Before you start looking for and reading journal articles it is important that you have first done some background reading and have a basic understanding of the topic. Without background reading you may struggle to identify keywords, to read journal articles, and to write your introduction. Journal articles are much more focused and narrower in their topics than books and aren't usually as easy to read.
If your topic is very broad, then you may find your search results overwhelming. If you have already done some background reading and have an idea of what you are going to be writing, it can sometimes be easier to divide your searches up into manageable chunks.
Inclusion criteria define the characteristics that make a study eligible for inclusion. These criteria specify the population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes of interest.
Exclusion criteria identify characteristics that lead to the exclusion of studies from the review
These should be clearly defined before you begin your systematic searches.
Grey literature is materials and research produced by organizations outside of the traditional commercial or academic publishing and distribution channels. This includes things like theses, reports, working papers, government publications, registers of control trials and white papers. It can be challenging to discover, access, and evaluate, but it plays a crucial role in research, in particular when accessing emerging information before it is published via the traditional channels like books and journals.
Before you do your main, focused search for journal articles you might want to consider some broader keyword searching. FINDit article search is perfect for this as it cross searches a wide range of resources across a range of subject areas.
This will allow you to see if there is a lot of research on your topic, or not very much and you may then want to adjust your assignment title accordingly. It will also help you to see what keywords work and which don't and potentially pick up new ones. It will also help you to see if your keywords are picking up a lot of irrelevant articles and see if you need to take steps to negotiate that.
FINDit and Google Scholar are good places for background reading as they search widely.
Once you have done some preliminary searches you should be able to chose a topic and fit to a framework (if necessary). For the best experience, you want to avoid very broad topics and things which have no evidence base.
Google Scholar is a very large source of information so it is recommended for use as a secondary search, to supplement the main searches in the healthcare databases.
Google Scholar searches more widely than the databases, so can be a good source of grey literature.
Tips for using Google Scholar are:
Taken from Cochrane Library Cochrane Library About PICO | Cochrane Library
Cochrane library (2024). Cochrane Library About PICO | Cochrane Library. [online] www.cochranelibrary.com. Available at: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/about-pico.
(P) – Population refers to the sample of subjects you wish to recruit for your study. There may be a fine balance between defining a sample that is most likely to respond to your intervention (e.g. no co-morbidity) and one that can be generalized to patients that are likely to be seen in actual practice.
(I) – Intervention refers to the treatment that will be provided to subjects enrolled in your study.
(C) – Comparison identifies what you plan on using as a reference group to compare with your treatment intervention. Many study designs refer to this as the control group. If an existing treatment is considered the ‘gold standard’, then this should be the comparison group.
(O) – Outcome represents what result you plan on measuring to examine the effectiveness of your intervention. Familiar and validated outcome measurement tools relevant to common chiropractic patient populations may include the Neck Disability Index6 or Roland-Morris Questionnaire.7 There are, typically, a multitude of outcome tools available for different clinical populations, each having strengths and weaknesses.
(T) – Time describes the duration for your data collection.
Taken from What is your research question? An introduction to the PICOT format for clinicians - PMC (nih.gov)
Riva, J. J. et al. (2012) What is your research question? An introduction to the PICOT format for clinicians. Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association. 56 (3), 167–171.
Population Who?
Intervention What or How?
Comparison Compared to what?
Outcome What are you trying to accomplish / improve?
Context In what kind of organization / circumstances?
Taken from What is a PICOC? » CEBMa
cebma.org. (2024). What is a PICOC?» CEBMa. [online] Available at: https://cebma.org/resources/frequently-asked-questions/what-is-a-picoc/.
Population (including animal species)
Exposure
Comparator
Outcomes
Morgan, R.L., Whaley, P., Thayer, K.A. and Schünemann, H.J. (2018). Identifying the PECO: A framework for formulating good questions to explore the association of environmental and other exposures with health outcomes. Environment International, [online] 121(1), pp.1027–1031. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.07.015.
|
Munn, Z. et al. (2018) What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. BMC medical research methodology. [Online] 18 (1), 5–5.
Setting: the location or environment relevant to your research (e.g. accident and emergency unit) |
​Population (or perspective): the type of group that you are studying (e.g. older people) |
Intervention: the intervention/practice/treatment that you are evaluating (e.g. initial examination of patients by allied health staff) |
Comparator: an intervention with which you compare the above comparator (e.g. initial examination by medical staff) |
Evaluation: the hypothetical result you intend to evaluate e.g. lower mortality rates) |
Taken from: Booth, A (2004) Formulating answerable questions. In Booth, A & Brice, A (Eds) Evidence Based Practice for Information Professionals: A handbook. (pp. 61-70) London: Facet
Expectation |
|
Client group |
|
Location |
|
Impact |
|
Professionals |
|
Service |
|
Sample
Phenomenon of Interest
Design
Evaluation
Research type
Taken from Beyond PICO: the SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis - PubMed (nih.gov)
Cooke, A. et al. (2012) Beyond PICO: The SPIDER Tool for Qualitative Evidence Synthesis. Qualitative health research. [Online] 22 (10), 1435–1443.
NB: USW Library does not provide support with using these tools