Computer generated transcript

Warning!
The following transcript was generated automatically from the content and has not been checked or corrected manually.

Hi, everyone. Um Welcome to our third getting started in webinar on behalf of the incubator for clinical education research. Um Thank you for those who um have attended. We're gonna give it just another minute or two just to allow people to get in. Um as the, you know, we've just opened up and we've gone live. Um And in the meanwhile, I'd like to um introduce our lovely speaker. Uh Do you want to just um introduce yourself? Yeah. Hi everyone and thank you for joining us in your lunch break. Uh My name is Heidi Stelling. I am an obstetrician and a um currently a clinical fellow, um a Newcastle Clinical Research Fellow at Newcastle University and hope to talk to you today about getting started in reviewing the literature and all throughout. And if you guys have any questions at all, please um we invite you to use the chat um cos and I will badger you to let you know that we've got a question or we've got a question on something during your talk. Yes, please do that. I'm very happy to stop and take any questions during. So this is supposed to be a bit interruptive um and try and get you guys thinking about where you might want to go with your research. I'll wait on out what to tell us when we're gonna start. I, we've got around 30 now. So I think we're, we're good to start whenever you are. Marvelous. So anyone who's just joined, my name is Doctor Heidi Selling. Um I am an obstetrician and I'm gonna talk to you today about reviewing the literature, which is in my second life as um a clinical academic. Um We have a Jazzy QR code here which will tell you all about the incubator where this came from, what other activities we got going on. Um And yeah, just give you some general information on that little code. So this is how I framed the session today again. Like uh like I said, I'm happy for you guys to stop us whenever you want. If you want to ask a question, just put it in the chat and that will stop and won't and pause. And we can consider the question this session is for people who are getting started. So, apologies to anyone in the room who is advanced and um you know, has, has better insights than me. But thank you for being here and we're delighted to share your opinions as well. So please do interject if you think I'm going down the wrong path of straying at all. So I've split this session today into designing a literature review, conducting it the processes of analyzing it and writing it. And this is supposed to be a um sort of step by step way of getting you into a literature review, which is normally the first thing that you guys will do um to, to get your research started. So before we start this session, title was given to me reviewing the literature. And I just wanted to take a question from some feedback we had last year. This is the second day we're running this session. So I wanted to talk about reviewing the literature versus literature review. Now reviewing the literature is something that we do very frequently you'll do in all of your projects. And if someone asks you a question as clinicians sometimes will think, oh, I wonder what the literature says and you'll pop after the literature, you'll do yourself a little search or you might do a very standardized search on, on one of the search engines. But um often it'll just be what they call a quick and dirty search. So just going out there and just putting some keywords in s using PUBMED. And that's just to give you a general scope of the literature. Um It's not systematic, it's not designed to be, you're not gaining all the insights of the literature. You're just asking the specific question you might want to answer at that time. Often you'll use reviewing the literature or in that method is an introduction, potentially the a theis potentially to any bit of work you're doing. And it's not supposed to give a balanced view. It's not supposed to, um, praise quality, it's not supposed to quality, assure anything that you're include in and often people use it in a very biased view. So I'm gonna go out there and I'm gonna find out what literature defends the point I'm trying to make and I'll quote a few bits around that. Ok? I'm not giving the whole picture. Literature reviews on the other hand are exactly the opposite. You are going out to scope exactly what is out there in a, in a big domain. And you're pulling on all those different facets in some literature reviews, your quality of praising, not all, but we're gonna come on to that, but the general school is to give to, to give apa full picture of what's going on in the literature, right? We're gonna move on to design. So that was the first thing that I said I was gonna cover today and I've brought this down into six facets if you like. So we're gonna start with one. What do you want to know? Two type of search, three things? Thinking about registering things. Four, what search terms you might use? Five databases and six inclusion and exclusion. Ok. So again, please feel free to stop me if you'd like us to go over and over anything in more detail, right? So the first question you want to start with wherever you start. And even in a literature review, and I think this is where it often will fall down is we'll just dive into the literature because it's easy and it's accessible and, and you know, you know, you know, what you want to do without actually really thinking about the point of what you're trying to do and the aim of what you're trying to do. So before you do that have a step back, think to yourself, what is the aim? Even literature reviews have research questions, what is the point? You should be focusing what you're looking for and before you know that you need to know what is known. So this comes back to this quick and dirty searching that I'm ta I talked about before. So you might