Writing an Article Review When writing a review of an article published in a professional journal or anthology, focus on a topic or issue that draws your attention. Recognize that most authors assume that the reader has some background knowledge, which you might not have. Still, your job is to understand the logic, structure, and essence of the material in the article. Some articles include a summary or abstract at the beginning of the article.
When clinicians want to update their knowledge and generate guidelines about a topic, they frequently use reviews as a starting point. The value of a review is associated with what has been done, what has been found and how these findings are presented.
The main and fundamental purpose of writing a review is to create a readable synthesis of the best resources available in the literature for an important research question or a current area of research. Although the idea of writing a review is attractive, it is important to spend time identifying the important questions.
Good review methods are critical because they provide an unbiased point of view for the reader regarding the current literature. There is a consensus that a review should be written in a systematic fashion, a notion that is usually followed.
In a systematic review with a focused question, the research methods must be clearly described.
An essential part of the review process is differentiating good research from bad and leaning on the results of the better studies. The ideal way to synthesize studies is to perform a meta-analysis. In conclusion, when writing a review, it is best to clearly focus on fixed ideas, to use a procedural and critical approach to the literature and to express your findings in an attractive way.
How to write, review, writing The importance of review articles in health sciences is increasing day by day. Clinicians frequently benefit from review articles to update their knowledge in their field of specialization, and use these articles as a starting point for formulating guidelines.
A few studies have evaluated the quality of review articles. Murlow evaluated 50 review articles published inandand revealed that none of them had complied with clear-cut scientific criteria.
Narrative reviews are written in an easily readable format, and allow consideration of the subject matter within a large spectrum. However in a systematic review, a very detailed, and comprehensive literature surveying is performed on the selected topic.
Systematic reviews can be diivded into qualitative, and quantitative reviews. In both of them detailed literature surveying is performed. However in quantitative reviews, study data are collected, and statistically evaluated ie.
The fundamental rationale of writing a review article is to make a readable synthesis of the best literature sources on an important research inquiry or a topic. This simple definition of a review article contains the following key elements: The question s to be dealt with Methods used to find out, and select the best quality researches so as to respond to these questions.
To synthetize available, but quite different researches For the specification of important questions to be answered, number of literature references to be consulted should be more or less determined. Discussions should be conducted with colleagues in the same area of interest, and time should be reserved for the solution of the problem s.
It will be reasonable to fulfill the requirements of these items during preparation of a review article or a meta-analysis. Thus preparation of a comprehensible article with a high-quality scientific content can be feasible.
Additional analyses 16 Describe methods of additional analyses such as sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regressionif done, indicating which were pre-specified.
Results Study selection 17 Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
Study characteristics 18 For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted such as study size, PICOS, follow-up period and provide the citation. Risk of bias within studies 19 Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome-level assessment see item 12 Results of individual studies 20 For all outcomes considered benefits and harmspresent, for each study, simple summary data for each intervention group and effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot a type of graph used in meta-analyses which demonstrates relat, ve success rates of treatment outcomes of multiple scientific studies analyzing the same topic Syntheses of resxults 21 Present the results of each meta-analyses including confidence intervals and measures of consistency Risk of bias across studies 22 Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies see item A non-systematic review means use of articles collected for years with the recommendations of your colleagues, while systematic review is based on struggles to search for, and find the best possible researches which will respond to the questions predetermined at the start of the review.
Though a consensus has been reached about the systematic design of the review articles, studies revealed that most of them had not been written in a systematic format. We can confront two problems while we are using data from researches in order to answer certain questions.
Firstly, we can be prejudiced during selection of research articles or these articles might be biased. To minimize this risk, methodologies used in our reviews should allow us to define, and use researches with minimal degree of bias.
The second problem is that, most of the researches have been performed with small sample sizes. In statistical methods in meta-analyses, available researches are combined to increase the statistical power of the study.
The problematic aspect of a non-systematic review is that our tendency to give biased responses to the questions, in other words we apt to select the studies with known or favourite results, rather than the best quality investigations among them.
As is the case with many research articles, general format of a systematic review on a single subject includes sections of Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion Table 2.
Structure of a systematic review Section.Writing a good article review journal NutriFit Clinic is a centre of excellence offering exclusive personal training services to our clients in the North West London area.
Established for over 20 years we pride ourselves in having a reputation for delivering personalised fitness, weight loss and nutritional solutions with proven results.
To write a good article review, a student has to get ready by accomplishing important pre-writing stage. The process of writing an article review will go faster if you get ready.
Victims of homicide article review from AlyshaBarnett. Here is a summary of the main points. Consider them before composing an article review. An article review is a piece of writing where you summarize and assess another person’s article.
It entails a logical evaluation of the central theme of the article, supporting arguments and implications for further research. In order to write a good article review, one must first read the article and in order to ensure an understanding of the article from various yunusemremert.com most cases, it is quite helpful to read the article several times while taking note of the opening statements, headings, and the opening sentences of the article that is to be reviewed.
Sep 21, · How to Write a Review. So, I thought "writing a review" might be a good topic and this article really helped me." " more. RR Riddhima Rana. Oct 2, "I like this article; short and simple, but to the point.
All 76%(61). An article review is a piece of writing where you summarize and assess another person’s article. It entails a logical evaluation of the central theme of the article, .