SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Sağlık Akademisi Kastamonu / 2026 / Cilt: 10 Sayı: 1

Types Of Review In Health-Related Research

Sağlıkla İlgili Araştırmalarda Derleme (İnceleme) Türleri

Arzu İlçe(BOLU ABANT İZZET BAYSAL ÜNİVERSİTESİ, SAĞLIK BİLİMLERİ FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0001-8428-9865
Işıl Işık Andsoy(KARABÜK ÜNİVERSİTESİ, SAĞLIK BİLİMLERİ FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-5271-4203
Aykut Turgut(BOLU ABANT İZZET BAYSAL ÜNİVERSİTESİ, SAĞLIK BİLİMLERİ FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0003-2851-2262
Pages
83–98
Publication Date
2025-04-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This article describes the many types of reviews and their defining characteristics to assist authors in selecting an appropriate design.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Reviews play a significant role in decision-making given the wealth of resources in the field of health and the constrained time of researchers.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Target-oriented compilation kinds are more frequently found in international literature.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This article describes the many types of reviews and their defining characteristics to assist authors in selecting an appropriate design.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Gözden geçirme · Literatür gözden geçirmesi · Sistematik derleme

Abstract

Reviews play a significant role in decision-making given the wealth of resources in the field of health and the constrained time of researchers. Target-oriented compilation kinds are more frequently found in international literature. A good review is a special tool that will include all the evidence that is accessible for the relevant research issue. This article describes the many types of reviews and their defining characteristics to assist authors in selecting an appropriate design.

Özet

Sağlık alanındaki kaynakların fazlalığı ve araştırmacıların zamanının kısıtlılığı düşünüldüğünde derlemeler karar vermede önemli bir role sahiptir. Uluslararası literatürde hedefe yönelik çalışılan derleme türleri ile giderek daha fazla karşılaşılmaktadır. İyi bir derleme, ilgilenilen araştırma sorusu için var olan tüm kanıtların bir arada bulunacağı eşsiz bir kaynaktır. Bu makalede, yazarların uygun bir tasarım seçmesine yardımcı olmak için derleme (inceleme) türleri ve temel özellikleri açıklanarak, yazarların hangi yaklaşımı seçebilecekleri konusunda bilgiler sunulmuştur.

🔖

Cite This Article

İlçe, A., Andsoy, I. I., Turgut, A. (2025). Types Of Review In Health-Related Research. Sağlık Akademisi Kastamonu, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 1, 83–98. https://doi.org/10.25279/sak.1386841

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (43)

