Skip to main content

Systematically Reviewing Previous Work

  • Chapter
Principles and Practice of Research

Abstract

Many of us tend to regard reviewing previous literature as an unexciting chore, perhaps because well-read laboratory chiefs appear to consider the research review as a low-priority activity to be delegated to a research assistant or the most junior member of the team. For many, the excitement lies in carrying out a new experiment to add more information to what already exists. They regard poring over old research reports as a boring or less creative step. This is a major error in thinking. The accumulation of evidence is an important goal underlying all scientific inquiry. This is as true of surgery as of theoretical physics. An individual study is seldom an isolated event, but rather part of a continuum in which each new endeavor builds upon preceding work. New findings lose much of their value if they are not linked with the accumulated wisdom, both theoretical and empirical, of earlier reports.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 74.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Glass GV. Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educ Res 1975; 5: 3–8.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Glass GV. Meta-analysis: an approach to the synthesis of research results. Res Sc Teach 1982; 19: 93–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. University Group Diabetes Program (UGDP) Study. Journal of Diabetes 1970;19:Suppl 2:740–850.

    Google Scholar 

  4. McPeek B, Gilbert JP. Onset of postoperative jaundice related to anesthetic history. Brit Med J 1974; 3: 615–617.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Moses LE, Mosteller F. Afterword for the study of death rates. Chapter IV-8 in The National Halothane Study; a study of the possible association between halothane anesthesia and postoperative hepatic necrosis. Bunker JP, Forrest WH Jr., Mosteller F, Vandam LD, editors. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969:395–408.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hewett P, Chalmers TC. Using MEDLINE to peruse the literature. Controlled Clinical Trials 1985; 6: 75–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hewett P, Chalmers TC. Perusing the literature: methods of assessing MEDLINE and related databases. Controlled Clinical Trials 1985; 6: 168–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chalmers TC. The randomized controlled trial as a basis for therapeutic decisions. Chapter 2 in J. Lachin, Tygstrup N, Juhl E, editors. The Randomized Clinical Trial and Therapeutic Decisions. New York: Marcel Dekker, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gilbert JP, McPeek B, Mosteller F. Statistics and ethics in surgery and anesthesia. Science 1977(a); 198: 684–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gilbert JP, McPeek B, Mosteller F. Progress in surgery and anesthesia: benefits and risks of innovative therapy. Chapter 9 in Costs, risks and benefits of surgery. Bunker JP, Barnes BA, and Mosteller F, editors. Oxford University Press, NY: 1977(b);124–169.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bearman JB, Loewenson DB, Gullen WH. Muenchs postulates, laws and corollaries. Biometrics Note 4, Bethesda, MD: Office of Biometry and Epidemiology, National Eye Institute, NIH, 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Stock WA, Okun M, Haring M, Witter R. Age difference in subjective well-being: a meta-analysis. In Evaluation Studies Review Annual. Light RJ, editor. Beverly Hills, CA: Light RJ, editor. 1983; 8: 279–302.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Straw RB. Deinstitutionalization in mental health: a meta-analysis. In Evaluation Studies Review Annual. Light RJ editor. Beverly Hills, CA: Light RJ editor. 1983; 8: 253–278.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Yin RK, Yates D. Street level governments: as sessing decentralization and urban services. Los Angeles, CA: Rand Corp, 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ottenbacher KJ, Peterson P. The efficacy of vestibular stimulating as a form of specific sensory enrichment. Clinical Pediatrics 1983; 23: 418–433.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Smith ML, Glass GV. Meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcome studies. American Psychology 1976; 32: 752–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Rosenthal R. Combining results of independent studies. Psychological Bulletin 1978; 85: 185–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cooper, HM. Scientific guidelines for conducting integrative research reviews. Review of Education Research 1982; 52: 291–302.

    Google Scholar 

Further Reading

  • Light RJ, Pillemer DB. Summing up—the science of reviewing research. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1986 Springer-Verlag New York Inc.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Wood-Dauphinee, S., McPeek, B. (1986). Systematically Reviewing Previous Work. In: Troidl, H., Spitzer, W.O., McPeek, B., Mulder, D.S., McKneally, M.F. (eds) Principles and Practice of Research. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-96942-3_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-96942-3_7

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-96944-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-96942-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics