scholarly journals PRESERVAÇÃO, CONSERVAÇÃO E RESTAURAÇÃO DOCUMENTAL: revisão sistemática na LISTA, ISTA e BRAPCI = DOCUMENT PRESERVATION, CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION: systematic review in LISTA, ISTA and BRAPCI

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 140
Author(s):  
Adelaide Helena Targino Casimiro ◽  
Laís de Medeiros Pires
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Science And Technology ◽  
Descriptive Study ◽  
Quantitative Approach ◽  
Reference Database ◽  
Meta Analyses

Este artigo tem como objetivo geral analisar a bibliografia sobre conservação, preservação e restauração de documentos físicos, publicada no período de 2016 a 2021 e disponível na Library, Information Science and Technology Abstracts (LISTA), na Information Science and Technology Abstracts (ISTA) e na Base de Dados Referencial de Artigos de Periódicos em Ciência da Informação (BRAPCI). Quanto a metodologia utilizada, é caracterizado como um estudo exploratório e descritivo, com abordagem quanti-qualitativa, tendo a bibliografia como principal fonte de dados. O método de revisão sistemática da literatura norteador do estudo foi o Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses ou PRISMA. Foram encontrados 27 artigos de periódicos e tecidas as considerações quanto à autoria, palavras-chave e subtemáticas. Os estudos sobre à cerca das áreas apresentadas são insuficientes em frente à quantidade de documentos físicos existentes, posto que, para que haja uma melhor demanda informacional, são necessárias pesquisas científicas e técnicas aprimoradas para o manuseio adequado desses documentos, de forma a não os danificar.AbstractThis article aims to analyze the bibliography on preservation, conservation andrestoration of physical documents, published from 2016 to 2021 and available inLibrary, Information Science and Technology Abstracts, Information Science andTechnology Abstracts and Reference Database of Articles from Periodicals inInformation Science. As for the methodology used, it is characterized as anexploratory and descriptive study, with a quantitative approach, having thebibliography as the main source of data. The method of systematic literature review guiding the study was the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses or PRISMA. Twenty-seven articles from journals were found and considerations were made regarding authorship, keywords and sub-themes. Studies on the areas presented are insufficient compared to the amount of existing physical documents, since, in order to make better use of information in these types of supports, more scientific research and improved techniques are needed for the proper handling of these documents, in order to do not damage them.

scholarly journals How to do a systematic literature review

2000 ◽  
Vol 56 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Papadopoulos ◽  
P. Rheeder
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Making Choices

Physiotherapists, whether serving individual patients or populations, always have to sought to base their decisions and actions on the best possible evidence. In making choices, health professionals may benefit from structured summaries of the options and outcomes, systematic reviews of the evidence and recommendations regarding the best choices. The aim of this paper is to present guidelines on how to conduct a systematic review. The structure and content of a systematic review are being discussed, following a step-by-step approach.

A Systematic Review of Gamification Within E-Learning

2022 ◽  
pp. 123-140
Author(s):  
Samuel Muthee Kamunya ◽  
Robert Obwocha Oboko ◽  
Elizaphan Muuro Maina ◽  
Evans Kirimi Miriti
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Learning Platform ◽  
E Learning ◽  
Learning Platforms ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Enhanced Learning ◽  
User Motivation

The focus of this study was to review and evaluate the effectiveness of gamification within e-learning platforms. The study deployed systematic literature review methodology to evaluate how effective gamification has been used within e-learning platforms. The study used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Approach (PRISMA), starting with 366 articles, shifting to a final 34 articles for consideration. It was established that gamification positively influences and enhances learning within the e-learning platform. Therefore, the study recommends policy makers, designers, and implementers of e-learning platforms to consider incorporating gamification elements in order to increase user motivation and engagement for enhanced learning.

scholarly journals DETERMINAN STATUS PERKEMBANGAN BAYI USIA 0 – 12 BULAN

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 73
Author(s):  
Nuke Aliyya Tama ◽  
Handayani Handayani
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
Meta Analyses

