Journal of Nursing Education

Educational Innovations 

Using a Manuscript Template to Foster Dissemination of Doctoral Students' Literature Reviews

Patricia E. Hershberger, PhD, APRN, FNP-BC, FAAN

Abstract

Background:

The author was asked to teach a new PhD course, Developing Literature Reviews. The course objective is to have students prepare a structured (e.g., integrative, systematic) literature review manuscript that is suitable for publication submission.

Method:

Course pedagogy and materials were created, including a novel literature review manuscript template. The template served as a guide for communicating essential section components of a rigorous and reproducible literature review manuscript and allowed for an iterative process and efficient faculty–student evaluation system to simulate the peer-review process. To measure student outcomes, standardized course evaluations were reviewed, and the number of students who were successful in disseminating manuscripts was recorded.

Results:

Students' standardized course evaluations were high. Eighteen students published integrative or systematic literature reviews as first author. Eleven students have presented peer-reviewed abstracts at scientific conferences.

Conclusion:

The template successfully facilitates PhD student dissemination. The Doctor of Nursing Practice student pedagogy may also benefit from the template. [J Nurs Educ. 2021;60(2):111–115.]

Abstract

Background:

The author was asked to teach a new PhD course, Developing Literature Reviews. The course objective is to have students prepare a structured (e.g., integrative, systematic) literature review manuscript that is suitable for publication submission.

Method:

Course pedagogy and materials were created, including a novel literature review manuscript template. The template served as a guide for communicating essential section components of a rigorous and reproducible literature review manuscript and allowed for an iterative process and efficient faculty–student evaluation system to simulate the peer-review process. To measure student outcomes, standardized course evaluations were reviewed, and the number of students who were successful in disseminating manuscripts was recorded.

Results:

Students' standardized course evaluations were high. Eighteen students published integrative or systematic literature reviews as first author. Eleven students have presented peer-reviewed abstracts at scientific conferences.

Conclusion:

The template successfully facilitates PhD student dissemination. The Doctor of Nursing Practice student pedagogy may also benefit from the template. [J Nurs Educ. 2021;60(2):111–115.]

In 2015, the PhD faculty at the University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Nursing launched a new, PhD-level course, Developing Literature Reviews. The aim of the course was to provide intensive instruction to PhD students on conducting rigorous literature reviews. The course objective set by the faculty was to have each PhD student prepare a draft of a literature review manuscript suitable for publication submission. In 2016, the course became a requirement for all PhD students and is offered each fall over a 16-week semester. The author was asked to develop and teach the course since its implementation in 2015.

Pursuant to the course objective, students are required to complete a literature review that uses an explicit, rigorous, and reproducible (e.g., structured) methodological process such as those used in integrative, systematic, or scoping literature reviews. The requirement to have students complete a structured literature review was set based on the author's own scientific experience with completing literature reviews (Hershberger, 2004; Hershberger, 2016; Hershberger & Pierce, 2010), the trajectory toward increased methodological rigor and transparency when conducting literature reviews (Higgins et al., 2019), the high level of evidence generated by structured reviews (Gregory & Denniss, 2018; Wormald & Evans, 2018), and the influence of literature reviews on future studies, PhD dissertations, clinical practice, health care interventions, and health care policy (Higgins et al., 2019).

Method

Development of the Template and Other Course Materials

The author developed course materials such as reading lists, lectures, small-group projects, and class discussions, along with other novel strategies, to aid PhD students in achieving the course objective. These pedagogic materials and strategies are used throughout the semester to provide foundational knowledge about the appropriate steps and components for completing structured literature reviews. For example, instructional texts (Cooper et al., 2019; Garrard, 2017; Higgins et al., 2019), informative journal articles (Haddaway et al., 2015; Spurlock, 2019; Sutton et al., 2019; Whittemore et al., 2014), and expert recommendations (Cochrane Collaboration, n.d.; Joanna Briggs Institute, n.d.; Ottawa Hospital Research Institute & University of Oxford, 2015) are incorporated throughout the semester to facilitate student understanding and comprehension regarding all aspects of literature reviews. Novel course strategies include collaborating with a journal editor to allow for active student engagement in a journal manuscript peer review while under direct faculty supervision (Monsivais, 2016), inviting journal editors as guest lecturers to speak directly with students about developing and submitting literature reviews to professional journals, and engaging former students who have disseminated their literature reviews to discuss facilitators and challenges to dissemination.

Considering the efficient use of student and faculty time and a need to communicate consistent course requirements to foster student learning and successful literature review dissemination, a literature review manuscript template was created. The design of the template accommodates the wide range of literature review types (e.g., integrative, systematic, scoping) often completed by PhD nursing students. At the same time, the template provides concise and consistent information to streamline the completion of each student's literature review, regardless of review type. In developing the template, the author considered the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Ottawa Hospital Research Institute & University of Oxford, 2015) and recommendations from other methodological experts (Moher et al., 2009; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, n.d.-a).

A unique yet valuable feature of the template is that its design also aims to simulate the peer-review process. Using an iterative course-assignment process, students are required to submit sections of their developing literature review manuscript incrementally throughout the semester for faculty evaluation and feedback. With each manuscript section submission, students receive constructive feedback and recommendations for improving the manuscript from course faculty, which is incorporated into the template document. Students are expected to revise their manuscript and address the faculty's recommendations using an appropriate professional response detailed within the template. Incorporating the requirement of students to provide professional evaluation responses is consistent with simulating the peer-review process and provides students with an opportunity for a hands-on experience under direct faculty guidance.

Template Sections and Components

The template consists of eight sections that correspond with the main sections of structured literature review manuscripts (e.g., Abstract, Methods, Results). Each section contains a corresponding table where essential components are listed. The components serve to communicate specific requirements that must be satisfied for course completion and for each section of the manuscript. They also serve as benchmarks for faculty evaluation of each section to ensure the components are clearly defined and consistently evaluated. Each section is denoted within the template by a corresponding table, and the faculty evaluations and student responses are in an open-ended format. Each of the eight template sections and components are described below, along with examples of course pedagogy. The Results section of the template and an exemplar of the faculty and student responses within the table that simulates the peer-review process is provided in Table 1. The full template with additional exemplars of iterative faculty evaluations and student responses to the peer-review simulation is shown in Table A (available in the online version of this article).

Template Exemplar: Results Section With Faculty Evaluation and Student Response

Table 1:

Template Exemplar: Results Section With Faculty Evaluation and Student Response

Table A:

Literature Review Manuscript TEMPLATE [Title Page]

Title Page Section

A title for the literature review manuscript and a list of coauthors, which includes the student's PhD faculty advisor, are required components. Students are expected to work closely with their advisor for topical expertise. Methodological strategies, which are provided in the course, along with their advisor's topical expertise, ensure a necessary mix of skills and knowledge to conduct a high-quality review (Lasserson et al., 2019). Authorship information from course readings and lectures is presented in the course, which is guided by recommendations from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (n.d.). Selecting a target journal for the manuscript (Gennaro, 2019; Likis, 2018) is also a required component. Students are instructed to incorporate and comply with the author guidelines of the target journal for their manuscript. Thus, if the author guidelines limit the number of words in a title, students are required to abide by the guidelines when drafting the title.

Abstract Section

Common abstract headings (e.g., Problem/Background, Purpose, Methods) are provided in the template to allow students to comprehend typical abstract headings. However, students are instructed to comply with the author guidelines required by the target journal for abstract headings, as well as the number of words allowed in the abstract. Course instruction pertains to developing a review abstract that is an unbiased representation of the full manuscript and links directly to the sections within the manuscript (Beller et al., 2013). Lectures provide examples of various abstracts from several published reviews. Class discussion is encouraged by identifying similarities and differences across abstract requirements from the students' target journals. A component of the abstract section is the identification of keywords. The importance of keywords is discussed, and a short class exercise demonstrating the benefits of linking keywords to medical subject headings is provided.

Introduction and Background Section

The template stipulates main components of the Introduction and Background section, including (a) a brief summary of relevant literature (including any prior literature reviews) and background knowledge, (b) identification of the gaps in prior knowledge to address the rational for completing the literature review, (c) use of appropriate supporting references (e.g., primary sources, current or classic literature), and (d) a purpose statement or review question that concludes the section. The page limit is set at one to two pages because of the variability in the length of the Introduction and Background section required by journals. Class lectures and discussions provide insight on the components of the Introduction and Background section, such as summarizing relevant literature from a broad to specific approach (Bahadoran et al., 2018; Oermann & Hays, 2019). The Introduction and Background section of published reviews are also dissected into components (e.g., summary of background knowledge, purpose statement) during course lectures to provide examples of the essential components and to stimulate in-class discussion and learning.

