INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue X, October 2025
www.ijltemas.in Page 584
that it integrates data using quantitative techniques in addition to summarising findings. Effect sizes or statistical findings from
each research are then retrieved and examined. The procedure starts with a systematic review to find pertinent papers that satisfy
inclusion criteria. A meta-analysis boosts the overall sample size and power through statistical aggregation, which aids in finding
patterns, gauging the strength of associations, and resolving discrepancies between separate researches. Additionally, it frequently
assesses consistency and publishing bias using methods like heterogeneity tests, forest plots, and funnel plots.
Critical Review
A critical review is a kind of literature review that thoroughly assesses and examines previous research in addition to
summarising it. A critical review looks at the advantages, disadvantages, assumptions, methods, and conclusions of earlier
research, in contrast to narrative or systematic reviews, which are mainly concerned with summarising or reporting findings. It
necessitates that the researcher approach the literature critically, challenging the trustworthiness, validity, and relevance of the
data. This method highlights important contributions while enabling the identification of biases, gaps, and inconsistencies.
III. Conclusion
A literature review is more than a preliminary stage in research; it is an indispensable scholarly activity that establishes the
foundation of inquiry. By discerning between different review types and adopting an appropriate writing style, researchers can
produce literature reviews that are not only methodologically sound but also intellectually insightful.
Bibliography
1. 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](https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
2. Boote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in
research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6), 3–15.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X034006003](https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X034006003
3. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Wiley.
4. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches
(5th ed.). Sage Publications.
5. Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5(10), 3–8.
[https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X005010003](https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X005010003
6. 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](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
7. Green, B. N., Johnson, C. D., & Adams, A. (2006). Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals:
Secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 5(3), 101–117. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0899-3467(07)60142-
6](https://doi.org/10.1016/S0899-3467%2807%2960142-6
8. Hart, C. (2018). Doing a literature review: Releasing the research imagination (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
9. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for
systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097.
[https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
10. Ridley, D. (2012). The literature review: A step-by-step guide for students (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
11. Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS
Quarterly, 26(2), xiii–xxiii.
12. Brouard, F. (2020). NOTE ON LITERATURE REVIEW. Sprott School of Business, Carleton University .
13. Byrne, J. A. ( 2016). Improving the peer review of narrative literature reviews. (A. n. 12, Ed.) Research Integrity and
Peer Review, , volume 1.
14. Cresswell. (2000). Research Design . Retrieved from QUANTITATIVE , QUALITATIVE, MIXED METHOD
THEORY : https://www.ucg.ac.me/skladiste/blog_609332/objava_105202/fajlovi/Creswell.pdf
15. Introduction to PRISMA 2020 and implications for research synthesis methodologists. (n.d.).
16. Kang, A. E. (2018). Introduction to systematic review and meta-analysis. (Korean Journal of Anesthesiology, Ed.)
Retrieved 71(2), 103–112., from Introduction to systematic review a:
[https://doi.org/10.4097/kjae.2018.71.2.103](https://doi.org/10.4097/kjae.2018.71.2.103)
17. Kitsiou., G. P. (n.d.). Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach. Retrieved from Methods for
Literature Reviews: Chapter 9: National Lbrery of Medicine : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK481583/
18. Kwienk, M. (2020). Internationalists and locals: international research collaboration in a resource-poor system. (2020,
Ed.) Springer Nature Link , Volume 124, pages 57–105.
19. Lim, W. M. (2022, February). Advancing knowledge through literature reviews: “what”, “why”, and “how to
contribute”. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358814968 Advancing knowledge
through_literature_reviews_what_why_and_how_to_contribute