Robot Framework “Multipart/Form-Data” REST Request With Multiple Parameters

The request has been fulfilled and resulted in a brand new resource being created. The newly created useful resource could be referenced by the URI returned in the entity of the response, with essentially the most specific URI for the resource given by a Location header area. The response SHOULD embody an entity containing a list of useful resource characteristics and site from which the consumer or user agent can select the one most appropriate. The entity format is specified by the media kind given in the Content-Type header area. The origin server MUST create the resource earlier than returning the 201 status code. If the action cannot be carried out immediately, the server SHOULD respond with 202 response as an alternative. If the proxy believes that the subsequent inbound server solely supports HTTP/1.0, the proxy MAY generate an instantaneous one hundred response to encourage the shopper to start sending the message body. These fields act as request modifiers, similar to the parameters on a programming language technique invocation. The Hypertext Transfer Protocol is a stateless application-level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypertext information methods. Elaborate user-customized accept header fields despatched in every request, specifically if these embrace high quality values, can be used by servers as comparatively reliable and long-lived consumer identifiers. Such person identifiers would allow content material providers to do click-trail monitoring, and would allow collaborating content suppliers to match cross-server click-trails or form submissions of particular person users. Note that for many users not behind a proxy, the community address of the host working the person agent may also serve as a long-lived user identifier. In environments where proxies are used to boost privacy, user brokers must be conservative in offering settle for header configuration choices to end users.

As an extreme privateness measure, proxies may filter the accept headers in relayed requests. General function consumer agents which give a excessive degree of header configurability SHOULD warn customers about the lack of privacy which could be concerned. Request and Response messages MAY transfer an entity if not in any other case restricted by the request technique or response standing code. An entity consists of entity-header fields and an entity-body, though some responses will only include the entity-headers. Such a content coding would solely be listed if, for some bizarre purpose, it is utilized a second time to form the illustration. When the must-revalidate directive is present in a response obtained by a cache, that cache MUST NOT use the entry after it becomes stale to answer a subsequent request with out first revalidating it with the origin server. The warning MUST be supplied on every unvalidated entry, and SHOULD require express user affirmation. HTTP purposes usually are not required to know the which means of all registered status codes, although such understanding is clearly desirable. For instance, if an unrecognized standing code of 431 is obtained by the consumer, it could safely assume that there was something incorrect with its request and treat the response as if it had received a 400 standing code. In such cases, user agents SHOULD present to the person the entity returned with the response, since that entity is likely to embrace human-readable information which will explain the weird standing. However, RFC 2045 is concentrated only on email; functions of HTTP have many traits that differ from e-mail; hence, HTTP has options that differ from MIME. Origin servers typically use parameters within the URI as a means of figuring out system services, deciding on database entries, or selecting an information source. The 204 standing code signifies that the server has successfully fulfilled the request and that there is no extra content material to ship within the response payload physique. Metadata within the response header fields refer to the goal useful resource and its chosen representation after the requested action was applied. The origin server MUST NOT anticipate the message physique earlier than sending the one hundred response. With agent-driven negotiation, choice of one of the best representation for a response is carried out by the consumer agent after receiving an initial response from the origin server. Selection is based on a list of the available representations of the response included within the header fields or entity-body of the initial response, with each representation recognized by its personal URI. Selection from among the representations may be performed routinely or manually by the user deciding on from a generated menu.

In order to enhance the server's guess, the person agent MAY embrace request header fields (Accept, Accept-Language, Accept-Encoding, and so forth.) which describe its preferences for such a response. The record of methods allowed by a resource could be laid out in an Allow header area (Section 14.7). The return code of the response at all times notifies the consumer whether a method is at present allowed on a useful resource, since the set of allowed methods can change dynamically. An origin server SHOULD return the standing code 405 if the method is understood by the origin server however not allowed for the requested useful resource, and 501 if the tactic is unrecognized or not implemented by the origin server. The methods GET and HEAD MUST be supported by all general-purpose servers. All different strategies are OPTIONAL; however, if the above strategies are implemented, they MUST be applied with the same semantics as these specified in Section 9. For request strategies other than HEAD, the server SHOULD generate a payload within the 300 response containing an inventory of illustration metadata and URI reference from which the user or person agent can choose the one most most well-liked. The consumer agent MAY choose from that listing routinely if it understands the supplied media kind. A specific format for automatic choice isn't defined by this specification as a result of HTTP tries to remain orthogonal to the definition of its payloads. In follow, the representation is offered in some simply parsed format believed to be acceptable to the person agent, as decided by shared design or content negotiation, or in some generally accepted hypertext format. Most general-purpose person agents don't send the Referer header area when the referring useful resource is a local "file" or "data" URI.

