FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4311784265> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4311784265 endingPage "665" @default.
• W4311784265 startingPage "663" @default.
• W4311784265 abstract "This article provides a brief introduction to critical steps needed for conducting a high-quality State-of-the-Art (SotA) literature review, one that will add to our understanding of the phenomenon under study. This introduction complements another article in this issue, which discusses the purposes, underlying foundations, strengths, and weakness of SotA reviews in more detail.1The fundamental purpose of SotA literature reviews is to create a 3-part argument about the state of knowledge for a specific phenomenon: This is where we are now. This is how we got here. This is where we could go next (Table 1). Below is a 6-stage process for conducting a SotA literature review.2 To support this process, questions for guiding each of the 6 stages are provided in Table 2.It is important to identify individuals who will be a part of the research team. While a SotA review can be conducted by a single author, most SotA reviews harness the perspectives of an interdisciplinary team to generate rich interpretations of the literature. The team should also include a medical librarian to help with developing the search strategy.In Stage 1, the research team determines the initial research question that incorporates the phenomenon to be addressed in the SotA literature review. It is important to clearly define the field of knowledge and/or practice that will be targeted.Stage 2 determines the time frame that will define “state-of-the-art” for the research question defined in Stage 1. In Stage 2, the research team should engage in a broad overview of the literature to develop an understanding of the phenomenon's historical development (ie, seminal articles). This process will shape the research team's focus vis-à-vis the pivotal moments in history when the thinking about the phenomenon changed and the time frame for contemporary thinking (ie, the date marking the beginning of this is where we are now thinking). At the end of Stage 2, the research team should be able to justify why a specific year (ie, turning point in history) is chosen to mark the beginning of state-of-the-art thinking around the phenomenon.Based on the developments from Stages 1 and 2, the research team will revise and finalize the research question(s) to determine what needs to be included in the search strategy and analyses. The revised research question(s) and justification for the timeline must be reported in the article.Next, a search strategy is developed, enabling the research team to construct the corpus of literature to be included in the SotA review. This involves determining which database(s) to search and when to set the start date for the review. Since the review needs to describe this is how we got here, it must include literature that predates the this is where we are now time frame determined in Stage 2. Stage 4 is an iterative process of testing and revising the search strategy to capture pertinent literature required to meet the purpose of the SotA review. It is important to note that the search goal is not to review all pertinent literature in the SotA review; instead, the goal is to include relevant literature to describe a historical evolution in the field's thinking about a topic. The final search strategy must be included in the manuscript. If possible, a librarian should be consulted when developing the search strategy. A software program such as Covidence may be useful to help organize and share all articles with the research team.Analysis of the included literature is an inductive process where the research team reads and reflects on the articles and constructs an interpretation of the historical development of how the specific phenomenon is understood in the field. The research team should begin by reading each included article to become familiar with this literature and be able to identify similarities among the articles, ways of thinking that have shaped current understandings, assumptions underpinning changes in understandings over time, and gaps and assumptions in the current knowledge.Next, the research team can generate the premises that fit the purpose of a SotA review (ie, creating an understanding of the topic, constructing a history of knowledge development that gave rise to this modern thinking, and developing suggestions for future research). In this stage, the research team should highlight specific articles that either support or contradict its premises.The final step in Stage 5 is to verify the thoroughness and strength of the research team's interpretations. This can be done by selecting different articles and examining if they are congruent with the team's interpretations. The research team may also seek out additional literature that offers alternative interpretations to convey that their summary successfully refutes conflicting interpretations. The goal of this verification work is not to engage in a triangulation process for objectivity or for external confirmation; instead, this process is to help the research team ensure that they have successfully explained their interpretations in a way that supports or refutes the interpretations offered by others.The SotA manuscript should offer insights into the subjectivity of the research team by describing members who comprise the team, applications of their expertise, and how these informed their interpretations of the data. This reflexivity description will help readers understand the perspectives that informed the interpretation offered by the research team." @default.
• W4311784265 created "2022-12-28" @default.
• W4311784265 creator A5021077287 @default.
• W4311784265 creator A5047843125 @default.
• W4311784265 creator A5086962022 @default.
• W4311784265 date "2022-12-01" @default.
• W4311784265 modified "2023-10-15" @default.
• W4311784265 title "How to Conduct a State-of-the-Art Literature Review" @default.
