Specifies the number of studies evaluated orselected
Steps, and targets of constructing a good review article are listed in Table 3 . To write a good review article the items in Table 3 should be implemented step by step. [ 11 – 13 ]
Steps of a systematic review
Formulation of researchable questions | Select answerable questions |
Disclosure of studies | Databases, and key words |
Evaluation of its quality | Quality criteria during selection of studies |
Synthesis | Methods interpretation, and synthesis of outcomes |
It might be helpful to divide the research question into components. The most prevalently used format for questions related to the treatment is PICO (P - Patient, Problem or Population; I-Intervention; C-appropriate Comparisons, and O-Outcome measures) procedure. For example In female patients (P) with stress urinary incontinence, comparisons (C) between transobturator, and retropubic midurethral tension-free band surgery (I) as for patients’ satisfaction (O).
In a systematic review on a focused question, methods of investigation used should be clearly specified.
Ideally, research methods, investigated databases, and key words should be described in the final report. Different databases are used dependent on the topic analyzed. In most of the clinical topics, Medline should be surveyed. However searching through Embase and CINAHL can be also appropriate.
While determining appropriate terms for surveying, PICO elements of the issue to be sought may guide the process. Since in general we are interested in more than one outcome, P, and I can be key elements. In this case we should think about synonyms of P, and I elements, and combine them with a conjunction AND.
One method which might alleviate the workload of surveying process is “methodological filter” which aims to find the best investigation method for each research question. A good example of this method can be found in PubMed interface of Medline. The Clinical Queries tool offers empirically developed filters for five different inquiries as guidelines for etiology, diagnosis, treatment, prognosis or clinical prediction.
As an indispensable component of the review process is to discriminate good, and bad quality researches from each other, and the outcomes should be based on better qualified researches, as far as possible. To achieve this goal you should know the best possible evidence for each type of question The first component of the quality is its general planning/design of the study. General planning/design of a cohort study, a case series or normal study demonstrates variations.
A hierarchy of evidence for different research questions is presented in Table 4 . However this hierarchy is only a first step. After you find good quality research articles, you won’t need to read all the rest of other articles which saves you tons of time. [ 14 ]
Determination of levels of evidence based on the type of the research question
I | Systematic review of Level II studies | Systematic review of Level II studies | Systematic review of Level II studies | Systematic review of Level II studies |
II | Randomized controlled study | Crross-sectional study in consecutive patients | Initial cohort study | Prospective cohort study |
III | One of the following: Non-randomized experimental study (ie. controlled pre-, and post-test intervention study) Comparative studies with concurrent control groups (observational study) (ie. cohort study, case-control study) | One of the following: Cross-sectional study in non-consecutive case series; diagnostic case-control study | One of the following: Untreated control group patients in a randomized controlled study, integrated cohort study | One of the following: Retrospective cohort study, case-control study (Note: these are most prevalently used types of etiological studies; for other alternatives, and interventional studies see Level III |
IV | Case series | Case series | Case series or cohort studies with patients at different stages of their disease states |
Rarely all researches arrive at the same conclusion. In this case a solution should be found. However it is risky to make a decision based on the votes of absolute majority. Indeed, a well-performed large scale study, and a weakly designed one are weighed on the same scale. Therefore, ideally a meta-analysis should be performed to solve apparent differences. Ideally, first of all, one should be focused on the largest, and higher quality study, then other studies should be compared with this basic study.
In conclusion, during writing process of a review article, the procedures to be achieved can be indicated as follows: 1) Get rid of fixed ideas, and obsessions from your head, and view the subject from a large perspective. 2) Research articles in the literature should be approached with a methodological, and critical attitude and 3) finally data should be explained in an attractive way.
You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser or activate Google Chrome Frame to improve your experience.
Published 10:39 am Monday, August 26, 2024
By Sponsored Content
player ready... |
Writing an article review is about engaging deeply with another scholar’s work, summarizing it, and sharing your take on its significance. This exercise sharpens your ability to identify and articulate key ideas, arguments, and findings.
While you could use different styles for formatting, APA style is often preferred for its clarity in citations and structure. If you’re just getting started or looking to brush up on the specifics, checking out an APA article review example can be really helpful. These examples show you how to keep your review organized and polished according to academic standards.
An article review goes beyond merely summarizing a research paper; it critically evaluates another researcher’s work. This evaluation involves interpreting and assessing the article to understand its contribution to a particular field.
What you’re aiming to do:
Having these goals helps sharpen critical thinking skills, enabling you to engage deeply with academic literature and add your voice to the scholarly conversation.