A user agent MUST NOT send a Referer header field in an unsecured HTTP request if the referring page was received with a safe protocol. The PUT methodology requests that the state of the target useful resource be created or changed with the state defined by the representation enclosed in the request message payload. A profitable PUT of a given illustration would suggest that a subsequent GET on that very same goal useful resource will result in an equal representation being sent in a 200 response. A successful response solely implies that the consumer agent's intent was achieved on the time of its processing by the origin server. The Via general-header subject MUST be used by gateways and proxies to point the intermediate protocols and recipients between the user agent and the server on requests, and between the origin server and the consumer on responses. It is analogous to the "Received" area of and is intended to be used for tracking message forwards, avoiding request loops, and identifying the protocol capabilities of all senders along the request/response chain. The origin server MUST NOT await the request physique earlier than sending the 100 response. If it responds with a last status code, it MAY shut the transport connection or it MAY proceed to read and discard the rest of the request. It MUST NOT carry out the requested methodology if it returns a final standing code. An intermediary program which acts as both a server and a consumer for the aim of making requests on behalf of other purchasers. Requests are serviced internally or by passing them on, with attainable translation, to other servers. A proxy MUST implement each the consumer and server necessities of this specification. A "transparent proxy" is a proxy that doesn't modify the request or response beyond what is required for proxy authentication and identification. Except the place both clear or non-transparent conduct is explicitly acknowledged, the HTTP proxy necessities apply to each kinds of proxies. A request without any Accept header area implies that the user agent will accept any media kind in response. Hence, these preconditions evaluate whether or not the state of the target useful resource has modified since a given state recognized by the client. The impact of such an analysis is dependent upon the method semantics and selection of conditional, as outlined in Section 5 of .

It is tempting to assume about useful resource identifiers as remote file system pathnames and of representations as being a copy of the contents of such information. In truth, that is how many resources are carried out (see Section 9.1 for related security considerations). The HTTP interface for a resource is simply as likely to be carried out as a tree of content material objects, a programmatic view on varied database data, or a gateway to other data systems. Even when the URI mapping mechanism is tied to a file system, an origin server could be configured to execute the information with the request as input and send the output because the representation somewhat than switch the recordsdata instantly. If multiple encodings have been applied to an entity, the content material codings MUST be listed within the order during which they were utilized. Additional details about the encoding parameters MAY be supplied by other entity-header fields not outlined by this specification. Validator header fields convey metadata about the selected illustration . In responses to secure requests, validator fields describe the chosen representation chosen by the origin server whereas handling the response. Note that, depending on the status code semantics, the selected representation for a given response is not necessarily the same because the representation enclosed as response payload. The 405 standing code signifies that the method obtained within the request-line is thought by the origin server however not supported by the target useful resource.

