how to write a literature review dentistry

UNC Libraries
HSL Subject Research
PubMed for Dental Research
Literature Review

PubMed for Dental Research: Literature Review

Created by health science librarians.

Introduction
Basic Searches
Filters Sidebar
Find Full Articles
Manage Results

Section Objective

What is a literature review, clearly stated research question, search terms, searching worksheets, boolean and / or.

The content in the Literature Review section defines the literature review purpose and process, explains using the PICO format to ask a clear research question, and demonstrates how to evaluate and modify search results to improve the accuracy of the retrieval.

A literature review seeks to identify, analyze and summarize the published research literature about a specific topic. Literature reviews are assigned as course projects; included as the introductory part of master's and PhD theses; and are conducted before undertaking any new scientific research project.

The purpose of a literature review is to establish what is currently known about a specific topic and to evaluate the strength of the evidence upon which that knowledge is based. A review of a clinical topic may identify implications for clinical practice. Literature reviews also identify areas of a topic that need further research.

A systematic review is a literature review that follows a rigorous process to find all of the research conducted on a topic and then critically appraises the research methods of the highest quality reports. These reviews track and report their search and appraisal methods in addition to providing a summary of the knowledge established by the appraised research.

The UNC Writing Center provides a nice summary of what to consider when writing a literature review for a class assignment. The online book, Doing a literature review in health and social care : a practical guide (2010), is a good resource for more information on this topic.

Obviously, the quality of the search process will determine the quality of all literature reviews. Anyone undertaking a literature review on a new topic would benefit from meeting with a librarian to discuss search strategies. A consultaiton with a librarian is strongly recommended for anyone undertaking a systematic review.

Use the email form on our Ask a Librarian page to arrange a meeting with a librarian.

The first step to a successful literature review search is to state your research question as clearly as possible.

It is important to:

be as specific as possible
include all aspects of your question

Clinical and social science questions often have these aspects:

P eople/population/problem
I ntervention
C omparisons (not always included)

If the PICO model does not fit your question, try to use other ways to help be sure to articulate all parts of your question. Perhaps asking yourself Who, What, Why, How will help.

Example Question: Do electric toothbrushes work as well as or better than manual toothbrushes to remove plaque when used by children?

Note that this question fits the PICO model.

Population: Children
Intervention: Electric toothbrush
Comparison: Manual toothbrush
Outcome: Plaque removal

A literature review search is an iterative process. Your goal is to find all of the articles that are pertinent to your subject. Successful searching requires you to think about the complexity of language. You need to match the words you use in your search to the words used by article authors and database indexers. A thorough PubMed search must identify the author words likely to be in the title and abstract or the indexer's selected MeSH (Medical Subject Heading) Terms.

Start by doing a preliminary search using the words from the key parts of your research question.

Step #1: Initial Search

Enter the key concepts from your research question combined with the Boolean operator AND. PubMed does automatically combine your terms with AND. However, it can be easier to modify your search if you start by including the Boolean operators.

children AND electric toothbrush AND manual toothbrush AND plaque removal

The search retrieves a number of relevant article records, but probably not everything on the topic.

Step #2: Evaluate Results

Use the Summary drop down in the upper left hand corner of the results page to change the display to show all the Abstracts.

Review the results and move articles that are directly related to your topic to the Clipboard .

Go to the Clipboard to examine the language in the articles that are directly related to your topic.

look for words in the titles and abstracts of these pertinent articles that differ from the words you used
look for relevant MeSH terms in the list linked at the bottom of each article

The following two articles were selected from the search results and placed on the Clipboard.

Here are word differences to consider:

Initial search used Children. MeSH Terms use Child.
Initial search used Electric Toothbrush. Article titles use Battery-Powered, Powered. Related word from MeSH Terms is Electricity.
Initial search used Manual Toothbrush. Article title uses Manual Toothbrushes. Related word from MeSH is Toothbrushing.
Initial search used Plaque Removal. Article titles use this exact phrase. MeSH Terms use Dental Plaque combined with Therapy, Prevention, Control.

With this knowledge you can reformulate your search to expand your retrieval, adding synonyms for all concepts except for manual and plaque.

#3 Revise Search

Use the Boolean OR operator to group synonyms together and use parentheses around the OR groups so they will be searched properly. See the image below to review the difference between Boolean OR / Boolean AND.

Here is what the new search looks like:

(child OR children) AND (electric OR electricity OR battery OR power OR powered) AND manual AND (toothbrush OR toothbrushes OR toothbrushing) AND plaque AND (removal OR remove OR therapy OR prevention OR control)

Search Worksheet Example: Manual vs. Electric Toothbrush
Search Worksheet
<< Previous: Manage Results
Last Updated: May 14, 2024 12:50 PM
URL: https://guides.lib.unc.edu/pubmed-dental

Dentistry Guide: Literature Reviews

Getting Started
Use the Library This link opens in a new window
Search Smarter This link opens in a new window
Define my Topic This link opens in a new window
Search for Resources This link opens in a new window
Evaluate What I Find This link opens in a new window
Avoid Plagiarism This link opens in a new window
Articles, Books & More
Codes, Standards & Statistics
Blogs & Feeds
Measuring Research Impact This link opens in a new window
Publishing Academic Research This link opens in a new window
Resources for Working With Data
Resources for Writing a Thesis
EndNote JAMA
Literature Reviews
Finding Statistics
Working in Groups
Using Reference Materials

Writing the Literature Review (Part 1)

Writing the Literature Review (Part 2)

Writing a literature review

Your Liaison Librarian will be able to provide support and advice when you are doing your literature review, so make an appointment with your librarian when you start your research.

Liaison Librarians
Literature review template
The Literature Review Library Guide

Literature review books @ JCU Library

how to write a literature review dentistry

Prospero - Register of health related systematic reviews

PROSPERO PROSPERO is the only open access prospective register of systematic reviews with a health related outcome. Registration is web-based, completely free to use and open to all researchers planning to conduct a systematic review. more... less... PROSPERO was developed and is produced by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) at the University of York, and is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR).
<< Previous: Help With...
Next: Finding Statistics >>
Last Updated: May 13, 2024 5:37 PM
URL: https://libguides.jcu.edu.au/dentistry

LSC-Kingwood Instructional Support

DHYG 2201: Literature Reviews: Supporting Evidence-Based Practice in Dental Hygiene

What is a Literature Review?

Literature Reviews and Evidence-Based Practice

Research Study and Peer Review Process
Ask a Well-Defined Question
Find Research
Next Steps in EBP
Citation Help
Contact a Librarian

The literature review provides your audience with relevant information about your topic, as well as your synthesis and evaluation of the article. It is not just a summary of the article. It is not possible to provide all of the information on a topic with three or five articles. As you locate articles, determine those that are the most relevant and that give you the most information.

Choose a minimum of three articles . Before you begin, locate other literature reviews in your discipline, such as this article (*requires the barcode from your Lone Star College ID or library card for off-campus access).

There are several steps in writing a literature review:

Choose a research area. For this assignment, you may choose any current topic in dental hygiene.
Identify sources of information. This literature review will be limited to peer-reviewed research articles from journals only. Articles must have been published during the last five years . A list of search tools are provided under the Find Research tab.
Record citation information for your report and bibliography as you research. See citation help tab for more information.
Locate, read and evaluate potential articles. Take notes on your articles, and identify patterns as well as agreements or disagreements among the authors. The guides listed below contain excellent questions to consider as you read and evaluate each article.
Write your review, including your own synthesis and evaluation of the articles you selected. Provide a citation and a summary for each article.

The following links are excellent guides on writing literature reviews:

The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting It (University of Toronto Writing Center) - Good, brief list of questions to ask in order to conduct an effective review.
Literature Reviews - Tips on research strategy and organization of a literature review from the Writing Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Writing a Literature Review - An easy-to-read overview of how to develop your literature review; from Agnes Scott College Center for Writing and Speaking.
are designed with a clear set of stated objectives
are comprehensive for a well-defined area of study
evaluate and synthesize the quality and findings of the studies included.

Most search tools provide a search filter to make it easy to locate systematic reviews on your topic. This is a useful filter that can provide you with high quality information very quickly. To learn more about how systematic reviews are developed, see " How to conduct a systematic or evidence-based literature review ."

You are not required to conduct a systematic review for this assignment; however, you might want to consider including a systematic review as part of your literature review, if you can find one that fits the criteria and search requirements of your assignment.

Locating literature reviews, in general, and systematic reviews, in particular, is both a time-saver and a method of finding critical evaluations of research.

Image credit: Claude Moore Health Sciences Library. (2003). Evidence Based Resource Models. Retrieved February 13, 2019 from https://www.slideshare.net/anandmscn/evidence-based-practice-strategies-to-nursing-practiv [Slide 26].

<< Previous: Home
Next: Research Study and Peer Review Process >>
Last Updated: Apr 25, 2024 11:23 AM
URL: https://kwlibguides.lonestar.edu/dental

Literature Reviews
Find Journal Articles
***Anatomy resources***
Mobile Apps This link opens in a new window
Dental Associations
Drug Information
Evidence Based Practice
Statistics in Dentistry
Critical Appraisal
Grey Literature
Find Videos
Find Images
Find Podcasts and Blogs
Managing References
For Faculty
Managing Research Data This link opens in a new window

Dentistry: Literature Reviews

Introduction to literature reviews.

For more detailed information on literature reviews...

For a more detailed treatment of literature reviews in the health sciences, please visit Catherine Boden's research guide . It contains a wealth of information on the different types of reviews, focusing on systematic reviews.

How to Structure a Literature Review

Structuring the Literature Review (videos) "A series of four videos on how to structure the literature review. It covers the overall structure, how to structure the introduction, the body, how to get the body in order and finally the conclusion."
5 Ways to Structure a Literature Review A helpful blog by Pat Thomson, presenting 5 different ways of structuring your literature review.

Proximity Operators & Truncation in Databases

Provides the commands for using proximity operators, and truncation in various keyword databases, such as Scopus.

