FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3211613818> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3211613818 endingPage "738" @default.
• W3211613818 startingPage "735" @default.
• W3211613818 abstract "The modern repository of scientific literature has never been simultaneously easier to access while being so difficult to navigate. Widespread availability of the internet has allowed for global, instantaneous access to medical journals and has led to a massive spike in the volume of scientific literature produced annually.1Byrne JA. Improving the peer review of narrative literature reviews.Res Integr Peer Rev. 2016; 1: 12Crossref PubMed Google Scholar Emerging from this growth are many new types of publications and alternate options to the traditional journal (open access, pay-for-publication, etc.).2Chaney MA. So you want to write a narrative review article?.J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2021; 35: 3045-3049Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (1) Google Scholar One such publication that has seen a rise in popularity is the review article. As the avalanche of original research continues to roll in, the demand for synthesis and interpretation in the form of review has increased, and, essentially, has created a new branch of scientific literature. Although broadly partitioned into either “systematic” or “narrative,” a recent publication went so far as to identify 14 different unique varieties of review articles.3Grant MJ Booth A. A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies.Health Info Libr J. 2002; 26: 91-108Crossref Scopus (3602) Google Scholar These range from the structurally rigorous meta-analysis to the umbrella review, which is essentially a compilation of existing reviews on a given topic. With so much variety and volume inundating the landscape, the role of the peer reviewer has grown increasingly important. Peer review remains the primary mechanism for ensuring the publication of high-quality, ethical, and relevant scientific literature. Guidelines and recommendations for effective peer review have been published widely for article types such as randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews,4Moher D. Optimal strategies to consider when peer reviewing a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC Med. 2015; 13: 274Crossref PubMed Scopus (9) Google Scholar,5Del Mar C Hoffman TC. A guide to performing a peer review of randomized controlled trials.BMC Med. 2015; 13: 248Crossref PubMed Scopus (15) Google Scholar but are much less common for narrative reviews. The goal of this editorial is to provide the peer reviewer with a framework to use when approaching a narrative review. To do this, there must be an understanding of the objectives, methods, strengths, and weaknesses of a narrative review, as well as some of the fundamentals of good reviewer etiquette. Peer review is a critical step in the scientific process, and the approach to a narrative review must consider a general approach to manuscript review. Most advice for junior reviewers comes from mentors, since there is a dearth of primary literature to guide the peer review process.6Hill JA. How to review a manuscript.J Electrocardiol. 2016; 49: 109-111Crossref PubMed Scopus (12) Google Scholar The process begins with an honest assessment of one's ability to review the manuscript. Do you have enough expertise to review the article? Can you be an impartial reviewer? Do you have the time to provide a thorough review that can improve the article? Many physicians are struggling with burnout and work-life balance. Prior to undertaking a new manuscript, the reviewer must first evaluate their available time and energy required to produce quality work. Once you have determined that you have the capacity to participate in peer review, it is time to start reading. Many editorials on the review process suggest starting with a broad initial read and then rereading to tackle specific components of the article.7Alam M. How to review a manuscript.Dermatol Surg. 2015; 41: 883-888Crossref PubMed Scopus (8) Google Scholar A general approach on first read should consider the novelty of the work, the overall methodology, and the impact of the study. Unfortunately, some articles have fatal flaws, such as poor study design or writing quality, which are apparent with a cursory read that preclude publication. If the article passes the initial read, the reviewer then should address each section individually.8Salasche SJ. How to “peer review” a medical journal manuscript.Dermatol Surg. 1997; 23: 423-428Crossref PubMed Scopus (14) Google Scholar The specific elements of a narrative review that need to be addressed will be covered shortly, but keeping the following few tips in mind whenever undertaking a peer review is a great place to start:1.Be kind. Authors spend a tremendous amount of time to produce articles.2.Be constructive. Authors are looking to publish the best article possible, and your comments can improve the manuscript significantly.3.Be prompt. Your editors are juggling many studies at the same time, and the authors are anxious to hear back from you. Although the composition, literature review, and format of a narrative review lack the rigor of a systematic review, it can nonetheless be of high quality and make a significant contribution. A narrative review can take advantage of the more relaxed framework by using a creative approach to achieve new insights and identify knowledge gaps and previously unrecognized connections in an existing body of literature.2Chaney MA. So you want to write a narrative review article?.J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2021; 35: 3045-3049Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (1) Google Scholar However, without the requirement for rigorous literature review and quantitative analysis present in a systematic review, a narrative review may suffer from a lack of structure and focus. To identify critical strengths and weaknesses of a narrative review, the peer reviewer may be helped by asking the following questions. A strong narrative review article should begin with a clearly defined topic. The topic of a narrative review may not be as narrow as is necessary for a