The origin server MUST generate an Allow header subject in a 405 response containing an inventory of the goal resource's presently supported strategies. Some intermediaries have been recognized to indiscriminately remove Referer header fields from outgoing requests. This has the unfortunate facet impact of interfering with safety towards CSRF assaults, which can be much more harmful to their users. An middleman SHOULD NOT modify or delete the Referer header field when the sphere worth shares the same scheme and host because the request goal. The "Accept" header field can be utilized by user brokers to specify response media varieties which are acceptable. Accept header fields can be used to indicate that the request is particularly limited to a small set of desired varieties, as in the case of a request for an in-line picture. The set of strategies allowed by a target useful resource can be listed in an Allow header field (Section 7.4.1). However, the set of allowed methods can change dynamically. When a request technique is acquired that is unrecognized or not applied by an origin server, the origin server SHOULD reply with the 501 status code. When a request methodology is received that's identified by an origin server but not allowed for the target resource, the origin server SHOULD reply with the 405 status code. In order to improve the server's guess, a user agent MAY send request header fields that describe its preferences. If a number of encodings have been applied to a representation, the sender that applied the encodings MUST generate a Content-Encoding header field that lists the content material codings within the order in which they had been applied. Additional information about the encoding parameters can be provided by other header fields not outlined by this specification. The User-Agent request-header subject contains information about the user agent originating the request. This is for statistical functions, the tracing of protocol violations, and automatic recognition of user brokers for the sake of tailoring responses to avoid specific consumer agent limitations. The subject can contain multiple product tokens (Section 3.8) and feedback identifying the agent and any subproducts which form a significant part of the consumer agent. By conference, the product tokens are listed so as of their significance for figuring out the applying. If multiple encodings have been applied to an entity, the transfer-codings MUST be listed within the order by which they had been applied.

If an entity tag was assigned to a cached representation, the forwarded request SHOULD be conditional and embrace the entity tags in an If-None-Match header subject from all its cache entries for the resource. If the entity-tag of the new response matches that of an existing entry, the new response SHOULD be used to update the header fields of the present entry, and the outcome MUST be returned to the consumer. Most HTTP responses embrace an entity which incorporates data for interpretation by a human consumer. Naturally, it's fascinating to provide the user with the "finest obtainable" entity comparable to the request. Unfortunately for servers and caches, not all customers have the identical preferences for what is "finest," and not all user brokers are equally capable of rendering all entity varieties. For that cause, HTTP has provisions for several mechanisms for "content material negotiation" -- the process of selecting the best representation for a given response when there are multiple representations obtainable. If the shopper has carried out a conditional GET request and entry is allowed, however the document has not been modified, the server SHOULD respond with this status code. The 304 response MUST NOT comprise a message-body, and thus is always terminated by the first empty line after the header fields. Unless it was a HEAD request, the response SHOULD include an entity containing an inventory of useful resource traits and placement from which the user or person agent can select the one most acceptable. Depending upon the format and the capabilities of the user agent, selection of probably the most applicable alternative MAY be performed automatically. However, this specification does not outline any standard for such automated selection. Otherwise, the consumer won't reliably receive the response message.

However, this requirement is not be construed as stopping a server from defending itself against denial-of-service attacks, or from badly damaged client implementations. The figure above exhibits three intermediaries between the consumer agent and origin server. A request or response message that travels the entire chain will move via 4 separate connections. This distinction is essential as a outcome of some HTTP communication options might apply solely to the connection with the closest, non-tunnel neighbor, solely to the end-points of the chain, or to all connections alongside the chain. Although the diagram is linear, every participant could also be engaged in multiple, simultaneous communications. For instance, B could additionally be receiving requests from many clients aside from A, and/or forwarding requests to servers apart from C, on the identical time that it's handling A's request. The server responds with a status line, together with the message's protocol model and successful or error code, followed by a MIME-like message containing server info, entity metainformation, and attainable entity-body content. The relationship between HTTP and MIME is described in Appendix D. For example, there is no must ship the Authorization field name in Vary as a end result of reuse across customers is constrained by the sector definition (Section 4.2 of ). Likewise, an origin server might use Cache-Control directives (Section 5.2 of ) to supplant Vary if it considers the variance much less important than the efficiency price of Vary's impression on caching.

