The phrase "a conventional review" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when referring to a standard or traditional type of evaluation or assessment, often in contexts like literature, film, or product reviews.
Example: "The article provided a conventional review of the latest novel, highlighting its themes and character development."
Alternatives: "a standard review" or "a traditional review".
Could one adopt the format of the show itself to critique books about the show, thus achieving a circularity, a goes-around-comes-around congruity that would illuminate the texts more thoroughly than a conventional review could?
A conventional review of effectiveness in this area would have been able to draw on 10 outcome evaluation reports to generate conclusions about effectiveness.
Overall, when looking at the author's adherence to any reviewer suggestion, the evaluators were also able to guess the suggestion's origin (that is, from a conventional review or an additional review) in 56% (n=855, 95% confidence interval 54% to 59%) of the 1521 suggestions.
The authors acknowledge that text mining, at its present stage, serves as a complement to, but not a replacement of, conventional review papers.
The basic phases of a realist review are similar to those followed in a conventional Cochrane review, but involve more substeps, and those steps may be overlapping and iterative rather than sequential.
Intervention group: conventional review plus an additional review looking for missing items from reporting guidelines.
Following a process of sifting the retrieved citations, a total of 53 papers were identified as of relevance from a database of 118 for the first conventional review.
This paper describes the further analysis of research papers identified in a conventional systematic review of published evidence.
Moreover, a realist review (that incorporates judgment in the interpretation and presentation) is not necessarily standardisable or reproducible in the same sense as a conventional Cochrane review [ 11].
The wide range of issues relating to risk perception and presentation, and the fragmented and often sparse research literature, rules out a conventional systematic review.
As regulatory guidelines are usually not published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, a formal literature search as would be carried out for a "conventional" scientific review was not possible.