  1. Anderson, S., Allen, P., Peckham, S., & Goodwin, N. (2008). Asking the right questions: Scoping studies in the commissioning of research on the organisation and delivery of health services. Health Research Policy and Systems, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-6-7
  2. Arksey, H. ve O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice, 8(1), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
  3. Aromataris, E., Fernandez, R., Godfrey, C. M., Holly, C., Khalil, H., & Tungpunkom, P. (2015). Summarizing systematic reviews. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 13(3), 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1097/xeb.0000000000000055
  4. Arrondo, G., Solmi, M., Dragioti, E., Eudave, L., Ruiz-Goikoetxea, M., Ciaurriz-Larraz, A. M., Magallon, S., Carvalho, A. F., Cipriani, A., Fusar-Poli, P., Larsson, H., Correll, C. U., & Cortese, S. (2022). Associations between mental and physical conditions in children and adolescents: An umbrella review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 137, 104662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104662
  5. Aygin, D. ve Çelik Yılmaz, A. (2020). Elektif Cerrahi Süreçte Yaşanan ve Göz Ardı Edilen Bir Sorun: Ameliyatın Gecikmesi ve İptali. Ege Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Fakültesi Dergisi, 36(3), 199-206.
  6. Baker, J. D. (2016). The Purpose, Process, and Methods of Writing a Literature Review. AORN Journal, 103(3), 265–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aorn.2016.01.016
  7. Berg, R. C. ve Nanavati, J. (2016). Realist review: Current practice and future prospects. Journal of Research Practice, 12(1), 1-28.
  8. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. (2009). Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. University of York.
  9. Clarke, J. (2011). What is a systematic review. Evidence-Based Nursing, 14(3), 64. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebn.2011.0049
  10. Cochrane Library. (n.d.). https://www.cochranelibrary.com/ Cronin, P., Ryan, F., & Coughlan, M. (2008). Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach. British Journal of Nursing, 17(1), 38-43. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2008.17.1.28059
  11. Daudt, H. M. L., van Mossel, C., & Scott, S. J. (2013). Enhancing the scoping study methodology: A large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-48
  12. Drudi, L. M., Ades, M., Landry, T., Gill, H. L., Grenon, S. M., Steinmetz, O. K., & Afilalo, J. (2019). Scoping review of frailty in vascular surgery. Journal of Vascular Surgery, 69(6), 1989-1998.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2018.10.053
  13. Fusar-Poli, P. ve Radua, J. (2018). Ten simple rules for conducting umbrella reviews. Evidence-Based Mental Health, 21(3), 95–100. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmental-2018-300014
  14. Ganann, R., Ciliska, D., & Thomas, H. (2010). Expediting systematic reviews: Methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implementation Science, 5(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-56
  15. Garritty, C., Gartlehner, G., Nussbaumer-Streit, B., King, V. J., Hamel, C., Kamel, C., Affengruber, L., & Stevens, A. (2021). Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 130, 13-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.10.007
  16. Grant, M. J. ve Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
  17. Griffith University. (n.d.). https://libraryguides.griffith.edu.au/systematic-literature-reviews-for-education Higgins, J. P. T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J., & Welch, V. A. (2019). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119536604
  18. Kabu Hergül, F., Özbayır, T., & Gök, F. (2016). Patients safety in the operating room: a systematic review. Pamukkale Medical Journal, 9(1), 87-98. https://doi.org/10.5505/ptd.2016.32656
  19. Kent, P., Keating, J., Bernhardt, J., Carroll, S., Hill, K., & McBurney, H. (1999). Evidence-based practice. Australian Journal of Physiotherapy, 45(3), 167-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0004-9514(14)60347-0
  20. Khangura, S., Konnyu, K., Cushman, R., Grimshaw, J., & Moher, D. (2012). Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Systematic Reviews, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-10
  21. Lasserson, T. J., Thomas, J., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2019). Starting a review. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119536604.ch1
  22. Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O’Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69
  23. LoBiondo-Wood, G. ve Haber, J. (2014). Nursing Research: Methods and Critical Appraisal for Evidence-Based Practice. Journal of Nursing Regulation, 5(1), 60. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2155-8256(15)30102-2
  24. Mathisen, C., Heyn, L. G., Jacobsen, T.-I., Bjørk, I. T., & Hansen, E. H. (2022). The use of practice education facilitators to strengthen the clinical learning environment for nursing students: A realist review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 134, 104258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2022.104258
  25. McRae, M. P. (2022). Coenzyme Q10 Supplementation in Reducing Inflammation: An Umbrella Review. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine 22(2), 131–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2022.07.001
  26. Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
  27. Munn, Z., Stern, C., Aromataris, E., Lockwood, C., & Jordan, Z. (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, 18(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0468-4
  28. Murad, M. H., Asi, N., Alsawas, M., & Alahdab, F. (2016). New evidence pyramid. Evidence-Based Medicine, 21(4), 125–127. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmed-2016-110401
  29. Nagpal, K., Ahmed, K., Vats, A., Yakoub, D., James, D., Ashrafian, H., Darzi, A., Moorthy, K., & Athanasiou, T. (2010). Is minimally invasive surgery beneficial in the management of esophageal cancer? A meta-analysis. Surgical Endoscopy, 24(7), 1621-1629. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-009-0822-7
  30. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. (n.d.). https://www.nice.org.uk/ NIHR National Institute for Health Research. (n.d.). https://www.nihr.ac.uk/explore-nihr/funding-programmes/health-technology-assessment.htm
  31. Noble, H. ve Smith, J. (2018). Reviewing the literature: Choosing a review design. Evidence-Based Nursing, 21(2), 39-41. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2018-102895
  32. Onwuegbuzie, A. J. ve Frels, R. (2016). Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review. Journal of Educational Social Studies, 23(2).
  33. Pawson, R. (2004). Evidence-based policy: A realist perspective. Making Realism Work: Realist Social Theory and Empirical Research. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203624289
  34. Pawson, R., Greenhalgh, T., Harvey, G., & Walshe, K. (2005). Realist review - A new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 10(1), 21-34. https://doi.org/10.1258/1355819054308530
  35. Peterson, K., Anderson, J., Boundy, E., Ferguson, L., & Erickson, K. (2017). Rapid Evidence Review of Bariatric Surgery in Super Obesity (BMI ≥ 50 kg/m2). Journal of General Internal Medicine, 32, 56-64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-016-3950-5
  36. Russell, C. L. (2005). An overview of the integrative research review. Progress in Transplantation 15(1), 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/152692480501500102
  37. Slater, T., Rodney, T., Kozachik, S. L., & Finnell, D. S. (2022). Recommendations for Emergency Departments Caring for Persons with Opioid Use and Opioid Use Disorders: An Integrative Review. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 48(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jen.2021.11.003
  38. Smith, J. ve Noble, H. (2016). Reviewing the literature. Evidence-Based Nursing, 19(1), 2-3. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2015-102252
  39. Starr, C. E., Dana, R., Pflugfelder, S. C., Holland, E. J., Zhang, S., Owen, D., & Brazzell, K. (2021). Dry eye disease flares: A rapid evidence assessment. Ocular Surface 22, 51–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtos.2021.07.001
  40. Tricco, A. C., Antony, J., Zarin, W., Strifler, L., Ghassemi, M., Ivory, J., Perrier, L., Hutton, B., Moher, D., & Straus, S. E. (2015). A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Medicine, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0465-6
  41. Tseng, C., He, X., Chen, W., & Tseng, C.-L. (2022). Evaluating automatic hand hygiene monitoring systems: A scoping review. Public Health in Practice, 4, 100290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhip.2022.100290
  42. What is a Systematic Review (SR)?. CEBMa. (n.d.). https://cebma.org/resources/frequently-asked-questions/what-is-a-systematic-review/
  43. Whittemore, R. ve Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing 52(5), 546–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x