systematic review. Topics may be broad and the author may choose to examine a clinical concept or scientific principle over time, thus resulting in a much larger scope, but that scope still must be delineated clearly within the manuscript. Topics that lend themselves well to narrative review are those with conflicting results and/or lack of consensus.2Chaney MA. So you want to write a narrative review article?.J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2021; 35: 3045-3049Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (1) Google Scholar It is also possible that the chosen topic is far too broad and thus impossible to cover in a single review.9Gregory AT Denniss AR. An introduction to writing narrative and systematic reviews – tasks, tips and traps for aspiring authors.Heart Lung Circ. 2018; 27: 893-898Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (46) Google Scholar An example of such a topic would be “atrial fibrillation.” The reviewer must ensure that they can identify clearly and name the topic, question, or concept that is being examined. Additionally, a topic that already has been analyzed comprehensively recently should not be reexamined. Once an appropriate topic is identified, the reviewer should ensure that a balanced and thorough literature review has been performed. This is critically important, as the scope of the narrative review may be wider than other types of review articles, and, thus, the literature review must be more comprehensive as well. In contrast to a systematic review, narrative reviews do not have a predefined methodologic approach, but still should provide evidence that a comprehensive search was performed. In addition, balanced citation demonstrates that a variety of sources were used and not just those that support the author's conclusions, thus limiting bias.1Byrne JA. Improving the peer review of narrative literature reviews.Res Integr Peer Rev. 2016; 1: 12Crossref PubMed Google Scholar Expert reviewers ideally should cross-reference a subset of citations to determine if sources were summarized correctly and original references were cited. Evidence of a comprehensive search of the current literature and clearly articulating the work completed to generate this review are the foundation of the review article and allows for a more significant contribution of medical knowledge to the field being reviewed. The reviewer must ensure that the selected literature represents all possible opinions or conclusions on the selected topic and is of high quality from a variety of sources. Studies need not be exclusively from peer-reviewed journals, though reviewers should ensure there is not an overuse of inaccessible, nonpeer-reviewed sources.10Gasparyan AY Ayvazyan L Blackmore H et al.Writing a narrative biomedical review: Considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors.Rheumatol Int. 2011; 31: 1409-1417Crossref PubMed Scopus (340) Google Scholar As opposed to the traditional IMRAD format of a systematic review (Introduction, Methods, Results, And Discussion), the general structure of a narrative review article is less formal. It likely includes an introduction and conclusion, with a body between the two.9Gregory AT Denniss AR. An introduction to writing narrative and systematic reviews – tasks, tips and traps for aspiring authors.Heart Lung Circ. 2018; 27: 893-898Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (46) Google Scholar This lack of structure allows for creativity but also may be the source of organizational error for the authors. Literature that was reviewed can be presented chronologically, by theme, by conclusion, or otherwise.9Gregory AT Denniss AR. An introduction to writing narrative and systematic reviews – tasks, tips and traps for aspiring authors.Heart Lung Circ. 2018; 27: 893-898Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (46) Google Scholar The reviewer should confirm that all the necessary information is present and that the article is easy to read and understand and flows well. Although no specific structure is required of a narrative review, the chosen structure should support the stated aims and logically navigate the reader toward a conclusion. Perhaps most importantly, the reviewer is tasked with ensuring that the article offers critical analysis of the topic by identifying knowledge gaps and offering a novel perspective. This type of narrative review expands the body of knowledge rather than simply summarizing what already is known. This is often a weak area of narrative reviews, and by looking at the writing with a fresh set of eyes, peer reviewers may assist the authors in further developing their ideas.11Black N van Rooyen S Godlee F et al.What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal?.JAMA. 1998; 280: 231-233Crossref PubMed Scopus (185) Google Scholar Failure to do so might result in a summary review that resembles a book report.1Byrne JA. Improving the peer review of narrative literature reviews.Res Integr Peer Rev. 2016; 1: 12Crossref PubMed Google Scholar Clearly defining the current state of knowledge on the topic and achieving new insights are ways that reviews can make an impact for readers. Despite the frequency with which narrative reviews are published, there are limited instruments available to aid authors in the production of quality work or to assist journal reviewers and editors in critical appraisal of these reviews.1Byrne JA. Improving the peer review of narrative literature reviews.Res Integr Peer Rev. 2016; 1: 12Crossref PubMed Google Scholar For instance, systematic reviews have (1) methodologic guidelines published by Joanna Briggs Institute and Cochrane to aid in design and knowledge synthesis,12Higgins JPT Thomas J Chandler J et al.Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.2.February 2021www.training.cochrane.org/handbookGoogle Scholar, 13Aromataris E Munn Z JBI manual for evidence synthesis. JBI, 2020https://synthesismanual.jbi.globalCrossref Google Scholar, 14Lockwood C Oh EG. Systematic reviews: Guidelines, tools and checklists for authors.Nurs Health Sci. 2017; 19: 273-277Crossref PubMed Scopus (20) Google Scholar (2) guidelines for the complete and transparent reporting of research, such as the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement,15Page MJ McKenzie JE Bossuyt PM et al.The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.BMJ. 2021; 372: n71Crossref PubMed Scopus (5859) Google Scholar and (3) tools for critical appraisal including ROBIS and AMSTAR-2.16Whiting P Savovic J Higgins JPT et al.ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed.J Clin Epidemiol. 2016; 69: 225-234Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (681) Google Scholar,17Shea BJ Reeves BC Wells G et al.AMSTAR 2: A critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomized or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both.BMJ. 2017; 358: j4008Crossref PubMed Scopus (2521) Google Scholar Though not intended for narrative reviews, the peer reviewer may be able to apply several elements of these guidelines and assessment strategies to narrative reviews to elevate their quality and improve the specificity of the feedback. Foundational to the Joanna Briggs Institute and Cochrane methodologic guidelines are the adoption and reporting of an a priori protocol for the review, wherein the topic and methods to address the question are elaborated prior to commencing the project.14Lockwood C Oh EG. Systematic reviews: Guidelines, tools and checklists for authors.Nurs Health Sci. 2017; 19: 273-277Crossref PubMed Scopus (20) Google Scholar Narrative reviews would benefit from reporting of their planned review process, as it would allow reviewers to evaluate the potential bias in the manuscript. Furthermore, evaluation of narrative reviews can take advantage of PRISMA, which is an evidence-based minimum standard for reporting using a 27-item checklist, flow diagrams, and accompanying extensions.15Page MJ McKenzie JE Bossuyt PM et al.The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.BMJ. 2021; 372: n71Crossref PubMed Scopus (5859) Google Scholar Authors and reviewers of both systematic and narrative reviews can use the checklist to ensure transparent reporting, such as clearly stating the review rationale in the context of existing knowledge and providing an explicit statement of the objectives and/or questions addressed in the review. The PRISMA-S extension is a 16-item checklist, which is intended to provide instruction on reporting of the literature searches in systematic reviews. It has applicability in narrative reviews, as it can aid authors in the design and execution of their literature search by ensuring they consider and document the sources of their information, the methods employed to access that information, and the search strategies deployed to collect the relevant information contained with the review.18Rethelfsen ML Kirtley S Waffenschmidt S et al.PRISMA-S: An extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews.Syst Rev. 2021; 10: 39Crossref PubMed Scopus (266) Google Scholar When authors report the process by which they completed their literature searches, reviewers more accurately can assess the completeness of the information contained within the review, as well as the conclusions that are drawn from the data. In a similar fashion, the ROBIS tool is composed of 3 phases of assessment wherein the review's relevance, process of review, and risk of bias are investigated.16Whiting P Savovic J Higgins JPT et al.ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed.J Clin Epidemiol. 2016; 69: 225-234Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (681) Google Scholar In the first phase, which is optional, the reviewers consider whether the question addressed by the review matches the target question, and this is equally important within a narrative review, as you want to identify whether the authors tackle the question that they pose. Within the second phase of assessment, the ROBIS tool focuses on 4 domains that can serve as entry points for the introduction of bias into a systematic review, which include study eligibility criteria, study identification and selection, data collection and appraisal, and, lastly, knowledge synthesis. Narrative reviews are often at risk of bias as well. For example, there is risk of selection bias, as authors who are frequently experts in their field only may select literature that supports their opinions. Reviewers of narrative reviews can consider the above stated bias entry points as they assess the quality of the submitted manuscript. The Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles is a recently developed critical appraisal tool for nonsystematic reviews that evaluates 6 domains, including justification of article importance and description of literature search.19Baethge C Goldbeck-Wood S Mertens S. SANRA – a scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles.Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019; 4: 5Crossref PubMed Google Scholar The Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles and ROBIS have overlapping features that serve to appraise the quality of the review in a systematic manner. In the future, additional guidelines, checklists, and appraisal tools should be developed for narrative reviews that can serve as road maps to help authors describe more clearly the purpose behind the review, the mechanics of review construction, and the results that are uncovered. The narrative review is growing in popularity as the volume of original research produced annually continues to grow. The creative license afforded to the narrative review by its lack of structured literature review requirements or quantitative data analysis allows the authors to approach old ideas from novel perspectives. A fresh pair of eyes and reorganization of old data may yield new connections that drive future research. Peer reviewers likely will encounter an ever-growing number of narrative reviews coming across their desks. Peer reviewers should ensure that these manuscripts possess each of the critical components: a well-formed and appropriately specific topic, a thorough and unbiased literature review, an organized structure, and critical analysis that expands the body of knowledge of the topic. Although not originally intended for use in narrative review, the use of assessment tools, such as the PRISMA checklist, can promote specific and constructive feedback for authors." @default.
