How to Write Methods Section for Literature Review
How to write the methods section of a systematic review
- How To
Dwelling | Blog | How To |
Covidence breaks downwards how to write a methods section
The methods department of your systematic review describes what you did, how you did information technology, and why. Readers demand this information to interpret the results and conclusions of the review. Often, a lot of information needs to be distilled into merely a few paragraphs. This can be a challenging task, but good preparation and the right tools will help y'all to set off in the right direction 🗺️🧭.
Systematic reviews are and then-called considering they are conducted in a fashion that is rigorous and replicable. And so it's important that these methods are reported in a manner that is thorough, clear, and piece of cake to navigate for the reader – whether that's a patient, a healthcare worker, or a researcher.
Like most things in a systematic review, the methods should be planned upfront and ideally described in particular in a project plan or protocol. Reviews of healthcare interventions follow the PRISMA guidelines for the minimum set of items to written report in the methods section. But what else should be included? It'southward a good thought to consider what readers will want to know most the review methods and whether the journal you're planning to submit the work to has expectations on the reporting of methods. Finding out in advance will help you to plan what to include.
Describe what happened
While the research plan sets out what yous intend to practise, the methods section is a write-up of what actually happened. It'due south not a simple case of rewriting the plan in the past tense – you will also need to talk over and justify deviations from the plan and describe the handling of issues that were unforeseen at the time the plan was written. For this reason, information technology is useful to brand detailed notes earlier, during, and later the review is completed. Relying on memory alone risks losing valuable information and trawling through emails when the borderline is looming tin be frustrating and time consuming!
Go on information technology cursory
The methods section should exist succinct but include all the noteworthy information. This tin be a difficult balance to accomplish. A useful strategy is to aim for a brief description that signposts the reader to a separate section or sections of supporting information. This could include datasets, a flowchart to show what happened to the excluded studies, a collection of search strategies, and tables containing detailed information about the studies.This separation keeps the review brusque and simple while enabling the reader to drill down to the detail equally needed. And if the methods follow a well-known or standard procedure, information technology might suffice to say so and give a reference, rather than describe the process at length.
Follow a structure
A articulate construction provides focus. Apply of descriptive headings keeps the writing on rail and helps the reader become to key information quickly. What should the construction of the methods section look like? As always, a lot depends on the type of review but it will certainly contain information relating to the following areas:
- Selection criteria ⭕
- Search 🕵️
- Data collection and assay 👩💻
- Study quality and chance of bias ⚖️
Permit's expect at each of these in plough.
1. Selection criteria ⭕
The criteria for including and excluding studies are listed here. This includes item about the types of studies, the types of participants, the types of interventions and the types of outcomes and how they were measured.
two. Search 🕵🏾♀️
Comprehensive reporting of the search is important because this means it tin be evaluated and replicated. The search strategies are included in the review, along with details of the databases searched. It's besides important to list whatsoever restrictions on the search (for instance, language), describe how resources other than electronic databases were searched (for instance, not-indexed journals), and give the appointment that the searches were run. The PRISMA-Due south extension provides guidance on reporting literature searches.
Systematic reviewer pro-tip:
Copy and paste the search strategy to avert introducing typos
3. Data collection and analysis 👩💻
This section describes:
- how studies were selected for inclusion in the review
- how study data were extracted from the study reports
- how study data were combined for analysis and synthesis
To describe how studies were selected for inclusion, review teams outline the screening process. Covidence uses reviewers' conclusion data to automatically populate a PRISMA flow diagram for this purpose. Covidence tin can also calculate Cohen'southward kappa to enable review teams to study the level of understanding among individual reviewers during screening.
To describe how report data were extracted from the written report reports, reviewers outline the form that was used, any pilot-testing that was done, and the items that were extracted from the included studies. An important slice of information to include here is the process used to resolve conflict among the reviewers. Covidence'southward data extraction tool saves reviewers' comments and notes in the system equally they work. This keeps the data in one place for piece of cake retrieval ⚡.
To describe how report data were combined for analysis and synthesis, reviewers outline the blazon of synthesis (narrative or quantitative, for case), the methods for grouping data, the challenges that came upward, and how these were dealt with. If the review includes a meta-analysis, it volition detail how this was performed and how the treatment effects were measured.
four. Study quality and risk of bias ⚖️
Because the results of systematic reviews can be affected by many types of bias, reviewers brand every effort to minimise it and to show the reader that the methods they used were appropriate. This section describes the methods used to assess study quality and an assessment of the risk of bias across a range of domains.
Steps to assess the hazard of bias in studies include looking at how study participants were assigned to treatment groups and whether patients and/or written report assessors were blinded to the treatment given. Reviewers besides study their assessment of the risk of bias due to missing result information, whether that is due to participant drop-out or non-reporting of the outcomes by the study authors.
Covidence'southward default template for assessing study quality is Cochrane's adventure of bias tool but information technology is also possible to start from scratch and build a tool with a set of custom domains if y'all prefer.
Conclusion
Careful planning, articulate writing, and a structured approach are key to a proficient methods section. A methodologist will be able to refer review teams to examples of proficient methods reporting in the literature. Covidence helps reviewers to screen references, extract information and complete risk of bias tables quickly and efficiently. Sign upward for a gratis trial today!
Laura Mellor. Portsmouth, Britain
I am a freelance editor and author with 20 years' experience in academic publishing. I am the Editorial Assistant for the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. My favourite thing to do on the weekend is become upward early on and get for a swim in the sea. Twitter: @lauratorial.
Share...
Perhaps you'd as well similar...
Improve systematic review management
Source: https://www.covidence.org/blog/how-to-write-the-methods-section-of-a-systematic-review/
0 Response to "How to Write Methods Section for Literature Review"
Post a Comment