Cargando…
State-of-the-art literature review methodology: A six-step approach for knowledge synthesis
INTRODUCTION: Researchers and practitioners rely on literature reviews to synthesize large bodies of knowledge. Many types of literature reviews have been developed, each targeting a specific purpose. However, these syntheses are hampered if the review type’s paradigmatic roots, methods, and markers...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Bohn Stafleu van Loghum
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9582072/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36063310 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40037-022-00725-9 |
_version_ | 1784812759461920768 |
---|---|
author | Barry, Erin S. Merkebu, Jerusalem Varpio, Lara |
author_facet | Barry, Erin S. Merkebu, Jerusalem Varpio, Lara |
author_sort | Barry, Erin S. |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Researchers and practitioners rely on literature reviews to synthesize large bodies of knowledge. Many types of literature reviews have been developed, each targeting a specific purpose. However, these syntheses are hampered if the review type’s paradigmatic roots, methods, and markers of rigor are only vaguely understood. One literature review type whose methodology has yet to be elucidated is the state-of-the-art (SotA) review. If medical educators are to harness SotA reviews to generate knowledge syntheses, we must understand and articulate the paradigmatic roots of, and methods for, conducting SotA reviews. METHODS: We reviewed 940 articles published between 2014–2021 labeled as SotA reviews. We (a) identified all SotA methods-related resources, (b) examined the foundational principles and techniques underpinning the reviews, and (c) combined our findings to inductively analyze and articulate the philosophical foundations, process steps, and markers of rigor. RESULTS: In the 940 articles reviewed, nearly all manuscripts (98%) lacked citations for how to conduct a SotA review. The term “state of the art” was used in 4 different ways. Analysis revealed that SotA articles are grounded in relativism and subjectivism. DISCUSSION: This article provides a 6-step approach for conducting SotA reviews. SotA reviews offer an interpretive synthesis that describes: This is where we are now. This is how we got here. This is where we could be going. This chronologically rooted narrative synthesis provides a methodology for reviewing large bodies of literature to explore why and how our current knowledge has developed and to offer new research directions. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version of this article (10.1007/s40037-022-00725-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9582072 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Bohn Stafleu van Loghum |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-95820722022-10-21 State-of-the-art literature review methodology: A six-step approach for knowledge synthesis Barry, Erin S. Merkebu, Jerusalem Varpio, Lara Perspect Med Educ Original Article INTRODUCTION: Researchers and practitioners rely on literature reviews to synthesize large bodies of knowledge. Many types of literature reviews have been developed, each targeting a specific purpose. However, these syntheses are hampered if the review type’s paradigmatic roots, methods, and markers of rigor are only vaguely understood. One literature review type whose methodology has yet to be elucidated is the state-of-the-art (SotA) review. If medical educators are to harness SotA reviews to generate knowledge syntheses, we must understand and articulate the paradigmatic roots of, and methods for, conducting SotA reviews. METHODS: We reviewed 940 articles published between 2014–2021 labeled as SotA reviews. We (a) identified all SotA methods-related resources, (b) examined the foundational principles and techniques underpinning the reviews, and (c) combined our findings to inductively analyze and articulate the philosophical foundations, process steps, and markers of rigor. RESULTS: In the 940 articles reviewed, nearly all manuscripts (98%) lacked citations for how to conduct a SotA review. The term “state of the art” was used in 4 different ways. Analysis revealed that SotA articles are grounded in relativism and subjectivism. DISCUSSION: This article provides a 6-step approach for conducting SotA reviews. SotA reviews offer an interpretive synthesis that describes: This is where we are now. This is how we got here. This is where we could be going. This chronologically rooted narrative synthesis provides a methodology for reviewing large bodies of literature to explore why and how our current knowledge has developed and to offer new research directions. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version of this article (10.1007/s40037-022-00725-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Bohn Stafleu van Loghum 2022-09-05 2022-10 /pmc/articles/PMC9582072/ /pubmed/36063310 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40037-022-00725-9 Text en © This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/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/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Article Barry, Erin S. Merkebu, Jerusalem Varpio, Lara State-of-the-art literature review methodology: A six-step approach for knowledge synthesis |
title | State-of-the-art literature review methodology: A six-step approach for knowledge synthesis |
title_full | State-of-the-art literature review methodology: A six-step approach for knowledge synthesis |
title_fullStr | State-of-the-art literature review methodology: A six-step approach for knowledge synthesis |
title_full_unstemmed | State-of-the-art literature review methodology: A six-step approach for knowledge synthesis |
title_short | State-of-the-art literature review methodology: A six-step approach for knowledge synthesis |
title_sort | state-of-the-art literature review methodology: a six-step approach for knowledge synthesis |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9582072/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36063310 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40037-022-00725-9 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT barryerins stateoftheartliteraturereviewmethodologyasixstepapproachforknowledgesynthesis AT merkebujerusalem stateoftheartliteraturereviewmethodologyasixstepapproachforknowledgesynthesis AT varpiolara stateoftheartliteraturereviewmethodologyasixstepapproachforknowledgesynthesis |