Boolean Operators, and Proximity (or Adjacency) Operators

Organizing your Literature Review

Literature Search Template A wonderful way to keep track of what databases you searched when, and what strategies you used. Highly recommended!

More Resources on the Literature Review

<< Previous: Home
Next: Find Journal Articles >>
Library A to Z
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on YouTube
Follow on Instagram

The University of Saskatchewan's main campus is situated on Treaty 6 Territory and the Homeland of the Métis.

Last Updated: Feb 29, 2024 2:21 PM
URL: https://libguides.usask.ca/dentistry

Online Only
Special Issues

Inside Dentistry
Inside Dental Technology
Inside Dental Hygiene
The Dental Genius
View Current Issue
Clinical Categories
General Dentistry
Restorative
Endodontics
Implantology
Oral Surgery
Orthodontics
Pediatric Dentistry
Periodontics
Prosthodontics
Specialty Care
Additional Categories
Business of Dentistry
Infection Control
Pain Management

Compendium, May 2024

Compendium, April 2024

What Should You Consider When Writing for a Dental Publication?

Steven R. Jefferies, MS, DDS, PhD | Norman Tinanoff, DDS, MS | Theodore P. Croll, DDS

Dr. Jefferies

"There is no form of prose more difficult to understand and more tedious to read than the average scientific paper."

Francis Crick, BSc, PhD, The Astonishing Hypothesis (1994)

Effective writing in dentistry is difficult, yet highly rewarding. Successful writing of scientific information, whether in dentistry or other clinical/scientific disciplines, requires the execution of various talents and skills. "Good scientific research begins with an original idea that is put into practice by means of a robust methodology." 1

Yet equally important in written communications in dentistry is having a thorough command of the English language. Proper use of grammar, punctuation, syntax, and vocabulary is necessary for effective writing.

My experience as an investigator and author has been in the area of the laboratory and clinical investigation of biomaterials and devices. Publications in this realm, like that of science in general, are often complex and involve considerable detail, making this material often hard to read. While this fact challenges the reader's understanding and comprehension, poor writing can present an additional barrier to effective communication.

Good writing in dentistry involves both a depth of technical knowledge and experience and a command of more "classical" disciplines of knowledge and education, such as language, grammar, rhetoric, and logic. All of these factors influence the psychology and rhetorical interpretive mechanisms by which readers process and derive meaning from written text and are especially relevant to effective technical and medical writing. 2

While many basic concepts of good scientific writing have been articulated in the literature, dental authors can utilize the following four principles to greatly improve their writing and communicating in dentistry:

Collaboration is critical. Given the breath and complexity of knowledge and research in dentistry, collaboration between researchers and investigators has become a necessity. Having mentors early in one's career and serving as a mentor later in one's career promotes good research and writing.

Be an exhaustive reader of the literature. Extensive reading within an investigator's chosen area of the dental literature provides not only the intellect to understand, process, and analyze the state of the art, but also enhances and continually improves one's writing quality.

"Scientific writing requires practice." 3 In truth, good scientific writing in dentistry can only be achieved with considerable and continuous practice and constructive criticism.

Tell a story. In addition to communicating a good idea or hypothesis, a robust methodology, clear and interesting findings, a sound interpretation of those findings, and solid, well-founded conclusions, research and scientific writing must "tell a story." 4

In scientific writing, writers often fail to appreciate readers' mechanisms of information processing and underestimate the difficulties and ambiguities inherent in the reading process. Good scientific writing should match and support the psychology and logic of how readers process written information in order to derive meaning and value from the text. Good writing in dentistry is a highly valuable and vitally important practice.

Dr. Tinanoff

When embarking on a dental writing project, there are a number of questions and suggestions one may consider that can help advance the scholarly effort, from formulation to journal submission. Before starting, considerations might include: Will the topic be worthy of interest, make a difference, and advance science? Is the topic appropriate to the intended journal and audience? Does the content apply to most situations and most populations? Most importantly, writers must ask themselves if they have the time and persistance to do the research, writing, and revisions.

Another set of questions can be asked when actually writing the scientifc report: Does the article title stimulate interest, and does the title include "keywords"? Is the abstract a concise summary of the main purpose, results, and conclusions? Does the introduction establish the background for the hypothesis with what is already known, and does it state the purpose or research question? Are the methods designed to answer the research question? Do they explain what was done and are they in enough detail so that the reader has sufficient information to evaluate the results? Do the results follow the methods and do they present factual unbiased findings in the text, tables, or figures? Does the discussion then follow from the results? Does it support/not support the hypothesis? Does it compare the findings to what others have done? Does the discussion consider the limitations of findings/opinions or potential bias of this scholarly effort? Are the conclusions derived from the results and written so that the findings matter to the reader? Finally, are the citations accurate and current, and do they follow the journal's format?

In general, writers shouldrefrain from slang, hackneyed, overused words/phrases; write short sentences; and use concise words, such as "clarify" instead of "elucidate." Writers should know the intended audience and write to them. It is often said that easy-to-read writing depends on revising, rewriting, revising, and rewriting. Also, it is a good practice to have an experienced writer study the near-finished work for organization, clarity, and syntax. Lastly, before submitting a document for possible publication, make sure it conforms to the journal's instructions to authors.

"The dental assistant took an x-ray that showed the patient needed a root canal." "There were interproximal cavities on the bitewings." "All the caries were (or was) removed." "Silver diamine fluoride arrested all the carious lesions." "There was buccal cervical caries on both laterals." "After a prophy, the tooth was prepped for a crown."

Poorly written sentences such as these can cause bruxism in former English majors who ventured on to dental schools. Just where did the dental assistant who "took" that x-ray go with it? And besides, we know that the patient already had a root canal-many of them, in fact! In reality, the assistant recorded a periapical radiograph of a premolar that showed alterations suggesting endodontic therapy might be indicated.

"Interproximal" is a space between teeth, so how can dental caries develop in space? Approximal tooth surfaces can develop decalcification and caries lesions, which appear as radiolucent changes on radiographs, but the bitewing radiographs themselves do not have caries lesions on them. Moreover, caries is not a physical material that can be removed. Carious tooth substance is eliminated in an infected tooth in the debridement stage of wound healing during the restoration process. Caries lesions infect teeth and are commonly called tooth decay. There is no such thing as a carious lesion. The lesion is not carious; the tooth is carious.

Contrary to common usage, there are two "m's" in "diammine," and microbiological studies from TRAC Research in Utah have shown that caries infections are actually "intercepted," "abated," or "attenuated," not "arrested." 5 And while it has become acceptable in lectures and print to assign "buccal" surfaces to anterior teeth, this is technically inaccurate because no incisor or canine tooth actually apposes musculus buccinator . Also, it is better to write "lateral incisors" rather than "laterals." Terms such as "prophy," "prepped," and "laterals" may be reasonable lunch time verbal banter among dental colleagues or as unedited comments in patient record progress notes, but such jargon degrades scientific writing.

Unfortunately, the history of dentistry and writing in dentistry are two largely neglected topics in professional dentistry education. Without the luck of serious mentoring by concerned teachers, how is a student of dentistry to learn how to effectively write a case report, clinical technique article, research paper, editorial, or any other written communication in the dental profession?

A teacher of mine advised me that you do not need to be a researcher to write for publication in dentistry. "When you find something that you think you can make better, make it better and document each step along the way." Communicate in writing what you have achieved in that quest, and augment the writing with high-quality photographs, tables, charts, etc.

Here are some considerations when writing for dentistry:

With apologies to Lewis Carroll, have something meaningful to say and say it meaningfully.

Write it simply, as if you are talking. Keep it precise and concise. Speak your sentences out loud after they are written, and let your ear hear your writing voice. Theodor Seuss Geisel (aka "Dr. Ted from the West") wrote it perfectly: "So the writer who breeds more words than he needs, is making a chore for the reader who reads."

Writing isn't difficult. Rewriting is profoundly difficult, always necessary, and most rewarding. Rarely are first sentences the best that one can do.

One of dentistry's great scientists, Dr. Ralph Phillips, advised me to consider having a co-author to aid in a work. He said if the piece is good and well received, there is joy in sharing the glory. If not, there is someone to blame.

Publications have "author guidelines." Follow them!

About the Authors

Steven R. Jefferies, MS, DDS, PhD Guest Researcher, Department of Applied Materials Science, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

Norman Tinanoff, DDS, MS Professor, Division of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland

Theodore P. Croll, DDS Clinic Director, Cavity Busters Doylestown, Doylestown, Pennsylvania; Adjunct Professor, Pediatric Dentistry, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio (Dental School); Clinical Professor, Pediatric Dentistry, Case Western Reserve University School of Dental Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio

1. Kueffer C, Larson BM. Responsible use of language in scientific writing and science communication. BioScience . 2014;64(8):719-724.

2. Gopen GD, Swan JA. The science of scientific writing. American Scientist . November-December 1990;78:550-558.

3. Normando D. Writing a scientific paper: where to start from? Dental Press J Orthod . 2014;19(1):1. doi: 10.1590/2176-9451.19.1.001-001.edt.

4. Buenz EJ. Essential elements for high-impact scientific writing. Nature website. February 11, 2019. https://nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00546-7. Accessed July 14, 2021.

5. Clinicians Report Foundation. 38% silver diamine fluoride (SDF): does it arrest dental caries lesion progression? Clinicians Report . 2018;11(1):1-3.

Dr. Croll's Recommended Writing Resources

Kienzle GJ. Writing - the intellectual microscope. J Prosthet Dent . 1960;10(6):1160-1169.

Boucher CO. Writing as a means for learning. J Prosthet Dent . 1972;27(2):229-234.

Croll TP. Preparation of a dental case history report for publication . J Am Dent Assoc . 1981;102(1):59-61.

Warren JA Jr. Coming to terms with terminology. Operative Dentistry . 1998;23:105-107.

Kilpatrick JJ. Fine Print: Reflections on the Writing Art . Kansas City, MO: Andrews McMeel Publishing; 1993.

Lederer R, Dowis R. The Write Way: The S.P.E.L.L. Guide to Real-Life Writing . New York, NY: Pocket Books; 1995.