APA style is key in academic writing, especially for article reviews. It keeps everything clear and consistent, so anyone reading your review can easily follow along. This style lays out a specific way to structure your paper, which helps keep your writing neat and orderly.
Plus, the APA style is super important for citations and references. It makes sure you properly credit the original authors and avoid plagiarism. Sticking to APA guidelines helps your review look sharp and credible, showing that you take the academic standards seriously.
Writing a thorough APA article review means following a clear set of steps, from your first read-through to the final formatting touches:
Before diving into the review, read the article thoroughly. Don’t just skim it; really get into the details. Note down the main ideas, key arguments, and significant findings. For instance, if you’re reviewing an article on climate change impacts, pay attention to the data presented, hypotheses, and conclusions drawn by the authors. This step sets the foundation for your review by giving you a solid understanding of the article’s content.
Start your review with a summary of the article. Focus on the main points, the context within which the research was conducted, and the purpose of the article. For example, if the article is about renewable energy technologies, summarize the types of technologies discussed, the research question the article addresses, and why it’s important. This section helps your readers understand what the article is about without having to read the original work themselves.
This is where your critical thinking shines. Evaluate the article’s methodology, presentation, accuracy, and its contribution to the field. For example, you might discuss whether the experimental methods used to assess the efficiency of solar panels were appropriate and well-executed, or if there were any biases or gaps in the data presented. This section is about digging deeper and offering a well-rounded critique based on the article’s content.
In the conclusion, summarize your overall perspective on the article and suggest areas for improvement. Perhaps you found that the article on solar panel efficiency lacked long-term data, and future studies could extend the timeframe to provide more comprehensive results. This part of your review should encapsulate your views and also suggest ways the research could be expanded or refined.
Finally, ensure that your review adheres to APA formatting rules. This includes proper citations of the original article and any other sources you refer to, consistent references, and appropriate headings and overall structure. For instance, make sure that all citations are in-text and that your reference list at the end of the document is alphabetized according to APA guidelines. This step is crucial for maintaining the professional quality of your review and making it accessible and credible to your audience.
Beyond just following the steps, remember that practice is key. Each review you write improves your ability to assess research critically and communicate your insights effectively. Use APA article review examples as a springboard, but don’t be afraid to develop your unique voice and perspective in your reviews.
More z - no paywall.
How to make a powerpoint look professional: tips for elegant and effective slides, the hidden benefits of peer tutoring in college: learn and lead, the impact of student debt on career choices, sports plus, wnba betting picks: tuesday, august 27.
Wondering how you should bet on today’s WNBA game? Look no further. Below you’ll find computer predictions on…
Today’s WNBA schedule includes just one contest — the Las Vegas Aces against the Dallas Wings. The WNBA…
If you want to know how to stream high school football in Surry, Virginia this week, that info…
If you’re in Chesapeake, Virginia and want to keep up with local high school football, you’ve come to…
If you’re thinking about catching some high school football games in Portsmouth, Virginia this week, we have important…
Calendar of events.
When Elon Musk took over Twitter in 2022, he told the company's staff they would need to work at an "extremely hardcore" rate to build Twitter 2.0.
Now, he's reportedly making them explain why they should be given their stock options.
In an email sent to staff, reported by The Verge , Musk reportedly said that the company would reward stock options based on employee impact and that workers would need to submit a one-page summary of their contributions to X to get them.
One source also told The Verge that employees were still waiting for their annual equity refresher, which was expected in April.
It comes nearly two years after Musk gave staff at the company a famous ultimatum .
In a late-night email, the billionaire told employees they would need to work "long hours at a high intensity" and be "extremely hardcore" and that those unwilling to do so should quit.
Related stories
Around half the company took the second option , and those that remained have seen Musk keep his word.
Former employees who worked under the Tesla CEO at X have talked about being forced to sleep in the office to meet "impossible" deadlines . Musk has also shared images on X of engineers working late into the night.
Other employees reportedly joked that they had to monitor spiking heart rates on their Apple Watches amid the rollout of Musk's X paid subscription service.
X is now planning to relocate its HQ to Texas and close its San Francisco office , although X CEO Linda Yaccarino told employees the company would still have a presence in the Bay Area through a space shared with xAI in Palo Alto.
Former Uber and Skype engineer Gergely Orosz described X as "the definition of a ruthless workplace" in a post on the site .
"Push people working there to the max with expectations above most (all?) other tech companies… but STILL make these people prove they deserve market comp. Just wow," he wrote in response to The Verge's report.
X did not respond to a request for comment, sent outside normal working hours.
