This site is intended for healthcare professionals

Module III: Writing and Presenting Literature Review with Dr. Hiba Hamdar



This on-demand teaching session delves into the intricate process of conducting narrative review research. Medical professionals interested in sharpening their research abilities will learn a range of skills, from choosing the right research idea to validating the subject. Participants will learn how to write a persuasive narrative review and effective strategies for data collection. The course features comprehensive discussions on primary and secondary reviews, complications of pacemakers, and citation techniques. Additional topics covered include the importance of screening criteria, the process of writing subheadings and summaries, and considerations to make when designing your study. With a focus on contemporary health concerns such as COVID-19 and its potential link to depression, this session offers relevant, timely content for healthcare professionals. The session also highlights the potential pitfalls of research and advises on how to avoid them, such as ensuring you follow the correct methodology and continually critiquing the quality of your work. This immersive session is ideal for professionals looking to enhance their understanding of narrative reviews and improve their research skills.
Generated by MedBot

Learning objectives

1. Understand the criteria and importance of narrative reviews in medical research and be able to differentiate them from primary and secondary types of research papers. 2. Learn the step-by-step process of conducting narrative reviews including idea validation, data collection, article screening, and citation. 3. Develop skills in writing and structuring a narrative review, encompassing introduction, methodology, results, discussion, conclusion, and references. 4. Be familiar with the process of identifying gaps in existing literature and how to formulate relevant research questions or hypotheses for further exploration. 5. Develop a critical understanding of assessing the validity and relevance of different research articles, including how to apply inclusion-exclusion criteria, perform quality assessment, and interpret research findings.
Generated by MedBot

