relevance of literature review in nursing research

Research article
Open access
Published: 16 May 2019

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

Helen Aveyard ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5133-3356 1 &
Caroline Bradbury-Jones 2

BMC Medical Research Methodology volume 19 , Article number: 105 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

42k Accesses

27 Citations

10 Altmetric

Metrics details

In 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.

We 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.

We 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.

We 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.

Peer Review reports

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. Developed in response to the need for up-to-date reviews of evidence of the effectiveness of health care interventions, the Cochrane Collaboration introduced a rigorous method of searching, appraisal and analysis in the form of a ‘handbook’ for doing a systematic review [ 5 ] .Subsequently, similar procedural guidance has been produced, for example by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) [ 6 ] and The Joanna Briggs Institute [ 7 ]. Further guidance has been published to assist researchers with clarity in the reporting of published reviews [ 8 ].

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 particularly 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 consequently significant potential for bias in the findings [ 10 , 11 ].

The latter 1990s and early 2000, saw the emergence of other forms of review, developed as a response to the Cochrane/Narrative dichotomy. These alternative approaches to the Cochrane review provided researchers with reference points for performing reviews that drew on different study types, not just randomised controlled trials. They promoted a systematic and robust approach for all reviews, not just those concerned with effectiveness of interventions and treatments. One of the first published description of methods was Noblet and Hare’s (1998) ‘Meta-ethnography’ [ 12 ]. This method, although its name suggests otherwise, could incorporate and synthesise all types of qualitative research, not just ethnographies. The potential confusion regarding the inclusion of studies that were not ethnographies within a meta-ethnography, promoted the description of other similar methods, for example, the meta-synthesis of Walsh and Downe (2005) [ 13 ] and the thematic synthesis of Thomas and Harden (2008) [ 14 ]. Also, to overcome the dichotomy of the quantitative/qualitative reviews, the integrative review was described according to Whitemore and Knafl (2005) [ 15 ]. These reviews can be considered to be literature reviews that have been done in a systematic way but not necessarily adhering to guidelines established by the Cochrane Collaboration. We conceptualise this as the ‘expansion era’. Some of the methods are summarised in Table 1 .

Over the past two decades there has been a proliferation of review types, with corresponding explosion of terms used to describe them. A review of evidence synthesis methodologies by Grant and Booth in 2009 [ 20 ] identified 14 different approaches to reviewing the literature and similarly, Booth and colleagues [ 21 ] detailed 19 different review types, highlighting the range of review types currently available. We might consider this the ‘proliferation era’. This is however, somewhat a double-edged sword, because although researchers now have far more review methods at their disposal, there is risk of confusion in the field. As Sabatino and colleagues (2014) [ 22 ] have argued, review methods are not always consistently applied by researchers.

Aware of such potential inconsistency and also our own confusion at times regarding the range of review methods available, we questioned what was happening within our own discipline of nursing. We undertook a snap-shot, contemporary analysis to explore the range of terms used to describe reviews, the methods currently described in nursing and the underlying trends and patterns in searching, appraisal and analysis adopted by those doing a literature review. The aim was to gain some clarity on what is happening within the field, in order to understand, explain and critique what is happening within the proliferation era.

In order to explore current practices in doing a literature review, we undertook a ‘Focused Mapping Review and Synthesis’ (FMRS) – an approach that has been described only recently. This form of review [ 19 ] is a method of investigating trends in academic publications and has been used in a range of issues relevant to nursing and healthcare, for example, theory in qualitative research [ 23 ] and vicarious trauma in child protection research [ 24 ].

A FMRS seeks to identify what is happening within a particular subject or field of inquiry; hence the search is restricted to a particular time period and to pre-identified journals. The review has four distinct features: It: 1) focuses on identifying trends in an area rather than a body of evidence; 2) creates a descriptive map or topography of key features of research within the field rather than a synthesis of findings; 3) comments on the overall approach to knowledge production rather than the state of the evidence; 4) examines this within a broader epistemological context. These are translated into three specific focused activities: 1) targeted journals; 2) a specific subject; 3) a defined time period. The FMRS therefore, is distinct from other forms of review because it responds to questions concerned with ‘what is happening in this field?’ It was thus an ideal method to investigate current practices in literature reviews in nursing.

Using the international Scopus (2016) SCImago Journal and Country Rank, we identified the five highest ranked journals in nursing at that time of undertaking the review. There was no defined method for determining the number of journals to include in a review; the aim was to identify a sample and we identified five journals in order to search from a range of high ranking journals. We discuss the limitations of this later. Journals had to have ‘nursing’ or ‘nurse’ in the title and we did not include journals with a specialist focus, such as nutrition, cancer etcetera. The included journals are shown in Table 2 and are in order according to their ranking. We recognise that our journal choice meant that only articles published in English made it into the review.

A key decision in a FMRS is the time-period within which to retrieve relevant articles. Like many other forms of review, we undertook an initial scoping to determine the feasibility and parameters of the project [ 19 ]. In our previous reviews, the timeframe has varied from three months [ 23 ] to 6 years [ 24 ]. The main criterion is the likelihood for the timespan to contain sufficient articles to answer the review questions. We set the time parameter from January 2017–June 2018. We each took responsibility for two and three journals each from which to retrieve articles. We reviewed the content page of each issue of each journal. For our purposes, in order to reflect the diverse range of terms for describing a literature review, as described earlier in this paper, any paper that contained the term ‘review’ or ‘synthesis’ in the title was included in the review. This was done by each author individually but to enhance rigour, we worked in pairs to check each other’s retrieval processes to confirm inter-rater consistency. This process allowed any areas of uncertainty to be discussed and agreed and we found this form of calibration crucial to the process. The inclusion and exclusion criteria are shown in Table 3 .

Articles meeting the inclusion criteria, papers were read in full and data was extracted and recorded as per the proforma developed for the study (Table 4 ). The proforma was piloted on two papers to check for usability prior to data extraction. Data extraction was done independently but we discussed a selection of papers to enhance rigour of the process. No computer software was used in the analysis of the data. We did not critically appraise the included studies for quality because our purpose was to profile what is happening in the field rather than to draw conclusions from the included studies’ findings.

Once the details from all the papers had been extracted onto the tables, we undertook an analysis to identify common themes in the included articles. Because our aim was to produce a snap-shot profile, our analysis was thematic and conceptual. Although we undertook some tabulation and numerical analysis, our primary focus was on capturing patterns and trends characterised by the proliferation era. In line with the FMRS method, in the findings section we have used illustrative examples from the included articles that reflect and demonstrate the point or claim being made. These serve as useful sources of information and reference for readers seeking concrete examples.

Between January 2017 and June 2018 in the five journals we surveyed, a total of 222 papers with either ‘review’ or ‘synthesis’ in the title were retrieved and included in our analysis. We identified three primary themes: 1) Proliferation in names for doing a review; 2) Allegiance to an established review method; 3) Clarity about review processes. The results section is organised around these themes.

Proliferation in names for doing a review

We identified more than 35 terms used by authors to describe a literature review. Because we amalgamated terms such as ‘qualitative literature review’ and ‘qualitative review’ the exact number is actually slightly higher. It was clear from reading the reviews that many different terms were used to describe the same processes. For example qualitative systematic review, qualitative review and meta-synthesis, qualitative meta-synthesis, meta-ethnography all refer to a systematic review of qualitative studies. We have therefore grouped together the review types that refer to a particular type of review as described by the authors of the publications used in this study (Table 5 ).

In many reviews, the specific type of review was indicated in the title as seen for example in Table 5 . A striking feature was that all but two of the systematic reviews that contained a meta-analysis were labelled as such in the title; providing clarity and ease of retrieval. Where a literature review did not contain a meta-analysis, the title of the paper was typically referred to a ‘systematic review’; the implication being that a systematic review is not necessarily synonymous with a meta-analysis. However as discussed in the following section, this introduced some muddying of water, with different interpretations of what systematic review means and how broadly this term is applied. Some authors used the methodological type of included papers to describe their review. For example, a Cochrane-style systematic review was undertaken [ 25 ] but the reviewers did not undertake a meta-analysis and thus referred to their review as a ‘quantitative systematic review’.

Allegiance to an established literature review method

Many literature reviews demonstrated allegiance to a defined method and this was clearly and consistently described by the authors. For example, one team of reviewers [ 26 ] articulately described the process of a ‘meta-ethnography’ and gave a detailed description of their study and reference to the origins of the method by Noblet and Hare (1988) [ 12 ]. Another popular method was the ‘integrative review’ where most authors referred to the work of one or two seminal papers where the method was originally described (for example, Whitemore & Knafl 2005 [ 15 ]).

For many authors the term systematic review was used to mean a review of quantitative research, but some authors [ 27 , 28 , 29 ],used the term systematic review to describe reviews containing both qualitative and quantitative data.

However in many reviews, commitment to a method for doing a literature review appeared superficial, undeveloped and at times muddled. For example, three reviews [ 30 , 31 , 32 ] , indicate an integrative review in the title of their review, but this is the only reference to the method; there is no further reference to how the components of an integrative review are addressed within the paper. Other authors do not state allegiance to any particular method except to state a ‘literature review’ [ 33 ] but without an outline of a particular method for doing so. Anther review [ 34 ] reports a ‘narrative review’ but does not give further information about how this was done, possibly indicative of the lack of methods associated with the traditional narrative review. Three other reviewers documented how they searched, appraised and analysed their literature but do not reference an over-riding approach for their review [ 35 , 36 , 37 ]. In these examples, the review can be assumed to be a literature review, but the exact approach is not clear.

In other reviews, the methods for doing a literature review appear to be used interchangeably. For example in one review [ 38 ] the term narrative review was used in the title but in the main text an integrative review was described. In another review [ 39 ] two different and distinct methods were combined in a ‘meta-ethnographic meta-synthesis’.

Some authors [ 40 , 41 ] referred to a method used to undertake their review, for example a systematic review, but did not reference the primary source from where the method originated. Instead a secondary source, such as a textbook is used to reference the approach taken [ 20 , 42 ].

Clarity about review processes

Under this theme we discerned two principal issues: searching and appraisal. The majority of literature reviews contain three components- searching, appraisal and analysis, details of which are usually reported in the methods section of the papers. However, this is not always the case and for example, one review [ 43 ] provides only a search strategy with no information about the overall method or how critical appraisal or analysis were undertaken. Despite the importance of the process of analysis, we found little discussion of this in the papers reviewed.

The overwhelming trend for those doing a literature review was to describe a comprehensive search; although for many in our sample, a comprehensive search appeared to be limited to a database search; authors did not describe additional search strategies that would enable them to find studies that might be missed through electronic searching. Furthermore, authors did not define what a comprehensive search entailed, for example whether this included grey literature. We identified a very small number of studies where authors had undertaken a purposive sample [ 26 , 44 ]; in these reviews authors clearly stated that their search was for ‘seminal papers’ rather than all papers.

We reviewed the approaches to critical appraisal described in the papers and there were varying interpretations of what this means and which aspect of the included articles were to be subject to appraisal. Some authors [ 36 , 45 , 46 ] used the term ‘critical appraisal’ to refer to relevance of the paper to the review, rather than quality criteria. In that sense critical appraisal was used more as an inclusion criterion regarding relevance, rather than quality in the methods used. Mostly though, the term was used to describe the process of critical analysis of the methodological quality of included papers included in a review. When the term was used in this way to refer to quality criteria, appraisal tools were often used; for example, one review [ 47 ] provides a helpful example when they explain how a particular critical appraisal tool was used to asses the quality of papers in their review. Formal critical appraisal was undertaken by the vast majority reviewers, however the role of critical appraisal in the paper was often not explained [ 33 , 48 ]. It was common for a lot of detail to be provided about the approach to appraisal, including how papers were assessed and how disagreements between reviewers about the quality of individual papers were resolved, with no further mention of the subsequent role of the appraisal in the review. The reason for doing the critical appraisal in the review was often unclear and furthermore, in many cases, researchers included all papers within their review regardless of quality. For example, one team of reviewers [ 49 ] explained how the process, in their view, is not to exclude studies but to highlight the quality of evidence available. Another team of reviewers described how they did not exclude studies on the basis of quality because of the limited amount of research available on the topic [ 50 ].

Our review has identified a multiplicity of similar terms and approaches used by authors when doing a literature review, that we suggests marks the ‘proliferation era’. The expansion of terms used to describe a literature review has been observed previously [ 19 , 21 ]. We have identified an even wider range of terms, indicating that this trend may be increasing. This is likely to give the impression of an incoherent and potentially confusing approach to the scholarly undertaking of doing a literature review and is likely to be particularly problematic for novice researchers and students when attempting to grapple with the array of approaches available to them. The range of terms used in the title of papers to describe a literature review may cause both those new to research to wonder what the difference is between a qualitative evidence synthesis and a qualitative systematic review and which method is most suitable for their enquiry.

The clearest articles in our review were those that reported a systematic review with or without a meta-analysis. For example, one team of reviewers [ 25 ] undertook a Cochrane-style systematic review but did not undertake a meta-analysis and thus referred to their review as a ‘quantitative systematic review’. We found this form of labelling clear and helpful and is indeed in line with current recommendations [ 8 ]. While guidelines exist for the publication of systematic reviews [ 8 , 51 ], given the range of terms that are used by authors, some may be unclear when these guidelines should apply and this adds some confusion to the field. Of course, authors are at liberty to call their review processes whatever they deem appropriate, but our analysis has unearthed some inconsistencies that are confusing to the field of literature reviewing.

There is current debate about the status of literature reviews that are not ‘Cochrane’ style reviews [ 52 ]. Classification can be complex and whilst it might be tempting to refer to all non Cochrane-style reviews as ‘narrative reviews’ [ 52 ], literature reviews that conform to a recognised method would generally not be considered as such [ 53 ] and indeed the Cochrane Collaboration handbook refers to the principles of systematic review as applicable to different types of evidence, not just randomised controlled trials [ 5 ] .This raises the question as to whether the term systematic review should be an umbrella term referring to any review with an explicit method; which is implicit in the definition of a systematic review, but which raises the question as to how rigorous a method has to be to meet these standards, a thorny issue which we have identified in this study.

This review has identified a lack of detail in the reporting of the methods used by those doing a review. In 2017, Thorne raised the rhetorical question: ‘What kind of monster have we created?‘ [ 54 ]. Critiquing the growing investment in qualitative metasyntheses, she observed that many reviews were being undertaken that position themselves as qualitative metasyntheses, yet are theoretically and methodologically superficial. Thorne called for greater clarity and sense of purpose as the ‘trend in synthesis research marches forward’ [ 54 ]. Our review covered many review types, not just the qualitative meta-synthesis and its derivatives. However, we concur with Thorne’s conclusion that research methods are not extensively covered or debated in many of the published papers which might explain the confusion of terms and mixing of methods.

Despite the proliferation in terms for doing a literature review, and corresponding associated different methods and a lack of consistency in their application, our review has identified how the methods used (or indeed the reporting of the methods) appear to be remarkably similar in most publications. This may be due to limitations in the word count available to authors. However for example, the vast majority of papers describe a comprehensive search, critical appraisal and analysis. The approach to searching is of particular note; whilst comprehensive searching is the cornerstone of the Cochrane approach, other aproaches advocate that a sample of literature is sufficient [ 15 , 20 ]. Yet in our review we found only two examples where reviewers had used this approach, despite many other reviews claiming to be undertaking a meta-ethnography or meta-synthesis. This indicates that many of those doing a literature review have defaulted to the ‘comprehensive search’ irrespective of the approach to searching suggested in any particular method which is again indicative of confusion in the field.

Differences are reported in the approach to searching and critical appraisal and these appear not to be linked to different methods, but seem to be undertaken on the judgement and discretion of the reviewers without rationale or justification within the published paper. It is not for us to question researchers’ decisions as regards managing the flow of articles through their reviews, but when it comes to the issue of both searching and lack of clarity about the role of critical appraisal there is evidence of inconsistency by those doing a literature review. This reflects current observations in the literature where the lack of clarity about the role of critical appraisal within a literature review is debated . [ 55 , 56 ].

Our review indicates that many researchers follow a very similar process, regardless of their chosen method and the real differences that do exist between published methods are not apparent in many of the published reviews. This concurs with previously mentioned concerns [ 54 ] about the superficial manner in which methods are explored within literature reviews. The overriding tendency is to undertake a comprehensive review, critical appraisal and analysis, following the formula prescribed by Cochrane, even if this is not required by the literature review method stated in the paper. Other researchers [ 52 ] have questioned whether the dominance of the Cochrane review should be questioned. We argue that emergence of different methods for doing a literature review in a systematic way has indeed challenged the perceived dominance of the Cochrane approach that characterised the dichotomy era, where the only alternative was a less rigourous and often poorly described process of dealing with literature. It is positive that there is widespread acknowledgement of the validity of other approaches. But we argue that the expansion era, whereby robust processes were put forward as alternatives that filled the gap left by polarisation, has gone too far. The magnitude in the number of different approaches identified in this review has led to a confused field. Thorne [ 54 ] refers to a ‘meta-madness’; with the proliferation of methods leading to the oversimplification of complex literature and ideas. We would extend this to describe a ‘meta-muddle’ in which, not only are the methods and results oversimplified, but the existence of so many terms used to describe a literature review, many of them used interchangeably, has added a confusion to the field and prevented the in-depth exploration and development of specific methods. Table 6 shows the issues associated with the proliferation era and importantly, it also highlights the recommendations that might lead to a more coherent reviewing community in nursing.

The terms used for doing a literature review are often used both interchangeably and inconsistently, with minimal description of the methods undertaken. It is not surprising therefore that some journal editors do not index these consistently within the journal. For example, in one edition of one journal included in the review, there are two published integrative reviews. One is indexed in the section entitled as a ‘systematic review’, while the other is indexed in a separate section entitled ‘literature review’. In another edition of a journal, two systematic reviews with meta-analysis are published. One is listed as a research article and the other as a review and discussion paper. It seems to us then, that editors and publishers might sometimes also be confused and bewildered themselves.