want to take a little deep dive, dip your toe in the literature and find out what's already known. Where are the gaps? You might find a previous um systematic review or, or literature review on your top topic that says this is a gap and you might want to explore that might have been historic and therefore we've come on 10 years. So actually, is that still a gap? What is known and why do you want to know it? OK. So everything should be thinking about that. I've been at a great N I Rh um conference yesterday um called beginning with the end. So the whole thing was on impact. So what are you going to do this? Why, what is the change you're going to make? Because literature reviews are time consuming. Um They can be dull at times. Um And what you want to do is you want to try and aim straight ahead for what you, what you aim, what you are hoping this will change in the wider world. II like this slide, I don't normally like this busy slide picture, but I like this slide. Um And I put the quote um underneath here and I've also put some notes in the, in the text box actually. But I think I go and I were just talking before here about whether you get the slides or not. I'm more than happy for you to have these slides. Um But there's also a little link to a workbook underneath this, which I think is a really nice intro into thinking yourself through the different types of literature reviews. Cos this is insane when you look at this, you think? Oh my God, where would I even start? Now? There's things that jump out of us which are the common things that we might know if we come from er positivist um more positive paradigm, systematic reviews. We're obviously focused on medical education. So we don't use these as much, but we could use these and you know, depending on what type of knowledge you want to generate. But systematic reviews, quality issue at every piece of data and they're trying to find an answer. They're trying to narrow things down to answer a question. What type of medication is best for reducing BP, et cetera? Comparatively? Mm I've gone the wrong way. First. The review of reviews are becoming more, more common because people look at reviews and you think, well, you're not generating anything new but you are and that's why they're so interesting. So review means to take a second look, to look again at data that exist, but not just for the purposes of listing all the bits of data that already exist, but to put it together in a different way to synthesize new knowledge, to create something new. So having a review of reviews, you might think, oh dear me, do we not just want to go out and get some new data but actually sometimes you and you'll find this in your research, you saw all well with data. Sometimes what you can put in a paper isn't everything you have and you, you might want to make different connections equally one paper and another paper alone might say something. But what you create when they are together is more than the sum of them, some of their parts. OK. So there is this is, this is a methodological um set in itself and it is designed to give such great to give new insights and not just repeat old work um former review is um another type of review. So this is and sorry, my point here was that each of these will have their own methodological underpinning. So that, that is there will be a little rule book or a little um guidance book if you like, we don't like rules always er that someone has defined the methodology for these type of reviews. So for Scorpion reviews o'malley is the most commonly quoted um er framework, er or methodological framework. And I've put their seminal paper here. But what I would strike you to do when you see these is don't say you're doing a scoring review and not follow these steps. If you are, if you're doing a school and review and you are quoting Oxy and O Maley, make sure you follow the steps as they put them out or if you do deviate or like deviation, it, it's interesting justify why you have deviated. OK. So for example, the the other people have taken oxy and Omas work and they've moved on from there and, and um often now the gold standard of scoring reviews is quoted having had a focus group at the end of your scoring review. So you've got all your review in and then you might get a focus group of people, key stakeholders involved at the end and say does this ring true with you, does this sit with your experience and if you were caught in the, the you know, the newer version of, of, of the updated version of Valley, then you would be expected to have that focus group at the end to really sort of bring together your knowledge that you've created there registering your protocol. Now, this is so important and what I would when I said when you were doing your quick and dirty searches first to find out what is known, a second part of that is make sure someone else isn't doing the same thing. OK? And I would say that that this is a really early phase in your design process. What we need to not do in research is do the same thing multiple times. So that is research waste. It's bad. It's bad for academia. It's bad for your sanity when you get halfway through a project and realize that someone else has already done this and published it. Um And it's, it's just bad all around. So there's lots of different facets that you can um different platforms, sorry that you can, you can register your work on each has its own slightly different um way of looking at things. So Prospero um really focuses on systematic reviews. Um So my particular um research areas, so there was a question mark recently as to whether Prospero will focus, I will publish, read reviews, they are considered systematic, so they will, they will publish some of those, but they also have their own peer review process. And the point of Prospero is clinically focused research. So you'll know and I Rh tagline is for the health and wealth of the nation and they