The 5xx class of standing code signifies that the server is conscious that it has erred or is incapable of performing the requested methodology. Except when responding to a HEAD request, the server SHOULD send a illustration containing an explanation of the error scenario, and whether it is a temporary or everlasting situation. A person agent SHOULD display any included representation to the user. The 3xx class of standing code indicates that further motion needs to be taken by the consumer agent to have the ability to fulfill the request. If a Location header field (Section 7.1.2) is provided, the person agent MAY routinely redirect its request to the URI referenced by the Location subject value, even when the precise standing code isn't understood. Automatic redirection needs to accomplished with care for strategies not identified to be protected, as outlined in Section 4.2.1, because the person might not wish to redirect an unsafe request. Relatively few sources enable the DELETE method — its main use is for distant authoring environments, the place the user has some path relating to its effect. For instance, a resource that was beforehand created utilizing a PUT request, or identified through the Location header field after a 201 response to a POST request, might permit a corresponding DELETE request to undo those actions. An origin server SHOULD confirm that the PUT illustration is in keeping with any constraints the server has for the goal useful resource that can't or will not be modified by the PUT. This is especially necessary when the origin server uses inner configuration info related to the URI so as to set the values for illustration metadata on GET responses. The 409 or 415 standing codes are advised, with the latter being particular to constraints on Content-Type values.

The request technique's semantics might be further specialised by the semantics of some header fields when current in a request if those additional semantics do not conflict with the strategy. For example, a client can ship conditional request header fields (Section 5.2) to make the requested action conditional on the current state of the target useful resource (). MIME's canonical form requires that media subtypes of the "text" sort use CRLF because the textual content line break. HTTP allows the transfer of text media with plain CR or LF alone representing a line break, when such line breaks are consistent for an entire illustration. An HTTP sender MAY generate, and a recipient MUST be able to parse, line breaks in text media that consist of CRLF, bare CR, or naked LF. In addition, text media in HTTP isn't restricted to charsets that use octets 13 and 10 for CR and LF, respectively. This flexibility regarding line breaks applies only to text inside a representation that has been assigned a "textual content" media sort; it does not apply to "multipart" sorts or HTTP elements outside the payload physique (e.g., header fields). The interceptors may be enabled by together with their classnames in a META-INF/services/javax.ws.rs.ext.Providers file on the classpath. The higher restrict on deflated files may be configured by setting the web application context parameter "resteasy.gzip.max.input". If the limit is exceeded on the server facet, GZIPDecodingInterceptor will return a Response with status 413 ("Request Entity Too Large") and a message specifying the upper restrict. As of launch three.1.0.Final, the GZIP interceptors have moved from package deal org.jboss.resteasy.plugins.interceptors.encoding to org.jboss.resteasy.plugins.interceptors. And they want to be named accordingly in javax.ws.rs.ext.Providers. However, they live on in org.jboss.resteasy.plugins.interceptors.encoding in module resteasy-legacy, so, if resteasy-legacy is out there, the unique names can be utilized. See Chapter Migration to RESTEasy three.1 for more information. A shopper MUST embrace a Host header subject in all HTTP/1.1 request messages. If the requested URI doesn't include an Internet host name for the service being requested, then the Host header area MUST be given with an empty value. An HTTP/1.1 proxy MUST be sure that any request message it forwards does include an acceptable Host header field that identifies the service being requested by the proxy. All Internet-based HTTP/1.1 servers MUST respond with a 400 standing code to any HTTP/1.1 request message which lacks a Host header area. When a directive appears without any 1#field-name parameter, the directive applies to the entire request or response.

How To Write Review Of Related Literature Example

Despite these criticisms, this type of review can be very useful in gathering together a volume of literature in a specific subject area and synthesizing it. As mentioned above, its primary purpose is to provide the reader with a comprehensive background for understanding current knowledge and highlighting the significance of new research (Cronin et al., 2008). Faculty like to use narrative reviews in the classroom because they are often more up to date than textbooks, provide a single source for students to reference, and expose students to peer-reviewed literature (Green et al., 2006).

For researchers, narrative reviews can inspire research ideas by identifying gaps or inconsistencies in a body of knowledge, thus helping researchers to determine research questions or formulate hypotheses. Importantly, narrative reviews can also be used as educational articles to bring practitioners up to date with certain topics of issues (Green et al., 2006). In contrast with narrative reviews, descriptive reviews follow a systematic and transparent procedure, including searching, screening and classifying studies (Petersen, Vakkalanka, & Kuzniarz, 2015). Indeed, structured search methods are used to form a representative sample of a larger group of published works (Paré et al., 2015). In doing so, a descriptive review may claim that its findings represent the state of the art in a particular domain (King & He, 2005).