Methods Section

The Methods section requires five components students must address in one to four paragraphs. The five components are (a) providing one or more methodological references for guiding the review, (b) detailing the search and retrieval strategies, (c) describing the inclusion and exclusion criteria along with the scientific rational for the criteria, (d) providing information about how the data analysis and synthesis was conducted, and (e) describing the quality appraisal tool used in the review. Because the Methods section is vital to transparency for any scientific project, it is critical that students provide clear and accurate information about each of the five components in their literature review manuscripts. Multiple in-class discussions, lectures, individual and group projects, and required readings aid in the students understanding of the components. For example, information on methodological techniques that guide specific literature review types are provided in lectures and course readings (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005; Higgins et al., 2019; Peters et al., 2015; Whittemore & Knafl, 2005). Additional readings and lectures instruct students about search, selection, and retrieval strategies (Atkinson et al., 2015; Paez, 2017; Spurlock, 2019) and the construction of a PRISMA flow diagram to visually map out the identification and selection process (Moher et al., 2009). A health sciences librarian who is highly skilled in reviews provides individual and group sessions to students regarding comprehensive electronic search and retrieval strategies. Lectures covering how to select and use quality appraisal tools (e.g., Crowe et al., 2012; Des Jarlais et al., 2004; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, n.d.-b) that align with review types to systematically appraise the quality of included studies are provided.

Results Section

Four components are required for the Results section, including (a) a minimum of one paragraph that describes the overall characteristics of the studies included in the review; (b) description of the themes, patterns, or other subsections of the findings from the analysis and synthesis that address the purpose or research question(s); (c) a literature review table that details characteristics and/or variables from each of the identified studies in the review; and (d) a brief description of the findings from the selected quality appraisal tool(s). Students are required to submit three to five pages devoted to addressing these four components. Required readings (Cooper, 2017; Garrard, 2017; Higgins et al., 2019) targeted individual and group exercises, and in-class discussions with exemplars aid in instruction and comprehension of the analytic processes necessary to formulate the Results section. Because students often find the analysis and synthesis to be challenging, lectures that detail specific analytic processes such as delineating data into data “types” (i.e., numerical, categorical, or narrative) are used as an effective pedagogic strategy (Dunn Lopez et al., 2020). This strategy includes lectures and discussions that provide examples of types of data along with the appropriate analysis and synthesis. Specifically, descriptive statistics or pooled statistical methods are appropriate for numerical data; sorting, filtering, and summing of categories are appropriate for categorical data; and content analysis or other similar procedures are appropriate for narrative or textual data (Dunn Lopez et al., 2020). Another effective strategy is to require students to bring their developing Results section to class. An intensive hands-on experience is then undertaken where students' data serve as further exemplars for data types and analyses and syntheses activities. Students are required to complete a peer review of each other's work after they complete the Results section.

Discussion Section

The template highlights five components of a well-written Discussion section, including (a) provide a succinct statement of how the findings address the purpose of the review or the research question(s) and how these findings impact the field (e.g., the “So what?” question); (b) detail what the findings mean by stating how the findings add to the current scientific literature (e.g., the “What does it mean?” question); (c) provide a short limitations paragraph; (d) describe how the findings guide future research, and if appropriate, can impact clinical practice; and (e) finish with a short summary paragraph. Lectures, course readings, and class discussions are critical to helping students understand the components of the Discussion section. Course instruction provides guidance about the components such as succinctly addressing the purpose/review question in the Discussion section (Ghasemi et al., 2019); crafting a discourse of the findings within the current scientific milieu (Kearney, 2017); including supporting literature and, when appropriate, contradictory literature (Höfler et al., 2018; Jenicek, 2006); avoiding overgeneralizations (Conn, 2017); writing the limitations subsection (Conn, 2017; Kearney, 2017); and creating a summary or concluding paragraph (Ghasemi et al., 2019). Student-to-student peer review following the completion of the Discussion section is optional but encouraged, even if it is completed after the course has officially ended.

References Section

Course lectures, discussions, and readings pertain to selecting appropriate references to support statements and claims within the manuscript (Oermann & Hays, 2019). The template does not specify a standard citation style (e.g., American Psychological Association format). Rather, students are to use the style guide directed by the target journal. This requirement enables students to be better prepared for manuscript submission versus managing incongruent target journal citation styles requirements.