really want to see that coming through in the protocol that you'll put up for. Anyone who's not sure about protocols. It is essentially a recipe. OK? So I'll put, I love to bake, I'll put everything in, in baking analogies, but it is the method by which you are going to produce your cake or whatever it is at the end of it. Ok? And you'll tick through those boxes and you'll, you know, you'll pick it up, you'll pop it out at the end. And it should be that if you have a recipe. If Jamie Oliver knocks out a recipe, if I pick it up an app or picks it up, we should make generally the same thing at the end of it or she might like a bit more spice. I might not. And that's fine. She can add that in, but she needs to justify why she's deviated from the, the recipe in itself. Ok. So that is Prospero. There's other ones out there, Osf osf O. That's hard for Jorie to say quick. Um Is another, is another one out there. You can look through these. So not only are these useful for registering your own protocol, but you can look through them for, for what other people might well have registered but not completed. So again, someone might have registered something you wanted to do six months ago. This isn't a race. It shouldn't be a race to the finish line. Um, so if they've already registered it, they were there first. They have to, you know, they've got time to finish it. The caveat of that is if they registered 10 years ago, um, you can reach out and contact the author and I have certainly done that within my phd and, um, she was very honest, she got back to us, the author's name was on there. And, um, she said actually, you know, I really did want to do this. It's a fascinating area but I just didn't have the capacity within her phd. So great, you know, I ticked that box but it was still active on the website because she's given herself so long to do it and they don't kick you off after it wasn't 10 years. It might have been five years. They don't kick you off for a little while after that, but there's lots of other ones of these around and again, I have listed them in the, er, note section below so you can pick up on that. Um, after, sorry, going to a question question. Um, all right. Ok. Sorry at once here to keep me right on the technological, there's a reason I deliver babies. It hasn't changed since the dawn of time. Um, is it, um, yeah, lovely. Thank re re reviews. Is it reasonable to include empirical studies? Only, for example, if your aim is to inform the methodological design of your study, asking as I can understand the benefits of schooling reviews is that it can include all, can people not talk? No, people just have to put things in the chat. No. OK. That includes all types of literature, right? So my answer to that question is exactly as you've identified there. So if your aim, depending on what your aim is. So after school and reviews where er, for practical reasons, we've excluded conference abstracts and um what's the other big one? Abstract, er, conference abstracts and comments, opinion pieces, et cetera. And I have excluded them on those grounds er, for practical reasons because there was just so much data. So to try and sort of focus it down and make it manageable, we have excluded those and I've justified that within my description. And if your aim is to just inform the methodological design of your study and you wish to only focus to one study type you can, but you just have to be aware of the limitations that might impact on your study. So I have done that historically, um you mentioned notes where you'll find those Linda when um sorry, when the slides come out to you, sorry, the notes are under like my notes on the slides. Um oh, it's popping up and I can't see c is coming, see, I hope I've answered that question. So the, the answer vaguely is some, some people would pick that up and say, well, that's a limitation of what you've done. You need to have a whole understanding. But the purpose of a scoring review is to map the literature. It's to give sort of a narrative overview of where the literature sits at that time to answer your specific question or your specific ear. And if the, the literature that is out with that doesn't answer your question, then as long as you justify that, then I feel that that would be fine. Um You've, I've asked you a note, Steven ha have you much experience with getting follow school review protocols and prosper given what you said about realist, right? So Steven answer your question, I have um registered my schooling reviews on OSF. So I haven't even tried with Prospero and I've, I have had success in registering a realist review on Prospero. But again, it's had to have a very um specific clinical focus. So I had to sort of frame that within that. So I hope that answers your question as well, right? I, well, I'm not looking at that anymore. So you shout if I if I've missed something, um why am I not moving now? We have a freezing moment. No, I don't know why, but suddenly we are frozen. No dear me. Right? OK. Shall we stop sharing and share again? There you go. Have in doubt, stop and start again, right? So search terms, like we said, first off, define your question, what is it you want to ask and be mindful? Like in a lot of research, you can be a little bit flexible in terms of changing your question or changing exactly what you want to ask. And you'll find if you do your masters, what you wanted to ask at the time, what you ended up answering may well be different and there is a little bit of flex in that albeit much if any of you are doctors in the audience or, or, or um you know, healthcare professionals, we learn to do things in a certain way. But when we practice clinically, we might well adapt that. It's I'm learning that it's very similar in academia. But what you need to be aware of, if you change your question, that might not necessarily be what you searched for. So be very careful in, in, in changing anything