parts of a journal article review

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• This Or That Game New
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• Critical Reviews

How to Write an Article Review

Last Updated: September 8, 2023 Fact Checked

This article was co-authored by Jake Adams . Jake Adams is an academic tutor and the owner of Simplifi EDU, a Santa Monica, California based online tutoring business offering learning resources and online tutors for academic subjects K-College, SAT & ACT prep, and college admissions applications. With over 14 years of professional tutoring experience, Jake is dedicated to providing his clients the very best online tutoring experience and access to a network of excellent undergraduate and graduate-level tutors from top colleges all over the nation. Jake holds a BS in International Business and Marketing from Pepperdine University. There are 13 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 3,086,875 times.

An article review is both a summary and an evaluation of another writer's article. Teachers often assign article reviews to introduce students to the work of experts in the field. Experts also are often asked to review the work of other professionals. Understanding the main points and arguments of the article is essential for an accurate summation. Logical evaluation of the article's main theme, supporting arguments, and implications for further research is an important element of a review . Here are a few guidelines for writing an article review.

Education specialist Alexander Peterman recommends: "In the case of a review, your objective should be to reflect on the effectiveness of what has already been written, rather than writing to inform your audience about a subject."

Things You Should Know

• Read the article very closely, and then take time to reflect on your evaluation. Consider whether the article effectively achieves what it set out to.
• Write out a full article review by completing your intro, summary, evaluation, and conclusion. Don't forget to add a title, too!
• Proofread your review for mistakes (like grammar and usage), while also cutting down on needless information. [1] X Research source

Preparing to Write Your Review

• Article reviews present more than just an opinion. You will engage with the text to create a response to the scholarly writer's ideas. You will respond to and use ideas, theories, and research from your studies. Your critique of the article will be based on proof and your own thoughtful reasoning.
• An article review only responds to the author's research. It typically does not provide any new research. However, if you are correcting misleading or otherwise incorrect points, some new data may be presented.
• An article review both summarizes and evaluates the article.

• Summarize the article. Focus on the important points, claims, and information.
• Discuss the positive aspects of the article. Think about what the author does well, good points she makes, and insightful observations.
• Identify contradictions, gaps, and inconsistencies in the text. Determine if there is enough data or research included to support the author's claims. Find any unanswered questions left in the article.

• Make note of words or issues you don't understand and questions you have.
• Look up terms or concepts you are unfamiliar with, so you can fully understand the article. Read about concepts in-depth to make sure you understand their full context.

• Pay careful attention to the meaning of the article. Make sure you fully understand the article. The only way to write a good article review is to understand the article.

• With either method, make an outline of the main points made in the article and the supporting research or arguments. It is strictly a restatement of the main points of the article and does not include your opinions.
• After putting the article in your own words, decide which parts of the article you want to discuss in your review. You can focus on the theoretical approach, the content, the presentation or interpretation of evidence, or the style. You will always discuss the main issues of the article, but you can sometimes also focus on certain aspects. This comes in handy if you want to focus the review towards the content of a course.
• Review the summary outline to eliminate unnecessary items. Erase or cross out the less important arguments or supplemental information. Your revised summary can serve as the basis for the summary you provide at the beginning of your review.

• What does the article set out to do?
• What is the theoretical framework or assumptions?
• Are the central concepts clearly defined?
• How adequate is the evidence?
• How does the article fit into the literature and field?
• Does it advance the knowledge of the subject?
• How clear is the author's writing? Don't: include superficial opinions or your personal reaction. Do: pay attention to your biases, so you can overcome them.

Writing the Article Review

• For example, in MLA , a citation may look like: Duvall, John N. "The (Super)Marketplace of Images: Television as Unmediated Mediation in DeLillo's White Noise ." Arizona Quarterly 50.3 (1994): 127-53. Print. [10] X Trustworthy Source Purdue Online Writing Lab Trusted resource for writing and citation guidelines Go to source

• For example: The article, "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS," was written by Anthony Zimmerman, a Catholic priest.

• Your introduction should only be 10-25% of your review.
• End the introduction with your thesis. Your thesis should address the above issues. For example: Although the author has some good points, his article is biased and contains some misinterpretation of data from others’ analysis of the effectiveness of the condom.

• Use direct quotes from the author sparingly.
• Review the summary you have written. Read over your summary many times to ensure that your words are an accurate description of the author's article.

• Support your critique with evidence from the article or other texts.
• The summary portion is very important for your critique. You must make the author's argument clear in the summary section for your evaluation to make sense.
• Remember, this is not where you say if you liked the article or not. You are assessing the significance and relevance of the article.
• Use a topic sentence and supportive arguments for each opinion. For example, you might address a particular strength in the first sentence of the opinion section, followed by several sentences elaborating on the significance of the point.

• This should only be about 10% of your overall essay.
• For example: This critical review has evaluated the article "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS" by Anthony Zimmerman. The arguments in the article show the presence of bias, prejudice, argumentative writing without supporting details, and misinformation. These points weaken the author’s arguments and reduce his credibility.

• Make sure you have identified and discussed the 3-4 key issues in the article.

Sample Article Reviews

Expert Q&A

You Might Also Like

• ↑ https://writing.wisc.edu/handbook/grammarpunct/proofreading/
• ↑ https://libguides.cmich.edu/writinghelp/articlereview
• ↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548566/
• ↑ Jake Adams. Academic Tutor & Test Prep Specialist. Expert Interview. 24 July 2020.
• ↑ https://guides.library.queensu.ca/introduction-research/writing/critical
• ↑ https://www.iup.edu/writingcenter/writing-resources/organization-and-structure/creating-an-outline.html
• ↑ https://writing.umn.edu/sws/assets/pdf/quicktips/titles.pdf
• ↑ https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_works_cited_periodicals.html
• ↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548565/
• ↑ https://writingcenter.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/593/2014/06/How_to_Summarize_a_Research_Article1.pdf
• ↑ https://www.uis.edu/learning-hub/writing-resources/handouts/learning-hub/how-to-review-a-journal-article
• ↑ https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/editing-and-proofreading/

About This Article

If you have to write an article review, read through the original article closely, taking notes and highlighting important sections as you read. Next, rewrite the article in your own words, either in a long paragraph or as an outline. Open your article review by citing the article, then write an introduction which states the article’s thesis. Next, summarize the article, followed by your opinion about whether the article was clear, thorough, and useful. Finish with a paragraph that summarizes the main points of the article and your opinions. To learn more about what to include in your personal critique of the article, keep reading the article! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Prince Asiedu-Gyan

Apr 22, 2022

Did this article help you?

Sammy James

Sep 12, 2017

Juabin Matey

Aug 30, 2017

Oct 25, 2023

Vanita Meghrajani

Jul 21, 2016

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

Don’t miss out! Sign up for

wikiHow’s newsletter

How to Write an Article Review: Template & Examples

An article review is an academic assignment that invites you to study a piece of academic research closely. Then, you should present its summary and critically evaluate it using the knowledge you’ve gained in class and during your independent study. If you get such a task at college or university, you shouldn’t confuse it with a response paper, which is a distinct assignment with other purposes (we’ll talk about it in detail below).

Our specialists will write a custom essay specially for you!

In this article, prepared by Custom-Writing experts, you’ll find: 

• the intricacies of article review writing;
• the difference between an article review and similar assignments;
• a step-by-step algorithm for review composition;
• a couple of samples to guide you throughout the writing process.

So, if you wish to study our article review example and discover helpful writing tips, keep reading.

❓ What Is an Article Review?

• ✍️ Writing Steps

📑 Article Review Format

🔗 references.

An article review is an academic paper that summarizes and critically evaluates the information presented in your selected article. 

The first thing you should note when approaching the task of an article review is that not every article is suitable for this assignment. Let’s have a look at the variety of articles to understand what you can choose from.

Popular Vs. Scholarly Articles

In most cases, you’ll be required to review a scholarly, peer-reviewed article – one composed in compliance with rigorous academic standards. Yet, the Web is also full of popular articles that don’t present original scientific value and shouldn’t be selected for a review.  

Just in 1 hour! We will write you a plagiarism-free paper in hardly more than 1 hour

Not sure how to distinguish these two types? Here is a comparative table to help you out.

Article Review vs. Response Paper

Now, let’s consider the difference between an article review and a response paper:

• If you’re assigned to critique a scholarly article , you will need to compose an article review .  
• If your subject of analysis is a popular article , you can respond to it with a well-crafted response paper .  