• W3211613818 created "2021-11-22" @default.
• W3211613818 creator A5015890014 @default.
• W3211613818 creator A5021552450 @default.
• W3211613818 creator A5022128346 @default.
• W3211613818 creator A5043796230 @default.
• W3211613818 creator A5066031733 @default.
• W3211613818 date "2022-03-01" @default.
• W3211613818 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W3211613818 title "Peer review guidance for evaluating the narrative review: Lessons applied from the systematic review" @default.
• W3211613818 cites W1929023914 @default.
• W3211613818 cites W2034969257 @default.
• W3211613818 cites W2079283960 @default.
• W3211613818 cites W2102211749 @default.
• W3211613818 cites W2130453155 @default.
• W3211613818 cites W2144396559 @default.
• W3211613818 cites W2291120373 @default.
• W3211613818 cites W2461079400 @default.
• W3211613818 cites W2521010688 @default.
• W3211613818 cites W2751059202 @default.
• W3211613818 cites W2756578555 @default.
• W3211613818 cites W2807160162 @default.
• W3211613818 cites W2922577842 @default.
• W3211613818 cites W3118615836 @default.
• W3211613818 cites W3123497531 @default.
• W3211613818 cites W3175843943 @default.
• W3211613818 cites W600840809 @default.
• W3211613818 doi "https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jvca.2021.11.020" @default.
• W3211613818 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34903460" @default.
• W3211613818 hasPublicationYear "2022" @default.
• W3211613818 type Work @default.
• W3211613818 sameAs 3211613818 @default.
• W3211613818 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W3211613818 countsByYear W32116138182023 @default.
• W3211613818 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3211613818 hasAuthorship W3211613818A5015890014 @default.
• W3211613818 hasAuthorship W3211613818A5021552450 @default.
• W3211613818 hasAuthorship W3211613818A5022128346 @default.
• W3211613818 hasAuthorship W3211613818A5043796230 @default.
• W3211613818 hasAuthorship W3211613818A5066031733 @default.
• W3211613818 hasBestOaLocation W32116138181 @default.
• W3211613818 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W3211613818 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W3211613818 hasConcept C138368954 @default.
• W3211613818 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W3211613818 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W3211613818 hasConcept C177713679 @default.
• W3211613818 hasConcept C199033989 @default.
• W3211613818 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W3211613818 hasConcept C2779473830 @default.
• W3211613818 hasConcept C3020000205 @default.
• W3211613818 hasConcept C55587333 @default.
• W3211613818 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W3211613818 hasConceptScore W3211613818C124952713 @default.
• W3211613818 hasConceptScore W3211613818C127413603 @default.
• W3211613818 hasConceptScore W3211613818C138368954 @default.
• W3211613818 hasConceptScore W3211613818C142362112 @default.
• W3211613818 hasConceptScore W3211613818C17744445 @default.
• W3211613818 hasConceptScore W3211613818C177713679 @default.
• W3211613818 hasConceptScore W3211613818C199033989 @default.
• W3211613818 hasConceptScore W3211613818C199539241 @default.
• W3211613818 hasConceptScore W3211613818C2779473830 @default.
• W3211613818 hasConceptScore W3211613818C3020000205 @default.
• W3211613818 hasConceptScore W3211613818C55587333 @default.
• W3211613818 hasConceptScore W3211613818C71924100 @default.
• W3211613818 hasFunder F4320332502 @default.
• W3211613818 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W3211613818 hasLocation W32116138181 @default.
• W3211613818 hasLocation W32116138182 @default.
• W3211613818 hasOpenAccess W3211613818 @default.
• W3211613818 hasPrimaryLocation W32116138181 @default.
• W3211613818 hasRelatedWork W2040247118 @default.
• W3211613818 hasRelatedWork W2061929738 @default.
• W3211613818 hasRelatedWork W2420327950 @default.
• W3211613818 hasRelatedWork W2558269475 @default.
• W3211613818 hasRelatedWork W2790858109 @default.
• W3211613818 hasRelatedWork W3006295308 @default.
• W3211613818 hasRelatedWork W3021596208 @default.
• W3211613818 hasRelatedWork W4318003485 @default.
• W3211613818 hasRelatedWork W4367337705 @default.
• W3211613818 hasRelatedWork W83451946 @default.
• W3211613818 hasVolume "36" @default.
• W3211613818 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3211613818 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3211613818 magId "3211613818" @default.
• W3211613818 workType "article" @default.