and making sure that you search that everything is coherent throughout, break down your question into concepts or certain separate concepts and then find syno, I hate this word synonyms. What does that mean the similar, same or similar things within that concept? OK. Think widely. So if you have doctor think of all the different ways that that might be expressed, train a registrar, sh ot or what whatever it might be, try and think really widely within that and consider how, what will work in each database. So you'll find in each, in the main databases that you use, they all have their certain different ways of searching for things and you need to be able to play around with that. Ok? So medical education in one might be um continuing education in another. Ok. So you need to play around with what you might get and it will break it down within the databases and it will also show you a description of what it thinks it is looking for when it looks for these certain terms. OK? They are mesh terms. So you can search in two ways, you can search with key words whereby you just search for er um any word you like and it'll come up with whatever key word that comes back to, you can map that for it appears in anywhere in the paper or you can map it do, it has to appear in the title or in the abstract, et cetera versus mesh terms. Now, I'm saying mesh that is the word used in um MEDLINE but mbas has mtry and um site info has apa so each of the databases and we're gonna come on to that later has their own set of words that they use, they index them. So it comes in often it's done by a computer now but they come in and they put this paper is relevant to this, this and this and they subtext them, OK? And you can also just search within mesh terms. More searchers tend to use a few mesh terms and a few keyword searches and, um, um, combine them. It is commonplace to publish your strategy now. So much like in your maths, homework of all you're working out, got your points. People will look at your search strategy and we're gonna look at some later on. OK. Which is really good cos, it helps everyone else understand how people get to where they've gone or get to what they're looking at. And it's really good for our learning as well. Cos we can think, oh, I might not have thought about it like that or I might not have done it like that or I might do it like that in future. The other slightly irritating thing is, as I've just said, each of these databases has a slightly different way of searching. So you can't just have one search and it go out at all different databases. Each one will need some adaption within it. This is a slight side note. So I'll put this in there again from what people were talking to before. This is a way of trying to think about how you might break down your s your question or create your question in terms of key features. PCO is um more of a um familiar um set to us who have worked in um sort of more sort of RCT very positive as research, but spider might be your equivalent now, I'm not saying you have to use this at all. Um, some people find this very useful. I find it somewhat restrictive sometimes but it is good sometimes to think about what you might be looking for, um, within your question. So I have put that on there for anyone who wishes to look at it. Right. Databases. There's loads of them. So we're moving on now to design and databases. Er, there are lots of them around. OK? Some of them are all based on the similar thing and it took me a while to get my head around this. So the ones I've highlighted at the top, MEDLINE pub PLINE, PUBMED and Scor are all derivatives of the US National Library of Medicine. And it, depending on how you access that, depending on what, what um platform you use to access that the data that you'll get looks different. OK? But, and, and they ask different questions, you'll find that Pubmed. Um You ask it a question, MEDLINE, it's the mesh terms that we've talked about. The key word searches. Scopus is very much sort of one term, one term, one term and it matches them all. Scotus is probably the, the you're gonna get your biggest results there. But theoretically, people will say, you know, would you search score and MEDLINE, some people do and that isn't a big issue within, within what you're searching for and because you will duplicate whenever you get all your search results in you will duplicate. So it isn't a big issue if you want to do that uh equally there. So this is, this is the um so the first point I was making here in the yellow is depends on the database that this is based from. So in um you know, the three I mentioned at the top, this is what they are using, this is the database, they are accessing, they are just doing it through different uh platforms and or different means of accessing it. And equally MEDLINE and M base these things down the bottom here. I'm not describing this very well as well. But I remember when I first started, um people would say offered and I was thinking, is that a different database? It isn't a different database. It's just how people pay for things. So university tend to pay for an age package. It's like getting your Netflix package but getting some add ons with it. So the standard age P offered comes from with MEDLINE MBA and site info and some of the ones as well. But that's how the the universities will pay for it and how you will usually access it. You will go in through a little um window of of and then you will actually, you will pick the database that you want to use. OK. So don't get too confused about that. This isn't a different database you wouldn't search of, you would just access the databases via of, by inclusion and exclusion criteria. This is the other thing you're gonna want to define before you get into the nitty gritty of, um, doing your searches. So there's lots of different criteria you can use. These are common ones that I've put over here and you need to decide