The reason for such distinctions is the quality and structure of these two article types. Peer-reviewed, scholarly articles have clear-cut quality criteria, allowing you to conduct and present a structured assessment of the assigned material. Popular magazines have loose or non-existent quality criteria and don’t offer an opportunity for structured evaluation. So, they are only fit for a subjective response, in which you can summarize your reactions and emotions related to the reading material.  

All in all, you can structure your response assignments as outlined in the tips below.

✍️ How to Write an Article Review: Step by Step

Here is a tried and tested algorithm for article review writing from our experts. We’ll consider only the critical review variety of this academic assignment. So, let’s get down to the stages you need to cover to get a stellar review.  

Receive a plagiarism-free paper tailored to your instructions. Cut 20% off your first order!

Read the Article

As with any reviews, reports, and critiques, you must first familiarize yourself with the assigned material. It’s impossible to review something you haven’t read, so set some time for close, careful reading of the article to identify:

• Its topic.  
• Its type.  
• The author’s main points and message. 
• The arguments they use to prove their points. 
• The methodology they use to approach the subject. 

In terms of research type , your article will usually belong to one of three types explained below. 

Summarize the Article

Now that you’ve read the text and have a general impression of the content, it’s time to summarize it for your readers. Look into the article’s text closely to determine:

• The thesis statement , or general message of the author.  
• Research question, purpose, and context of research.  
• Supporting points for the author’s assumptions and claims.  
• Major findings and supporting evidence.  

As you study the article thoroughly, make notes on the margins or write these elements out on a sheet of paper. You can also apply a different technique: read the text section by section and formulate its gist in one phrase or sentence. Once you’re done, you’ll have a summary skeleton in front of you.

Evaluate the Article

The next step of review is content evaluation. Keep in mind that various research types will require a different set of review questions. Here is a complete list of evaluation points you can include.

Get an originally-written paper according to your instructions!

Write the Text

After completing the critical review stage, it’s time to compose your article review.

The format of this assignment is standard – you will have an introduction, a body, and a conclusion. The introduction should present your article and summarize its content. The body will contain a structured review according to all four dimensions covered in the previous section. The concluding part will typically recap all the main points you’ve identified during your assessment.  

It is essential to note that an article review is, first of all, an academic assignment. Therefore, it should follow all rules and conventions of academic composition, such as:

• No contractions . Don’t use short forms, such as “don’t,” “can’t,” “I’ll,” etc. in academic writing. You need to spell out all those words.  
• Formal language and style . Avoid conversational phrasing and words that you would naturally use in blog posts or informal communication. For example, don’t use words like “pretty,” “kind of,” and “like.”  
• Third-person narrative . Academic reviews should be written from the third-person point of view, avoiding statements like “I think,” “in my opinion,” and so on.  
• No conversational forms . You shouldn’t turn to your readers directly in the text by addressing them with the pronoun “you.” It’s vital to keep the narrative neutral and impersonal.  
• Proper abbreviation use . Consult the list of correct abbreviations , like “e.g.” or “i.e.,” for use in your academic writing. If you use informal abbreviations like “FYA” or “f.i.,” your professor will reduce the grade.  
• Complete sentences . Make sure your sentences contain the subject and the predicate; avoid shortened or sketch-form phrases suitable for a draft only.  
• No conjunctions at the beginning of a sentence . Remember the FANBOYS rule – don’t start a sentence with words like “and” or “but.” They often seem the right way to build a coherent narrative, but academic writing rules disfavor such usage.  
• No abbreviations or figures at the beginning of a sentence . Never start a sentence with a number — spell it out if you need to use it anyway. Besides, sentences should never begin with abbreviations like “e.g.”  

Finally, a vital rule for an article review is properly formatting the citations. We’ll discuss the correct use of citation styles in the following section.

When composing an article review, keep these points in mind:

• Start with a full reference to the reviewed article so the reader can locate it quickly.  
• Ensure correct formatting of in-text references.  
• Provide a complete list of used external sources on the last page of the review – your bibliographical entries .  

You’ll need to understand the rules of your chosen citation style to meet all these requirements. Below, we’ll discuss the two most common referencing styles – APA and MLA.

