priately for a given journal are usually found in the
journal’s instructions for authors or in the Uniform
Requirements. Proper formatting of references is es-
sential, as it costs time and money on behalf of
journal staff members to send this information back
to authors for correction.
32
All the information
needed to correctly list a reference can usually be
found with the abstract when conducting a litera-
ture search, or on the pages of the actual journal
article.
Tables
Tables are lists of information that aid in visually
presenting information in an appealing manner
rather than listing information as text in a para-
graph. Such a table in an overview may be the
extraction table used during the synthesis. Tables
should be simple and self-contained, needing no
further explanation. If authors wish to use previ-
ously published tables, the publishing company of
the original material must grant permission and it is
the authors’ responsibility to receive this permis-
sion. Appropriate formatting for tables can be found
in the Uniform Requirements.
29
Figures
Figures or illustrations are a necessity to make ar-
ticles interesting to read. Since an overview is a
review of text, it is especially useful to use pictures
and tables in order to keep the paper interesting to
read. Most people do not like to read an article that
is nothing but text from the beginning of the title to
the last letter of the references. Pictures can also
help make the paper easier for readers to under-
stand. If authors wish to use previously published
photographs or illustrations, permission must be
granted by the publishing company of the material
and it is the author’s responsibility to receive this
permission.
Complete requirements for preparing illustrations or
photographs for submission are detailed in the Uni-
form Requirements. Captions for each figure used in
the manuscript should be provided. Authors should
not expect that editors will write the figure cap-
tions.
29
Some journals accept electronic images. Be
sure to scan images at a sufficient resolution to
enable quality printing in the journal. Find out from
the journal which formats are accepted, such as tiff
or jpg files, and whether the journal accepts PC or
Mac formatting.
CONCLUSIONS
Narrative overviews can be a valuable contribution
to the literature if they are prepared properly in an
effort to minimize the author’s biases. Further read-
ing on reviews of the literature is available in a
suggested bibliography located in Appendix B of this
article. Authors wishing to submit narrative over-
views should find this article useful in constructing
such a paper and carrying out the research process.
Given the controversy surrounding the review of
the literature research design, it is our aspiration
that this article will facilitate some scholarly dialog
in the pursuit of creating more valid reviews of the
literature and striking a balance between a the un-
systematic overview and the complex meta-
analysis.
REFERENCES
1. Helewa A, Walker JM. Critical evaluation of research in physical re-
habilitation: toward evidence-based practice. Philadelphia: W.B.
Saunders Co.; 2000. p. 109–124.
2. Day RA. How to write and publish a scientific paper. 5
th
ed. Phoenix,
AZ: The Oryx Press; 1998. p. 163–167.
3. Crombie IK. The pocket guide to critical appraisal. London: BMJ Pub-
lishing Group; 1999. p. 23–29, 56–62.
4. Gray JAM. Evidence-based health care: how to make health policy and
management decisions. NY: Churchill Livingstone; 1997. p. 72–77.
5. Lang G, Heiss GD. A practical guide to research methods. Lanham, MD:
University Press of America; 1998. p. 17–21.
6. Mendelson T. Keeping up with the medical literature. In: Friedland DJ,
editor. Evidence-based medicine: a framework for clinincal practice.
Stamford, CT: Appleton & Lange; 1998. p. 145–150.
7. Gehlbach SH. Interpreting the medical literature. NY: McGraw-Hill,
Inc.; 1993. p. 243–251.
8. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, Klassen TP, Tugwell P, Moher M, et al.
Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-Analyses:
a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-
based journals. JAMA 1998;280:278–80.
9. Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research: applications
to practice. 2
nd
ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc; 2000.
p. 127–133.
10. Slavin RE. Best evidence synthesis: an intelligent alternative to meta-
analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1995;48:9–18.
11. Hutchinson BG. Critical Appraisal of Review Articles. Can Fam Physi-
cian 1993;39:1097–102.
12. Sackett DL. Applying overviews and meta-analyses at the bedside. J
Clin Epidemiol 1995;48:61–6.
13. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Guidelines for reading literature reviews. CMA
J 1988;138:697–703.
14. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Validation of an index of the quality of review
articles. J Clin Epidemiol 1991;44:1271–8.
15. Dixon RA, Munro JF, Silcocks PB. The evidence based medicine work-
book: critical appraisal for clinical problem solving. Woburn, MA:
Butterworth-Heinemann;1998. p. 148–166.
16. Oxman AD, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH. Users’ guides to the medical litera-
ture, VI. How to use an overview. JAMA 1994;272:1367–71.
17. DePoy E, Gitlin LN. Introduction to research: multiple strategies for
health and human services. St. Louis: Mosby-Year Book, Inc; 1993.
p. 61–76.
18. Oxman AD. Systematic reviews: checklists for review articles. BMJ
1994;309:648–51.
Fall 2006
• Number 3 • Volume 5
113