Gastel B, Day RA. How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper . 8th ed. Santa Barbara, CA: GREENWOOD ™ ; 2016.

Strunk WS Jr. The Elements of Style , edited by Richard De A'Morelli Classic Edition 2018 Update. San Luis Obispo, CA: Spectrum Ink USA; 2018.

View All of Our Brands
Advertisers

Introduction
Reading Lists
Library Search
Library databases
Evidence-Based Dentistry

Literature reviews

Referencing
Locations and opening hours Find books, articles and more Use the library Accessibility and support Subject support Research support Special Collections Events About New University Library Contacts

A key role of the University Library is to support the literature reviews of students and staff. The library provides access to the academic literature, and to librarians who can assist with some aspects of the review process. Key contacts:

Subject Librarians - for help with devising a search strategy for your review; retrieving publications; referencing.

Library Study Skills team - for help with academic writing, planning and structuring your work.

Library Research Support team - for help with deciding where and how to publish your review.

What is a literature review?

Academic research is not done in isolation, it connects with the work and ideas of others, creating an ever-changing network of knowledge and exploration. Research is often recorded in the literature – formal academic publications such as books or journals, or less formal “grey literature” such as conference papers, theses and reports. Before starting their research, academics will search for, read and review the existing literature to see what has already been published on their topic so that they can position their own work in the existing research landscape, taking into account the work that has been done by others before.

The term literature review can describe a product or a process. As a product , the literature review is part of an essay, report or publication where the researcher summarises and reports on the literature they have read relating it to their own research question, setting the context for their work. As a process , the literature review involves a methodology or series of steps that a researcher will undertake to enable them to identify, appraise and summarise the relevant publications and studies relating to their topic.

The method for conducting a literature review will vary depending on the subject of the review. Different subject disciplines rely on different information sources; and these sources often require different methods for successful retrieval of the most relevant literature. At Bristol University your Subject Librarian can guide you to the most appropriate sources to use for your academic research, and to the best-practice methods for searching these sources.

Literature reviews in the health sciences

These articles give some useful advice on conducting a literature search in health sciences:

Thompson, E. A., Gann, L. B. and Cressman, E. N. K. (2019) “ Learning to Successfully Search the Scientific and Medical Literature ,” Cell stress & chaperones , 24(2), pp. 289–293.
Jha, R., Sondhi, V. and Vasudevan, B. (2022) “ Literature Search: Simple Rules for Confronting the Unknown ,” Medical journal, Armed Forces India , 78(Suppl 1), p. 23. doi: 10.1016/j.mjafi.2022.07.009

Types of review

The value of literature reviews for informing clinical decision-making and evidence-based practice has led to a plethora of methodologies and standards, causing some confusion over the definition of a "systematic review". These articles help clarify the different types of review, and provide guidance on the most appropriate methods for information retrieval for each:

Borah R, Brown AW, Capers PL, Kaiser KA. Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry. BMJ Open. 2017 Feb 27;7(2):e012545. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012545.
Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies . Health Info Libr J. 2009 Jun;26(2):91-108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.
Munn, Z., Peters, M.D.J., Stern, C. et al. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach . BMC Med Res Methodol 18, 143 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
Sutton A, Clowes M, Preston L, Booth A. Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements . Health Info Libr J. 2019 Sep;36(3):202-222. doi: 10.1111/hir.12276.

Library guide to systematic reviews

Please see our Library guide designed to support the literature search for a systematic review in the Health Sciences.

Systematic review training courses

State-of-the-art training courses run by the Bristol Medical School in the whole process of conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis

Recommended Library books on literature searching

Recommended Library books on systematic reviews

<< Previous: Evidence-Based Dentistry
Next: Referencing >>
Last Updated: May 17, 2024 1:02 PM
URL: https://bristol.libguides.com/dentistry

Writing Tips

Literature reviews, literature reviews and evidence-based practice, research assistance.

Reference Sources
Books & Media
Databases & Journals
Web Resources
Practice for Licensing Exams

Chat video conferencing is available Monday-Thursday 7:30am-6:00pm & Friday 8:00am-1:00pm.

Meet Your Librarian

APA 7th Edition Guide (Purdue Owl) APA style and formatting from Purdue's Online Writing Lab.
APA 7th Edition Citation Tutorial Tutorial on creating citations and references using APA 7th edition.
APA 7th edition Sample Paper Annotated paper using APA 7th edition from Purdue Owl.
GTC Writing Center The center is staffed by tutors who are eager to help any student or member of the faculty or staff at any stage of the writing process.
5 Main Types of Writing Characteristics and focus of informative, persuasive, process, and literary writing.

What is a Literature Review?

Choose a minimum of three articles . Before you begin, locate other literature reviews in your discipline.

There are several steps in writing a literature review:

Choose a research area. For this assignment, you may choose any current topic in dental hygiene.
Identify sources of information. This literature review will be limited to peer-reviewed research articles from journals only. Articles must have been published during the last five years . A list of search tools are provided under the Find Research tab.
Record citation information for your report and bibliography as you research. See citation help tab for more information.
Locate, read and evaluate potential articles. Take notes on your articles, and identify patterns as well as agreements or disagreements among the authors. The guides listed below contain excellent questions to consider as you read and evaluate each article.
Write your review, including your own synthesis and evaluation of the articles you selected. Provide a citation and a summary for each article.
Literature Reviews Explains what literature reviews are and offers insight into the form and construction of literature reviews in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences, by the Writing Center at UNC-Chapel Hill
The Literature Review: A Few Tips Compiled by the Writing Center at the University of Toronto
Writing a Literature Review By the Center for Writing and Speaking at Agnes Scott College

Content above reused from https://kwlibguides.lonestar.edu/dh-ebp/dh-lit-review , with permission of creator Hope LeJeune.

Literature reviews are important sources of information in evidence-based practice. The example article provided is also an example of a specific type of literature review - the systematic review . Systematic reviews are valuable in evidence-based practice because they:

are designed with a clear set of stated objectives
are comprehensive for a well-defined area of study
evaluate and synthesize the quality and findings of the studies included.

Locating literature reviews, in general, and systematic reviews, in particular, is both a time-saver and a method of finding critical evaluations of research.

Writing & Research Guide
KnightCite Format citations from many information sources in MLA, APA or Chicago style
Database Tutorials

Have more questions or suggestions for this research guide? Please contact Jan Daniel , your resource librarian.

Next: Reference Sources >>
Last Updated: May 8, 2024 7:57 AM
URL: https://libguides.gvltec.edu/dental

Evidence-based dental practice: searching the literature and writing a report

Identify main concepts
Choose the right databases
Plan a search
Create email alerts
How to Write an Evidence-based Practice Report

Writing Resources

Downloadable files, how to navigate this section of the guide.

How to Structure an Evidence-based Report
Language as a Tool for Building an Argument
Writing the Introduction
Stating the Aim
Writing the Discussion
Final Step: Writing the Abstract
A Final Note about Verbs
How to find articles
Poster Presentation

Your Librarian

An Evidence-based Practice Report identifies and critically evaluates all the literature on a practice-based question in order to determine the best available research evidence on which to base practice, and to make a recommendation on best-practice based on the evidence OR to identify if no recommendation is possible based on the current research.

An Evidence-based Report is a Form of Literature Review: A “literature review,” or “critical review,” is a classification and evaluation of the literature, organized according to a guiding topic. This could be a research question, a search for the best evidence-based practice, or an understanding of a problem/issue within health.

Literature review tells us both what has and what has not been accomplished in an area of study. Think of scientific progress and our understanding of the human experience as stretching on a time line from prehistory to the stars. Literature review shows us where we are on the line—what we know (or think we know) and what we still hope to discover.

Literature review develops two crucial skills which help you develop comprehensive knowledge and understanding of your field:

the ability to find the research on a topic, and
the ability to read, understand and evaluate it.

A good literature review is not just a summary, but a critical evaluation and synthesis. The best critical appraisals are: 1. organized around and directly related to the topic they explore 2. a summary of what is and is NOT known about the topic 3. able to identify areas of controversy and problem 4. able to identify future directions for research or practice. (Domholdt, 1993)

An Evidence-based Report Makes a Critical Argument: Broadly speaking, there are two types of writing: description and argument. In writing an evidence-based report, you are describing your search for the evidence and making an argument that leads to the recommendation(s) you make in your conclusion.

An “argument” is a logically connected series of reasons, statements, or facts ( evidence ) used to support or establish an idea or point of view (a claim ). The purpose of argument is to persuade the reader to accept the claim as true, and/or to undertake some action.
To be “critical” is to evaluate research based on its strengths and weaknesses and come to conclusions about its usefulness for understanding or solving the problem at hand.
Arguments are frameworks designed to help us approach solutions to difficult problems. Critical argument allows us to judge the strengths and weaknesses of our options in a logical fashion.
Writing in the health sciences: a comprehensive guide This guide was written by staff at the Health Sciences Writing Centre, University of Toronto.
Transitional Words And Phrases That Create Logic In Writing

Navigate through the steps for writing a critical appraisal by using the previous/next links below, or clicking on headings that will appear on top or to the left of the page, starting with "How to Structure an Evidence-based Report".

<< Previous: Create email alerts
Next: How to Structure an Evidence-based Report >>
Last Updated: May 10, 2024 12:48 PM
URL: https://guides.library.utoronto.ca/dentalliterature

University of Toronto Libraries 130 St. George St.,Toronto, ON, M5S 1A5 [email protected] 416-978-8450 Map About web accessibility . Tell us about a web accessibility problem . About online privacy and data collection .

