Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Type of Review and How to Get Started

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Basic Methods Handbook for Clinical Orthopaedic Research

  • 2310 Accesses

Abstract

Literature reviews provide a method by which to synthesize and present available information on a given topic. There are two main types of reviews: systematic reviews and narrative reviews. Systematic reviews are defined by their detailed research questions and explicit methodology in identifying the appropriate resources to answer the research question. These reviews require more time to conduct but provide conclusions that are reproducible and are less biased by the views of the author. Narrative reviews do not have a set methodology, but can be performed quickly, and may include the use of non-peer-reviewed sources of information such as editorials, interviews and/or expert opinion. Both review types have their advantages, which are discussed in this chapter.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Alper B, Hand J, Elliott S. How much effort is needed to keep up with the literature relevant for primary care. J Med Libr Assoc. 2004;92:429.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Bhandari M, Montori VM, Devereaux PJ, Wilczynski NL, Morgan D, Haynes RB, Hedges Team. Doubling the impact: publication of systematic review articles in orthopaedic journals. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:1012–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bhandari M, Richards RR, Sprague S, Schemitsch EH. The quality of reporting of randomized trials in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery from 1988 through 2000. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84:388–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Chaudhry H, Mundi R, Singh I, Einhorn TA, Bhandari M. How good is the orthopaedic literature? Indian J Orthop. 2008;42:144–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ethgen O, Bruyère O, Richy F, Dardennes C, Reginster J-Y. Health-related quality of life in total hip and total knee arthroplasty. A qualitative and systematic review of the literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:963–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gagnier JJ, Kellam PJ. Reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews in the orthopaedic literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95:e771–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Green B, Johnson C, Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. J Chiropr Med. 2006;5:101–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hitchcock M. Review vs systematic review vs ETC. In: LibGuides Nurs. Resour. 2017. http://researchguides.ebling.library.wisc.edu/c.php?g=293229&p=1953452. Accessed 6 Oct 2017.

  9. Hui Z, Yi Z, Peng J. Bibliometric analysis of the orthopedic literature. Orthopedics. 2013;36:e1225–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hurwitz S, Slawson D, Shaunessy A. Orthopaedic information mastery: applying evidence-based information tools to improve patient outcomes while saving orthopaedists’ time. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82(6):888–94.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hussain N, Turvey S, Bhandari M. Keeping up with best evidence: what resources are available? J Postgrad Med Edu Res. 2012;46:4–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kay J, Memon M, Rogozinsky J, de Sa D, Simunovic N, Seil R, Karlsson J, Ayeni OR. The rate of publication of free papers at the 2008 and 2010 European Society of Sports Traumatology Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy congresses. J Exp Orthop. 2017;4:15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Miller LE, Gondusky JS, Bhattacharyya S, Kamath AF, Boettner F, Wright J. Does surgical approach affect outcomes in total hip arthroplasty through 90 days of follow-up? A systematic review with meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2017;33(4):1296–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Moher D. Consort: an evolving tool to help improve the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 1998;279:1489–91.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Riemsma RP, Pattenden J, Bridle C, Sowden AJ, Mather L, Watt IS, Walker A. Systematic review of the effectiveness of stage based interventions to promote smoking cessation. Br Med J. 2003;326:1175–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Rother ET. Systematic literature review X narrative review. Acta Paul Enferm. 2007;20:5–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med. 2010;8:18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Young NL, Cheah D, Waddell JP, Wright JG. Patient characteristics that affect the outcome of total hip arthroplasty: a review. Can J Surg. 1998;41:188–95.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, McMaster University, 1200 Main St W, 4E15, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Matthew Skelly, Andrew Duong, Nicole Simunovic & Olufemi R. Ayeni

Authors
  1. Matthew Skelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrew Duong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nicole Simunovic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Olufemi R. Ayeni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. UPMC Rooney Sports Complex, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Volker Musahl

  2. Department of Orthopaedics, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden

    Jón Karlsson

  3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Kantonsspital Baselland (Bruderholz, Laufen und Liestal), Bruderholz, Switzerland

    Michael T. Hirschmann

  4. McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Olufemi R. Ayeni

  5. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA

    Robert G. Marx

  6. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL, USA

    Jason L. Koh

  7. Institute for Medical Science in Sports, Osaka Health Science University, Osaka, Japan

    Norimasa Nakamura

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 ISAKOS

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Skelly, M., Duong, A., Simunovic, N., Ayeni, O.R. (2019). Type of Review and How to Get Started. In: Musahl, V., et al. Basic Methods Handbook for Clinical Orthopaedic Research. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58254-1_36

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58254-1_36

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-58253-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-58254-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation