A STUDY ON THE METHODOLOGY OF SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW: A COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE FOR RESEARCHERS

Abstract

The primary purpose of this article is to provide a comprehensive guide on the methodology of systematic review. This guide aims to convey in detail the various literature review methods and their implementation processes to researchers, enriched with example studies from different disciplines. To achieve the research goal, the document analysis method was chosen, and articles relevant to the subject matter were collected from databases such as Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, and DergiPark, adhering to specified criteria. The selected documents consist of sources that include information about the basic principles of the methodology, application methods, and types of literature review. The analysis has meticulously determined the fundamental principles, various aspects, and implementation stages of the systematic review methodology. Additionally, it has identified the differences between types of literature reviews, along with the advantages and limitations of each. The findings reveal that this method plays a significant role in scientific research due to the rigor in data collection and analysis processes, the objectivity in evaluating scientific evidence, and the efficiency in addressing research questions. This article has the quality to serve as a resource for researchers planning to conduct systematic literature reviews or those wishing to gain more knowledge in this area.

Keywords

• Systematic Review
• Types of Literature Reviews
• Systematic Literature Review
• Methodology
• Scientific Guide.

SİSTEMATİK LİTERATÜR DERLEME METODOLOJİSİ ÜZERİNE BİR ÇALIŞMA: ARAŞTIRMACILAR İÇİN KAPSAMLI BİR REHBER

Abstract

Bu makalenin temel amacı, sistematik derleme metodolojisi hakkında kapsamlı bir rehber sunmaktır. Araştırmacılara çeşitli literatür derleme yöntemlerini ve bu yöntemlerin uygulama süreçlerini detaylıca aktarmayı hedefleyen bu rehber, farklı disiplinlerden örnek çalışmalarla zenginleştirilmiştir. Araştırma amacına ulaşabilmek için doküman analizi yöntemi seçilmiş olup, belirlenen kriterlere uygun, konuyla ilgili makaleler Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus ve DergiPark veri tabanlarından toplanmıştır. Seçilen dokümanlar metodolojinin temel prensipleri, uygulama yöntemleri ve literatür derleme türleri hakkında bilgiler içeren kaynaklardan oluşmaktadır. Analiz sonucunda sistematik derleme metodolojisinin temel prensipleri, farklı yönleri ve uygulama aşamaları detaylı bir şekilde belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca, literatür derleme türleri arasındaki farklar, her birinin avantajları ve sınırlılıkları ortaya konmuştur. Bulgular, ilgili yöntemin veri toplama ve analiz süreçlerindeki titizliği, bilimsel kanıtların değerlendirilmesindeki objektifliği ve araştırma sorularına yanıt vermedeki etkinliği ile bilimsel araştırmalarda önemli bir rol oynadığını ortaya koymaktadır. Bu çalışma, sistematik literatür derlemesi yapmayı planlayan veya bu konuda daha fazla bilgi sahibi olmak isteyen araştırmacılar için bir kaynak olma niteliğine sahiptir.

Keywords

• Sistematik Derleme
• Literatür Derleme Türleri
• Sistematik Literatür Taraması
• Metodoloji
• Bilimsel Rehber

References

1. Acosta, S., Garza, T., Hsu, H. Y. & Goodson, P. (2020). Assessing quality in systematic literature reviews: A study of novice rater training. Sage Open, 10 (3), 2158244020939530. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020939530
2. Akçayır, M. & Akçayır, G. (2017). Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: A systematic review of the literature. Educational Research Review, 20, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.11.002
3. APA PsycINFO, (t.y.). About APA. https://www.apa.org/about (Erişim tarihi:30 Ekim 2023)
4. Arksey, H. & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8 (1), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
5. Aromataris, E., Fernandez, R., Godfrey, C. M., Holly, C., Khalil, H. & Tungpunkom, P. (2015). Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. JBI Evidence Implementation, 13 (3), 132-140. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000055
6. Atkinson, L. Z. & Cipriani, A. (2018). How to carry out a literature search for a systematic review: a practical guide. BJPsych Advances, 24 (2), 74-82. https://doi.org/10.1192/bja.2017.3
7. Barnett-Page, E. & Thomas, J. (2009). Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 9 (1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-9-59
8. Berrang-Ford, L., Pearce, T. & Ford, J. D. (2015). Systematic review approaches for climate change adaptation research. Regional Environmental Change, 15, 755-769. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-014-0708-7

9. Best, P., Manktelow, R. & Taylor, B. (2014). Online communication, social media and adolescent wellbeing: A systematic narrative review. Children and Youth Services Review, 41, 27-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.03.001
10. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9 (2), 27-40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
11. Budgen, D. & Brereton, P. (2006, May). Performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 1051-1052). https://doi.org/10.1145/1134285.1134500
12. Bullers, K., Howard, A. M., Hanson, A., Kearns, W. D., Orriola, J. J., Polo, R. L. & Sakmar, K. A. (2018). It takes longer than you think: librarian time spent on systematic review tasks. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 106 (2), 198. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.323
13. Bulutay, T. (1986). Bilimin Niteliği Üzerine Denemeler. Mülkiyeliler Birliği Vakfı Yayını, (3).
14. Business Source Premier, (t.y.). About Business Source Premier. https://www.ebsco.com/products/research-databases/business-source-premier, (Erişim tarihi:30 Ekim 2023)
15. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç-Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö., Karadeniz, Ş. & Demirel, F. (2008). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: PegemA.
16. Carrera-Rivera, A., Ochoa-Agurto, W., Larrinaga, F. & Lasa, G. (2022). How-to conduct a systematic literature review: A quick guide for computer science research. MethodsX, 101895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2022.101895
17. Carvalho, T. P., Soares, F. A., Vita, R., Francisco, R. D. P., Basto, J. P. & Alcalá, S. G. (2019). A systematic literature review of machine learning methods applied to predictive maintenance. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 137, 106024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.106024
18. Caspi, C. E., Sorensen, G., Subramanian, S. V. & Kawachi, I. (2012). The local food environment and diet: A systematic review. Health & Place, 18 (5), 1172-1187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2012.05.006
19. Chai, J., Liu, J. N. & Ngai, E. W. (2013). Application of decision-making techniques in supplier selection: A systematic review of literature. Expert Systems with Applications, 40 (10), 3872-3885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.12.040
20. Chen, C. & Chen, C. (2003). On the shoulders of giants. Mapping Scientific Frontiers: The Quest for Knowledge Visualization, 135-166.
21. Clockaerts, S., Bastiaansen-Jenniskens, Y. M., Runhaar, J., Van Osch, G. J., Van Offel, J. F., Verhaar, J. A. N., ... & Somville, J. (2010). The infrapatellar fat pad should be considered as an active osteoarthritic joint tissue: a narrative review. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, 18 (7), 876-882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2010.03.014
22. Cochrane Library, (t.y.). About the Cochrane Library. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/about/about-cochrane-library, (Erişim tarihi:30 Ekim 2023)
23. Cooper, C., Booth, A., Varley-Campbell, J., Britten, N. & Garside, R. (2018). Defining the process to literature searching in systematic reviews: A literature review of guidance and supporting studies. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18 (1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0545-3
24. Çınar, N. (2021). İyi Bir Sistematik Derleme Nasıl Yazılmalı?. Online Türk Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, 6 (2), 310-314. https://doi.org/10.26453/otjhs.888569
25. Dadhich, N. (2015). Einstein is Newton with space curved. Current Science, 260-264.
26. Davies, D., Jindal-Snape, D., Collier, C., Digby, R., Hay, P. & Howe, A. (2013). Creative learning environments in education—A systematic literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8, 80-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2012.07.004
27. DergiPark, (t.y.). DergiPark Hakkında. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/page/about (Erişim tarihi:21 kasım 2023)
28. De Vries, H., Bekkers, V. & Tummers, L. (2016). Innovation in the public sector: A systematic review and future research agenda. Public Administration, 94 (1), 146-166. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12209
29. EconLit, (t.y.). About the AEA. https://www.aeaweb.org/about-aea, (Erişim tarihi:30 Ekim 2023)
30. ERIC, (t.y.). What is ERICİ? https://eric.ed.gov/?faq, (Erişim tarihi:30 Ekim 2023)
31. Eva, N., Robin, M., Sendjaya, S., Van Dierendonck, D. & Liden, R. C. (2019). Servant leadership: A systematic review and call for future research. The Leadership Quarterly, 30 (1), 111-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.07.004
32. Feng, J., Glass, T. A., Curriero, F. C., Stewart, W. F. & Schwartz, B. S. (2010). The built environment and obesity: a systematic review of the epidemiologic evidence. Health & Place, 16 (2), 175-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2009.09.008
33. Field, A. P. & Gillett, R. (2010). How to do a meta‐analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 63 (3), 665-694. https://doi.org/10.1348/000711010X502733
34. Fink, A. (2019). Conducting research literature reviews: From the internet to paper. Sage Publications.
35. Fitzgerald, T. (2012). Documents and documentary analysis. Research Methods in Educational Leadership and Management, 3, 296-308.
36. Flick, U. (2018). An introduction to qualitative research. Sage.
37. Gomersall, J. S., Jadotte, Y. T., Xue, Y., Lockwood, S., Riddle, D. & Preda, A. (2015). Conducting systematic reviews of economic evaluations. JBI Evidence Implementation, 13 (3), 170-178. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000063
38. Grant, M. J. & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26 (2), 91-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
39. GreenFILE, (t.y.). About GreenFILE. https://www.ebsco.com/products/research-databases/greenfile, (Erişim tarihi:30 Ekim 2023)
40. Gutierrez-Cobo, M. J., Cabello, R. & Fernández-Berrocal, P. (2016). The relationship between emotional intelligence and cool and hot cognitive processes: A systematic review. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 10, 101. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2016.00101
41. Gürbüz, S. & Şahin, F. (2014). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık, 271.
42. Hallam, C., Simmonds‐Buckley, M., Kellett, S., Greenhill, B. & Jones, A. (2021). The acceptability, effectiveness, and durability of cognitive analytic therapy: Systematic review and meta‐analysis. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 94, 8-35. https://doi.org/10.1111/papt.12286
43. Hanushek, E. A. & Wößmann, L. (2007). The role of education quality for economic growth. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, (4122).
44. Harrison, P. A., Berry, P. M., Simpson, G., Haslett, J. R., Blicharska, M., Bucur, M., ... & Turkelboom, F. (2014). Linkages between biodiversity attributes and ecosystem services: A systematic review. Ecosystem Services, 9, 191-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.05.006
45. Hemsley‐Brown, J. & Oplatka, I. (2006). Universities in a competitive global marketplace: A systematic review of the literature on higher education marketing. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 19 (4), 316-338. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513550610669176
46. Ho, W., Xu, X. & Dey, P. K. (2010). Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 202 (1), 16-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2009.05.009
47. IEEE Xplore, (t.y.). About Content in IEEE Xplore. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplorehelp/overview-of-ieee-xplore/about-content, (Erişim tarihi:30 Ekim 2023)
48. Janssen, I. & LeBlanc, A. G. (2010). Systematic review of the health benefits of physical activity and fitness in school-aged children and youth. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 7 (1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-7-40
49. JSTOR, (t.y.). About JSTOR. https://about.jstor.org/, (Erişim tarihi:30 Ekim 2023)
50. Kaplan, M. & Yardımcıoğlu, M. (2020). Alan, Habitus ve Sermaye Kavramlarıyla Pierre Bourdieu. Habitus Toplumbilim Dergisi, (1), 23-37.
51. Karaçam, Z. (2013). Sistematik derleme metodolojisi: Sistematik derleme hazırlamak için bir rehber. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Fakültesi Elektronik Dergisi, 6 (1), 26-33.
52. Kimberlin, C. L. & Winterstein, A. G. (2008). Validity and reliability of measurement instruments used in research. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 65 (23), 2276-2284. https://doi.org/10.2146/ajhp070364
53. Kluve, J., Puerto, S., Robalino, D. A., Romero, J., Rother, F., Stöterau, J., ... & Witte, M. (2016). Do youth employment programs improve labor market outcomes? A systematic review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.10.004
54. Knogler, M., Hetmanek, A. & Seidel, T. (2022). Determining an evidence base for particular fields of educational practice: a systematic review of meta-analyses on effective mathematics and science teaching. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 873995. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.873995
55. Kridel, C. (2015). The biographical and documentary milieu. In M. F. He, B. D. Schultz & W. H. Schubert (Eds.), The Sage Guide to Curriculum in Education (pp. 311-318). Sage.
56. Lamontagne, A. D., Keegel, T., Louie, A. M., Ostry, A. & Landsbergis, P. A. (2007). A systematic review of the job-stress intervention evaluation literature, 1990–2005. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 13 (3), 268-280. https://doi.org/10.1179/oeh.2007.13.3.268
57. Leite, D. F., Padilha, M. A. S. & Cecatti, J. G. (2019). Approaching literature review for academic purposes: The literature review checklist. Clinics, 74, e1403. https://doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2019/e1403
58. Linnenluecke, M. K., Marrone, M. & Singh, A. K. (2020). Conducting systematic literature reviews and bibliometric analyses. Australian Journal of Management, 45 (2), 175-194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0312896219877678
59. Lu, J. G. (2020). Air pollution: A systematic review of its psychological, economic, and social effects. Current Opinion in Psychology, 32, 52-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.06.024
60. Luchini, C., Stubbs, B., Solmi, M. & Veronese, N. (2017). Assessing the quality of studies in meta-analyses: Advantages and limitations of the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. World Journal of Meta-Analysis, 5 (4), 80-84. https://doi.org/10.13105/wjma.v5.i4.80
61. Lund, C., Breen, A., Flisher, A. J., Kakuma, R., Corrigall, J., Joska, J. A., ... & Patel, V. (2010). Poverty and common mental disorders in low and middle income countries: A systematic review. Social Science & Medicine, 71 (3), 517-528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.04.027
62. MacLure, K., Paudyal, V. & Stewart, D. (2016). Reviewing the literature, how systematic is systematic?. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, 38, 685-694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-016-0288-3
63. Mahood, Q., Van Eerd, D. & Irvin, E. (2014). Searching for grey literature for systematic reviews: challenges and benefits. Research Synthesis Methods, 5 (3), 221-234. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1106
64. Marengoni, A., Angleman, S., Melis, R., Mangialasche, F., Karp, A., Garmen, A., ... & Fratiglioni, L. (2011). Aging with multimorbidity: A systematic review of the literature. Ageing Research Reviews, 10 (4), 430-439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2011.03.003
65. Martin-Martin, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Thelwall, M. & López-Cózar, E. D. (2018). Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. Journal of Informetrics, 12 (4), 1160-1177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.002
66. MEDLINE, (t.y.). MEDLINE: Overview. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medline/medline_overview.html, (Erişim tarihi:30 Ekim 2023)
67. Mejia‐Rodríguez, A. M. & Kyriakides, L. (2022). What matters for student learning outcomes? A systematic review of studies exploring system‐level factors of educational effectiveness. Review of Education, 10 (3), e3374. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3374
68. Merli, R., Preziosi, M. & Acampora, A. (2018). How do scholars approach the circular economy? A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 178, 703-722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.112
69. Milgram, S. & Gudehus, C. (1978). Obedience to authority.
70. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G. & PRISMA Group, (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of internal medicine, 151 (4), 264-269.
71. Morgan, H. (2022). Conducting a qualitative document analysis. The Qualitative Report, 27 (1), 64-77. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2022.5044
72. Naugle, K. M., Fillingim, R. B. & Riley III, J. L. (2012). A meta-analytic review of the hypoalgesic effects of exercise. The Journal of Pain, 13 (12), 1139-1150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2012.09.006
73. Neumann, M., Edelhäuser, F., Tauschel, D., Fischer, M. R., Wirtz, M., Woopen, C., ... & Scheffer, C. (2011). Empathy decline and its reasons: a systematic review of studies with medical students and residents. Academic Medicine, 86 (8), 996-1009. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e318221e615
74. O'Dwyer, L. C. & Wafford, Q. E. (2021). Addressing challenges with systematic review teams through effective communication: a case report. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 109 (4), 643. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.1222
75. Oh, E., Liu, R., Nel, A., Gemill, K. B., Bilal, M., Cohen, Y. & Medintz, I. L. (2016). Meta-analysis of cellular toxicity for cadmium-containing quantum dots. Nature Nanotechnology, 11 (5), 479-486. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2015.338
76. Okoli, C. (2015). A guide to conducting a standalone systematic literature review. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37.
77. Okoli, C. & Schabram, K. (2010). "A Guide to Conducting a Systematic Literature Review of Information Systems Research," . Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems, 10 (26). http://sprouts.aisnet.org/10-26
78. Page, M. J., Moher, D., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., ... & McKenzie, J. E. (2021). PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160
79. Project MUSE, (t.y.). About ProjectMUSE. https://muse.jhu.edu/, (Erişim tarihi:30 Ekim 2023)
80. Prospective Studies Collaboration. (2002). Age-specific relevance of usual blood pressure to vascular mortality: a meta-analysis of individual data for one million adults in 61 prospective studies. The Lancet, 360 (9349), 1903-1913. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11911-8
81. PubMed, (t.y). Welcome to NCBI. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/, (Erişim tarihi:30 Ekim 2023)
82. Ramey, J. & Rao, P. G. (2011, October). The systematic literature review as a research genre. In 2011 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference (pp. 1-7). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/IPCC.2011.6087229
83. Rowley, J. & Slack, F. (2004). Conducting a literature review. Management Research News, 27 (6), 31-39. https://doi.org/10.1108/01409170410784185