Tahun pertama kehidupan terutama sejak janin dalam kandungan sampai anak berusia 2 tahun merupakan periode yang sangat penting dalam pertumbuhan dan perkembangan anak. Periode ini merupakan kesempatan emas sekaligus masa-masa yang rentan terhadap pengaruh negatif. Tujuan literatur review ini untuk mengidentifikasi determinan status perkembangan bayi usia 0-12 bulan. Metode yang digunakan adalah studi literatur menggunakan Systematic Literature Review dengan Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. Data yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah data sekunder yang berasal dari artikel ilmiah nasional, basis data yang digunakan yaitu Google Scholar, Pubmed, Science direct Research Gate. Kriteria inklusi yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini yaitu jurnal yang diambil publish dalam 5 tahun terakhir dengan minimal Sinta 4 dan menggunakan jurnal Quartile 3 dan Quartile 4. Hasil peninjauan bahwa dalam menilai status perkembangan bayi menggunakan instrumen KPSP, serta determinan yang mempengaruhi status perkembangan bayi antara lain status gizi, stimulasi, pola asuh dan ansietas pada ibu.

scholarly journals Factors Affecting Sustainable Apparel Consumption in Emerging Countries: A Systematic Literature Review

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nornajihah Nadia Hasbullah ◽  
Zuraidah Sulaiman ◽  
Adaviah Mas'od
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Emerging Countries ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Prisma Statement ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
New Consumer

The growth of sustainable apparels provides grounding for the emergence of a new consumer market. Surprisingly, this movement has not only taken place in developed countries but also in emerging countries. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no systematic reviews have been carried out on sustainable apparels, focused specifically on emerging countries. The goal of this systematic review is to analyse the existing literature on various factors that influence sustainable apparel consumption in emerging countries, as well as presenting future research directions. This detailed literature review is guided by the PRISMA Statement (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) review method, and its searches encompass sources such as Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar databases which, in result, identified 19 related studies. Furthermore, the reviewers segregated the factors into four major domains which include value, subjective norm, perceived behavioural control and knowledge. The results of this review demonstrate that most customers in the emerging countries have already experienced a growing interest in sustainable apparel with a strong development of knowledge, great concern, values and social circle. In sum, this systematic literature review provides an insightful information about sustainable apparel purchase behaviour and helps academicians, manufacturers and retailers to position and market their sustainable clothing brands.

A Systematic Literature Review of Assessing the Level of Food Safety Knowledge Among Food Handlers in Malaysia

2022 ◽  
pp. 151-171
Author(s):  
Genevie Eleanor Ruby ◽  
Ungku Fatimah Ungku Zainal Abidin
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Food Safety ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Food Handlers ◽  
Safety Education ◽  
Food Safety Education ◽  
Food Borne ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Safety Knowledge

Being knowledgeable about food safety is one of the strategies to address food-borne diseases (FBD). The systematic review was focuses on food safety knowledge and the respective interventions. Generally, numerous relevant studies have been done to determine the level of food safety knowledge among food handlers, but studies from a Malaysian perspective were limited. Therefore, the present study reviewed a number of previous studies regarding level of food safety knowledge and type of interventions that have been done among various categories of food handlers in Malaysia. For the review purpose, preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) was adopted based on Science Direct, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases. A total of 22 resulted from the searching and were analyzed systematically. The review of food safety knowledge was divided into three themes consisting of food handlers at premises, consumers, and students. The results of this review have identified the knowledge gap of food handlers, and the authors provide recommendations for future food safety education.

scholarly journals Revisão sistemática na área de Ensino e Educação Matemática: análise do processo e proposição de etapasSystematic review in the area of Mathematical Education and Teaching: analysis of the process and proposal of steps

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 196-228
Author(s):  
Luiz Otavio Rodrigues Mendes ◽  
Ana Lucia Pereira
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Mathematical Education ◽  
Systematic Revision ◽  
Revisión Sistemática ◽  
Methodological Procedures ◽  
Research Guide ◽  
Selection Of