Results

To measure student satisfaction, the students' standardized course evaluations administered by the University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Nursing were analyzed using descriptive statistics. In addition, the number of students who were successful in disseminating manuscripts was recorded and tallied by the author. Student responses to standardized course evaluation questions such as “Overall quality of instruction was high” ranged from 4.06 to 4.62 over 5 years (mean = 4.35; 5-point Likert-scale, where 0 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). Open-ended student responses to standardized questions were also positive. Typical responses were: “This is a great course that all in the PhD program should take. I definitely learned the process of literature review and hope to publish my paper,” and “Learning to write a high-quality scientific literature review was of tremendous benefit as a graduate student. Building a literature review [manuscript] throughout the semester is a great and useful way to approach the class.”

To date, 18 students have successfully published integrative and systematic literature reviews as first author in a wide range of scientific journals. Two students have published more than one literature review. One student published an integrative review during the PhD program and a meta-analysis after graduating. Eleven students have presented their peer-reviewed abstracts at international, national, or regional scientific conferences as first authors. These numbers reflect submission to professional journals during the student's PhD program (n = 16), after graduation (n = 1), or during a postdoctoral fellowship (n = 1) as one student enrolled in the course during their fellowship. All abstract submissions occurred during the student's PhD program (n = 11).

Discussion and Conclusion

The use of a well-crafted manuscript template and the peer-review simulation is one pedagogic strategy that can facilitate student learning, completion, and dissemination success in the modern, time-pressured academic environment for both PhD students and course faculty. Other course strategies such as required readings, lectures, class discussions, and individual and group projects provide support for student learning and engagement. It is worth noting the course is offered in a research-intensive environment and the students' PhD faculty advisors, who often serve as coauthors, are highly skilled scientists. Therefore, the success of PhD students in other academic settings, even with the pedagogy and template described in this article, may vary. Despite this limitation and although the template and course instruction has focused on PhD students, Doctor of Nursing Practice students would likely benefit from similar pedagogy and a modified template that places translation of evidence into practice as a priority.