Captain Jason Bussert demonstrates Draft One, an AI powered software that creates police reports from body cam audio, at Oklahoma City police headquarters on Friday, May 31, 2024 in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. (AP Photo/Nick Oxford)
An Axon body camera is worn by an officer at Oklahoma City police headquarters on Friday, May 31, 2024 in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. (AP Photo/Nick Oxford)
Captain Jason Bussert talks about Draft One, an AI powered software made by Axon that creates police reports from body cam audio, at Oklahoma City police headquarters on Friday, May 31, 2024 in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. (AP Photo/Nick Oxford)
Draft One, an AI powered software that creates police reports from body cam audio, is demonstrated on a screen at Oklahoma City police headquarters on Friday, May 31, 2024 in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. (AP Photo/Nick Oxford)
Axon body cameras charge on a docking station at Oklahoma City police headquarters on Friday, May 31, 2024 in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. (AP Photo/Nick Oxford)
Sgt. Matt Gilmore gestures as he talks about using Axon’s Draft One AI software during an interview at Oklahoma City police headquarters on Friday, May 31, 2024 in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. (AP Photo/Nick Oxford)
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — A body camera captured every word and bark uttered as police Sgt. Matt Gilmore and his K-9 dog, Gunner, searched for a group of suspects for nearly an hour.
Normally, the Oklahoma City police sergeant would grab his laptop and spend another 30 to 45 minutes writing up a report about the search. But this time he had artificial intelligence write the first draft.
Pulling from all the sounds and radio chatter picked up by the microphone attached to Gilmore’s body camera, the AI tool churned out a report in eight seconds.
“It was a better report than I could have ever written, and it was 100% accurate. It flowed better,” Gilmore said. It even documented a fact he didn’t remember hearing — another officer’s mention of the color of the car the suspects ran from.
Oklahoma City’s police department is one of a handful to experiment with AI chatbots to produce the first drafts of incident reports. Police officers who’ve tried it are enthused about the time-saving technology, while some prosecutors, police watchdogs and legal scholars have concerns about how it could alter a fundamental document in the criminal justice system that plays a role in who gets prosecuted or imprisoned.
Built with the same technology as ChatGPT and sold by Axon, best known for developing the Taser and as the dominant U.S. supplier of body cameras, it could become what Gilmore describes as another “game changer” for police work.
“They become police officers because they want to do police work, and spending half their day doing data entry is just a tedious part of the job that they hate,” said Axon’s founder and CEO Rick Smith, describing the new AI product — called Draft One — as having the “most positive reaction” of any product the company has introduced.
“Now, there’s certainly concerns,” Smith added. In particular, he said district attorneys prosecuting a criminal case want to be sure that police officers — not solely an AI chatbot — are responsible for authoring their reports because they may have to testify in court about what they witnessed.
“They never want to get an officer on the stand who says, well, ‘The AI wrote that, I didn’t,’” Smith said.
AI technology is not new to police agencies, which have adopted algorithmic tools to read license plates, recognize suspects’ faces , detect gunshot sounds and predict where crimes might occur. Many of those applications have come with privacy and civil rights concerns and attempts by legislators to set safeguards. But the introduction of AI-generated police reports is so new that there are few, if any, guardrails guiding their use.
Concerns about society’s racial biases and prejudices getting built into AI technology are just part of what Oklahoma City community activist aurelius francisco finds “deeply troubling” about the new tool, which he learned about from The Associated Press. francisco prefers to lowercase his name as a tactic to resist professionalism.
“The fact that the technology is being used by the same company that provides Tasers to the department is alarming enough,” said francisco, a co-founder of the Foundation for Liberating Minds in Oklahoma City.
He said automating those reports will “ease the police’s ability to harass, surveil and inflict violence on community members. While making the cop’s job easier, it makes Black and brown people’s lives harder.”
Before trying out the tool in Oklahoma City, police officials showed it to local prosecutors who advised some caution before using it on high-stakes criminal cases. For now, it’s only used for minor incident reports that don’t lead to someone getting arrested.
“So no arrests, no felonies, no violent crimes,” said Oklahoma City police Capt. Jason Bussert, who handles information technology for the 1,170-officer department.
That’s not the case in another city, Lafayette, Indiana, where Police Chief Scott Galloway told the AP that all of his officers can use Draft One on any kind of case and it’s been “incredibly popular” since the pilot began earlier this year.
Or in Fort Collins, Colorado, where police Sgt. Robert Younger said officers are free to use it on any type of report, though they discovered it doesn’t work well on patrols of the city’s downtown bar district because of an “overwhelming amount of noise.”
