Advanced Research Practice - Literature Review

TITLE

Agreed title with supervisor

AUTHOR

Prepared by	Your name	Date	Submission date
Student Number

Scientific Area

Broad discipline, micro, neuro, cancer, bioanalytical, drug detection.

Focused Question

Research question or area that the lit review related to. Think of it as an expanded title (not marked)

SEARCH STRATEGY

Terms used to guide the search strategy

• Keywords
• Climbing
• Bouldering
• Finger Injury
• Muscle tear

	Databases and Sites Searched	Search Terms	Limits Used
1	Web of science	X,	X AND Y NOT Z* >2018
2	Web of science or Google	X, Y, A	Open access
3	Web of science or Pubmed	X, Y, Z	X AND Z NOT Y

[add more lines as required but a minimum of three searches is expected] RESULTS OF SEARCH

Search 1
Number of relevant papers identified	200	Comment on the relevance to the lit review	Papers relevant to the title in question but many of the results where, over 10 years old and not cited highly. One or two sentences.

Search 2
Number of relevant papers identified	100	Comment on the relevance to the lit review	Directly relevant to the study, results address the question directly.

Search 3
Number of relevant papers identified		Comment on the relevance to the lit review

[add more lines as required but a minimum of three searches is expected] Note The level of evidence should be recorded as Not Applicable (NA) for qualitative studies, and a footnote added to identify levels for non- intervention studies (i.e. prognostic or diagnostic).[1] INCLUSION and EXCLUSION CRITERIA

Inclusion Criteria

Why are you clicking and reading a given paper? Eg. The method used is directly relevant eg NMR The papers are Q1 Sample size is >10

Exclusion Criteria

Why are you not reading the other papers? Eg. The method used is not relevant eg MS The papers are Q4 Sample size is

BEST EVIDENCE The following studies/papers were identified as the best evidence and selected for the literature review. Reasons for selecting these papers were:

#1 Kad, N. M., Myers, S. L., Smith, D. P., Smith, D. A., Radford, S. E., & Thomson, N. H. (2003). Hierarchical assembly of 2-microglobulin amyloid in vitro revealed by atomic force microscopy.Journal of molecular biology,330(4), 785-797. Highly cited paper that was the first in the field to demonstrate amyloid material can be made from the protein b2-microglobulin #2 Abildgaard, N., Rojek, A. M., Mller, H. E., Palstrm, N. B., Nyvold, C. G., Rasmussen, L. M., ... & Marcussen, N. (2020). Immunoelectron microscopy and mass spectrometry for classification of amyloid deposits.Amyloid,27(1), 59-66. Recent development in the field, using metal labelled tagging to vie ex-vivo material. New methods on previous none analysis samples. #3 #4 #5

Exclusion The following studies/papers were rejected a for the literature review in the following grounds.

#1 Saelices, L., Cao, Q., Anderson, D. H., Liang, W., Chou, J., & Eisenberg, D. S. (2020). The inhibition of cellular toxicity of amyloid-beta by dissociated transthyretin.bioRxiv, 852715. Good paper but this review is looking at brain amyloid not systemic amyloid and so the results are not directly relevant. #2 #3 #4

SUMMARY OF BEST EVIDENCE[2]

Paper 1: Description and appraisal of:

Taylor-Whiteley, T. R., Le Maitre, C. L., Duce, J. A., Dalton, C. F., & Smith, D. P. (2019). Recapitulating Parkinson\'s disease pathology in a three-dimensional human neural cell culture model.Disease models & mechanisms,12(4), dmm038042.

Aim/Objective of the Study/Systematic Review:

Experimental Design

Outcomes Measured[3]

Eg. Size of intracellular aggregates in different cell types. 2D vs 3D vs differentiated.

Main Findings[4][5]

Lewy bodies are only formed in fully differentiated Sh-SY5Y cells in 3D culture.

Original Authors Conclusions [paraphrase as required. If providing a direct quote, add page number]

Cells need to be terminally differentiated and in contact with other cells to allow Lewy Bodies to form. The cells are alive and so LB are none-toxic in this model.

Critical Appraisal

Validity

Only on cell line used, the stats in places could have been done better.

Interpretation of Results

Summary/Conclusion

Paper 2: Description and appraisal of:

Full citation to be inserted here.

Aim/Objective of the Study/Systematic Review:

Experimental Design

Outcomes Measured

Main Findings

Original Authors Conclusions [paraphrase as required. If providing a direct quote, add page number]

Critical Appraisal

Validity

Interpretation of Results

Summary/Conclusion

Paper 3: Description and appraisal of:

Full citation to be inserted here.

Aim/Objective of the Study/Systematic Review:

Experimental Design

Outcomes Measured

Main Findings

Original Authors Conclusions [paraphrase as required. If providing a direct quote, add page number]

Critical Appraisal

Validity

Interpretation of Results

Summary/Conclusion

Literature Summary: Max 1000 words.

COMBINED SUMMARY [Best evidence appraised and key findings]

~1000 words ~The five best papers are expected to be used to draw together the literature summary. You can use more if you wish. ~sub heading are ok ~ figure are ok, even better if they are your own.

BOTTOM LINE

~200 words This is a final summary / conclusion of you review.

---

Nothing to see here, move along This section is a more in depth analysis of the work you have picked. HINT Fill it in after you have read the paper (a least twice). The form is designed to help you read the papers deeply and to pull out the information for the lit review You may find that you use some of the text from these forms to finish off the literature review at the end. That is expected and acceptable. What does this mean a whole. You have finished reading the paper what does it now mean. Its ok if the main findings are the same as the outcomes. If so state this on the form.

Attachments:

example-arp-l....docx