References

  • Arksey, H. & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32 doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616 [CrossRef]
  • Atkinson, K. M., Koenka, A. C., Sanchez, C. E., Moshontz, H. & Cooper, H. (2015). Reporting standards for literature searches and report inclusion criteria: Making research syntheses more transparent and easy to replicate. Research Synthesis Methods, 6(1), 87–95 doi:10.1002/jrsm.1127 [CrossRef] PMID:26035472
  • Bahadoran, Z., Jeddi, S., Mirmiran, P. & Ghasemi, A. (2018). The principles of biomedical scientific writing: Introduction. International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism, 16(4), e84795 doi:10.5812/ijem.84795 [CrossRef] PMID:30464776
  • Beller, E. M., Glasziou, P. P., Altman, D. G., Hopewell, S., Bastian, H., Chalmers, I., Gøtzsche, P. C., Lasserson, T. & Tovey, D.the PRISMA for Abstracts Group. (2013). PRISMA for abstracts: Reporting systematic reviews in journal and conference abstracts. PLoS Medicine, 10(4), e1001419 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001419 [CrossRef] PMID:23585737
  • Cochrane Collaboration. (n.d.). About us. http://www.cochrane.org/about-us
  • Conn, V. S. (2017). How to craft a strong discussion section. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 39(5), 607–608 doi:10.1177/0193945916650196 [CrossRef] PMID:28367732
  • Cooper, H. (2017). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach (5th ed.). Sage.
  • Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V. & Valentine, J. C. (Eds.). (2019). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (3rd ed.). Russell Sage Foundation. doi:10.7758/9781610448864 [CrossRef]
  • Crowe, M., Sheppard, L. & Campbell, A. (2012). Reliability analysis for a proposed critical appraisal tool demonstrated value for diverse research designs. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 65(4), 375–383 doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.08.006 [CrossRef] PMID:22078576
  • Des Jarlais, D. C., Lyles, C. & Crepaz, N.the TREND Group. (2004). Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: The TREND statement. American Journal of Public Health, 94(3), 361–366 doi:10.2105/AJPH.94.3.361 [CrossRef] PMID:14998794
  • Dunn Lopez, K., Gephart, S. M. & Hershberger, P. E. (2020). Using online survey software to enhance rigor and efficiency of knowledge synthesis reviews. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 42, 838–845 doi:10.1177/0193945920904442 [CrossRef] PMID:32129156
  • Garrard, J. (2017). Health sciences literature review made easy: The matrix method (5th ed.). Jones and Bartlett Learning.
  • Gennaro, S. (2019). Choosing the right journal for your manuscript. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 51(2), 127–128 doi:10.1111/jnu.12476 [CrossRef] PMID:30860318
  • Ghasemi, A., Bahadoran, Z., Mirmiran, P., Hosseinpanah, F., Shiva, N. & Zadeh-Vakili, A. (2019). The principles of biomedical scientific writing: Discussion. International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism, 17(3), e95415 doi:10.5812/ijem.95415 [CrossRef] PMID:31497043
  • Gregory, A. T. & Denniss, A. R. (2018). An introduction to writing narrative and systematic reviews: Tasks, tips, and traps for aspiring authors. Heart Lung and Circulation, 27(7), 893–898 doi:10.1016/j.hlc.2018.03.027 [CrossRef] PMID:29857977
  • Haddaway, N. R., Collins, A. M., Coughlin, D. & Kirk, S. (2015). The role of Google Scholar in evidence reviews and its applicability to grey literature searching. PLoS One, 10(9), e0138237 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0138237 [CrossRef] PMID:26379270
  • Hershberger, P. (2004). Recipients of oocyte donation: An integrative review. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing, 33(5), 610–621 doi:10.1177/0884217504268524 [CrossRef] PMID:15495707
  • Hershberger, P. E. (2016). Young women's reasons regarding whether to undergo fertility preservation treatment when facing a cancer diagnosis: A literature review. In Stevenson, E. L. & Hershberger, P. E. (Eds.), Fertility and assisted reproductive technology: Theory, research, policy, and practice for health care practitioners (pp. 143–152). Springer.
  • Hershberger, P. E. & Pierce, P. F. (2010). Conceptualizing couples' decision making in PGD: Emerging cognitive, emotional, and moral dimensions. Patient Education and Counseling, 81, 53–62 doi:10.1016/j.pec.2009.11.017 [CrossRef] PMID:20060677
  • Higgins, J. P. T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J. & Welch, V. A. (Eds.). (2019). Cochran handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. doi:10.1002/9781119536604 [CrossRef]
  • Höfler, M., Venz, J., Trautmann, S. & Miller, R. (2018). Writing a discussion section: How to integrate substantive and statistical expertise. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18, 34 doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0490-1 [CrossRef] PMID:29665780
  • International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (n.d.). Defining the role of authors and contributors. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html
  • Jenicek, M. (2006). How to read, understand, and write ‘Discussion’ sections in medical articles. An exercise in critical thinking. Medical Science Monitor, 12(6), SR28–SR36. https://www.medscimonit.com/download/index/idArt/451279 PMID:16733500
  • Joanna Briggs Institute. (n.d.). Joanna Briggs Institute. http://joannabriggs.org
  • Kearney, M. H. (2017). The discussion section tells us where we are. Research in Nursing & Health, 40(4), 289–291 doi:10.1002/nur.21803 [CrossRef] PMID:28563901
  • Lasserson, T. J., Thomas, J. & Higgins, J. P. T. (2019). Starting a review. In Higgins, J. P. T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J. & Welch, V. A. (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (2nd ed., pp. 3–12). John Wiley & Sons. doi:10.1002/9781119536604.ch1 [CrossRef]
  • Likis, F. E. (2018). Where should you publish? Choosing a journal for your manuscript. Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health, 63(1), 7–9 doi:10.1111/jmwh.12733 [CrossRef] PMID:29359878
  • Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J. & Altman, D. G.the PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 [CrossRef] PMID:19621072
  • Monsivais, D. B. (2016). Research and theory for nursing practice mission forward––2016 style. Research and Theory for Nursing Practice: An International Journal, 30(2), 87–90 doi:10.1891/1541-6577.30.2.87 [CrossRef] PMID:27333630
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. (n.d.-a). Study quality assessment tools: Quality assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. National Institutes of Health. https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. (n.d.-b). Study quality assessment tools: Quality assessment tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies. National Institutes of Health. https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools
  • Oermann, M. H. & Hays, J. C. (2019). Writing for publication in nursing (4th ed.). Springer.
  • Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, & University of Oxford. (2015). Welcome to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) website!http://www.prisma-statement.org
  • Paez, A. (2017). Gray literature: An important resource in systematic reviews. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 10(3), 233–240 doi:10.1111/jebm.12266 [CrossRef] PMID:28857505
  • Peters, M. D. J., Godfrey, C. M., Khalil, H., McInerney, P., Parker, D. & Soares, C. B. (2015). Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 13(3), 141–146 doi:10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050 [CrossRef] PMID:26134548
  • Spurlock, D. Jr. . (2019). Searching the literature in preparation for research: Strategies that matter. Journal of Nursing Education, 58(8), 441–443 doi:10.3928/01484834-20190719-02 [CrossRef] PMID:31373664
  • Sutton, A., Clowes, M., Preston, L. & Booth, A. (2019). Meeting the review family: Exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 36(3), 202–222 doi:10.1111/hir.12276 [CrossRef] PMID:31541534
  • Whittemore, R., Chao, A., Jang, M., Minges, K. E. & Park, C. (2014). Methods for knowledge synthesis: An overview. Heart & Lung, 43(5), 453–461 doi:10.1016/j.hrtlng.2014.05.014 [CrossRef] PMID:25012634
  • Whittemore, R. & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546–553 doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x [CrossRef] PMID:16268861
  • Wormald, R. & Evans, J. (2018). What makes systematic reviews systematic and why are they the highest level of evidence?Ophthalmic Epidemiology, 25(1), 27–30 doi:10.1080/09286586.2017.1337913 [CrossRef] PMID:28891724

Template Exemplar: Results Section With Faculty Evaluation and Student Response

Manuscript Section and ComponentsFaculty EvaluationStudent Response
Results section [3-5 pages required for course]:

At least 1 paragraph that describes the Overall Characteristics of the included studies (e.g., how many articles, how many subjects total in these studies).

Description of themes, patterns, or other subsections of the findings that address your purpose or research question(s) (i.e., your synthesis).

A literature review table that details characteristics and/or variables from each of the studies identified in the review (i.e., the main characteristics or variable extracted) placed at the end of your manuscript in the appendices and referenced in the text of the Results section.

A brief description of the findings from your Quality Appraisal Tool.

(November 20, 2019) Megana, I am delighted to see the progress you are making with your literature review manuscript. To improve it further, I suggest you: First, revise the opening paragraph of the Results section to better include the overall characteristics of the entire review. For example, be sure you state how large the sample size for all of the studies that are included in your review—not just each single study. Second, in your Literature Review Table, you need to include data (in a column) about the findings from your Quality Appraisal Tool. This will allow readers of your review to easily see how each of the included studies scored.(December 1, 2019) Dr. Hershberger, thank-you for your insightful comments. I have revised the manuscript to:

Better clarify the overall sample. It now reads that 1,236 stroke patients were included across all the studies in the review. I also revised some of the sentences in the paragraph to communicate the sample more appropriately.

I added the Quality Appraisal Tool results in the Table. I hope this is better. I am still not sure if I did it correctly. Please let me know.

Literature Review Manuscript TEMPLATE [Title Page]

Title [Follow the Author Guidelines for your target journal for the Title and appropriate format]
Include Your First and Last Name [add your credentials such as BSN, RN]
Recommend Including Your PhD Advisor as Co-Author [Add PhD Advisor's First and Last Name and credentials]
Recommend Including Methodological or Statistical Expert as Co-Author [Add Methodological or Statistical Expert's First and Last Name and credentials]
Target Journal [state name of Target Journal in Italics]
Date [include the date of submission to NURS 566 course faculty]
Manuscript Section & ComponentsFaculty's EvaluationStudent's Response
Title Page [Page 1] Using the Author Guidelines of your target journal as a guide, include a Title Page with your Title and the Authors of your manuscript listed appropriately. Also include the name of your target journal. Remember to include the type of review (e.g., integrative, scoping, systematic) in your title as recommended by the PRISMA guidelines (see http://www.prismastatement.org/). Include information about the “Corresponding Author” as per your target journal's requirements. Update the date of your submission with each course assignment that you submit.[date][date]