Along with using AI to analyze and summarize the audio recording, Axon experimented with computer vision to summarize what’s “seen” in the video footage, before quickly realizing that the technology was not ready.
“Given all the sensitivities around policing, around race and other identities of people involved, that’s an area where I think we’re going to have to do some real work before we would introduce it,” said Smith, the Axon CEO, describing some of the tested responses as not “overtly racist” but insensitive in other ways.
Those experiments led Axon to focus squarely on audio in the product unveiled in April during its annual company conference for police officials.
The technology relies on the same generative AI model that powers ChatGPT, made by San Francisco-based OpenAI. OpenAI is a close business partner with Microsoft, which is Axon’s cloud computing provider.
“We use the same underlying technology as ChatGPT, but we have access to more knobs and dials than an actual ChatGPT user would have,” said Noah Spitzer-Williams, who manages Axon’s AI products. Turning down the “creativity dial” helps the model stick to facts so that it “doesn’t embellish or hallucinate in the same ways that you would find if you were just using ChatGPT on its own,” he said.
Axon won’t say how many police departments are using the technology. It’s not the only vendor, with startups like Policereports.ai and Truleo pitching similar products. But given Axon’s deep relationship with police departments that buy its Tasers and body cameras, experts and police officials expect AI-generated reports to become more ubiquitous in the coming months and years.
Before that happens, legal scholar Andrew Ferguson would like to see more of a public discussion about the benefits and potential harms. For one thing, the large language models behind AI chatbots are prone to making up false information, a problem known as hallucination that could add convincing and hard-to-notice falsehoods into a police report.
“I am concerned that automation and the ease of the technology would cause police officers to be sort of less careful with their writing,” said Ferguson, a law professor at American University working on what’s expected to be the first law review article on the emerging technology.
Ferguson said a police report is important in determining whether an officer’s suspicion “justifies someone’s loss of liberty.” It’s sometimes the only testimony a judge sees, especially for misdemeanor crimes.
Human-generated police reports also have flaws, Ferguson said, but it’s an open question as to which is more reliable.
For some officers who’ve tried it, it is already changing how they respond to a reported crime. They’re narrating what’s happening so the camera better captures what they’d want to put in writing.
As the technology catches on, Bussert expects officers will become “more and more verbal” in describing what’s in front of them.
After Bussert loaded the video of a traffic stop into the system and pressed a button, the program produced a narrative-style report in conversational language that included dates and times, just like an officer would have typed from his notes, all based on audio from the body camera.
“It was literally seconds,” Gilmore said, “and it was done to the point where I was like, ‘I don’t have anything to change.’”
At the end of the report, the officer must click a box that indicates it was generated with the use of AI.
O’Brien reported from Providence, Rhode Island
The Associated Press and OpenAI have a licensing and technology agreement that allows OpenAI access to part of AP’s text archives.
IMAGES
COMMENTS
Start your review by referring to the title and author of the article, the title of the journal, and the year of publication in the first paragraph. For example: The article, "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS," was written by Anthony Zimmerman, a Catholic priest. 4. Write the introduction.
Both a reaction paper and an article review will start with a content summary. ️. For scholarly material, you will present a structured review after the summary. ️. For popular magazine content, you will write a response that sums up your emotions, thoughts, and reactions that the material aroused.
2. Read the article thoroughly: Carefully read the article multiple times to get a complete understanding of its content, arguments, and conclusions. As you read, take notes on key points, supporting evidence, and any areas that require further exploration or clarification. 3. Summarize the main ideas: In your review's introduction, briefly ...
Step 1: Define the right organization for your review. Knowing the future setup of your paper will help you define how you should read the article. Here are the steps to follow: Summarize the article — seek out the main points, ideas, claims, and general information presented in the article.
The structure of this type of review article is as follows: Introduction; Summary; Analysis; Conclusion. "Stuffing" of the text is based on such elements as methodology, argumentation, evidence, and theory base. The subject of study is stated at the beginning of the material.
When writing a summary, the goal is to compose a concise and objective overview of the original article. The summary should focus only on the article's main ideas and important details that support those ideas. Guidelines for summarizing an article: State the main ideas. Identify the most important details that support the main ideas.
Step 4: Summarize the Article. In this part of how to write an article review process, you'll need to quickly go over the main points and arguments from the article. Make it short but must cover the most important elements and the evidence that backs them up. Leave your opinions and analysis out of it for now.