Connect with us

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

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
J Taibah Univ Med Sci
v.16(6); 2021 Dec

Language: English | Arabic

Literature search strategies in dental education and research

Zohaib khurshid.

a Department of Prosthodontics and Implantology, College of Dentistry, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa, KSA

Rabia Tariq

b Department of Research, School of Public Health, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan

Faris Y. Asiri

c Department of Preventive Dentistry, College of Dentistry, King Faisal University, Al Ahsa, KSA

Khadijah Abid

d Department of Biostatistics, College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan, Karachi, Pakistan

Muhammad S. Zafar

e Department of Restorative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Taibah University, Almadinah Almunawwarah, KSA

A well-organized literature search is a fundamental requirement for research-based dental education. The execution of a literature search is not beneficial unless researchers possess basic knowledge about it. In this article, all basic strategies and research tools essentially required for a literature search, including Boolean operators, correct use of keywords, database selection, and the evaluation of filtered data and limitations, are discussed. The present article offers vital information and literature search guidelines for early career dental researchers and dental students. In addition, it contains a collection of all the essential information related to the generally used electronic databases in dentistry research. This will be helpful for dental students, residents, consultants, and allied science researchers.

الملخص

إن البحث المنظم هو مطلب أساسي لتعليم طب الأسنان القائم على البحث. لا يكون تنفيذ البحث مفيدا إلى أقصى حد له حتى يكون لدى الباحثين معرفة أساسية في البحث في الأدبيات العلمية. في هذه المقالة، قدمنا جميع الاستراتيجيات الأساسية وناقشنا بشكل أساسي البحث في طب الأسنان خطوة بخطوة مثل عامل التشغيل البولي والاستخدام الصحيح للكلمات المفتاحية واختيار قواعد البيانات وتقييم تنقيح البيانات وقيودها. وبالتالي، فإن المقالة الحالية تقدم معلومات حيوية وإرشادات بحث للباحثين في مجال طب الأسنان في بداية حياتهم المهنية وطلاب طب الأسنان. بالإضافة إلى ذلك، قمنا بجمع جميع المعلومات الأساسية المتعلقة بقواعد البيانات الإلكترونية المستخدمة عموما في مجال أبحاث طب الأسنان تحت مظلة واحدة، التي ستكون مفيدة بالتأكيد لطلاب طب الأسنان والأطباء المقيمين والاستشاريين والباحثين العلميين.

Introduction

Over the last few years, research in dentistry has expanded tremendously. Accordingly, with increasing literature knowledge, the stress-free virtual availability of information in several search databases has broadened the diameter of evidence-based education. 1 At the same time, this achievement has resulted in a considerable research task for students, residents, and consultants in terms of relevant literature exploration. 2 Quantitative and qualitative research is an obligatory component of today's academic and professional life. Therefore, diving into an ocean of dental research literature without knowing the fundamental guidelines of literature search can pose a challenge for researchers. 3 A wide distribution of information-seeking strategies related to dentistry is available in the form of standard textbooks, academic and non-academic courses, and digital networks. 3 , 4 Currently, social media is setting a new trend in the development of the dental research. Tutorials, blogs, lectures, peer-reviewed articles, and research guidelines are easily available and have been publicized through social networking sites. However, social media communication has great influence on the merit of research publications. 4

Literature search is the process of searching for relevant information and then critically reviewing it. The goal of an effective literature search is to save time, limit the total number of titles, maximize the number of relevant titles, and minimize the number to be read. 5 A well-constructed search strategy is therefore key to an effective literature search. The search strategy must be logical and creative. 6 The best approach is to start with a good research question (what you are going to research). 7 A good research question can be designed using PICO criteria: P = population, I = intervention/exposure, C = comparison group/control, and O = outcome. 8 Thus, the search strategy includes the key points of your research question in order to extract relevant results. 9 The search strategy will account for all keywords and phrases, possible search terms, wildcard and truncated variations of search terms, and subject headings (where applicable). 10

To ensure an evidence-based literature search, an adequately formulated research question is required together with the selection of correct databases. Keywords or phrases identified from the research question are used with Boolean and additional operators listed according to the database. For better success, the results should then be evaluated with filter or limitations application if necessary. 11

This review aims to provide information on the elementary guiding principles of a literature search in the field of dentistry that can constitute the ultimate source of information benefitting dental researchers.

Effective ways of literature search

Today, digital knowledge has gained prime importance in evidence-based literature search along with old-style publications procedure. 12 Frequently used online search engines offer open accessibility to journals either through cost-free or labelled ACP (article processing charges) for full-text articles, such as PubMed, DOAJ, Web of Science, and Scopus. 13 , 14 The digital libraries of many institutes and colleges provide subscription-based accessibility to databases and printed or electronic journals through which relevant articles can be retrieved. 15 Subsequently, this benefits academic societies in terms of economic aid related to research work for faculty members and affiliated students. 16

Search engines differ in terms of accessibility, search format, required syntax, capability to build and save searches, and ability to obtain programmed updates. 5 Parallel to database selection, the formation of a research question is an essential task. Clinical problems should be identified and altered into answerable questions based on the commonly used PICO model. 17 This is followed by the generation of a word list based on keywords from the question. 7 For comfortable selection, databases are classified into general and subject-specific groups.

Major general databases are the primary source of dentistry literature. They provide inordinate resources of e-books, indexed and open-source journals, peer-reviewed articles, conference reports, case reports, review articles, protocols, and dissertations ( Table 1 ). 2 Subject-specific databases provide additional resources. Oral science resources and dentistry databases that provide the principal subject-based multi-disciplinary research in dentistry are shown in Table 2 . 18

Table 1

Ground codes of commonly used databases in dental literature search.

i: Google Scholar does not offer advance literature search, Pipe (/) works similar like OR operator and minus (−) sign used for limitation instead of NOT, AND.

ii: Sub-heading in Embase.com applied only for disease/ds, drugs/dd, and devices/dv.

iii: Scopus & web of science does not include index terms and sub-headings.

Table 2

Major resource of literature search in dentistry.

Among general databases for dental literature searches, PubMed is responsible for the leading medicine and biomedical science updates, including online in-press articles, while Scopus and Web of Science embrace online journal articles. PubMed and Google Scholar provide free access to dental research literature, while other foremost databases require a subscription. Broadly speaking, Google Scholar can help in retrieving articles by self-selected keywords from the articles and author name but mostly does not provide precise information for citation. 19

Embase is a general bibliographic database that contains original as well as review articles, while Cochrane library focuses on information for systemic review in dentistry. Cochrane review groups offer access to records of randomized and non-randomized control trials. Most of the Cochrane Central data sources are PubMed , Embase , CINAHL , ClinicalTrials.gov , and the WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform s. It deliver a great source of reviewing intervention in dentistry if the focus is on clinical trials. 20 , 21 , 22 According to a recent investigation, a combination of Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar platforms is the minimum requirement for retrieving quality references on systemic reviews, whereas for subject-specific review topics, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane databanks must be explored along with other major general databases. 23

Moreover, information resources excluding bibliographic databases are also present, which aid in framing literature searches. Guiding documents 24 , 25 , 26 have acknowledged that searches should go further than bibliographic databases for systemic reviews since databases are not the only source of literature. However, these resources are considered as grey literature, providing benefits related to current updates but also possibly resulting in the inclusion of poor-quality articles. 27

Grey literature is material issued external to the traditional commercial and circulation networks. 28 It incorporates a vast collection of papers comprising documents such as case reports, policies, ethical and practice guidelines, theses, dissertations, conference abstracts, newsletters, and Blogs. 28 , 29 It provides current updates of scientific research interventions and developments in the field of dentistry and also reduces publication bias. Comprehensive search topics related to social issues, policy, public health, and non-commercial publications involve searching grey literature sources. 30 A treasure trove of theses and dissertations are now accessible online in various databases such as ProQuest, British Library's Ethos Databases [ https://ethos.bl.uk/ ], and Open Access Theses and Dissertations [ https://oatd.org ]. 23 Embase and Web of Science provide access to indexed conference proceedings. The International Association of Dental Research (IADR) provides a distinct record of meeting abstracts to track down unpublished studies ( Table 2 ). 23

Precise data extraction requires the appropriate selection of search terms or word phrases in amalgamation with the selected database's syntax guides. Relevant search terms selected from the designed question based on a PICO strategy result in minimizing bias and supplementary errors. 9

Keywords or phrases

Keywords function as exploration terms for literature searches in a variety of databases while reflecting the vital concept of the research topic. The correct form of keyword or phrase is needed for the exploration of precise data assessment. 29 Single exploration terms are classified as a simple search, while a grouping of search terms or phrases is considered a compound search. 31 Index terms are the control vocabulary words labelled as content in article citation. 32 These standard terms are used along with keywords or free-text words in primary databases to magnify the search span and acquire relevant outcomes. 32 Index terms diverge according to forms of searching databases such as Medical Subject Heading (MeSH), which are used in MEDLINE and COCHRANE databases, Emtree® headings used for Embase, and so on ( Table 1 ). 30 , 32 These terms are hierarchical branched trees from broad stem to narrow root search terms (such as Operative dentistry, streptococcus Mutans , dental caries, restoration, restorative material). However, PubMed provides an additional advantage of “automatic term search” by adding specific MeSH terms automatically linked with keywords. 33 Similarly, Embase also provides an additional facility of vocabulary words, while in other databases, suitable vocabulary words should be customized.

Advance databases facilitate the execution of sensitive searches by providing narrower terms branching along with keywords in the title and abstract field. This results in a precise and specific article search. 34

Qualifiers are the sub-headings used when the literature search is broad or needs to specify a condition. A two-letter coded qualifier list is available for each MeSH in the MeSH browser of databases. 35 To elaborate, the combined use of the Boolean operator, keywords, and MeSH words along with field codes is given together as an example (“Socket inflammation” [tw] OR “Dry socket” OR “alveolar osteiti∗” [mh]) AND (Management [tiab] OR Prevention OR therap∗ [tiab]). This search strategy will retrieve all the articles related to the dry socket and its management. The MeSH word [mh] is used along with the text word [tw], and the “Title/Abstract” field code is used as a limitation with the truncation sign (∗).