Abstract

Manuscript Section & ComponentsFaculty's EvaluationStudent's Response
Abstract[begins on Page 2] Follow your target journal's instructions for formatting the Abstract (including the word-count limit). Noteworthy, journals typically have basic requirements for headings within the Abstract such as Problem/Background, Purpose, Methods, Results, and Conclusions although there are exceptions. Please submit the portion of the target journal's Abstract that corresponds to the course assignment. (For example, when you submit the 1st assignment that contains the Problem/Background section and Purpose Statement, submit the corresponding Problem/Background section and Purpose Statement for the Abstract.) KeywordsUsing guidelines from your target journal, identify keywords (e.g., words or phrases that describe major elements of your manuscript). Consider Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), when possible.[date][date]

Abstract

Introduction and Background

Manuscript Section & ComponentsFaculty's EvaluationStudent's Response
Introduction (includes brief Background) section [Begins on page 3] (1–2 pages required for course, depending upon your target journal's requirements). The Introduction section must include:

A brief summary of relevant literature (including prior reviews) and background knowledge.

Identification of the gaps in prior knowledge (be sure you address the rational for completing the literature review).

Use appropriate supporting references.

[date][date]
Purpose statement (for the review) or the review question (typically about 1–2 sentences) is required. In some instances, specific aims of the review are appropriate.

Introduction and Background

Methods

Manuscript Section & ComponentsFaculty's EvaluationStudent's Response
Methods section[1–4 paragraphs required for course] The Methods section* must include:

A methodological reference(s) for guiding the review. (Note: the methodological reference selected must align with the purpose of the review.)

Search and retrieval strategies (e.g., databases searched, search terms and dates, screening procedures)

Inclusion and exclusion criteria. Be sure and include your rational for your search strategies and/or inclusion/exclusion strategies, as appropriate. A PRISMA Flow Diagram is required.

Information about the data analysis/synthesis methods (e.g., data extraction procedures, synthesis procedures including statistical and/or qualitative approaches)

Details about the Quality Appraisal Tool (e.g., rational for your choice of the tool and description of how the tool is scored).

* Remember that some systematic reviews require registration of the protocol on the PROSPERO website (see https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/). Consult with course Faculty for further details.
09/28/2020 Nice work with your Methods section, Megan, * However, I did have a few suggestions for you to improve it. First, you need to add a stronger reference for guiding your review that is specific to a scoping review because that is the review type that you are using (see Point #1). Second, add a sentence or two that succinctly describes your Quality Appraisal Tool (Point #5). 10/17/2020 The information you added is helpful and strengths the methods section of your literature review.10/08/2020 I appreciate your guidance Dr. Hershberger. Per your recommendations I have added the Peters et al (2015) reference about scoping reviews to provide a stronger reference and to guide the methods for the literature review. I added two sentences (see the last paragraph in the method section) that provides more information about the Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool that I used. I added information you suggested from class like how it is scored.

Methods

Results

Manuscript Section & ComponentsFaculty's EvaluationStudent's Response
Results section[3–5 pages required for course] The Results section must include:

At least 1 paragraph that describes the Overall Characteristics of the included studies (e.g., how many articles, how many subjects total in these studies).

Description of themes, patterns, or other sub-sections of the findings that address your purpose or research question(s) (i.e., this is your synthesis).

A literature review table that details characteristics and/or variables from each of the studies identified in the review, (the main characteristics or variable extracted) placed at the end of your manuscript in the Appendices and referenced in the text of the Results section.

A brief description of the findings from your Quality Appraisal Tool.

10/17/2020 Megan, I am delighted to see the progress you are making with your literature review manuscript. To improve it further, I suggest you: First, revise the opening paragraph of the Results section to better include the overall characteristics of the entire review. For example, be sure you state how large the sample size for all the studies that are included in your review – not just each single study. Second, in your Literature Review Table, you need to include data (in a column) about the findings from your Quality Appraisal Tool. This will allow readers of your review to easily see how each of the included studies scored. 11/22/2020 The information you added about the overall sample is helpful. However, I recommend you add a little more information such as the breakdown of the sample by gender and the percent of urban versus rural subjects across the studies as this is an important point in your particular review. In addition, the data in the column you added to your Literature Review Table about the scores you obtained from the Quality Appraisal Tool, is also helpful – nicely done!11/01/2020 Dr. Hershberger thank-you for your insightful comments. I have revised the manuscript to:

better clarify the overall sample. It now reads that 1,236 stroke patients were included across all the studies in the review. I also revised some of the sentences in the paragraph to communicate the sample more appropriately.