Article Review in APA

When you need to compose an article review in the APA format , here is the general bibliographical entry format you should use for journal articles on your reference page:  

• Author’s last name, First initial. Middle initial. (Year of Publication). Name of the article. Name of the Journal, volume (number), pp. #-#. https://doi.org/xx.xxx/yyyy

Horigian, V. E., Schmidt, R. D., & Feaster, D. J. (2021). Loneliness, mental health, and substance use among US young adults during COVID-19. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 53 (1), pp. 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/02791072.2020.1836435

Your in-text citations should follow the author-date format like this:

• If you paraphrase the source and mention the author in the text: According to Horigian et al. (2021), young adults experienced increased levels of loneliness, depression, and anxiety during the pandemic. 
• If you paraphrase the source and don’t mention the author in the text: Young adults experienced increased levels of loneliness, depression, and anxiety during the pandemic (Horigian et al., 2021). 
• If you quote the source: As Horigian et al. (2021) point out, there were “elevated levels of loneliness, depression, anxiety, alcohol use, and drug use among young adults during COVID-19” (p. 6). 

Note that your in-text citations should include “et al.,” as in the examples above, if your article has 3 or more authors. If you have one or two authors, your in-text citations would look like this:

• One author: “According to Smith (2020), depression is…” or “Depression is … (Smith, 2020).”
• Two authors: “According to Smith and Brown (2020), anxiety means…” or “Anxiety means (Smith & Brown, 2020).”

Finally, in case you have to review a book or a website article, here are the general formats for citing these source types on your APA reference list.

Article Review in MLA

If your assignment requires MLA-format referencing, here’s the general format you should use for citing journal articles on your Works Cited page: 

• Author’s last name, First name. “Title of an Article.” Title of the Journal , vol. #, no. #, year, pp. #-#. 

Horigian, Viviana E., et al. “Loneliness, Mental Health, and Substance Use Among US Young Adults During COVID-19.” Journal of Psychoactive Drugs , vol. 53, no. 1, 2021, pp. 1-9.

In-text citations in the MLA format follow the author-page citation format and look like this:

• According to Horigian et al., young adults experienced increased levels of loneliness, depression, and anxiety during the pandemic (6).
• Young adults experienced increased levels of loneliness, depression, and anxiety during the pandemic (Horigian et al. 6).

Like in APA, the abbreviation “et al.” is only needed in MLA if your article has 3 or more authors.

If you need to cite a book or a website page, here are the general MLA formats for these types of sources.

✅ Article Review Template

Here is a handy, universal article review template to help you move on with any review assignment. We’ve tried to make it as generic as possible to guide you in the academic process.

📝 Article Review Examples

The theory is good, but practice is even better. Thus, we’ve created three brief examples to show you how to write an article review. You can study the full-text samples by following the links.

📃 Men, Women, & Money   

This article review examines a famous piece, “Men, Women & Money – How the Sexes Differ with Their Finances,” published by Amy Livingston in 2020. The author of this article claims that men generally spend more money than women. She makes this conclusion from a close analysis of gender-specific expenditures across five main categories: food, clothing, cars, entertainment, and general spending patterns. Livingston also looks at men’s approach to saving to argue that counter to the common perception of women’s light-hearted attitude to money, men are those who spend more on average.  

📃 When and Why Nationalism Beats Globalism   

This is a review of Jonathan Heidt’s 2016 article titled “When and Why Nationalism Beats Globalism,” written as an advocacy of right-wing populism rising in many Western states. The author illustrates the case with the election of Donald Trump as the US President and the rise of right-wing rhetoric in many Western countries. These examples show how nationalist sentiment represents a reaction to global immigration and a failure of globalization.  

📃 Sleep Deprivation   

This is a review of the American Heart Association’s article titled “The Dangers of Sleep Deprivation.” It discusses how the national organization concerned with the American population’s cardiovascular health links the lack of high-quality sleep to far-reaching health consequences. The organization’s experts reveal how a consistent lack of sleep leads to Alzheimer’s disease development, obesity, type 2 diabetes, etc.  

✏️ Article Review FAQ

A high-quality article review should summarize the assigned article’s content and offer data-backed reactions and evaluations of its quality in terms of the article’s purpose, methodology, and data used to argue the main points. It should be detailed, comprehensive, objective, and evidence-based.