Boolean operators

Boolean logic is the functional tool used to associate two or more search terms or keywords to augment the research outcomes. The three main Boolean operators are “AND”, “OR”, and “NOT”. 7 Boolean operators are case sensitive and must be typed in upper case (capital letters). The operator ‘AND’ is used to rectify citations that comprise all the search phrases, while ‘OR’ is used to retrieve either of the search terms it is placed between. The operator “NOT” is used to exclude search terms and limit citations. The navigation of “AND” and “NOT” operators is to constrict the search span; however, the “NOT” operator is rarely used since a coincidental limitation for needed citations exists. 36 Contrarily, the operator ‘OR’ broadens the search span as explained in Figure 1 . All three operators are used by the majority of primary databases. In Google Scholar, AND and NOT do not apply, it considers by default while the OR function is applicable. For limitation, the minus (−) sign is used in Google. 37

Representation of Boolean operator execution using various keywords of literature search.

Additional symbols are used sideways with Boolean operators such as brackets “( )”, truncation signs (∗, $), replacement wildcard (∗, ?, #), and double speech marks (“ ”). 38 Bracket placement is required to cluster all the alternative expressions, when both AND and OR operators are used together in the same database search bar, for example, (awareness OR knowledge OR information) AND fluorosis. The truncation symbol varies within search databases such as Scopus, OVID scaffolds (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO), COCHRANE, Web of Science, and PROQUEST. EBSCO uses an asterisk (∗), while Google Scholar does not offer the parenthesis function. 38 However, it eventually broadens the search span by identifying similar words. To apply the truncation function, the (∗, $) symbol is entered at the root end of the search term; for example, 'dental caries' AND child∗ or 'dental caries' AND child$ would retrieve citations with dental caries and child, children, and childhood. 12 The wildcard (∗,?, #) sign is used to replace a single letter in a word when there are alternate spellings of the same keyword. For instance, to search for literature on the question of oral health assessment in pregnant women , the search term by using wildcard/truncation would be [“oral health” AND “pregnant wom∗n”] or [(oral health) AND (pregnant wom?n)]. 39 , 40 Consequently, this would search all the articles of oral health assessment with both pregnant woman and pregnant women keywords, where there is American and British spelling variation. 40 However, this symbol does not produce many variations in databases. Quotation marks denote the beginning and end of the keyword. Inverted commas are applied when a group of words depicts the same expression, for example, “dental materials” (see Tables 1 and and3 3 ). 34

Table 3

Subject-specific resources of dentistry.

Moreover, bibliographic databases with advanced search facilities have provided additional operators that find relevant keywords within the given number of words. These functions are mostly involved in high-quality searches, particularly for review papers. 36

Proximity operators are false Boolean operators such as NEAR, WITH, WITHIN, and ADJ. These are offered by advanced databases to support search statement fabrication. This function is not offered by PubMed. However, AJD is used by Ovid; NEAR (N#) and WITHIN (W#) are used by EBSCO databases, whereas the COCHRANE Library, ProQuest, and Web of Science use NEAR. 38 The number is used along with the proximity operator to direct the database to find the keyword up to the given number in a word phrase. 36 For instance, “Composite N2 resin” will explore both the terms in any way with up to two words in between, such as composite resin, composite-based resin, and composite restorative resin.

After the application of relevant search strategies, the obtained data are analysed for precision and validation of search results. The majority of databases suggest short phrases or single search term usage, which results in the extraction of many unsuitable material for researchers. 41 Search filters are established to overcome this difficulty as well as support the formation of review questions and include/exclude studies. While accurate usage of keywords develops initial filtration of relevant articles, 42 , 43 inclusion criteria determine the selection of relevant and irrelevant studies. 42

Evaluation of search results and filter usage

Comprehensive and relevant search outcomes require a thorough assessment of the searched literature. It is particularly useful to read the abstract, to get a clearer image of what can be found in the article. This will assist in narrowing down the material most likely to be significant. Search Filters are designed to extract productive search results. These filters differ in each search engine to continue the imperative enhancement of the search competencies. Boolean operators mainly form affiliations among search words or phrases but also work sideways as a search filter to sharpen the productivity of the search. 44 , 45 It is also important to categorize the search limits provided by databases that are well adapted by dental researchers broadly, such as publication date, peer-reviewed, articles, and publication type. All search engines consolidate statistics about their official papers into particular fields. These field filters have a high sensitivity to identify significant search material in the databases, such as Author, Title, Abstract, Subject, Full-text article, All except full text, and Publication name. 46 These filters are comparatively informal with basic searches as compared to advanced searches. However, effort should still be made to learn the basics tools of literature search. 47

Regarding additional filter features among most frequently used general databases, PubMed has recently added more default filters on the sidebar. These can be used to assess several more variables, such as species, language, sex, subject, journal, and age. These additions are important for narrowing the materials available in the PubMed archive ( Figure 2 ). 48

Literature search strategies through the application of various filters using the PubMed database.

In order to add these filters, the following steps are suggested:

• Select a category on the left side, for example, “Article type”, “Species”, and “Language”.
• Within each selected category, select the filters you want to add to your Filters menu, such as “Journal article”, “Multicenter study”, and “Clinical study”.
• Click on “Apply” to add these selected filters to the main filters menu and close the pop-up.
• To apply the filter, click on additional filters in the menu.

Application of additional filters for literature search using the PubMed database.

Dental students and researchers face various challenges in the use of databases, and they require adequate training in this from professional librarians. Every institute should make such training mandatory prior to any postgraduate or research-based programs. In this way, students can improve their skills and gain confidence in running an effective literature search using various biomedical databases.

Limitations

This review paper has accounted for mainly those researchers who are beginners or planning to begin with dental research. Although it provides a decent amount and quality of information, it is restricted to a general literature search rather than detailed discussion on literature searches for systemic reviews. Further, to our knowledge, few authors have produced research or review papers related to dental literature search strategies. As a result, there is a limited citation of references associated with dental literature searches.

A literature search is an essential part in the execution of good-quality dental research. It helps to identify the overall study design and methodology, population sampled, sampling techniques, methods of analysis, and related calculations. It also aids in determining the effects of various independent variables on dependent outcomes and the strengths or weaknesses of past studies, for the improvement of futures studies. A researcher involved in research-based dentistry will find it helpful to develop and polish their skills under effective guidelines of the literature search strategy. Information about comprehensive biomedical and scientific databases and the implementation of fundamental research tools will improve literature search in dentistry. Knowledge of such search tools will help the dental community and researchers retrieve competent references. As the literature reviewing process provides knowledge about current updates in the field of dentistry, it offers networks for researchers to connect through globally. The basic knowledge of literature search strategies is thus helpful for both new and experienced dental researchers.

Recommendations

This review provides knowledge on overall literature search strategies for beginner researchers in the field of dentistry. Articles containing evidence on advanced literature searches associated with systemic reviews and studies related to the development of review questions following designs other than PICO (such as SPIDER and SPICE) are recommended for further reading. This type of literature benefits undergraduate students and general dental practitioners who plan to explore dental research and education.

Source of funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sector.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Ethical approval

The authors confirm that this editorial had been prepared in accordance with COPE roles and regulations. Given the nature of the editorial, the IRB review was not required.

Authors’ contributions

ZK proposed the study design and literature search; RT worked on the data acquisition and drafted a major part of the manuscript; ZK, RT, FYA, and KA collected, organized, and interpreted the data and wrote some parts of the manuscript; ZK and MSZ held general discussions and critically reviewed the manuscript. All authors have critically reviewed and approved the final draft and are responsible for the content and similarity index of the manuscript.

Peer review under responsibility of Taibah University.

Pocket Dentistry

Fastest clinical dentistry insight engine.

Dental Hygiene
Dental Materials
Dental Nursing and Assisting
Dental Technology
Endodontics
Esthetic Dentristry
General Dentistry
Implantology
Operative Dentistry
Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology
Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Orthodontics
Pedodontics
Periodontics
Prosthodontics
Gold Member
Terms and Condition

How to Use a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Chapter 6. how to use a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Alonso Carrasco-Labra, D.D.S., M.Sc., Ph.D.; Romina Brignardello-Petersen, D.D.S., M.Sc., Ph.D.; Michael Glick, D.M.D.; Gordon H. Guyatt, M.D., M.Sc.; and Amir Azarpazhooh, D.D.S., M.Sc., Ph.D .

In This Chapter:

Knowledge synthesis and translation, what is the difference between narrative and systematic reviews, why are systematic reviews considered to be a study design, critically appraising systematic reviews to inform clinical decisions.

• How Serious Is the Risk of Bias?

• What Are the Results?

Anatomy of a Meta-Analysis

• How Can I Apply the Results to Patient Care?

Introduction

In the previous chapters in this book, we introduced the process of evidence-based dentistry (EBD) 1 and explained how to search for evidence to inform clinical practice 2 and how to use articles about therapy, 3 harm, 4 and diagnosis. 5 In this chapter, we explain how to use a systematic review to answer a clinical question, introduce and describe the basic concepts for understanding the design of a systematic review, and explain how to use these concepts to critically appraise such studies. In addition, readers will learn how to interpret and use the results presented in the systematic review to inform clinical decisions. In a subsequent chapter, we describe how to use evidence-based clinical practice guidelines.

Box 6.1. Clinical Scenario

While working at a clinic in a remote rural location, you meet with a 55-year-old woman who has been referred to you for treatment of open caries on tooth #20, which the referring clinician has diagnosed as having irreversible pulpitis. After conducting a clinical examination, you recommend that the tooth be extracted. The patient asks if she will need to attend many follow-up appointments, because traveling from her home to your clinic is a burden. Among other measures, you decide to minimize your patient’s risk of having alveolar osteitis (dry socket) as a postoperative complication. You have been in the habit of prescribing chlorhexidine in cases such as this one; however, you wonder if this medication is actually of any use in decreasing the patient’s risk of experiencing dry socket. You consult the Cochrane Library and find a recently published systematic review that addresses this issue. 6

Keeping updated in knowledge related to any clinical discipline is challenging. According to the Medline (PubMed) Trend Database, 7 more than 30,000 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were published in 2012. Of these, approximately 1,500 were dental trials. This overwhelming amount of information can be impossible to manage for any health care provider, including dentists. Systematic reviews represent an efficient way to learn about the available evidence for an intervention or exposure.

