Quartz 4

Systematic Literature Review

6 min read

Research

Learning: https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-14 https://www.udemy.com/join/passwordless-auth/?next=%2Fcourse%2Fsystematic-literature-review-a-practical-guide%2Flearn%2Flecture%2F15927416&action=login&mode#overview

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10462-024-10902-30Artificial intelligence for literature reviews: opportunities and challengesPublished: 17 August 2024This paper presents a comprehensive review of the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs). A SLR is a rigorous and organised methodology that assesses and integrates prior research on a given topic. Numerous tools have b

Andrey Saltan Shared Spreadsheets: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fRdDR8S6LssmXmRQ7paBLJxoIK3cQsOxGMe_287vCEs/edit?gid=0#gid=0

A multivocal literature review (MLR) is a systematic literature review that includes both published and unpublished literature. MLRs are useful for researchers and practitioners because they provide a summary of the state of the art and practice in a given area.

SLR References i liked: Motivations, Challenges, Best Practices, and Benefits for Bots and Conversational Agents in Software Engineering: A Multivocal Literature Review | ACM Computing Surveys

Overview R2D2

R2D2 A Systematic Literature Review (SLR) aims to provide a comprehensive and unbiased summary of existing research on a specific topic. Here’s a breakdown of its key objectives:  

1. Summarize Existing Research:

  • Comprehensive overview: SLRs aim to identify and synthesize all relevant studies on a specific research question, providing a complete picture of the current state of knowledge.  

  • Identify key findings and trends: SLRs analyze the collected data to identify patterns, discrepancies, and areas of consensus within the existing literature.

2. Evaluate the Quality of Evidence:

  • Critical appraisal: SLRs assess the methodological rigor and validity of included studies, determining the strength of evidence for particular conclusions.  

  • Identify biases and limitations: SLRs examine potential biases in the research process and acknowledge limitations in the available evidence.  

3. Identify Research Gaps and Future Directions:

  • Highlight areas for further investigation: SLRs pinpoint gaps in the existing research and suggest directions for future studies.  

  • Inform research agendas: SLRs help researchers and funding agencies prioritize research efforts based on the current state of knowledge.  

4. Inform Decision-Making:

  • Evidence-based practice: SLRs provide a solid foundation for evidence-based decision-making in various fields, including healthcare, education, and policy.  

  • Policy development: SLRs can inform the development of guidelines, policies, and interventions based on the best available evidence.  

5. Enhance Transparency and Reproducibility:

  • Systematic and rigorous methodology: SLRs follow a pre-defined and transparent methodology, ensuring that the review process is systematic and reproducible.  

  • Reduce bias: SLRs minimize bias in the selection and appraisal of studies, increasing the reliability and validity of the review findings.  

In summary, the objective of an SLR is to provide a rigorous and comprehensive synthesis of existing research, enabling evidence-based decision-making, identifying research gaps, and advancing knowledge in a specific field.

SLR

Intro

Good reference: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook

Referencias do meu paper base - https://drive.google.com/drive/search?q=SEEA_SLR%20parent:11eCxOHNDZd-g5s4ONTem7losDdS2y_A6

[16] J. P. T. Higgins, J. Thomas, J. Chandler, M. Cumpston, T. Li, M. J. Page, and V. A. Welch, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. John Wiley & Sons, Sep. 2019.

[17] B. Kitchenham and S. Charters, “Guidelines for performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering,” vol. 2, Jan. 2007.

[18] D. Gough, S. Oliver, and J. Thomas, An Introduction to Systematic Reviews. SAGE, Mar. 2017.

SLR Doubts - Descriptive versus Thematic

in thematic synthesis of Systematic Literature Review, i should only states facts, no opinions, right?