Whilst guidance does exist for the publication of some types of systematic reviews in academic journals; for example the PRISMA statement [ 8 ] and Entreq guidelines [ 51 ], which are specific to particular qualitative synthesis, guidelines do not exist for each approach. As a result, for those doing an alternative approach to their literature review, for example an integrative review [ 15 ], there is only general publication guidance to assist. In the current reviewing environment, there are so many terms, that more specific guidance would be impractical anyway. However, greater clarity about the methods used and halting the introduction of different terms to mean the same thing will be helpful.

Limitations

This study provides a snapshot of the way in which literature reviews have been described within a short publication timeframe. We were limited for practical reasons to a small section of high impact journals. Including a wider range of journals would have enhanced the transferability of the findings. Our discussion is, of course, limited to the review types that were published in the timeframe, in the identified journals and which had the term ‘review’ or ‘synthesis’ in the title. This would have excluded papers that were entitled ‘meta-analysis’. However as we were interested in the range of reviews that fall outside the scope of a meta-analysis, we did not consider that this limited the scope of the paper. Our review is further limited by the lack of detail of the methods undertaken provided in many of the papers reviewed which, although providing evidence for our arguments, also meant that we had to assume meaning that was unclear from the text provided.

The development of rigorous methods for doing a literature review is to be welcomed; not all review questions can be answered by Cochrane style reviews and robust methods are needed to answer review questions of all types. Therefore whilst we welcome the expansion in methods for doing a literature review, the proliferation in the number of named approaches should be, in our view, a cause for reflection. The increase in methods could be indicative of an emerging variation in possible approaches; alternatively, the increase could be due to a lack of conceptual clarity where, on closer inspection, the methods do not differ greatly and could indeed be merged. Further scrutiny of the methods described within many papers support the latter situation but we would welcome further discussion about this. Meanwhile, we urge researchers to make careful consideration of the method they adopt for doing a literature review, to justify this approach carefully and to adhere closely to its method. Having witnessed an era of dichotomy, expansion and proliferation of methods for doing a literature review, we now seek a new era of consolidation.

Bettany-Saltikov J. How to do a systematic literature review in nursing: a step-by-step guide. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2012.

Google Scholar

Coughlan M, Cronin P, Ryan F. Doing a literature review in nursing, Health and social care. London: Sage; 2013.

Aveyard H. Doing a literature review in health and social care. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2018.

Davis D. A practical overview of how to conduct a systematic review. Nurs Stand. 2016;31(12):60–70.

Article Google Scholar

Higgins and Green. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0: Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.

Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic Reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York: University of York; 2008.

Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Manual: The Joanna Briggs Institute; 2017. Available from https://reviewersmanual.joannabriggs.org/

Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart L. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols. Br Med J. 2015;2:349 (Jan 02).

Creswell JW, Plano-Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2011.

Greenhalgh T. How to read a paper. 4th ed: Wiley; 2010.

Booth A, Papaioannou D, Sutton A. Systematic appproaches to a successful literature review Sage London; 2012.

Noblit GW, Hare RD. Meta-ethnography, synthesising qualitative studies, qualitative research methods, volume 11. London: SAGE Publications; 1988.

Walsh D, Downe S. Meta-synthesis method for qualitative research: a literature review. J Adv Nurs. 2005;50(2):204–11.

Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8:45.

Whittemore R, Knafl K. The integrative review: updated methodology. J Adv Nurs. 2005;52:546–53.

Scoping Peters MDJ, Godfrey CM, McInerney P, Soares CB, Khalil H, Parker D. Methodology for Joanna Briggs institute scoping review. Joanna Briggs institute reviewers manual: Australia; 2015.

Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Buckingham J, Pawson R. RAMESES publication standards: realist synthesis BMC medicine, vol. 11; 2013. p. 21.

Plüddemann A, Aronson JK, Onakpoya I, Heneghan C, Mahtani KR. Redefining rapid reviews: a flexible framework for restricted systematic reviews. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine Epub ahead of print: 27 June 2018. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjemb-2018-110990 .

Bradbury-Jones C, Breckenridge J, Clark MT, Herber OR, Jones C, Taylor J. Advancing the science of literature reviewing: the focused mapping review and synthesis as a novel approach. Int J Soc Res Methodol. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2019.1576328 .

Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of review- an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26(2):91–108.

Booth, A., Noyes, J., Flemming, K., Gerhardus, A., Wahlster, P., van der Wilt G.J., Mozygemba K, Refolo P, Sacchini D, Tummers, M, Rehfuess, E. (2016) Guidance on choosing qualitative evidence synthesis methods for use in health technology assessments of complex interventions. Available: http://www.integrate-hta.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Guidance-on-choosing-qualitative-evidence-synthesis-methods-for-use-in-HTA-of-complex-interventions.pdf

Sabatino L, Stievano A, Rocco G, Kallio H, Pietila A, KAngasniemi M. The dignity of the nursing profession: a meta-synthesis of qualitative research. Nurs Ethics. 2014;2(6):659–72.

Bradbury-Jones C, Taylor J, Herber O. How theory is used and articulated in qualitative research: development of a new typology. Soc Sci Med. 2014;120:135–41.

Taylor J, Bradbury-Jones C, Breckenridge J, Jones C, Herber OR. Risk of vicarious trauma in nursing research: a focused mapping review and synthesis. J Clin Nurs. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13235 .

Haggman Laitila A, Rompannen J. Outcomes of interventions for nurse leaders’ well being at work. A quantitative systematic review. J Adv Nurs. 2018;74:34–44.

Strandos M, Bondas T. The nurse patient relationship as a story of health enhancement in community care- a meta-ethnography. J Adv Nurs. 2018;74:11–8.

Gilissen J, Pivodic L, Smets T, Gastmans C, Stichels RV, Delieus L, Van den Black L. Preconditions for successful advanced care planning in nursing homes: a systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2017;66:47–59.

Walczak A, Mcdonald F, Patterson P, Dobinson K, Kimberley A. How does parental cancer affect adolescent and young adult offspring. A systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2018;77:54–80.

Leyva-Moral JM, Palmoero PA, Feijoo-Cid M, Edwards JE. Reproductive decision making in women living with HIV: systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2018;77:207–21.

Pires S, Monteiro S, Pereira A, Chaló D, Melo E, Rodriguese A. Non technical skills assessment for pre-licensure nursing students: an integrative literature review nurse education today, vol. 58; 2017. p. 19–24.

Wilkinson A, Meilkle N, Law P, Yong A, Butler P, Kim J, Mulligan H, Hale L. How older adults and their informal carers prevent falls: an integrative review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2018;82:13–8.

Drewniak D, Krones T, Wild V. Do attitudes and behaviours of health care professionals exacerbate health care disparities among immigrant and ethnic minority groups? An integrative literature review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2017;70:89–98.

Garone A, Craen Van de P. The role of language skills abd internationalisation in nursing degree programmes: a literature review. Nurse Educ Today. 2017;49:140–4.

Casey M, O’Connor L, Cashin A (et al) An overview of the outcomes and impact of specialist and advanced nursing and midwifery practice on quality of care, cost and access to services: A narrative review. Nurse Educ Today 2017;56:35-40.

Adib-Hajbaghery M, Sharifi N. Effect of simulation training on the development of nurses and nursing students critical thinking: a systematic review. Nurse Educ Today. 2017;50:17–24.

Irwin C, Bliss J, Poole J. Does preceptorship improve confidence and competence in newly qualified nurses: a systematic literature review. Nurse educ Today. 2018;60:35–46.

Jefferies D, McNallya S, Roberts K, Wallace A, Stunden A, D'Souzaa S, Glew P. The importance of academic literacy for undergraduate nursing students and its relationship to future professional clinical practice: a systematic review. Nurse educ Today. 2018;60:84–91.

Lewis ML, Neville C, Ashkanasy NM. Emotional intelligence and affective events in nurse education- a narrative review. Nurse Educ Today. 2017;53:34–40.

Jensen D, Sorensen A. Nurses experiences of working in organisations undergoing restructuring: a meta-synthesis of qualitative research studies. Int J Nurs Stud. 2017;66:7–14.

Milligan F, Wareing M, Preston-Shoot M, Pappas Y, Randhawa G, Bhandol J. Supporting nursing, midwifery and allied health professional students to raise concerns with the quality of care: a review of the research literature. Nurse Educ Today. 2017;57:29–39.

Rozendo CA, Salas AS. A critical review of social and health inequalities in the nursing curriculum. Nurse Educ Today. 2017;50:62–71.

Kiteley R, Stogdon C. Literature reviews in social work. London: Sage; 2014.

Book Google Scholar

Rebeiro G, Evans A, Edward K, Chapman R. Registered nurse buddies. Educators by proxy? Nurse Educ Today. 2017;55:1–4.

Sinclair S, Raffin Bouchal S, Venturato L, Milsonic-Kondejewski J, Smith Macdonald L. Compassion fatigue: a meta-narrative review of the health care literature. Int J Nurs Stud. 2017;69:9–24.

Hovey S, Dyck MJ, Reese C, Myoung JK. Nursing students’ attitudes towards persons who are aged: an integrative review. J Adv Nurs. 2017;49:145–52.

Granheim B, Shaw J, Mansah M. Use of interprofessional learning and simulation in undergraduate nursing programmes to address interprofessional communication and collaboration- an integrative review. Nurse Educ Today. 2018;62:118–27.

Philips P, Lumley E, Duncan R, Aber A, Buckley Woods H, Jones GC. A systematic review of qualitative research into people’s experiences of living with venous leg ulcers. J Adv Nurs. 2018;74:550–63.

Slater CE, Cusick A. Factors relating to self directed learning readiness of students in health professional programmes a scoping review. Nurse Educ Today. 2017;52:22–33.

Vanderspank-Wright B, Efstathiou N, Vandjk A. Critical care nurses experience of withdrawing treatment: a systematic review of qualitative evidence. Int J Nurs Stud. 2018;77:15–26.

Kelly M, Wills J, Sykes S. Do nurses’ personal health behaviours impact their health promotion practice? A systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2017;76:62–77.

Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, Oliver S, Craig J. Enhancing transparency in the reporting in the synthesis of qualitative research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12(1):181.

Greenhalgh T, Thorne S, Malterud K. Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? Eur J Clin Investig. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1111/eci12931 .

Aveyard H, Payne S, Preston N. A postgraduate’s guide to doing a literature review. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2016.

Thorne S. Metasynthetic madness: what kind of monster have we created? Qual Health Res. 2017;27(1):3–12.

Sibeoni J, Orri M, Colin S, Valentin M, Pradere J, Revah-Levy A. The lived experience of anorexia nervosa in adolescence, comparison of parents’ view of adolescence, parents and professionals: a meta-synthesis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2017;65:25–34.

Nightingale S, Spiby H, Sheen K, Slade P. The impact of emotional intelligence in long term health care professionals on caring behaviours towards patients in clinical and long term settings. Integrative review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2018;80:106–17.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Availability of data and materials.

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Jack Straw’s Lane, Oxford, OX3 0FL, England, UK

Helen Aveyard

University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England, UK

Caroline Bradbury-Jones

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Both HA and CB-J contributed to the data collection and analysis. HA wrote the paper and CB-J commented on the drafts. HA revised the paper according to the reviewers’ comments and CB-J commented on these revisions 30/4/19. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helen Aveyard .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests, publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Aveyard, H., Bradbury-Jones, C. An analysis of current practices in undertaking literature reviews in nursing: findings from a focused mapping review and synthesis. BMC Med Res Methodol 19 , 105 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0751-7

Download citation

Received : 16 December 2018

Accepted : 07 May 2019

Published : 16 May 2019

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

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Evidence synthesis
Literature review
Meta-ethnography
Systematic review

BMC Medical Research Methodology

ISSN: 1471-2288

General enquiries: [email protected]

relevance of literature review in nursing research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings
My Bibliography
Collections
Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

Create a new collection
Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

Search in PubMed
Search in NLM Catalog
Add to Search

Reviews of Literature in Nursing Research: Methodological Considerations and Defining Characteristics

Affiliation.

1 School of Nursing, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada (Ms Silva and Drs Woo, Galica, Wilson, and Luctkar-Flude); School of Nursing, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Santa Catarina, Brazil (Dr Padilha and Ms Petry); and Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (Dr Silva E Silva).
PMID: 35213877
DOI: 10.1097/ANS.0000000000000418

Despite the availability of guidelines about the different types of review literature, the identification of the best approach is not always clear for nursing researchers. Therefore, in this article, we provide a comprehensive guide to be used by health care and nursing scholars while choosing among 4 popular types of reviews (narrative, integrative, scoping, and systematic review), including a descriptive discussion, critical analysis, and decision map tree. Although some review methodologies are more rigorous, it would be inaccurate to say that one is preferable over the others. Instead, each methodology is adequate for a certain type of investigation, nursing methodology research, and research paradigm.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Publication types

Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

Ingenta plc
Ovid Technologies, Inc.
Wolters Kluwer

Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Nursing: Literature Review

Required Texts
Writing Assistance and Organizing & Citing References
NCLEX Resources
Literature Review
MSN Students
Physical Examination
Drug Information
Professional Organizations
Mobile Apps
Evidence-based Medicine
Certifications
Recommended Nursing Textbooks
DNP Students
Conducting Research
Scoping Reviews
Systematic Reviews
Distance Education Students
Ordering from your Home Library

Good Place to Start: Citation Databases

Interdisciplinary Citation Databases:

A good place to start your research is to search a research citation database to view the scope of literature available on your topic.

TIP #1: SEED ARTICLE Begin your research with a "seed article" - an article that strongly supports your research topic. Then use a citation database to follow the studies published by finding articles which have cited that article, either because they support it or because they disagree with it.

TIP #2: SNOWBALLING Snowballing is the process where researchers will begin with a select number of articles they have identified relevant/strongly supports their topic and then search each articles' references reviewing the studies cited to determine if they are relevant to your research.

BONUS POINTS: This process also helps identify key highly cited authors within a topic to help establish the "experts" in the field.

Begin by constructing a focused research question to help you then convert it into an effective search strategy.

Identify keywords or synonyms
Type of study/resources
Which database(s) to search
Asking a Good Question (PICO)
PICO - AHRQ
PICO - Worksheet
What Is a PICOT Question?

Seminal Works: Search Key Indexing/Citation Databases

Google Scholar
Web of Science

TIP – How to Locate Seminal Works

DO NOT: Limit by date range or you might overlook the seminal works
DO: Look at highly cited references (Seminal articles are frequently referred to “cited” in the research)
DO: Search citation databases like Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar

Web Resources

What is a literature review?

A literature review is a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of published information on a subject area. Conducting a literature review demands a careful examination of a body of literature that has been published that helps answer your research question (See PICO). Literature reviewed includes scholarly journals, scholarly books, authoritative databases, primary sources and grey literature.

A literature review attempts to answer the following:

What is known about the subject?
What is the chronology of knowledge about my subject?
Are there any gaps in the literature?
Is there a consensus/debate on issues?
Create a clear research question/statement
Define the scope of the review include limitations (i.e. gender, age, location, nationality...)
Search existing literature including classic works on your topic and grey literature
Evaluate results and the evidence (Avoid discounting information that contradicts your research)
Track and organize references
How to conduct an effective literature search.
Social Work Literature Review Guidelines (OWL Purdue Online Writing Lab)

What is PICO?

The PICO model can help you formulate a good clinical question. Sometimes it's referred to as PICO-T, containing an optional 5th factor.

- Patient, Population, or Problem	What are the most important characteristics of the patient? How would you describe a group of patients similar to yours?
- Intervention, Exposure, Prognostic Factor	What main intervention, prognostic factor, or exposure are you considering? What do you want to do for the patient (prescribe a drug, order a test, etc.)?
- Comparison	What is the main alternative to compare with the intervention?
- Outcome	What do you hope to accomplish, measure, improve, or affect?
- Time Factor, Type of Study (optional)	How would you categorize this question? What would be the best study design to answer this question?

Search Example

<< Previous: NCLEX Resources
Next: MSN Students >>

Last Updated: Aug 8, 2024 1:06 PM
URL: https://guides.himmelfarb.gwu.edu/Nursing

Himmelfarb Intranet
Privacy Notice
Terms of Use
GW is committed to digital accessibility. If you experience a barrier that affects your ability to access content on this page, let us know via the Accessibility Feedback Form .
Himmelfarb Health Sciences Library
2300 Eye St., NW, Washington, DC 20037
Phone: (202) 994-2962
[email protected]
https://himmelfarb.gwu.edu

Library Research Guides - University of Wisconsin Ebling Library

Uw-madison libraries research guides.

Course Guides
Subject Guides
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Research Guides
Nursing Resources
Conducting a Literature Review

Nursing Resources : Conducting a Literature Review

Definitions of
Professional Organizations
Nursing Informatics
Nursing Related Apps
EBP Resources
PICO-Clinical Question
Types of PICO Question (D, T, P, E)
Secondary & Guidelines
Bedside--Point of Care
Pre-processed Evidence
Measurement Tools, Surveys, Scales
Types of Studies
Table of Evidence
Qualitative vs Quantitative
Types of Research within Qualitative and Quantitative
Cohort vs Case studies
Independent Variable VS Dependent Variable
Sampling Methods and Statistics
Systematic Reviews
Review vs Systematic Review vs ETC...
Standard, Guideline, Protocol, Policy
Additional Guidelines Sources
Peer Reviewed Articles
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis
Writing a Research Paper or Poster
Annotated Bibliographies
Levels of Evidence (I-VII)
Reliability
Validity Threats
Threats to Validity of Research Designs
Nursing Theory
Nursing Models
PRISMA, RevMan, & GRADEPro
ORCiD & NIH Submission System
Understanding Predatory Journals
Nursing Scope & Standards of Practice, 4th Ed
Distance Ed & Scholarships
Assess A Quantitative Study?
Assess A Qualitative Study?
Find Health Statistics?
Choose A Citation Manager?
Find Instruments, Measurements, and Tools
Write a CV for a DNP or PhD?
Find information about graduate programs?
Learn more about Predatory Journals
Get writing help?
Choose a Citation Manager?
Other questions you may have
Search the Databases?
Get Grad School information?

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review is an essay that surveys, summarizes, links together, and assesses research in a given field. It surveys the literature by reviewing a large body of work on a subject; it summarizes by noting the main conclusions and findings of the research; it links together works in the literature by showing how the information fits into the overall academic discussion and how the information relates to one another; it assesses the literature by noting areas of weakness, expansion, and contention. This is the essentials of literature review construction by discussing the major sectional elements, their purpose, how they are constructed, and how they all fit together.

All literature reviews have major sections:

Introduction: that indicates the general state of the literature on a given topic;
Methodology: an overview of how, where, and what subject terms used to conducted your search so it may be reproducable
Findings: a summary of the major findings in that field;
Discussion: a general progression from wider studies to smaller, more specifically-focused studies;
Conclusion: for each major section that again notes the overall state of the research, albeit with a focus on the major synthesized conclusions, problems in the research, and even possible avenues of further research.

In Literature Reviews, it is Not Appropriate to:

State your own opinions on the subject (unless you have evidence to support such claims).
State what you think nurses should do (unless you have evidence to support such claims).
Provide long descriptive accounts of your subject with no reference to research studies.
Provide numerous definitions, signs/symptoms, treatment and complications of a particular illness without focusing on research studies to provide evidence and the primary purpose of the literature review.
Discuss research studies in isolation from each other.

Remember, a literature review is not a book report. A literature review is focus, succinct, organized, and is free of personal beliefs or unsubstantiated tidbits.

Types of Literature Reviews A detailed explanation of the different types of reviews and required citation retrieval numbers

Outline of a Literture Review

<< Previous: Peer Reviewed Articles
Next: Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis >>
Last Updated: Mar 19, 2024 10:39 AM
URL: https://researchguides.library.wisc.edu/nursing

University of Detroit Mercy
Health Professions
Writing a Literature Review
Find Articles (Databases)
Evidence Based Nursing
Searching Tips
Books / eBooks
Nursing Theory
Adult-Gerontology Clinical Nurse Specialist
Doctor of Nursing Practice
NHL and CNL (Clinical Nurse Leader)
Nurse Anesthesia
Nursing Education
Nurse Practitioner (FNP / ENP)
Undergraduate Nursing - Clinical Reference Library
General Writing Support
Creating & Printing Posters
Statistics: Health / Medical
Health Measurement Instruments
Streaming Video
Anatomy Resources
Database & Library Help
Web Resources
Evaluating Websites
Medical / Nursing Apps & Mobile Sites
Faculty Publications

Literature Review Overview

What is a Literature Review? Why Are They Important?

A literature review is important because it presents the "state of the science" or accumulated knowledge on a specific topic. It summarizes, analyzes, and compares the available research, reporting study strengths and weaknesses, results, gaps in the research, conclusions, and authors’ interpretations.

Tips and techniques for conducting a literature review are described more fully in the subsequent boxes:

Literature review steps
Strategies for organizing the information for your review
Literature reviews sections
In-depth resources to assist in writing a literature review
Templates to start your review
Literature review examples

Literature Review Steps

Graphic used with permission: Torres, E. Librarian, Hawai'i Pacific University

1. Choose a topic and define your research question

Try to choose a topic of interest. You will be working with this subject for several weeks to months.
Ideas for topics can be found by scanning medical news sources (e.g MedPage Today), journals / magazines, work experiences, interesting patient cases, or family or personal health issues.
Do a bit of background reading on topic ideas to familiarize yourself with terminology and issues. Note the words and terms that are used.
Develop a focused research question using PICO(T) or other framework (FINER, SPICE, etc - there are many options) to help guide you.
Run a few sample database searches to make sure your research question is not too broad or too narrow.
If possible, discuss your topic with your professor.

2. Determine the scope of your review

The scope of your review will be determined by your professor during your program. Check your assignment requirements for parameters for the Literature Review.

How many studies will you need to include?
How many years should it cover? (usually 5-7 depending on the professor)
For the nurses, are you required to limit to nursing literature?

3. Develop a search plan

Determine which databases to search. This will depend on your topic. If you are not sure, check your program specific library website (Physician Asst / Nursing / Health Services Admin) for recommendations.
Create an initial search string using the main concepts from your research (PICO, etc) question. Include synonyms and related words connected by Boolean operators
Contact your librarian for assistance, if needed.

4. Conduct searches and find relevant literature

Keep notes as you search - tracking keywords and search strings used in each database in order to avoid wasting time duplicating a search that has already been tried
Read abstracts and write down new terms to search as you find them
Check MeSH or other subject headings listed in relevant articles for additional search terms
Scan author provided keywords if available
Check the references of relevant articles looking for other useful articles (ancestry searching)
Check articles that have cited your relevant article for more useful articles (descendancy searching). Both PubMed and CINAHL offer Cited By links
Revise the search to broaden or narrow your topic focus as you peruse the available literature
Conducting a literature search is a repetitive process. Searches can be revised and re-run multiple times during the process.
Track the citations for your relevant articles in a software citation manager such as RefWorks, Zotero, or Mendeley

5. Review the literature

Read the full articles. Do not rely solely on the abstracts. Authors frequently cannot include all results within the confines of an abstract. Exclude articles that do not address your research question.
While reading, note research findings relevant to your project and summarize. Are the findings conflicting? There are matrices available than can help with organization. See the Organizing Information box below.
Critique / evaluate the quality of the articles, and record your findings in your matrix or summary table. Tools are available to prompt you what to look for. (See Resources for Appraising a Research Study box on the HSA, Nursing , and PA guides )
You may need to revise your search and re-run it based on your findings.

6. Organize and synthesize

Compile the findings and analysis from each resource into a single narrative.
Using an outline can be helpful. Start broad, addressing the overall findings and then narrow, discussing each resource and how it relates to your question and to the other resources.
Cite as you write to keep sources organized.
Write in structured paragraphs using topic sentences and transition words to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.
Don't present one study after another, but rather relate one study's findings to another. Speak to how the studies are connected and how they relate to your work.

Organizing Information

Options to assist in organizing sources and information :

1. Synthesis Matrix

helps provide overview of the literature
information from individual sources is entered into a grid to enable writers to discern patterns and themes
article summary, analysis, or results
thoughts, reflections, or issues
each reference gets its own row
mind maps, concept maps, flowcharts
at top of page record PICO or research question
record major concepts / themes from literature
list concepts that branch out from major concepts underneath - keep going downward hierarchically, until most specific ideas are recorded
enclose concepts in circles and connect the concept with lines - add brief explanation as needed

3. Summary Table

information is recorded in a grid to help with recall and sorting information when writing
allows comparing and contrasting individual studies easily
purpose of study
methodology (study population, data collection tool)

Efron, S. E., & Ravid, R. (2019). Writing the literature review : A practical guide . Guilford Press.

Literature Review Sections

Lit reviews can be part of a larger paper / research study or they can be the focus of the paper
Lit reviews focus on research studies to provide evidence
New topics may not have much that has been published

* The sections included may depend on the purpose of the literature review (standalone paper or section within a research paper)

Standalone Literature Review (aka Narrative Review):

presents your topic or PICO question
includes the why of the literature review and your goals for the review.
provides background for your the topic and previews the key points
Narrative Reviews: tmay not have an explanation of methods.
include where the search was conducted (which databases) what subject terms or keywords were used, and any limits or filters that were applied and why - this will help others re-create the search
describe how studies were analyzed for inclusion or exclusion
review the purpose and answer the research question
thematically - using recurring themes in the literature
chronologically - present the development of the topic over time
methodological - compare and contrast findings based on various methodologies used to research the topic (e.g. qualitative vs quantitative, etc.)
theoretical - organized content based on various theories
provide an overview of the main points of each source then synthesize the findings into a coherent summary of the whole
present common themes among the studies
compare and contrast the various study results
interpret the results and address the implications of the findings
do the results support the original hypothesis or conflict with it
provide your own analysis and interpretation (eg. discuss the significance of findings; evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the studies, noting any problems)
discuss common and unusual patterns and offer explanations
stay away from opinions, personal biases and unsupported recommendations
summarize the key findings and relate them back to your PICO/research question
note gaps in the research and suggest areas for further research
this section should not contain "new" information that had not been previously discussed in one of the sections above
provide a list of all the studies and other sources used in proper APA 7

Literature Review as Part of a Research Study Manuscript:

Compares the study with other research and includes how a study fills a gap in the research.
Focus on the body of the review which includes the synthesized Findings and Discussion

Literature Reviews vs Systematic Reviews

Systematic Reviews are NOT the same as a Literature Review:

Literature Reviews:

Literature reviews may or may not follow strict systematic methods to find, select, and analyze articles, but rather they selectively and broadly review the literature on a topic
Research included in a Literature Review can be "cherry-picked" and therefore, can be very subjective

Systematic Reviews:

Systemic reviews are designed to provide a comprehensive summary of the evidence for a focused research question
rigorous and strictly structured, using standardized reporting guidelines (e.g. PRISMA, see link below)
uses exhaustive, systematic searches of all relevant databases
best practice dictates search strategies are peer reviewed
uses predetermined study inclusion and exclusion criteria in order to minimize bias
aims to capture and synthesize all literature (including unpublished research - grey literature) that meet the predefined criteria on a focused topic resulting in high quality evidence

Literature Review Examples

Breastfeeding initiation and support: A literature review of what women value and the impact of early discharge (2017). Women and Birth : Journal of the Australian College of Midwives
Community-based participatory research to promote healthy diet and nutrition and prevent and control obesity among African-Americans: A literature review (2017). Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities

Vitamin D deficiency in individuals with a spinal cord injury: A literature review (2017). Spinal Cord

Resources for Writing a Literature Review

These sources have been used in developing this guide.

Resources Used on This Page

Aveyard, H. (2010). Doing a literature review in health and social care : A practical guide . McGraw-Hill Education.

Purdue Online Writing Lab. (n.d.). Writing a literature review . Purdue University. https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/conducting_research/writing_a_literature_review.html

Torres, E. (2021, October 21). Nursing - graduate studies research guide: Literature review. Hawai'i Pacific University Libraries. Retrieved January 27, 2022, from https://hpu.libguides.com/c.php?g=543891&p=3727230

<< Previous: General Writing Support
Next: Creating & Printing Posters >>
Last Updated: Aug 6, 2024 12:43 PM
URL: https://udmercy.libguides.com/nursing

University Library

Research Guides
Literature Reviews
Evidence-Based Practice
Books & Media

What is a Literature Review?

Key questions for a literature review, examples of literature reviews, useful links, evidence matrix for literature reviews.

Annotated Bibliographies

The Scholarly Conversation

A literature review provides an overview of previous research on a topic that critically evaluates, classifies, and compares what has already been published on a particular topic. It allows the author to synthesize and place into context the research and scholarly literature relevant to the topic. It helps map the different approaches to a given question and reveals patterns. It forms the foundation for the author’s subsequent research and justifies the significance of the new investigation.

A literature review can be a short introductory section of a research article or a report or policy paper that focuses on recent research. Or, in the case of dissertations, theses, and review articles, it can be an extensive review of all relevant research.

The format is usually a bibliographic essay; sources are briefly cited within the body of the essay, with full bibliographic citations at the end.
The introduction should define the topic and set the context for the literature review. It will include the author's perspective or point of view on the topic, how they have defined the scope of the topic (including what's not included), and how the review will be organized. It can point out overall trends, conflicts in methodology or conclusions, and gaps in the research.
In the body of the review, the author should organize the research into major topics and subtopics. These groupings may be by subject, (e.g., globalization of clothing manufacturing), type of research (e.g., case studies), methodology (e.g., qualitative), genre, chronology, or other common characteristics. Within these groups, the author can then discuss the merits of each article and analyze and compare the importance of each article to similar ones.
The conclusion will summarize the main findings, make clear how this review of the literature supports (or not) the research to follow, and may point the direction for further research.
The list of references will include full citations for all of the items mentioned in the literature review.

A literature review should try to answer questions such as

Who are the key researchers on this topic?
What has been the focus of the research efforts so far and what is the current status?
How have certain studies built on prior studies? Where are the connections? Are there new interpretations of the research?
Have there been any controversies or debate about the research? Is there consensus? Are there any contradictions?
Which areas have been identified as needing further research? Have any pathways been suggested?
How will your topic uniquely contribute to this body of knowledge?
Which methodologies have researchers used and which appear to be the most productive?
What sources of information or data were identified that might be useful to you?
How does your particular topic fit into the larger context of what has already been done?
How has the research that has already been done help frame your current investigation ?

Example of a literature review at the beginning of an article: Forbes, C. C., Blanchard, C. M., Mummery, W. K., & Courneya, K. S. (2015, March). Prevalence and correlates of strength exercise among breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer survivors . Oncology Nursing Forum, 42(2), 118+. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.sonoma.idm.oclc.org/ps/i.do?p=HRCA&sw=w&u=sonomacsu&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA422059606&asid=27e45873fddc413ac1bebbc129f7649c Example of a comprehensive review of the literature: Wilson, J. L. (2016). An exploration of bullying behaviours in nursing: a review of the literature. British Journal Of Nursing , 25 (6), 303-306. For additional examples, see:

Galvan, J., Galvan, M., & ProQuest. (2017). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences (Seventh ed.). [Electronic book]

Pan, M., & Lopez, M. (2008). Preparing literature reviews: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (3rd ed.). Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Pub. [ Q180.55.E9 P36 2008]

Write a Literature Review (UCSC)
Literature Reviews (Purdue)
Literature Reviews: overview (UNC)
Review of Literature (UW-Madison)

The Evidence Matrix can help you organize your research before writing your lit review. Use it to identify patterns and commonalities in the articles you have found--similar methodologies ? common theoretical frameworks ? It helps you make sure that all your major concepts covered. It also helps you see how your research fits into the context of the overall topic.

Evidence Matrix Special thanks to Dr. Cindy Stearns, SSU Sociology Dept, for permission to use this Matrix as an example.
<< Previous: Misc
Next: Annotated Bibliographies >>
Last Updated: Jun 6, 2024 10:40 AM
URL: https://libguides.sonoma.edu/nursing

Graduate Nursing

Electronic Resources
Finding Books
Professional Organizations
CRAAP Method
APA Guide 7th Edition

Literature Review

How to Search

Need more articles, but can't seem to find the right ones? Try these techniques!

Backwards searching: Once you find a relevant article, check the reference list at the end of the article. This will help you find other pertinent articles.

Forward searching : Once you find a relevant article, look at whether it has been cited in more-recent research. If a researcher cited it, it is likely that their paper will also relate to your topic. ResearchGate is a community for students and researchers. It lists where each of their publications have been cited, if at all. This can be found under the "citations" tab that pops up when you click on any publication.

When stuck, ask yourself, "What else is related to my topic?"

Get creative! You might find useful literature that you did not initially anticipate.

Fonseca, M. (2013, November 4) 5 tips to write a great literature review. https://www.editage.com/insights/5-tips-to-write-a-great-literature-review?refer=scroll-to-1-article&refer-type=article

What is a Literature Review?

"A literature review is a critical summary of all the published works on a particular topic" (Fonseca, 2013). A literature review provides background for your paper by quickly bringing the reader up-to-date on relevant findings, controversies, and dilemmas. It is the author's chance to "set the scene" and demonstrate why their topic is of interest to academia. In your literature review, you will describe "where your project comes from and how it fits in with existing knowledge" (Lloyd, 2017-2018). Further, you will provide "an argument for why your project makes a valuable contribution" (Lloyd, 2017-2018).

References:

Lloyd, C.(2017-2018). Literature reviews for sociology senior theses . [PowerPoint Slides]. https://socthesis.fas.harvard.edu/files/socseniorthesis/files/pres-litreview.pdf

Step One: Define Your Research Question

What are you trying to determine for your literature review? What specifically do you want to learn more about? Choose a topic that you are genuinely interested in. Next, conduct a broad search on it. Determine what trending and popular research is available, then narrow your topic down. You can refine it by one or more of the following:

Geographic location
Time period
Discipline/field of study, etc.

Research terms will help define your question.

A broad question might be something like: What is the homeless population like?
A narrow and specific question may include: What social and political factors have affected the growth of the middle-aged homeless population in Toronto within the past five years?

Once you have determined an appropriate research question/topic, move on to planning your approach.

Dermody, K., Literature Reviews. (2020, January 23). Retrieved from https://learn.library.ryerson.ca/literaturereview.

Step Two: Plan Your Approach

After you have landed a research question, ask yourself "Which specific terms will I use, and where am I going to begin?" Determine what kind of literature you want to look at, whether it be journal articles, books, electronic resources, newspapers, or even other literature reviews on similar topics.

Your keywords are the main concepts or ideas of your paper. For example, the keywords for a paper on “youth employment in Canada” would be:

Use synonyms: Often there are multiple ways to express the same concept. Make sure to use synonyms in your research. For instance, "employment" can be researched as:

Lastly, use “ AND ” and “ OR .” By bridging your truncated keywords and synonyms with the capitalized search words “AND” and “OR” (known as Boolean operators), you can search for multiple concepts effectively. For more information, visit the "electronic resources" tab of this research guide. There is a box on Boolean operators.

