Advertisement

Systematic Literature Review

  • Aline DreschEmail author
  • Daniel Pacheco Lacerda
  • José Antônio Valle AntunesJr
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter presents a method that can be applied to perform a Systematic Literature Review. The Systematic Literature Review is a critical step in conducting scientific research. This chapter focuses particularly on the importance of this step for research conducted under the Design Science paradigm.

Keywords

Systematic Review Primary Study Synthesis Process Systematic Literature Review Synthesis Technique 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Abrami, P. C. et al. (2010, August 1). Issues in conducting and disseminating brief reviews of evidence. Evidence and Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 6(3), 371–389.Google Scholar
  2. Adler, M. J., & van Doren, C. (1972). How to read a book. New York: A Touchstone Book Published by Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  3. Alturki, A., Gable, G. G., & Bandara, W. (2011). A design science research roadmap DESRIST. Milwaukee: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Barnett-Page, E., & Thomas, J. (2009). Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: A critical review. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 9(59), 1–11.Google Scholar
  5. Bayazit, N. (2004). Investigating design : A review of forty years of design research. Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Design Issues, 20(1), 16–29.Google Scholar
  6. Beverley, C. A., Booth, A., & Bath, P. A. (2003). The role of the information specialist in the systematic review process: A health information case study. Health information and libraries journal, 20(2), 65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brunton, G. et al. (2006). A synthesis of research addressing children’s, young people’s and parents’ views of walking and cycling for transport. London: University of London.Google Scholar
  8. Brunton, G., Stansfield, C., & Thomas, J. (2012). Finding relevant studies. In: D. Gough, S. Oliver, & J. Thomas (Eds.), An introduction to systematic reviews (pp. 107–134). London: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  9. Brunton, J., & Thomas, J. (2012). Information management in reviews. In: D. Gough, S. Oliver, & J. Thomas (Eds.), An introduction to systematic reviews (pp. 83–106). London: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  10. Cooper, H. M., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. (2009). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. United Kingdom: Russell Sage Foundation Publications.Google Scholar
  11. Coren, E. et al. (2014). Parent-training interventions to support intellectually disabled parents campbell systematic reviews. United Kingdom: [s.n.]. Retrieved from Feb 23, 2014 http://campbellcollaboration.org/lib/project/172/
  12. Dixon-Woods, M. et al. (2006, February 1). How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective. Qualitative Research,6(1), 27–44.Google Scholar
  13. EPPI Centre (2013). http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/
  14. Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2012). An introduction to systematic reviews. London: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  15. Gough, D., & Thomas, J. (2012). Commonality and diversity in reviews. In: D. Gough, S. Oliver, & J. Thomas (Eds.), An introduction to systematic reviews (pp. 35–65). London: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  16. Gregor, S., & Jones, D. (2007). The anatomy of a design theory. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(5), 312–335.Google Scholar
  17. Hammerstrøm, K., Wade, A., & Jorgensen, A.-M. K. (2010). Searching for studies: A guide to information retrieval for Campbell Systematic Reviews (Vol. 1). Oslo: The Campbell Collaboration.Google Scholar
  18. Harden, A., et al. (2009). Teenage pregnancy and social disadvantage: Systematic review integrating controlled trials and qualitative studies. BMJ, 339(b424), 1–11.Google Scholar
  19. Harden, A., & Gough, D. (2012). Quality and relevance appraisal. In: D. Gough, S. Oliver, & J. Thomas (Eds.), An introduction to systematic reviews (pp. 153–178). London: SAGE Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  20. Harris, M. R. (2005). The librarian’s roles in the systematic review process: A case study. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 93(1), 81–87.Google Scholar
  21. Higgins, J. P., & Green, S. (2006). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of intervetions 4.2.6. In: J. P. Higgins, & S. Green (Eds.), Cochrane library. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  22. Keown, K., van Eerd, D., & Irvin, E. (2008). Stakeholder engagement opportunities in systematic reviews: knowledge transfer for policy and practice. Foundations of Continuing Education, 28(2), 67–72.Google Scholar
  23. Khan, K. S., et al. (2003). Five steps to conducting a systematic review. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 96(3), 118–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kitchenham, B. (2010). What’s up with software metrics?—A preliminary mapping study. Journal of Systems and Software, 83(1), 37–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kitchenham, B., et al. (2010). Systematic literature reviews in software engineering—A tertiary study. Information and Software Technology, 52(8), 792–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lavis, J. N. (2009). How can we support the use of systematic reviews in policymaking? PLoS Medicine, 6(11), e1000141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Littel, J. H., Corcoran, J., & Pillai, V. (2008). Systematic reviews and meta-analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lundh, A., & Gøtzsche, P. C. (2008). Recommendations by cochrane review groups for assessment of the risk of bias in studies. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(22), 1–9.Google Scholar
  29. March, S. T., & Smith, G. F. (1995). Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems, 15, 251–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. March, S. T., & Storey, V. C. (2008). Design Science in the information systems discipline: An introduction to the special issue on design science research. MIS Quaterly,32(4), 725–730.Google Scholar
  31. Oliver, S., Dickson, K., & Newman, M. (2012). Getting started with a review. In: D. Gough, S. Oliver, & J. Thomas (Eds.), An introduction to systematic reviews (pp. 66–82). London: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  32. Oliver, S., & Sutcliffe, K. (2012). Describing and analysing studies. In: D. Gough, S. Oliver, & J. Thomas (Eds.), An introduction to systematic reviews (pp. 135–152). London: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  33. Rees, R., & Oliver, S. (2012). Stakeholder perspectives and participation in systematic reviews. In: D. Gough, S. Oliver, & J. Thomas (Eds.), An introduction to systematic reviews (pp. 17–35). London: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  34. Sandelowski, M., et al. (2012). Mapping the mixed methods—mixed research synthesis Terrain. J Mix Method Res Author Manuscript, 6(4), 317–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2012). Research methods for business students (6th ed.). London: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
  36. Schiller, C., et al. (2013). A framework for stakeholder identification in concept mapping and health research: A novel process and its application to older adult mobility and the built environment. BMC Public Health, 13, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Seuring, S., & Gold, S. (2012). Conducting content-analysis based literature reviews in supply chain management. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 17(5), 544–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sinha, M. K., & Montori, V. M. (2006). Reporting bias and other biases affecting systematic reviews and meta-analyses: A methodological commentary. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 6(5), 603–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Smith, V., et al. (2011). Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11(1), 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Thomas, J., Harden, A., & Newman, M. (2012). Synthesis: Combining results systematically and appropriately. In: D. Gough, S. Oliver, & J. Thomas (Eds.), An introduction to systematic reviews (pp. 179–226). London: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  41. Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Van Aken, J. E. (2011). The Research Design for Design Science Research in Management Eindhoven.Google Scholar
  43. Van Aken, J. E., & Romme, G. (2009). Reinventing the future : Adding design science to the repertoire of organization and management studies. Organization Management Journal, 6, 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Walls, J. G., Wyidmeyer, G. R., & Sawy, O. A. E. (1992). Building an information system design theory for vigilant EIS. Information Systems Research, 3, 36–60.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aline Dresch
    • 1
    Email author
  • Daniel Pacheco Lacerda
    • 1
  • José Antônio Valle AntunesJr
    • 2
  1. 1.GMAP | UNISINOSPorto Alegre/RSBrazil
  2. 2.UNISINOSPorto Alegre/RSBrazil

Personalised recommendations