Writing a narrative biomedical review: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors
By A. Gasparyan, L. Ayvazyan, H. Blackmore, G. Kitas. Rheumatology International, 2011
747 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: History and Philosophy of Science, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health, Statistics and Probability
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8d86ea5bf053aec40dcf28c414802844d0c3b1ef
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In History and Philosophy of Science
In Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
In Statistics and Probability
Citations in the corpus
- Writing narrative style literature reviews (2015, methodology): “are re-assessed, the results are evaluated and interpreted referring to the initial query, highlighting the meaning and validity of the conclusions.(18) Thewriting of conclusions, title, and abstract of an NR follows the criteria of other manuscripts.”
- SANRA—a scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles (2019, background): “[13], for example, have provided guidance for writing narrative reviews, and Byrne [14] as well as Pautasso [15] has written, from different angles, thoughtful editorials on improving narrative reviews and presented lists of key features of writing a good review—lists that naturally overlap with SAN”