AbramsS. E. (2012). Purpose, insight, and the review of literature. Public Health Nursing, 29(3), 189–190.doi:10.1111/j.1525-1446.2012.01025.x22512419
2.
BearmanM. (2016). Quality and literature reviews: Beyond reporting standards. Medical Education, 50(4), 382–384.doi:10.1111/medu.1298426995472
3.
BertolacciniL.SpaggiariL. (2020). The synthesis of scientific shreds of evidence: A critical appraisal on systematic review and meta-analysis methodology. Journal of Thoracic Disease, 12(6), 3399–3403.doi:10.21037/jtd.2020.03.0732642265
4.
BrackettA.BattenJ. (2020). Ensuring the rigor in systematic reviews: Part 1, the overview. Heart & Lung, 49(5), 660–661.doi:10.1016/j.hrtlng.2020.03.01532532424
5.
CallahanJ. L. (2014). Writing literature reviews: A reprise and update. Human Resource Development Review, 13(3), 271–275.doi:10.1177/1534484314536705
6.
DodgsonJ. E. (2019). Reflexivity in qualitative research. Journal of Human Lactation, 35(2), 220–222.doi:10.1177/089033441983099030849272
7.
GalvanJ. L.GalvanM. C. (2017). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences (7th ed.). Routledge.
8.
HaddawayN. R.MacuraB. (2018). The role of reporting standards in producing robust literature reviews. Nature Climate Change, 8(6), 444–447.doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0180-3
9.
HorsleyT. (2019). Tips for improving the writing and reporting quality of systematic, scoping, and narrative reviews. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 39(1), 54–57.doi:10.1097/CEH.000000000000024130789378
10.
LuijendijkH. J.PageM. J.BurgerH.KoolmanX. (2020). Assessing risk of bias: A proposal for a unified framework for observational studies and randomized trials. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 20(1), 237.doi:10.1186/s12874-020-01115-732967622
11.
MatneyB. (2018). Understanding literature reviews: Implications for music therapy. Nordic Journal of Music Therapy, 27(2), 97–125.doi:10.1080/08098131.2017.1366543
12.
MilesM. B.HubermannM.SaldañaJ. (2019). Qualitative data analysis: A methods source book (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
13.
MoherDLiberatiATetzlaffJAltmanD. GPRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097.doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.100009719621072
14.
Noel-WeissJ.BoersmaS.Kujawa-MylesS. (2012). Questioning current definitions for breastfeeding research. International Breastfeeding Journal, 7(1), 7–9.doi:10.1186/1746-4358-7-9
15.
RichardsL.MorseJ. (2012). Readme first for a user′s guide to qualitative methods (3rd ed.). SAGE Publishing.
16.
RitcheyT. (1991). Analysis and synthesis: On scientific method—based on a study by Bernhard Riemann. Systems Research, 8(4), 21–41.doi:10.1002/sres.3850080402
17.
SaundersM. N. K.RojonC. (2011). On the attributes of a critical literature review, coaching: An international Journal of theory. Research and Practice, 4(2), 156–162.doi:10.1080/17521882.2011.596485
18.
ThurstonW. E.CoveL.MeadowsL. M. (2008). Methodological congruence in complex and collaborative mixed method studies. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 2(1), 2–14.doi:10.5172/mra.455.2.1.2
19.
TorontoC. E.RemingtonR. (2020). A step by step guide to conducting an integrative review. Springer Nature.
20.
TorracoR. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356–367.doi:10.1177/1534484305278283
21.
TriccoA. C.LillieE.ZarinW.O’BrienK. K.ColquhounH.LevacD.MoherD.PetersM. D. J.HorsleyT.WeeksL.HempelS.AklE. A.ChangC.McGowanJ.StewartL.HartlingL.AldcroftA.WilsonM. G.GarrittyC.StrausS. E. . .. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473.doi:10.7326/M18-085030178033
WooS. E.O’BoyleE. H.SpectorP. E. (2017). Best practices in developing, conducting, and evaluating inductive research. Human Resource Management Review, 27(2), 255–264.doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.08.004
