How to Conduct a Systematic Review: A Narrative Literature Review

Jahan, Nusrat; Sattar, Naveed; Zeshan, Muhammad; Tahir, Muhammad A.

doi:10.7759/cureus.864

Cited by 127 publications

(103 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Two authors independently selected and screened all imported studies to limits search bias, duplication bias, inclusion bias, and selector bias [30]. Following the removal of duplicates, articles were screened for eligibility by title and abstract, full details of study selection criteria are provided in Table 1.…”

Section: Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Epidemiology of Acute Injuries in Surfing: Type, Location, Mechanism, Severity, and Incidence: A Systematic Review

McArthur

Jorgensen

Climstein

et al. 2020

Sports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prospective and retrospective studies have examined traumatic injuries within competitive and recreational surfers worldwide using online surveys and health care facility (HCF; e.g., hospital, emergency department, medical record) data. However, few studies have provided a synthesis of all available literature. The purpose of this study was to obtain, critique and synthesise all literature specific to acute surfing injuries, and evaluate differences in injury type, mechanism and location between HCF and survey data. A systematic literature review design was used to identify relevant articles from three major databases. Peer-reviewed epidemiological studies of musculoskeletal surfing injuries were included. A modified AXIS tool was used for critical appraisal, and objective data was extracted and synthesized by lead researchers. Overall frequencies for injury location, type and mechanism were calculated from raw injury data. A total of 19 cross-sectional articles of fair to good quality (Modified AXIS 54.2–83.3%) were included in this study; 17 were National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) level III-2 (retrospective) and two were level II (prospective). Articles examined competitive, recreational and combined populations. Injury data from Australia, Brazil, UK, USA, Portugal, Japan, Norway, and worldwide were represented. Skin (46.0%; HCF 50.1%, survey 43.8%) and being struck by own surfboard (38.6%; HCF 73.4%, survey 36.7%) were the most common injury type and mechanism. Head, face and neck injuries were most common in HCF (43.1%) versus lower limb injuries (36.4%) in survey data. Incidence proportion was highest in aerialists (0.48). Incidence rate (number of injuries per 1000 h) ranged from 0.74 in Australian surfers (Melbourne) to 6.6 in international contest surfers from medical record data. This review highlights the prevalence of skin, board-related, head, face and neck, and lower limb surfing injuries across available literature. Proposed use of protective equipment and foam-based surfboards in dangerous or crowded surf locations may reduce injury risk.

show abstract

Section: Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Epidemiology of Acute Injuries in Surfing: Type, Location, Mechanism, Severity, and Incidence: A Systematic Review

McArthur

Jorgensen

Climstein

et al. 2020

Sports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As noted, this review is intended to address a number of gaps in the response literature. Literature reviews can serve many purposes, 11 and here they are used in two different ways, first a narrative meta-review focused on public health response literature, then an exploratory review of methods to address the challenges identified.…”

Section: Methodsologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of potential high-leverage and inexpensive mitigations for reducing risk in epidemics and pandemics

Manheim

Denkenberger²

2020

Journal of Global Health Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…As systematic reviews developed within medical education they maintained a positivist alignment within searching for and extracting evidence, but evolved to embrace a range of synthesis methodologies, allowing reviews such as narrative, scoping and realist to be employed (Jahan et al 2016;Peterson et al 2017;Wong et al 2013). Focused reviews differ in the sense that they are focused in scope, often in response to a specific local or regional problem, but essentially are the same as these other methodologies in aligning with a rigorous and systematic approach.…”

Section: Tip 1: 'Consider Whether a Focused Review Is The Right Formmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This exists in all areas (such as the setting, learner groups, specific interventions used, outcome measures employed) and reflects the primary evidence base in education that is equally capricious in all its kaleidoscopic forms (Bartolucci and Hillegas. 2015;Jahan et al 2016). This can arise from the scope of the actual research questions posed and may result in findings which are too broad to inform the clinical or research education community.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Twelve tips for undertaking a focused systematic review in medical education

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The exponential growth of the systematic review methodology within health has been mirrored within health education, allowing large numbers of publications on a topic to be synthesised to guide researchers and teachers. The robust, transparent and reproducible search methodologies employed offer scholarly rigour. The scope and scale of many reviews in education have only been matched by the size of the commitment needed to complete them and occasional lack of utility of reports. As such, we have noticed a growth in reviews across journals in the field that have questions that are more focused in scope. The authors propose 12 tips for performing a focused review in the right settings for the right reasons and discuss why such 'focused reviews' may be more beneficial in those circumstances. Focused reviews allow researchers to formulate answers to specific local issues that have explicit utility of findings. Such reviews are equipped to identify what works for specific groups in specific circumstances and even question how and why this may occur. An additional impact of a focused approach can be a rapid turnaround. This article explains the purpose and benefits of focused review and provides guidance on how to produce them.

show abstract

How to Conduct a Systematic Review: A Narrative Literature Review

Cited by 127 publications

References 15 publications

Epidemiology of Acute Injuries in Surfing: Type, Location, Mechanism, Severity, and Incidence: A Systematic Review

Epidemiology of Acute Injuries in Surfing: Type, Location, Mechanism, Severity, and Incidence: A Systematic Review

Review of potential high-leverage and inexpensive mitigations for reducing risk in epidemics and pandemics

Twelve tips for undertaking a focused systematic review in medical education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About