project report of literature review

Get science-backed answers as you write with Paperpal's Research feature

What is a Literature Review? How to Write It (with Examples)

A literature review is a critical analysis and synthesis of existing research on a particular topic. It provides an overview of the current state of knowledge, identifies gaps, and highlights key findings in the literature. 1 The purpose of a literature review is to situate your own research within the context of existing scholarship, demonstrating your understanding of the topic and showing how your work contributes to the ongoing conversation in the field. Learning how to write a literature review is a critical tool for successful research. Your ability to summarize and synthesize prior research pertaining to a certain topic demonstrates your grasp on the topic of study, and assists in the learning process.

What is the purpose of literature review?
a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:
b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:
c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:
d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

How to write a good literature review

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:
Decide on the Scope of Your Review:
Select Databases for Searches:
Conduct Searches and Keep Track:
Review the Literature:
Organize and Write Your Literature Review:
How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?
Frequently asked questions

What is a literature review?

A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with the existing literature, establishes the context for their own research, and contributes to scholarly conversations on the topic. One of the purposes of a literature review is also to help researchers avoid duplicating previous work and ensure that their research is informed by and builds upon the existing body of knowledge.

What is the purpose of literature review?

A literature review serves several important purposes within academic and research contexts. Here are some key objectives and functions of a literature review: 2

1. Contextualizing the Research Problem: The literature review provides a background and context for the research problem under investigation. It helps to situate the study within the existing body of knowledge.

2. Identifying Gaps in Knowledge: By identifying gaps, contradictions, or areas requiring further research, the researcher can shape the research question and justify the significance of the study. This is crucial for ensuring that the new research contributes something novel to the field.

Find academic papers related to your research topic faster. Try Research on Paperpal

3. Understanding Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks: Literature reviews help researchers gain an understanding of the theoretical and conceptual frameworks used in previous studies. This aids in the development of a theoretical framework for the current research.

4. Providing Methodological Insights: Another purpose of literature reviews is that it allows researchers to learn about the methodologies employed in previous studies. This can help in choosing appropriate research methods for the current study and avoiding pitfalls that others may have encountered.

5. Establishing Credibility: A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with existing scholarship, establishing their credibility and expertise in the field. It also helps in building a solid foundation for the new research.

6. Informing Hypotheses or Research Questions: The literature review guides the formulation of hypotheses or research questions by highlighting relevant findings and areas of uncertainty in existing literature.

Literature review example

Let’s delve deeper with a literature review example: Let’s say your literature review is about the impact of climate change on biodiversity. You might format your literature review into sections such as the effects of climate change on habitat loss and species extinction, phenological changes, and marine biodiversity. Each section would then summarize and analyze relevant studies in those areas, highlighting key findings and identifying gaps in the research. The review would conclude by emphasizing the need for further research on specific aspects of the relationship between climate change and biodiversity. The following literature review template provides a glimpse into the recommended literature review structure and content, demonstrating how research findings are organized around specific themes within a broader topic.

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

Climate change is a global phenomenon with far-reaching consequences, including significant impacts on biodiversity. This literature review synthesizes key findings from various studies:

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

Climate change-induced alterations in temperature and precipitation patterns contribute to habitat loss, affecting numerous species (Thomas et al., 2004). The review discusses how these changes increase the risk of extinction, particularly for species with specific habitat requirements.

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

Observations of range shifts and changes in the timing of biological events (phenology) are documented in response to changing climatic conditions (Parmesan & Yohe, 2003). These shifts affect ecosystems and may lead to mismatches between species and their resources.

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

The review explores the impact of climate change on marine biodiversity, emphasizing ocean acidification’s threat to coral reefs (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007). Changes in pH levels negatively affect coral calcification, disrupting the delicate balance of marine ecosystems.

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

Recognizing the urgency of the situation, the literature review discusses various adaptive strategies adopted by species and conservation efforts aimed at mitigating the impacts of climate change on biodiversity (Hannah et al., 2007). It emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary approaches for effective conservation planning.

Strengthen your literature review with factual insights. Try Research on Paperpal for free!

Writing a literature review involves summarizing and synthesizing existing research on a particular topic. A good literature review format should include the following elements.

Introduction: The introduction sets the stage for your literature review, providing context and introducing the main focus of your review.

Opening Statement: Begin with a general statement about the broader topic and its significance in the field.
Scope and Purpose: Clearly define the scope of your literature review. Explain the specific research question or objective you aim to address.
Organizational Framework: Briefly outline the structure of your literature review, indicating how you will categorize and discuss the existing research.
Significance of the Study: Highlight why your literature review is important and how it contributes to the understanding of the chosen topic.
Thesis Statement: Conclude the introduction with a concise thesis statement that outlines the main argument or perspective you will develop in the body of the literature review.

Body: The body of the literature review is where you provide a comprehensive analysis of existing literature, grouping studies based on themes, methodologies, or other relevant criteria.

Organize by Theme or Concept: Group studies that share common themes, concepts, or methodologies. Discuss each theme or concept in detail, summarizing key findings and identifying gaps or areas of disagreement.
Critical Analysis: Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each study. Discuss the methodologies used, the quality of evidence, and the overall contribution of each work to the understanding of the topic.
Synthesis of Findings: Synthesize the information from different studies to highlight trends, patterns, or areas of consensus in the literature.
Identification of Gaps: Discuss any gaps or limitations in the existing research and explain how your review contributes to filling these gaps.
Transition between Sections: Provide smooth transitions between different themes or concepts to maintain the flow of your literature review.

Write and Cite as you go with Paperpal Research. Start now for free.

Conclusion: The conclusion of your literature review should summarize the main findings, highlight the contributions of the review, and suggest avenues for future research.

Summary of Key Findings: Recap the main findings from the literature and restate how they contribute to your research question or objective.
Contributions to the Field: Discuss the overall contribution of your literature review to the existing knowledge in the field.
Implications and Applications: Explore the practical implications of the findings and suggest how they might impact future research or practice.
Recommendations for Future Research: Identify areas that require further investigation and propose potential directions for future research in the field.
Final Thoughts: Conclude with a final reflection on the importance of your literature review and its relevance to the broader academic community.

Conducting a literature review

Conducting a literature review is an essential step in research that involves reviewing and analyzing existing literature on a specific topic. It’s important to know how to do a literature review effectively, so here are the steps to follow: 1

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

Select a topic that is relevant to your field of study.
Clearly define your research question or objective. Determine what specific aspect of the topic do you want to explore?

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

Determine the timeframe for your literature review. Are you focusing on recent developments, or do you want a historical overview?
Consider the geographical scope. Is your review global, or are you focusing on a specific region?
Define the inclusion and exclusion criteria. What types of sources will you include? Are there specific types of studies or publications you will exclude?

Select Databases for Searches:

Identify relevant databases for your field. Examples include PubMed, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar.
Consider searching in library catalogs, institutional repositories, and specialized databases related to your topic.

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

Develop a systematic search strategy using keywords, Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT), and other search techniques.
Record and document your search strategy for transparency and replicability.
Keep track of the articles, including publication details, abstracts, and links. Use citation management tools like EndNote, Zotero, or Mendeley to organize your references.

Review the Literature:

Evaluate the relevance and quality of each source. Consider the methodology, sample size, and results of studies.
Organize the literature by themes or key concepts. Identify patterns, trends, and gaps in the existing research.
Summarize key findings and arguments from each source. Compare and contrast different perspectives.
Identify areas where there is a consensus in the literature and where there are conflicting opinions.
Provide critical analysis and synthesis of the literature. What are the strengths and weaknesses of existing research?

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

Literature review outline should be based on themes, chronological order, or methodological approaches.
Write a clear and coherent narrative that synthesizes the information gathered.
Use proper citations for each source and ensure consistency in your citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.).
Conclude your literature review by summarizing key findings, identifying gaps, and suggesting areas for future research.

Whether you’re exploring a new research field or finding new angles to develop an existing topic, sifting through hundreds of papers can take more time than you have to spare. But what if you could find science-backed insights with verified citations in seconds? That’s the power of Paperpal’s new Research feature!

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

Paperpal, an AI writing assistant, integrates powerful academic search capabilities within its writing platform. With the Research feature, you get 100% factual insights, with citations backed by 250M+ verified research articles, directly within your writing interface with the option to save relevant references in your Citation Library. By eliminating the need to switch tabs to find answers to all your research questions, Paperpal saves time and helps you stay focused on your writing.

Here’s how to use the Research feature:

Ask a question: Get started with a new document on paperpal.com. Click on the “Research” feature and type your question in plain English. Paperpal will scour over 250 million research articles, including conference papers and preprints, to provide you with accurate insights and citations.
Review and Save: Paperpal summarizes the information, while citing sources and listing relevant reads. You can quickly scan the results to identify relevant references and save these directly to your built-in citations library for later access.
Cite with Confidence: Paperpal makes it easy to incorporate relevant citations and references into your writing, ensuring your arguments are well-supported by credible sources. This translates to a polished, well-researched literature review.

The literature review sample and detailed advice on writing and conducting a review will help you produce a well-structured report. But remember that a good literature review is an ongoing process, and it may be necessary to revisit and update it as your research progresses. By combining effortless research with an easy citation process, Paperpal Research streamlines the literature review process and empowers you to write faster and with more confidence. Try Paperpal Research now and see for yourself.

Frequently asked questions

A literature review is a critical and comprehensive analysis of existing literature (published and unpublished works) on a specific topic or research question and provides a synthesis of the current state of knowledge in a particular field. A well-conducted literature review is crucial for researchers to build upon existing knowledge, avoid duplication of efforts, and contribute to the advancement of their field. It also helps researchers situate their work within a broader context and facilitates the development of a sound theoretical and conceptual framework for their studies.

Literature review is a crucial component of research writing, providing a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. The aim is to keep professionals up to date by providing an understanding of ongoing developments within a specific field, including research methods, and experimental techniques used in that field, and present that knowledge in the form of a written report. Also, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the scholar in his or her field.

Before writing a literature review, it’s essential to undertake several preparatory steps to ensure that your review is well-researched, organized, and focused. This includes choosing a topic of general interest to you and doing exploratory research on that topic, writing an annotated bibliography, and noting major points, especially those that relate to the position you have taken on the topic.

Literature reviews and academic research papers are essential components of scholarly work but serve different purposes within the academic realm. 3 A literature review aims to provide a foundation for understanding the current state of research on a particular topic, identify gaps or controversies, and lay the groundwork for future research. Therefore, it draws heavily from existing academic sources, including books, journal articles, and other scholarly publications. In contrast, an academic research paper aims to present new knowledge, contribute to the academic discourse, and advance the understanding of a specific research question. Therefore, it involves a mix of existing literature (in the introduction and literature review sections) and original data or findings obtained through research methods.

Literature reviews are essential components of academic and research papers, and various strategies can be employed to conduct them effectively. If you want to know how to write a literature review for a research paper, here are four common approaches that are often used by researchers. Chronological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the chronological order of publication. It helps to trace the development of a topic over time, showing how ideas, theories, and research have evolved. Thematic Review: Thematic reviews focus on identifying and analyzing themes or topics that cut across different studies. Instead of organizing the literature chronologically, it is grouped by key themes or concepts, allowing for a comprehensive exploration of various aspects of the topic. Methodological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the research methods employed in different studies. It helps to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of various methodologies and allows the reader to evaluate the reliability and validity of the research findings. Theoretical Review: A theoretical review examines the literature based on the theoretical frameworks used in different studies. This approach helps to identify the key theories that have been applied to the topic and assess their contributions to the understanding of the subject. It’s important to note that these strategies are not mutually exclusive, and a literature review may combine elements of more than one approach. The choice of strategy depends on the research question, the nature of the literature available, and the goals of the review. Additionally, other strategies, such as integrative reviews or systematic reviews, may be employed depending on the specific requirements of the research.

The literature review format can vary depending on the specific publication guidelines. However, there are some common elements and structures that are often followed. Here is a general guideline for the format of a literature review: Introduction: Provide an overview of the topic. Define the scope and purpose of the literature review. State the research question or objective. Body: Organize the literature by themes, concepts, or chronology. Critically analyze and evaluate each source. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the studies. Highlight any methodological limitations or biases. Identify patterns, connections, or contradictions in the existing research. Conclusion: Summarize the key points discussed in the literature review. Highlight the research gap. Address the research question or objective stated in the introduction. Highlight the contributions of the review and suggest directions for future research.

Both annotated bibliographies and literature reviews involve the examination of scholarly sources. While annotated bibliographies focus on individual sources with brief annotations, literature reviews provide a more in-depth, integrated, and comprehensive analysis of existing literature on a specific topic. The key differences are as follows:

References

Denney, A. S., & Tewksbury, R. (2013). How to write a literature review.  Journal of criminal justice education ,  24 (2), 218-234.
Pan, M. L. (2016).  Preparing literature reviews: Qualitative and quantitative approaches . Taylor & Francis.
Cantero, C. (2019). How to write a literature review.  San José State University Writing Center .

Paperpal is an AI writing assistant that help academics write better, faster with real-time suggestions for in-depth language and grammar correction. Trained on millions of research manuscripts enhanced by professional academic editors, Paperpal delivers human precision at machine speed.

Try it for free or upgrade to  Paperpal Prime , which unlocks unlimited access to premium features like academic translation, paraphrasing, contextual synonyms, consistency checks and more. It’s like always having a professional academic editor by your side! Go beyond limitations and experience the future of academic writing.  Get Paperpal Prime now at just US$19 a month!

6 Tips for Post-Doc Researchers to Take Their Career to the Next Level

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, mla works cited page: format, template & examples, how to ace grant writing for research funding..., powerful academic phrases to improve your essay writing , how to write a high-quality conference paper, how paperpal’s research feature helps you develop and..., how paperpal is enhancing academic productivity and accelerating..., how to write a successful book chapter for..., academic editing: how to self-edit academic text with..., 4 ways paperpal encourages responsible writing with ai, what are scholarly sources and where can you....

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

Knowledge Base
Dissertation
What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples

What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples

Published on 22 February 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 7 June 2022.

What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research.

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

Search for relevant literature
Evaluate sources
Identify themes, debates and gaps
Outline the structure
Write your literature review

A good literature review doesn’t just summarise sources – it analyses, synthesises, and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Why write a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1: search for relevant literature, step 2: evaluate and select sources, step 3: identify themes, debates and gaps, step 4: outline your literature review’s structure, step 5: write your literature review, frequently asked questions about literature reviews, introduction.

Quick Run-through
Step 1 & 2

When you write a dissertation or thesis, you will have to conduct a literature review to situate your research within existing knowledge. The literature review gives you a chance to:

Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and scholarly context
Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
Position yourself in relation to other researchers and theorists
Show how your dissertation addresses a gap or contributes to a debate

You might also have to write a literature review as a stand-alone assignment. In this case, the purpose is to evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of scholarly debates around a topic.

The content will look slightly different in each case, but the process of conducting a literature review follows the same steps. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Writing literature reviews can be quite challenging! A good starting point could be to look at some examples, depending on what kind of literature review you’d like to write.

Example literature review #1: “Why Do People Migrate? A Review of the Theoretical Literature” ( Theoretical literature review about the development of economic migration theory from the 1950s to today.)
Example literature review #2: “Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines” ( Methodological literature review about interdisciplinary knowledge acquisition and production.)
Example literature review #3: “The Use of Technology in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Thematic literature review about the effects of technology on language acquisition.)
Example literature review #4: “Learners’ Listening Comprehension Difficulties in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Chronological literature review about how the concept of listening skills has changed over time.)

You can also check out our templates with literature review examples and sample outlines at the links below.

Download Word doc Download Google doc

Before you begin searching for literature, you need a clearly defined topic .

If you are writing the literature review section of a dissertation or research paper, you will search for literature related to your research objectives and questions .

If you are writing a literature review as a stand-alone assignment, you will have to choose a focus and develop a central question to direct your search. Unlike a dissertation research question, this question has to be answerable without collecting original data. You should be able to answer it based only on a review of existing publications.

Make a list of keywords

Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research topic. Include each of the key concepts or variables you’re interested in, and list any synonyms and related terms. You can add to this list if you discover new keywords in the process of your literature search.

Social media, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, TikTok
Body image, self-perception, self-esteem, mental health
Generation Z, teenagers, adolescents, youth

Search for relevant sources

Use your keywords to begin searching for sources. Some databases to search for journals and articles include:

Your university’s library catalogue
Google Scholar
Project Muse (humanities and social sciences)
Medline (life sciences and biomedicine)
EconLit (economics)
Inspec (physics, engineering and computer science)

You can use boolean operators to help narrow down your search:

Read the abstract to find out whether an article is relevant to your question. When you find a useful book or article, you can check the bibliography to find other relevant sources.

To identify the most important publications on your topic, take note of recurring citations. If the same authors, books or articles keep appearing in your reading, make sure to seek them out.

You probably won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on the topic – you’ll have to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your questions.