I added the “Quality Appraisal Tool” results in the Table. I hope this is better. I am still not sure if I did it correctly. Please let me know.

12/02/2020 To improve the Results section even more based on your comments from 11/22/2020, I added two sentences about the information you suggested (the breakdown of the overall sample by gender and by the number of urban versus rural subjects).

Results

Discussion

Manuscript Section & ComponentsFaculty's EvaluationStudent's Response
Discussion section[3–4 pages required for course] The Discussion section must include:

Provide a succinct statement of how your findings addressed the purpose of the review or the research question(s) and how these findings impact the field (e.g., the “so what?” question).

Detail what the findings mean by stating how the findings add to the current scientific literature (e.g., the “what does it mean?” question). Include supporting literature and, when appropriate, contradictory literature.

Provide a short limitations paragraph that addresses how your review is limited and the strengths of your review.

Describe how the findings guide future research, and if appropriate, can impact clinical practice.

Finish with a short summary or concluding paragraph. (Be sure you highlight the main findings and remind the reader about key areas for future research (and 1 or 2 major implications for clinical practice, if appropriate).

11/22/2020 Megan, you have a nice Discussion section developing here. To improve this section further, you need to expand your limitations section (see #3). For example, in your limitations section, you describe the limitation of the articles that comprise your review. This information is correct. However, you need to add information about how your review, itself, is limited. Add information that describes the limits of only using English language articles/research. What other limits of your review can you identify? Given this some thought and review the information we discussed in class. Then, add at least 2 sentences that clearly details how your review, itself, is limited.12/02/2020 Dr. Hershberger, I do see how using only English language articles limits my review. I also realized that I did not include any grey literature and I remember we talked about this being a limitation in class. I tried to add these two points in the paragraph about the limitations.

Discussion

Acknowledgements (optional)

References

Manuscript Section & ComponentsFaculty's EvaluationStudent's Response
ReferencesYour use and choice of references impact the quality of your manuscript. Be sure to choose references wisely, carefully selecting those that will support your statements and ideas.Use the target journal's requirements for formatting your references and citations.[date][date]

Acknowledgements (optional)

References

Manuscript Section & ComponentsFaculty's EvaluationStudent's Responses
TableInclude an appropriate literature review table using the identified articles that are contained in your review. Be sure your table is labeled appropriately (e.g., “Table 1. Review of the Literature about Pre-Conceptive Genetic Counselling”) and contains the appropriate characteristics/variables for your particular review. If your Quality Appraisal Tool has a score or ranking, I highly recommend having the scores as a column in your table. Be sure you have a phrase in the text that tells readers about your Table. This phrase is often placed in the Results section (e.g., “see Table 1”).[date][date]

Table:

Scoring & Overall Evaluation

Manuscript Section & ComponentsFaculty's EvaluationStudent's Responses
OtherAbbreviations*Limit the use of Abbreviations to four[date][date]
Overall Scientific WritingThe clarity, flow, and logic of the paper is at PhD level work, which is appropriate for publication submission.[date][date]
Scores
Submission 1, Total of 20 Possible PointsIntroduction/Background section [10 points possible] Methods section [10 points possible]
Submission 2, Total of 30 Possible PointsResults section, including Table [10 points possible] Revised submission, including response to Course Faculty's Evaluation [20 points possible]
Submission 3, Total of 30 Possible PointsDiscussion section [10 points possible] Revised submission, including response to Course Faculty's Evaluation [20 points possible]
Scoring & Overall EvaluationScoring & Overall EvaluationScoring & Overall EvaluationScoring & Overall EvaluationScoring & Overall EvaluationScoring & Overall Evaluation

Scoring & Overall Evaluation

Authors

Dr. Hershberger is Associate Professor, College of Nursing, Department of Population Health Nursing Science, and Affiliate Professor, College of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.

The author has disclosed no potential conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise.

The author thanks her doctoral students for their unflagging curiosity and inspiration.

Address correspondence to Patricia E. Hershberger, PhD, APRN, FNPBC, FAAN, Associate Professor, College of Nursing, University of Illinois at Chicago, 845 South Damen Avenue (MC 802), Room 1044, Chicago, IL 60612-7350; email: phersh@uic.edu.

Received: April 28, 2020
Accepted: July 15, 2020

10.3928/01484834-20210120-11

Sign up to receive

Journal E-contents