ResumoCom o intuito de contribuir para a organização de pesquisas do tipo revisões sistemáticas, no presente artigo temos dois objetivos centrais: primeiramente, identificar como e se os trabalhos que propõem etapas para o desenvolvimento de revisões sistemáticas contemplam as pesquisas voltadas para a área de Ensino e Educação Matemática; e, após, apresentar os procedimentos metodológicos de como realizamos a revisão sistemática na presente pesquisa, por meio de uma proposta detalhada de como desenvolver uma revisão sistemática voltada para esta área. Como procedimentos metodológicos, utilizaram-se pressupostos da revisão sistemática de literatura, seguindo como parâmetros os Principais Itens para Relatar Revisões Sistemáticas e Meta-análises – PRISMA. Foram encontradas sete produções que propunham etapas. Ao contrastá-las, emergiram cinco etapas que se constituem como comuns a este tipo de pesquisa, a saber: I – Objetivo e pergunta; II – Busca dos trabalhos; III – Seleção dos estudos; IV – Análise das produções; V – Apresentação da revisão sistemática. Além disso, evidenciamos que nenhuma delas era caracterizada como específica para a área de Ensino e Educação Matemática. À vista disso, elaboramos uma proposta detalhada que pode ser utilizada nesta área. Consideramos que essa pesquisa pode contribuir na elaboração de trabalhos mais sistêmicos, bem como colaborar com pesquisadores que tenham um interesse em desenvolver revisões sistemáticas.Palavras-chave: Pesquisa Bibliográfica. Guia. Padrões Metodológicos.AbstractIn order to contribute to the organization of research of the systematic revision type, in this article we have two central objectives: first, to identify how and if the works that propose steps for the development of systematic revisions contemplate research directed to the area of Teaching and Mathematical Education; and second, to present the methodological procedures of how we carry out the systematic revision in this research, presenting a detailed proposal of how to develop a systematic revision directed to this area. As methodological procedures, the assumptions of the systematic literature review were used, following as parameters the Main Items for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyzes – PRISMA. Seven productions were found that proposed stages. By contrasting them, five steps emerged that are common to this type of research, namely: I – Objective and question; II – Search for jobs; III – Selection of studies; IV – Analysis of productions; V – Presentation of the systematic review. In addition, it was evident that none of them were characterized specifically for the area of Teaching and Mathematical Education. In view of this, we have elaborated a detailed proposal that can be used in this area. It is considered that this research can contribute to the elaboration of more systemic works, as well as collaborate with researchers who have an interest in developing systematic reviews.Keywords: Bibliographic research. Guide. Methodological Standards.ResumenCon el fin de contribuir a la organización de la investigación de tipo revisión sistemática, en este artículo tenemos dos objetivos principales: primero, identificar cómo y si los trabajos que proponen pasos para el desarrollo de revisiones sistemáticas contemplan la investigación dirigida al área de Enseñanza y Educación Matemática; y segundo, presentar los procedimientos metodológicos de cómo llevamos a cabo la revisión sistemática en esta investigación, presentando una propuesta detallada de cómo desarrollar una revisión sistemática dirigida a esta área. Como procedimientos metodológicos se utilizaron los supuestos de la revisión sistemática de la literatura, siguiendo como parámetros los Ítems Principales para Reporte de Revisiones Sistemáticas y Metaanálisis – PRISMA. Se encontraron siete producciones que propusieron etapas. Al contrastarlos, surgen cinco etapas que son comunes a este tipo de investigación, a saber: I – Objetivo y pregunta; II – Búsqueda de empleo; III – Selección de estudios; IV – Análisis de producciones; V – Presentación de la revisión sistemática. Además, se evidenció que ninguno de ellos se caracterizó específicamente por el área de Docencia y Educación Matemática. En vista de esto, hemos elaborado una propuesta detallada que se puede utilizar en esta área. Se considera que esta investigación puede contribuir a la elaboración de trabajos más sistémicos, así como colaborar con investigadores que tengan interés en desarrollar revisiones sistemáticas.Palabras clave: Investigación bibliográfica. Guía. Estándares metodológicos.

A Systematic Review of Gamification Within E-Learning

2021 ◽  
pp. 201-218
Author(s):  
Samuel Muthee Kamunya ◽  
Robert Obwocha Oboko ◽  
Elizaphan Muuro Maina ◽  
Evans Kirimi Miriti
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Learning Platform ◽  
E Learning ◽  
Learning Platforms ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Enhanced Learning ◽  
User Motivation

The focus of this study was to review and evaluate the effectiveness of gamification within e-learning platforms. The study deployed systematic literature review methodology to evaluate how effective gamification has been used within e-learning platforms. The study used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Approach (PRISMA), starting with 366 articles, shifting to a final 34 articles for consideration. It was established that gamification positively influences and enhances learning within the e-learning platform. Therefore, the study recommends policy makers, designers, and implementers of e-learning platforms to consider incorporating gamification elements in order to increase user motivation and engagement for enhanced learning.

scholarly journals A systematic review on diagnostics and surgical treatment of adult right-sided Bochdalek hernias and presentation of the current management pathway