For each publication, ask yourself:

What question or problem is the author addressing?
What are the key concepts and how are they defined?
What are the key theories, models and methods? Does the research use established frameworks or take an innovative approach?
What are the results and conclusions of the study?
How does the publication relate to other literature in the field? Does it confirm, add to, or challenge established knowledge?
How does the publication contribute to your understanding of the topic? What are its key insights and arguments?
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the research?

Make sure the sources you use are credible, and make sure you read any landmark studies and major theories in your field of research.

You can find out how many times an article has been cited on Google Scholar – a high citation count means the article has been influential in the field, and should certainly be included in your literature review.

The scope of your review will depend on your topic and discipline: in the sciences you usually only review recent literature, but in the humanities you might take a long historical perspective (for example, to trace how a concept has changed in meaning over time).

Remember that you can use our template to summarise and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using!

Take notes and cite your sources

As you read, you should also begin the writing process. Take notes that you can later incorporate into the text of your literature review.

It’s important to keep track of your sources with references to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography, where you compile full reference information and write a paragraph of summary and analysis for each source. This helps you remember what you read and saves time later in the process.

You can use our free APA Reference Generator for quick, correct, consistent citations.

To begin organising your literature review’s argument and structure, you need to understand the connections and relationships between the sources you’ve read. Based on your reading and notes, you can look for:

Trends and patterns (in theory, method or results): do certain approaches become more or less popular over time?
Themes: what questions or concepts recur across the literature?
Debates, conflicts and contradictions: where do sources disagree?
Pivotal publications: are there any influential theories or studies that changed the direction of the field?
Gaps: what is missing from the literature? Are there weaknesses that need to be addressed?

This step will help you work out the structure of your literature review and (if applicable) show how your own research will contribute to existing knowledge.

Most research has focused on young women.
There is an increasing interest in the visual aspects of social media.
But there is still a lack of robust research on highly-visual platforms like Instagram and Snapchat – this is a gap that you could address in your own research.

There are various approaches to organising the body of a literature review. You should have a rough idea of your strategy before you start writing.

Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).

Chronological

The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time. However, if you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarising sources in order.

Try to analyse patterns, turning points and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred.

If you have found some recurring central themes, you can organise your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic.

For example, if you are reviewing literature about inequalities in migrant health outcomes, key themes might include healthcare policy, language barriers, cultural attitudes, legal status, and economic access.

Methodological

If you draw your sources from different disciplines or fields that use a variety of research methods , you might want to compare the results and conclusions that emerge from different approaches. For example:

Look at what results have emerged in qualitative versus quantitative research
Discuss how the topic has been approached by empirical versus theoretical scholarship
Divide the literature into sociological, historical, and cultural sources

Theoretical

A literature review is often the foundation for a theoretical framework . You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts.

You might argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach, or combine various theoretical concepts to create a framework for your research.

Like any other academic text, your literature review should have an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion . What you include in each depends on the objective of your literature review.

The introduction should clearly establish the focus and purpose of the literature review.

If you are writing the literature review as part of your dissertation or thesis, reiterate your central problem or research question and give a brief summary of the scholarly context. You can emphasise the timeliness of the topic (“many recent studies have focused on the problem of x”) or highlight a gap in the literature (“while there has been much research on x, few researchers have taken y into consideration”).

Depending on the length of your literature review, you might want to divide the body into subsections. You can use a subheading for each theme, time period, or methodological approach.

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

Summarise and synthesise: give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole.
Analyse and interpret: don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole.
Critically evaluate: mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources.
Write in well-structured paragraphs: use transitions and topic sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts.

In the conclusion, you should summarise the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasise their significance.

If the literature review is part of your dissertation or thesis, reiterate how your research addresses gaps and contributes new knowledge, or discuss how you have drawn on existing theories and methods to build a framework for your research. This can lead directly into your methodology section.

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a dissertation , thesis, research paper , or proposal .

There are several reasons to conduct a literature review at the beginning of a research project:

To familiarise yourself with the current state of knowledge on your topic
To ensure that you’re not just repeating what others have already done
To identify gaps in knowledge and unresolved problems that your research can address
To develop your theoretical framework and methodology
To provide an overview of the key findings and debates on the topic

Writing the literature review shows your reader how your work relates to existing research and what new insights it will contribute.

The literature review usually comes near the beginning of your dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 31 May 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a dissertation proposal | a step-by-step guide, what is a theoretical framework | a step-by-step guide, what is a research methodology | steps & tips.

Reference management. Clean and simple.

Literature review

How to write a literature review in 6 steps

How do you write a good literature review? This step-by-step guide on how to write an excellent literature review covers all aspects of planning and writing literature reviews for academic papers and theses.

How to write a systematic literature review [9 steps]

How do you write a systematic literature review? What types of systematic literature reviews exist and where do you use them? Learn everything you need to know about a systematic literature review in this guide

What is a literature review? [with examples]

Not sure what a literature review is? This guide covers the definition, purpose, and format of a literature review.

Study resources
Calendar - Graduate
Calendar - Undergraduate
Class schedules
Class cancellations
Course registration
Important academic dates
More academic resources
Campus services
IT services
Job opportunities
Mental health support
Student Service Centre (Birks)
Calendar of events
Latest news
Media Relations
Faculties, Schools & Colleges
Arts and Science
Gina Cody School of Engineering and Computer Science
John Molson School of Business
School of Graduate Studies
All Schools, Colleges & Departments
Directories

My Library Account (Sofia) View checkouts, fees, place requests and more
Interlibrary Loans Request books from external libraries
Zotero Manage your citations and create bibliographies
E-journals via BrowZine Browse & read journals through a friendly interface
Article/Chapter Scan & Deliver Request a PDF of an article/chapter we have in our physical collection
Course Reserves Online course readings
Spectrum Deposit a thesis or article
WebPrint Upload documents to print with DPrint
Sofia Discovery tool
Databases by subject
Course Reserves
E-journals via BrowZine
E-journals via Sofia
Article/Chapter Scan & Deliver
Intercampus Delivery of Bound Periodicals/Microforms
Interlibrary Loans
Spectrum Research Repository
Special Collections
Additional resources & services
Loans & Returns (Circulation)
Subject & course guides
Open Educational Resources Guide
Instructional Services
General guides for users
Ask a librarian
Research Skills Tutorial
Quick Things for Digital Knowledge
Critical Toolkit for Navigating Information
Bibliometrics & research impact guide
Concordia University Press
Copyright Guide
Copyright Guide for Thesis Preparation
Digital Scholarship
Digital Preservation
Open Access
ORCID at Concordia
Research data management guide
Scholarship of Teaching & Learning
Systematic Reviews
How to get published speaker series
Borrow (laptops, tablets, equipment)
Connect (netname, Wi-Fi, guest accounts)
Desktop computers, software & availability maps
Group study, presentation practice & classrooms
Printers, copiers & scanners
Technology Sandbox
Visualization Studio
Webster Library
Vanier Library
Grey Nuns Reading Room
Book a group study room/scanner
Study spaces
Floor plans
Room booking for academic events
Exhibitions
Librarians & staff
University Librarian
Memberships & collaborations
Indigenous Student Librarian program
Wikipedian in residence
Researcher-in-Residence
Feedback & improvement
Annual reports & fast facts
Annual Plan
Library Services Fund
Giving to the Library
Webster Transformation blog
Policies & Code of Conduct

The Campaign for Concordia

Library Research Skills Tutorial

Log into...

My Library account (Sofia)
Interlibrary loans
Article/chapter scan
Course reserves

Quick links

How to write a literature review

What is a literature review.

The literature review is a written overview of major writings and other sources on a selected topic. Sources covered in the review may include scholarly journal articles, books, government reports, Web sites, etc. The literature review provides a description, summary and evaluation of each source. It is usually presented as a distinct section of a graduate thesis or dissertation.

Purpose of the literature review

The purpose of the literature review is to provide a critical written account of the current state of research on a selected topic:

Identifies areas of prior scholarship
Places each source in the context of its contribution to the understanding of the specific issue, area of research, or theory under review.
Describes the relationship of each source to the others that you have selected
Identifies new ways to interpret, and shed light on any gaps in, previous research
Points the way forward for further research.

Components of the literature review

The literature review should include the following:

Objective of the literature review
Overview of the subject under consideration.
particular position, those opposed, and those offering completely different arguments.
Discussion of both the distinctiveness of each source and its similarities with the others.

Steps in the literature review process

Preparation of a literature review may be divided into four steps:

Define your subject and the scope of the review.
Search the library catalogue, subject specific databases and other search tools to find sources that are relevant to your topic.
Read and evaluate the sources and to determine their suitability to the understanding of topic at hand (see the Evaluating sources section).
Analyse, interpret and discuss the findings and conclusions of the sources you selected.

Evaluating sources

In assessing each source, consideration should be given to:

What is the author's expertise in this particular field of study (credentials)?
Are the author's arguments supported by empirical evidence (e.g. quantitative/qualitative studies)?
Is the author's perspective too biased in one direction or are opposing studies and viewpoints also considered?
Does the selected source contribute to a more profound understanding of the subject?

Examples of a published literature review

Literature reviews are often published as scholarly articles, books, and reports. Here is an example of a recent literature review published as a scholarly journal article:

Ledesma, M. C., & Calderón, D. (2015). Critical race theory in education: A review of past literature and a look to the future. Qualitative Inquiry, 21(3), 206-222. Link to the article

Additional sources on writing literature reviews

Further information on the literature review process may be found below:

Booth, A., Papaioannou, D., & Sutton, A. (2012). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review
Fink, A. (2010). Conducting research literature reviews: From the Internet to paper
Galvin, J. (2006). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences
Machi, L. A., & McEvoy, B. T. (2012). The literature review: Six steps to success

Adapted with permission and thanks from How to Write a Literature Review originally created by Kenneth Lyons, McHenry Library, University of California, Santa Cruz.

Literature Review Example/Sample

Detailed Walkthrough + Free Literature Review Template

If you’re working on a dissertation or thesis and are looking for an example of a strong literature review chapter , you’ve come to the right place.

In this video, we walk you through an A-grade literature review from a dissertation that earned full distinction . We start off by discussing the five core sections of a literature review chapter by unpacking our free literature review template . This includes:

The literature review opening/ introduction section
The theoretical framework (or foundation of theory)
The empirical research
The research gap
The closing section

We then progress to the sample literature review (from an A-grade Master’s-level dissertation) to show how these concepts are applied in the literature review chapter. You can access the free resources mentioned in this video below.

PS – If you’re working on a dissertation, be sure to also check out our collection of dissertation and thesis examples here .

FAQ: Literature Review Example

Literature review example: frequently asked questions, is the sample literature review real.

Yes. The literature review example is an extract from a Master’s-level dissertation for an MBA program. It has not been edited in any way.

Can I replicate this literature review for my dissertation?

As we discuss in the video, every literature review will be slightly different, depending on the university’s unique requirements, as well as the nature of the research itself. Therefore, you’ll need to tailor your literature review to suit your specific context.

You can learn more about the basics of writing a literature review here .

Where can I find more examples of literature reviews?

The best place to find more examples of literature review chapters would be within dissertation/thesis databases. These databases include dissertations, theses and research projects that have successfully passed the assessment criteria for the respective university, meaning that you have at least some sort of quality assurance.

The Open Access Thesis Database (OATD) is a good starting point.

How do I get the literature review template?

You can access our free literature review chapter template here .

Is the template really free?

Yes. There is no cost for the template and you are free to use it as you wish.

Psst… there’s more!

This post is an extract from our bestselling short course, Literature Review Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .

You Might Also Like:

Example of two research proposals (Masters and PhD-level)

What will it take for you to guide me in my Ph.D research work?

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Print Friendly

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays). When we say “literature review” or refer to “the literature,” we are talking about the research ( scholarship ) in a given field. You will often see the terms “the research,” “the scholarship,” and “the literature” used mostly interchangeably.

Where, when, and why would I write a lit review?

There are a number of different situations where you might write a literature review, each with slightly different expectations; different disciplines, too, have field-specific expectations for what a literature review is and does. For instance, in the humanities, authors might include more overt argumentation and interpretation of source material in their literature reviews, whereas in the sciences, authors are more likely to report study designs and results in their literature reviews; these differences reflect these disciplines’ purposes and conventions in scholarship. You should always look at examples from your own discipline and talk to professors or mentors in your field to be sure you understand your discipline’s conventions, for literature reviews as well as for any other genre.

A literature review can be a part of a research paper or scholarly article, usually falling after the introduction and before the research methods sections. In these cases, the lit review just needs to cover scholarship that is important to the issue you are writing about; sometimes it will also cover key sources that informed your research methodology.

Lit reviews can also be standalone pieces, either as assignments in a class or as publications. In a class, a lit review may be assigned to help students familiarize themselves with a topic and with scholarship in their field, get an idea of the other researchers working on the topic they’re interested in, find gaps in existing research in order to propose new projects, and/or develop a theoretical framework and methodology for later research. As a publication, a lit review usually is meant to help make other scholars’ lives easier by collecting and summarizing, synthesizing, and analyzing existing research on a topic. This can be especially helpful for students or scholars getting into a new research area, or for directing an entire community of scholars toward questions that have not yet been answered.

What are the parts of a lit review?

Most lit reviews use a basic introduction-body-conclusion structure; if your lit review is part of a larger paper, the introduction and conclusion pieces may be just a few sentences while you focus most of your attention on the body. If your lit review is a standalone piece, the introduction and conclusion take up more space and give you a place to discuss your goals, research methods, and conclusions separately from where you discuss the literature itself.

Introduction:

An introductory paragraph that explains what your working topic and thesis is
A forecast of key topics or texts that will appear in the review
Potentially, a description of how you found sources and how you analyzed them for inclusion and discussion in the review (more often found in published, standalone literature reviews than in lit review sections in an article or research paper)
Summarize and synthesize: Give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
Analyze and interpret: Don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
Critically Evaluate: Mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
Write in well-structured paragraphs: Use transition words and topic sentence to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.

Conclusion:

Summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance
Connect it back to your primary research question

How should I organize my lit review?

Lit reviews can take many different organizational patterns depending on what you are trying to accomplish with the review. Here are some examples:

Chronological : The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time, which helps familiarize the audience with the topic (for instance if you are introducing something that is not commonly known in your field). If you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order. Try to analyze the patterns, turning points, and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred (as mentioned previously, this may not be appropriate in your discipline — check with a teacher or mentor if you’re unsure).
Thematic : If you have found some recurring central themes that you will continue working with throughout your piece, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic. For example, if you are reviewing literature about women and religion, key themes can include the role of women in churches and the religious attitude towards women.
Qualitative versus quantitative research
Empirical versus theoretical scholarship
Divide the research by sociological, historical, or cultural sources
Theoretical : In many humanities articles, the literature review is the foundation for the theoretical framework. You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts. You can argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach or combine various theorical concepts to create a framework for your research.

What are some strategies or tips I can use while writing my lit review?

Any lit review is only as good as the research it discusses; make sure your sources are well-chosen and your research is thorough. Don’t be afraid to do more research if you discover a new thread as you’re writing. More info on the research process is available in our "Conducting Research" resources .

As you’re doing your research, create an annotated bibliography ( see our page on the this type of document ). Much of the information used in an annotated bibliography can be used also in a literature review, so you’ll be not only partially drafting your lit review as you research, but also developing your sense of the larger conversation going on among scholars, professionals, and any other stakeholders in your topic.

Usually you will need to synthesize research rather than just summarizing it. This means drawing connections between sources to create a picture of the scholarly conversation on a topic over time. Many student writers struggle to synthesize because they feel they don’t have anything to add to the scholars they are citing; here are some strategies to help you:

It often helps to remember that the point of these kinds of syntheses is to show your readers how you understand your research, to help them read the rest of your paper.
Writing teachers often say synthesis is like hosting a dinner party: imagine all your sources are together in a room, discussing your topic. What are they saying to each other?
Look at the in-text citations in each paragraph. Are you citing just one source for each paragraph? This usually indicates summary only. When you have multiple sources cited in a paragraph, you are more likely to be synthesizing them (not always, but often
Read more about synthesis here.

The most interesting literature reviews are often written as arguments (again, as mentioned at the beginning of the page, this is discipline-specific and doesn’t work for all situations). Often, the literature review is where you can establish your research as filling a particular gap or as relevant in a particular way. You have some chance to do this in your introduction in an article, but the literature review section gives a more extended opportunity to establish the conversation in the way you would like your readers to see it. You can choose the intellectual lineage you would like to be part of and whose definitions matter most to your thinking (mostly humanities-specific, but this goes for sciences as well). In addressing these points, you argue for your place in the conversation, which tends to make the lit review more compelling than a simple reporting of other sources.

How to Write a Literature Review

What Is a Literature Review
What Is the Literature

Writing the Review

Why Are You Writing This?