According to the Cochrane Collaboration, 8 a systematic review is defined as “a review of a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review.” Like primary observational studies and randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews represent a type of study that requires implementation in a manner that minimizes the risk of bias. If these bias-reducing strategies (that is, the systematic review process) are in place, then readers can trust that the appropriate analysis will provide the best available estimate of the effect of an intervention or exposure. 8

Authors of many articles published in the dental literature refer to their work as “reviews”; only a small number of these articles, however, are systematic reviews. For this reason, clinicians interested in using review articles must be able to distinguish between narrative and systematic reviews. In narrative reviews, authors discuss one or more aspects related to a particular condition or disease (that is, etiology, diagnosis, prognosis, or therapy and management). Although this type of review may be useful for dental students (and sometimes dentists) who are interested in background information, the failure of authors to systematically collect and process the data makes the conclusions that arise from such articles potentially misleading. 9 , 10 In contrast, authors of trustworthy reviews use systematic, transparent, and comprehensive methods to retrieve, select, critically appraise, and summarize all the available evidence regarding the effectiveness of an intervention, prognosis, and diagnosis questions. Although it is possible to have systematic reviews that focus on prognosis and diagnosis (and harm) issues, in this chapter, we will focus on therapy (and harm) issues. Table 6.1 11 presents additional details regarding the difference between narrative and systematic reviews.

One of the key limitations of systematic reviews and meta-analyses is that the summary estimates produced are only as trustworthy as the results of the primary studies that inform the review. 12 Thus, the authors of rigorously conducted systematic reviews still may report low-quality evidence that warrants only weak inferences.

Table 6.1. Differences Between Narrative and Systematic Reviews *

* Reprinted with permission of JAMA and The JAMA Network from Guyatt and colleagues. 11

Systematic reviews and evidence-based clinical practice guidelines represent the most valuable documents that can inform clinical decision-making. 12 Review authors start by defining a clear and focused research clinical question in a way that is similar to that described in a previous chapter in this book, which addressed the framing of a question using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) approach (see Chapter 2 ). 2 The components of this PICO question correspond with the eligibility criteria outlined by the authors of the studies that are included in the review. For example, if the author specifies the population of interest as patients after tooth extraction, eligible studies must enroll such patients, and only such patients. Authors of systematic reviews should present clearly the population or type of patients, clinical intervention or exposure of interest, the comparator for such an intervention, and the selection of patient-important outcomes.

After specifying all these criteria, review authors should describe their methods in a protocol that, ideally, should be published or made available to users. Many reasons support the authors’ explicit and transparent declaration of selection criteria and methods in systematic reviews. Investigators have described important discrepancies between the selection of outcomes and methods when comparing them before the review starts with after the final manuscript is published. 13 Ideally, reviewers will describe the comprehensive search for all the available (published and unpublished) evidence they have conducted. As a result of this process, researchers should screen a set of references at the level of title and abstract first, and complete study reports later, to establish whether the articles retrieved meet the selection criteria ( Figure 6.1 11 ). Having identified all the relevant studies, reviewers abstract data that are related to the studies’ characteristics, risk of bias assessment, and results. Finally, they summarize the evidence and assess the quality of the body of evidence 14 ( Figure 6.1 11 ).

Figure 6.1. Process of Conducting a Systematic Review

Adapted with permission of JAMA and The JAMA Network from Guyatt and colleagues. 11

Box 6.2. The Study You Found

You consult the Cochrane Library and find a recently published systematic review whose authors aimed to assess the effects of local interventions on the prevention and treatment of alveolar osteitis (dry socket) after tooth extraction. 6 Reviewers identified 21 trials, and among these, the authors of 18 trials, which included more than 2,370 participants, reported results related to the prevention of dry socket. Although the authors of the systematic review reported more than 10 intrasocket interventions, they found limited evidence for each of these interventions.

As described in previous chapters, the process of using an article from the dental literature involves assessing the risk of bias, assessing the results, and assessing the applicability of the results. 14

How Serious Is the Risk of Bias?

The probability that the results of a systematic review are correct depends on whether reviewers identified, retrieved, selected, critically appraised, and summarized all the relevant studies. 15 Table 6.2 16 – 21 presents examples of the aspects to consider when assessing the risk of bias of a systematic review.

Table 6.2. Examples Illustrating Critical Appraisal of the Risk of Bias of a Systematic Review

* RCT = randomized controlled trial.

Did the review present explicit and appropriate eligibility criteria?

Consider a systematic review whose author intended to pool the effects of all antibiotics for treating all types of maxillofacial infections. Now, consider a review whose author intended to pool the results of the effects of fluoride varnishes for reducing the incidence of carious lesions in children and adolescents. Clearly, the first review would be excessively broad in its scope; equally clearly, the second review would be satisfactorily narrow.

What makes a systematic review question too broad? There are pathophysiological and microbiological aspects of maxillofacial infections and of the mechanism of the action of antibiotics that suggest that treatment effects vary across different types of patients (different types of infections) and interventions (different types of antibiotics). 11 A single pooled estimate summarizing all these data would not be applicable to any specific group of patients or any specific antibiotic, and therefore, it would be of no use to the clinician. On the other hand, results from the more focused question are likely to be similar for children and adolescents, for the available fluoride varnishes, and for the available approaches to identifying carious lesions. This similarity of effect across patients, interventions, and outcomes is what legitimizes the single pooled estimate of effect. 22

Was the search for relevant studies exhaustive?

Secure estimates of treatment effect require a comprehensive search for eligible studies. Unfortunately, even a search that includes all the relevant electronic databases may be insufficient. If the authors of a primary study selectively report and publish research results according to the effect (that is, studies favoring the intervention get published; studies that are negative do not), then the results will be a systematic overestimate of effect (that is, publication bias). 23 , 24 One way to mitigate this issue is to search and include “gray literature,” which includes documents such as dissertations, conference abstracts, personal correspondence, records of studies’ methods and results found in investigators’ file drawers or on their hard drives, and policy documents. 25 , 26

When assessing whether the search strategy was comprehensive, users should focus on which databases the authors consulted, and whether the systematic reviewers restricted their search to resources published in one particular language or to only published reports. 19 To learn more about specific databases and their characteristics, please refer to Chapter 2 .

Did the primary studies have a low risk of bias?

The credibility of the results of a systematic review is as only as great as the credibility of the primary studies included. Assessing credibility requires addressing the risk of bias associated with the primary studies that are included in a systematic review. Studies assessed as having a high risk of bias may overestimate treatment effects by up to 150%. 27

Thus, when the risk of bias across the included studies is low, credibility increases. 11 Different primary study designs are associated with specific sets of potential biases and, consequently, require reviewers to follow specific checklists to assess the risk of bias. For issues of therapy addressed in RCTs, key considerations include concealment of randomization, blinding, and minimizing loss to follow-up. 5 , 28

Were the selection and assessment of primary studies reproducible?

All of the steps that investigators perform when conducting a systematic review ( Figure 6.1 11 ) are susceptible to error. 29 For example, including and excluding studies from the review requires making judgments. Likewise, errors may occur during data abstraction: for example, investigators found that 20 of 34 reviews conducted by the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group included errors such as miscalculations and misinterpretation of data from the primary studies. 30 Independent, duplicate eligibility review and data extraction with resolution of discrepancies can minimize such errors and other unintentional or subconscious bias. 31 Hence, users of systematic reviews should check whether reviewers conducted screening and data extraction in duplicate.

Box 6.3. Your Assessment of the Risk of Bias of the Systematic Review You Identified

The authors of the systematic review 6 defined a sufficiently narrow range of patients, interventions, comparisons, and outcomes, and they conducted a comprehensive search that included reviewing several databases and making an effort to retrieve unpublished data. The reporting by authors of the included primary studies was poor, and the result was that risks of bias ratings were often assessed as unclear risk of bias. Finally, the authors of the systematic review reported that they selected the studies in duplicate and independently. Thus, you determine that this systematic review has a low to moderate risk of bias, and you proceed to read and interpret the results.

Stay updated, free dental videos. Join our Telegram channel

Comments are closed for this page.

VIDEdental - Online dental courses

DENH: Dental Hygiene

Handouts for Resources and Librarian information
Overview of Types of Sources
Primary or Secondary source
Dentistry and Oral Sciences Source (EBSCO)
PMC PubMed Central
EBSCO Discovery Service
EBSCOhost Health
Cochrane Library - Cochrane Reviews
ADA Clinical Practice Guidelines and Dental Evidence
Evidence-Based Practice
Print and Electronic Journals
Other Sources
Electronic Documents and Reports
Pharmacology
Parts of the citation
Print Journal or Online ONLY Journal
Citing websites
Citing articles found in EBSCOhost, ProQuest, EBSCO Discovery Service or other library databases
Citing articles found in PMC or PubMed
Citing articles in journals found on the Internet/Google
Citing Books or Ebooks (books found online)
Citing a report from the Pew Charitable Trust
Formatting for Professional Papers
Dental sealants assignment
Flipbook Assignment
Professional issues assignment
Literature Review Assignment
Dentistry and Oral Health Topics

What is a literature review?

A literature review is a summary of the content of sources on a particular topic. The literature review has an introduction, a body, and a conclusion. The literature review is organized by topics and subtopics based on the sources similarities and contrasts. You will be reading the sources and summarizing the information and then analyze the relationship of the articles. You can use headings in your paper to organize the themes or subtopics that come out of your research.

Here is more information on writing a literature review.

Writing a Literature Review from the Writing Center at UNC

Tips for research

Picking a topic
Search terms
Paper format

Pick a topic that is interesting too you. Look in journals or dental websites for "hot" topics.

Pick a second topic in case you cannot find enough resources for your first topic.

List of topics

Cleft Palette
Silver fillings
Oral cancer
Patient compliance
Dental fear
Oral health and pregnancy
Violence and abuse
Fluoridation

Make a list of words to use as your search terms from:

the subjects assigned to the article

the key words assigned to the article

related words that you find while reading articles

Primary sources will provide in depth research via a study or a trial. Use the information in the abstract, introduction, and conclusion to locate relevant information.