Yes, you’re mostly correct — in a thematic synthesis within a Systematic Literature Review (SLR), your goal is to:

✅ Summarize and organize findings from the literature
✅ Identify recurring themes or patterns across studies
✅ Present what the research shows, based on evidence

So, you should focus on:

  • Reporting the data from the studies (e.g., participant views, outcomes, interventions)

  • Describing the themes you derived from those data using a clear and transparent method

However, there’s a small nuance:

🔹 While you don’t insert your personal opinion, some interpretation is necessary — especially in analytical thematic synthesis (as per Thomas & Harden, 2008). This means:

  • You’re not just stating what each study says individually (that would be more like a descriptive synthesis)

  • You’re synthesizing across studies to develop higher-level themes — an interpretive process, but grounded in the data

Summary:

  • ❌ No personal opinions or unsupported claims

  • ✅ Evidence-based interpretation of patterns and themes

  • ✅ Transparency in how themes were identified and synthesized

Let me know if you’re working on descriptive vs. analytical synthesis — I can tailor guidance further.

Src: https://chatgpt.com/c/684477ab-4a08-8012-ae06-740366c1dcd9 (More questions there)

The synthesis must always be data-driven and traceable to the source studies.

SLR in Software Engineering

Referencias do meu paper base - https://drive.google.com/drive/search?q=SEEA_SLR%20parent:11eCxOHNDZd-g5s4ONTem7losDdS2y_A6

B. Kitchenham and S. Charters, “Guidelines for performing Systematic

Literature Reviews in Software Engineering,” vol. 2, Jan. 2007.

Local PDF: Kitchenham-2007Systematicreviews5-8.pdf

Desta autora local

Local PDF: Kitchenham-2004-Systematicreviewsv4.pdf Local PDF: kitchenham2009.pdf

Systematic review in software engineering: where we are and where we should be going (NOVA DELA)

Author: Barbara A. KitchenhamAuthors Info & Claims

EAST ‘12: Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on Evidential assessment of software technologies

Systematic literature reviews in software engineering – A systematic literature review - ScienceDirect

Local PDF: kitchenham2009.pdf

Although 10 of the SLR studies in this review cited one of the EBSE papers [5] or the SLR Guidelines [22],

[5] T. Dybå, B.A. Kitchenham, M. Jørgensen, Evidence-based software engineering for practitioners, IEEE Software 22 (1) (2005) 58–65.

[22] B.A. Kitchenham, Procedures for Undertaking Systematic Reviews, Joint Technical Report, Computer Science Department, Keele University (TR/SE0401) and National ICT Australia Ltd. ( 0400011T.1), 2004. Local PDF: Kitchenham-2004-Systematicreviewsv4.pdf

Where to search - Determine Relevant Databases

Where to Search - Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses - Research Guides at Virginia Tech

Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta‐analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources - Gusenbauer - 2020 - Research Synthesis Methods - Wiley Online Library

Local PDF: Research Synthesis Methods - 2019 - Gusenbauer - Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or.pdf

Results Section

Descriptive Synthesis

Key aspects of descriptive synthesis in an SLR results section:

  • Summarize, don’t just list: Go beyond simply listing the results of each study. Group similar findings and identify patterns, trends, and variations.
  • Use clear and concise language: Present the information in an easy-to-understand manner.
  • Provide context: Relate the findings back to the research question and objectives of your SLR.
  • Acknowledge heterogeneity: If there is variation in findings or methodologies across studies, acknowledge this.
  • Use tables and figures: Often, the most effective way to present a descriptive synthesis is through well-designed tables and figures that summarize key characteristics and findings.

SRC: https://gemini.google.com/app/dfb46f802ab2b410

Thematic Synthesis

https://gemini.google.com/app/0ffaf7faa25dbe95?hl=pt-BR

  • Descriptive themes are essentially summaries of what was explicitly found and reported in the individual primary studies. They are “close to the data” and tell you what the original researchers (or their participants) said or observed. They consolidate similar findings across different studies.

  • Analytical themes are where you, as the reviewer, “go beyond” simply describing. This is the interpretive and analytical stage. You look across the descriptive themes and ask:

    • What do these findings mean when put together?
    • What new insights, explanations, or hypotheses can be generated from combining these descriptive themes?
    • What overarching story or theory emerges from the collective evidence?

Thematic Analysis Drawings

Graph View

Backlinks