Warning!
The following transcript was generated automatically from the content and has not been checked or corrected manually.
ICA4-CST GroupLiteratureReview Catarina Carvalho Adapted from slides by: Adya Rao & Michael AfnanOutline • Timeline + marks • Search strategy: recap • Next steps: cover letter, peer review, rebuttalSubmissiontimeline Literature Review CST Version 1 Peer Review Revisions & Rebuttals Final draft 3dFeb Science in Context Assessment DeadlineMarkbreakdownforgroupliteraturereview • 60% of module 2 • 15% of overall BSc for Imperial students • Individual components • Critical summary of the topic (CST): 50% of ICA • Peer review: 25% of ICA • Rebuttal: 10% of ICA • Revised submission: 15% of ICARecap:Narrativeliteraturereviewvssystematicliterature review SLR NLR • Focused question • Broad or narrow • Objectively topic answered with • Evidence based reproducible viewpoint methods • Cite seminal • All literature articles that available/found influence the narrative NLRvsSLR(reference) Systematic Literature Review Narrative Literature Review Objectively answers a specific question by Provides an evidence-based analysing all literature addressing that question viewpoint/understanding of a topic or question Narrow question usually defined by PICOS Topic can be broad or narrow framework Methodology, including criteria for selecting studies, Methodology should be logical, but each step does must be logical, clear and reproducible not need to be documented All data matching the criteria must be found and Focus on citing seminal articles and articles that analysed influence the narrative Analysis methods should be chosen prior to search Analysis can occur ad hoc, after reading the relevant literature Conclusion should be reproduced by same methods Different narrative reviews can give different every time perspectives on a topic Usually longer period of time (at least a couple of Usually shorter period of time months) 3 or more authors (to ensure non-biased selection of 1 or more authors texts)9StepstoaComprehensiveSearchStrategy Step 1: Plan! Step 2: Scope the literature Step 3: Define the question Step 4: Establish criteria Step 5: Select databases Step 6: Construct a search Step 7: Add to search and screen out titles and abstracts for relevant articles Step 8: Export to reference manager Step 9: Evaluate full texts for inclusionStep1:Plan! • Be aware of all steps before you begin • Realistic timeframeStep2:Scopetheliterature • Identify gaps in the literature • Ensure review isn’t redundant • Gauge the number of articlesStep3:DefinetheQuestion Patient Intervention Comparison Outcome Study typeStep4:Establishyourcriteria Inclusion criteria: a paper must meet these requirements to be included Exclusion criteria: a paper which fulfils these characteristics will be excluded Step4:Establishyourcriteria • In line with question • Patient • Intervention *Be prepared to • Comparison clearly justify each inclusion/exclusion • Outcome • Study type criteria in your methodology text! • Set a time frame • Language restrictions Step4:Establishyourcriteria Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria Patient age 18+ Paediatric cases Randomised Controlled Conference proceedings and Trials/primary research poster abstracts Compares pre-hospital with in- Patients with (syndrome X) hospital thrombolysis for patients with STEMI Reports mortality rate/outcome of <10 patients in study interest English full texts Any article from January 1958 – October 2019Step5:Selectdatabases • Search each database separately • Consult your librarian!Step6:Constructasearch Break down your question into its key components Does pre-hospital thrombolysis reduce all-cause hospital mortality, compared with in-hospital thrombolysis in patients with STEMI?Step6:Constructasearch List all synonyms you can think of for each component – these will become keywords pre-hospital all-cause thrombolysis in-hospital STEMI hospital mortality prehospital mortality streptokinase in hospital STEMI pre hospital death alteplase hospital mi before thrombolytics ward myocardial hospital infarct paramedic heart attack ambulanceStep6:Constructasearch • Combine all keywords and MeSH for one component with OR • Combine all components with AND Step6:Constructasearch AND pre-hospital all-cause thrombolysis in-hospital STEMI hospital mortality pre?hospital*.mp mortalit*.mp streptokinase*. in?hospital*. STEMI*.mp mp mp before hospital*.mp death*.mp alteplase*.mp hospital*.mp mi.mp paramedic*.mp thromboly*.mp exp myocardial OR Hospitals/ infarct*.mp ambulance*.mp exp heart Thrombolytic attack*.mp Therapy/ exp Myocardial Infarct/9StepstoaComprehensiveSearchStrategy Step 1: Plan! Step 2: Scope the literature Step 3: Define the question Step 4: Establish criteria Step 5: Select databases Step 6: Construct a search Step 7: Add to search and screen out titles