Literature Review Report

1. Research setting
2. Research question
3. Problem
4. Literature review
5. Justifications
6. Goals, objectives/ Hypotheses
7. Study design
8. Variables
9. Instruments or data collection
10. Sample size
11. Sampling
12. Data collection
13. Data entry
14. Data analysis
15. Results
16. Discussion
17. Conclusion
18. Recommendations
19. Citations and references
20. Overall

REPORT ON LITERATURE REVIEW

Matric No. .
Name: .
Title of the article:

SN Major components
scor
e
1
Research setting
&Research question
3

Specific issues to review.

1. Time (when conducted? When published?)
-The study was done on November 3,1995
2. Place (where was it done?)
-The country of Kopparberg,in Mid-Sweden
3. Persons (who were subjects? Who were researchers)
-Swedish men between the ages of 34-60 years.
4. Was the study period adequate? Too short or too long?
-The study period was adequate.
5. Any preformed research question(s) stated? What they wanted
to know?

Title

1. Too long or too short?

2. Any new, unusual and vague terms in the title?

3
6

Problem
(the focus is on
research; e.g. the
existing knowledge
regarding his research
is not sufficient.
Theres a need to
explore more.)

1. Background information adequately described?

-Yes.Its adequately described.
2. What is the problem statement? Has the author evaluated the
literature relevant to the problem/issue?
3. Does the author include literature taking positions she or he
does not agree with?
4. Is the problem clearly spelled out?
-Yes,The problem was spelled out clearly.

4
5

Literature review

1. How many articles were reviewed in:

1. Introduction?
2. Methods?
3. Results

4. Discussion, conclusion, recommendations?

2. Was it done properly and adequately? Up-to-date? (When was
oldest and when most recent?
5

Justifications

2
6

1. What is the significance of this research as stated by authors?

2. What are the assumptions behind the research?

Goals, objectives,
Hypotheses

1. What are goals, objectives, and hypotheses of the research?

-Objectives=The objective was to evaluate excessive daytime
sleepiness(EDS) at work and effects on reported work
performance among men in the general population and male
patients suffering from snoring and obstructive sleep apnea
syndrome(OSAS).
2. Do they look quantified? Achievable? Give reasons.
-No.Its were categorical.
3. Were hypotheses stated? Were they tested?
4. If tested, describe how they were tested as evidenced from the
statistical methods and the results stated in the paper.

Study design

8
3

1. What was the study design used?

2. Were they justified?
-Yes.
3. Do you think the design is appropriate to answer the research
question, achieve each objective or test the hypothesis? Why?
Or why not?

Variables

1. List variables (for each objective or hypothesis) which are used

in the article as per the following tabular format.

Objective
or
Hypothesis

Var.
name

Type*

dependent or
independent

scales or unit of
measurement**

operational
definitions***

categorical (nominal, ordinal), numerical (continuous or discrete) variables

eg. age in years, BMI in kg/m2
***
eg. hypertension defined as SBP>140/DBP>90 mmHg
Instruments for data
1. List the instruments used for the data collection.
collection
2. Did they develop new tools; e.g. questionnaire or test kit etc.?
Were they validated?
**

9
3

3. Any indication on how researchers ensured accuracy and

validity of the measurements?
4. Which instruments were used to measure which variables?
5.
10

Sample size calculation

(SSC)

1. How large a sample was used?

2. Did researchers elaborate how SS was computed?
3. Was SSC done for each objective and hypothesis?
4. Stated any assumptions, decision rules used in SSC? (alpha,
precision and expected prevalence and SD; power, detectable
difference etc.)
5. Do you think SSC was appropriate to address the stated obj. and
hypothesis? Why and why not?

11
3

Sampling

1. Which sampling method was used?

2. What was the sampling frame and how many units in it?
3. Did they state how sampling units were defined?

4. How convincing was the random process applied in probability

sampling?
5. Any randomization applied in RCT?
6. Any inclusion and exclusion criteria used in sampling? If so
briefly state them. Are they appropriate?
12

Data collection

1. What instruments used?

2. Were instruments pretested, validated satisfactorily?
3. Who did what?
4. Response rate? Is it acceptable for precision and power?
Why/why not?
5. State quality control methods used if any. Are they acceptable?

13
3

Data entry

1. State name and version of the software used.

2. Was data entry validated (eg. double entry)?

14

Data management &

1. How was data cleaned?

Data analysis

2. What new variables have been created from the original

variables; e.g. BMI from weight and height.
3. Were the methods appropriate for:
a. Descriptive statistics? Point and confidence intervals
(CI).
b. Comparative or inferential? Univariable vs. multivariable. Use of P-values and CI.
4. Did the analysis lead to the results according to the objectives
and hypotheses?
5. Are the analyses of the data accurate and relevant to the
research question, obj. and hypotheses made?
6. Is the methodology well justified as the most appropriate to
study the problem?
7. Which Software used? Version?

15

Results

16

Discussion

17

Conclusion &
Recommendations

1.

How are they displayed? Tables and graphs appropriate?

2.

Briefly summarize the results.

3.

P values vs. 95% CI values.

1.

Short to the point or too wordy?

2.

Are most salient points highlighted? Only key variables

interpreted?

3.

Are the comparisons with other studies validly made? Timing,

design, scope, sample size, sampling method, variables,
methods of analysis etc. are close enough for validcomparison.

4.

Are they confined to the results? Go off on tangents?

5.

Are the implications of the findings discussed rather than

repeating the results?

6.

How convincing is the argument made?

7.

Was it well described, cited, referenced?

8.

Are strengths and limitations properly addressed?

9.

Summarize salient discussion points.

1.

Is conclusion clear and strong?

-Yes.Thw conclusion was clear and strong.
Is it strongly supported by the results?

2.
3.

18

Are recommendations well justified in ref. to the findings? Any

evidence that authors made any conclusion or
recommendations not based on the results?

Styles*, adequacy, up-to-date?

Citations and
references

3
*

19

Overall

Harvard (author, date) or Vancouver (numbered)

1. Are the findings presented new?
-Yes.

6
2. After reading this article, do you think they answered their
research question(s) and addressed the problems stated? Why or

why not?
3. Were objectives and hypotheses addressed by the design,
variables, data collection method, analysis and results? How?
4. In what ways does this article contribute to your understanding
of the problem under study, and in what ways is it useful for
practice?
5. What are the strengths and limitations?
6. How does this article relate to the specific research proposal
that you are developing?
7. Are the generalizations justified by the evidence on which they
are made?
8. Any indication for future research? Would you like to repeat
similar research given time and resources?
70*
Total
X**= ___ ;
Conversion = 14X/70 =
*

Total achievable scores

Total scores achieved

**

Comments and suggestions

(Signature)
Name of Examiner _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date. - - -/- - - /- - - -