• W4311784265 cites W4294612979 @default.
• W4311784265 cites W4311787100 @default.
• W4311784265 doi "https://doi.org/10.4300/jgme-d-22-00704.1" @default.
• W4311784265 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36591421" @default.
• W4311784265 hasPublicationYear "2022" @default.
• W4311784265 type Work @default.
• W4311784265 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W4311784265 countsByYear W43117842652022 @default.
• W4311784265 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4311784265 hasAuthorship W4311784265A5021077287 @default.
• W4311784265 hasAuthorship W4311784265A5047843125 @default.
• W4311784265 hasAuthorship W4311784265A5086962022 @default.
• W4311784265 hasBestOaLocation W43117842651 @default.
• W4311784265 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W4311784265 hasConcept C111919701 @default.
• W4311784265 hasConcept C116834253 @default.
• W4311784265 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W4311784265 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W4311784265 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W4311784265 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W4311784265 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W4311784265 hasConcept C189708586 @default.
• W4311784265 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W4311784265 hasConcept C202444582 @default.
• W4311784265 hasConcept C2779473830 @default.
• W4311784265 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W4311784265 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W4311784265 hasConcept C50335755 @default.
• W4311784265 hasConcept C539667460 @default.
• W4311784265 hasConcept C55587333 @default.
• W4311784265 hasConcept C59822182 @default.
• W4311784265 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4311784265 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W4311784265 hasConcept C9652623 @default.
• W4311784265 hasConcept C98045186 @default.
• W4311784265 hasConcept C98184364 @default.
• W4311784265 hasConceptScore W4311784265C111472728 @default.
• W4311784265 hasConceptScore W4311784265C111919701 @default.
• W4311784265 hasConceptScore W4311784265C116834253 @default.
• W4311784265 hasConceptScore W4311784265C126322002 @default.
• W4311784265 hasConceptScore W4311784265C127413603 @default.
• W4311784265 hasConceptScore W4311784265C138885662 @default.
• W4311784265 hasConceptScore W4311784265C15744967 @default.
• W4311784265 hasConceptScore W4311784265C17744445 @default.
• W4311784265 hasConceptScore W4311784265C189708586 @default.
• W4311784265 hasConceptScore W4311784265C199539241 @default.
• W4311784265 hasConceptScore W4311784265C202444582 @default.
• W4311784265 hasConceptScore W4311784265C2779473830 @default.
• W4311784265 hasConceptScore W4311784265C33923547 @default.
• W4311784265 hasConceptScore W4311784265C41008148 @default.
• W4311784265 hasConceptScore W4311784265C50335755 @default.
• W4311784265 hasConceptScore W4311784265C539667460 @default.
• W4311784265 hasConceptScore W4311784265C55587333 @default.
• W4311784265 hasConceptScore W4311784265C59822182 @default.
• W4311784265 hasConceptScore W4311784265C71924100 @default.
• W4311784265 hasConceptScore W4311784265C86803240 @default.
• W4311784265 hasConceptScore W4311784265C9652623 @default.
• W4311784265 hasConceptScore W4311784265C98045186 @default.
• W4311784265 hasConceptScore W4311784265C98184364 @default.
• W4311784265 hasIssue "6" @default.
• W4311784265 hasLocation W43117842651 @default.
• W4311784265 hasLocation W43117842652 @default.
• W4311784265 hasLocation W43117842653 @default.
• W4311784265 hasOpenAccess W4311784265 @default.
• W4311784265 hasPrimaryLocation W43117842651 @default.
• W4311784265 hasRelatedWork W1607679660 @default.
• W4311784265 hasRelatedWork W1905450117 @default.
• W4311784265 hasRelatedWork W2043902988 @default.
• W4311784265 hasRelatedWork W2738286161 @default.
• W4311784265 hasRelatedWork W2772058935 @default.
• W4311784265 hasRelatedWork W2946058990 @default.
• W4311784265 hasRelatedWork W2996670528 @default.
• W4311784265 hasRelatedWork W3003043982 @default.
• W4311784265 hasRelatedWork W3006244985 @default.
• W4311784265 hasRelatedWork W4285202453 @default.
• W4311784265 hasVolume "14" @default.
• W4311784265 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4311784265 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4311784265 workType "article" @default.