When appropriately conducted, review articles represent powerful information sources for practitioners looking for state-of-the art evidence to guide their decision-making and work practices (Paré et al., 2015). Further, high-quality reviews become frequently cited pieces of work which researchers seek out as a first clear outline of the literature when undertaking empirical studies (Cooper, 1988; Rowe, 2014). The reason for their popularity may be the fact that reading the review enables one to have an overview, if not a detailed knowledge of the area in question, as well as references to the most useful primary sources (Cronin et al., 2008).

Although they are not easy to conduct, the commitment to complete a review article provides a tremendous service to one's academic community (Paré et al., 2015; Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). Most, if not all, peer-reviewed journals in the fields of medical informatics publish review articles of some type. Narrative or Traditional literature reviews critique and summarise a body of literature about the thesis topic. The literature is researched from the relevant databases and is generally very selective in the material used. The criteria for literature selection for a narrative review is not always made open to the reader.

These reviews are very useful in gathering and synthesising the literature located. Where a narrative approach differs from a systematic approach is in the notation of search methods criteria for selection,this can leave narrative reviews open to suggestions of bias. As shown in Table 9.1, each review type addresses different kinds of research questions or objectives, which subsequently define and dictate the methods and approaches that need to be used to achieve the overarching goal of the review. For example, in the case of narrative reviews, there is greater flexibility in searching and synthesizing articles (Green et al., 2006). Hence, in order to select the most appropriate type of review, it is critical to know before embarking on a review project, why the research synthesis is conducted and what type of methods are best aligned with the pursued goals.

We must stress that this classification scheme does not privilege any specific type of review as being of higher quality than another (Paré et al., 2015). As explained above, each type of review has its own strengths and limitations. Having said that, we realize that the methodological rigour of any review — be it qualitative, quantitative or mixed — is a critical aspect that should be considered seriously by prospective authors. In the present context, the notion of rigour refers to the reliability and validity of the review process described in section 9.2. For one thing, reliability is related to the reproducibility of the review process and steps, which is facilitated by a comprehensive documentation of the literature search process, extraction, coding and analysis performed in the review. Next, validity characterizes the degree to which the review process was conducted appropriately.

In short, the rigour of any review article is reflected by the explicitness of its methods (i.e., transparency) and the soundness of the approach used. We refer those interested in the concepts of rigour and quality to the work of Templier and Paré which offers a detailed set of methodological guidelines for conducting and evaluating various types of review articles. A literature review is an overview of the previously published works on a specific topic.

The term can refer to a full scholarly paper or a section of a scholarly work such as a book, or an article. Either way, a literature review is supposed to provide the researcher/author and the audiences with a general image of the existing knowledge on the topic under question. A good literature review can ensure that a proper research question has been asked and a proper theoretical framework and/or research methodology have been chosen. To be precise, a literature review serves to situate the current study within the body of the relevant literature and to provide context for the reader.

In such case, the review usually precedes the methodology and results sections of the work. Knowledge production within the field of business research is accelerating at a tremendous speed while at the same time remaining fragmented and interdisciplinary. This makes it hard to keep up with state-of-the-art and to be at the forefront of research, as well as to assess the collective evidence in a particular area of business research. This is why the literature review as a research method is more relevant than ever.

How To Write Review Of Related Literature Traditional literature reviews often lack thoroughness and rigor and are conducted ad hoc, rather than following a specific methodology. Therefore, questions can be raised about the quality and trustworthiness of these types of reviews. This paper discusses literature review as a methodology for conducting research and offers an overview of different types of reviews, as well as some guidelines to how to both conduct and evaluate a literature review paper. It also discusses common pitfalls and how to get literature reviews published. As mentioned earlier, when rigorously conducted review articles represent powerful information sources for eHealth scholars and practitioners looking for state-of-the-art evidence.

The typology of literature reviews we used herein will allow eHealth researchers, graduate students and practitioners to gain a better understanding of the similarities and differences between review types. In recent years, the number of systematic reviews in the field of health informatics has increased considerably. Systematic reviews with discordant findings can cause great confusion and make it difficult for decision-makers to interpret the review-level evidence .

