HOW TO WRITE A REVIEW ARTICLE FOR PUBLICATION

Dr Diana Dorstyn

Dr Rachel Roberts

AIM

Clarify the different types of review: strengths and weaknesses

Clarify how these reviews fit with APAC Accreditation Standards for honours and masters research projects

Provide some guidance on how to review & write a systematic review or meta-analysis for publication in a scholarly journal.

REVIEW TYPES

Literature review

Scoping review

Systematic review

Meta-analysis

LITERATURE REVIEW

“Individual intensive empirical literature review” (APAC: Hons)

“Critical review” (APAC: Masters)

“traditional” “narrative” “qualitative”

Not expected to be systematic, descriptive, when published often by ‘experts’

SCOPING REVIEW

It needs to:

cover key concepts

sources and types of evidence available

explore complex areas OR areas which have not been reviewed comprehensively before

rigorous

transparent

replicable (systematic)

Scoping reviews are a type of systematic review

SCOPING REVIEW: EXAMPLE

Objective: Provide a synthesis of information gathered about the use of resilience in the literature concerning the transition to parenthood.

Research question 1: In what ways has the concept of resilience been used in this literature?

Research question 2: To what extent are researchers using theory to underpin their work?

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Review that has been conducted in a systematic manner!

Is set-out like other studies: intro, method, results, discussion qualitative summary of the results of empirical/original research

Differs from a narrative review: it is comprehensive/ exhaustive, rates methodological quality & weights results accordingly

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW: EXAMPLES

E Charova, D Dorstyn, P Tully, O Mittag. (2015).Web-based interventions for comorbid depression and chronic illness: a systematic review. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 21(4),189-201.

Ma, N., Roberts, R., Winefield, H. & Furber, G. (2016). The quality of family relationships for siblings of children with mental health difficulties: A 20-year systematic review. Journal of Family Studies Published online: 03 Mar 2016

META-ANALYSIS

statistical analysis of data obtained from empirical studies

data from multiple studies are pooled & analysed

quantitative review

main statistic: effect sizes

number of different effect sizes available, depending on the study design/data

META-ANALYSIS: EXAMPLES

W Li, DS Dorstyn, LA Denson. (2014). Psychosocial correlates of college students’ help-seeking intention: a meta-analysis. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 45, 163-170.

Burke, A.L, J., Mathias, J.L., Denson, L.A. (2015). Psychological functioning of people living with chronic pain: a meta-analytic review British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 54, 345-360.

APAC ACCREDITATION STANDARDS

Honours Research Project

4.1.11 The research project must include an individual research question, individual intensive empirical literature review, individual data analysis, individual reporting of results and discussion…

A meta-analysis at Honours level MEETS APAC standards

A systematic review would likely NOT meet the requirement for “data analysis”

APAC ACCREDITATION STANDARDS

Master of Psychology Research Project

5.3.13 The research project must take the form of one or more of the following:

a program evaluation study;

a study based on experimental single case design;

a critical review, pilot study and full grant application;

a critical review and a meta analysis;

a critical review and secondary data analyses;

a traditional empirical research project; or

a literature review and an article suitable for submission to a peer-reviewed international scientific journal

A meta-analysis MEETS APA standards

A systematic review (including a scoping review) would meet the last criteria

PROPOSED STANDARDSHonours

“Undertake research to investigate a question relevant to the discipline of psychology.”

“A program must ensure graduates are competent in research methods and their application to psychological questions”

Masters

“APAC requires that the psychology programs at the Professional Competencies for Specialised Areas of Practice level leading to Area of Practice endorsement must ensure graduates: are competent to evaluate and apply research”

Overall requirement

“The AOU must provide evidence of how students are offered opportunities to undertake research as part of their curriculum and meet the expectation of competencies in research.”

WRITING A REVIEW PAPER

REPORTING STANDARDS

JARS

Journal Article Reporting Standards

MOOSE

Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology

PRISMA

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses

MARS

Meta-analysis Reporting Standards

BENEFITS OF PUBLISHING A REVIEW

Pickering, C. & Byrne, J. (2014) The benefits of publishing systematic quantitative literature reviews for PhD candidates and other early-career researchers. Higher Education Research & Development, 33, 534-548

TITLE

Specify that the manuscript describes a research synthesis: whether it is literature review, meta-analysis, systematic review etc.