The best proposals are timely and clearly explain why readers should pay attention to the proposed topic. It is not enough for a review to be a summary of the latest growth in the literature: the ...
When writing such a paper, people should know why they are writing it: appraise, critique, or summarize. Step 2: Stage Set-Up. A next step of writing an article review paper is to set up a particular stage, meaning making necessary arrangements to initiate an entire writing process.
Read the Article Thoroughly. The first step in writing an article review is to read the article carefully and thoroughly. This may seem obvious, but it is crucial to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the work before attempting to critique it. During the initial reading, focus on grasping the main arguments, key points, and the overall ...
A journal article review is written for a reader who is knowledgeable in the discipline and is interested not just in the coverage and content of the article being reviewed, but also in your critical assessment of the ideas and argument that are being presented by the author. Your review might be guided by the following questions:
Following, we have an example of a summary and an evaluation of a research article. Note that in most literature review contexts, the summary and evaluation would be much shorter. This extended example shows the different ways a student can critique and write about an article. Citation. Chik, A. (2012).
MLA Format Article Review. For an MLA writing review, it follows the Modern Language Association's style. It's important to know how sources are cited in the text and in the Works Cited page. The structure usually has an intro, summary, critique, and conclusion. MLA citations often have the author's last name and page number in brackets in the ...
Step 2: Read the Article Thoroughly. Begin by thoroughly reading the article. Take notes on key points, arguments, and evidence presented by the author. Understand the author's main thesis and the context in which the article was written.
Identifying Main Arguments and Supporting Evidence. First, skim the title, abstract, headings, and conclusion. This gives you an overview of the article's main points and structure. Then, look for the thesis statement - the main argument the author is making. After that, identify topic sentences in each paragraph.
Summarize each source: Determine the most important and relevant information from each source, such as the findings, methodology, theories, etc. Consider using an article summary, or study summary to help you organize and summarize your sources. Paraphrasing. Use your own words, and do not copy and paste the abstract
A review article can also be called a literature review, or a review of literature. It is a survey of previously published research on a topic. It should give an overview of current thinking on the topic. And, unlike an original research article, it will not present new experimental results. Writing a review of literature is to provide a ...
Start the first paragraph of your review with concise and clear article identification that specifies its title, author, name of the resource (e.g., journal, web, etc.), and the year of publication. Intro. Following the identification, write a short introductory paragraph.
Table of contents. When to write a summary. Step 1: Read the text. Step 2: Break the text down into sections. Step 3: Identify the key points in each section. Step 4: Write the summary. Step 5: Check the summary against the article. Other interesting articles. Frequently asked questions about summarizing.
Writing an article CRITIQUE A critique asks you to evaluate an article and the author's argument. You will need to look critically at what the author is claiming, evaluate the research methods, and look for possible problems with, or applications of, the researcher's claims.
A well-written review article must summarize key research findings, reference must-read articles, describe current areas of agreement as well as controversies and debates, point out gaps in current knowledge, depict unanswered questions, and suggest directions for future research ( 1 ). During the last decades, there has been a great expansion ...
Start by quickly skimming the article. During your first reading, don't cling to any details. Instead, go over the article's title and abstract, study the headings, opening sentences of the paragraphs, etc. Then only read the first several paragraphs and jump to the concluding paragraph.
The fundamental rationale of writing a review article is to make a readable synthesis of the best literature sources on an important research inquiry or a topic. This simple definition of a review article contains the following key elements: The question (s) to be dealt with.
Steps to Writing an Article Review. Writing a thorough APA article review means following a clear set of steps, from your first read-through to the final formatting touches: ... Start your review with a summary of the article. Focus on the main points, the context within which the research was conducted, and the purpose of the article. For ...
Until now, Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster has held his fire about his stint in the Trump White House. McMaster served with distinction in key American conflicts of the past decades: the Gulf War, the Iraq ...
In an email sent to staff, reported by The Verge, Musk reportedly said that the company would reward stock options based on employee impact and that workers would need to submit a one-page summary ...
Police officers are starting to use artificial intelligence to help write crime reports. Pulling from the sounds of an officer's body camera, an AI tool based on the same technology as ChatGPT can churn out the first draft of an incident report in seconds. ... a law professor at American University working on what's expected to be the first ...
Like others in this article, he spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive military matters. The calibrated response from both sides by no means cleared the board of regional threats.
A person close to the campaign said Trump does not like reading issue-focused speeches that do not entertain his live audience. At an event Thursday at the southern border, the first words out of ...
Visuals verified by The Post show more than 240 Russian prisoners, which analysts say appear to include conscripts with minimal fighting experience.