Therefore, there is a growing need for appraisal and synthesis of prior systematic reviews to ensure that decision-making is constantly informed by the best available accumulated evidence. Umbrella reviews generally adhere to the same principles and rigorous methodological guidelines used in systematic reviews. However, the unit of analysis in umbrella reviews is the systematic review rather than the primary study (Becker & Oxman, 2008). Unlike systematic reviews that have a narrow focus of inquiry, umbrella reviews focus on broader research topics for which there are several potential interventions (Smith, Devane, Begley, & Clarke, 2011).

Literature reviews are designed to provide an overview of sources you have explored while researching a particular topic and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits within a larger field of study. Scoping literature review, as implied by its name is used to identify the scope or coverage of a body of literature on a given topic. The literature review should clearly demonstrate that the author has a good knowledge of the research area. Literature review typically occupies one or two passages in the introduction section. A well-written literature review should provide a critical appraisal of previous studies related to the current research area rather than a simple summary of prior works.

The author shouldn't shy away from pointing out the shortcomings of previous works. However, criticising other's work without any basis can weaken your paper. This is a perfect place to coin your research question and justify the need for such a study. It is also worth pointing out towards the end of the review that your study is unique and there is no direct literature addressing this issue. Add a few sentences about the significance of your research and how this will add value to the body of knowledge.

In the fields of health sciences and medical informatics, reviews that focus on examining the range, nature and evolution of a topic area are described by Anderson, Allen, Peckham, and Goodwin as mapping reviews. Like descriptive reviews, the research questions are generic and usually relate to publication patterns and trends. There is no preconceived plan to systematically review all of the literature although this can be done. Instead, researchers often present studies that are representative of most works published in a particular area and they consider a specific time frame to be mapped. In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews.

Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources you have explored, there are a number of approaches you could adopt depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study. Ideally, a literature review should not identify as a major research gap an issue that has just been addressed in a series of papers in press (the same applies, of course, to older, overlooked studies ("sleeping beauties" )). This implies that literature reviewers would do well to keep an eye on electronic lists of papers in press, given that it can take months before these appear in scientific databases.

Some reviews declare that they have scanned the literature up to a certain point in time, but given that peer review can be a rather lengthy process, a full search for newly appeared literature at the revision stage may be worthwhile. Assessing the contribution of papers that have just appeared is particularly challenging, because there is little perspective with which to gauge their significance and impact on further research and society. The purpose is to offer an overview of significant literature published on a topic. Unlike other review types, critical reviews attempt to take a reflective account of the research that has been done in a particular area of interest, and assess its credibility by using appraisal instruments or critical interpretive methods. In this way, critical reviews attempt to constructively inform other scholars about the weaknesses of prior research and strengthen knowledge development by giving focus and direction to studies for further improvement . A Systematic style literature review uses elements and methods of a systematic quantitative or Qualitative review in its research methods but is then generally written up in a more traditional form.

For example, when researching a systematic styled review you would take careful notes of what you have searched for and in which databases in the same way as you would with a more formal review type. You would also include your inclusion and exclusion criteria for papers read in your final literature review, but you do not necessarily need to gather quantitative or qualitative evidence from your reading. This style of review is very common in social science research as recording your search and evaluation methodology adds authority to you final product. The literature review is a written overview of major writings and other sources on a selected topic.

Sources covered in the review may include scholarly journal articles, books, government reports, Web sites, etc. The literature review provides a description, summary and evaluation of each source. It is usually presented as a distinct section of a graduate thesis or dissertation.

Literature reviews provide you with a handy guide to a particular topic. If you have limited time to conduct research, literature reviews can give you an overview or act as a stepping stone. For professionals, they are useful reports that keep them up to date with what is current in the field.

For scholars, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the writer in his or her field. Literature reviews also provide a solid background for a research paper's investigation. Comprehensive knowledge of the literature of the field is essential to most research papers. A literature review may stand alone as an individual document in which the history of the topic is reported and then analyzed for trends, controversial issues, and what still needs to be studied.

