Referring back to the early days, when there were essentially two types of review; a Cochrane systematic review\nand a narrative review, we identify how the term systematic review is now widely used to describe a variety of\nreview types and how the number of available methods for doing a literature review has increased dramatically.\nThis led us to undertake a review of current practice of those doing a literature review and the terms used to\ndescribe them.\nMethod: We undertook a focused mapping review and synthesis. Literature reviews; defined as papers with the\nterms review or synthesis in the title, published in five nursing journals between January 2017-June 2018 were\nidentified. We recorded the type of review and how these were undertaken.\nResults: We identified more than 35 terms used to describe a literature review. Some terms reflected established\nmethods for doing a review whilst others could not be traced to established methods and/or the description of\nmethod in the paper was limited. We also found inconsistency in how the terms were used.\nConclusion: We have identified a proliferation of terms used to describe doing a literature review; although it is\nnot clear how many distinct methods are being used. Our review indicates a move from an era when the term\nnarrative review was used to describe all â??non Cochraneâ?? reviews; to a time of expansion when alternative\nsystematic approaches were developed to enhance rigour of such narrative reviews; to the current situation in\nwhich these approaches have proliferated to the extent so that the academic discipline of doing a literature review\nhas become muddled and confusing. We argue that an â??era of consolidationâ?? is needed in which those undertaking\nreviews are explicit about the method used and ensure that their processes can be traced back to a well described,\noriginal primary source.
Loading....