How to write or create a review writing template in Authorea, step by step
(These steps have come from a blog post http://www.raulpacheco.org/2017/04/how-to-undertake-a-literature-review/?utm_content=buffer635c8&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Step 1: Identify the main topic and the anchor authors
Identify the main topic for review & a few key authors. 
In my review of the role and importance of P4 (participatory, predictive, preventive, and personalised) medicine and e-patients in primary care which I term as "patient-physician partnership in primary care: a review", my main topic is how the five components (1) participatory nature of the care process, (2) prevention at the centre of the care process, (3) predictive algorithms or prediction, (4) personalisation of medicine, and (5) use of e-patients who are engaged, enabled, and Internet savvy patients who can search for information on the web and bring it to the doctors can shown to improve the health outcomes, and access to care. In my search for materials, I found that journals such as participatory medicine, society for participatory medicine, people like e-patient Dan, and a few others. Here is a comprehensive list of anchor authors:
Step 2: Conduct a citation tracing exercise
Check who is citing whom and check whether you have reached conceptual satutration.
What is citation tracing?
(1) Which authors cite which work. 
(2) relationships across these cites
How to do citation tracing?
Google scholar backtracking search. -- Search on Google scholar for the keywords and restrict the search to the last two-three years.
Example: my keywords are "participatory medicine", "P4", "narrative medicine", "epatient" "e-patients" in title or in the text. So I construct the search terms as:
intitle:"participatory medicine" intext:"P4" and restricted the search years from 2014. The results are as follows:
https://scholar.google.co.nz/scholar?as_ylo=2014&q=(intitle:%22participatory+medicine%22)+(intext:%22P4%22)&hl=en&as_sdt=1,5&as_vis=1
This led to four papers:
The first paper \cite{pack2016application}
Second paper \cite{townsend2015ehealth}
Third paper \cite{day2017design}
Fourth Paper \cite{assadi2014future}
Read each paper and write a memo of each paper. A "memo" consists of the following:
A summary of the paper
Quotes from the paper
Our own reflection on the paper and links to relevant citations
Read the reference list of each paper. In the reference list, mark each citation you read and see if you have read them before or if you haven't and you think that citation is important for your research or review, mark and add a note. Using papers, it should be easy to first write and then transfer the memos here
Memo of Pack 2016
Memo of Townsend 2015
Memo of Day 2015
Memo of Assadi 2014
Read the reference list of these papers. Which authors stand out? What studies stand out?
Which are these references?
Memos of these studies as well
Step 3: Create an excel dump
Have the following columns in the excel spreadsheet (I will use a spreadsheet or use a CSV file); for each article, have:
For more information, see http://www.raulpacheco.org/2016/06/synthesizing-different-bodies-of-work-in-your-literature-review-the-conceptual-synthesis-excel-dump-technique/
For my paper, the spreadsheet should look like as follows:
Step 4: Generate main themes for your conceptual synthesis excel dump
You get a snapshot of the big picture
Step 5: Repeat steps 2-4 till you reach concept saturation
Concept saturation
Which concepts occur in these literature over and over again?
Create a mind map of the concepts
Step 6: Write the literature review by answering questions about each subheading
Scope of literature review
scope as the literature review question, ie. what are you asking the literature? What is interesting and unknown at the moment that the literature could give you new information about? The scope represents intentional boundaries to stop your literature review sprawling out of control and to stop you dying under an avalanche of papers
(Ben in https://web.archive.org/web/20161016224605/http://www.literaturereviewhq.com/bias/)
The scope of my literature review is to study or catalogue the benefits and risks of adopting a P4 approach towards patient care in primary care settings, that is to what extent does a combined practice of using participatory (using e-patients as participatory component), predictive (utilising high throughput predictive modelling and propensity scores to guide treatment decisions), preventive, and personalised (use of genomic data for treatment planning and clinical decision making) will lead to better outcomes for individual patients with chronic diseases in the primary care setting (for example diabetes and hypertension). For the patient and provider groups, I will use patients of any age, and gender, and providers ideally primary care physicians but indeed specialisations (as data are few and far between to come by), for intervention, I would select any intervention grounded in these principles (one or more: participatory using epatients, but also any other model of collaboration), preventive (mainly prevention as the key), predictive (treatment or diagnostic plans based on predictions and use of high throughput or "big data"), and personalised (use of genomic tools or post-genomics data analyses); for outcomes or "O", I would select favourable health outcomes irrespective of the specific health problem (thus, reduced length of stay, improved health related quality of life, and other better health outcomes as defined in the study will all be accepted).
Bias in literature review is our unintentional prejudice as to what the literature might show and I go for searching to confirm my prejudice. In this paper my prejudice is that, literature might show that use of P4 principles and epatients will improve health outcomes in every situation that it is used. To overcome my bias, I will need to search for studies that have shown that P4 and e-patients do not necessarily lead to better outcomes for specific health states and disease conditions.
So far most literature I have studied suggest promise for this new technology on the basis of possible mechanisms of care and narrative medicine as being a 30-year old profession that allows for patients' stories to be part of the clinical decision making and therefore it must be good. Whether it has actually led to improvement in patient outcomes is not yet clear because following the principles of evidence based care (start with meta analyses and syntheses of randomised trials, randomised trials, individual observational studies such as cohort studies and case control studies), there are no published reports or unpublished data that suggest that either deterioration or improvement is the case. There is a need for more studies but at the moment that is indeed. Ben suggests that to avoid bias, one must search for those studies that refute one's concepts about what the literature may show.
Ben also talks about "voice" or the unique contribution of the author, often in first person perspective. This makes the review interesting rather than a "laundry list" of items and studies. He cites Pat Thomson thus:
My favourite way of thinking about voice is the way Pat Thomson puts it in one of her metaphors for writing the literature review. As a writer, imagine you are hosting a dinner party and you are inviting all the authors of the papers you want to cite. Your job is to host a good dinner party and make sure the conversation remains stimulating and flowing. This means you have carefully seat your guests, but it also means that you must interact with them and talk to them in some way. The way you would talk to guests at your dinner party is the same way you would use writers voice in your literature review. You draw out relevant arguments and statements from your guests and arbitrate an information exchange before evaluating what has been discussed.
Where did Pat Thomson write this, perhaps here? Nevertheless, a great idea.