Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35759629›Full record

ReviewCBE life sciences education2022

Literature Reviews, Theoretical Frameworks, and Conceptual Frameworks: An Introduction for New Biology Education Researchers.

Julie A Luft, Sophia Jeong, Robert Idsardi, Grant Gardner

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in CBE life sciences education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Writing for a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD): A guide to developing a strong and coherent thesis.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Annotations ofCBE life sciences education · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Palliative care in surgery: Where are we at?Palliative care and social practice · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Julie A LuftDepartment of Mathematics, Social Studies, and Science Education, Mary Frances Early College of Education, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-7124.
Sophia JeongDepartment of Teaching & Learning, College of Education & Human Ecology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210.
Robert IdsardiDepartment of Biology, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, WA 99004.
Grant GardnerDepartment of Biology, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN 37132.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To frame their work, biology education researchers need to consider the role of literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks as critical elements of the research and writing process. However, these elements can be confusing for scholars new to education research. This

Indexed as

Research PersonnelStudentsBiologyHumansPublicationsResearch DesignReview Literature as Topic

Identifiers

PMID35759629
PMCPMC9582830

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.