The purpose of writing a review is to allow students to reflect on research quality and showcase their critical thinking and evaluation skills. Students should exhibit their mastery of close reading of research publications and their unbiased assessment.

The content of your article review will be the same in any format, with the only difference in the assignment’s formatting before submission. Ensure you have a separate title page made according to APA standards and cite sources using the parenthetical author-date referencing format.

You need to take a closer look at various dimensions of an assigned article to compose a valuable review. Study the author’s object of analysis, the purpose of their research, the chosen method, data, and findings. Evaluate all these dimensions critically to see whether the author has achieved the initial goals. Finally, offer improvement recommendations to add a critique aspect to your paper.

• Scientific Article Review: Duke University  
• Book and Article Reviews: William & Mary, Writing Resources Center  
• Sample Format for Reviewing a Journal Article: Boonshoft School of Medicine  
• Research Paper Review – Structure and Format Guidelines: New Jersey Institute of Technology  
• Article Review: University of Waterloo  
• Article Review: University of South Australia  
• How to Write a Journal Article Review: University of Newcastle Library Guides  
• Writing Help: The Article Review: Central Michigan University Libraries  
• Write a Critical Review of a Scientific Journal Article: McLaughlin Library  
• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to LinkedIn
• Share to email

Short essays answer a specific question on the subject. They usually are anywhere between 250 words and 750 words long. A paper with less than 250 words isn’t considered a finished text, so it doesn’t fall under the category of a short essay. Essays of such format are required for...

High school and college students often face challenges when crafting a compare-and-contrast essay. A well-written paper of this kind needs to be structured appropriately to earn you good grades. Knowing how to organize your ideas allows you to present your ideas in a coherent and logical manner This article by...

If you’re a student, you’ve heard about a formal essay: a factual, research-based paper written in 3rd person. Most students have to produce dozens of them during their educational career.  Writing a formal essay may not be the easiest task. But fear not: our custom-writing team is here to guide...

Narrative essays are unlike anything you wrote throughout your academic career. Instead of writing a formal paper, you need to tell a story. Familiar elements such as evidence and arguments are replaced with exposition and character development. The importance of writing an outline for an essay like this is hard...

A précis is a brief synopsis of a written piece. It is used to summarize and analyze a text’s main points. If you need to write a précis for a research paper or the AP Lang exam, you’ve come to the right place. In this comprehensive guide by Custom-Writing.org, you’ll...

A synthesis essay requires you to work with multiple sources. You combine the information gathered from them to present a well-rounded argument on a topic. Are you looking for the ultimate guide on synthesis essay writing? You’ve come to the right place! In this guide by our custom writing team,...

Do you know how to make your essay stand out? One of the easiest ways is to start your introduction with a catchy hook. A hook is a phrase or a sentence that helps to grab the reader’s attention. After reading this article by Custom-Writing.org, you will be able to...

Critical thinking is the process of evaluating and analyzing information. People who use it in everyday life are open to different opinions. They rely on reason and logic when making conclusions about certain issues. A critical thinking essay shows how your thoughts change as you research your topic. This type...

Process analysis is an explanation of how something works or happens. Want to know more? Read the following article prepared by our custom writing specialists and learn about: process analysis and its typesa process analysis outline tipsfree examples and other tips that might be helpful for your college assignment So,...

A visual analysis essay is an academic paper type that history and art students often deal with. It consists of a detailed description of an image or object. It can also include an interpretation or an argument that is supported by visual evidence. In this article, our custom writing experts...

Want to know how to write a reflection paper for college or school? To do that, you need to connect your personal experiences with theoretical knowledge. Usually, students are asked to reflect on a documentary, a text, or their experience. Sometimes one needs to write a paper about a lesson...

A character analysis is an examination of the personalities and actions of protagonists and antagonists that make up a story. It discusses their role in the story, evaluates their traits, and looks at their conflicts and experiences. You might need to write this assignment in school or college. Like any...

Get Started

Take the first step and invest in your future.

Online Programs

Offering flexibility & convenience in 51 online degrees & programs.

Prairie Stars

Featuring 15 intercollegiate NCAA Div II athletic teams.

Find your Fit

UIS has over 85 student and 10 greek life organizations, and many volunteer opportunities.