There are two primary points to remember as you are writing your literature review:

Stand-alone review: provide an overview and analysis of the current state of research on a topic or question
Research proposal: explicate the current issues and questions concerning a topic to demonstrate how your proposed research will contribute to the field
Research report: provide the context to which your work is a contribution.
Write as you read, and revise as you read more. Rather than wait until you have read everything you are planning to review, start writing as soon as you start reading. You will need to reorganize and revise it all later, but writing a summary of an article when you read it helps you to think more carefully about the article. Having drafts and annotations to work with will also make writing the full review easier since you will not have to rely completely on your memory or have to keep thumbing back through all the articles. Your draft does not need to be in finished, or even presentable, form. The first draft is for you, so you can tell yourself what you are thinking. Later you can rewrite it for others to tell them what you think.

General Steps for Writing a Literature Review

Here is a general outline of steps to write a thematically organized literature review. Remember, though, that there are many ways to approach a literature review, depending on its purpose.

Stage one: annotated bibliography. As you read articles, books, etc, on your topic, write a brief critical synopsis of each. After going through your reading list, you will have an abstract or annotation of each source you read. Later annotations are likely to include more references to other works since you will have your previous readings to compare, but at this point the important goal is to get accurate critical summaries of each individual work.
Stage two: thematic organization. Find common themes in the works you read, and organize the works into categories. Typically, each work you include in your review can fit into one category or sub-theme of your main theme, but sometimes a work can fit in more than one. (If each work you read can fit into all the categories you list, you probably need to rethink your organization.) Write some brief paragraphs outlining your categories, how in general the works in each category relate to each other, and how the categories relate to each other and to your overall theme.
Stage three: more reading. Based on the knowledge you have gained in your reading, you should have a better understanding of the topic and of the literature related to it. Perhaps you have discovered specific researchers who are important to the field, or research methodologies you were not aware of. Look for more literature by those authors, on those methodologies, etc. Also, you may be able to set aside some less relevant areas or articles which you pursued initially. Integrate the new readings into your literature review draft. Reorganize themes and read more as appropriate.
Stage four: write individual sections. For each thematic section, use your draft annotations (it is a good idea to reread the articles and revise annotations, especially the ones you read initially) to write a section which discusses the articles relevant to that theme. Focus your writing on the theme of that section, showing how the articles relate to each other and to the theme, rather than focusing your writing on each individual article. Use the articles as evidence to support your critique of the theme rather than using the theme as an angle to discuss each article individually.
Stage five: integrate sections. Now that you have the thematic sections, tie them together with an introduction, conclusion, and some additions and revisions in the sections to show how they relate to each other and to your overall theme.

Specific Points to Include

More specifically, here are some points to address when writing about specific works you are reviewing. In dealing with a paper or an argument or theory, you need to assess it (clearly understand and state the claim) and analyze it (evaluate its reliability, usefulness, validity). Look for the following points as you assess and analyze papers, arguments, etc. You do not need to state them all explicitly, but keep them in mind as you write your review:

Be specific and be succinct. Briefly state specific findings listed in an article, specific methodologies used in a study, or other important points. Literature reviews are not the place for long quotes or in-depth analysis of each point.
Be selective. You are trying to boil down a lot of information into a small space. Mention just the most important points (i.e. those most relevant to the review's focus) in each work you review.
Is it a current article? How old is it? Have its claims, evidence, or arguments been superceded by more recent work? If it is not current, is it important for historical background?
What specific claims are made? Are they stated clearly?
What evidence, and what type (experimental, statistical, anecdotal, etc) is offered? Is the evidence relevant? sufficient?
What arguments are given? What assumptions are made, and are they warranted?
What is the source of the evidence or other information? The author's own experiments, surveys, etc? Historical records? Government documents? How reliable are the sources?
Does the author take into account contrary or conflicting evidence and arguments? How does the author address disagreements with other researchers?
What specific conclusions are drawn? Are they warranted by the evidence?
How does this article, argument, theory, etc, relate to other work?

These, however, are just the points that should be addressed when writing about a specific work. It is not an outline of how to organize your writing. Your overall theme and categories within that theme should organize your writing, and the above points should be integrated into that organization. That is, rather than write something like:

Smith (2019) claims that blah, and provides evidence x to support it, and says it is probably because of blip. But Smith seems to have neglected factor b. Jones (2021) showed that blah by doing y, which, Jones claims, means it is likely because of blot. But that methodology does not exclude other possibilities. Johnson (2022) hypothesizes blah might be because of some other cause.

list the themes and then say how each article relates to that theme. For example:

Researchers agree that blah (Smith 2019, Jones 2021, Johnson 2022), but they do not agree on why. Smith claims it is probably due to blip, but Jones, by doing y, tries to show it is likely because of blot. Jones' methodology, however, does not exclude other possibilities. Johnson hypothesizes ...

<< Previous: What Is the Literature
Last Updated: Jan 11, 2024 9:48 AM
URL: https://libguides.wesleyan.edu/litreview

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

Collections
Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

Biomedical Databases
Global (Public Health) Databases
Soc. Sci., History, and Law Databases
Grey Literature
Trials Registers
Data and Statistics
Public Policy
Google Tips
Recommended Books
Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

What is a literature review?

A literature review is an integrated analysis -- not just a summary-- of scholarly writings and other relevant evidence related directly to your research question. That is, it represents a synthesis of the evidence that provides background information on your topic and shows a association between the evidence and your research question.

A literature review may be a stand alone work or the introduction to a larger research paper, depending on the assignment. Rely heavily on the guidelines your instructor has given you.

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

Explains the background of research on a topic.
Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area.
Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
Identifies critical gaps and points of disagreement.
Discusses further research questions that logically come out of the previous studies.

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

Your literature review should be guided by your central research question. The literature represents background and research developments related to a specific research question, interpreted and analyzed by you in a synthesized way.

Make sure your research question is not too broad or too narrow. Is it manageable?
Begin writing down terms that are related to your question. These will be useful for searches later.
If you have the opportunity, discuss your topic with your professor and your class mates.

2. Decide on the scope of your review

How many studies do you need to look at? How comprehensive should it be? How many years should it cover?

This may depend on your assignment. How many sources does the assignment require?

3. Select the databases you will use to conduct your searches.

Make a list of the databases you will search.

Where to find databases:

use the tabs on this guide
Find other databases in the Nursing Information Resources web page
More on the Medical Library web page
... and more on the Yale University Library web page

4. Conduct your searches to find the evidence. Keep track of your searches.

Use the key words in your question, as well as synonyms for those words, as terms in your search. Use the database tutorials for help.
Save the searches in the databases. This saves time when you want to redo, or modify, the searches. It is also helpful to use as a guide is the searches are not finding any useful results.
Review the abstracts of research studies carefully. This will save you time.
Use the bibliographies and references of research studies you find to locate others.
Check with your professor, or a subject expert in the field, if you are missing any key works in the field.
Ask your librarian for help at any time.
Use a citation manager, such as EndNote as the repository for your citations. See the EndNote tutorials for help.

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

What was the research question of the study you are reviewing? What were the authors trying to discover?
Was the research funded by a source that could influence the findings?
What were the research methodologies? Analyze its literature review, the samples and variables used, the results, and the conclusions.
Does the research seem to be complete? Could it have been conducted more soundly? What further questions does it raise?
If there are conflicting studies, why do you think that is?
How are the authors viewed in the field? Has this study been cited? If so, how has it been analyzed?

Tips:

Review the abstracts carefully.
Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
Create a matrix of the studies for easy analysis, and synthesis, across all of the studies.
<< Previous: Recommended Books
Last Updated: Jan 4, 2024 10:52 AM
URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

Engineering: The Literature Review Process

How to Use This Guide

What is a literature review and why is it important?

Conduct a literature review

What is a literature review.

A literature review is a summary of the published work in a field of study. This can be a section of a larger paper or article, or can be the focus of an entire paper. Literature reviews show that you have examined the breadth of knowledge and can justify your thesis or research questions. They are also valuable tools for other researchers who need to find a summary of that field of knowledge.

Unlike an annotated bibliography, which is a list of sources with short descriptions, a literature review synthesizes sources into a summary that has a thesis or statement of purpose—stated or implied—at its core.

How do I write a literature review?

Step 1: define your research scope.

What is the specific research question that your literature review helps to define?
Are there a maximum or minimum number of sources that your review should include?

Ask us if you have questions about refining your topic, search methods, writing tips, or citation management.

Step 2: Identify the literature

Start by searching broadly. Literature for your review will typically be acquired through scholarly books, journal articles, and/or dissertations. Develop an understanding of what is out there, what terms are accurate and helpful, etc., and keep track of all of it with citation management tools . If you need help figuring out key terms and where to search, ask us .

Use citation searching to track how scholars interact with, and build upon, previous research:

Mine the references cited section of each relevant source for additional key sources
Use Google Scholar or Scopus to find other sources that have cited a particular work

Step 3: Critically analyze the literature

Key to your literature review is a critical analysis of the literature collected around your topic. The analysis will explore relationships, major themes, and any critical gaps in the research expressed in the work. Read and summarize each source with an eye toward analyzing authority, currency, coverage, methodology, and relationship to other works. The University of Toronto's Writing Center provides a comprehensive list of questions you can use to analyze your sources.

Step 4: Categorize your resources

Divide the available resources that pertain to your research into categories reflecting their roles in addressing your research question. Possible ways to categorize resources include organization by:

methodology
theoretical/philosophical approach

Regardless of the division, each category should be accompanied by thorough discussions and explanations of strengths and weaknesses, value to the overall survey, and comparisons with similar sources. You may have enough resources when:

You've used multiple databases and other resources (web portals, repositories, etc.) to get a variety of perspectives on the research topic.
The same citations are showing up in a variety of databases.

Additional resources

Undergraduate student resources.

Literature Review Handout (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)
Learn how to write a review of literature (University of Wisconsin-Madison)

Graduate student and faculty resources

Information Research Strategies (University of Arizona)
Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students (NC State University)
Oliver, P. (2012). Succeeding with Your Literature Review: A Handbook for Students [ebook]
Machi, L. A. & McEvoy, B. T. (2016). The Literature Review: Six Steps to Success [ebook]
Graustein, J. S. (2012). How to Write an Exceptional Thesis or Dissertation: A Step-by-Step Guide from Proposal to Successful Defense [ebook]
Thomas, R. M. & Brubaker, D. L. (2008). Theses and Dissertations: A Guide to Planning, Research, and Writing

15 Literature Review Examples

literature review examples, types, and definition, explained below

Literature reviews are a necessary step in a research process and often required when writing your research proposal . They involve gathering, analyzing, and evaluating existing knowledge about a topic in order to find gaps in the literature where future studies will be needed.

Ideally, once you have completed your literature review, you will be able to identify how your research project can build upon and extend existing knowledge in your area of study.

Generally, for my undergraduate research students, I recommend a narrative review, where themes can be generated in order for the students to develop sufficient understanding of the topic so they can build upon the themes using unique methods or novel research questions.

If you’re in the process of writing a literature review, I have developed a literature review template for you to use – it’s a huge time-saver and walks you through how to write a literature review step-by-step:

Get your time-saving templates here to write your own literature review.

Literature Review Examples

For the following types of literature review, I present an explanation and overview of the type, followed by links to some real-life literature reviews on the topics.

1. Narrative Review Examples

Also known as a traditional literature review, the narrative review provides a broad overview of the studies done on a particular topic.

It often includes both qualitative and quantitative studies and may cover a wide range of years.

The narrative review’s purpose is to identify commonalities, gaps, and contradictions in the literature .

I recommend to my students that they should gather their studies together, take notes on each study, then try to group them by themes that form the basis for the review (see my step-by-step instructions at the end of the article).

Example Study

Title: Communication in healthcare: a narrative review of the literature and practical recommendations

Citation: Vermeir, P., Vandijck, D., Degroote, S., Peleman, R., Verhaeghe, R., Mortier, E., … & Vogelaers, D. (2015). Communication in healthcare: a narrative review of the literature and practical recommendations. International journal of clinical practice , 69 (11), 1257-1267.

Source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/ijcp.12686

Overview: This narrative review analyzed themes emerging from 69 articles about communication in healthcare contexts. Five key themes were found in the literature: poor communication can lead to various negative outcomes, discontinuity of care, compromise of patient safety, patient dissatisfaction, and inefficient use of resources. After presenting the key themes, the authors recommend that practitioners need to approach healthcare communication in a more structured way, such as by ensuring there is a clear understanding of who is in charge of ensuring effective communication in clinical settings.

Other Examples

Burnout in United States Healthcare Professionals: A Narrative Review (Reith, 2018) – read here
Examining the Presence, Consequences, and Reduction of Implicit Bias in Health Care: A Narrative Review (Zestcott, Blair & Stone, 2016) – read here
A Narrative Review of School-Based Physical Activity for Enhancing Cognition and Learning (Mavilidi et al., 2018) – read here
A narrative review on burnout experienced by medical students and residents (Dyrbye & Shanafelt, 2015) – read here

2. Systematic Review Examples

This type of literature review is more structured and rigorous than a narrative review. It involves a detailed and comprehensive plan and search strategy derived from a set of specified research questions.

The key way you’d know a systematic review compared to a narrative review is in the methodology: the systematic review will likely have a very clear criteria for how the studies were collected, and clear explanations of exclusion/inclusion criteria.

The goal is to gather the maximum amount of valid literature on the topic, filter out invalid or low-quality reviews, and minimize bias. Ideally, this will provide more reliable findings, leading to higher-quality conclusions and recommendations for further research.

You may note from the examples below that the ‘method’ sections in systematic reviews tend to be much more explicit, often noting rigid inclusion/exclusion criteria and exact keywords used in searches.

Title: The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review

Citation: Roman, S., Sánchez-Siles, L. M., & Siegrist, M. (2017). The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review. Trends in food science & technology , 67 , 44-57.

Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092422441730122X

Overview: This systematic review included 72 studies of food naturalness to explore trends in the literature about its importance for consumers. Keywords used in the data search included: food, naturalness, natural content, and natural ingredients. Studies were included if they examined consumers’ preference for food naturalness and contained empirical data. The authors found that the literature lacks clarity about how naturalness is defined and measured, but also found that food consumption is significantly influenced by perceived naturalness of goods.

A systematic review of research on online teaching and learning from 2009 to 2018 (Martin, Sun & Westine, 2020) – read here
Where Is Current Research on Blockchain Technology? (Yli-Huumo et al., 2016) – read here
Universities—industry collaboration: A systematic review (Ankrah & Al-Tabbaa, 2015) – read here
Internet of Things Applications: A Systematic Review (Asghari, Rahmani & Javadi, 2019) – read here

3. Meta-analysis

This is a type of systematic review that uses statistical methods to combine and summarize the results of several studies.

Due to its robust methodology, a meta-analysis is often considered the ‘gold standard’ of secondary research , as it provides a more precise estimate of a treatment effect than any individual study contributing to the pooled analysis.

Furthermore, by aggregating data from a range of studies, a meta-analysis can identify patterns, disagreements, or other interesting relationships that may have been hidden in individual studies.

This helps to enhance the generalizability of findings, making the conclusions drawn from a meta-analysis particularly powerful and informative for policy and practice.

Title: Cholesterol and Alzheimer’s Disease Risk: A Meta-Meta-Analysis

Citation: Sáiz-Vazquez, O., Puente-Martínez, A., Ubillos-Landa, S., Pacheco-Bonrostro, J., & Santabárbara, J. (2020). Cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease risk: a meta-meta-analysis. Brain sciences, 10(6), 386.

Source: https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10060386

O verview: This study examines the relationship between cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Researchers conducted a systematic search of meta-analyses and reviewed several databases, collecting 100 primary studies and five meta-analyses to analyze the connection between cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease. They find that the literature compellingly demonstrates that low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels significantly influence the development of Alzheimer’s disease.

The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research (Wisniewski, Zierer & Hattie, 2020) – read here
How Much Does Education Improve Intelligence? A Meta-Analysis (Ritchie & Tucker-Drob, 2018) – read here
A meta-analysis of factors related to recycling (Geiger et al., 2019) – read here
Stress management interventions for police officers and recruits (Patterson, Chung & Swan, 2014) – read here

Other Types of Reviews

Scoping Review: This type of review is used to map the key concepts underpinning a research area and the main sources and types of evidence available. It can be undertaken as stand-alone projects in their own right, or as a precursor to a systematic review.
Rapid Review: This type of review accelerates the systematic review process in order to produce information in a timely manner. This is achieved by simplifying or omitting stages of the systematic review process.
Integrative Review: This review method is more inclusive than others, allowing for the simultaneous inclusion of experimental and non-experimental research. The goal is to more comprehensively understand a particular phenomenon.
Critical Review: This is similar to a narrative review but requires a robust understanding of both the subject and the existing literature. In a critical review, the reviewer not only summarizes the existing literature, but also evaluates its strengths and weaknesses. This is common in the social sciences and humanities .
State-of-the-Art Review: This considers the current level of advancement in a field or topic and makes recommendations for future research directions. This type of review is common in technological and scientific fields but can be applied to any discipline.