Step Four: Analyze Material

When searching for material, it is important to analyze your sources for credibility, accuracy, currency, and authenticity. Ask these questions when analyzing a source:

What is the purpose of the work?
How current is it?
Who is the author?
What are the author's biases?
Is this work peer reviewed?
How accurate is this information? What facts/empirical evidence support it?
What time frame are you looking at for your literature review, and does the work fall within that range?

Step Five: Manage Your Results

After analyzing your research and determining what sources you want to use, it's important to keep track of what you have looked through. Keep a list of the following:

What searches you have completed.
Which ones were successful and unsuccessful.
What databases you used.
What sources you want to use for your literature review.
What else you may want to search for next.

You can do this using software such as Zotero , Mendeley , and EndNote .

Congratulations! You are making progress towards an exceptional literature review.

Literature Review vs. Annotated Bibliography Both a literature review (A.K.A. literature synthesis) and an annotated bibliography summarize the existing body of knowledge on a given topic.

What is the difference between a literature review and an annotated bibliography? Unlike literature reviews, annotated bibliographies summarize entire research articles. An annotated bibliography looks like this:

Annotated Bibliography

• Summarizes each article separately.

o First, students discuss article one, then two, etc. o Topic: Blood Donation

Paragraph 1: Bonnie and Clyde (2019) wrote "this" on blood donation.
Paragraph 2: Rose and Jack (1997) wrote "this" on blood donation.
Paragraph 3: Mary-Kate and Ashley (2001) wrote "this" on blood donation.
Result: Multiple summaries of individual research articles (Lloyd, 2017-2018).

• Describes the existing body of knowledge by integrating and synthesizing the literature to create something new.

o Topic: Blood Donation

Paragraph 1: Information/research findings on red blood cells pulled from multiple sources.
Paragraph 2: Information/research findings on platelets pulled from multiple sources.
Paragraph 3: Information/research findings on white blood cells pulled from multiple sources.
Paragraph 4: Information/research findings on the drawbacks of donating blood from multiple sources (Lloyd, 2017-2018).
Result: The author points out "themes, concepts, gaps and disagreements" between articles (Hofer, Hanick & Townsend, 2019, p. 216). Students use these to describe the existing body of knowledge on their topic one concept at a time.

References:

Hofer, A. R., Hanick S. L., & Townsend, L. (2019). Designing activities for conceptual teaching. Transforming information literacy instruction: Threshold concepts in theory and practice. (p. 209-224). Libraries Unlimited.

<< Previous: APA Guide 7th Edition
Next: Copyright and Plagiarism >>
Last Updated: May 8, 2024 10:17 AM
URL: https://libguide.umary.edu/GraduateNursing

Nursing: How to Write a Literature Review

Traditional or Narrative Literature Review

Getting started

1. start with your research question, 2. search the literature, 3. read & evaluate, 4. finalize results, 5. write & revise, brainfuse online tutoring and writing review.

RESEARCH HELP

The best way to approach your literature review is to break it down into steps. Remember, research is an iterative process, not a linear one. You will revisit steps and revise along the way. Get started with the handout, information, and tips from various university Writing Centers below that provides an excellent overview. Then move on to the specific steps recommended on this page.

UNC- Chapel Hill Writing Center Literature Review Handout, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
University of Wisconsin-Madison Writing Center Learn how to write a review of literature, from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
University of Toronto-- Writing Advice The Literature Review: A few tips on conducting it, from the University of Toronto.
Begin with a topic.
Understand the topic.
Familiarize yourself with the terminology. Note what words are being used and keep track of these for use as database search keywords.
See what research has been done on this topic before you commit to the topic. Review articles can be helpful to understand what research has been done .
Develop your research question. (see handout below)
How comprehensive should it be?
Is it for a course assignment or a dissertation?
How many years should it cover?
Developing a good nursing research question Handout. Reviews PICO method and provides search tips.

Your next step is to construct a search strategy and then locate & retrieve articles.

There are often 2-4 key concepts in a research question.
Search for primary sources (original research articles.)
These are based on the key concepts in your research question.
Remember to consider synonyms and related terms.
Which databases to search?
What limiters should be applied (peer-reviewed, publication date, geographic location, etc.)?

Review articles (secondary sources)

Use to identify literature on your topic, the way you would use a bibliography. Then locate and retrieve the original studies discussed in the review article. Review articles are considered secondary sources.

Once you have some relevant articles, review reference lists to see if there are any useful articles.
Which articles were written later and have cited some of your useful articles? Are these, in turn, articles that will be useful to you?
Keep track of what terms you used and what databases you searched.
Use database tools such as save search history in EBSCO to help.
Keep track of the citations for the articles you will be using in your literature review.
Use RefWorks or another method of tracking this information.
Database Search Strategy Worksheet Handout. How to construct a search.
TUTORIAL: How to do a search based on your research question This is a self-paced, interactive tutorial that reviews how to construct and perform a database search in CINAHL.

The next step is to read, review, and understand the articles.

Start by reviewing abstracts.
Make sure you are selecting primary sources (original research articles).
Note any keywords authors report using when searching for prior studies.
You will need to evaluate and critique them and write a synthesis related to your research question.
Consider using a matrix to organize and compare and contrast the articles .
Which authors are conducting research in this area? Search by author.
Are there certain authors’ whose work is cited in many of your articles? Did they write an early, seminal article that is often cited?
Searching is a cyclical process where you will run searches, review results, modify searches, run again, review again, etc.
Critique articles. Keep or exclude based on whether they are relevant to your research question.
When you have done a thorough search using several databases plus Google Scholar, using appropriate keywords or subject terms, plus author’s names, and you begin to find the same articles over and over.
Remember to consider the scope of your project and the length of your paper. A dissertation will have a more exhaustive literature review than an 8 page paper, for example.
What are common findings among each group or where do they disagree?
Identify common themes. Identify controversial or problematic areas in the research.
Use your matrix to organize this.
Once you have read and re-read your articles and organized your findings, you are ready to begin the process of writing the literature review.

2. Synthesize. (see handout below)

Include a synthesis of the articles you have chosen for your literature review.
A literature review is NOT a list or a summary of what has been written on a particular topic.
It analyzes the articles in terms of how they relate to your research question.
While reading, look for similarities and differences (compare and contrast) among the articles. You will create your synthesis from this.
Synthesis Examples Handout. Sample excerpts that illustrate synthesis.

Regis Online students have access to Brainfuse. Brainfuse is an online tutoring service available through a link in Moodle. Meet with a tutor in a live session or submit your paper for review.

Brainfuse Tutoring and Writing Assistance for Regis Online Students by Tricia Reinhart Last Updated Oct 26, 2023 432 views this year
<< Previous: Traditional or Narrative Literature Review
Next: eBooks >>
Last Updated: Jun 18, 2024 10:51 AM
URL: https://libguides.regiscollege.edu/nursing_litreview

Open access
Published: 01 August 2024

Literature review of complementary and alternative therapies: using text mining and analysis of trends in nursing research

Jihye Nam ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5534-2660 1 ,
Hyejin Lee ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8501-0560 1 ,
Seunghyeon Lee ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0005-6411-364X 1 &
Hyojung Park ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7804-0593 1

BMC Nursing volume 23 , Article number: 526 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

211 Accesses

Metrics details

This study aimed to review the literature on complementary and alternative therapies, utilizing text mining and trend analysis in nursing research. As CAM becomes increasingly prevalent in healthcare settings, a comprehensive understanding of the current research landscape is essential to guide evidence-based practice, inform clinical decision-making, and ultimately enhance patient outcomes.

This study aimed to identify CAM-related literature published from 2018 to 2023. Using the search terms 'complementary therap*', 'complementary medicine', 'alternative therap*', and 'alternative medicine', we performed a comprehensive search in eight databases, including EMBASE, Cochrane Central, PubMed Central, Korea Education and Research Information Service (RISS), Web of Science, KMbase, KISS, and CINAHL. From the text network and topic modeling analysis of 66,490 documents, 15 topics were identified. These topics were classified into two nursing-related topics through an academic classification process involving three doctors with doctoral degrees, three nurses, and three pharmacists. Based on the classified topics, research trends were comparatively analyzed by re-searching the database for 12 nursing and 22 non-nursing literature.

This study found that in nursing literature, yoga is used to improve mental symptoms such as stress and anxiety. In non-nursing literature, most of the experimental studies on complementary and alternative therapies were conducted in a randomized manner, confirming that a variety of physiological and objective indicators were used. Additionally, it was discovered that there were differences in the diversity of research subjects and research design methods for the same intervention method. Therefore, future research should focus on broadening the scope of subjects and measurement tools in nursing studies. Additionally, such studies should be conducted with randomization and generalizability in the experimental design in mind.

This study employed text network analysis and text mining to identify domestic and international CAM research trends. Our novel approach combined big data-derived keywords with a systematic classification method, proposing a new methodological strategy for trend analysis. Future nursing research should focus on broadening the scope of subjects, diversifying measurement tools, and emphasizing randomization and generalizability in experimental designs.

Peer Review reports

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) as healthcare practices outside a country's traditional or conventional medicine [ 1 ]. According to the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), CAM encompasses nutritional approaches (e.g., herbs), psychological methods (e.g., mindfulness), physical therapies (e.g., massage), integrated mind–body practices (e.g., yoga or auricular acupressure), and modalities that combine psychology and nutrition [ 2 ]. This definition suggests CAM may facilitate holistic nursing by addressing both psychological and physical aspects [ 3 ]. Consequently, substantial CAM research is conducted in nursing internationally [ 4 , 5 ], spanning areas like pain, depression, anxiety, chronic disease symptoms, sleep disturbances, and vomiting [ 4 , 5 , 6 ]. Classification systems exist, with the Korean Nursing Association (2023) delineating 12 CAM subcategories [ 6 ] and NCCIH outlining 76 therapies across major categories like nutrition, body, and psychotherapies [ 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 ]. The multitude of CAM types has prompted trend identification research, including reviews on Chinese medicine for allergic rhinitis, aromatherapy, auricular acupressure, and CAM for COVID-19 [ 6 , 8 ]. However, many previous studies have significant limitations in comprehensively identifying overall research trends in CAM. First, they tend to focus narrowly on specific diseases or treatments, lacking a broader perspective on the field as a whole [ 6 , 8 ]. Second, the use of search queries containing keywords from a specific discipline or arbitrarily selected by researchers introduces bias and hinders the identification of overarching trends [ 9 , 10 ]. These limitations highlight the need for a more systematic and data-driven approach to analyzing CAM research trends [ 11 , 12 , 13 ]. A previous study [ 14 , 15 ] suggested the use of text mining technique as an approach for literature review [ 16 ]. To date, the analysis on research trend in nursing has been conducted more than five years after publication or has only been conducted with partial analyses through literature reviews and text mining [ 17 , 18 , 19 ].

The overarching goal was to extract keywords identifying domestic and international CAM research trends using text network analysis and analyze these trends within the nursing field. Specific objectives were: 1) Identify frequency, degree centrality, closeness centrality, and betweenness centrality for keywords appearing in domestic and international CAM studies; 2) Identify key themes within these studies; 3) Discern nursing keywords among sub-topic groups; 4) Analyze and compare nursing and other disciplinary literature based on findings; and 5) Analyze the trend of CAM in nursing based on extracted nursing keywords.

Study design and methodological framework

This study employs a novel methodological framework that combines text mining techniques with expert validation to identify and analyze CAM research trends in a comprehensive and data-driven manner. The framework consists of the following key steps.

Data collection: A comprehensive search of multiple databases is conducted to collect a broad range of CAM-related literature across various disciplines.

Text preprocessing involves several techniques to prepare the data for analysis. These include natural language processing, stopword removal, and synonym standardization.

Keyword extraction and network analysis: Text mining techniques, including term frequency-inverse document frequency (TF-IDF) and centrality analysis, are applied to extract key topics and analyze their relationships within the literature.

Topic modeling: Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) is used to identify latent topics within the literature and visualize their proportions and relationships.

Expert validation: An expert panel of physicians, nurses, and pharmacists is consulted to validate the relevance and credibility of the identified topics and classify them into respective academic fields.

Focused literature analysis: Based on the expert-validated nursing-related topics, a focused re-search and analysis of the literature are conducted to identify trends specific to nursing research on CAM.

This multi-step framework allows for a more comprehensive and less biased exploration of CAM research trends by leveraging text mining techniques to process large volumes of literature, identify key topics, and uncover patterns that may not be apparent through traditional review methods [ 14 , 15 , 16 ]. The integration of expert validation ensures the relevance and credibility of the findings, while the focused analysis of nursing literature provides insights specific to the nursing discipline within the broader context of CAM research. The process of selecting studies for our analysis is illustrated in Fig. 1 , which provides a clear visual representation of the key steps involved, from the initial database search to the final classification of studies into nursing and other disciplines. This multi-step approach, combined with the visual aid, enhances the clarity and transparency of our methodology, allowing readers to better understand and contextualize the subsequent data analysis steps.

Flow diagram for literature selection process

Literature selection

This study focused on complementary and alternative medicine studies conducted in the fields of medicine, public health, and nursing in Korea and abroad. After specifying the research title and abstract as the search scope to extract the literature and build a database, the literature related to nursing was classified based on the topics derived through text network analysis and then, the literature that met the selection criteria was secondarily extracted and analyzed through the abstract screening. The three researchers checked the consistency of the study selection process and if there was any discrepancy, the final decision was made through consensus among the researchers.

The selection criteria for the literature were: (1) domestic and foreign studies published within the last five years (January 2018 to September 2023) that conducted studies on complementary and alternative medicine; and

The exclusion criteria for the literature were grey literatures, dissertations, and studies for which original texts are not available.

Data collection strategies

In this study, the database was selected by referring to the COSI (Core, Standard, Ideal) [ 20 ] model presented by the National Library of Medicine for literature search. EMBASE, Cochrane Central, and PubMed Central were selected as the core databases.

On the other hand, the standard databases selected were the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL); and Korean database services such as the Research Information Sharing Service (RISS), KMbase, and Korean studies Information Service System (KISS). These Korean databases were included to ensure a comprehensive coverage of potentially relevant studies published in South Korea, as they index a wide range of domestic and international journals, conference proceedings, and dissertations across various disciplines, including those related to CAM. However, it is important to note that the inclusion of these Korean databases does not limit the scope of our study to Korean literature only, as the majority of our analysis focuses on studies published in English and indexed in the core and standard international databases.

In addition, the Web of Science was selected to include a wider range of literature for the ideal database, and the period of literature search focused on the last five years, from 1 January 2018 to 15 September 2023. to capture the most recent trends in CAM research following the last comprehensive analysis of CAM research trends conducted in 2018 by Sung et al. [ 19 ]. This time frame was chosen to provide an updated and comprehensive analysis of CAM research trends, building upon the findings of previous studies and identifying new patterns and areas of focus that have emerged in recent years, given the rapid evolution of CAM research and the increasing integration of CAM into mainstream healthcare.

The data collection procedure was limited for both domestic and foreign studies. In case of foreign studies, ‘English’ was limited as the search language, ‘abstract and title’ were identified as the field, ‘article’ was set as the document form, and the keywords were ‘complementary therap*,’ ‘complementary medicine,’ ‘alternative therap*,’ and ‘alternative medicine.’ For the Korean studies, ‘Korean’ was limited as the search language, ‘abstract and title’ were identified as the field, ‘article’ was set as the document form, and the search keywords used were ‘보완대체,’ ‘대체요법,’ and ‘대체의학.’ In searching for the secondary literature, studies in the field of nursing were presented to a group of nine experts including physicians, nurses, and pharmacists with a master's degree or higher, and then the relevant areas were classified to extract the keywords. These keywords were then used in the text mining search. Topic words, the majority of which were classified as nursing, were re-searched in the collected database. The literature selection and classification process were carried out independently by three researchers and promoted through discussions between the researchers.

Data analysis process

Data extraction.

A comprehensive literature search was conducted across eight databases: CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, KISS, Kmbase, PubMed, RISS, and Web of Science. This extensive search yielded a total of 77,062 studies. To ensure the integrity and non-redundancy of our dataset, we employed a rigorous two-step deduplication process. First, we utilized the 'Find Duplicates' function in EndNote software for initial automatic deduplication. This function systematically identifies and groups potential duplicate records based on shared metadata such as title, authors, year, and DOI. Through this automated process, 12,107 duplicate records were identified and removed.

Following the automated process, we conducted a manual review to identify and remove any remaining duplicates that the software might have missed. This careful manual screening allowed us to catch subtle duplicates that automated systems might overlook, such as those with slight variations in titles or author names. Through this manual review, an additional 465 duplicate records were identified and removed. In total, our rigorous two-step deduplication process resulted in the removal of 12,572 duplicate records. Of these, 12,107 were removed through automated deduplication and 465 through manual review. After deduplication, 64,490 unique studies were retained for further analysis. These studies were systematically organized by title and subjected to a thorough text preprocessing phase. During this phase, unstructured words were sorted and cleaned using the social networking program Netminer 4.3.3 and text editor Notepad + + (version 8.5.8).