before you jump onto this. Sorry, that is a bit small is what, er, what you want to look for, what you, the answer you want to get. It's really easy when you first start doing this to think. Oh, I'll just have everything and I'll work it out after my advice would be very, really specific. Do not collect data that you don't intend to use. Cos it is very time consuming and not useful. You then just end up with a very, very big Excel spreadsheet of stuff that you're not even gonna have the time to analyze. Um So if you have an inclusion criteria, this is an ideal one at the top. So the inclusion would be human, then the exclusion would be cadaver. Well, that is still human actually. So that's potentially not a great, you not a great um, not a great um criteria. Er, but animal would be the uh uh my exclusion would be animal in that thing. I'm not gonna include animal, um uh specimens or um foot papers in my um work, right, going on to run the search. So you've designed this. So we're moving on to the next phase which is conduct. OK. This is gonna be very familiar at the wall. This is called a Prisma diagram. This one is for a Scorpion review. Others exist for um systematic reviews. You are gonna run your search. These are all available by the way of. Um So you'll think why does everyone have the same diagram in their papers? Um If you go on the Prism website, you can download a template of this to see if you making one and you can just put your own text in here. Um So this speaks to the first point. So you might do this first edit this first search and in um traditional senses in the systematic review, one search was God. And if you had to do additional searches, you were, you were hopeless. Your first search was in a scoring reviews are a little bit more flexible. Readers reviews are even more flexible at all. You can get a little bit interested by a certain subject and read this reviews and then go and span off and do an additional search just to feed into that, that one area that you're interested in. But search certainly um your school and review searches can span out under the gray literature. Er, if you want to be really widened and varied, you can go into sort of journalistic literature, et cetera and, and, and just justify why you're doing it. So it, it gives you a bit of flexibility there. So the first thing you're gonna do is you're gonna gather all those results together and you're gonna remove all your duplicates. My biggest piece of advice here is keep yourself a nice Excel spreadsheet of. I have always got a tab that says Prisma. OK? And even if things go wrong later down the line, you can go back to where you were and think. Right. Well, I had 10,000 there. So where have they gone? Ok. And split them down. So you have what came from MEDLINE, what came from mbas, what came from psych info, et cetera. Um Put that down. Some people display that when they've got um you know, this first box up here um identified through searching. Some people show that some people um don't and they just do the full number. It's good practice now to sort of show what came from each database. The first thing you're gonna do is duplicate. Ok. So there's programs out there that will do this endo does this ra does this? I think I've got them actually on the next thing though. Um And then I know we're gonna talk about a note and Rayhan in a minute, er do this, they do it automatically, the guidance I got when I started was do it automatically and then do it manually. OK? Which is really, really dull and time consuming. But if in that note, you remove all your duplicates you obviously keep a record of, of what you've removed. Um And then if you list everything in title author init sorry, in alphabetical order based on their title, you can quickly screen through and see what titles are the same. This concern does not get picked up in the duplication because, um, authors have been expressed in a different way and it's just been, it's just been missed, it's not foolproof essentially. So you can then manually duplicate. And some people you will notice in papers recently people will write the number that have been automatically duplicated versus the number that have been um manually duplicated. Um Then you need to go through exclusions. OK? So the first thing you're gonna do is you're gonna screen the first thing you're gonna, so you've removed your duplicates, you've got your set, you're gonna t an abstract screen. That means you're gonna read your title and abstract based on your predefined inclusion exclusion criteria and exclude them. Some people record a reason at this point. You don't have to, often people don't um display it to just say excluded on title and abstract. My advice would be do record a reason cos like I said before, if you change your mind on any inclusion exclusion criteria, you can do that, but it means you have to go back to the start. And if you've recorded a reason, if you say for example, said I was going to exclude that. But actually I've got further down the line and I think I'm gonna include that. It is then much easier to go through your exclusions and pick out the ones that you think. Actually I will include that. So you're first gonna screen title and abstract, then you're gonna screen full text. I thought this was a ridiculous step when I first started and I thought, well, why am I gonna screen full text? Um when I could start data extraction at the same time, but you'll be amazed at the amount of full texts that you exclude. And then it means that you're then having started data extraction. At that point, you've got yourself a nice little subset in which to data extract. The ones you might exclude. There are the ones that abstracts were in English. But then when you open the full paper, it's actually in a different language. And if your exclusion criteria is in a different language or often you've got a really nice abstract, but it becomes apparent when you try and get the full text that there isn't a full text. So it was a conference abstract and it looks nice and presented in, in a paper. But you haven't, you can't actually get the full text. If you exclude at the full text screening phase, it is commonplace to say why you've done it. OK. So if you've included something, a lab or excluded a full text, and you are required to say why you've excluded it and then you'll have your final number at the bottom there as to what you're gonna start. Um data extraction on and you are put a new one here. So n not, is, is, is a referencing software. Often your universities will have access to it. I think you can get a free version. I don't know how good it is. Um Or you can certainly pay for your own subscription for it. Um It's very good for referencing. It isn't designed to do screening and it is very um clunky to do that in. Um I was shaking my head cos we've all thought, how hard could this be and then thought, oh my God. And it doesn't keep track of things. If, if delete it, it's, it's a bit of a nightmare. My advice would be to keep it for its purpose, which is referencing. There are newer and jazzy things out there. The M er Rian is, is a preferred version of mine, but these are free to access um software packages that exist on the internet that you can also collaborate in. And believe me, this is good. OK. So these are very boring literature reviews that take a long time and you'll often get the points where you think is that or is that should I kind of discuss that? So, collaborating with your peers, with your colleagues is a really good um way to make things a bit more enjoyable in terms of literature reviewing. Um and these software packages make that really easy by giving everyone access to the same platform. The other thing that I didn't mention within here is it is good practice to double screen. Some people would say maybe is about 10%. Um But again, if you go above or below that, you can justify that. And Rayon offers a a version to do that. So you can take out a subset of your title and abstract and you can double screen 10% there. You can take out um a version of your uh full text screen, you can do 10% there. OK? And they would usually be by so you can collaborate with your colleagues and then you would bring someone else in to do the double screen. So it's a good practice for the person who is double screening not to have been involved in the original screening for all these reasons, right? Extraction and analysis. Now, this is very difficult to demonstrate i in a group setting because it very much depends what you're asking and what you want to know as to what your extract. But my biggest er tip, which is what I've said before is don't extract what you don't need everything that you want. Extract, you're gonna want to use cos otherwise you've just got lots of data. You don't know what you're doing with. Um it's a common place to put your study, you'll find in papers that you read recently. This is another thing that's published. So you're showing all your working out now, which is great. So it sort of lifts the curtain on people's criticism of me in the past. That was just witchcraft, what we're doing, how we'll get into these. Cos everyone is showing how they're getting into, they're showing the third strategies, they're shown that sort of data extraction summaries. Now, clearly you're not gonna show your y you don't publish your complete data extraction tool. Um You tend to publish a summary table which is the author title, maybe's place of um or origin of, of publication um main outcomes, et cetera. Main aims depending on what you want to find. Um The data tool is designed to be used to, to review every paper and pull out every bit of things that you need. But the process can be iterative. So if you suddenly get down 10 papers and think this is a really important thing that I hadn't thought about and I want to see what the other papers say. That's fine. You can be adaptive but you need to be rigorous in your approach and you need to go back to the beginning and you need to look through the 10 papers that you screen however many papers you screen to pull out the bit that you need. I have just seen something pop up here. So here we go. Jos Senior is saying, would you recommend doing a full Prisma process and diagram for the literature review or rather do the general screening process and describe it in slightly less deal in writing instead of a diagram personally. I like the Prisma. OK? I think it keeps a nice track of what you're doing. I also think um you know how I said at the beginning that a literature review or an introduction to a thesis might is reviewing the literature is sort of forming your argument based on literature. The, the decision I've made for my thesis is that instead of doing that um review, the review of the literature, I've actually done a literature review. So I've done a scoring reviews, the introduction of my thesis. And I think then it means it's out there, it means it can be used by other people. It's obviously informed my future work. But by having that rigorous process and by doing the prisma process, it means that I've produced something that is popular. OK? And it in contributing to the wider body of knowledge, cos not many people will read a full thesis. You might when you're doing a thesis, read someone else's thesis. But you know, which is why there is a little, not a move, generally speaking, but some people have um undertaken P hds by publication. So that means that instead of writing a thesis, they're writing small manageable papers that people will read and they will be digested. Oh, that answers your question. It's hard when I can't see you. Right. Writing the report. Thank you. Oh God, go there. Is this, there's people at the other end, right? Writing the report. So this is the point where people fall down. Ok. So you've extracted all this data