and abstracts for relevant articles Step 8: Export to reference manager Step 9: Evaluate full texts for inclusionStep8:Exporttoreferencemanager • Export potentially relevant papers as RIS files • Load into reference manager • Delete duplicates with softwareStep9:Evaluatefulltextsforinclusion • 2 people go over same results • Only include if it fits criteriaExampleofmethodologyPRISMAFlowchartTipsforNarrativeLiteratureReviews • Replace PICOS with key concepts of your topic • Searching references very useful • Use SCOPUS to find seminal articles • Justify your exclusions • Final articles included up to you- don’t need to discuss 50 articles – pick a good amount to critically analyzeWrite-upTIPS • The CST is a critical summary- you do not need to address every single paper in your search. • The systematic review “rules” do not apply in your methodology but you do need to describe a detailed search strategy and demonstrate use of multiple terms, databases and extensive criteria. • Key point of CST: synthesis of evidence + consistent critical appraisal leading to objective conclusions, strengths and limitations of chosen subject area. • Do not focus on finding novel insights, the work you’ve done should be in enough depth to bridge any gaps or highlight any controversy/limitation found- not necessarily “novel”.StructureofyourCST • Flow • Engaging • Tone of appraisal • Figures: flowchart, if relevant to quantitative data can make a summary table, critical appraisal scoring in a summary table • RESULTS: summarize findings: numbers, percentages, trends, study characteristics and methodologies used in the articles chosen. • RESULTS: in depth- critical appraisal of a select number of studies • DISCUSSION: bring all evidence together. Synthesis of your findings- why it’s important, how can this be justified/explained, impact in field, suggestions for improvement, limitations of your own review • ConclusionCOVERLETTER Generaltips • NOT MARKED! -Don’t spend too much time on it!! • Key points to include: 1.Address the editor: “Dear editor-in-Chief” 2.Your manuscript’s title 3.(Name of the journal you are submitting to) 4.Statement that your paper has not been previously published and is not currently under consideration by another journal 5.Brief description of the research you are reporting in your paper, why it is important, and why you think the readers of the journal would be interested in it 6.Statement of conflict of interest: “We have no conflicts of interest to disclose” 7.Closing statement including names of group membersPEERREVIEWPlanning 1. First reading: Is the article publishable in principle? 1.Yes: continue to second reading 2.No: There are fatal flaws – need to justify!! (this is RARE!) 2. Go through each section of the article systematically, split into “major points” and “minor points” 1.Abstract+ Introduction: need for research clearly identified? 2.Methodology: appropriate for the research question? 3.Results: clear and logical presentation? Justified by data presented? Figures relevant and fully described? 4.Conclusions: follows from data? Overstated/understated? 5.Other points: overall structure/logical flow intact? Spelling and grammar issues? Examplesofmajorandminorpoints Major points Minor points • Major references missed • Missing references (could be • Objectives not clearly stated major) • Methodology not • Technical clarifications (e.g., clear/reproducible the authors should clarify how • Errors in data a reagent works) • Data presentation (e.g., the • Illogical interpretation, authors should present p- discrepancies/contradictions in logic values differently) • Typos, spelling, grammar, • Inappropriate conclusions and phrasing issuesWriting:suggestedstructure 1 section: introduction 1. Thank authors for submission 2. Decision: not publishable vs. publishable if suggested revisions made 2nd section: brief description + strengths of study 3 section: major revisions 4 section: minor revisions Final section: conclusion + referencesPeerReviewTIPS • Be Polite, Concise and Clear • Constructive feedback ALWAYS! • Double check your language (no negative connotations e.g. “failed to”, “mistakenly”, ”forgot”) instead use positive connotations e.g. “please consider”, “might consider”, “in light of” etc..) • Make sure to highlight the strengths of the review • Don’t overdo minor revisionsREBUTTALTOPEERREVIEWTips 1. Thank reviewer for their comments – don’t need to do this multiple times! 2. Address every point raised by reviewers 1.Copy reviewer’s comment in text box 2.Add your rebuttal below each point *If too many comments- can organise into sections (e.g. Abstract, Methods, Results, etc.) 3. Content of rebuttal 1.Agree – highlight relevant changes in manuscript (e.g. if you add text/figures) 2.Disagree – provide justification (inc. referencing other papers), maintain polite toneExamplesAny questions?