How to Write a Narrative Review (Tips for Undergrad Students)

Most undergraduate students conducting a capstone research project will be writing narrative reviews. Below is a five-step process for conducting a simple review of the literature for your project.

Search for Relevant Literature: Use scholarly databases related to your field of study, provided by your university library, along with appropriate search terms to identify key scholarly articles that have been published on your topic.
Evaluate and Select Sources: Filter the source list by selecting studies that are directly relevant and of sufficient quality, considering factors like credibility , objectivity, accuracy, and validity.
Analyze and Synthesize: Review each source and summarize the main arguments in one paragraph (or more, for postgrad). Keep these summaries in a table.
Identify Themes: With all studies summarized, group studies that share common themes, such as studies that have similar findings or methodologies.
Write the Review: Write your review based upon the themes or subtopics you have identified. Give a thorough overview of each theme, integrating source data, and conclude with a summary of the current state of knowledge then suggestions for future research based upon your evaluation of what is lacking in the literature.

Literature reviews don’t have to be as scary as they seem. Yes, they are difficult and require a strong degree of comprehension of academic studies. But it can be feasibly done through following a structured approach to data collection and analysis. With my undergraduate research students (who tend to conduct small-scale qualitative studies ), I encourage them to conduct a narrative literature review whereby they can identify key themes in the literature. Within each theme, students can critique key studies and their strengths and limitations , in order to get a lay of the land and come to a point where they can identify ways to contribute new insights to the existing academic conversation on their topic.

Ankrah, S., & Omar, A. T. (2015). Universities–industry collaboration: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(3), 387-408.

Asghari, P., Rahmani, A. M., & Javadi, H. H. S. (2019). Internet of Things applications: A systematic review. Computer Networks , 148 , 241-261.

Dyrbye, L., & Shanafelt, T. (2016). A narrative review on burnout experienced by medical students and residents. Medical education , 50 (1), 132-149.

Geiger, J. L., Steg, L., Van Der Werff, E., & Ünal, A. B. (2019). A meta-analysis of factors related to recycling. Journal of environmental psychology , 64 , 78-97.

Martin, F., Sun, T., & Westine, C. D. (2020). A systematic review of research on online teaching and learning from 2009 to 2018. Computers & education , 159 , 104009.

Mavilidi, M. F., Ruiter, M., Schmidt, M., Okely, A. D., Loyens, S., Chandler, P., & Paas, F. (2018). A narrative review of school-based physical activity for enhancing cognition and learning: The importance of relevancy and integration. Frontiers in psychology , 2079.

Patterson, G. T., Chung, I. W., & Swan, P. W. (2014). Stress management interventions for police officers and recruits: A meta-analysis. Journal of experimental criminology , 10 , 487-513.

Reith, T. P. (2018). Burnout in United States healthcare professionals: a narrative review. Cureus , 10 (12).

Ritchie, S. J., & Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2018). How much does education improve intelligence? A meta-analysis. Psychological science , 29 (8), 1358-1369.

Roman, S., Sánchez-Siles, L. M., & Siegrist, M. (2017). The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review. Trends in food science & technology , 67 , 44-57.

Sáiz-Vazquez, O., Puente-Martínez, A., Ubillos-Landa, S., Pacheco-Bonrostro, J., & Santabárbara, J. (2020). Cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease risk: a meta-meta-analysis. Brain sciences, 10(6), 386.

Vermeir, P., Vandijck, D., Degroote, S., Peleman, R., Verhaeghe, R., Mortier, E., … & Vogelaers, D. (2015). Communication in healthcare: a narrative review of the literature and practical recommendations. International journal of clinical practice , 69 (11), 1257-1267.

Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K., & Hattie, J. (2020). The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research. Frontiers in Psychology , 10 , 3087.

Yli-Huumo, J., Ko, D., Choi, S., Park, S., & Smolander, K. (2016). Where is current research on blockchain technology?—a systematic review. PloS one , 11 (10), e0163477.

Zestcott, C. A., Blair, I. V., & Stone, J. (2016). Examining the presence, consequences, and reduction of implicit bias in health care: a narrative review. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations , 19 (4), 528-542

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 15 Self-Actualization Examples (Maslow's Hierarchy)
Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ Forest Schools Philosophy & Curriculum, Explained!
Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ Montessori's 4 Planes of Development, Explained!
Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ Montessori vs Reggio Emilia vs Steiner-Waldorf vs Froebel

How to Write a Literature Review

As every student knows, writing informative essay and research papers is an integral part of the educational program. You create a thesis, support it using valid sources, and formulate systematic ideas surrounding it. However, not all students know that they will also have to face another type of paper known as a Literature Review in college. Let's take a closer look at this with our custom essay writer .

Literature Review Definition

As this is a less common academic writing type, students often ask: "What is a literature review?" According to the definition, a literature review is a body of work that explores various publications within a specific subject area and sometimes within a set timeframe.

This type of writing requires you to read and analyze various sources that relate to the main subject and present each unique comprehension of the publications. Lastly, a literature review should combine a summary with a synthesis of the documents used. A summary is a brief overview of the important information in the publication; a synthesis is a re-organization of the information that gives the writing a new and unique meaning.

Typically, a literature review is a part of a larger paper, such as a thesis or dissertation. However, you may also be given it as a stand-alone assignment.

The Purpose

The main purpose of a literature review is to summarize and synthesize the ideas created by previous authors without implementing personal opinions or other additional information.

However, a literature review objective is not just to list summaries of sources; rather, it is to notice a central trend or principle in all of the publications. Just like a research paper has a thesis that guides it on rails, a literature review has the main organizing principle (MOP). The goal of this type of academic writing is to identify the MOP and show how it exists in all of your supporting documents.

Why is a literature review important? The value of such work is explained by the following goals it pursues:

Highlights the significance of the main topic within a specific subject area.
Demonstrates and explains the background of research for a particular subject matter.
Helps to find out the key themes, principles, concepts, and researchers that exist within a topic.
Helps to reveal relationships between existing ideas/studies on a topic.
Reveals the main points of controversy and gaps within a topic.
Suggests questions to drive primary research based on previous studies.

Here are some example topics for writing literature reviews:

Exploring racism in "To Kill a Mockingbird," "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn," and "Uncle Tom's Cabin."
Isolationism in "The Catcher in the Rye," "Frankenstein," and "1984"
Understanding Moral Dilemmas in "Crime and Punishment," "The Scarlet Letter," and "The Lifeboat"
Corruption of Power in "Macbeth," "All the King's Men," and "Animal Farm"
Emotional and Physical survival in "Lord of the Flies," "Hatchet," and "Congo."

How Long Is a Literature Review?

When facing the need to write a literature review, students tend to wonder, "how long should a literature review be?" In some cases, the length of your paper's body may be determined by your instructor. Be sure to read the guidelines carefully to learn what is expected from you.

Keeping your literature review around 15-30% of your entire paper is recommended if you haven't been provided with specific guidelines. To give you a rough idea, that is about 2-3 pages for a 15-page paper. In case you are writing a literature review as a stand-alone assignment, its length should be specified in the instructions provided.

Literature Review Format: APA, MLA, and Chicago

The essay format you use should adhere to the citation style preferred by your instructor. Seek clarification from your instructor for several other components as well to establish a desired literature review format:

How many sources should you review, and what kind of sources should they be (published materials, journal articles, or websites)?
What format should you use to cite the sources?
How long should the review be?
Should your review consist of a summary, synthesis, or a personal critique?
Should your review include subheadings or background information for your sources?

If you want to format your paper in APA style, then follow these rules:

Use 1-inch page margins.
Unless provided with other instructions, use double-spacing throughout the whole text.
Make sure you choose a readable font. The preferred font for APA papers is Times New Roman set to 12-point size.
Include a header at the top of every page (in capital letters). The page header must be a shortened version of your essay title and limited to 50 characters, including spacing and punctuation.
Put page numbers in the upper right corner of every page.
When shaping your literature review outline in APA, don't forget to include a title page. This page should include the paper's name, the author's name, and the institutional affiliation. Your title must be typed with upper and lowercase letters and centered in the upper part of the page; use no more than 12 words, and avoid using abbreviations and useless words.

For MLA style text, apply the following guidelines:

Double your spacing across the entire paper.
Set ½-inch indents for each new paragraph.
The preferred font for MLA papers is Times New Roman set to 12-point size.
Include a header at the top of your paper's first page or on the title page (note that MLA style does not require you to have a title page, but you are allowed to decide to include one). A header in this format should include your full name; the name of your instructor; the name of the class, course, or section number; and the due date of the assignment.
Include a running head in the top right corner of each page in your paper. Place it one inch from the page's right margin and half an inch from the top margin. Only include your last name and the page number separated by a space in the running head. Do not put the abbreviation p. before page numbers.

Finally, if you are required to write a literature review in Chicago style, here are the key rules to follow:

Set page margins to no less than 1 inch.
Use double spacing across the entire text, except when it comes to table titles, figure captions, notes, blockquotes, and entries within the bibliography or References.
Do not put spaces between paragraphs.
Make sure you choose a clear and easily-readable font. The preferred fonts for Chicago papers are Times New Roman and Courier, set to no less than 10-point size, but preferably to 12-point size.
A cover (title) page should include your full name, class information, and the date. Center the cover page and place it one-third below the top of the page.
Place page numbers in the upper right corner of each page, including the cover page.

Read also about harvard format - popular style used in papers.

Structure of a Literature Review

How to structure a literature review: Like many other types of academic writing, a literature review follows a typical intro-body-conclusion style with 5 paragraphs overall. Now, let’s look at each component of the basic literature review structure in detail:

Introduction

You should direct your reader(s) towards the MOP (main organizing principle). This means that your information must start from a broad perspective and gradually narrow down until it reaches your focal point.

Start by presenting your general concept (Corruption, for example). After the initial presentation, narrow your introduction's focus towards the MOP by mentioning the criteria you used to select the literature sources you have chosen (Macbeth, All the King's Men, and Animal Farm). Finally, the introduction will end with the presentation of your MOP that should directly link it to all three literature sources.

Body Paragraphs

Generally, each body paragraph will focus on a specific source of literature laid out in the essay's introduction. As each source has its own frame of reference for the MOP, it is crucial to structure the review in the most logically consistent way possible. This means the writing should be structured chronologically, thematically or methodologically.

Chronologically

Breaking down your sources based on their publication date is a solid way to keep a correct historical timeline. If applied properly, it can present the development of a certain concept over time and provide examples in the form of literature. However, sometimes there are better alternatives we can use to structure the body.

Thematically

Instead of taking the "timeline approach," another option can be looking at the link between your MOP and your sources. Sometimes, the main idea will just glare from a piece of literature. Other times, the author may have to seek examples to prove their point. An experienced writer will usually present their sources by order of strength. For example, in "To Kill A Mockingbird," the entire novel was centralized around racism; in "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn," racism was one of many themes.

Methodologically

As made obvious by the terminology, this type of structuring focuses on the methods used to present the central concept. For example, in "1984", George Orwell uses the law-and-order approach and shows the dangers of a dystopia for a social species.

In "Frankenstein," Mary Shelley exposes the character's physical traits as repulsive and horrifying, forcing him to suffer in an isolated environment. By showcasing the various methods used to portray the MOP, the writer can compare them based on things like severity, ethicality, and overall impact.

After presenting your key findings in the body paragraphs, there are 3 final objectives to complete in the essay's conclusion. First, the author should summarize the findings they have made or found, in other words, and briefly answer the question: "What have you learned?"

After discussing that information, the next step is to present the significance of the information about our current world today. In other words, how can the reader take the information and apply it to today's society? From that point, we finish off with a breadcrumb trail.

As the author, you want to leave the readers' trail of thought within the actual essay topic. This provides them with a means of further investigation—meaning that the reader may consider where the discussion will go next.

Writing an Outline for a Literature Review

Students often underestimate the importance of planning the structure of their papers in advance. However, this is not a wise approach. Having a rough APA literature review outline (or other style outlines) will not only help you follow the right format and structure but will also make the writing process simpler and help ensure that you include all of the important information without missing anything.

How to write a literature review outline: As you already know from the Structure section of this guide, every part of your literature review performs its own important role. Therefore, you should create your outline while keeping the general introduction-body-conclusion structure in mind and ensuring that each section meets its own objectives. However, it is important to remember that a literature review outline is slightly different from outlines of other types of essays because it does not provide new information. Instead, it focuses on existing studies relevant to the main topic. ‍

Here is a literature review outline example on the subject of the Ebola virus to help you get it right:

Introduce the general topic. Provide background information on the Ebola virus: genome, pathogenesis, transmission, epidemiology, treatment, etc.
Shape the main research question: What is the potential role of arthropods (mechanical or biological vectors) in the distribution of the Ebola virus?
Methodology: For example, the information was searched through X databases to find relevant research articles about the Ebola virus and arthropods' role in its spreading. The data was extracted using a standardized form.
Expected outcomes
Overall trends in the literature on this topic: While the natural reservoir of the virus is still not known with certainty, many researchers believe that arthropods (and fruit bats, in particular) pay a significant role in the distribution of the virus.
Subject 1: A brief overview of the particular piece of literature in general terms; an analysis of the key aspects of the study; a review of the research questions, methods, procedures, and outcomes; and an overview of the strong and weak points, gaps, and contradictions.
Subject 2: A brief overview of the particular piece of literature in general terms; an analysis of the key aspects of the study; a review of the research questions, methods, procedures, and outcomes; and an overview of the strong and weak points, gaps, and contradictions.
Subject 3: A brief overview of the particular piece of literature in general terms; an analysis of the key aspects of the study; a review of the research questions, methods, procedures, and outcomes; and an overview of the strong and weak points, gaps, and contradictions.
Indicate the relationships between the pieces of literature discussed. Emphasize key themes, common patterns, and trends. Talk about the pros and cons of the different approaches taken by the authors/researchers.
State which studies seem to be the most influential.
Emphasize the major contradictions and points of disagreement. Define the gaps still to be covered (if any).
If applicable: define how your own study will contribute to further disclosure of the topic.

Hopefully, this sample outline will help you to structure your own paper. However, if you feel like you need some more advice on how to organize your review, don’t hesitate to search for more literature review outline examples in APA or other styles on the Web, or simply ask our writers to get a dissertation help .

Need Help With LITERATURE REVIEW?

Count on our literature review writing service to get it done! We will make your literature essay, we only need your paper requirements to save your precious time and nerves from writing it on your own!

How to Write a Good Literature Review

Whether you are writing a literature review within the framework of a large research project (e.g. thesis, dissertation, or other) or as a stand-alone assignment, the approach you should take to writing generally remains the same.

Whether you are writing a literature review within the framework of a large research project (e.g., thesis, dissertation, or other) or as a stand-alone assignment, the approach you should take to writing generally remains the same.

Now, as you know about the general rules and have a basic literature review outline template, let's define the steps to take to handle this task right with our service:

Step 1: Identifying the Topic

This is probably the only matter you may approach differently depending on whether your literature review comes within a research paper or a separate assignment altogether. If you are creating a literature review as a part of another work, you need to search for literature related to your main research questions and problems. Respectively, if you are writing it as a stand-alone task, you will have to pick a relevant topic and central question upon which you will collect the literature. Earlier in this guide, we suggested some engaging topics to guide your search.

Step 2: Conducting Research

When you have a clearly defined topic, it is time to start collecting literature for your review. We recommend starting by compiling a list of relevant keywords related to your central question—to make the entire research process much simpler and help you find relevant publications faster.

When you have a list of keywords, use them to search for valid and relevant sources. At this point, be sure to use only trusted sources, such as ones from university libraries, online scientific databases, etc.

Once you have found some sources, be sure to define whether or not they are actually relevant to your topic and research question. To save time, you can read abstracts to get general ideas of what the papers are about instead of the whole thing.

Pro Tip: When you finally find a few valid publications, take a look at their bibliographies to discover other relevant sources as well.

Step 3: Assess and Prioritize Sources

Throughout your research, you will likely find plenty of relevant literature to include in your literature review. At this point, students often make the mistake of trying to fit all the collected sources into their reviews. Instead, we suggest looking at what you've collected once more, evaluating the available sources, and selecting the most relevant ones. You most likely won't be able to read everything you find on a given topic and then be able to synthesize all of the sources into a single literature review. That's why prioritizing them is important.

To evaluate which sources are worth including in your review, keep in mind the following criteria:

Credibility;
Innovation;
Key insights;

Furthermore, as you read the sources, don’t forget to take notes on everything you can incorporate into the review later. And be sure to get your citations in place early on. If you cite the selected sources at the initial stage, you will find it easier to create your annotated bibliography later on.

Step 4: Identify Relationships, Key Ideas, and Gaps

Before you can move on to outlining and writing your literature review, the final step is determining the relationships between the studies that already exist. Identifying the relationships will help you organize the existing knowledge, build a solid literature outline, and (if necessary) indicate your own research contribution to a specific field.