Also, stopwords such as pronouns, adverbs, and numbers were deleted through natural language processing, while exception list, defined words, and thesaurus were registered. The exception list and thesaurus were selected by the three researchers, and if they failed to reach a unanimous agreement, the keywords were refined through consultation and the abstracts and preambles were reviewed again to examine the context in which the words were used. In case of the exception list, literature search keywords or stopwords such as pronouns, adverbs, numbers, and special symbols were considered, while ‘complementary,’ ‘medicine,’ ‘alternative,’ ‘therapeutic,’ ‘therapy,’ ‘therap,’ ‘therapies,’ ‘the,’ ‘a,’ ‘and,’ ‘of,’ ‘for,’ ‘in,’ ‘to,’ and ‘among’ were excluded. Special symbols like ‘’,:'"()&-?# < > + "",‘ were excluded as well. As for defined words, ‘cells → cell,’ ‘effects → effect,’ ‘staphylococcus aureus → staphylococcus,’ ‘aureus → staphylococcus,’ ‘characteristics → characterization,’ ‘efficacy → effect,’ ‘rat → mice,’ ‘radio → radiation,’ ‘systems → system,’ ‘agents → agent,’ ‘activity → activation,’ ‘carcinoma → cancer,’ ‘cases → case,’ ‘mouse → mice,’ ‘practices → practice,’ ‘radio sensitization → radiation,’ ‘years → year,’ ‘α → alpha,’ and ‘β → beta’ were selected, and data sorting for synonyms was performed. As a result of the analysis, a database consisting of 464,625 words was constructed.

Data analysis

In this study, text mining and topic modeling analysis were employed using textom and RStudio (4.3) to identify keywords related to CAM. Word analysis, TF-IDF, and degree centrality analysis were performed through text mining, with results presented via visualization. TF-IDF determines if a keyword holds actual significance within a document, as words with high TF and TF-IDF values appear frequently and are more likely keywords or important terms [ 21 , 22 ]. Following previous studies [ 22 , 23 ], the minimum word length was set to two, with the top 20 words extracted per topic. Text network analysis created word networks expressing co-occurrence frequency as links [ 24 ]. To gauge word occurrence frequency, words were converted to word-word one-mode, and degree centrality analysis identified highly influential network words. The results of these analyses, including frequency, TF-IDF, degree centrality, closeness centrality, and betweenness centrality of core keywords, can be found in Table 1 .

This study utilized Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) for topic modeling, a statistical method that estimates the probability distribution of topics within documents based on the Document Term Matrix (DTM). Following established practices in the literature, we set the Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) parameters to alpha = 1.44, beta = 0.001, and iterations = 1,000 [ 25 ]. To determine the optimal number of topics, we iteratively tested configurations ranging from 1 to 20 topics. Through a combination of silhouette clustering analysis and researcher consensus, we identified that a 15-topic model best represented the research trends in our corpus.

LDA visualization indicated that larger topic sizes represented greater proportions within the analyzed studies [ 25 ]. We confirmed that the ideal number of topics, where topics do not overlap and have distinct boundaries, is 15, as shown in Fig. 2 . To validate the relevance and credibility of the topic modeling results, we consulted an expert panel consisting of physicians, nurses, and pharmacists with master's or doctoral degrees. The panel members were asked to classify the 15 derived topics into their respective academic fields. Based on the survey results, two topics (Topics 4 and 7) were identified as nursing-related, with the majority of the expert panel categorizing them as such.

LDA topic modeling visualization

Using the words from these two nursing-related topics, a keyword search was conducted within the database to identify the final set of literature containing these terms. The selected literature was then classified as either nursing-related or non-nursing-related based on the following criteria: (1) the study was published by a nursing school or department, (2) the authors were nurses or nursing researchers, (3) the authors were hospital-affiliated nurses, or (4) the study was published in a nursing journal. The classification process was carried out independently by three authors, and the final categorization was determined through a verification process among them.

Literature review

After the three researchers re-searched the database built based on the sub-words of the extracted topics, a total of 35 articles were selected, including 13 nursing-related literatures and 22 other discipline-related literatures. The sub-words used for the re-search were derived from Topic 4 and Topic 7 in Table 2 and were classified using the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) framework. The population-related sub-words included 'patient,' 'students,' and 'nursing.' The intervention-related sub-words were 'yoga,' 'treatment,' 'radiation,' 'acupuncture,' 'education,' and 'cam.' The comparison-related sub-word was 'placebo,' and the outcome-related sub-words included 'anxiety,' 'depression,' 'symptoms,' 'knowledge,' 'attitudes,' and 'perceptions.' These PICO-classified sub-words were used to conduct the database re-search.

In order to examine the research trends in nursing and other related fields, general characteristics (author, country of publication, year of publication) and research characteristics (research design model, statistical method, research subject, intervention method, outcome variable, measurement instruments) were identified, presented, and compared. Meanwhile, the three researchers independently prepared a characteristic table to ensure the accuracy of the extracted contents and if there was any discrepancy, one data was selected through the discussion process until a consensus was reached and a characteristic table was constructed.

To assess the quality of the selected studies, we employed the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), a concise tool designed to evaluate various study designs, including qualitative, randomized controlled trials, non-randomized studies, quantitative descriptive studies, and mixed methods studies [ 26 ]. This comprehensive tool allowed us to systematically evaluate the methodological rigor of our diverse selection of studies. Each study was evaluated against five MMAT criteria specific to its design, focusing on aspects such as research question appropriateness, data collection methods, and result interpretation. Our assessment revealed varying levels of methodological quality. Among nursing studies (A1-A12), 25% were high quality (5/5 criteria met), 58.3% moderate quality (4/5 criteria), and 16.7% low quality (3/5 criteria). Importantly, all included studies met at least 3 out of the 5 MMAT criteria, indicating an overall moderate to high quality across the selected literature. This suggests that the studies included in our analysis provide a reliable foundation for drawing conclusions. Studies that did not meet all criteria were carefully reviewed, and their potential limitations were considered when interpreting their findings. The MMAT provided a useful overview of study quality and was deemed suitable for assessing methodological rigor while maintaining the feasibility of our analysis. This approach ensured a balanced and nuanced interpretation of the evidence in the field of complementary and alternative medicine. The detailed results of this quality assessment can be found in Tables 3 and 4 .

Data collection and ethical considerations

Since the data used in this study did not contain information that can identify individuals, the study was conducted after obtaining an IRB approval (IRB No: ewha-202311–0008-01) from the Institutional Review Board of Ewha Womans University.

Analysis of word frequency and centrality

The frequency and percentage of the top 20 words related to complementary and alternative medicine are shown in Table 1 . The frequency and percentage of the top 20 words related to complementary and alternative medicine are shown in Table 1 . The table presents the top 20 keywords ranked by frequency, TF-IDF, degree centrality, closeness centrality, and betweenness centrality. The frequency column indicates the number of times each keyword appears in the analyzed documents, while the TF-IDF column represents the importance of each keyword within the entire document set. Degree centrality, closeness centrality, and betweenness centrality are network analysis measures that indicate the importance and influence of each keyword within the text network. The words with the highest frequency included ‘cell’ (7,653 times), ‘patient’ (6,910 times), ‘treatment’ (6,851 times), ‘cancer’ (6,722 times), ‘study’ (6,295 times), and ‘effect’ (6,203 times). The words with the highest values of TF-IDF, in order, were ‘cell,’ ‘effect,’ ‘cancer,’ ‘patient,’ ‘treatment,’ and ‘study.’ As a result of centrality analysis, the top six common words, in order, were ‘effect,’ ‘treatment,’ ‘study,’ ‘analysis,’ ‘disease,’ and ‘approach.’ Except for common words, the words with the highest values in the centrality analysis, in order, were ‘model,’ ‘patient,’ ‘activation,’ and ‘use.’ The words with the highest values for closeness centrality were ‘factor,’ ‘model,’ ‘patient,’ and ‘activation,’ while the words with the highest values for betweenness centrality were ‘factor,’ ‘model,’ ‘type,’ and ‘activation.’

Results of the topic modeling

The LDA visualization provides insights into the relative importance and distinctiveness of identified topics. In this visualization, the size of each topic circle is proportional to its prevalence within the analyzed corpus, with larger circles indicating topics that are more frequently discussed across the literature. Interestingly, we observed that some topics, despite being represented by smaller circles, were positioned at considerable distances from other topics. This spatial separation suggests that these topics, while perhaps less prevalent, possess high discriminant validity and represent distinct thematic areas within the field of complementary and alternative medicine research. This interpretation is consistent with established principles in topic modeling, where spatial relationships in visualizations can indicate semantic distinctiveness. An expert panel of 9 individuals (3 doctors, 3 nurses, and 3 pharmacists), each holding a master's or doctoral degree, conducted a survey to classify the topics based on the keywords. The topic that received the most votes from the panel was designated as the representative field for that topic. Based on the resulting values of the topic modeling, 20 sub-words for each topic were presented and provided in Table 2 , Topics 1–3, 5–6, and 9–15 were classified as Medicine, Topics 4 and 7 as Nursing, and Topics 8 and 10 as Pharmacology.

The process of selecting studies for our analysis is illustrated in Fig. 2 . To determine the optimal number of topics for our analysis, we conducted Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) visualization. As Greene et al. [ 25 ] suggest, larger topic sizes in LDA visualization indicate a greater proportion of that topic within the analyzed studies. We tested topic numbers ranging from 1 to 20, seeking a configuration where topics were visually distinct and non-overlapping. This approach aligns with Liu et al. [ 24 ], who note that topics with high discriminant validity appear as small but clearly separated clusters. After careful visual analysis, we determined that 15 topics provided the most coherent and distinct groupings, as shown in Fig. 2 . This visualization demonstrates the independence and non-overlapping nature of our identified topics, supporting the robustness of our topic modeling approach. Based on the resulting values of the topic modeling, 20 sub-words for each topic were presented and provided in Table 2 . The expert panel's classification suggested that Topics 4 and 7 had relevance to nursing research. However, upon closer examination of the keywords included in these topics, it became apparent that they also encompassed literature from other medical disciplines. While the expert panel's classification indicated these topics were nursing-related, the presence of medical terminology suggested a broader interdisciplinary scope. This highlighted the limitations in identifying nursing-specific research using the current topic modeling approach. To address this issue and clarify the nursing-specific research within these topics, a further refinement of the literature search was conducted using the PICO framework. The keywords from Topics 4 and 7 were used to formulate a focused research question and search strategy. This targeted approach yielded a final selection of 12 nursing-specific articles and 22 articles from other disciplines. By employing the PICO framework and leveraging the keywords from the identified nursing-related topics, it was possible to isolate the nursing research within the broader interdisciplinary landscape.

The words included in topic 4 were the following: ‘trial,’ ‘effect,’ ‘yoga,’ ‘treatment,’ ‘radiation,’ ‘phage,’ ‘protocol,’ ‘anxiety,’ ‘dose,’ ‘zinc,’ ‘symptoms,’ ‘depression,’ ‘placebo,’ ‘acupuncture,’ ‘feasibility,’ ‘training,’ ‘insights,’ ‘toxicity,’ ‘mri,’ and ‘emergency.’ The words included in the topic 7 were: ‘role,’ ‘survey,’ ‘practice,’ ‘evidence,’ ‘failure,’ ‘utilization,’ ‘heart,’ ‘students,’ ‘cam,’ education,’ ‘healthcare,’ ‘valve,’ ‘knowledge,’ ‘communication,’ ‘narrative,’ ‘practitioners,’ ‘attitudes,’ ‘nursing,’ ‘perceptions,’ and ‘pseudomonas.’

The characteristics of the 12 studies included in the literature review analysis are shown in Table 3 .

Of the 12 final literature selections in nursing, there were four randomized controlled trials [A2] [A4] [A7] [A8], three non-randomized comparative trials [A3] [A5] [A6], four descriptive survey studies [A1] [A9] [A10] [A11], and one qualitative study [A12]. Regarding the country of the study’s publication, there were five studies from the United States, three from the United Kingdom, two from Germany and Turkey, and one from Australia. As for the statistical techniques that appeared with high frequency, 10 studies, which were [A1] [A2] [A3] [A4] [A5] [A7] [A8] [A9] [A10] [A11,] used independent t-test, and it was used in most studies. On the other hand, χ2 test was used in seven studies [A3] [A4] [A7] [A8] [A9] [A10] [A11] and one-way analysis of variance was used in four studies [A1] [A9] [A10] [A11]. Regarding the studies that were conducted targeting patients, there was one study conducted on cancer patients [A5], one study on women with post-traumatic stress disorder caused by a car accident [A8], one study on hypertension patients [A7], and one study on breast cancer patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy [A4]. There were seven studies conducted on medical staffs [A1] [A3] [A6] [A9] [A10] [A11] [A12] and one study conducted on nursing students [A2]. Among the interventional therapies used in clinical trials, the most common one was yoga, which was identified in three studies. Specifically, there was one study that used yoga therapy for chemotherapy patients [A5], laughter yoga for nursing students [A2], and yoga therapy for women with post-traumatic disorder [A8]. There were also studies conducted on virtual cancer education program [A6], education on complementary and alternative medicine [A3], auricular acupressure for hypertensive patients [A7], and music therapy for those with breast cancer [A4]. In the studies conducted among medical professionals and nursing students, knowledge [A1] [A3] [A6] [A9] [A10] [A11], attitudes [A1] [A3] [A10] [A11], and usage surveys [A1] [A11] were identified as measurement variables, whereas depression [A8], pain [A7], quality of life [A7], and anxiety [A8] [A4] were identified as the measurement variables in the studies conducted on patients.

Other disciplines

The detailed characteristics of these studies, including the study design, sample, intervention, statistical methods, and outcome measures, are presented in Table 4 .

Of the 22 final literature selections in other disciplines, there were 20 randomized controlled trials [B1] [B2] [B3] [B5] [B6] [B7] [B8] [B9] [B10] [B11] [B12] [B13] [B14] [B15] [B16] [B17] [B18] [B20] [B21] [B22], one pre- and post-hoc comparative study [B4], and one scoping review [B19]. The detailed characteristics of these studies, including the study design, sample, intervention, statistical methods, and outcome measures, are presented in Table 4 . Regarding the country of the study's publication, there were seven studies from the United States of America and the United Kingdom, three studies from China, two studies from the Netherlands, and one study each from Germany, India, and Hong Kong. As for the statistical techniques that appeared with high frequency, there were 10 studies that used independent t-test [B2] [B3] [B5] [B6] [B8] [B11] [B13] [B15] [B18] and one-way ANOVA [B3] [B6] [B7] [B9] [B11] [B14] [B18] [B21] [B20] [B22], while seven studies used repeated measures ANOVA [B2] [B4] [B10] [B11] [B15] [B20] [B22]. All studies for the literature review were conducted on patients. The most common intervention used was auricular acupressure, which was applied on patients with Parkinson’s disease [B11], poststroke depression [B6] [B14], insomnia and depression [B20] [B21], carpal tunnel syndrome [B7], soldiers with PTSD [B19], migraine [B15], pelvic organ prolapse [B8], and gallbladder stones [B22]. The second most common intervention used was yoga therapy, and the subjects were those with active arthritis [B18], generalized anxiety disorder [B17], hemodialysis [B4], and hypertension [B2]. Other subjects and interventions shown in the studies were the following: irritable bladder syndrome patients treated with cinnamon patch [B13]; depression patients treated with bouldering psychotherapy [B12]; dementia patients treated with aromatherapy [B10]; insomnia patients treated with Tai-chi and meridian pressure [B9]; Crohn’s disease patients treated with moxibustion [B3]; HIV patients treated with green tea [B5]; and peripheral arterial disease patients treated with laser acupuncture [B1]. On the other hand, the following were identified as the measurement variables for yoga intervention: level of depression, arthritis stage, anxiety level, quality of life, treatment response rate, sleep, and autonomic function [B2] [B4] [B16] [B17] [B18]. Measurement variables for auricular acupressure included level of depression, sleep quality, level of pain, physical and psychological symptoms, severity of depressive symptoms pelvic organ prolapse, and gastrointestinal symptoms [B3] [B6] [B7] [B8] [B11] [B14] [B15] [B19] [B20] [B21] [B22].

In the study conducted using cinnamon patches, the overactive bladder symptom scores and residual urine volume after urination were identified [B13]. In the study which used green tea, the level of depression was assessed while measuring the severity of depressive symptoms through bouldering [B12]. In the study that used aromatherapy, the behavior, psychology, daily living ability, and cognitive function of the patients with dementia were also assessed [B10].

The present study employed text mining techniques to analyze the literature on CAM published over the past five years and identify trends in nursing research. The text network analysis revealed keywords with high TF-IDF and degree centrality, such as 'cell', 'patient', 'treatment', 'cancer', 'study', and 'effect', suggesting a strong focus on cellular mechanisms, patient-centered approaches, and treatment effects, particularly in the context of cancer [ 22 , 23 ]. The high centrality of these keywords indicates their importance and influence within the broader network of CAM research [ 24 , 25 ]. The topic modeling approach identified 15 major topics, providing a comprehensive overview of the key areas of focus in recent CAM research. This data-driven method offers a more nuanced understanding of research trends compared to previous studies that relied on arbitrary searches or focused on narrow populations or interventions [ 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 ]. By employing this systematic approach, the present study captures the breadth and diversity of CAM research, overcoming the limitations of previous nursing studies.