84. Saaiq, M. & Ashraf, B. (2017). Modifying “Pico” question into “Picos” model for more robust and reproducible presentation of the methodology employed in a scientific study. World Journal of Plastic Surgery, 6 (3), 390.
85. Saruhan Ş. C. & Özdemirci A. (2013). Bilim, Felsefe ve Metodoloji, 3. B., İstanbul, Beta Yayınları.
86. Schanes, K., Dobernig, K. & Gözet, B. (2018). Food waste matters-A systematic review of household food waste practices and their policy implications. Journal of Cleaner Production, 182, 978-991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.030
87. Schmidt, L., Olorisade, B. K., McGuinness, L. A., Thomas, J. & Higgins, J. P. (2021). Data extraction methods for systematic review (semi) automation: A living systematic review. F1000Research, 10. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.51117.2
88. ScienceDirect, (t.y.). About ScienceDirect. https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/sciencedirect, (Erişim tarihi:30 Ekim 2023)
89. Siddaway, A. P., Wood, A. M. & Hedges, L. V. (2019). How to do a systematic review: a best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 747-770. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803
90. Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
91. Sociological Abstracts, (t.y.). About Sociological Abstracts. https://about.proquest.com/en/products-services/socioabs-set-c/, (Erişim tarihi:30 Ekim 2023)
92. Springer, L., Stanne, M. E. & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69 (1), 21-51. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543069001021
93. Srivastava, S. (2018). Verifiability is a core principle of science. 41:e150. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X18000869. PMID: 31064548.
94. Stanley, T. D. (2001). Wheat from chaff: Meta-analysis as quantitative literature review. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15 (3), 131-150. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.15.3.131
95. Suri, H. & Clarke, D. (2009). Advancements in research synthesis methods: From a methodologically inclusive perspective. Review of Educational Research, 79 (1), 395-430. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430832634
96. Thome, A. M. T., Scavarda, L. F. & Scavarda, A. J. (2016). Conducting systematic literature review in operations management. Production Planning & Control, 27 (5), 408-420. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2015.1129464
97. Tian, M., Deng, P., Zhang, Y. & Salmador, M. P. (2018). How does culture influence innovation? A systematic literature review. Management Decision, 56 (5), 1088-1107. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2017-0462
98. Towne, L. & Shavelson, R. J. (2002). Scientific research in education. National Academy Press Publications Sales Office.
99. Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence‐informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14 (3), 207-222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375
100. Tremmel, M., Gerdtham, U. G., Nilsson, P. M. & Saha, S. (2017). Economic burden of obesity: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14 (4), 435. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14040435
101. Tsertsvadze, A., Chen, Y. F., Moher, D., Sutcliffe, P. & McCarthy, N. (2015). How to conduct systematic reviews more expeditiously?. Systematic Reviews, 4 (1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0147-7
102. Türkdoğan, O. (2003). Bilimsel araştırma metodolojisi. Timaş Yayınları.
103. Valverde-Berrocoso, J., Acevedo-Borrega, J. & Cerezo-Pizarro, M. (2022, June). Educational technology and student performance: A systematic review. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 7, p. 916502). Frontiers. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.916502
104. Wanden-Berghe, C. & Sanz-Valero, J. (2012). Systematic reviews in nutrition: standardized methodology. British Journal of Nutrition, 107 (S2), S3-S7. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114512001432
105. Weber, M. & Kalberg, S. (2013). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. Routledge.
106. Wilczynski, N. L. & Haynes, R. B. (2009). Consistency and accuracy of indexing systematic review articles and meta‐analyses in MEDLINE. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26 (3), 203-210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2008.00823.x
107. Xiao, Y. & Watson, M. (2019). Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39 (1), 93-112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X1772397
108. Yağar, F. & Dökme, S. (2018). Niteliksel araştirmalarin planlanmasi: Araştirma sorulari, örneklem seçimi, geçerlik ve güvenirlik. Gazi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, 3 (3), 1-9.
109. Yang, L., Zhang, H., Shen, H., Huang, X., Zhou, X., Rong, G. & Shao, D. (2021). Quality assessment in systematic literature reviews: A software engineering perspective. Information and Software Technology, 130, 106397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2020.106397
110. Yıldız, F. & Okyay, P. (2019). Sağlık araştırmalarında yan tutma (bias) ve yan tutmanın değerlendirilmesi. ESTÜDAM Halk Sağlığı Dergisi, 4 (2), 219-231.