Some of the key points to keep an eye out for are:

Main themes;
Contradictions and debates;
Influential studies or theories;
Trends and patterns;

Here are a few examples: Common trends may include a focus on specific groups of people across different studies. Most researchers may have increased interest in certain aspects of the topic regarding key themes. Contradictions may include some disagreement concerning the theories and outcomes of a study. And finally, gaps most often refer to a lack of research on certain aspects of a topic.

Step 5: Make an Outline

Although students tend to neglect this stage, outlining is one of the most important steps in writing every academic paper. This is the easiest way to organize the body of your text and ensure that you haven't missed anything important. Besides, having a rough idea of what you will write about in the paper will help you get it right faster and more easily. Earlier in this guide, we already discussed the basic structure of a literature review and gave you an example of a good outline. At this workflow stage, you can use all of the knowledge you've gained from us to build your own outline.

Step 6: Move on to Writing

Having found and created all of your sources, notes, citations, and a detailed outline, you can finally get to the writing part of the process. At this stage, all you need to do is follow the plan you've created and keep in mind the overall structure and format defined in your professor's instructions.

Step 7: Adding the Final Touches

Most students make a common mistake and skip the final stage of the process, which includes proofreading and editing. We recommend taking enough time for these steps to ensure that your work will be worth the highest score. Do not underestimate the importance of proofreading and editing, and allocate enough time for these steps.

Pro Tip: Before moving on to proofreading and editing, be sure to set your literature review aside for a day or two. This will give you a chance to take your mind off it and then get back to proofreading with a fresh perspective. This tip will ensure that you won't miss out on any gaps or errors that might be present in your text.

These steps will help you create a top-notch literature review with ease! Want to get more advice on how to handle this body of work? Here are the top 3 tips you need to keep in mind when writing a literature review:

1. Good Sources

When working on a literature review, the most important thing any writer should remember is to find the best possible sources for their MOP. This means that you should select and filter through about 5-10 different options while doing initial research.

The stronger a piece of literature showcases the central point, the better the quality of the entire review.

2. Synthesize The Literature

Make sure to structure the review in the most effective way possible, whether it be chronologically, thematically, or methodologically. Understand what exactly you would like to say, and structure the source comparison accordingly.

3. Avoid Generalizations

Remember that each piece of literature will approach the MOP from a different angle. As the author, make sure to present the contrasts in approaches clearly and don't include general statements that offer no value.

Literature Review Examples

You can find two well-written literature reviews by the EssayPro writing team below. They will help you understand what the final product of a literature review should ideally look like.

The first literature review compares monolingual and bilingual language acquisition skills and uses various sources to prove its point:

The second literature review compares the impact of fear and pain on a protagonist’s overall development in various settings:

Both reviews will help you sharpen your skills and provide good guidelines for writing high-quality papers.

Get Help from an Essay Writer

Still aren’t sure whether you can handle literature review writing on your own? No worries because you can pay for essay writing and our service has got you covered! Boost your grades is to place an order in a few quick clicks and we will satisfy your write my paper request.

is an expert in nursing and healthcare, with a strong background in history, law, and literature. Holding advanced degrees in nursing and public health, his analytical approach and comprehensive knowledge help students navigate complex topics. On EssayPro blog, Adam provides insightful articles on everything from historical analysis to the intricacies of healthcare policies. In his downtime, he enjoys historical documentaries and volunteering at local clinics.

UWF Libraries

Electrical Engineering

Literature Review
Types of Sources
Evaluating Sources

What Is A Literature Review?

Steps for conducting a lit review.

IEEE Explore
Other Resources
Open Education Resources
After Graduation

Ask A Librarian

More about the Literature Review...

Did you know the library has an entire guide to help you write a literature review? Click the link below to learn more!

Literature Review: Conducting & Writing by Britt McGowan Last Updated Mar 22, 2024 122273 views this year

Get Writing Help

The UWF Writing Lab can help you with grammar, proofreading, and answer questions about your paper. For a full list of their services, look at the Lab Hours and Resources menue.

A Literature Review Is Not:

just a summary of sources
a grouping of broad, unrelated sources
a compilation of everything that has been written on a particular topic
literature criticism (think English) or a book review

So, what is it then?

A literature review is an integrated analysis-- not just a summary-- of scholarly writings that are related directly to your research question. That is, it represents the literature that provides background information on your topic and shows a correspondence between those writings and your research question.

A literature review may be a stand alone work or the introduction to a larger research paper, depending on the assignment. Rely heavily on the guidelines your instructor has given you.

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

Explains the background of research on a topic.
Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area.
Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
Identifies critical gaps and points of disagreement.
Discusses further research questions that logically come out of the previous studies.

1. Choose your topic, define your question

Your literature review should be guided by a central research question. Remember, it is not a collection of loosely related studies in a field but instead represents background and research developments related to a specific research question, interpreted and analyzed by you.

2. Decide on the scope of your review

How many studies do you need to look at? How comprehensive should it be? How many years should it cover?

3. Select the databases you will use to conduct your searches

4. Conduct your searches and find the literature. Keep track of your searches!

Review the abstracts and conclusions carefully. This will save you time.
Write down the keywords you used and where you found them
Use RefWorks to keep track of your citations.

5. Review the literature! This is the most time consuming part.

What was the research question of the study you are reviewing? What were the authors trying to discover?
Was the research funded by a source that could influence the findings?
What were the research methodologies? Analyze its literature review, the samples and variables used, the results, and the conclusions. Does the research seem to be complete? Could it have been conducted more soundly? What further questions does it raise?
If there are conflicting studies, why do you think that is?
How are the authors viewed in the field? Has this study been cited?; if so, how has it been analyzed?
<< Previous: Evaluating Sources
Next: IEEE Explore >>
Last Updated: May 17, 2024 11:31 AM
URL: https://libguides.uwf.edu/engineering

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
J Mark Access Health Policy
v.11(1); 2023
PMC10392303

Rapid literature review: definition and methodology

Beata smela.

a Assignity, Cracow, Poland

Mondher Toumi

b Public Health Department, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France

Karolina Świerk

Clement francois, małgorzata biernikiewicz.

c Studio Slowa, Wroclaw, Poland

Emilie Clay

d Clever-Access, Paris, France

Laurent Boyer

Introduction: A rapid literature review (RLR) is an alternative to systematic literature review (SLR) that can speed up the analysis of newly published data. The objective was to identify and summarize available information regarding different approaches to defining RLR and the methodology applied to the conduct of such reviews.

Methods: The Medline and EMBASE databases, as well as the grey literature, were searched using the set of keywords and their combination related to the targeted and rapid review, as well as design, approach, and methodology. Of the 3,898 records retrieved, 12 articles were included.

Results: Specific definition of RLRs has only been developed in 2021. In terms of methodology, the RLR should be completed within shorter timeframes using simplified procedures in comparison to SLRs, while maintaining a similar level of transparency and minimizing bias. Inherent components of the RLR process should be a clear research question, search protocol, simplified process of study selection, data extraction, and quality assurance.

Conclusions: There is a lack of consensus on the formal definition of the RLR and the best approaches to perform it. The evidence-based supporting methods are evolving, and more work is needed to define the most robust approaches.

Introduction

A systematic literature review (SLR) summarizes the results of all available studies on a specific topic and provides a high level of evidence. Authors of the SLR have to follow an advanced plan that covers defining a priori information regarding the research question, sources they are going to search, inclusion criteria applied to choose studies answering the research question, and information regarding how they are going to summarize findings [ 1 ].

The rigor and transparency of SLRs make them the most reliable form of literature review [ 2 ], providing a comprehensive, objective summary of the evidence for a given topic [ 3 , 4 ]. On the other hand, the SLR process is usually very time-consuming and requires a lot of human resources. Taking into account a high increase of newly published data and a growing need to analyze information in the fastest possible way, rapid literature reviews (RLRs) often replace standard SLRs.

There are several guidelines on the methodology of RLRs [ 5–11 ]; however, only recently, one publication from 2021 attempted to construct a unified definition [ 11 ]. Generally, by RLRs, researchers understand evidence synthesis during which some of the components of the systematic approach are being used to facilitate answering a focused research question; however, scope restrictions and a narrower search strategy help to make the project manageable in a shorter time and to get the key conclusions faster [ 4 ].

The objective of this research was to collect and summarize available information on different approaches to the definition and methodology of RLRs. An RLR has been run to capture publications providing data that fit the project objective.

To find publications reporting information on the methodology of RLRs, searches were run in the Medline and EMBASE databases in November 2022. The following keywords were searched for in titles and abstracts: ‘targeted adj2 review’ OR ‘focused adj2 review’ OR ‘rapid adj2 review’, and ‘methodology’ OR ‘design’ OR ‘scheme’ OR ‘approach’. The grey literature was identified using Google Scholar with keywords including ‘targeted review methodology’ OR ‘focused review methodology’ OR ‘rapid review methodology’. Only publications in English were included, and the date of publication was restricted to year 2016 onward in order to identify the most up-to-date literature. The reference lists of each included article were searched manually to obtain the potentially eligible articles. Titles and abstracts of the retrieved records were first screened to exclude articles that were evidently irrelevant. The full texts of potentially relevant papers were further reviewed to examine their eligibility.

A pre-defined Excel grid was developed to extract the following information related to the methodology of RLR from guidelines:

Definition,
Research question and searches,
Studies selection,
Data extraction and quality assessment,
Additional information.

There was no restriction on the study types to be analyzed; any study reporting on the methodology of RLRs could be included: reviews, practice guidelines, commentaries, and expert opinions on RLR relevant to healthcare policymakers or practitioners. The data extraction and evidence summary were conducted by one analyst and further examined by a senior analyst to ensure that relevant information was not omitted. Disagreements were resolved by discussion and consensus.

Studies selection

A total of 3,898 records (3,864 articles from a database search and 34 grey literature from Google Scholar) were retrieved. After removing duplicates, titles and abstracts of 3,813 articles were uploaded and screened. The full texts of 43 articles were analyzed resulting in 12 articles selected for this review, including 7 guidelines [ 5–11 ] on the methodology of RLRs, together with 2 papers summarizing the results of the Delphi consensus on the topic [ 12 , 13 ], and 3 publications analyzing and assessing different approaches to RLRs [ 4 , 14 , 15 ].

Overall, seven guidelines were identified: from the World Health Organization (WHO) [ 5 ], National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools (NCCMT) [ 7 ], the UK government [ 8 ], the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine [ 9 ], the Cochrane group [ 6 , 11 ], and one multi-national review [ 10 ]. Among the papers that did not describe the guidelines, Gordon et al. [ 4 ] proposed 12 tips for conducting a rapid review in the right settings and discussed why these reviews may be more beneficial in some circumstances. The objective of work conducted by Tricco et al. [ 13 ] and Pandor et al. [ 12 ] was to collect and compare perceptions of rapid reviews from stakeholders, including researchers, policymakers, industry, journal editors, and healthcare providers, and to reach a consensus outlining the domains to consider when deciding on approaches for RLRs. Haby et al. [ 14 ] run a rapid review of systematic reviews and primary studies to find out the best way to conduct an RLR in health policy and practice. In Tricco et al. (2022) [ 15 ], JBI position statement for RLRs is presented.

From all the seven identified guidelines information regarding definitions the authors used for RLRs, approach to the PICOS criteria and search strategy development, studies selection, data extractions, quality assessment, and reporting were extracted.

Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group developed methods guidance based on scoping review of the underlying evidence, primary methods studies conducted, as well as surveys sent to Cochrane representative and discussion among those with expertise [ 11 ]. They analyzed over 300 RLRs or RLR method papers and based on the methodology of those studies, constructed a broad definition RLR, one that meets a minimum set of requirements identified in the thematic analysis: ‘ A rapid review is a form of knowledge synthesis that accelerates the process of conducting a traditional systematic review through streamlining or omitting a variety of methods to produce evidence in a resource-efficient manner .’ This interpretation aligns with more than 50% of RLRs identified in this study. The authors additionally provided several other definitions, depending on specific situations or requirements (e.g., when RLR is produced on stakeholder’s request). It was additionally underlined that RLRs should be driven by the need of timely evidence for decision-making purposes [ 11 ].

Rapid reviews vary in their objective, format, and methods used for evidence synthesis. This is a quite new area, and still no agreement on optimal methods can be found [ 5 ]. All of the definitions are highlighting that RLRs are completed within shorter timeframes than SLRs, and also lack of time is one of the main reasons they are conducted. It has been suggested that most rapid reviews are conducted within 12 weeks; however, some of the resources suggest time between a few weeks to no more than 6 months [ 5 , 6 ]. Some of the definitions are highlighting that RLRs follow the SLR process, but certain phases of the process are simplified or omitted to retrieve information in a time-saving way [ 6 , 7 ]. Different mechanisms are used to enhance the timeliness of reviews. They can be used independently or concurrently: increasing the intensity of work by intensifying the efforts of multiple analysts by parallelization of tasks, using review shortcuts whereby one or more systematic review steps may be reduced, automatizing review steps by using new technologies [ 5 ]. The UK government report [ 8 ] referred to two different RLRs: in the form of quick scoping reviews (QSR) or rapid evidence assessments (REA). While being less resource and time-consuming compared to standard SLRs, QSRs and REAs are designed to be similarly transparent and to minimize bias. QSRs can be applied to rather open-ended questions, e.g., ‘what do we know about something’ but both, QSRs and REAs, provide an understanding of the volume and characteristics of evidence on a specific topic, allowing answering questions by maximizing the use of existing data, and providing a clear picture of the adequacy of existing evidence [ 8 ].

Research questions and searches

The guidelines suggest creating a clear research question and search protocol at the beginning of the project. Additionally, to not duplicate RLRs, the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group encourages all people working on RLRs to consider registering their search protocol with PROSPERO, the international prospective register of reviews; however, so far they are not formally registered in most cases [ 5 , 6 ]. They also recommend involving key stakeholders (review users) to set and refine the review question, criteria, and outcomes, as well as consulting them through the entire process [ 11 ].

Regarding research questions, it is better to structure them in a neutral way rather than focus on a specific direction for the outcome. By doing so, the researcher is in a better position to identify all the relevant evidence [ 7 ]. Authors can add a second, supportive research question when needed [ 8 ]. It is encouraged to limit the number of interventions, comparators and outcomes, to focus on the ones that are most important for decision-making [ 11 ]. Useful could be also reviewing additional materials, e.g., SLRs on the topic, as well as conducting a quick literature search to better understand the topic before starting with RLRs [ 7 ]. In SLRs researchers usually do not need to care a lot about time spent on creating PICOS, they need to make sure that the scope is broad enough, and they cannot use many restrictions. When working on RLRs, a reviewer may spend more or less time defining each of the components of the study question, and the main step is making sure that PICOS addresses the needs of those who requested the rapid review, and at the same time, it is feasible within the required time frame [ 7 ]. Search protocol should contain an outline of how the following review steps are to be carried out, including selected search keywords and a full strategy, a list of data sources, precise inclusion and exclusion criteria, a strategy for data extraction and critical appraisal, and a plan of how the information will be synthesized [ 8 ].

In terms of searches running, in most cases, an exhaustive process will not be feasible. Researchers should make sure that the search is effective and efficient to produce results in a timely manner. Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group recommends involving an information specialist and conducting peer review of at least one search strategy [ 11 ]. According to the rapid review guidebook by McMaster University [ 7 ], it is important that RLRs, especially those that support policy and program decisions, are being fed by the results of a body of literature, rather than single studies, when possible. It would result in more generalizable findings applied at the level of a population and serve more realistic findings for program decisions [ 7 ]. It is important to document the search strategy, together with a record of the date and any date limits of the search, so that it can easily be run again, modified, or updated. Furthermore, the information on the individual databases included in platform services should always be reported, as this depends on organizations’ subscriptions and must be included for transparency and repeatability [ 7 , 8 ]. Good solution for RLRs is narrowing the scope or searching a limited number of databases and other sources [ 7 ]. Often, the authors use the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases. In most reviews, two or more databases are searched, and common limits are language (usually restricted to English), date, study design, and geographical area. Some RLRs include searching of grey literature; however, contact with authors is rather uncommon [ 5 , 8 ]. According to the flexible framework for restricted systematic review published by the University of Oxford, the search should be run in at least one major scientific database such as PubMed, and one other source, e.g., Google Scholar [ 9 ]. Grey literature and unpublished evidence may be particularly needed and important for intervention questions. It is related to the fact that studies that do not report the effects of interventions are less likely to be published [ 8 ]. If there is any type of evidence that will not be considered by the RLRs, e.g., reviews or theoretical and conceptual studies, it should also be stated in the protocol together with justification [ 8 ]. Additionally, authors of a practical guide published by WHO suggest using a staged search to identify existing SLRs at the beginning, and then focusing on studies with other designs [ 5 ]. If a low number of citations have been retrieved, it is acceptable to expand searches, remove some of the limits, and add additional databases and sources [ 7 ].

Searching for RLRs is an iterative process, and revising the approach is usually needed [ 7 ]. Changes should be confirmed with stakeholders and should be tracked and reflected in the final report [ 5 ].