The review could just be a few pages for narrow topics or quite extensive with long bibliographies for in-depth reviews. In-depth review articles are valuable time-savers for professionals and researchers who need a quick introduction or analysis of a topic but they can be very time-consuming for authors to produce. To illustrate the difference between reporting and reviewing, think about television or film review articles. These articles include content such as a brief synopsis or the key points of the film or programme plus the critic's own evaluation. Similarly the two main objectives of a literature review are firstly the content covering existing research, theories and evidence, and secondly your own critical evaluation and discussion of this content. This chapter is similar to what is called the list of references and its main purpose is to collect all the relevant sources of information and organize them in a logical sequence.

This part of a dissertation should also make an evaluation of all available sources and find the gaps in existing knowledge on a particular topic in order to create a reasoned ground for research. Table 9.1 outlines the main types of literature reviews that were described in the previous sub-sections and summarizes the main characteristics that distinguish one review type from another. It also includes key references to methodological guidelines and useful sources that can be used by eHealth scholars and researchers for planning and developing reviews. Heterogeneity between the included studies in terms of reported outcomes and measures precluded the use of meta-analytic methods.

The narrative review is the "traditional" way of reviewing the extant literature and is skewed towards a qualitative interpretation of prior knowledge (Sylvester et al., 2013). Put simply, a narrative review attempts to summarize or synthesize what has been written on a particular topic but does not seek generalization or cumulative knowledge from what is reviewed (Davies, 2000; Green et al., 2006). Instead, the review team often undertakes the task of accumulating and synthesizing the literature to demonstrate the value of a particular point of view (Baumeister & Leary, 1997). As such, reviewers may selectively ignore or limit the attention paid to certain studies in order to make a point. In this rather unsystematic approach, the selection of information from primary articles is subjective, lacks explicit criteria for inclusion and can lead to biased interpretations or inferences (Green et al., 2006).

There are several narrative reviews in the particular eHealth domain, as in all fields, which follow such an unstructured approach (Silva et al., 2015; Paul et al., 2015). The purpose of an SQLR is to find, quantify and codify all relevant literature in a spreadsheet or table for analysis. Quantifying the status and characteristics of literature relating to a research area helps to and identify theme and gaps in available research to better guide your research project..

The quantification process helps with evidence-based decision making and informs future research directions. The review process identifies, evaluates and summarises the findings of all eligible studies. SQLRs are useful for providing a comprehensive overview and interpretation of research on a topic. Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. This is particularly true in disciplines in medicine and the sciences where research conducted becomes obsolete very quickly as new discoveries are made.

However, when writing a review in the social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be required. In other words, a complete understanding the research problem requires you to deliberately examine how knowledge and perspectives have changed over time. Sort through other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to explore what is considered by scholars to be a "hot topic" and what is not.

The most interesting literature reviews are often written as arguments (again, as mentioned at the beginning of the page, this is discipline-specific and doesn't work for all situations). Often, the literature review is where you can establish your research as filling a particular gap or as relevant in a particular way. You have some chance to do this in your introduction in an article, but the literature review section gives a more extended opportunity to establish the conversation in the way you would like your readers to see it. You can choose the intellectual lineage you would like to be part of and whose definitions matter most to your thinking (mostly humanities-specific, but this goes for sciences as well). In addressing these points, you argue for your place in the conversation, which tends to make the lit review more compelling than a simple reporting of other sources. There are a number of different situations where you might write a literature review, each with slightly different expectations; different disciplines, too, have field-specific expectations for what a literature review is and does.

You should always look at examples from your own discipline and talk to professors or mentors in your field to be sure you understand your discipline's conventions, for literature reviews as well as for any other genre. A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research. Reviewing the literature requires the ability to juggle multiple tasks, from finding and evaluating relevant material to synthesising information from various sources, from critical thinking to paraphrasing, evaluating, and citation skills .

In this contribution, I share ten simple rules I learned working on about 25 literature reviews as a PhD and postdoctoral student. Ideas and insights also come from discussions with coauthors and colleagues, as well as feedback from reviewers and editors. A meta-analysis is typically a systematic review using statistical methods to effectively combine the data used on all selected studies to produce a more reliable result.