2014
DOI: 10.1080/02667363.2014.900913
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Systematic approaches to a successful literature review

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This study undertakes a systematic and scientific assessment of the literature (Pearson, 2014). To this end, we considered four widely used electronic databases: Wiley, Emerald Insight, ScienceDirect, and EBSCOhost.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This study undertakes a systematic and scientific assessment of the literature (Pearson, 2014). To this end, we considered four widely used electronic databases: Wiley, Emerald Insight, ScienceDirect, and EBSCOhost.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Coding and literature analysis Bodolica and Spraggon (2018) advise using data tables to summarize findings adequately. Therefore, a well-structured Excel spreadsheet guides analytical analysis (Papaioannou et al, 2016). Three categorization processes were used during coding to ensure complete tabulation:…”
Section: Evaluation and Selectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, this study aims to identify connections between these concepts while providing valuable insights into fostering successful strategic renewal efforts. Innovative search techniques, such as snowball sampling (Wohlin et al, 2022), were used across reputable databases, Scopus and Web of Science (WoS), with strict guidelines for systematic review analysis (Papaioannou et al, 2016).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Review Objectives: To ascertain from published studies, medicines related problems associated with priorly determined indicators of deterioration, most frequently affected patient group reported, the residential settings of these patients, risk factors, tools employed to identify MRPs, and interventions applied to prevent MRPs Methods: The scope of the review was defined by applying the acronym PICOS (Population, Intervention/Exposure, comparison, Outcome, Setting). 23 Subsequent to this, though a protocol was not registered, a systematic review plan guided by PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for systematic review for protocols) was drawn up and approved by the research team prior to the commencement of the systematic review. 24 The plan was employed as a guidance document to systematically review relevant Primary studies published between 2001 and 2018.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%