The next step in the rapid review is the selection of studies consisting of two phases: screening of titles and abstracts, and analysis of full texts. Prior to screening initiation, it is recommended to conduct a pilot exercise using the same 30–50 abstracts and 5–10 full-texts for the entire screening team in order to calibrate and test the review form [ 11 ]. In contrast to SLRs, it can be done by one reviewer with or without verification by a second one. If verification is performed, usually the second reviewer checks only a subset of records and compares them. Cochrane Group, in contrast, recommends a stricter approach: at least 20% of references should be double-screened at titles and abstracts stage, and while the rest of the references may be screened by one reviewer, the excluded items need to be re-examined by second reviewer; similar approach is used in full-text screening [ 11 ]. This helps to ensure that bias was reduced and that the PICOS criteria are applied in a relevant way [ 5 , 8 , 9 , 11 ]. During the analysis of titles and abstracts, there is no need to report reasons for exclusion; however, they should be tracked for all excluded full texts [ 7 ].

Data extraction and quality assessment

According to the WHO guide, the most common method for data extraction in RLRs is extraction done by a single reviewer with or without partial verification. The authors point out that a reasonable approach is to use a second reviewer to check a random sample of at least 10% of the extractions for accuracy. Dual performance is more necessary for the extraction of quantitative results than for descriptive study information. In contrast, Cochrane group recommends that second reviewer should check the correctness and completeness of all data [ 11 ]. When possible, extractions should be limited to key characteristics and outcomes of the study. The same approach to data extraction is also suggested for a quality assessment process within rapid reviews [ 5 , 9 , 11 ]. Authors of the guidebook from McMaster University highlight that data extraction should be done ideally by two reviewers independently and consensus on the discrepancies should always be reached [ 7 ]. The final decision on the approach to this important step of review should depend on the available time and should also reflect the complexity of the research question [ 9 ].

For screening, analysis of full texts, extractions, and quality assessments, researchers can use information technologies to support them by making these review steps more efficient [ 5 ].

Before data reporting, a reviewer should prepare a document with key message headings, executive summary, background related to the topic and status of the current knowledge, project question, synthesis of findings, conclusions, and recommendations. According to the McMaster University guidebook, a report should be structured in a 1:2:20 format, that is, one page for key messages, two pages for an executive summary, and a full report of up to 20 pages [ 7 ]. All the limitations of the RLRs should be analyzed, and conclusions should be drawn with caution [ 5 ]. The quality of the accumulated evidence and the strength of recommendations can be assessed using, e.g., the GRADE system [ 5 ]. When working on references quoting, researchers should remember to use a primary source, not secondary references [ 7 ]. It would be worth considering the support of some software tools to automate reporting steps. Additionally, any standardization of the process and the usage of templates can support report development and enhance the transparency of the review [ 5 ].

Ideally, all the review steps should be completed during RLRs; however, often some steps may need skipping or will not be completed as thoroughly as should because of time constraints. It is always crucial to decide which steps may be skipped, and which are the key ones, depending on the project [ 7 ]. Guidelines suggest that it may be helpful to invite researchers with experience in the operations of SLRs to participate in the rapid review development [ 5 , 9 ]. As some of the steps will be completed by one reviewer only, it is important to provide them with relevant training at the beginning of the process, as well as during the review, to minimize the risk of mistakes [ 5 ].

Additional information

Depending on the policy goal and available resources and deadlines, methodology of the RLRs may be modified. Wilson et al. [ 10 ] provided extensive guidelines for performing RLR within days (e.g., to inform urgent internal policy discussions and/or management decisions), weeks (e.g., to inform public debates), or months (e.g., to inform policy development cycles that have a longer timeline, but that cannot wait for a traditional full systematic review). These approaches vary in terms of data synthesis, types of considered evidence and project management considerations.

In shortest timeframes, focused questions and subquestions should be formulated, typically to conduct a policy analysis; the report should consist of tables along with a brief narrative summary. Evidence from SLRs is often considered, as well as key informant interviews may be conducted to identify additional literature and insights about the topic, while primary studies and other types of evidence are not typically feasible due to time restrictions. The review would be best conducted with 1–2 reviewers sharing the work, enabling rapid iterations of the review. As for RLRs with longer timeline (weeks), these may use a mix of policy, systems and political analysis. Structure of the review would be similar to shorter RLRs – tabular with short narrative summary, as the timeline does not allow for comprehensive synthesis of data. Besides SLRs, primary studies and other evidence may be feasible in this timeframe, if obtained using the targeted searches in the most relevant databases. The review team should be larger, and standardized procedures for reviewing of the results and data extraction should be applied. In contrast to previous timeframe, merit review process may be feasible. For both timeframes, brief consultations with small transdisciplinary team should be conducted at the beginning and in the final stage of the review to discuss important matters.

For RLRs spanning several months, more comprehensive methodology may be adapted in terms of data synthesis and types of evidence. However, authors advise that review may be best conducted with a small review team in order to allow for more in-depth interpretation and iteration.

Studies analyzing methodology

There have been two interesting publications summarizing the results of Delphi consensus on the RLR methodology identified and included in this review [ 12 , 13 ].

Tricco et al. [ 13 ] first conducted an international survey and scoping review to collect information on the possible approaches to the running of rapid reviews, based on which, they employed a modified Delphi method that included inputs from 113 stakeholders to explore the most optimized approach. Among the six most frequent rapid review approaches (not all detailed here) being evaluated, the approach that combines inclusion of published literature only, a search of more than one database and limitations by date and language, study selection by one analyst, data extraction, and quality assessment by one analyst and one verifier, was perceived as the most feasible approach (72%, 81/113 responses) with the potentially lowest risk of bias (12%, 12/103). The approach ranked as the first one when considering timelines assumes updating of the search from a previously published review, no additional limits on search, studies selection and data extraction done by one reviewer, and no quality assessment. Finally, based on the publication, the most comprehensive RLRs can be made by moving on with the following rules: searching more than one database and grey literature and using date restriction, and assigning one reviewer working on screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment ( Table 1 ). Pandor et al. [ 12 ] introduced a decision tool for SelecTing Approaches for Rapid Reviews (STARR) that were produced through the Delphi consensus of international experts through an iterative and rigorous process. Participants were asked to assess the importance of predefined items in four domains related to the rapid review process: interaction with commissioners, understanding the evidence base, data extraction and synthesis methods, and reporting of rapid review methods. All items assigned to four domains achieved > 70% of consensus, and in that way, the first consensus-driven tool has been created that supports authors of RLRs in planning and deciding on approaches.

Six most frequent approaches to RLRs (adapted from Tricco et al. [ 13 ]).

Haby et al. [ 14 ] run searches of 11 databases and two websites and developed a comprehensive overview of the methodology of RLRs. With five SLRs and one RCT being finally included, they identified the following approaches used in RLRs to make them faster than full SLRs: limiting the number and scope of questions, searching fewer databases, limited searching of grey literature, restrictions on language and date (e.g., English only, most recent publications), updating the existing SLRs, eliminating or limiting hand searches of reference lists, noniterative search strategies, eliminating consultation with experts, limiting dual study selection, data extraction and quality assessment, minimal data synthesis with short concise conclusions or recommendations. All the SLRs included in this review were consistent in stating that no agreed definition of rapid reviews is available, and there is still no final agreement on the best methodological rules to be followed.

Gordon et al. [ 4 ] explained the advantages of performing a focused review and provided 12 tips for its conduction. They define focused reviews as ‘a form of knowledge synthesis in which the components of the systematic process are applied to facilitate the analysis of a focused research question’. The first tip presented by the authors is related to deciding if a focused review is a right solution for the considered project. RLRs will suit emerging topics, approaches, or assessments where early synthesis can support doctors, policymakers, etc., but also can direct future research. The second, third, and fourth tips highlight the importance of running preliminary searches and considering narrowing the results by using reasonable constraints taking into account the local context, problems, efficiency perspectives, and available time. Further tips include creating a team of experienced reviewers working on the RLRs, thinking about the target journal from the beginning of work on the rapid review, registering the search protocol on the PROSPERO registry, and the need for contacting authors of papers when data available in publications are missing or incongruent. The last three tips are related to the choice of evidence synthesis method, using the visual presentation of data, and considering and describing all the limitations of the focused review.

Finally, a new publication by Tricco et al. from 2022, describing JBI position statement [ 15 ] underlined that for the time being, there is no specific tool for critical appraisal of the RLR’s methodological quality. Instead, reviewers may use available tools to assess the risk of bias or quality of SLRs, like ROBIS, the JBI critical appraisal tools, or the assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR).

Inconsistency in the definitions and methodologies of RLR

Although RLR was broadly perceived as an approach to quicken the conduct of conventional SLR, there is a lack of consensus on the formal definition of the RLR, so as to the best approaches to perform it. Only in 2021, a study proposing unified definition was published; however, it is important to note that the most accurate definition was only matching slightly over 50% of papers analysed by the authors, which underlines the lack of homogeneity in the field [ 11 ]. The evidence-based supporting methods are evolving, and more evidence is needed to define the most robust approaches [ 5 ].

Diverse terms are used to describe the RLR, including ‘rapid review’, focused systematic review’, ‘quick scoping reviews’, and ‘rapid evidence assessments’. Although the general principles of conducting RLR are to accelerate the whole process, complexity was seen in the methodologies used for RLRs, as reflected in this study. Also, inconsistencies related to the scope of the questions, search strategies, inclusion criteria, study screening, full-text review, quality assessment, and evidence presentation were implied. All these factors may hamper decision-making about optimal methodologies for conducting rapid reviews, and as a result, the efficiency of RLR might be decreased. Additionally, researchers may tend to report the methodology of their reviews without a sufficient level of detail, making it difficult to appraise the quality and robustness of their work.

Advantages and weaknesses of RLR

Although RLR used simplified approaches for evidence synthesis compared with SLR, the methodologies for RLR should be replicable, rigorous, and transparent to the greatest extent [ 16 ]. When time and resources are limited, RLR could be a practical and efficient tool to provide the summary of evidence that is critical for making rapid clinical or policy-related decisions [ 5 ]. Focusing on specific questions that are of controversy or special interest could be powerful in reaffirming whether the existing recommendation statements are still appropriate [ 17 ].

The weakness of RLR should also be borne in mind, and the trade-off of using RLR should be carefully considered regarding the thoroughness of the search, breadth of a research question, and depth of analysis [ 18 ]. If allowed, SLR is preferred over RLR considering that some relevant studies might be omitted with narrowed search strategies and simplified screening process [ 14 ]. Additionally, omitting the quality assessment of included studies could result in an increased risk of bias, making the comprehensiveness of RLR compromised [ 13 ]. Furthermore, in situations that require high accuracy, for example, where a small relative difference in an intervention has great impacts, for the purpose of drafting clinical guidelines, or making licensing decisions, a comprehensive SLR may remain the priority [ 19 ]. Therefore, clear communications with policymakers are recommended to reach an agreement on whether an RLR is justified and whether the methodologies of RLR are acceptable to address the unanswered questions [ 18 ].

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

CASE REPORT article

Ureter mixed neuroendocrine-non-neuroendocrine neoplasm: a case report and literature review.

1 Department of Pathology, Second Affiliated Hospital of Jiujiang University, Jiujiang, China
2 Department of Clinical Laboratory, Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital, Wuhan, China
3 Department of General Surgery, Second Affiliated Hospital of Jiujiang University, Jiujiang, China
4 Department of Pathology, Jiujiang First People’s Hospital, Jiujiang, China
5 Department of Pathology, Yangpu Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China

Cases of mixed neuroendocrine-non-neuroendocrine neoplasms (MiNENs) of the urinary system are rare, and reports of primary MiNENs in the ureter are lacking. Herein, we present the case of a 71-year-old man who presented with painless gross hematuria and weight loss. Contrast-enhanced abdominal computed tomography (CT) revealed a tumor, comprising small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (SCNEC) and adenocarcinomatous components, attached to the ureter. The SCNEC components were strongly positive for synaptophysin, CD56 and INSM1 and adenocarcinomatous components were strongly positive for CDX2 and cytokeratin 20, respectively. Four weeks post-surgery, the patient received four cycles of cisplatin-based chemotherapy; the 7-month follow-up CT confirmed that he was healthy without disease recurrence. The occurrence of MiNEN in the ureter with SCNEC and adenocarcinomatous components is extremely rare, wherein histopathological and immunohistochemical features aid in the diagnosis MiNEN. With its aggressive nature, MiNEN can only be effectively treated by early diagnosis and radical surgery.

Introduction

Mixed neuroendocrine-non-neuroendocrine neoplasms (MiNENs) are characterized by the presence of two major neuroendocrine and non-neuroendocrine morphological components, each accounting for >30% of the total lesion ( 1 ). MiNENs have been commonly detected in the gastrointestinal tract and recently in many other organs including the cervix, bladder, and tongue ( 2 , 3 ). Urothelial carcinoma represents >90% of all malignancies in the urinary system. However, MiNEN that originate in the ureter, including neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs) and urothelial carcinomas, are rare ( 4 ). Although the developmental mechanism closely relates to the genetic events in tumor cells, the biological behavior, prognosis, and molecular origin of MiNENs remain unclear.

Here, we report a case of a patient with a primary MiNEN of the ureter that comprised small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (SCNEC) and adenocarcinomatous components. Additionally, we have summarized the relevant literature, to improve the medical community’s understanding of this rare type of tumor.

Case description

A 71-year-old man presented with a 3-month history of painless gross hematuria and a 2-month history of weight loss. The patient had a 32-year and 43-year history of smoking and alcohol abuse, respectively. The patient was previously fit and had no specific life history. The physical examination findings were unremarkable. Laboratory investigations revealed that the routine blood, electrolytes, liver function, and serum amylase levels were within the reference ranges, urinalysis revealed red blood cells (3+), and negative levels of the serum tumor markers PSA, BTA and AFP. The urine cytological analysis revealed malignant epithelial neoplastic cells. Computed tomography (CT) revealed a 25-mm extensive heterogeneously-enhanced mass in the middle and lower part of his left ureteral segment and left hydronephrosis ( Figure 1A ). A subsequent ureteroscopic biopsy revealed poorly differentiated tumors. Positron emission tomography-CT and gastrointestinal endoscopy confirmed the lack of primary or metastatic lesions in other organs. The patient underwent laparoscopic left nephroureterectomy with bladder cuff resection and retroperitoneal lymph node removal. The patient has been followed up with CT postoperatively without ultrasound. Cystoscopy was normal and PET CT showed no other lesions. Postoperative laboratory indicators: all indicators are still normal, urine routine and test hematuria returned to normal. Four weeks post-discharge, the patient received four cycles of cisplatin and etoposide chemotherapy. At his 7-month follow-up, no recurrence or metastasis was noted; follow-up care is continued.

Figure 1 (A) Contrast-enhanced computerized tomography (CECT) of the left ureteral segment and left hydronephrosis. CECT revealed a 20-mm lesion on the left ureteral segment. Neuroendocrine carcinoma and adenocarcinoma in biopsy. Low ( (B) , hematoxylin-eosin, × 40) and intermediate [ (C) , hematoxylin-eosin, × 200] magnification showing adenocarcinoma and Neuroendocrine carcinoma. Neuroendocrine in biopsy: High magnification [ (D) , hematoxylin-eosin, × 400]. Adenocarcinoma in biopsy: High magnification [ (E) , hematoxylin-eosin, × 400].

The immunohistochemical study was performed on 3-μm-thick sections using prediluted ready-to-use vials of the antibodies with an automated immunostainer.

The tissue sent for examination was a specimen of the left kidney, ureter, and part of the bladder. The ureter was 26 cm in length, and 9 cm from the opening of the ureter, a 2.5 cm × 2 cm ×1 cm mass was visible that was grayish-white in color on the section, brittle, with unclear borders, and without necrosis. Microscopically, the tumor protruding into the lumen comprised two intimately admixed morphological tumor cells ( Figures 1B, C ). Most cells (55%) exhibited solid and trabecular growth, were small, and had round or spindle-shapes, scant cytoplasm, dark staining, inconspicuous nucleoli, extensive necrosis, and a mitotic index of 60/10 high-power fields (HPFs) ( Figures 1D ). The other 45% of tumor cells exhibited glandular lumens and papillary formation, with larger tumor cells, columnar and cubic, abundant cytoplasm, conspicuous nucleoli, enteric and mucinous differentiation, and a mitotic index of 4/10 HPFs ( Figures 1E ). Conventional urothelial carcinoma components were not detected, and the tumor invaded the deep muscle. Lymph node dissection information: abdominal lymph nodes, common iliac lymph nodes, external iliac lymph nodes, obturator lymph nodes, and internal iliac lymph nodes, 0.2-1 cm in diameter. However, renal parenchymal, arteriovenous, periureteral tissue, and lymph node involvement were absent. The overall pathological stage at diagnosis was pT2N0M0.