Hernia ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. P. Ramspott ◽  
T. Jäger ◽  
M. Lechner ◽  
P. Schredl ◽  
A. Gabersek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
The Right ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Purpose Bochdalek hernia is a congenital diaphragmatic hernia. The incidence in adults is estimated around 0.17%. Right-sided hernias are much more seldom than left-sided ones because of faster closure of the right pleuroperitoneal canal and the protective effect of the liver. Due to its rarity, there have been no large prospective or retrospective studies following great need for evidence-based diagnostics and treatment strategies. In this systematic review, we evaluated the current evidence of diagnostics, treatment, and follow-up of adult right-sided Bochdalek hernias. Methods According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines a systematic literature review was conducted in PubMed and Cochrane library from 2004 to January 2021. The literature search included all studies with non-traumatic right-sided Bochdalek hernias. Literature on left- or both-sided, pregnancy-associated, pediatric, and other types of hernias were explicitly excluded. Quality assessment of the included studies was performed. Results Database search identified 401 records. After eligibility screening 41 studies describing 44 cases of right-sided non-traumatic Bochdalek hernias in adulthood were included for final analysis. Based upon the systematic literature review, the current diagnostic, therapeutic, and follow-up management pathway for this rare surgical emergency is presented. Conclusion This systematic review underlined that most studies investigating management of adult non-traumatic right-sided Bochdalek hernias are of moderate to low methodological quality. Hernias tend to occur more frequently in middle-aged and older women presenting with abdominal pain and dyspnea. A rapid and accurate diagnosis following surgical repair and regular follow-up is mandatory. High-quality studies focusing on the management of this rare entity are urgently needed.

scholarly journals Evaluating Approaches to Quality Assessment in Library and Information Science LIS Systematic Reviews: A Methodology Review

2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle Maden ◽  
Eleanor Kotas
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Assessment Process ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Meta Analyses

Objective – Systematic reviews are becoming increasingly popular within the Library and Information Science (LIS) domain. This paper has three aims: to review approaches to quality assessment in published LIS systematic reviews in order to assess whether and how LIS reviewers report on quality assessment a priori in systematic reviews, to model the different quality assessment aids used by LIS reviewers, and to explore if and how LIS reviewers report on and incorporate the quality of included studies into the systematic review analysis and conclusions. Methods – The authors undertook a methodological study of published LIS systematic reviews using a known cohort of published systematic reviews of LIS-related research. Studies were included if they were reported as a “systematic review” in the title, abstract, or methods section. Meta-analyses that did not incorporate a systematic review and studies in which the systematic review was not a main objective were excluded. Two reviewers independently assessed the studies. Data were extracted on the type of synthesis, whether quality assessment was planned and undertaken, the number of reviewers involved in assessing quality, the types of tools or criteria used to assess the quality of the included studies, how quality assessment was assessed and reported in the systematic review, and whether the quality of the included studies was considered in the analysis and conclusions of the review. In order to determine the quality of the reporting and incorporation of quality assessment in LIS systematic reviews, each study was assessed against criteria relating to quality assessment in the PRISMA reporting guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altman, & The PRISMA Group, 2009) and the AMSTAR tool (Shea et al., 2007). Results – Forty studies met the inclusion criteria. The results demonstrate great variation on the breadth, depth, and transparency of the quality assessment process in LIS systematic reviews. Nearly one third of the LIS systematic reviews included in this study did not report on quality assessment in the methods, and less than one quarter adequately incorporated quality assessment in the analysis, conclusions, and recommendations. Only nine of the 26 systematic reviews that undertook some form of quality assessment incorporated considerations of how the quality of the included studies impacted on the validity of the review findings in the analysis, conclusion, and recommendations. The large number of different quality assessment tools identified reflects not only the disparate nature of the LIS evidence base (Brettle, 2009) but also a lack of consensus around criteria on which to assess the quality of LIS research. Conclusion – Greater clarity, definition, and understanding of the methodology and concept of “quality” in the systematic review process are required not only by LIS reviewers but also by editors of journals in accepting such studies for publication. Further research and guidance is needed on identifying the best tools and approaches to incorporate considerations of quality in LIS systematic reviews. LIS reviewers need to improve the robustness and transparency with which quality assessment is undertaken and reported in systematic reviews. Above all, LIS reviewers need to be explicit in coming to a conclusion on how the quality of the included studies may impact on their review findings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document