How to Write a Review Article?
Authors/Creators
Description
The generation of evidence is an ongoing process
in the field of medicine. Basic and clinical
research have been the pillars of modern medicine
and continue to be the strength of a modern
medical practitioner. With increasing number
of biomedical journals and therefore research
articles being published, staying updated with the
current evidence is a necessity for the clinician.
One of the five goals of an Indian medical
graduate as prescribed by the National Medical
Commission is to function as a lifelong learner
committed to continuous improvement of skill and
knowledge [1]. It would be ideal that any topic of
concern is thoroughly searched, read, reviewed
and analyzed by going through all the literature.
However, this is easier said than done. This task
is nothing less than swimming in the middle of an
ocean with no land in sight.The variability in the
quality and content of the enormous amount of
information available confuses the clinician who
ends up having more unanswered questions than
before. It is for such situations that a state of the
art, reliable, well written review article acts like
a lifeboat.
A review article is a comprehensive synthesis of
published and unpublished material on a topic.
It is a well planned and well-organized analysis
of all the literature relevant to a topic of interest
providing a useful summary and answers to
the reader's doubts and questions. It facilitates
the medical practitioner to take evidence based
clinical judgements and decisions. It is a practical
solution to the problems of excessive information,
divergent views and lack of consensus on a
topic. Review articles aid decision making in
clinical practice by summarizing enormous
information available, in a coherent and easily
understandable form, thereby acting as guides
for practicing evidence-based medicine. They
facilitate in understanding of recent advances,
complex topics and sub topics, which are not a
part of the conventional textbooks. They help
in the identification of relations, contradictions,
controversies and lacunae in the existing literature,
and provide a direction for future research.
Files
2 how-to-write-a-review-article.pdf
Files
(230.2 kB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:bdb4766597ad6044c389a04590b9de71
|
230.2 kB | Preview Download |
Additional details
References
- (7) April 2023 | Volume 1 | Issue 2 guideline Examining quantitative data Meta-analysis to obtained pooled estimate of effect Depiction of the meta-analysis in the form of a Forest plot Writing the review Structured and reader friendly presentation of the synthesis PRISMA guidelines must be followed for SR Figure 1: An example of a Forest Plot (Source: Yeung T, et al. Indian Pediatrics, 2021) Conclusion Relevant review articles which are methodologically robust, comprehensive and well written are greatly appreciated by readers. SR are preferred for focused topics whereas, NR are better suited to comprehensive topics. Incorporation of a robust methodology similar to that essential for SR would strengthen the quality of NR. Similarly, SR would improve by incorporating the reader friendly style of presentation of NR. Young researchers as well as practicing clinicians would benefit by following the Steps of writing a review article which can easily be remembered by the simple mnemonic REVIEW - Research Question/ Topic of interest selection, Evidence search, Value assessment, Integration and synthesis of descriptive data, Examining quantitative data and Writing the review. References 1. Medical Council of India. Competency Based Undergraduate Curriculum for the Indian Medical Graduate. 2018. [Last accessed on 2022 Aug 15]. pp. 17. Available from:https://www.nmc.org.in/information-desk/for-colleges/ ug-curriculum/ 2. Mathew JL. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis: A guide for beginners. Indian Pediatr. 2022;59:320-30. 3. Greenhalgh T. How to read a paper. Getting your bearings (deciding what the paper is about). BMJ. 1997;315(7102): 243-6. 4. Agarwal N, Dewan P. Writing a review article: Making sense of the jumble. Indian Pediatr. 2016;53:715-20. 5. Sterne JAC, Savovic J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:I4898.INDIAN JOURNAL OF DEVELOPMENTAL AND BEHAVIORAL PEDIATRICS (8) April 2023 | Volume 1 | Issue 2 Aadarsh Pvt. Ltd. guideline 6. Wells GA, Shea B, O'Connell D, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of non-randomised studies in meta-analyses. [Last accessed on 2022 Aug 16]. Available from: https://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_ epidemiology/oxford.asp 7. Sterne JA, Hernan MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: A tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions BMJ. 2016;355:i4919. 8. Whiting PF, Rutjes AWS, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):529-36. 9. Cochrane Training. RevMan 5. [Last accessed on 2022 Aug 14]. Available from: https://training.cochrane.org/online- learning/ core-software/revman/revman-5-download. 10. Yeung T, Jasani B, Shah PS. Steroids for the management of neonates with meconium aspiration syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Indian Pediatr. 2021;58:370-6. 11. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.