Secondary sources will give you background information and facts about the topics related to your client case.

For more information about primary and secondary sources, click on the tab : Primary or Secondary sources on the left.

Use APA formatting for your papers.

1. 12 point times new roman font, 2. double spaced, 3. 1 inch margins on all sides, 4. title page that includes the name of the paper, your name, the school you attend, and the date written., 5. a reference page on its own page with the word references centered across the top, 6. page numbers are to be centered on each page at the bottom. do not put a page number on the title page., 7. paper length: 7 - 10 pages., primary vs. secondary sources.

Dental Hygiene Resources: EBM

These articles are original research on an experiment and they are usually found using these databases: Dentistry and Oral Science Source (EBSCO), PubMed, and PubMed Central.

Types of articles: evidence - based, studies: cohort, case control, c linical trials and randomized controlled trial (rct), clinical trial, format of article:, a structured article with the following pieces: abstract/introduction, methodology/materials/methods, results, conclusion/discussion . reference, resources to use: dentistry and oral sciences source (ebsco), pubmed, and pubmed central. , tips for finding primary sources in dentistry and oral sciences science, pubmed central, and ebsco discovery service ., in the search box add the word trial or study to your topic., example: toothbrush study, example: toothbrush trial, tips for finding primary sources in pubmed, select: clinical trial and randomized controlled trial.

Example of a primary source article This is a clinical trial.
Another example of a primary source article This is a study using two groups.
What are clinical trials and studies? Clinical research is medical research involving people. There are two types, observational studies and clinical trials.

These sources are usually summaries or reviews of articles on a specific topic. These sources are found using PubMed, Dentistry and Oral Sciences Source (EBSCO), PubMed Central, Cochrane Library and online magazines, books, and oral health websites.

Types of articles:, evidence-based secondary sources, literature review, review, systematic review, meta-analysis, clinical analysis or clinical guidelines , not evidence – based, general article from a magazine or journal, information from books, information from recommended or reliable web sites: organization, health facility, corporation, pamphlet, newsletter or fact sheet, format for evidence-based sources, abstract/introduction, methods/methodology, results, conclusion/discussion, references.

Resources to use to find Evidence-Based Secondary Sources: PubMed, PubMed Central, Dentistry and Oral Sciences Source (EBSCO), ADA Center for Evidence-Based Dentistry

Sources that are not Evidence-Based

There is not a standard format.

Resources to use to find secondary sources that are not Evidence-Based: Websites for organizations, health facility, corporation: PubMed Central, Dentistry and Oral Sciences Source (EBSCO), and online journals.

Example of a literature review
Example of a secondary source not EB
Example of a systematic review
DH Resources 2nd year A handout for Primary and Secondary Research Resources that provides a description, identifies types of sources, and shows where to find the resources.
DH Resources 1st year A handout for Primary and Secondary Research Resources that provides a description, identifies types of sources, and shows where to find the resources.
<< Previous: Professional issues assignment
Next: Dentistry and Oral Health Topics >>
Last Updated: Apr 16, 2024 11:53 AM
URL: https://libguides.northampton.edu/dental-hygiene

Systematic reviews in dental research. A guideline

Affiliation.

1 Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. [email protected]
PMID: 23534316
DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.37.2.h606137vj3826v61

Background: A systematic review aims to combine outcome data from published studies in a population. It is based on a number of steps and although there are numerous advantages in systematic review studies, dentists have been finding difficulties in performing them.

Objective: Taking into account the misconceptions and difficulties in conducting this kind of study, this article aims to guide readers for understanding, performing, and interpreting comprehensive systematic reviews in dental research.

Publication types

Systematic Review
Data Mining / methods
Dental Research*
Guidelines as Topic
Meta-Analysis as Topic
Research Design
Review Literature as Topic*

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays). When we say “literature review” or refer to “the literature,” we are talking about the research ( scholarship ) in a given field. You will often see the terms “the research,” “the scholarship,” and “the literature” used mostly interchangeably.

Where, when, and why would I write a lit review?

There are a number of different situations where you might write a literature review, each with slightly different expectations; different disciplines, too, have field-specific expectations for what a literature review is and does. For instance, in the humanities, authors might include more overt argumentation and interpretation of source material in their literature reviews, whereas in the sciences, authors are more likely to report study designs and results in their literature reviews; these differences reflect these disciplines’ purposes and conventions in scholarship. You should always look at examples from your own discipline and talk to professors or mentors in your field to be sure you understand your discipline’s conventions, for literature reviews as well as for any other genre.

A literature review can be a part of a research paper or scholarly article, usually falling after the introduction and before the research methods sections. In these cases, the lit review just needs to cover scholarship that is important to the issue you are writing about; sometimes it will also cover key sources that informed your research methodology.

Lit reviews can also be standalone pieces, either as assignments in a class or as publications. In a class, a lit review may be assigned to help students familiarize themselves with a topic and with scholarship in their field, get an idea of the other researchers working on the topic they’re interested in, find gaps in existing research in order to propose new projects, and/or develop a theoretical framework and methodology for later research. As a publication, a lit review usually is meant to help make other scholars’ lives easier by collecting and summarizing, synthesizing, and analyzing existing research on a topic. This can be especially helpful for students or scholars getting into a new research area, or for directing an entire community of scholars toward questions that have not yet been answered.

What are the parts of a lit review?

Most lit reviews use a basic introduction-body-conclusion structure; if your lit review is part of a larger paper, the introduction and conclusion pieces may be just a few sentences while you focus most of your attention on the body. If your lit review is a standalone piece, the introduction and conclusion take up more space and give you a place to discuss your goals, research methods, and conclusions separately from where you discuss the literature itself.

Introduction:

An introductory paragraph that explains what your working topic and thesis is
A forecast of key topics or texts that will appear in the review
Potentially, a description of how you found sources and how you analyzed them for inclusion and discussion in the review (more often found in published, standalone literature reviews than in lit review sections in an article or research paper)
Summarize and synthesize: Give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
Analyze and interpret: Don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
Critically Evaluate: Mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
Write in well-structured paragraphs: Use transition words and topic sentence to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.

Conclusion:

Summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance
Connect it back to your primary research question

How should I organize my lit review?

Lit reviews can take many different organizational patterns depending on what you are trying to accomplish with the review. Here are some examples:

Chronological : The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time, which helps familiarize the audience with the topic (for instance if you are introducing something that is not commonly known in your field). If you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order. Try to analyze the patterns, turning points, and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred (as mentioned previously, this may not be appropriate in your discipline — check with a teacher or mentor if you’re unsure).
Thematic : If you have found some recurring central themes that you will continue working with throughout your piece, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic. For example, if you are reviewing literature about women and religion, key themes can include the role of women in churches and the religious attitude towards women.
Qualitative versus quantitative research
Empirical versus theoretical scholarship
Divide the research by sociological, historical, or cultural sources
Theoretical : In many humanities articles, the literature review is the foundation for the theoretical framework. You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts. You can argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach or combine various theorical concepts to create a framework for your research.

What are some strategies or tips I can use while writing my lit review?

Any lit review is only as good as the research it discusses; make sure your sources are well-chosen and your research is thorough. Don’t be afraid to do more research if you discover a new thread as you’re writing. More info on the research process is available in our "Conducting Research" resources .

As you’re doing your research, create an annotated bibliography ( see our page on the this type of document ). Much of the information used in an annotated bibliography can be used also in a literature review, so you’ll be not only partially drafting your lit review as you research, but also developing your sense of the larger conversation going on among scholars, professionals, and any other stakeholders in your topic.

Usually you will need to synthesize research rather than just summarizing it. This means drawing connections between sources to create a picture of the scholarly conversation on a topic over time. Many student writers struggle to synthesize because they feel they don’t have anything to add to the scholars they are citing; here are some strategies to help you:

It often helps to remember that the point of these kinds of syntheses is to show your readers how you understand your research, to help them read the rest of your paper.
Writing teachers often say synthesis is like hosting a dinner party: imagine all your sources are together in a room, discussing your topic. What are they saying to each other?
Look at the in-text citations in each paragraph. Are you citing just one source for each paragraph? This usually indicates summary only. When you have multiple sources cited in a paragraph, you are more likely to be synthesizing them (not always, but often
Read more about synthesis here.

The most interesting literature reviews are often written as arguments (again, as mentioned at the beginning of the page, this is discipline-specific and doesn’t work for all situations). Often, the literature review is where you can establish your research as filling a particular gap or as relevant in a particular way. You have some chance to do this in your introduction in an article, but the literature review section gives a more extended opportunity to establish the conversation in the way you would like your readers to see it. You can choose the intellectual lineage you would like to be part of and whose definitions matter most to your thinking (mostly humanities-specific, but this goes for sciences as well). In addressing these points, you argue for your place in the conversation, which tends to make the lit review more compelling than a simple reporting of other sources.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

View all journals
Explore content
About the journal
Publish with us
Sign up for alerts

Review Articles

Is pulpotomy an effective therapeutic option for the management of acute irreversible pulpitis in mature permanent teeth?

Parthasarathy Madurantakam

Do orthodontic treatments using fixed appliances and clear aligner achieve comparable quality of occlusal contacts?

Ra´ed Al-Dboush
Eman Al-Zawawi
Tarek El-Bialy

Does dental caries lead to stunting and wasting in children?

Jessica Large
Zoe Marshman

'Cold is gold'? The diagnostic accuracy of sensibility and vitality testing techniques

Mohammed Adam

Titanium-base abutments may have similar long-term peri-implant effects as non-bonded one-piece abutments

Kelvin I. Afrashtehfar
Adrian Weber
Samir Abou-Ayash

Is professionally applied fluoride effective in preventing or arresting caries in older adults?

Asim Al-Ansari

Does pre-operative clindamycin administration during dental implant surgery reduce implant failure or post-surgical complications?

Karthikeyan Subramani

Is there a difference among different bonded retainers in regard to survival rate?

Samer Mheissen
Loukia M. Spineli

Can teledentistry - in particular, photographs - be used to accurately diagnose caries and healthy teeth?