An expert panel of 9 individuals (3 doctors, 3 nurses, and 3 pharmacists), each holding a master's or doctoral degree, conducted a survey to classify topics based on keywords. According to the expert classification results shown in Table 2 , Topics 1–3, 5–6, and 9–15 were classified as Medicine, Topics 4 and 7 as Nursing, and Topics 8 and 10 as Pharmacology. While Topics 4 and 7 were found to be nursing-related, closer examination revealed the presence of literature from other medical disciplines within these topics. To address this issue and clarify the nursing-specific research, a further refinement of the literature search was conducted using the PICO framework. The keywords from Topics 4 and 7 were used to formulate a focused research question and search strategy, yielding a final selection of 34 articles, with 12 nursing-specific articles and 22 articles from other disciplines. Analyzing trends in nursing and interdisciplinary studies within the context of the existing literature provides a more comprehensive understanding of CAM research trends. From a nursing perspective, the identification of topics related to patient care, such as symptom management, quality of life, and patient education, highlights the potential for CAM interventions to improve patient outcomes and experiences. The prominence of keywords such as 'patient', 'treatment', and 'effect' highlights the need for evidence-based practice and the need for rigorous studies to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CAM interventions in nursing care. Furthermore, the expert panel's validation of Topics 4 and 7 as relevant to nursing research emphasizes the relevance of these areas within the nursing discipline. Topic 4, which includes keywords such as 'trial', 'effect', 'yoga', 'anxiety', and 'depression', suggests a focus on the psychological benefits of CAM interventions, particularly in the context of clinical trials. This aligns with the growing recognition of the importance of holistic, patient-centered care in nursing practice [ 3 , 4 ]. Topic 7, which includes keywords such as 'practice', 'evidence', 'education', 'knowledge', and 'attitudes', highlights the importance of evidence-based practice and the need for nurse education and training in CAM. As CAM interventions become increasingly popular among patients, it is crucial for nurses to have the knowledge and skills needed to provide safe and effective care [ 5 , 6 ]. The insights gained from this study highlight the potential of text mining and topic modeling techniques for investigating research trends in various fields [ 11 , 12 , 13 ]. By leveraging these methods, researchers can systematically analyze large volumes of literature, identify key areas of focus, and uncover patterns and trends that may not be apparent through traditional review methods [ 14 , 15 ]. This approach can lead to a more comprehensive understanding of the current state of research and inform future directions for investigation.

In conclusion, the present study demonstrates the value of text mining and topic modeling techniques in analyzing research trends, particularly in the field of CAM [ 9 , 10 ]. The systematic approach employed in this study allowed for a more comprehensive and data-driven exploration of the research landscape, overcoming the limitations of previous studies and providing valuable insights into the trends in nursing research on CAM. The findings of this study have significant implications for nursing practice, highlighting the need for evidence-based approaches, patient-centered care, and the integration of CAM interventions into nursing education and training. Future studies should consider adopting similar methodological approaches to investigate research trends in other fields, as this can lead to a more complete understanding of the current state of research and inform future directions for investigation.

The trends analysis of nursing and interdisciplinary studies on CAM revealed notable differences in research design, subject characteristics, intervention types, and assessment methods. Nursing studies exhibited a more balanced distribution of research designs, including randomized controlled trials [A2, A4, A7, A8], non-randomized comparative trials [A3, A5, A6], descriptive survey studies [A1, A9-A11], and a qualitative study [A12]. In contrast, other disciplines predominantly utilized experimental designs, with 95.2% of the studies being randomized controlled trials [B1-B3, B5-B18, B20-B22]. This disparity suggests that nursing research on CAM should expand its focus on experimental studies to enhance the evidence base and align with the methodological approaches of other disciplines.

The subject characteristics of nursing studies differed significantly from those of other disciplines, with nursing research primarily focusing on healthcare professionals and students [A1, A3, A6, A9-A12], while other disciplines exclusively studied patient populations [B1-B22]. This highlights the need for nursing research to diversify its study subjects and investigate the effects of CAM interventions on patients and healthcare providers [ 28 , 29 ], as well as broader community and general health populations [ 3 , 6 ]. By expanding its scope, nursing research can provide valuable insights into the effectiveness and applicability of CAM interventions in promoting health and well-being across diverse settings and populations [ 4 , 5 , 7 , 8 ]. Nurses, as frontline healthcare providers, are uniquely positioned to bridge the gap between healthcare settings and the community, engaging with patients and community members to assess their health needs and provide evidence-based recommendations for CAM interventions [ 1 , 2 ]. This expanded focus, coupled with interdisciplinary collaboration and knowledge exchange [ 9 , 10 ], can lead to the development of innovative, culturally sensitive, and evidence-based CAM interventions that address the complex health needs of individuals and communities alike.

A closer examination of the intervention types in nursing studies reveals that although they focused on a relatively limited range of CAM modalities, such as yoga [A2, A5, A8] and auricular acupressure [A7], these interventions demonstrated promising potential for managing various symptoms and conditions. For instance, yoga was found to be effective in reducing psychological symptoms and cortisol levels in college students [A2], alleviating chemotherapy-related symptoms in cancer patients [A5], and improving post-traumatic stress disorder among traffic accident survivors [A8]. Similarly, auricular acupressure was shown to help decrease angina symptoms in hypertensive patients [A7]. These research findings suggest that even though the scope of CAM interventions in nursing research may be limited, they can provide significant benefits to diverse patient populations [ 2 , 4 , 22 ]. In contrast, the wide array of CAM interventions investigated in other disciplines, such as aromatherapy for dementia [B10], green tea for depression in HIV patients [B5], laser acupuncture for peripheral arterial disease [B1], cinnamon patch for irritable bladder syndrome [B13], bouldering psychotherapy for depression [B12], Tai-chi and meridian pressure for insomnia [B9], and moxibustion for Crohn's disease [B3], demonstrates the potential for nursing research to explore and apply new therapies. The safety, efficacy, and potential of these diverse CAM modalities, as evidenced in other disciplines [ 23 , 24 ], should encourage nursing researchers to investigate their applicability in patient care. By conducting rigorous studies on the safety and efficacy of various CAM interventions, nursing research can provide valuable evidence to support the integration of complementary therapies into nursing practice [ 2 , 4 , 22 ]. Moreover, this trends analysis emphasizes the importance of studying CAM interventions for chronic disease management. With the increasing prevalence of chronic conditions [ 1 , 9 , 10 ], nursing research can play a pivotal role in evaluating the effectiveness of CAM for managing these diseases. Studies on yoga for hypertension [B2] and arthritis [B18], auricular acupressure for insomnia and depression [B20, B21], and moxibustion for Crohn's disease [B3] demonstrate the potential of CAM in improving patient outcomes and quality of life. As nurses have more direct and prolonged contact with patients compared to other healthcare professionals, they are well-positioned to assess the effectiveness of CAM interventions in both clinical and community settings [ 3 , 5 ]. By conducting well-designed studies on the safety and efficacy of various CAM modalities, nursing research can provide the necessary evidence to support the integration of complementary therapies into chronic disease management plans, ultimately enhancing patient care and outcomes across diverse settings. Leveraging their unique role in patient care and conducting rigorous studies on the safety and efficacy of various CAM interventions, particularly for chronic disease management, can enable nursing research to make significant contributions to the integration of complementary therapies into nursing practice. This approach has the potential to not only improve patient outcomes and experiences but also strengthen the evidence base for CAM in healthcare, fostering interdisciplinary collaboration in CAM research and advancing the field of nursing.

The analysis of assessment methods revealed that nursing studies heavily relied on self-developed measurement instruments (58.3%) [A3, A5, A6, A9-A12], while other disciplines predominantly used previously validated tools [B1-B22]. Furthermore, nursing studies rarely incorporated physiological indicators (8.3%) [A2], in contrast to the more frequent use of such measures in other disciplines (36.3%) [B1-B22]. These findings underscore the importance of utilizing validated assessment tools and physiological indicators in nursing research to enhance the reliability and validity of study results [ 31 ]. By incorporating these objective measures, nursing research can more clearly identify significant factors and strengthen the level of evidence, ultimately improving the credibility and applicability of the results.

The trends analysis of statistical techniques revealed a higher prevalence of independent t-tests in nursing research (83.3%) [A1-A5, A7-A11], while other disciplines showed a more balanced use of various techniques, including one-way ANOVA (45.5%) [B3, B6, B7, B9, B11, B14, B18, B20-B22] and repeated measures ANOVA (31.8%) [B2, B4, B10, B11, B15, B20, B22]. This difference can be attributed to the nature of the dependent variables assessed in each field, with nursing studies primarily focusing on single assessments of knowledge, attitudes, education, beliefs, and symptoms [A1, A3-A11], whereas other disciplines frequently employed repeated measures of pain, depression, response rate, serum levels, and neurological outcomes [B2-B4, B6-B8, B10, B11, B14-B22]. These findings underscore the importance of aligning the choice of statistical techniques with the nature of the outcome measures to ensure the validity and reliability of the research findings.

In conclusion, the trends analysis of nursing and interdisciplinary studies on CAM highlights the need for nursing research to expand its focus on experimental designs, diversify study subjects, explore various CAM interventions, utilize validated assessment tools and physiological indicators, and employ robust statistical techniques. By addressing these methodological considerations, nursing research can strengthen the evidence base for CAM interventions, facilitate their integration into nursing practice, and contribute to interdisciplinary dialogue in the field of CAM research [ 11 , 12 , 13 ]. As CAM use becomes increasingly prevalent among patients, particularly those with chronic conditions [ 1 , 9 , 10 ], nursing research has a crucial role to play in investigating the safety and efficacy of various CAM modalities [ 2 , 4 , 22 ]. This approach not only has the potential to improve patient outcomes and experiences but also enables nursing research to make valuable contributions to interdisciplinary collaboration in the field of CAM [ 3 , 5 ]. By embracing the diversity of CAM interventions and fostering interdisciplinary interactions, nursing research can broaden its scope, enhance the efficiency of patient-focused care, and move closer to providing truly holistic care that addresses the multifaceted needs of patients. Also, the integration of CAM into nursing practice, supported by robust research evidence, has the power to transform healthcare delivery and improve the lives of patients, particularly those with chronic conditions who stand to benefit greatly from a more comprehensive and individualized approach to care.

The trends analysis of nursing and interdisciplinary studies on CAM highlights the potential for nursing research to draw inspiration from the diverse CAM interventions studied in other disciplines and adapt them for nursing practice. For example, the use of aromatherapy for dementia [B10], green tea for depression in HIV patients [B5], and cinnamon patch for irritable bladder syndrome [B13] could be explored in nursing research to assess their feasibility and effectiveness in nursing care settings. By learning from the experiences of other disciplines and adapting promising CAM interventions for nursing practice, researchers can expand the scope of nursing research on CAM and contribute to the development of innovative, evidence-based complementary therapies for various patient populations. Given the current trends in nursing research on CAM, it is essential for future studies to consider the research directions and methodologies employed in other disciplines to guide the advancement of nursing science in this field. In summary, this trends analysis emphasizes the need for nursing research to embrace a more diverse and rigorous approach to CAM research, drawing inspiration from the methodologies and interventions studied in other disciplines. By expanding the focus on experimental designs, diversifying study subjects, exploring novel CAM interventions, utilizing validated assessment tools and physiological indicators, nursing research can strengthen the evidence base for CAM interventions, facilitate their integration into nursing practice.

Limitations

This study aimed to identify research trends in CAM through text network analysis and to analyze nursing research trends based on the findings. The use of text mining and big data analysis allowed for a more comprehensive and less biased approach to data collection and processing compared to arbitrary search strategies. However, there were still limitations in defining each field intuitively due to the diverse and wide-ranging areas of CAM used in different disciplines. Future studies should focus on analyzing overall topics across various fields as well as keyword extraction through text mining to gain a more holistic understanding of CAM research trends. Another limitation of this study is that the search languages were restricted to Korean and English. This may have excluded relevant studies published in other languages and might limit the generalizability of the findings. As CAM is rooted in diverse cultures and traditions worldwide, it is important to include studies conducted in various languages for a comprehensive understanding. Future research should incorporate more languages to provide a global perspective on CAM research trends.

Despite these limitations, this study offers a novel methodological strategy for trend analysis by combining keywords extracted using big data rather than relying on researchers' arbitrary settings. The keyword-based classification and literature analysis provide a new approach to identifying research trends and directions. The trends analysis between nursing literature and other disciplines revealed differences in subject selection, study design, statistical techniques, and measurement of dependent variables, highlighting the need for nursing research to broaden the range of subjects and measurement tools while considering randomization and generalization in experimental designs. Furthermore, this study emphasizes the importance of using design techniques that facilitate the sharing of research results beyond the nursing community.

Conclusions

This study significantly advances CAM research in nursing by providing a comprehensive, data-driven overview of research trends. We have identified key areas for improvement, such as the need for more randomized controlled trials and broader subject diversity, and have proposed innovative methodological strategies. Our findings underscore the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration and the adoption of diverse, rigorous research approaches. By addressing these gaps, nursing research in CAM can be strengthened, ultimately enhancing the integration of evidence-based CAM practices in nursing care and improving patient outcomes.

Availability of data and materials

The data and materials of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Complementary and Alternative Medicine

World Health Organization

National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health

Research Information Sharing Service

Korean studies Information Service System

Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature

Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency

Latent Dirichlet Allocation

Markov Chain Monte Carlo

Document Term Matrix

Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool

Institutional Review Board

World Health Organization. Traditional complementary and integrative medicine. Geneva: WHO; 2023. Available from: https://www.who.int/health-topics/traditional-complementary-and-integrative-medicine#tab=tab_1 . Cited 7 Oct 2023.

Google Scholar

National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. Complementary, alternative, or integrative health: what's in a name? Bethesda (MD): NCCIH; 2023. Available from: https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/complementary-alternative-or-integrative-health-whats-in-a-name . Cited 7 Oct 2023.

Shin GR. Development of Korean nursing intervention: alternative (complementary) therapy. J Korean Acad Nurs. 1999;29(6):1403–18.

Article Google Scholar

Kang MA, Kim BH, Kim HJ. Complementary and alternative therapy use and health promotion activities among adult women in urban areas. J Korean Wellness Soc. 2017;12(1):677–87. https://doi.org/10.21097/ksw.2017.02.12.677 .

Balouchi A, Mahmoudirad G, Hastings-Tolsma M, Shorofi SA, Shahdadi H, Abdollahimohammad A. Knowledge, attitude and use of complementary and alternative medicine among nurses: A systematic review. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2018;31:146–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctcp.2018.02.008 .

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Korean Nurses Association of Complementary and Alternative Therapies. Introduction to the divisions of the Korean Nurses Association of complementary and alternative therapies. Seoul: KNACAT; 2023. Available from: http://catnurse.co.kr/html/frontend/ .

Oh K, Kim KS, Kwon SH, Park JW. Research trend of complementary and alternative medicine. J Korean Acad Nurs. 2006;36(5):721–31. https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2006.36.5.721 .

Pratt M, Wieland S, Ahmadzai N, Butler C, Wolfe D, Pussagoda K, et al. A scoping review of network meta-analyses assessing the efficacy and safety of complementary and alternative medicine interventions. Syst Rev. 2020;9:97. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01328-3 .

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Baek EM, Lee HJ. Analysis of research trends and articles related to work-related overwork using text mining. Occup Health Res. 2023;5(2):79–90. https://doi.org/10.35861/KJOH.2023.5.2.79 .

Kim EJ, Kim JY. Exploring the online news trends of the metaverse in South Korea: A data-mining-driven semantic network analysis. Sustainability. 2023;15(23): 16279. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152316279 .

Karami A, Spinel MY, White CN, Ford K, Swan S. A systematic literature review of sexual harassment studies with text mining. Sustainability. 2021;13(12): 6589. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126589 .

Lee, HJ, Youn KH. The Analysis of Research Trends in Social Service Quality Using Text Mining and Topic Modeling. J Int Things Converg. 2022;8(3):29–40. https://doi.org/10.20465/KIOTS.2022.8.3.029 .

Kim HY, Seo DH. A Topic Modeling Approach to the Analysis of Domestic Performance. Official J Korean Soc Dance Sci. 2019;36(3):67–78. https://doi.org/10.21539/Ksds.2019.36.3.99 .

O’Mara-Eves A, Thomas J, McNaught J, Miwa M, Ananiadou S. Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: a systematic review of current approaches. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1–22. http://www.systematicreviewsjournal.com/content/4/1/5 .

Kim HJ, Jang HJ, Shin MS. Analysis of research trends on stuttering in adolescence using text mining and literature review. Lang Ther Res. 2020;29(4):1–12. https://doi.org/10.15724/jslhd.2020.29.4.001 .

Gurcan F, Cagiltay NE. Research trends on distance learning: A text mining-based literature review from 2008 to 2018. Interact Learn Environ. 2023;31(2):1007–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1815795 .

Yang NY, Shin KL. Analysis of research trends in nursing papers on complementary and alternative therapies in Korea. J Adult Nurs. 2003;15(2):226–35. https://doi.org/10.7739/jkafn.2021.28.2.174 .

Han KS, Lee PS, Choi WH, Ahn KH. The analysis of trends in complementary and alternative therapy (CAT) in nursing research in Korea. J Korean Acad Fundam Nurs. 2003;10(3):392–8.

Sung HR, Kim YS, Kim HY, Ha NY, Chae SM. Research trend about complementary and alternative therapy in Korea using text network analysis. Korean J Rehabil Nurs. 2018;21(2):61–70. https://doi.org/10.7587/kjrehn.2018.61 .

Bidwell S, Jensen MF. Using a search protocol to identify sources of information: The COSI model. In: Topfer LA, Auston I, editors. Etext on Health Technology Assessment Information Resources [Internet]. Bethesda (MD): National Library of Medicine; 2006. Available from: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/archive/20060905/nichsr/ehta/chapter3.html#COSI . Cited 2023 Mar 20.

Blei DM, Ng AY, Jordan MI. Latent Dirichlet allocation. J Mach Learn Res. 2003;3:993–1022.

Lee SJ, Kim HJ. Keyword extraction from news corpus using modified TF-IDF. J Soc e-Bus Stud. 2009;14(4):59–73.

Lee JH. Semantic network analysis of 2019 Gangwon-do wild fire news reporting: focusing on media agenda analysis. J Korea Contents Assoc. 2019;19(11):153–67. https://doi.org/10.5392/JKCA.2019.19.11.153 .

Liu S, Zhou MX, Pan S, Song Y, Qian W, Cai W, et al. Tiara: Interactive, topic-based visual text summarization and analysis. ACM Trans Intell Syst Technol. 2012;3(2):1–28. https://doi.org/10.1145/2089094.2089101 .