and, er, I'm gonna stop briefly. Do you have any experience with Zoar? And would you recommend it? I think I haven't used it but I think I'm aware of it and it's essentially the similar to Rian, I think is it, you can correct me if that it's, it's for screening. I haven't used it p because when I joined the institution, people were using Rihan and it seemed very adaptive. I think I have heard about it. But you can tell me if I've got that wrong as to what that is, right. So, you know how I said right at the start that literature reviews are, are, um, a methodology within themselves and they, they stand as literature in this, in, in empirical work almost within themselves. The reason they can do that is because they're desi they aren't designed to just present the findings of each of the papers that you've got. So I've got 50 papers. I'm not just gonna tell you what paper, one said, paper, two said paper, three said that's boring and that's not adding to the literature. That is just the sum of it. That is just, you know, the, the output of each of those papers, people could go and read that your job in writing report for a review is to make it interesting to make it something new to join the dots in a way that no one's joined before, to see patterns that no one's seen before and add to the wider body of literature, uncover gaps that people may not have noticed because you can't see it in one paper. But if you join three or four together with different views, then that creates a gap that you can see running through it. So your job is to synthesize a useful and usable contribution to the literature with a lovely structured coherent argument and clearly identify gaps in the literature and areas for further research. OK. Which is why they often start uh uh you know, form the start of a project, er Ganda. If that is recommended by your institution, I would go with it. I certainly just working with your hand because it was supported by an institution. And what what I will say is the biggest er advantage is collaboration. And if everyone's using the same thing, then that aids collaboration. So if they're using it, go with it, I don't personally have any experience order to share. And then this is my last slide in um inspired by um an I Rh R's event yesterday. So this is forced to demonstrate impact packing a punch right at the end. And what I want, you to think is this was writing the report. This is where I ended my presentation last year and I thought, oh, this is a bit disappointing, isn't it? Writing the report? What you want to think is why have you done this? What was your point? What was your aim? What were you hoping to achieve? What change were you, were you hoping to um to make or, you know, where were you gonna go with that? And also who, who were you gonna make this with? Who are your stakeholders, who are interested in this research? Who um is it gonna impact most? You need to be identifying those people? You need to be thinking about those people? Like I said before, if you were gonna do a scoping review at it as OXY and o'malley identified, you want to get those people in a room and say, how does this feel to you and you might then use those people to improve your dissemination efforts? But dissemination needs to go beyond a paper. How many people read papers, academics, maybe clinicians that are absolutely burnt out and dying with, with the workload at home but realistically do it like that or do we like a little blog and read on the way to, to way to work or do we like a little um what they called audio abstract? Or you know, there needs to be different facets, you need to be thinking about inclusivity here as well. And accessibility. So, have you thought about um interpreting your outcomes depending on what, you know, what you're asking? Um What, what questions you're asking? My research is focused on o on um maternity outcome, maternity disparity or disparities in maternity out outcomes um particularly along black and ethnic minority women. So it would be wrong for me at the end of that not to, you know, make an effort to access those communities that might require translation. It might not, I'm not saying that all these communities don't speak English, but you know, get into those communities, think about means in which they want to hear output, spoken in, in there. They might have newsletters, they might have playgroups, they might have uh you know, other ways in which you can access people. And we're also discussing yesterday, if your research is, is related to Children, get Children involved, they are the best, you know, they are a great way to, to have an impact, but get your findings and get them out there and speak to people about what you way and you want to be or speak to people in power. So this is, you know, I've got, I've gone to dissemination there, but also that goes both ways. And if you want to make an after policy, if you want to make recommendations, if you want money because you want to do future research, cos you've identified this gap and this, you need to speak to them and they like things that are short, they like things that are snappy. Um You know, they do, they don't want generally 100 page report they want, you know, what do you want and why do you want it? So do think about where you are aiming or why you are doing the, the research that you're doing. Um I'm gonna go to some big questions now before we go to the breakout situation, how to gather. So this is from a delegate, how to gather a dedicated team for conducting a systematic review as it seems to be a very hectic job and the minimum of who should make the team. So there is no m minimum. I would say any was one if you wanted to. Um It's boring though on your own. Um Certainly for the very purpose of my P HDI had to do the school and review myself because it's assess it's supposed to be all your own work. Er, but in other school and reviews I've done, I've actually involved