Lauren Crowder

Is there an association between early childhood caries and iron deficiency anaemia?

Daniela Hesse
Clarissa C. Bonifácio

Does the use of cooled saline irrigation during third molar surgery affect post-operative morbidity?

Siofra Murphy

Does prophylactic application of doxycycline at the implant-abutment interface improve clinical outcomes of dental implants?

Ewen McColl

Down the canal or down the gullet - which form of ibuprofen is best for post-endo instrumentation pain?

Yasmine Coll
Alan Geddes

Does the use of miswak reduce plaque and gingivitis among adults?

James Scott

Primary pulpotomies - what should we be using?

Felicity Conway

Gold versus ceramic - which will last longer for posterior indirect restorations?

William Holme

Which orthodontic retention protocol should I implement? A critical assessment of a randomised controlled trial

Pauline A. J. Steegmans
Davide Cavagnetto
Reint A. Meursinge Reynders

Do additional high-fluoride interventions among low caries prevalence orthodontic cases using fixed appliances reduce caries incidence?

Carlos Flores-Mir

How does the novel piezoelectric 11 Gracey Curette compare to Gracey Curette or piezoelectric scaler?

Satish Kumar

Does primary trauma lead to developmental defects in permanent teeth?

Rebecca Gibbison
Rebecca Crozier

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

IMAGES

(PDF) Biodentine™
(PDF) A literature review on dental autopsy an invaluable investigative technique in forensics
Literature Review Oral Health
Journal of Dental Research Referencing Guide · Journal of Dental Research citation (updated Apr
Real Dentist Cover Letter Example for 2024
Dentistry Journal

VIDEO

How to write literature review perfectly
How to write literature review #literaturereview #review #research #researcheverything #researchtips
How to write Literature Review
10 Tips to write Literature Review #viralshorts #viral #shorts
How to write Literature review/ Narrative review with examples
How to write Literature Review

COMMENTS

PubMed for Dental Research: Literature Review
The UNC Writing Center provides a nice summary of what to consider when writing a literature review for a class assignment. The online book, Doing a literature review in health and social care : a ... Initial search used Plaque Removal. Article titles use this exact phrase. MeSH Terms use Dental Plaque combined with Therapy, Prevention, Control
Dentistry Guide: Literature Reviews
The author describes how to carry out a literature review in a systematic, methodical way, providing useful strategies for efficient reading, conducting searches, organizing information, and writing the review. Conducting Research Literature Reviews by Arlene Fink. Call Number: 001.42 FIN 2010. This book provides readers with an accessible but ...
How to Write a Literature Review
Examples of literature reviews. Step 1 - Search for relevant literature. Step 2 - Evaluate and select sources. Step 3 - Identify themes, debates, and gaps. Step 4 - Outline your literature review's structure. Step 5 - Write your literature review.
What is a Literature Review?
There are several steps in writing a literature review: Choose a research area. For this assignment, you may choose any current topic in dental hygiene. Identify sources of information. This literature review will be limited to peer-reviewed research articles from journals only. Articles must have been published during the last five years. A ...
Dentistry: Literature Reviews
For a more detailed treatment of literature reviews in the health sciences, please visit Catherine Boden's research guide. It contains a wealth of information on the different types of reviews, focusing on systematic reviews. "A series of four videos on how to structure the literature review. It covers the overall structure, how to structure ...
What Should You Consider When Writing for a Dental Publication?
Communicate in writing what you have achieved in that quest, and augment the writing with high-quality photographs, tables, charts, etc. Here are some considerations when writing for dentistry: With apologies to Lewis Carroll, have something meaningful to say and say it meaningfully. Write it simply, as if you are talking.
Literature reviews
The term literature review can describe a product or a process. As a product, the literature review is part of an essay, report or publication where the researcher summarises and reports on the literature they have read relating it to their own research question, setting the context for their work. As a process, the literature review involves a ...
Research & Writing Help
Before you begin, locate other literature reviews in your discipline. There are several steps in writing a literature review: Choose a research area. For this assignment, you may choose any current topic in dental hygiene. Identify sources of information. This literature review will be limited to peer-reviewed research articles from journals only.
Evidence-based dental practice: searching the literature and writing a
Literature review develops two crucial skills which help you develop comprehensive knowledge and understanding of your field: the ability to find the research on a topic, and ; the ability to read, understand and evaluate it. A good literature review is not just a summary, but a critical evaluation and synthesis. The best critical appraisals ...
Writing a literature review
A formal literature review is an evidence-based, in-depth analysis of a subject. There are many reasons for writing one and these will influence the length and style of your review, but in essence a literature review is a critical appraisal of the current collective knowledge on a subject. Rather than just being an exhaustive list of all that ...
Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review
The topic must at least be: interesting to you (ideally, you should have come across a series of recent papers related to your line of work that call for a critical summary), an important aspect of the field (so that many readers will be interested in the review and there will be enough material to write it), and.
Literature search strategies in dental education and research
In this article, all basic strategies and research tools essentially required for a literature search, including Boolean operators, correct use of keywords, database selection, and the evaluation of filtered data and limitations, are discussed. The present article offers vital information and literature search guidelines for early career dental ...
How to Use a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
According to the Cochrane Collaboration, 8 a systematic review is defined as "a review of a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review.". Like primary observational ...
LibGuides: DENH: Dental Hygiene: Literature Review Assignment
The literature review has an introduction, a body, and a conclusion. The literature review is organized by topics and subtopics based on the sources similarities and contrasts. You will be reading the sources and summarizing the information and then analyze the relationship of the articles. You can use headings in your paper to organize the ...
Systematic reviews in dental research. A guideline
Abstract. Background: A systematic review aims to combine outcome data from published studies in a population. It is based on a number of steps and although there are numerous advantages in systematic review studies, dentists have been finding difficulties in performing them. Objective: Taking into account the misconceptions and difficulties in ...
Systematic Reviews in Dental Research. A Guideline
Tools. Background: A systematic review aims to combine outcome data from published studies in a population. It is based on a number of steps and although there are numerous advantages in systematic review studies, dentists have been finding difficulties in performing them. Objective: Taking into account the misconceptions and difficulties in ...
How to undertake research as a dental undergraduate
Top tips for research around studies. 1. Perform a literature review around your concept to identify gaps in research and to ensure thorough understanding of the field. 2.
Writing a Literature Review
The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays). When we say "literature review" or refer to "the literature," we are talking about the research (scholarship) in a given field. You will often see the terms "the research," "the ...
Research Writing in Dentistry
Research Writing in Dentistry provides you with a uniquely practical guide to selecting, designing, and writing up a research project. Of particular use to the dental student, both pre- and post-doctoral, this is a no-nonsense guide that presents concrete advice and information that can be absorbed quickly and effectively. By asking simple questions, this useful resource enables you to develop ...
(PDF) Systematic Reviews in Dental Research. A Guidline
Step 1 - Formulation of a focused question. The most appropriate way of addressing any clinical question is. through a systematic review of the relevant evidence. The rst step. involves the ...
Review Articles
Zoe Marshman. Review Article 16 Dec 2022. 'Cold is gold'? The diagnostic accuracy of sensibility and vitality testing techniques. Mohammed Adam. Review Article 16 Dec 2022.
Dentistry Journal
Optional Open Peer Review. The journal operates optional open peer review: Authors are given the option for all review reports and editorial decisions to be published alongside their manuscript. In addition, reviewers can sign their review, i.e., identify themselves in the published review reports.
(PDF) Dental health education: A literature review
A fundamental redesign of health education practices has been necessary but challenging with. regard to improving the public's competence and influencing their decision making. The aim of this ...

PubMed for Dental Research: Literature Review

Section Objective

Dentistry Guide: Literature Reviews

Writing the Literature Review (Part 1)

Writing the Literature Review (Part 2)

Writing a literature review

Literature review books @ JCU Library

Prospero - Register of health related systematic reviews

DHYG 2201: Literature Reviews: Supporting Evidence-Based Practice in Dental Hygiene

Literature Reviews and Evidence-Based Practice

Dentistry: Literature Reviews

For more detailed information on literature reviews...

How to Structure a Literature Review

Proximity Operators & Truncation in Databases

Organizing your Literature Review

More Resources on the Literature Review

What Should You Consider When Writing for a Dental Publication?

Dr. Jefferies

Dr. Tinanoff

About the Authors

Dr. Croll's Recommended Writing Resources

Literature reviews

What is a literature review?

Literature reviews in the health sciences

Types of review

Library guide to systematic reviews

Systematic review training courses

Recommended Library books on literature searching

Recommended Library books on systematic reviews

Writing Tips

Meet Your Librarian

Evidence-based dental practice: searching the literature and writing a report

Writing Resources

Your Librarian

Library links

Connect with us

Literature search strategies in dental education and research

Rabia Tariq

Faris Y. Asiri

Khadijah Abid

Muhammad S. Zafar

الملخص

Introduction

Effective ways of literature search

Table 1

Table 2

Keywords or phrases

Boolean operators

Table 3

Evaluation of search results and filter usage

Limitations

Recommendations

Source of funding

Conflict of interest

Ethical approval

Authors’ contributions

Pocket Dentistry

How to Use a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

In This Chapter:

Introduction

How Serious Is the Risk of Bias?

Did the review present explicit and appropriate eligibility criteria?

Was the search for relevant studies exhaustive?

Did the primary studies have a low risk of bias?

Were the selection and assessment of primary studies reproducible?

Share this:

Related posts:

Stay updated, free dental videos. Join our Telegram channel

VIDEdental - Online dental courses

DENH: Dental Hygiene

What is a literature review?

Tips for research

Use APA formatting for your papers.

These articles are original research on an experiment and they are usually found using these databases: Dentistry and Oral Science Source (EBSCO), PubMed, and PubMed Central.

These sources are usually summaries or reviews of articles on a specific topic. These sources are found using PubMed, Dentistry and Oral Sciences Source (EBSCO), PubMed Central, Cochrane Library and online magazines, books, and oral health websites.

Systematic reviews in dental research. A guideline

Publication types

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

Where, when, and why would I write a lit review?