Greene D, O'Callaghan D, Cunningham P. How many topics? stability analysis for topic models. In: Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases: European Conference, ECML PKDD 2014; 2014 Sep 15–19; Nancy, France: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2014. p. 498–513. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44848-9_32

Leung L. Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research. J Family Med Prim Care. 2015;4(3):324–7. https://doi.org/10.4103/2249-4863.161306 .

Park S, Lee JL. Research trend analysis of Korean new graduate nurses using topic modeling. J Korean Acad Soc Nurs Educ. 2021;27(3):240–50. https://doi.org/10.5977/jkasne.2021.27.3.240 .

Kim HJ, Lee HN, Oh HS, Yang YJ, Shin SH. Trend Analysis of Articles Published in the Journal of East-West Nursing Research. J East-West Nurs Res. 2014;20(2):167–76. https://doi.org/10.14370/jewnr.2014.20.2.167 .

v SH. Analysis of research trends in complementary and alternative therapy studies published in the Journal of Adult Nursing (2009-2018). In: Adult Nursing Academic Conference. 2019. p. 179–80.

Shin KR, Ha JY. The analysis of research trends about reflexology in Korea. Korean J Adult Nurs. 2006;18(4):603–11.

Lee HY, Kim SY. The trends of nursing research on aromatherapy in Korea. J East-West Nurs Res. 2010;16(2):85–95. https://doi.org/10.14370/JEWNR.2010.16.2.085 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank all participants who accepted to be part of this work.

This study was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2022R1F1A1071533)

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Nursing, Ewha Womans University, 52, Ewhayeodae-Gil, Seodaemun-Gu, Seoul, 03760, South Korea

Jihye Nam, Hyejin Lee, Seunghyeon Lee & Hyojung Park

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Study design: JN, HP, and HL; Data collection and Data analysis : JN and HL ;Study supervision: HP; Manuscript writing: JN, HL, and SL Critical revisions for important intellectual content: HP. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hyojung Park .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

This study was granted an exemption from requiring ethics approval, as it utilized secondary data. The exemption was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Ewha Womans University (IRB No: ewha-202304–0016-01). Informed consent was not required due to the nature of the study, which involved the analysis of existing data that did not include any personally identifiable information. All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary material 1., supplementary material 2., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Nam, J., Lee, H., Lee, S. et al. Literature review of complementary and alternative therapies: using text mining and analysis of trends in nursing research. BMC Nurs 23 , 526 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-02172-9

Download citation

Received : 01 April 2024

Accepted : 11 July 2024

Published : 01 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-02172-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Alternative
Complementary
Text network

BMC Nursing

ISSN: 1472-6955

General enquiries: [email protected]

Information

Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

Active Journals
Find a Journal
Proceedings Series
For Authors
For Reviewers
For Editors
For Librarians
For Publishers
For Societies
For Conference Organizers
Open Access Policy
Institutional Open Access Program
Special Issues Guidelines
Editorial Process
Research and Publication Ethics
Article Processing Charges
Testimonials
Preprints.org
SciProfiles
Encyclopedia

Article Menu

Subscribe SciFeed
Google Scholar
on Google Scholar
Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Stereotactic radiosurgery in metastatic spine disease—a systemic review of the literature.

Simple Summary

1. introduction, 2. materials and methods, 2.1. prisma statement, 2.2. search strategy, 2.3. selection process, 3.1. pain management, 3.2. treatment outcomes, 3.2.1. local control, 3.2.2. survival, 3.3. dose regimens, 3.4. treatment complications.

Acute: refers to toxic reactions emerging shortly after radiation therapy in surrounding tissues and may include symptoms like nausea, vomiting, and radiation-induced esophagitis [ 21 , 22 , 24 ].
Subacute: involves radiation myelopathy, vertebral compression fractures, and bone marrow toxicity. While subacute complications like radiation myelopathy are generally more concerning than reversible acute complications, they are quite rare, have been hardly documented in the literature, and their development time and manifestations often exceed the life expectancy of patients with spinal metastasis [ 22 ].
Late: manifests long after the radiation treatment and often implies the development of secondary malignant tumors [ 22 ].

3.4.1. Spinal Cord

3.4.2. vertebral bodies, 3.5. srs limitations and contraindications, 4. discussion, review limitations, 5. conclusions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

Accuray. CYBERKNIFE® SYSTEM, How It Works. Available online: https://cyberknife.com/cyberknife-how-it-works/ (accessed on 16 March 2023).
Harris, L.M.D.J. StatPearls. In Stereotactic Radiosurgery ; StatPearls Publishing: St. Petersburg, FL, USA, 2023. [ Google Scholar ]
Scobioala, S.; Kittel, C.; Elsayad, K.; Kroeger, K.; Oertel, M.; Samhouri, L.; Haverkamp, U.; Eich, H.T. A treatment planning study comparing IMRT techniques and cyber knife for stereotactic body radiotherapy of low-risk prostate carcinoma. Radiat. Oncol. 2019 , 14 , 143. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Jaipanya, P.; Chanplakorn, P. Spinal metastasis: Narrative reviews of the current evidence and treatment modalities. J. Int. Med. Res. 2022 , 50 , 3000605221091665. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Georgy, B.A. Metastatic spinal lesions: State-of-the-art treatment options and future trends. AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2008 , 29 , 1605–1611. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Jansson, K.A.; Bauer, H.C. Survival, complications and outcome in 282 patients operated for neurological deficit due to thoracic or lumbar spinal metastases. Eur. Spine J. 2006 , 15 , 196–202. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Nater, A.; Sahgal, A.; Fehlings, M. Management—Spinal metastases. Handb. Clin. Neurol. 2018 , 149 , 239–255. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Bartels, R.H.; van der Linden, Y.M.; van der Graaf, W.T. Spinal extradural metastasis: Review of current treatment options. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2008 , 58 , 245–259. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Degen, J.W.; Gagnon, G.J.; Voyadzis, J.M.; McRae, D.A.; Lunsden, M.; Dieterich, S.; Molzahn, I.; Henderson, F.C. CyberKnife stereotactic radiosurgical treatment of spinal tumors for pain control and quality of life. J. Neurosurg. Spine 2005 , 2 , 540–549. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Cox, B.W.; Spratt, D.E.; Lovelock, M.; Bilsky, M.H.; Lis, E.; Ryu, S.; Sheehan, J.; Gerszten, P.C.; Chang, E.; Gibbs, I.; et al. International Spine Radiosurgery Consortium consensus guidelines for target volume definition in spinal stereotactic radiosurgery. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2012 , 83 , e597–e605. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Bilsky, M.H.; Laufer, I.; Matros, E.; Yamada, J.; Rusch, V.W. Advanced lung cancer: Aggressive surgical therapy vertebral body involvement. Thorac. Surg. Clin. 2014 , 24 , 423–431. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Myrehaug, S.; Sahgal, A.; Hayashi, M.; Levivier, M.; Ma, L.; Martinez, R.; Paddick, I.; Régis, J.; Ryu, S.; Slotman, B.; et al. Reirradiation spine stereotactic body radiation therapy for spinal metastases: Systematic review. J. Neurosurg. Spine 2017 , 27 , 428–435. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Kurisunkal, V.; Gulia, A.; Gupta, S. Principles of Management of Spine Metastasis. Indian J. Orthop. 2020 , 54 , 181–193. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Caruso, J.P.; Cohen-Inbar, O.; Bilsky, M.H.; Gerszten, P.C.; Sheehan, J.P. Stereotactic radiosurgery and immunotherapy for metastatic spinal melanoma. Neurosurg. Focus 2015 , 38 , E6. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Bowden, P.J.; See, A.W.; Dally, M.J.; Bittar, R.G. Stereotactic radiosurgery for brain and spine metastases. J. Clin. Neurosci. 2014 , 21 , 731–734. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Harel, R.; Zach, L. Spine radiosurgery for spinal metastases: Indications, technique and outcome. Neurol. Res. 2014 , 36 , 550–556. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Taunk, N.K.; Spratt, D.E.; Bilsky, M.; Yamada, Y. Spine Radiosurgery in the Management of Renal Cell Carcinoma Metastases. J. Natl. Compr. Cancer Netw. 2015 , 13 , 801–809. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Bhatt, A.D.; Schuler, J.C.; Boakye, M.; Woo, S.Y. Current and emerging concepts in non-invasive and minimally invasive management of spine metastasis. Cancer Treat. Rev. 2013 , 39 , 142–152. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Fridley, J.; Gokaslan, Z.L. The evolution of surgical management for vertebral column tumors. J. Neurosurg. Spine 2019 , 30 , 417–423. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Bydon, M.; De la Garza-Ramos, R.; Bettagowda, C.; Gokaslan, Z.L.; Sciubba, D.M. The use of stereotactic radiosurgery for the treatment of spinal axis tumors: A review. Clin. Neurol. Neurosurg. 2014 , 125 , 166–172. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Faruqi, S.; Chen, H.; Fariselli, L.; Levivier, M.; Ma, L.; Paddick, I.; Pollock, B.E.; Regis, J.; Sheehan, J.; Suh, J.; et al. Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Postoperative Spine Malignancy: A Systematic Review and International Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society Practice Guidelines. Pract. Radiat. Oncol. 2022 , 12 , e65–e78. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Zhang, H.R.; Li, J.K.; Yang, X.G.; Qiao, R.Q.; Hu, Y.C. Conventional Radiotherapy and Stereotactic Radiosurgery in the Management of Metastatic Spine Disease. Technol. Cancer Res. Treat. 2020 , 19 , 1533033820945798. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Kotecha, R.; Dea, N.; Detsky, J.S.; Sahgal, A. Management of recurrent or progressive spinal metastases: Reirradiation techniques and surgical principles. Neuro-Oncol. Pract. 2020 , 7 (Suppl. S1), i45–i53. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Chawla, S.; Schell, M.C.; Milano, M.T. Stereotactic body radiation for the spine: A review. Am. J. Clin. Oncol. 2013 , 36 , 630–636. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Jain, A.K.; Yamada, Y.J. The role of stereotactic body radiotherapy and stereotactic radiosurgery in the re-irradiation of metastatic spinal tumors. Expert. Rev. Anticancer Ther. 2014 , 14 , 1141–1152. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Moussazadeh, N.; Laufer, I.; Yamada, Y.; Bilsky, M.H. Separation surgery for spinal metastases: Effect of spinal radiosurgery on surgical treatment goals. Cancer Control 2014 , 21 , 168–174. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Hadzipasic, M.; Giantini-Larsen, A.M.; Tatsui, C.E.; Shin, J.H. Emerging Percutaneous Ablative and Radiosurgical Techniques for Treatment of Spinal Metastases. Neurosurg. Clin. N. Am. 2020 , 31 , 141–150. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Joaquim, A.F.; Ghizoni, E.; Tedeschi, H.; Pereira, E.B.; Giacomini, L.A. Stereotactic radiosurgery for spinal metastases: A literature review. Einstein 2013 , 11 , 247–255. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Purvis, T.E.; Goodwin, C.R.; Lubelski, D.; Laufer, I.; Sciubba, D.M. Review of stereotactic radiosurgery for intradural spine tumors. CNS Oncol. 2017 , 6 , 131–138. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Sharan, A.D.; Szulc, A.; Krystal, J.; Yassari, R.; Laufer, I.; Bilsky, M.H. The integration of radiosurgery for the treatment of patients with metastatic spine diseases. J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 2014 , 22 , 447–454. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Gerszten, P.C.; Mendel, E.; Yamada, Y. Radiotherapy and radiosurgery for metastatic spine disease: What are the options, indications, and outcomes? Spine 2009 , 34 (Suppl. S22), S78–S92. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Gerszten, P.C.; Burton, S.A.; Ozhasoglu, C.; Welch, W.C. Radiosurgery for spinal metastases: Clinical experience in 500 cases from a single institution. Spine 2007 , 32 , 193–199. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Leithner, A.; Radl, R.; Gruber, G.; Hochegger, M.; Leithner, K.; Welkerling, H.; Rehak, P.; Windhager, R. Predictive value of seven preoperative prognostic scoring systems for spinal metastases. Eur. Spine J. 2008 , 17 , 1488–1495. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Tokuhashi, Y.; Matsuzaki, H.; Oda, H.; Oshima, M.; Ryu, J. A revised scoring system for preoperative evaluation of metastatic spine tumor prognosis. Spine 2005 , 30 , 2186–2191. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Tomita, K.; Kawahara, N.; Kobayashi, T.; Yoshida, A.; Murakami, H.; Akamaru, T. Surgical strategy for spinal metastases. Spine 2001 , 26 , 298–306. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Benzil, D.L.; Saboori, M.; Mogilner, A.Y.; Rocchio, R.; Moorthy, C.R. Safety and efficacy of stereotactic radiosurgery for tumors of the spine. J. Neurosurg. 2004 , 101 (Suppl. S3), 413–418. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
De Salles, A.A.; Pedroso, A.G.; Medin, P.; Agazaryan, N.; Solberg, T.; Cabatan-Awang, C.; Espinosa, D.M.; Ford, J.; Selch, M.T. Spinal lesions treated with Novalis shaped beam intensity-modulated radiosurgery and stereotactic radiotherapy. J. Neurosurg. 2004 , 101 (Suppl. S3), 435–440. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Hamilton, A.J.; Lulu, B.A.; Fosmire, H.; Stea, B.; Cassady, J.R. Preliminary clinical experience with linear accelerator-based spinal stereotactic radiosurgery. Neurosurgery 1995 , 36 , 311–319. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Milker-Zabel, S.; Zabel, A.; Thilmann, C.; Schlegel, W.; Wannenmacher, M.; Debus, J. Clinical results of retreatment of vertebral bone metastases by stereotactic conformal radiotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2003 , 55 , 162–167. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Chang, E.L.; Shiu, A.S.; Mendel, E.; Mathews, L.A.; Mahajan, A.; Allen, P.K.; Weinberg, J.S.; Brown, B.W.; Wang, X.S.; Woo, S.Y.; et al. Phase I/II study of stereotactic body radiotherapy for spinal metastasis and its pattern of failure. J. Neurosurg. Spine 2007 , 7 , 151–160. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Wang, X.S.; Rhines, L.D.; Shiu, A.S.; Yang, J.N.; Selek, U.; Gning, I.; Liu, P.; Allen, P.K.; Azeem, S.S.; Brown, P.D.; et al. Stereotactic body radiation therapy for management of spinal metastases in patients without spinal cord compression: A phase 1–2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012 , 13 , 395–402. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Friendlander, A.H.; Ettinger, R.L. Karnofsky performance status scale. Spec. Care Dent. 2009 , 29 , 147–148. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Chao, S.T.; Koyfman, S.A.; Woody, N.; Angelov, L.; Soeder, S.L.; Reddy, C.A.; Rybicki, L.A.; Djemil, T.; Suh, J.H. Recursive partitioning analysis index is predictive for overall survival in patients undergoing spine stereotactic body radiation therapy for spinal metastases. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2012 , 82 , 1738–1743. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Levine, A.M.; Coleman, C.; Horasek, S. Stereotactic radiosurgery for the treatment of primary sarcomas and sarcoma metastases of the spine. Neurosurgery 2009 , 64 (Suppl. S2), A54–A59. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Mahadevan, A.; Floyd, S.; Wong, E.; Jeyapalan, S.; Groff, M.; Kasper, E. Stereotactic body radiotherapy reirradiation for recurrent epidural spinal metastases. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2011 , 81 , 1500–1505. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Gerszten, P.C.; Burton, S.A.; Ozhasoglu, C.; Vogel, W.J.; Welch, W.C.; Baar, J.; Friedland, D.M. Stereotactic radiosurgery for spinal metastases from renal cell carcinoma. J. Neurosurg. Spine 2005 , 3 , 288–295. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Moulding, H.D.; Elder, J.B.; Lis, E.; Lovelock, D.M.; Zhang, Z.; Yamada, Y.; Bilsky, M.H. Local disease control after decompressive surgery and adjuvant high-dose single-fraction radiosurgery for spine metastases. J. Neurosurg. Spine 2010 , 13 , 87–93. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Yamada, Y.; Bilsky, M.H.; Lovelock, D.M.; Venkatraman, E.S.; Toner, S.; Johnson, J.; Zatcky, J.; Zelefsky, M.J.; Fuks, Z. High-dose, single-fraction image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy for metastatic spinal lesions. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2008 , 71 , 484–490. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Macbeth, F.R.; Wheldon, T.E.; Girling, D.J.; Stephens, R.J.; Machin, D.; Bleehen, N.M.; Lamont, A.; Radstone, D.J.; Reed, N.S.; Medical Research Council Lung Cancer Working Party. Radiation myelopathy: Estimates of risk in 1048 patients in three randomized trials of palliative radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer. Clin. Oncol. (R. Coll. Radiol.) 1996 , 8 , 176–181. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Rades, D.; Stalpers, L.J.; Veninga, T.; Schulte, R.; Hoskin, P.J.; Obralic, N.; Bajrovic, A.; Rudat, V.; Schwarz, R.; Hulshof, M.C.; et al. Evaluation of five radiation schedules and prognostic factors for metastatic spinal cord compression. J. Clin. Oncol. 2005 , 23 , 3366–3375. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Wara, W.M.; Phillips, T.L.; Sheline, G.E.; Schwade, J.G. Radiation tolerance of the spinal cord. Cancer 1975 , 35 , 1558–1562. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Gibbs, I.C.; Patil, C.; Gerszten, P.C.; Adler, J.R.; Burton, S.A. Delayed radiation-induced myelopathy after spinal radiosurgery. Neurosurgery 2009 , 64 (Suppl. S2), A67–A72. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Ryu, S.; Jin, J.Y.; Jin, R.; Rock, J.; Ajlouni, M.; Movsas, B.; Rosenblum, M.; Kim, J.H. Partial volume tolerance of the spinal cord and complications of single-dose radiosurgery. Cancer 2007 , 109 , 628–636. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Laufer, I.; Iorgulescu, J.B.; Chapman, T.; Lis, E.; Shi, W.; Zhang, Z.; Cox, B.W.; Yamada, Y.; Bilsky, M.H. Local disease control for spinal metastases following “separation surgery” and adjuvant hypofractionated or high-dose single-fraction stereotactic radiosurgery: Outcome analysis in 186 patients. J. Neurosurg. Spine 2013 , 18 , 207–214. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Sahgal, A.; Atenafu, E.G.; Chao, S.; Al-Omair, A.; Boehling, N.; Balagamwala, E.H.; Cunha, M.; Thibault, I.; Angelov, L.; Brown, P.; et al. Vertebral compression fracture after spine stereotactic body radiotherapy: A multi-institutional analysis with a focus on radiation dose and the spinal instability neoplastic score. J. Clin. Oncol. 2013 , 31 , 3426–3431. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Rose, P.S.; Laufer, I.; Boland, P.J.; Hanover, A.; Bilsky, M.H.; Yamada, J.; Lis, E. Risk of fracture after single fraction image-guided intensity-modulated radiation therapy to spinal metastases. J. Clin. Oncol. 2009 , 27 , 5075–5079. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Rijken, J.; Crowe, S.; Trapp, J.; Kairn, T. A review of stereotactic body radiotherapy for the spine. Phys. Eng. Sci. Med. 2020 , 43 , 799–824. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