Related content

Similar communities

View all

Similar events and on demand videos


Computer generated transcript

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

Not talk to them to her. OK. Native Review. How to validate your idea how we make a research, how we do screening et cetera, uh research paper for for narrative review, et cetera. OK. Review, the importance of narrative review, narrative review criteria of narrative review of class as as secondary review, primary, the primary secondary or a native part of secondary. But how to pick an idea how to validate complication of pacemaker. It's a valid idea, val steps to write a narrative review plus noble and collect screen writing paraphrasing citation, et cetera. The data collection make a proper research strategy as as ha embellish our research uh screening according to your selection to so to your selection criteria and according to this criteria screening but the exclusion article article make your own sub and there you do n review to of information what paraphrasing and citation, narrative review, the narrative review, narrative review, narrative review. Uh they are classified as secondary type of review in secondary type, primary type. They are not considered to be original sub he he how uh narrative review, original study, an original research study here. Research to have evidence to have a to give you a meta analysis. They are considered to be original studies only and systematic review and meta analysis. Ma bad is a systematic review. It's not considered to be an original equality assessment comparison between um a a result and a result result evidence EMA original study narrative review, a critical overview review on how intervention our treatment of this treatment and overview in here. Topic of interest plus he's putting his own critical overview and he's putting his own critical thinking is about his own critical knowledge, the new information or new knowledge and his narrative review. OK. Hello, narrative review me secondary type, not primary type, primary type narrative review, the primary type. And she study that are usually conducted directly all a human being, cohort studies, ne case report studies, ne cross sectional studies. Uh RCT randomized clinical trial studies. How types of study in the direct conducted all human being in the primary and A and so ma me survey percentage of some importance of this intervention intervention, human being primary human being considered to be a primary studies. Secondary study was a primary study, a disease intervention secondary review but had this primary intervention of accordingly to the type of the secondary of YN review system review system review and me a a narrative review type of cross sectional study of cohort study of of depression, uh depression and the prevalence of depression among comorbid population population overview about depression, about depression definition. What is a narrative review? What is the the depression? Uh but subheadings with how to write your own subheadings and how to write your own subtitles. Uh Secondary review are more important in the primary review. They are not considered to be uh as evident as secondary review. Secondary review importance of secondary review, decision making, system review and analysis and review and qualitative assessment of some intervention, qualitative assessment of some outcome. It's better to take this intervention or 19 vaccine research to it's better to take your COVID vaccine because it's prevent from muscle and mortality or to prevent from the morbidity after you prevent from the risk factor of myocarditis. Research evidence based secondary type mainly type is the most important type who publication of this type. Uh OK. However, you want to give more information about this disease. Uh infection can be related to depression for infection can be related to depression, infection and depression. New information and you know, infection can be correlated somehow to depression data collection. Most recent most recently and most important narrative review. Most important COVID-19, COVID-19, COVID-19 and the most important recent article inclusion, it has to be taken into consideration inclusion disease. Most recent one research strategy and paper selection le le intervention comparator outcome. I have a narrative review out of the five out of five, my study designed later on to be included in your study design but is only but control only assessment. The process summarization. They already have written several narrative review and no, they are summarizing topic. They summarize the topic properly. After summarizing the point or after summarizing the topic, no point of view. Z subtitles narrative review. OK, I you collect the data criticizing the quality then 90% of the students they do not follow and methodology and 90% methodology is not followed. Assessment results should the research strategy screening results exclusion three methods. However, methodology can be followed. Methodology cannot be followed. It depends on your mentor, our supervisor writing research to collect result, you have to have to do criticizing of the quality equality assessment tools assessment. You have to summarize, you have to get a final result. You have to solve a debate and result. It's better to take this intervention, doctor a result. You so the debate, you find a new result ho you clarify it this yeah, you clarify apart from clarifying your knowledge that evidence that decision, the ma'am and to make your own decision when it's it's followed by M MA assessment to comparison between studies. Yeah, Haiti study outcomes about lymphocytes are better when we use histo trippy study, be light outcomes bad about um meal uh lymphocytes D when we use histo uh tell me how to find an idea here. Most important part be your uh research um uh beta blockers outcome, our effect, our hypertensive drugs effect in pregnant women. There is no good idea and to find a good idea for several steps to follow several steps to follow in order to have your own idea. But uh he is interested in some field interested in cardiology, cardiology, reading a huge group of papers in one selected field of how reading narrative review a and to read more narrative review about the selected field and read more cardiology paper to read more. I will, I will see an and reading limitation and recommendation here aema be I will point reading limitations and recommendations of other studies limitation, scan recommendations. The discussion itself limitation. No, we couldn't approve mas uh we couldn't have more information because we had like small population had the I had the limitation and I I'm sure I know the vaccine, the limitation type of vaccine and how the mechanism of this vaccine works man. Knowledge and mechanism of the virus vaccine can treat while I cannot treat and is called limitation from the limitation into tobacco recommendation. And I recommend to do to have more paper. I recommend to have more o I recommend to have more of this in order to prove this limitation had the example is here paper and uh it's it's already presented enamel and HPV vaccine. Can they treat breast cancer? He HPV. HPV. P HPV can uh go to breast and it can spread to breast the Mehan three, it can spread to to breast. The paper. Paper can limitation of population limitation, geographical uh locations can uh a limitation and can HPV? Can it spread the mechanism of spreading? Not proved limitation but more paper that recommends and no cancer limitation. Cancer, cancer mission hard. OK. Uh To do the cancer for breast. No, it's not clear breast cancer, but it's not clear. They recommended to do more research about this topic. It, it was uh not enough study, not enough or not enough uh uh population. We read more, we were reading articles and articles to how to and we were able to find this idea. An idea. PP one uh you had um so ever uh how to validate your idea is valid to define my, to, to validate my idea. Criteria, define my scope, gynecology HPV vaccine. I have to define my scope, literature research research, meth new research on validation or uh a recommendation, identify gaps, more research to be done. We recommend more this to be done when you have to identify this gap that going to prove a mechanism but going to prove a pathogenicity but going to prove a vaccine but going to prove a new treatment, your idea will be valid. Yeah, and it will be valid ha ha uh have connected the past my future, present relevance. But a relevant article OK. I found an article who found I found an idea that you eat relevant articles as long as there is relevant heel article for me or he idea for me is audience consideration. Cardiologist. Surgery, consideration, disease will deviation. You cannot deviate your topic, you cannot deviate your scope. The methodology m 90% follows uh for 90% don't follow, 90%. Uh A percent follows it. Depend on your mentor and ana they are included characteristic about every article they in contribution to knowledge, you need to have your vaccine steps to write narrative review, uh describe the treatment A uh B population comorbidity and the hypertension. A description of my control to control my, my scop to control my P. Breaking my idea bad keywords, linking the keywords. S Mr research strategy results. How the results do they go to screening? Uh I know I know the evidence is clear information. Uh how we find a keyword, keyword disease related to heart diseases or, or the I think is great and um my wife is a bad uh and later on which was good uh best medical synonyms linking the keywords together B and or we screening according to se selection criteria and screening you screen according to what you want to include. But I an inclusion um gynecology, my screening should only include population that have, that are women, population, population Aslam A made had to be excluded, kill she population he beds here to be excluded. Then as and the results I had the results and the um uh for file se selection criteria to exclude to include alone, put the results while you have excluded, especially if you are following Prisma, the H books and equal 46 excluded because uh writing the subheadings, writing the subheadings who were a po why do we write the subheadings? How are we writing you subheadings? OK. The head of screening in the screening there are articles, summary article she had this summary and no, it was found that hyperthermia is masal more uh relevant in group A and group A uh for you as a new dementia or uh HIV type mechanism, heart summary mechanism to is a new subheading. You have the mechanism. Now, it's found in this article. This is a new subheading. You have to write about it, the disease either now but the definition epidemiology, symptoms, risk factor is about pathogenesis, uh or pathophysiology, uh diagnosis with treatment. So your news of I think West summary for your articles when you start having it essential to have more, to be more accurate, to have more knowledge. Ok. Uh The introduction, you introduce your disease, you introduce your discussion of dementia but the pathogenic dementia, but they can dementia but they can infection how infection can lead to dementia but they can trauma, but they can cancer of the brain leading to dementia. But the other kill how they will induction the methodology and results. Hyma has a 90% don't follow. Uh dementia is uh the risk factor of mass salon. A risk factor of trauma and vascular uh diseases and atherosclerosis. We can see but talk about the characteristics here. This is your result discussion. You have to discuss each, each part and each article you have to download discussion, conclusion, references, uh paraphrasing and uh citation. Your article. You use a paraphrasing bank. Uh three paraphrasing. I use a paraphrasing tool primary which GPD is essential is a paper on how to write. Oh, hi. The can uh uh lecture. Hello. May I see you doctor? Yeah. Take the questions if you want to get the m my wife did it, did uh, I love the question. You're welcome. Uh Yeah, I have that feedback on any questions, feedback we send it to your doctor. Ok. Is it hard or do you have?