medical students, which is a really great project that I've started in um Newcastle um paper published in the clinical teachers just a little pitch in there um in September about co production and about bringing medical students. So like I just said about them being the stakeholders to really pack a punch with them, bring them in from the start, bring ST Children to design. So I basically got a lot of medical students in the room and said, what are the issues with your curriculum? What do you want to change? How can we understand that? And then I took those students and they did their own projects, not all of them were, we had sort of a process of, of um a selection. Um But then they did their own projects and they've produced their own outcome and then they disseminated from there. So, you know, it depends on how many people you want. I don't think there is, I think things like Rihan make it um easy to collaborate, but you need to have a leader, you need to have someone who is controlling, you know, who's doing what so that everyone is, is cohesive in bringing things together. So you need to be having regular check ins, you need, we have, we, we had weekly meetings when we were doing those things, students, but we also had students all over the world because they went home for summer. So I had one in Canada, one in Dubai, er one in India. Um and working out times scale timelines was very difficult at times when we were meeting or sometimes doing uh meetings at random times of the day. But you know, if you are organized and you can make that work, then that is good to answer your question. How do you find them at was probably better at that than me. So reaching out via your network. But at was uh like amazing. She, I'm in awe of her on terms of social media and how she can gather people together and gather people of interest um together. But talk to people. Yeah, social media. She said that and she horrifies, she wrote calls and horror at me because I have no social media at all. Um But I will get there one day. Um But you know, reach out to these people or, or I'm old school so speak to people who speak to people who speak to people and, and they're all the old way to build networks. But I still like those words by Jose Joline. Sorry, how could you, how could we make the best out of our research supervisor? I'm a third year medical student doing my first lit review on my, on my supervisor's research area but not sure exactly how I could structure my check ins with him. Really great question. OK. And we do have, we, this has come up quite a lot in terms of how to make the best out of your supervision. Um Other people might have thoughts on this but I think go with an agenda, treat it like a professional meeting whereby you would have a list of things you wish to achieve within that meeting, send that agenda to them the week before. Um and you will find working with different people depends on the supervisors. Some people would really like that. Some people would find that um you know, offensive so much like you guys would with a learning agreement with, with each other. We're all adult learners and everyone should be learning. They will stop learning when you retire. So speak to yourself of and say, how do you think we should structure this? Would you be OK if I framed an agenda and I sent it to you the week before and we can cover this, that and the other and see how, what they think of that. But definitely sometimes I look back and I have some incredible supervisors where I'm working at the minute and I ask myself all the time, am I getting the best out of them? Am I getting what I need out of them? And you just need to continually reevaluate, you need to continue to reflect and if you feel you're not getting the best out of them, reframe or restructure how you are reporting them to get the best out of them. I hope that answers your question. Right. I'm gonna give one moment for any questions on here and then we're gonna branch out into breakout groups. I got how many people have we got left online around um 35. So in terms of how we'll distribute um on the left, you can see breakout room, oh, sorry, breakout sessions and we will split it into two rooms. Um So room one will be if your first name starts with A to J, you're in room one and room two first names to K to Z. Um, but before we move, do not move yet, we need to go through these questions first. You have to go what you're doing. So this is optional if people have got clinical things and you get back to what other things and you get back to, please uh, feel free. This is the activity. So there's gonna probably be too many to introduce yourself. And I, and I quite enjoyed the, er, last time I did this, there were smaller groups and you told us about your guilty literary pressure, er, minus the new science. Um, but we might just move on to activity too in the interest of time. So, what I'd like you to do is consider which search terms you might use to investigate the question below, which is how is self monitoring incorporated into the graduate medical education? Or if some option B is if someone is having a particularly difficulty in the moment and has something they would like to share in terms of um, a question that they are struggling to break down a trust to conceptualize, please feel free when you receive these slides, which you will do. Cos that was very clever on the next slide from here, I'll prove that it's there. Um This self monitoring question I have picked because it, it has gotten a, I have got a paper with the brought one down search terms that were published in the supplementary material. I'm not giving any comment on the quality of these search terms, but it was published in a very variable journal. Um So you can think about what you've got and then you can compare it to what they actually did in the end of it. So please feel free to move now and a and myself will come and join you.