An analysis of current practices in undertaking literature reviews in nursing: findings from a focused mapping review and synthesis

Helen Aveyard,Caroline Bradbury-Jones

doi:10.1186/s12874-019-0751-7

Helen Aveyard, Caroline Bradbury-Jones

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0751-7

Copy DOI

Abstract

BackgroundIn this paper we discuss the emergence of many different methods for doing a literature review. Referring back to the early days, when there were essentially two types of review; a Cochrane systematic review and a narrative review, we identify how the term systematic review is now widely used to describe a variety of review types and how the number of available methods for doing a literature review has increased dramatically. This led us to undertake a review of current practice of those doing a literature review and the terms used to describe them.MethodWe undertook a focused mapping review and synthesis. Literature reviews; defined as papers with the terms review or synthesis in the title, published in five nursing journals between January 2017–June 2018 were identified. We recorded the type of review and how these were undertaken.ResultsWe identified more than 35 terms used to describe a literature review. Some terms reflected established methods for doing a review whilst others could not be traced to established methods and/or the description of method in the paper was limited. We also found inconsistency in how the terms were used.ConclusionWe have identified a proliferation of terms used to describe doing a literature review; although it is not clear how many distinct methods are being used. Our review indicates a move from an era when the term narrative review was used to describe all ‘non Cochrane’ reviews; to a time of expansion when alternative systematic approaches were developed to enhance rigour of such narrative reviews; to the current situation in which these approaches have proliferated to the extent so that the academic discipline of doing a literature review has become muddled and confusing. We argue that an ‘era of consolidation’ is needed in which those undertaking reviews are explicit about the method used and ensure that their processes can be traced back to a well described, original primary source.

Highlights

In this paper we discuss the emergence of many different methods for doing a literature review
Our review indicates a move from an era when the term narrative review was used to describe all ‘non Cochrane’ reviews; to a time of expansion when alternative systematic approaches were developed to enhance rigour of such narrative reviews; to the current situation in which these approaches have proliferated to the extent so that the academic discipline of doing a literature review has become muddled and confusing
The Focused mapping review and synthesis (FMRS) is distinct from other forms of review because it responds to questions concerned with ‘what is happening in this field?’ It was an ideal method to investigate current practices in literature reviews in nursing

Summary

Introduction

In this paper we discuss the emergence of many different methods for doing a literature review. Over the past twenty years in nursing, literature reviews have become an increasingly popular form of synthesising evidence and information relevant to the profession Along with this there has been a proliferation of publications regarding the processes and practicalities of reviewing [1,2,3,4], This increase in activity and enthusiasm for undertaking literature reviews is paralleled by the foundation of the Cochrane Collaboration in 1993. In the early days of the literature review era, the methodological toolkit for those undertaking a literature was polarised, in a way that mirrored the paradigm wars of the time within mixed-methods research [9] We refer to this as the ‘dichotomy era’ (i.e. the 1990s), The prominent methods of literature reviewing fell into one of two camps: The highly rigorous and systematic, mostly quantitative ‘Cochrane style’ review on one hand and a ‘narrative style’ review on the other hand, whereby a body of literature was summarised qualitatively, but the methods were often not articulated. Narrative reviews were popular in dissertations and other student work (and they continue to be so in many cases) but have been criticised for a lack of systematic approach and significant potential for bias in the findings [10, 11]

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion