Identify themes in the different papers Are there similarities between some papers? Where do they differ? Does it make a difference to the data? Are there differences of opinion between papers?

• Gregory
• December 14, 2021

        Contemporary Debates with Radio graphic Practice

‘’ Portable and low-field scanner for magnetic resonance imaging of the brain’’

Notes in Red are messages from student !

EXAMPLE OF SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW PAPER: YOU CAN USE THIS AS A GUIDE          Discussion on this assignment will be more focused on the chosen 5 articles though.

.https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12913-017-2173-8

5 articles that will be included in the review

3. Cooley, C., McDaniel, P., Stockmann, J., Srinivas, S., Cauley, S., Śliwiak, M., Sappo, C., Vaughn, C., Guerin, B., Rosen, M., Lev, M. and Wald, L., 2020. A portable scanner for magnetic resonance imaging of the brain. Nature Biomedical Engineering, 5(3), pp.229-239.
4. Deoni, S., Bruchhage, M., Beauchemin, J., Volpe, A., D’Sa, V., Huentelman, M. and Williams, S., 2021. Accessible pediatric neuroimaging using a low field strength MRI scanner. NeuroImage, 238, p.118273.
5. Mazurek, M., Cahn, B., Yuen, M., Prabhat, A., Chavva, I., Shah, J., Crawford, A., Welch, E., Rothberg, J., Sacolick, L., Poole, M., Wira, C., Matouk, C., Ward, A., Timario, N., Leasure, A., Beekman, R., Peng, T., Witsch, J., Antonios, J., Falcone, G., Gobeske, K., Petersen, N., Schindler, J., Sansing, L., Gilmore, E., Hwang, D., Kim, J., Malhotra, A., Sze, G., Rosen, M., Kimberly, W. and Sheth, K., 2021. Portable, bedside, low-field magnetic resonance imaging for evaluation of intracerebral hemorrhage. Nature Communications, 12(1).

Assignment requirement :

Harvard  referencing only. Don’t forget to add the details of any web links you have used and the date accessed. If there is a DOI detail, you do not need the date accessed.

• You should be looking at materials at least within the last 5 years because the nature of the subjects related to diagnostic imaging, are in the fast-changing areas of health care, so recent publications are essential unless seminal work.

This word count  is also a guide only, but is a good indication/hint of where the bulk of the discussion/marks will be! (It can be less or more)

• Introduction – (eg) “ (500 Word)
• what is the background
• Why the subject
• Is this sensitivity and specificity
• Why is it an important topic?
• what makes it contemporary , Is it particularly current?

Within the introduction it would be wise to include the most up to date reference you can find on how your topic is contemporary, this reference does not needed to be from one of the 5 articles you have chosen to review or from your PRISMA chart. The reference can be taken from anywhere as long as it shows how your topic is contemporary.

• Summarise YOUR  methodology, consider using PRISMA chart
• I’ve attached my Prisma chart below, use it as a guide to write the methodology. I have used CINAHL Complete, MEDLINE , Academic Search Complete. The search was filtered from 2017-2021. Please don’t hesitate to add more or write more about it as you would if you’ve done the data searching, grey search…etc.
• My Prisma chart is word counted in this 3000 assignment as well.
• Keywords used: portable and Lowfield, Scanner, MRI, brain and imaging
• Summarise YOUR results consider using the data record chart (Descriptive    500- 650 words). The data record tablet can be similar to the table on the article I’ve put down as a guide or it can be something similar like the one below. You can use any style of  data record table of the 5 articles  that you think is relevant to it. This table is also word counted in the assignment.

The table that should be included within the results section of this assignment should be very very brief being around 10 words per box, this is due to both the table being part of the word count and a brief summary of the aspects of your 5 articles for markers. It is recommended to  do the summary of each section in bullet points.

• Formulate a PICO framework. It can be similar to the PICO (figure 2) on the article I’ve put down as a guide.
• Discussion: This is the place to discuss the themes of the papers. (The 5 articles listed at the top) (approx. 1500-1300 words)
  • The most obvious are the INTRO, METHODS and RESULTS
• Identify themes in the different papers
• Are there similarities between some papers?
• Where do they differ? Does it make a difference to the data? Are there differences of opinion between papers?
• How do these themes link together? etc…..
  • Then consider other areas where they have complimented, contrasted or conflicted with each other.

All of these last parts are the critique of the article overall and should show good/bad/questionable points. Remember to support any comments/statements you make with evidence – no longer than 5 years old, unless seminal work.

• Conclusion; ( 300 words)
• This is a summary of the piece as a whole of your work
• Look at each section that you have written and identify one/two points (however many you feel appropriate) from it, link these together to present a full precis of the script.
• Do not introduce new work/references into this section.
• There is no set limit to the number of references – you need sufficient to support each statement you make.

Prisma Diagram