Immunohistochemistry showed positive staining in different histological components ( Figures 2A–J ). The tumor cells in the solid components were positive for synaptophysin, CD56 and INSM1, partly positive for TTF-1 and negative for SSTR2. Staining with chromogranin A was very weak, and staining for CDX2, SATB2, and cytokeratin (CK)20 was negative. The tumor cells in the glandular components were positive for CDX2 and CK20 and focally positive for SATB2. The cells tested negative for synaptophysin, CD56, chromogranin A, and TTF1. Both tumor cell components were positive for CKpan, p53, MLH1, PMS2, MSH2, and MSH6 and were negative for GATA3, LCA, and HER2. The Ki-67 indices of tumor cells in the solid and glandular components were approximately 80% and 30%, respectively.

Figure 2 Neuroendocrine carcinoma and adenocarcinoma in biopsy. Low [ (A) , hematoxylin-eosin, × 40]. Immunohistochemical staining showed positivity for a urothelial marker [(GATA3 (B) ], neuroendocrine marker [synaptophysin (C) ], adenocarcinoma marker [CDX2 (D) ], a neuroendocrine marker [CD56 (E) ], adenocarcinoma marker [CDX2 (F) , epithelial marker (CKpan (G) ], a neuroendocrine marker [INSM1 (H) ], a neuroendocrine marker [SSTR2 (I) ] and proliferation index marker [Ki67 (J) ].

Finally, we diagnosed the patient with primary MiNEN of the ureter, with poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma (SCNEC, 55%) and moderately and highly differentiated non-neuroendocrine carcinoma (adenocarcinoma, 45%).

NECs of the urinary system include SCNECs, large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC), well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors, and paragangliomas and account for <0.5% of all urothelial neoplasms. Over half of the primary urinary NECs are mixed with other histological components ( 5 , 6 ), and more than 90% of these reports of non-neuroendocrine components were of urothelial carcinoma, followed by squamous cell carcinoma, lymphoma, sarcoma, and adenocarcinoma, in order of frequency. We summarized published cases of mixed neuroendocrine and adenocarcinomatous tumor of the urinary system between 1990 and 2023 ( Table 1 ) ( 7 – 13 ). The male-to-female ratio was 7:1, with a median of 61 years, and it can occur in the bladder, ureter and urethra. Specifically, SCNEC is the most common NEC type, while the non-neuroendocrine components can be simple adenocarcinoma or mixed with other components. Unfortunately, the proportion of components has not been reported in most cases. In World Health Organization (WHO) classification 5th edition (2022) of urogenital tumors, mixed neuroendocrine neoplasms are still not defined as MiNEN with 30% component criteria in the manner of gastrointestinal tumors, possibly because of evidence that only a small portion of neuroendocrine carcinoma has a prognostic impact in urinary tract tumors ( 14 ). Nevertheless, in order to better understanding of this rare case of Ureter MiNEN, especially when they are morphological high-grade, more detailed clinicopathological data and percentages of each component are necessary, because they still may influence prognosis.

Table 1 Published cases of mixed neuroendocrine and adenocarcinomatous tumor of the urinary system.

Xu et al. ( 15 ) evaluated 17 patients and reported that ureteral collision carcinoma, especially those occurring in the lower right ureter, were common in older Asian men. Concordantly, Zhong et al. ( 16 ) evaluated 32 patients with ureteral SCNECs and suggested that the cancers may be related to genetic, environmental, and lifestyle habits in Asians. This may be attributed to a higher incidence of smoking exposure, drug abuse (Chinese herbal medicine, painkillers), occupational exposure to certain aromatic amines, and lithiasis concomitant infections among Asians ( 4 , 17 ). Our patient was an older Asian man with a 32-year history of smoking, consistent with the literature reports; however, the lesion was in the middle and lower left ureter, unlike previous literature reports that it is more common in the lower right ureter.

The preoperative diagnosis of ureteral MiNEN is confounded by uncharacteristic symptoms, including painless gross hematuria and a ureter mass on imaging; additionally, the accuracy of preoperative biopsy remains controversial. Therefore, final confirmation requires complete surgical excision for examination ( 18 ). Combining the clinical history and imaging findings to exclude gastrointestinal and bladder metastases is crucial for the primary diagnosis. In our case, the histomorphological features were comprehensively evaluated, and the differential diagnosis was based on immunohistochemical positivity for synaptophysin, chromogranin A, CD56, neuron-specific enolase, and characteristic markers of the corresponding non-neuroendocrine components. Furthermore, urinary cytology and biopsy pathology revealed malignancy; therefore, we completely surgically resected the tumor. Combined with the medical history, negative imaging, and spectroscopic nodes to exclude metastasis, we diagnosed the patient with primary ureteral MiNEN.

The histogenesis of the primary ureteral MiNEN remains unclear, but has been discussed extensively. At present, many scholars support the theory of MiNEN is hypothesized to originate from monoclonal pluripotent stem cells that differentiate bidirectionally when stimulated with certain factors, which could explain the mixed histological features in urogenital NECs ( 19 ). Tränkenschuh et al. ( 11 ) reported the case of a patient with primary adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma of the bladder combined with in situ urothelial carcinoma and observed significant similarities in the molecular features between these carcinomas, thereby highlighting their common clonal origin. Another postulated theory is that ureteral MiNEN may be caused by conversion of non-neuroendocrine to neuroendocrine components during tumor progression, including originating from residual urachus epithelium, or cystitis glandularis and intestinal anisocytosis, which would seem to explain the mix of adenocarcinoma components in MiNEN. Eckstein et al. ( 20 ) described the case of a patient with adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma of the bladder, with significant cystitis glandularis and intestinal anisocytosis surrounding the tumor. The investigators suggested that this carcinoma developed from primary adenocarcinoma of the bladder. In our case, epithelial neuroendocrine cells transformation such as glandular or intestinal epithelial chemotaxis components in the mucosa surrounding the ureteral MiNEN were not detected. In fact, almost half of urogenital NECs patients had other tumor components such as UC, squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma. Meanwhile, the conversion of non-neuroendocrine components to neuroendocrine components is rarely reported, thus further buttresses the hypothesis of the origin of multipotent stem cells.

At present, the genetic characteristics of MiNENs containing adenocarcinoma components have been investigated in the digestive system, and it is suggested that CCNE1 gain and FAT1 loss might promote the tumorigenesis of MiNENs partially through regulating cell cycle G1/S checkpoint signaling. Moreover, loss of MAPK1 and alterations in the MAPK signaling pathway, specifically occurred in the NEC component, which might contribute to the neuroendocrine differentiation ( 21 ). However, due to its rare molecular changes in the urinary system have not been reported, the relevant studies of single components can provide some references. In a report about urinary molecular typing of bladder SCNEC, a significant proportion of these tumors expressed the c-kit, TP53 and RB1 gene mutations ( 22 , 23 ). Furthermore, whole exome sequencing of urinary system adenocarcinoma has found that prevalent T>A substitutions were observed among somatic mutations, and major trinucleotide contexts included 5’-CTC-3’ and 5’-CTG-3’ ( 24 ). Lu et al ( 25 ). Explore the genomic alterations of ureteral hepatoid adenocarcinoma, driver somatic mutations of TP53 and KMT2D genes were found, indicating that ureteral hepatoid adenocarcinoma has similar mutational characteristics to urothelial carcinoma. These genetic characteristics have certain potential significance for future targeted therapy and prognosis judgment, and need to be confirmed by further studies on large samples.

We possess limited treatment experience owing to the rarity of ureteral MiNEN; thus, nephroureterectomy with bladder cuff resection is preferred ( 4 , 15 ). Furthermore, postoperative platinum-based adjuvant chemotherapy for highly malignant SCNECs components significantly improves prognosis compared with surgical resection alone ( 5 , 26 ). Qing et al. ( 27 ) attempted to treat primary ureteral SCNECs with a combination of PD-L1 ICIs and radiotherapy. Despite the unsatisfactory outcome, the report provided new insights into various treatment strategies. Furthermore, the prognosis of MiNENs is driven by their high-grade neuroendocrine components, especially in the digestive system; therefore, their prognosis is comparable with that of pure neuroendocrine cancers ( 28 , 29 ). However, another large sample of urinary MiNENs was considered to be better than that of pure SCNECs ( 30 ). Pini et al. ( 9 ) reported that case of a patient with MiNEN (comprising LCNEC and adenocarcinoma) of the bladder and observed that mucinous adenocarcinoma was the most aggressive component. These findings suggest that non-neuroendocrine carcinomas are likely crucial in determining patient quality of life and prognosis. The prognostic factors of urinary MiNEN are closely related to the pathological stage; however, their association with sex remains controversial ( 5 , 30 ). This disparity may be related to the rarity of the case, diverse sample sources or limited case numbers. In future work, increasing case collection and pooled case reports can make prognosis clearer. Anyhow, ureter MiNENs have a poor prognosis, which have an overall survival of approximately 15 months and a 3-year survival rate of less than 30%, with metastases occurring within 13 months in most patients. Furthermore, the most common target organs are the lungs and brain ( 5 ). In our patient, we performed a laparoscopic left nephroureterectomy with bladder cuff resection, followed by cisplatin and etoposide chemotherapy. We observed no recurrence during the 7-month follow-up. This outcome may relate to the T2 pathological stage, increased proportion of well-differentiated adenocarcinoma components, and shorter follow-up time. And a timeline figure summarizing the case diagnosis and treatment pathway was shown in Figure 3 .

Figure 3 A timeline figure summarising the case diagnosis and treatment pathway.

In conclusion, we report a rare case of a patient with ureteral MiNEN with SCNECs and adenocarcinoma components, whose clinical imaging presentation was mostly atypical. Characteristic histological patterns and immunohistochemical markers facilitated the accurate diagnosis. Although we lack standard MiNEN treatment options owing to its rarity, radical ureteral resection and postoperative chemotherapy can help improve prognosis, as in the cases of ureteral small cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Ethics statement

The studies involving humans were approved by ethics committee of Second Affiliated Hospital of Jiujiang University. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study. Written informed consent was obtained from the individual(s) for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article.

Author contributions

BZ: Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – original draft. XG: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – original draft. XL: Investigation, Visualization, Writing – original draft. LP: Methodology, Writing – original draft. HH: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Project administration, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – review & editing.

The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This work was supported by Climb Plan of Tongji University Affiliated Yangpu Hospital (No.Ye2202105) and Project of College-level Key Discipline of Tongji University Affiliated Yangpu Hospital (No.2023YJXK01).

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the Department of Pathology of Jiujiang First People’s Hospital for their assistance with providing research materials and digitizing the slides in this research. We thank Editage ( www.editage.cn ) for its linguistic assistance during the preparation of this manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

1. Nagtegaal ID, Odze RD, Klimstra D, Paradis V, Rugge M, Schirmacher P, et al. The 2019 who classification of tumours of the digestive system. Histopathology . (2020) 76:182–8. doi: 10.1111/his.13975

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

2. Robinson L, Schouwstra CM, van Heerden WFP. Oropharyngeal mixed neuroendocrine-nonneuroendocrine neoplasm (Minen): A case report and literature review. Head Neck Pathol . (2021) 15:1415–20. doi: 10.1007/s12105-021-01312-w

3. Maragliano R, Libera L, Carnevali I, Pensotti V, De Vecchi G, Testa M, et al. Mixed neuroendocrine/non-neuroendocrine neoplasm (Minen) of the ovary arising from endometriosis: Molecular pathology analysis in support of a pathogenetic paradigm. Endocrine Pathol . (2022) 33:400–10. doi: 10.1007/s12022-021-09689-8

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

4. Jang H, Yuk SM, Kim JO, Han DS. A rare case of primary Malignant small cell carcinoma combined with urothelial cell carcinoma in the ureter. World J Surg Oncol . (2013) 11:181. doi: 10.1186/1477-7819-11-181

5. Nakasato T, Hiramatsu A, Matsui Y, Unoki T, Shimoyama H, Oshinomi K, et al. Systematic review and two new cases of primary upper urinary tract neuroendocrine carcinomas. Cancer Treat Res Commun . (2018) 17:23–30. doi: 10.1016/j.ctarc.2018.10.003

6. Ouzzane A, Ghoneim TP, Udo K, Verhasselt-Crinquette M, Puech P, Betrouni N, et al. Small cell carcinoma of the upper urinary tract (Uut-scc): report of a rare entity and systematic review of the literature. Cancer Treat Rev . (2011) 37:366–72. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2010.12.005

7. Ishikawa S, Koyama T, Kumagai A, Takeuchi I, Ogawa D. [a case of small cell carcinoma of the ureter with siadh-like symptoms]. Nihon Hinyokika Gakkai zasshi Japanese J Urol . (2004) 95:725–8. doi: 10.5980/jpnjurol1989.95.725

8. Tsutsumi M, Kamiya M, Sakamoto M, Tobisu K, Kakizoe T. A ureteral small cell carcinoma mixed with Malignant mesodermal and ectodermal elements: A clinicopathological, morphological and immunohistochemical study. Japanese J Clin Oncol . (1993) 23:325–9.

Google Scholar

9. Pini GM, Uccella S, Corinti M, Colecchia M, Pelosi G, Patriarca C. Primary minen of the urinary bladder: An hitherto undescribed entity composed of large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma and adenocarcinoma with a distinct clinical behavior : Description of a case and review of the pertinent literature. Virchows Archiv an Int J Pathol . (2021) 479:69–78. doi: 10.1007/s00428-021-03023-7

10. Raison N, McGovern U, Hines J, Volanis D. Mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma of the urethra. BMJ Case Rep . (2019) 12(3):e227948. doi: 10.1136/bcr-2018-227948

11. Tränkenschuh W, Biesdorf AS, Papadimas N, Samara S, Hefty R, Stahl PR. Mixed adenocarcinomatous and neuroendocrine tumor of the urinary bladder with concomitant carcinoma in situ: A case report with a comprehensive immunohistochemical analysis and review of the literature. Int J Surg Pathol . (2019) 27:684–92. doi: 10.1177/1066896919839781

12. Chin NW, Marinescu AM, Fani K. Composite adenocarcinoma and carcinoid tumor of urinary bladder. Urology . (1992) 40:249–52. doi: 10.1016/0090-4295(92)90484-E

13. Abenoza P, Manivel C, Sibley RK. Adenocarcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation of the urinary bladder. Clinicopathologic, immunohistochemical, and ultrastructural study. Arch Pathol Lab Med . (1986) 110:1062–6.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

14. Netto GJ, Amin MB, Berney DM, Compérat EM, Gill AJ, Hartmann A, et al. The 2022 world health organization classification of tumors of the urinary system and male genital organs-part B: Prostate and urinary tract tumors. Eur Urol . (2022) 82:469–82. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2022.07.002

15. Xu S, Xu L, Cao P, Yao S, Wu T, Hu X, et al. Collision carcinoma involving small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma of the ureter: A case report and review of the literature. Front Oncol . (2021) 11:663119. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.663119

16. Zhong W, Lin R, Zhang L, Jin C, Li X, He Q, et al. Clinicopathologic characteristics, therapy and outcomes of patients with primary ureteral small cell carcinoma: A case series and systematic review of the literature. OncoTargets Ther . (2017) 10:4105–11. doi: 10.2147/ott.s138769

17. Zhu J, Feng Y, Fan M, He X, Wang L. Primary small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma combined with squamous carcinoma of the ureter after renal transplantation: A rare case report. Int J Clin Exp Pathol . (2019) 12:1357–62.

