will be cutting interest rates, it will need to decide whether to opt for a modest quarter-percentage-point rate cut, or a more aggressive half-a-point cut.
That uncertainty has made this meeting one of the most highly anticipated in a while.
Here are three things to know ahead of the Fed's decision, due out at Wednesday at 2 p.m. ET.
The only certainty is that the central bank will be cutting interest rates. That's not exactly a "stop the presses" headline. Fed chairman Jerome Powell telegraphed it nearly a month ago.
It's the size of the rate cut that remains in doubt.
It's a tough call. Inflation has fallen substantially, with consumer prices rising by an annual 2.5% in August, down from a pandemic peak of 9.1% in June 2022. But prices are still climbing somewhat faster than the Fed would like.
At the same time, the U.S. job market is starting to show some weakness. Hiring has slowed and unemployment is inching up, hitting 4.2% last month.
All in all, the data is not pointing in a clear direction, meaning the Fed could really go either way.
Some economists who worry about the labor market believe the Fed should go bigger, delivering a half-percentage-point cut. Others feel the Fed can be more patient, starting with a quarter-percentage-point cut while it continues to assess the incoming data.
Bets on a quarter- vs half-a-percentage point cut have swung wildly on Wall Street. As of late afternoon on Tuesday, investors thought a larger cut was nearly twice as likely as the quarter-point move.
The size of the rate cut is bound to create split opinions in markets, but analysts also say that at least one thing is clear: Wednesday's rate cut won't be the last.
Investors expect the Fed to continue cutting rates in the next few months, marking a turning point from an extraordinary period in the U.S. economy when the Fed was forced to sharply raise interest rates to fight surging inflation.
Uncertainty about the pace of rate cuts will continue—but Wall Street also has other things on its plate, including the looming presidential election.
September is historically a bad month for markets—and, in election years, that rough patch extends through October. Investors are also keeping an eye on the tech sector, which has been volatile amid fears that companies are spending too much on artificial intelligence for too little return on their investments.
It's a lot to juggle, and analysts are urging investors to be patient.
"I'm a little dubious about the rate cut reducing uncertainty," says Steven Wieting, the chief investment strategist for Citi Wealth.
But Wieting also noted some of this uncertainty will likely die down in the coming months, especially following the U.S. elections.
"Ultimately, we'll get a clearer direction," he adds.
Borrowing money is going to get a little bit cheaper. Interest rates on car loans and credit cards should come down a bit. For people with money in the bank, on the other hand, the interest rate they get on their savings might also drop.
Meanwhile, mortgage rates have already come down in anticipation of the Fed's move. The average rate on a 30-year home loan is now 6.2%, the lowest since February 2023. That's still higher than the rates around 3% common during the pandemic, but it's down substantially from the peak last year of nearly 8%.
But here's one thing to keep in mind: Whether the Fed cuts rates on Wednesday by a quarter-percentage-point or by half-a-percentage point, it's going to take some time for these falling rates to really make a difference in the economy.
Monetary policy is like the hot water in some older houses. You can crank the water all the way to hot, but it still takes time for it to get there.
An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated in a photo caption that the Fed was set to cut interest rates for the first time since 2001. The last time the Fed cut interest rates was in 2020.
Advertisement
Supported by
Tony Tulathimutte’s new stories center on the young, alienated, unloved people you can’t stop watching.
By Dwight Garner
When you purchase an independently reviewed book through our site, we earn an affiliate commission.
REJECTION , by Tony Tulathimutte
If Tony Tulathimutte’s new book, a collection of linked stories titled “Rejection,” were a futuristic pop-up book, up would jump unflattering sex pics, medicine for cauliflower acne, unreturned texts, hateful pet birds, the Stanford alumni magazine, terrible food, the odors of crotches and armpits, semi-satirical Judith Butler Halloween costumes and holograms of “friends” who are either poseurs or users or toxic grievance collectors.