Examples:

Psychosocial characteristics of spinal cord injury pain: a meta-analysis

Utilising the ICF to understand depressive symptomatology in adults with multiple sclerosis: an exploratory systematic review

ABSTRACT

Background/Objective

Problem under investigation

Methods

Study eligibility

Sample characteristics

Search process

Meta-analytic methods (if applicable)

Main results

Conclusions

Theoretical/practical implications

ABSTRACT: EXAMPLEObjective: Although the association between spinal cord injury pain and psychosocial correlates has been identified, the full range of psychological and social difficulties for those who experience acute and/or persistent pain is unclear…

Methods: Nineteen studies that examined persistent neuropathic, nociceptive or mixed pain subtypes in adults with a newly acquired or chronic injury (Nparticipants = 2934) were identified from electronic database searches. Mean differences between SCI pain and no pain groups on self-reported psychosocial outcomes were calculated…

Results: …Emotional functions were the most frequent psychosocial outcomes assessed, with pain contributing to heightened stress (d = -0.85), depression (d = -2.49) anxiety (d range = -16 0.85 to -1.45)….

Conclusions: Multi-component treatments which target mood disturbance and foster community connections are important in SCI pain management. However, to improve the comparability of future studies, SCI pain research must adopt definitions of pain consistent with the International Spinal Cord Injury Pain Classification along with validated outcomes which map onto the ICF framework.

INTRODUCTION

State the research question (refer to theoretical/practical issues) Example: ‘Most individuals with a spinal cord injury (SCI) will

experience neuropathic and/or nociceptive (i.e. musculoskeletal, visceral) pain of varying intensity, quality and constancy. For many, this results in a pain continuum, from acute biomedical treatment through to management of persistent pain. SCI pain management is further complicated by a multitude of cognitive, emotional, behavioural and social factors that can adversely affect, or buffer the pain experience. To ensure optimal pain management, an investigation of the psychosocial characteristics of both acute and persistent pain conditions following SCI is therefore required.

Aim(s) and hypotheses (if applicable) Example: ‘This paper will quantitatively review the available data to

map the onset and maintenance of psychosocial difficulties in spinal cord injury pain.’

METHODS: CRITERIA

Inclusion and exclusion criteria of primary studies

Operational definition of independent (predictor) and dependent (outcome) variable(s)

Eligible populations

Eligible research design (e.g. randomisation only, minimum sample size)

Time period in which studies needed to be conducted

Subgroup analyses, if any

PICO criteria (participants, intervention, co-intervention, outcome)

METHODS: SEARCH STRATEGY

List of electronic databases searched

Keywords used in database searches (incl. logic grid as Appendix)

Other efforts to retrieve available studies (e.g. listserv queries, authors contacted, reference lists of identified studies).

Whether search was limited to studies published in English (incl. reason why)

METHODS: DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY

How were studies screened?

(i.e. title, abstract and/or full text examined)?

Number of reviewers involved in search process.

If > 1 reviewer, how were disagreements resolved (i.e. consensus decision)?

Number of citations included

Number of citations excluded

Online Search: 18413 results identified

PubMed (9598), PsycINFO (741), Embase

(8074)Identification

3063 duplicates removed

Screening15350 titles and abstracts screened using the

inclusion and exclusion criteria

Eligibility

128 full text articles searched and read for

eligibility using inclusion and exclusion criteria

Included

113 articles excluded:

dissertation n = 16

pain not defined n = 1

duplicate n = 5

mixed disability sample n =

34

qualitative study n = 1

nil standardised measure n =

10

insufficient data n = 10

single SCI group n = 36

Final sample of 15 independent studies

included in review

15222 irrelevant titles and

abstracts excluded

Figure X: Flow chart of study selection process

LIST OF EXCLUDED STUDIES

Article details

Screening

INCLUDEOFF-

TOPIC DESIGN SAMPLE OUTCOMES

Aloulou, I. et al (2012). Longitudinal follow-

up of a spinal cord injury population. APMR,

55, e168-e170. Y

Alowesie, R. (2013). Anxiety and depression

correlates in Saudi victims of spinal cord

injury. Neuroepidemiology, 41, 242-243. N 1

Amtmann, D. et al (2012). University of

Washington self-efficacy scale: A new self-

efficacy scale for people with disabilities.

APMR, 93, 1757-1765.

