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

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 26 Sayı: 1 , 1 - 33 , 15.03.2024

Zafer Çakmak

https://doi.org/10.16953/deusosbil.1384599

Cited By: 3

https://izlik.org/JA97TH62KU

Öz

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.

Anahtar Kelimeler

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

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

https://izlik.org/JA97TH62KU

Öz

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.

Anahtar Kelimeler

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

Etik Beyan

Bu makale etik onay formu gerektiren maddelerin kapsamında yer almadığı için, etik onay formu alınmamıştır.

Kaynakça

• 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
• 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
• APA PsycINFO, (t.y.). About APA. https://www.apa.org/about (Erişim tarihi:30 Ekim 2023)
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9 (2), 27-40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
• 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
• 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
• Bulutay, T. (1986). Bilimin Niteliği Üzerine Denemeler. Mülkiyeliler Birliği Vakfı Yayını, (3).
• Business Source Premier, (t.y.). About Business Source Premier. https://www.ebsco.com/products/research-databases/business-source-premier, (Erişim tarihi:30 Ekim 2023)
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç-Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö., Karadeniz, Ş. & Demirel, F. (2008). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: PegemA.
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• Chen, C. & Chen, C. (2003). On the shoulders of giants. Mapping Scientific Frontiers: The Quest for Knowledge Visualization, 135-166.
• 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
• Cochrane Library, (t.y.). About the Cochrane Library. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/about/about-cochrane-library, (Erişim tarihi:30 Ekim 2023)
• 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
• 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
• Dadhich, N. (2015). Einstein is Newton with space curved. Current Science, 260-264.
• 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
• DergiPark, (t.y.). DergiPark Hakkında. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/page/about (Erişim tarihi:21 kasım 2023)
• 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
• EconLit, (t.y.). About the AEA. https://www.aeaweb.org/about-aea, (Erişim tarihi:30 Ekim 2023)
• ERIC, (t.y.). What is ERICİ? https://eric.ed.gov/?faq, (Erişim tarihi:30 Ekim 2023)
• 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
• 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
• 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
• Fink, A. (2019). Conducting research literature reviews: From the internet to paper. Sage Publications.
• Fitzgerald, T. (2012). Documents and documentary analysis. Research Methods in Educational Leadership and Management, 3, 296-308.
• Flick, U. (2018). An introduction to qualitative research. Sage.
• 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
• 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
• GreenFILE, (t.y.). About GreenFILE. https://www.ebsco.com/products/research-databases/greenfile, (Erişim tarihi:30 Ekim 2023)
• 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
• Gürbüz, S. & Şahin, F. (2014). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık, 271.
• 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
• Hanushek, E. A. & Wößmann, L. (2007). The role of education quality for economic growth. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, (4122).
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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)
• 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
• JSTOR, (t.y.). About JSTOR. https://about.jstor.org/, (Erişim tarihi:30 Ekim 2023)
• Kaplan, M. & Yardımcıoğlu, M. (2020). Alan, Habitus ve Sermaye Kavramlarıyla Pierre Bourdieu. Habitus Toplumbilim Dergisi, (1), 23-37.
• Karaçam, Z. (2013). Sistematik derleme metodolojisi: Sistematik derleme hazırlamak için bir rehber. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Fakültesi Elektronik Dergisi, 6 (1), 26-33.
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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.
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• MEDLINE, (t.y.). MEDLINE: Overview. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medline/medline_overview.html, (Erişim tarihi:30 Ekim 2023)
• 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
• 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
• Milgram, S. & Gudehus, C. (1978). Obedience to authority.
• 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.
• Morgan, H. (2022). Conducting a qualitative document analysis. The Qualitative Report, 27 (1), 64-77. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2022.5044
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• Okoli, C. (2015). A guide to conducting a standalone systematic literature review. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37.
• 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
• 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
• Project MUSE, (t.y.). About ProjectMUSE. https://muse.jhu.edu/, (Erişim tarihi:30 Ekim 2023)
• 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
• PubMed, (t.y). Welcome to NCBI. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/, (Erişim tarihi:30 Ekim 2023)
• 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
• Rowley, J. & Slack, F. (2004). Conducting a literature review. Management Research News, 27 (6), 31-39. https://doi.org/10.1108/01409170410784185
• 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.
• Saruhan Ş. C. & Özdemirci A. (2013). Bilim, Felsefe ve Metodoloji, 3. B., İstanbul, Beta Yayınları.
• 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
• 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
• ScienceDirect, (t.y.). About ScienceDirect. https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/sciencedirect, (Erişim tarihi:30 Ekim 2023)
• 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
• 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
• Sociological Abstracts, (t.y.). About Sociological Abstracts. https://about.proquest.com/en/products-services/socioabs-set-c/, (Erişim tarihi:30 Ekim 2023)
• 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
• Srivastava, S. (2018). Verifiability is a core principle of science. 41:e150. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X18000869. PMID: 31064548.
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• Towne, L. & Shavelson, R. J. (2002). Scientific research in education. National Academy Press Publications Sales Office.
• 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
• 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
• 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
• Türkdoğan, O. (2003). Bilimsel araştırma metodolojisi. Timaş Yayınları.
• 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
• 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
• Weber, M. & Kalberg, S. (2013). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. Routledge.
• 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
• 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
• Yağar, F. & Dökme, S. (2018). Niteliksel araştirmalarin planlanmasi: Araştirma sorulari, örneklem seçimi, geçerlik ve güvenirlik. Gazi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, 3 (3), 1-9.
• 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
• Yıldız, F. & Okyay, P. (2019). Sağlık araştırmalarında yan tutma (bias) ve yan tutmanın değerlendirilmesi. ESTÜDAM Halk Sağlığı Dergisi, 4 (2), 219-231.