This book is so cold and lonely you could hang meat in it. “Rejection” is not an ironic title. Elizabeth Hardwick wrote that poverty, in the form of multiple occupancy, has “a marigold odor.” Does abjection have a smell? If so, add it to the list above.
Tulathimutte’s characters are shoe gazers. They’re snails that have been emotionally salted. His subject is not fashionable ennui. He is writing about alienation and skin starvation, a longing for the nonexistent touches of friends and the embraces of lovers.
These young men and women are mostly short and unattractive; they have large pores and clerkly physiques and may be balding. They are losers in the great American popularity contest. They’ve been cut from the herd. Neither the sheep nor the goats want them.
No one here gets out alive — if soul murder counts.
I read “Rejection” during a week when I felt down, and it almost stubbed me out, like a cigarette. If it were an Instagram friend, I would have unfollowed it. But Tulathimutte is such an acutely observant writer that I was entranced by his book despite its narrowness and emotional barbarity.
One of Tulathimutte’s primal topics is online culture and its diseased repercussions, and he writes about these things in the way Anthony Bourdain wrote about restaurants, Hunter S. Thompson wrote about motorcycle gangs and Molly Ivins wrote about water-headed Texas politicians. He’s alert, in other words; he’s tanked up, bleakly funny and always stropping his knife.
We are having trouble retrieving the article content.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access.
Already a subscriber? Log in .
Want all of The Times? Subscribe .
To continue, please click the box below to let us know you're not a robot.
Please make sure your browser supports JavaScript and cookies and that you are not blocking them from loading. For more information you can review our Terms of Service and Cookie Policy .
For inquiries related to this message please contact our support team and provide the reference ID below.
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Start your review by referring to the title and author of the article, the title of the journal, and the year of publication in the first paragraph. For example: The article, "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS," was written by Anthony Zimmerman, a Catholic priest. 4. Write the introduction.
2. Read the article thoroughly: Carefully read the article multiple times to get a complete understanding of its content, arguments, and conclusions. As you read, take notes on key points, supporting evidence, and any areas that require further exploration or clarification. 3. Summarize the main ideas: In your review's introduction, briefly ...
Article Review vs. Response Paper . Now, let's consider the difference between an article review and a response paper: If you're assigned to critique a scholarly article, you will need to compose an article review.; If your subject of analysis is a popular article, you can respond to it with a well-crafted response paper.; The reason for such distinctions is the quality and structure of ...
Step 1: Define the right organization for your review. Knowing the future setup of your paper will help you define how you should read the article. Here are the steps to follow: Summarize the article — seek out the main points, ideas, claims, and general information presented in the article.
Read the Article Thoroughly. The first step in writing an article review is to read the article carefully and thoroughly. This may seem obvious, but it is crucial to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the work before attempting to critique it. During the initial reading, focus on grasping the main arguments, key points, and the overall ...
Here is a basic, detailed outline for an article review you should be aware of as a pre-writing process if you are wondering how to write an article review. Introduction. Introduce the article that you are reviewing (author name, publication date, title, etc.) Now provide an overview of the article's main topic.
The best proposals are timely and clearly explain why readers should pay attention to the proposed topic. It is not enough for a review to be a summary of the latest growth in the literature: the ...
Step 4: Summarize the Article. In this part of how to write an article review process, you'll need to quickly go over the main points and arguments from the article. Make it short but must cover the most important elements and the evidence that backs them up. Leave your opinions and analysis out of it for now.
For an article review, your task is to identify, summarize, and evaluate the ideas and information the author has presented. You are being asked to make judgments, positive or negative, about the content of the article. The criteria you follow to do this will vary based upon your particular academic discipline and the parameters of your ...
A journal article review is written for a reader who is knowledgeable in the discipline and is interested not just in the coverage and content of the article being reviewed, but also in your critical assessment of the ideas and argument that are being presented by the author. Your review might be guided by the following questions:
The task of writing a scientific review article can seem overwhelming; however, it can be managed by using an organized approach and devoting sufficient time to the process. The process involves selecting a topic about which the authors are knowledgeable and enthusiastic, conducting a literature search and critical analysis of the literature ...