N 1

METHODS

Assessment of study quality (important for systematic reviews)

If a quality scale was employed, description of criteria and the procedures for application (e.g. no. of reviewers, inter-rater agreement)

STATISTICAL METHODS: EFFECT SIZE METRICS

Effect sizes formulas (e.g. means and SDS, use of univariate Fto calculate effect size d etc)

Effect size averaging and/or weighting method(s)

How effect size confidence intervals (or standard errors) were calculated

How studies with more than one effect size were handled

STATISTICAL METHODS

Were fixed or random effects models used and why?

How was heterogeneity in effect sizes estimated/assessed?

Statistical programs or software packaged for analyses?

Tests of publication bias?

RESULTS

Table giving descriptive information for each study, including effect size and sample size.

Assessment of study quality, if any

RISK OF BIAS ASSESSMENT

QUALITY RATING

Reporting External Validity Internal Validity Power

Hypoth

ese

s/A

ims/

Obje

ctiv

es

Out

com

es

Sam

ple

Inte

rvent

ion

Conf

oun

ders

Main

fin

din

gs

Variabili

ty

Adve

rse e

ffect

s

Loss

to f

ollo

w-u

p

Exac

t p

val

ues

Sour

ce p

opul

ation

Sam

ple

Settin

g

Blin

din

g o

f gro

up a

ssig

nment

Blin

din

g o

f ass

ess

ors

Pla

nned a

naly

ses

Ass

ess

ment

int

erv

al

Sta

tist

ical te

sts

Inte

rvent

ion

com

plia

nce

Out

com

e m

easu

res

stand

ard

ised

Com

para

ble

gro

ups

Recr

uitm

ent

tim

e

Rand

om

isation

Blin

ded r

and

om

isation

Inte

nt-

to-t

reat ana

lyse

s

Loss

to f

ollo

w-u

p (nu

mbers

)

N =

30

Klein (2010)

Lewis (2013)

Litz (2007)

Quality Index Rating Scale by Downs and Black (1998)

Note: present; present, with some limitations; not present or unable to determine

RESULTS

Tables and/or graphic summaries to summarise:

Overall characteristics of the studies (eg. sample ns, sample characteristics, study design features etc)

Overall effect size estimates, including measures of uncertainty (i.e. confidence intervals)

Results of subgroup analyses, including no. of studies and total sample size per subgroup analysis

Assessment of publication bias (e.g. Fail safe N statistic)

Recruitment Nstudies Nparticipants Prevalence 95% CI Nfs p

LL UL

Community

Mixed

Hospital

12

3

2

2485

156

112

.29

.16

.27

.26

.11

.13

.32

.23

.47

104

13

.000

.000

.026

Prevalence

FOREST PLOT

DISCUSSION

Statement of major findings

Compare/contrast to available research

Alternative explanation for observed results

Generalisability of results

Limitations of review

Implications for future research, theory, policy, practice

RESOURCES

Software:

MIX Pro (on pcs in room 251)*

CMA Comprehensive Meta-analysis (license to purchase)

RevMan (Free)*

ESCI (Free)*

Effect size calculator (Free)*

Covidence (data extraction – license to purchase)

Forest Plot Viewer (graphing tool, also known as Meta Data viewer).

Cochrane Handbook

Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers Manual

WORKSHOPS

www.Meta-Analysis-Workshops.com (based on Borenstein text)

JBI Comprehensive Systematic Review Training

REFERENCESAPA Publications and Communications Board Working Group on Journal Article Reporting Standards (2008). Reporting Standards for Research in Psychology: Why Do We Need Them? What Might They Be? American Psychologist, 63, 848–849.

Cooper, H (2011). Reporting research in psychology: How to meet the new standards for journal articles. Washington DC: APA

Cooper, H. & Dent, A.L. (2011). Ethical issues in conducting meta-analysis. In A.T.Panter and S.K. Sterba (eds). Handbook of ethics in quantitative methodology. New York: Routledge

Cooper, H. (2015). How to Review (and Write) a Meta-Analysis for Publication. (Webinar). Retrieved from: http://www.apa.org/pubs/authors/review-manuscript-ce-video.aspx

Lipsey, M.W. & Wilson, D.B (2000). Practical meta-analysis. Sage Publishing.

Borenstein, M., Hedges, L.V., Higgins, J.P.T., Rothstein, H.R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Wiley and Sons.