solved Evaluation of the articles (i.e., the review of the sources

Evaluation of the articles (i.e., the review of the sources or body of the lit review), showing how you will synthesize (Links to an external site.) the pre-existing research into your own article, and a critical analysis on what you have learned from your research thus far. Be sure to provide concrete examples from your sources. A few helpful guiding questions that you can keep in mind as you are writing the review:What approaches or methodologies (Links to an external site.) have been used?What weaknesses, biases, OR gaps exist in the research?Who has written on the topic?What, if any, schools of thought (research trends (Links to an external site.)) have developed?2. A conclusion, where you summarize what you have found in the research regarding your topic, and what areas you have found that need further study. Briefly explain how your research relates to the pre-existing research you have found. Here are the 4 articles I want you to relate to, 1. https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/89/2/693S/45…, 2. https://www.aafp.org/afp/2017/0915/p384.html, 3. https://basicandappliedzoology.springeropen.com/ar…, 4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC32576…Also make sure that you use in text citations for every one of the 4 articles ——————————Here are some examples of how the questions from the evaluation section are answered in the sample literature review from Unit 2. (Links to an external site.)One of the questions above is “What approaches or methodologies (Links to an external site.) have been used?” That question is answered in the Methods section on the first page. That section is how those authors discuss the methodologies/methods or how they have conducted their research so far. Like those authors, you all have been using PubMed, so consider imitating the structure of that section, as suggested in my presentation in Unit 2. Another question is “What weaknesses, biases, OR gaps exist in the research?” On page 383, in the paragraph right before the conclusion, the authors address a bias (Links to an external site.) in the research, stating, “With most of the evaluated studies, it is possible that bias occurred.” The authors then provide an example of the bias: “For example, physicians were more likely to provide IMB services to children with existing early childhood caries (ECC) or those considered at high risk for ECC (Quinonez, Kranz, Long, & Rozier, 2014; White, 2012). Selection bias can be eliminated if the population is sampled properly, and if accurate data on exposure and outcome are collected to define a measure of association. Also, investigator bias likely occurred during data collection and analysis when all interviews were conducted in-person, via telephone, and using English. Because of this, such subjects are likely to generate the desired result.”Another question is “Who has written on the topic?” This question is answered throughout all of the literature review by referring to the sources/authors that they have found. The sources that you have found for the preliminary bibliography (if they are credible and relevant to your topic) are some of the people who have written about the topic, so by paraphrasing (Links to an external site.) and citing these sources throughout your literature review, you are answering that question. The last question is “What, if any, schools of thought (research trends (Links to an external site.)) have developed?” Again, this question is answered in multiple places in the sample literature review. They are normally based on survey results found in one or more sources. Here’s an example from page 381: “Based on the results from the National Health Interview Survey (2008), the utilization rate for the elderly decreased from 73.1% in 1997 to 69.6% in 2010 and remained unchanged from 2000 to 2007 (Wall, Vujicic, & Nasseh, 2012).” Here’s another example from page 381: “Reports of dental visits show that 19.9% of children with private dental insurance did not have a preventive visit in the previous year and that 24.3% of children enrolled in public dental insurance had not had a preventive visit (Askelson et al., 2015; Wall, Vujicic, & Nasseh, 2012).”