3. A critique, or a discussion about the key points of the journal article. A critique is a discussion about the key points of the journal article. It should be a balanced discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of the key points and structure of the article.. You will also need to discuss if the author(s) points are valid (supported by other literature) and robust (would you get the ...
Step 2: Read the Article Thoroughly. Begin by thoroughly reading the article. Take notes on key points, arguments, and evidence presented by the author. Understand the author's main thesis and the context in which the article was written.
2. Skim the article to get a feel for its organization. First, look through the journal article and try to trace its logic. Read the title, abstract, and headings to get a feel for how the article is organized. In this initial, quick skim, identify the question or problem that the article addresses. 3.
Just get the draft down on the page as quickly as possible. Write the introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion and then set the draft aside. Write your critique of the article. The main part of how to write a review of an article is writing your critique. Refer to your outline and summary to draft several paragraphs evaluating the ...
Tips for writing a good review article. Here are a few practices that can make the time-consuming process of writing a review article easier: Define your question: Take your time to identify the research question and carefully articulate the topic of your review paper. A good review should also add something new to the field in terms of a ...
Writing a compelling review article is about more than picking an interesting topic and gathering the latest references. It's an opportunity to share your views on the most recent trends in the area, discuss which hypotheses seem best supported or which technologies seem most promising, and even chart a course for how the field could develop in the future. Matt Pavlovich and Lindsey Drayton ...
A well-written review article must summarize key research findings, reference must-read articles, describe current areas of agreement as well as controversies and debates, point out gaps in current knowledge, depict unanswered questions, and suggest directions for future research (1). During the last decades, there has been a great expansion in ...
Writing a review article is equivalent to conducting a research study, with the information gathered by the author (reviewer) representing the data. Like all major studies, it involves conceptualisation, planning, implementation, and dissemination [], all of which may be detailed in a methodology section, if necessary.
A good review article provides readers with an in-depth understanding of a field and highlights key gaps and challenges to address with future research. Writing a review article also helps to expand the writer's knowledge of their specialist area and to develop their analytical and communication skills, amongst other benefits.
Read at least five highquality chapters on a similar topic to make yours better. STEP 2. Gather and read about 50 -100 original articles on a topic within your scientific field. STEP 3. Write down ...
A review article can also be called a literature review, or a review of literature. It is a survey of previously published research on a topic. It should give an overview of current thinking on the topic. And, unlike an original research article, it will not present new experimental results. Writing a review of literature is to provide a ...
The fundamental rationale of writing a review article is to make a readable synthesis of the best literature sources on an important research inquiry or a topic. This simple definition of a review article contains the following key elements: The question (s) to be dealt with.
"A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area, and sometimes information in a particular subject area within a certain time period. A literature review can be just a simple summary of the sources, but it usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis.
Step 5: Review Sections in Detail. At this age, you'll be doing a more thorough, line-by-line critique of the paper. You'll focus more on the nitty-gritty details, checking whether the author(s) have provided sufficient information to replicate the study, whether the author(s) have referenced existing literature adequately, whether the results are presented clearly and logically, etc.
Starting a literature review can be a daunting task. A literature review is a foundational aspect of a dissertation, but you may also be asked to produce a standalone literature review. You may be unfamiliar with the term literature review, and the first thing to note is that it is not that different to essays you are used to writing….
In practice, I found the summaries to be more akin to social media posts than an outline (for example, a 7,000-word New York Magazine article about the recent assassination attempts on the life of ...
That uncertainty has made this meeting one of the most highly anticipated in a while. Here are three things to know ahead of the Fed's decision, due out at Wednesday at 2 p.m. ET.
There are five stories in "Rejection," if you don't count a short, awkward section called "16 Metaphors" and a more awkward metafictional letter from an editor at a publishing house ...
Donald Trump said that he would revive the state and local tax deduction, a popular tax break for New Yorkers that the former president limited during his time in the White House.