18. Luo HL, Kang CH, Chen YT, Chuang YC, Lee WC, Cheng YT, et al. Diagnostic ureteroscopy independently correlates with intravesical recurrence after nephroureterectomy for upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol . (2013) 20:3121–6. doi: 10.1245/s10434-013-3000-z

19. Cheng L, Jones TD, McCarthy RP, Eble JN, Wang M, MacLennan GT, et al. Molecular genetic evidence for a common clonal origin of urinary bladder small cell carcinoma and coexisting urothelial carcinoma. Am J Pathol . (2005) 166:1533–9. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9440(10)62369-3

20. Eckstein M, Rasper B, Busche J, Stachetzki U, Wistuba DE, Agaimy A, et al. [Primary mixed adeno-neuroendocrine carcinoma (Manec) of the urinary bladder: A rare entity]. Aktuelle Urologie . (2017) 48:350–5. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-110088

21. Sun L, Zhang J, Wang C, Zhao S, Shao B, Guo Y, et al. Chromosomal and molecular pathway alterations in the neuroendocrine carcinoma and adenocarcinoma components of gastric mixed neuroendocrine-nonneuroendocrine neoplasm. Modern Pathol an Off J United States Can Acad Pathology Inc . (2020) 33:2602–13. doi: 10.1038/s41379-020-0579-z

22. Pan CX, Yang XJ, Lopez-Beltran A, MacLennan GT, Eble JN, Koch MO, et al. C-kit expression in small cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder: prognostic and therapeutic implications. Modern Pathol an Off J United States Can Acad Pathology Inc . (2005) 18:320–3. doi: 10.1038/modpathol.3800318

23. Warrick JI, Knowles MA, Yves A, van der Kwast T, Grignon DJ, Kristiansen G, et al. Report from the international society of urological pathology (Isup) consultation conference on molecular pathology of urogenital cancers. Ii. Molecular pathology of bladder cancer: progress and challenges. Am J Surg Pathol . (2020) 44:e30–46. doi: 10.1097/pas.0000000000001453

24. Yang G, Shahatiaili A, Bai S, Wang L, Jin D, Cao M, et al. Mutational signature and prognosis in adenocarcinoma of the bladder. J Pathol . (2024) 262:334–46. doi: 10.1002/path.6239

25. Lu M, Li Y, Hu D, Yu J, Zheng H, Liu T. Hepatoid adenocarcinoma in ureter with next-generation sequencing: A case report and literature review. BMC Med Genomics . (2024) 17:7. doi: 10.1186/s12920-023-01776-5

26. Mukesh M, Cook N, Hollingdale AE, Ainsworth NL, Russell SG. Small cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder: A 15-year retrospective review of treatment and survival in the anglian cancer network. BJU Int . (2009) 103:747–52. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.08241.x

27. Qing D, Peng L, Cen F, Huang X, Wei Q, Lu H. Hyperprogression after immunotherapy for primary small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the ureter: A case report. Front Oncol . (2021) 11:696422. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.696422

28. La Rosa S, Sessa F, Uccella S. Mixed neuroendocrine-nonneuroendocrine neoplasms (Minens): unifying the concept of a heterogeneous group of neoplasms. Endocrine Pathol . (2016) 27:284–311. doi: 10.1007/s12022-016-9432-9

29. Quek ML, Nichols PW, Yamzon J, Daneshmand S, Miranda G, Cai J, et al. Radical cystectomy for primary neuroendocrine tumors of the bladder: the university of Southern California experience. J Urol . (2005) 174:93–6. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000162085.20043.1f

30. Wang G, Yuan R, Zhou C, Guo C, Villamil C, Hayes M, et al. Urinary large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma: A clinicopathologic analysis of 22 cases. Am J Surg Pathol . (2021) 45:1399–408. doi: 10.1097/pas.0000000000001740

Keywords: ureter, mixed neuroendocrine-non-neuroendocrine neoplasm, MiNEN, immunohistochemistry, diagnosis

Citation: Zhou B, Gan X, Li X, Peng L and Hao H (2024) Ureter mixed neuroendocrine-non-neuroendocrine neoplasm: a case report and literature review. Front. Oncol. 14:1390350. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1390350

Received: 23 February 2024; Accepted: 13 May 2024; Published: 31 May 2024.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2024 Zhou, Gan, Li, Peng and Hao. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Hua Hao, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Piperacillin-Tazobactam-Induced Urticaria and Angioedema: A Case Report With Literature Review

Affiliations.

1 Pharmacology, Government Medical College, Surat, IND.
2 Pharmacology, Government Medical College and New Civil Hospital, Surat, IND.
3 Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Government Medical College, Surat, IND.
4 Pulmonary Medicine, Government Medical College, Surat, IND.
PMID: 38800261
PMCID: PMC11116911
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.58877

Drug-induced urticaria and angioedema cases are typically reversible upon discontinuation and can be triggered by antibiotics, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Piperacillin-tazobactam, a common broad-spectrum antimicrobial, has been linked to severe adverse reactions, such as thrombocytopenia, hemolytic anemia, and Steven Johnson syndrome in some cases. A 35-year-old male presented to the emergency department with fever, cough, and acute breathlessness, complicating his ongoing treatment for pulmonary tuberculosis with bedaquiline and delamanid. He was admitted and received supportive care. On the third day of intravenous piperacillin-tazobactam, he developed drug-induced urticaria and angioedema, which resolved upon discontinuing the drug. Piperacillin/tazobactam-induced hypersensitivity reaction is an immunologic and IgE-mediated immediate reaction. IgE-mediated immediate reactions to three major phenotypes of allergic patients with confirmed to piperacillin/tazobactam are either (1) sensitized to the β-lactam ring or (2) sensitized to the lateral chain of aminopenicillins or (3) selective to piperacillin/tazobactam alone. A skin patch test is advised, or prescribed to avoid hypersensitivity reactions due to piperacillin/tazobactam. This case underscores the challenges of non-adherence to anti-tubercular therapy, leading to drug resistance and prolonged, costly, and sometimes intolerable treatments. Regular patient follow-up, counseling, monitoring, and healthcare provider involvement are essential to enhance treatment adherence. Adverse drug reactions must be promptly reported and managed, and patient-centric approaches are crucial. Digital patient records and standardized data collection are recommended for program evaluation and global policy development. Causality assessment for piperacillin-tazobactam was diagnosed as the probable cause of drug-induced urticaria and angioedema. This case highlights the importance of adherence to tuberculosis treatment to prevent drug resistance. Overall, patient-centered care, monitoring adverse events of drug added, and better data collection are crucial for successful tuberculosis management.

Keywords: adherence; adverse drug reaction; angioedema; piperacillin-tazobactam; urticaria.

Publication types

Case Reports

GPT-4 is better than humans at financial forecasting, new study shows

OpenAI's GPT-4 is better than humans at analyzing financial statements and making forecasts, according to a new study.
"Even without any narrative or industry-specific information, the LLM outperforms financial analysts in its ability to predict earnings changes," the study found.
Trading strategies based on GPT-4 also delivered more profitable results than the stock market.

OpenAI's GPT-4 proved to be a better financial analyst than humans, according to a new study.

The findings could upend the financial services industry that, like other business sectors, is racing to adopt generative AI technologies.

According to the study conducted by the Booth School of Business at the University of Chicago, the large language model did a better job of analyzing financial statements and making predictions based on those statements.

"Even without any narrative or industry-specific information, the LLM outperforms financial analysts in its ability to predict earnings changes," the study said. "The LLM exhibits a relative advantage over human analysts in situations when the analysts tend to struggle."

The study utilized "chain-of-thought" prompts that directed GPT-4 to identify trends in financial statements and calculate different financial ratios. From there, the large language model analyzed the information and predicted future earnings results.

"When we use the chain of thought prompt to emulate human reasoning, we find that GPT achieves an accuracy of 60%, which is remarkably higher than that achieved by the analysts," the study said. The human analysts were closer to the low 50% range with regard to prediction accuracy.

The large language models' ability to recognize financial patterns and business concepts with incomplete information suggests that the technology should play a key role in financial decision-making going forward, according to the study's authors.

Finally, the study found that applying GPT-4's financial acumen to trading strategies produced more profitable trading, with higher share ratios and alpha that ultimately beat the stock market.

"We find that the long-short strategy based on GPT forecasts outperforms the market and generates significant alphas and Sharpe ratios," the study said.

Main content

IMAGES

50 Smart Literature Review Templates (APA) ᐅ TemplateLab
2.2. Literature review
Template:Lit-substub
Example Of Literature Review For Project Report
Research and Statistics Final Project: Literature Review
Template:Lit-substub

VIDEO

ACE 745: Research Report (IUP)
How to Write Literature Review for Research Proposal
The Life of Pi
BLI230 literature survey Report
How to write a literature review?
How to Write and Structure a Literature Review

COMMENTS

How to Write a Literature Review
Examples of literature reviews. Step 1 - Search for relevant literature. Step 2 - Evaluate and select sources. Step 3 - Identify themes, debates, and gaps. Step 4 - Outline your literature review's structure. Step 5 - Write your literature review.
What is a Literature Review? How to Write It (with Examples)
A literature review is a critical analysis and synthesis of existing research on a particular topic. It provides an overview of the current state of knowledge, identifies gaps, and highlights key findings in the literature. 1 The purpose of a literature review is to situate your own research within the context of existing scholarship ...
How To Write A Literature Review (+ Free Template)
Quality research is about building onto the existing work of others, "standing on the shoulders of giants", as Newton put it.The literature review chapter of your dissertation, thesis or research project is where you synthesise this prior work and lay the theoretical foundation for your own research.. Long story short, this chapter is a pretty big deal, which is why you want to make sure ...
PDF How to Write a Literature Review
Where the emphasis is on an investigation or analysis of the literature (analytical evaluation) then your literature review is concentrating on the nature of the problem, its cause and effect as a basis for action to solve it. FORMATIVE When a literature review emphasizes explanation of what you believe the knowledge stemming from
PDF LITERATURE REVIEWS
2. MOTIVATE YOUR RESEARCH in addition to providing useful information about your topic, your literature review must tell a story about how your project relates to existing literature. popular literature review narratives include: ¡ plugging a gap / filling a hole within an incomplete literature ¡ building a bridge between two "siloed" literatures, putting literatures "in conversation"
PDF How to Write a Literature Review
A literature review is a review or discussion of the current published material available on a particular topic. It attempts to synthesizeand evaluatethe material and information according to the research question(s), thesis, and central theme(s). In other words, instead of supporting an argument, or simply making a list of summarized research ...
What is a Literature Review?
A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research. There are five key steps to writing a literature review: Search for relevant literature. Evaluate sources. Identify themes, debates and gaps.
A Complete Guide on How to Write Good a Literature Review
1. Outline and identify the purpose of a literature review. As a first step on how to write a literature review, you must know what the research question or topic is and what shape you want your literature review to take. Ensure you understand the research topic inside out, or else seek clarifications.
How To Structure A Literature Review (Free Template)
Demonstrate your knowledge of the research topic. Identify the gaps in the literature and show how your research links to these. Provide the foundation for your conceptual framework (if you have one) Inform your own methodology and research design. To achieve this, your literature review needs a well-thought-out structure.
How to Write a Literature Review: Six Steps to Get You from ...
Sonja Foss and William Walters* describe an efficient and effective way of writing a literature review. Their system provides an excellent guide for getting through the massive amounts of literature for any purpose: in a dissertation, an M.A. thesis, or preparing a research article for publication in any field of study. Below is a summary of ...
Writing a literature review
How to write a literature review in 6 steps. How do you write a good literature review? This step-by-step guide on how to write an excellent literature review covers all aspects of planning and writing literature reviews for academic papers and theses.
How to write a literature review
Examples of a published literature review Literature reviews are often published as scholarly articles, books, and reports. Here is an example of a recent literature review published as a scholarly journal article: Ledesma, M. C., & Calderón, D. (2015). Critical race theory in education: A review of past literature and a look to the future.
Literature Review Example (PDF + Template)
The literature review opening/introduction section; The theoretical framework (or foundation of theory) The empirical research; The research gap; The closing section; We then progress to the sample literature review (from an A-grade Master's-level dissertation) to show how these concepts are applied in the literature review chapter. You can ...
Writing a Literature Review
A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays).
LibGuides: How to Write a Literature Review: Writing the Review
A literature review is part of a larger project. Even a stand-alone review refers to how the topic reviewed fits into the wider subject or discipline and points toward avenues for future research. Depending on the type of review, your goals may be different. ... Research report: provide the context to which your work is a contribution.
Steps in Conducting a Literature Review
A literature review is an integrated analysis-- not just a summary-- of scholarly writings and other relevant evidence related directly to your research question. That is, it represents a synthesis of the evidence that provides background information on your topic and shows a association between the evidence and your research question.
Engineering: The Literature Review Process
The Literature Review as a Section Within a Document Literature reviews are also part of dissertations, theses, research reports and scholarly journal articles; these types of documents include the review in a section or chapter that discusses what has gone before, how the research being presented in this document fills a gap in the field's ...
Beginning Steps and Finishing a Review
Remember, the literature review is an iterative process. You may need to revisit parts of this search, find new or additional information, or update your research question based on what you find. 7. Provide a synthesis and overview of the literature; this can be organized by themes or chronologically.
Conduct a literature review
Step 3: Critically analyze the literature. Key to your literature review is a critical analysis of the literature collected around your topic. The analysis will explore relationships, major themes, and any critical gaps in the research expressed in the work. Read and summarize each source with an eye toward analyzing authority, currency ...
15 Literature Review Examples (2024)
15 Literature Review Examples. Literature reviews are a necessary step in a research process and often required when writing your research proposal. They involve gathering, analyzing, and evaluating existing knowledge about a topic in order to find gaps in the literature where future studies will be needed. Ideally, once you have completed your ...
Literature Review: Conducting & Writing
Steps for Conducting a Lit Review; Finding "The Literature" Organizing/Writing; APA Style This link opens in a new window; Chicago: Notes Bibliography This link opens in a new window; MLA Style This link opens in a new window; Sample Literature Reviews. Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts; Have an exemplary literature review? Get Help!
Literature Review: Examples, Outline, Format
Here is a literature review outline example on the subject of the Ebola virus to help you get it right: Introduction; ... Whether you are writing a literature review within the framework of a large research project (e.g. thesis, dissertation, or other) or as a stand-alone assignment, the approach you should take to writing generally remains the ...
Literature Review
A literature review is important because it: Explains the background of research on a topic. Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area. Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas. Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic. Identifies critical gaps and points of disagreement.
How to Write a Literature Review for Your Final Year Project
The project is the whole and your literature review is just a part of it. If the topic for your project is not selected, you cannot create a table of content let alone a literature review. You need to sit with your supervisor to; • Talk about your topic. You get to select one but he/she has to approve of it.
Rapid literature review: definition and methodology
Introduction: A rapid literature review (RLR) is an alternative to systematic literature review (SLR) that can speed up the analysis of newly published data. The objective was to identify and summarize available information regarding different approaches to defining RLR and the methodology applied to the conduct of such reviews.
Giant Epiglottic Cyst: A Comprehensive Case Report and Literature Review
In summary, while epiglottic cysts often present a benign course, their potential to induce significant airway obstruction necessitates timely diagnosis and intervention. The evolution of surgical techniques continues to improve outcomes for patients, underscoring the importance of ongoing research and review of these intriguing entities.
Promoting teaching improvement in elementary mathematics: A case with
Despite a continuous effort to improve classroom teaching in the United States, "the core of teaching—the way teachers and students interact about content—has remained the same for a century or more" (Hiebert & Morris, 2012, p. 96).Studies of randomly selected videos of U.S. eighth-grade mathematics lessons from the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study's (TIMSS ...
Ureter mixed neuroendocrine-non-neuroendocrine neoplasm: a case report
11. Tränkenschuh W, Biesdorf AS, Papadimas N, Samara S, Hefty R, Stahl PR. Mixed adenocarcinomatous and neuroendocrine tumor of the urinary bladder with concomitant carcinoma in situ: A case report with a comprehensive immunohistochemical analysis and review of the literature. Int J Surg Pathol. (2019) 27:684-92. doi: 10.1177/1066896919839781
Piperacillin-Tazobactam-Induced Urticaria and Angioedema: A Case Report
Drug-induced urticaria and angioedema cases are typically reversible upon discontinuation and can be triggered by antibiotics, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Piperacillin-tazobactam, a common broad-spectrum antimicrobial, has been linked to severe adverse reactions, such as thrombocytopenia ...
GPT-4 Already Better Than Humans at Financial Forecasts, Modeling
OpenAI's GPT-4 is better than humans at analyzing financial statements and making forecasts, according to a new study. "Even without any narrative or industry-specific information, the LLM ...

What is a Literature Review? How to Write It (with Examples)

Table of Contents

How to write a good literature review

What is a literature review?

What is the purpose of literature review?

Literature review example

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

Conducting a literature review

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

Select Databases for Searches:

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

Review the Literature:

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

Frequently asked questions

Related Reads:

6 Tips for Post-Doc Researchers to Take Their Career to the Next Level

Have a language expert improve your writing

What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Table of contents

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Make a list of keywords

Search for relevant sources

Take notes and cite your sources

Chronological

Methodological

Theoretical

Cite this Scribbr article

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Literature review

How to write a literature review in 6 steps

How to write a systematic literature review [9 steps]

What is a literature review? [with examples]

How to write a literature review

Purpose of the literature review

Components of the literature review

Steps in the literature review process

Evaluating sources

Examples of a published literature review

Additional sources on writing literature reviews

Literature Review Example/Sample

FAQ: Literature Review Example

Can I replicate this literature review for my dissertation?

Where can I find more examples of literature reviews?

How do I get the literature review template?

Is the template really free?

Psst… there’s more!

You Might Also Like:

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

Where, when, and why would I write a lit review?

What are the parts of a lit review?

How should I organize my lit review?

What are some strategies or tips I can use while writing my lit review?

How to Write a Literature Review

Writing the Review

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

What is a literature review?

APA7 Style resources

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

2. Decide on the scope of your review

3. Select the databases you will use to conduct your searches.

4. Conduct your searches to find the evidence. Keep track of your searches.

Review the literature

Engineering: The Literature Review Process

What is a literature review and why is it important?

Conduct a literature review

How do I write a literature review?

Step 2: Identify the literature

Step 3: Critically analyze the literature

Step 4: Categorize your resources