ID	Study	Year	Region	Country	Study Type	LoE
1	Cox BW et al. [ ]	2012	North America	USA	Guideline	n.a
2	Bilsky MH et al. [ ]	2014	North America	USA	Review	5
3	Myrehaug S et al. [ ]	2017	North America	Canada	Review	5
4	Kurisunkal V et al. [ ]	2020	Asia	India	Review	5
5	Caruso JP et al. [ ]	2015	North America	USA	Review	5
6	Bowden P et al. [ ]	2014	Australia	Australia	Review	5
7	Harel R et al. [ ]	2014	Asia	Israel	Review	5
8	Taunk NK et al. [ ]	2015	North America	USA	Review	5
9	Bhatt AD et al. [ ]	2013	North America	USA	Review	5
10	Fridley J et al. [ ]	2019	North America	USA	Review	5
11	Bydon M et al. [ ]	2014	North America	USA	Review	5
12	Faruqi S et al. [ ]	2022	North America	Canada	Guideline	n.a
13	Zhang HR et al. [ ]	2020	Asia	China	Review	5
14	Kotecha R et al. [ ]	2020	North America	Canada	Review	5
15	Chawla S et al. [ ]	2013	North America	USA	Review	5
16	Jain AK et al. [ ]	2014	North America	USA	Review	5
17	Moussazadeh N et at. [ ]	2014	North America	USA	Review	5
18	Hadzipasic M et al. [ ]	2020	North America	USA	Review	5
19	Joaquim AF et al. [ ]	2013	South America	Brazil	Review	5
20	Purvis TE et al. [ ]	2017	North America	USA	Review	5
21	Sharan AD et al. [ ]	2014	North America	USA	Review	5

The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

Palacio Giraldo, A.; Sohm, D.; Neugebauer, J.; Leone, G.; Bergovec, M.; Dammerer, D. Stereotactic Radiosurgery in Metastatic Spine Disease—A Systemic Review of the Literature. Cancers 2024 , 16 , 2787. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16162787

Palacio Giraldo A, Sohm D, Neugebauer J, Leone G, Bergovec M, Dammerer D. Stereotactic Radiosurgery in Metastatic Spine Disease—A Systemic Review of the Literature. Cancers . 2024; 16(16):2787. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16162787

Palacio Giraldo, Adriana, David Sohm, Johannes Neugebauer, Gianpaolo Leone, Marko Bergovec, and Dietmar Dammerer. 2024. "Stereotactic Radiosurgery in Metastatic Spine Disease—A Systemic Review of the Literature" Cancers 16, no. 16: 2787. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16162787

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Log in using your username and password

Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
Latest content
Current issue
For authors
New editors
BMJ Journals

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1071-4958 Alec Kenneth McKenzie 1 , 2 ,
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2908-4271 Andrea Hams 2 , 3 ,
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7591-1162 Jonathon Headrick 2 ,
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4764-2361 Alex Donaldson 4 ,
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1269-4612 Rick Dann 2 ,
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5855-4298 Joseph Coyne 5 , 6 ,
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4014-7731 Steven John Duhig 2
1 Queensland Academy of Sport , Brisbane , Queensland , Australia
2 School of Health Sciences and Social Work , Griffith University , Gold Coast , Queensland , Australia
3 Griffith Centre of Biomedical and Rehabilitation Engineering (GCORE) , Griffith University , Gold Coast , Queensland , Australia
4 Centre for Sport and Social Impact , LaTrobe University , Melbourne , Victoria , Australia
5 Bond University , Robina , Queensland , Australia
6 University of Southern Queensland , Toowoomba , Queensland , Australia
Correspondence to Alec Kenneth McKenzie; alec.mckenzie2{at}griffithuni.edu.au

Objectives To identify evidence-practice gaps regarding shoulder injury risk factors in competitive swimmers.

Methods We gathered insights from 27 swimming experts including elite swimmers, coaches, high-performance staff and applied researchers using Concept Mapping. Participants brainstormed, sorted and rated (from 1 (least) to 10 (most) important and modifiable) their ideas of shoulder injury risk factors in competitive swimmers. Proposed risk factors rated above the grand mean for importance (6.2±0.4) or modifiability (6.5±0.5) ratings were considered highly important/modifiable. Expert opinions were then juxtaposed with systematic review findings to identify overlaps or convergences.

Results Brainstorming generated 126 proposed shoulder injury risk factors for competitive swimmers, subsequently refined to 61 unique proposed risk factors by removing duplicates and combining similar responses. The participants sorted the 61 risk factors into seven distinct clusters. Experts perceived 36/61 proposed risk factors as highly important, of which 6 were supported by literature, 6 showed no association with injury, 2 had conflicting evidence and the remaining 22 have not yet been investigated, suggesting an evidence-practice gap. Three proposed risk factors ‘inconsistent training load’, ‘poor stroke technique’ and ‘low posterior shoulder strength-endurance’ exhibited high perceived importance, high perceived modifiability and supporting evidence.

Conclusion An evidence-practice gap was identified for 28 proposed risk factors perceived as highly important by swimming experts despite either (1) no relevant empirical research (n=22), or (2) no association with injury (n=6) from synthesised evidence. Greater collaboration between researchers and practitioners is needed to effectively address shoulder injury risk factors in competitive swimmers.

Sporting injuries
Risk factor

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. All collected data is presented in-text. Please email corresponding author for any further information.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2023-108023

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

X @a_k_mckenzie, @andrea_hams, @Jon_Headrick, @AlexDonaldson13, @josephcoyne, @duhigs

Contributors This study was part of AKM's (guarantor) research programme supervised by SJD, AH and JH. AD provided expert guidance on concept mapping methodologies. JC provided practical input as an elite swimming strength and conditioning practitioner. RD aided with concept mapping analysis, data synthesis and manuscript drafting.

Funding This project was funded by a $A3000 grant award by Swimming Australia.

Competing interests None declared.

Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research. Refer to the Methods section for further details.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

COMMENTS

Reviewing the literature
Implementing evidence into practice requires nurses to identify, critically appraise and synthesise research. This may require a comprehensive literature review: this article aims to outline the approaches and stages required and provides a working example of a published review. Literature reviews aim to answer focused questions to: inform professionals and patients of the best available ...
Integrity of Databases for Literature Searches in Nursing
The quality of literature used as the foundation to any research or scholarly project is critical. The purpose of this study was to analyze the extent to which predatory nursing journals were included in credible databases, MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Scopus, commonly used by nurse scholars when searching for information.
Conducting integrative reviews: a guide for novice nursing researchers
Background. A literature review is a critical analysis of published research literature based on a specified topic (Pluye et al., 2016).Literature reviews identify literature then examine its strengths and weaknesses to determine gaps in knowledge (Pluye et al. 2016).Literature reviews are an integral aspect of research projects; indeed, many reviews constitute a publication in themselves ...
The Literature Review: A Foundation for High-Quality Medical Education
Purpose and Importance of the Literature Review. An understanding of the current literature is critical for all phases of a research study. Lingard 9 recently invoked the "journal-as-conversation" metaphor as a way of understanding how one's research fits into the larger medical education conversation. As she described it: "Imagine yourself joining a conversation at a social event.
Carrying out systematic literature reviews: an introduction
Before undertaking a systemic review, a research question should first be formulated (Bashir and Conlon, 2018). There are a number of tools/frameworks (Table 1) to support this process, including the PICO/PICOS, PEO and SPIDER criteria (Bowers et al, 2011). These frameworks are designed to help break down the question into relevant subcomponents and map them to concepts, in order to derive a ...
PDF Reviewing the literature
fi. taken is in uenced by the purpose of the review and. fl. resources available. However, the stages or methods used to undertake a review are similar across approaches and include: Formulating clear inclusion and exclusion criteria, for example, patient groups, ages, conditions/treat-ments, sources of evidence/research designs;
An analysis of current practices in undertaking literature reviews in
A key decision in a FMRS is the time-period within which to retrieve relevant articles. Like many other forms of review, we undertook an initial scoping to determine the feasibility and parameters of the project [].In our previous reviews, the timeframe has varied from three months [] to 6 years [].The main criterion is the likelihood for the timespan to contain sufficient articles to answer ...
Literature review in nursing research: The importance and the practical
Literature review is vital to the profession's development as it gives evidence to researches that help to perfect nursing care. This chapter is written in hope of promoting the development of the ...
PDF Reviewing the literature: choosing a review design
The purpose of a review of healthcare literature is primarily to summarise the knowledge around a specific question or topic, or to make recommendations that can support health professionals and organisations make decisions about a specific intervention or care issue.5 In addition, reviews can highlight gaps in knowledge to guide future research.
Reviews of Literature in Nursing Research
ong 4 popular types of reviews (narrative, integrative, scoping, and systematic review), including a descriptive discussion, critical analysis, and decision map tree. Although some review methodologies are more rigorous, it would be inaccurate to say that one is preferable over the others. Instead, each methodology is adequate for a certain type of investigation, nursing methodology research ...
Reviews of Literature in Nursing Research: Methodological
Despite the availability of guidelines about the different types of review literature, the identification of the best approach is not always clear for nursing researchers. ... Reviews of Literature in Nursing Research: Methodological Considerations and Defining Characteristics ANS Adv Nurs Sci. 2022 Jul-Sep;45(3):197-208. doi: 10.1097/ANS ...
PDF Undertaking a literature review: a step'by-step approacii
A literature review is an objective, thorough summary and critical analysis of the relevant available research and non-Patricia Cronin, Frances Ryan and Michael Coughian are Lecturers, School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Dublin, Trinity College, Dublin Accepted for publication: November 2007 research literature on the topic being ...
Literature Review
A literature review is a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of published information on a subject area. Conducting a literature review demands a careful examination of a body of literature that has been published that helps answer your research question (See PICO). Literature reviewed includes scholarly journals, scholarly books ...
Research Guides: Nursing Resources: Conducting a Literature Review
A literature review is an essay that surveys, summarizes, links together, and assesses research in a given field. It surveys the literature by reviewing a large body of work on a subject; it summarizes by noting the main conclusions and findings of the research; it links together works in the literature by showing how the information fits into the overall academic discussion and how the ...
Writing a Literature Review
Run a few sample database searches to make sure your research question is not too broad or too narrow. If possible, discuss your topic with your professor. 2. Determine the scope of your review. The scope of your review will be determined by your professor during your program. Check your assignment requirements for parameters for the Literature ...
Reviews of Literature in Nursing Research: Methodological
Therefore, in this article, we provide a comprehensive guide to be used by health care and nursing scholars while choosing among 4 popular types of reviews (narrative, integrative, scoping, and ...
Literature Reviews
A literature review can be a short introductory section of a research article or a report or policy paper that focuses on recent research. Or, in the case of dissertations, theses, and review articles, it can be an extensive review of all relevant research. The format is usually a bibliographic essay; sources are briefly cited within the body ...
Research Guides: Graduate Nursing : Literature Review
Step Four. Step Five. What is a Literature Review? "A literature review is a critical summary of all the published works on a particular topic" (Fonseca, 2013). A literature review provides background for your paper by quickly bringing the reader up-to-date on relevant findings, controversies, and dilemmas. It is the author's chance to "set the ...
Literature Review
A literature review is a summary and analysis of research published on a specific topic. Literature reviews give a "snapshot" of individual articles and explain how each work has contributed to the field's understanding of the topic. The purpose of a literature review is to trace the history of research on a particular subject, evaluate that ...
Systematically Reviewing the Literature: Building the Evidence for
Systematic reviews that summarize the available information on a topic are an important part of evidence-based health care. There are both research and non-research reasons for undertaking a literature review. It is important to systematically review the literature when one would like to justify the need for a study, to update personal ...
Nursing: How to Write a Literature Review
Once you have read and re-read your articles and organized your findings, you are ready to begin the process of writing the literature review. 2. Synthesize. (see handout below) Include a synthesis of the articles you have chosen for your literature review. A literature review is NOT a list or a summary of what has been written on a particular ...
Literature review of complementary and alternative therapies: using
Purpose This study aimed to review the literature on complementary and alternative therapies, utilizing text mining and trend analysis in nursing research. As CAM becomes increasingly prevalent in healthcare settings, a comprehensive understanding of the current research landscape is essential to guide evidence-based practice, inform clinical decision-making, and ultimately enhance patient ...
(PDF) The Value of Nursing: a Literature Review
Content may be subject to copyright. The value of nursing: a literature review. Khim Horton, Verena Tschudin, Armorel Forget. Address for correspondence: Khim Horton, Faculty of Health and Medical ...
Academic leadership in nursing: A concept analysis
Walker and Avant's (2019) Theory Construction in Nursing framework guided this concept analysis. The strategies suggested by Walker and Avant were chosen due to their widespread acceptance in nursing research and their inclusion of common terms within the larger literature context (Ntshingila et al., 2021).This concept analysis followed an eight-step process including: 1) choosing a concept, 2 ...
Health-Related Quality of Life in Psoriasis: Literature Review
The assessment of quality of life (QoL) in patients with psoriasis plays a crucial role in understanding the impact of the disease and evaluating treatment outcomes. We provide an overview of the key measures used to assess QoL in psoriasis patients, including both generic and psoriasis-specific instruments. The limitations and strengths of instruments such as the Dermatology Life Quality ...
The Importance of Nursing Research
Nursing research is a growing field in which individuals within the profession can contribute a variety of skills and experiences to the science of nursing care. There are frequent misconceptions as to what nursing research is. Some individuals do not even know how to begin to define nursing research. According to Polit and Beck (2006), nursing ...
Healthcare
To improve the research and knowledge in this area, future studies should be based on solid theoretical foundations. We identified the need for methodological changes and standardized procedures that take into account existing evidence from attitude research in social psychology, nursing science, and other relevant research fields.
Stereotactic Radiosurgery in Metastatic Spine Disease—A Systemic Review
Background: This study investigated the efficacy of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) in managing spinal metastasis. Traditionally, surgery was the primary approach, but SRS has emerged as a promising alternative. Objective: The study aims to evaluate the efficacy of stereotactic radiosurgery in the management of spinal metastasis in terms of local tumor control, patient survival, and quality of ...
Correction to: The impact of typical school provision of physical
The Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, PsychINFO, ERIC and MEDLINE databases were searched for relevant literature (2000-2022) pertaining to adolescents aged 12-18 years in secondary schools. Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria, including thirteen interventions, five cross-sectional and two longitudinal studies.
Identifying evidence-practice gaps for shoulder injury risk factors in
Objectives To identify evidence-practice gaps regarding shoulder injury risk factors in competitive swimmers. Methods We gathered insights from 27 swimming experts including elite swimmers, coaches, high-performance staff and applied researchers using Concept Mapping. Participants brainstormed, sorted and rated (from 1 (least) to 10 (most) important and modifiable) their ideas of shoulder ...

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

Proliferation in names for doing a review

Allegiance to an established literature review method

Clarity about review processes

Limitations

Acknowledgements

Author information

Contributions

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Consent for publication

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Save citation to file

Add to My Bibliography

Reviews of Literature in Nursing Research: Methodological Considerations and Defining Characteristics

Conflict of interest statement

Similar articles

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources

Nursing: Literature Review

Good Place to Start: Citation Databases

Seminal Works: Search Key Indexing/Citation Databases

Web Resources

What is PICO?

Search Example

Library Research Guides - University of Wisconsin Ebling Library

Nursing Resources : Conducting a Literature Review

What is a Literature Review?

Outline of a Literture Review

Literature Review Overview

Literature Review Steps

Organizing Information

Literature Review Sections

Literature Reviews vs Systematic Reviews

Literature Review Examples

Resources for Writing a Literature Review

Resources Used on This Page

University Library

What is a Literature Review?

The Scholarly Conversation

Graduate Nursing

Nursing: How to Write a Literature Review

Getting started

Literature review of complementary and alternative therapies: using text mining and analysis of trends in nursing research

Study design and methodological framework

Literature selection

Data collection strategies

Data analysis process

Data analysis

Literature review

Data collection and ethical considerations

Analysis of word frequency and centrality

Results of the topic modeling

Other disciplines

Limitations

Conclusions

Availability of data and materials

Abbreviations

Acknowledgements

Author information

Contributions

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Consent for publication

Competing interests

Additional information

Supplementary Information

About this article

Share this article

BMC Nursing

Information

Initiatives

Article Menu

JSmol Viewer

Simple Summary

3.4.1. Spinal Cord

Share and Cite