Arts & Culture

Celebrating the arts to create rich cultural experiences on campus.

Give Like a Star

Your generosity helps fuel fundraising for scholarships, programs and new initiatives.

Bragging Rights

UIS was listed No. 1 in Illinois and No. 3 in the Midwest in 2023 rankings.

• Quick links Applicants & Students Important Apps & Links Alumni Faculty and Staff Community Admissions How to Apply Cost & Aid Tuition Calculator Registrar Orientation Visit Campus Academics Register for Class Programs of Study Online Degrees & Programs Graduate Education International Student Services Study Away Student Support Bookstore UIS Life Dining Diversity & Inclusion Get Involved Health & Wellness COVID-19 United in Safety Residence Life Student Life Programs UIS Connection Important Apps UIS Mobile App Advise U Canvas myUIS i-card Balance Pay My Bill - UIS Bursar Self-Service Email Resources Bookstore Box Information Technology Services Library Orbit Policies Webtools Get Connected Area Information Calendar Campus Recreation Departments & Programs (A-Z) Parking UIS Newsroom Connect & Get Involved Update your Info Alumni Events Alumni Networks & Groups Volunteer Opportunities Alumni Board News & Publications Featured Alumni Alumni News UIS Alumni Magazine Resources Order your Transcripts Give Back Alumni Programs Career Development Services & Support Accessibility Services Campus Services Campus Police Facilities & Services Registrar Faculty & Staff Resources Website Project Request Web Services Training & Tools Academic Impressions Career Connect CSA Reporting Cybersecurity Training Faculty Research FERPA Training Website Login Campus Resources Newsroom Campus Calendar Campus Maps i-Card Human Resources Public Relations Webtools Arts & Events UIS Performing Arts Center Visual Arts Gallery Event Calendar Sangamon Experience Center for Lincoln Studies ECCE Speaker Series Community Engagement Center for State Policy and Leadership Illinois Innocence Project Innovate Springfield Central IL Nonprofit Resource Center NPR Illinois Community Resources Child Protection Training Academy Office of Electronic Media University Archives/IRAD Institute for Illinois Public Finance

Request Info

How to Review a Journal Article

• Request Info Request info for....     Undergraduate/Graduate     Online     Study Away     Continuing & Professional Education     International Student Services     General Inquiries

For many kinds of assignments, like a  literature review , you may be asked to offer a critique or review of a journal article. This is an opportunity for you as a scholar to offer your  qualified opinion  and  evaluation  of how another scholar has composed their article, argument, and research. That means you will be expected to go beyond a simple  summary  of the article and evaluate it on a deeper level. As a college student, this might sound intimidating. However, as you engage with the research process, you are becoming immersed in a particular topic, and your insights about the way that topic is presented are valuable and can contribute to the overall conversation surrounding your topic.

IMPORTANT NOTE!!

Some disciplines, like Criminal Justice, may only want you to summarize the article without including your opinion or evaluation. If your assignment is to summarize the article only, please see our literature review handout.

Before getting started on the critique, it is important to review the article thoroughly and critically. To do this, we recommend take notes,  annotating , and reading the article several times before critiquing. As you read, be sure to note important items like the thesis, purpose, research questions, hypotheses, methods, evidence, key findings, major conclusions, tone, and publication information. Depending on your writing context, some of these items may not be applicable.

Questions to Consider

To evaluate a source, consider some of the following questions. They are broken down into different categories, but answering these questions will help you consider what areas to examine. With each category, we recommend identifying the strengths and weaknesses in each since that is a critical part of evaluation.

Evaluating Purpose and Argument

• How well is the purpose made clear in the introduction through background/context and thesis?
• How well does the abstract represent and summarize the article’s major points and argument?
• How well does the objective of the experiment or of the observation fill a need for the field?
• How well is the argument/purpose articulated and discussed throughout the body of the text?
• How well does the discussion maintain cohesion?

Evaluating the Presentation/Organization of Information

• How appropriate and clear is the title of the article?
• Where could the author have benefited from expanding, condensing, or omitting ideas?
• How clear are the author’s statements? Challenge ambiguous statements.
• What underlying assumptions does the author have, and how does this affect the credibility or clarity of their article?
• How objective is the author in his or her discussion of the topic?
• How well does the organization fit the article’s purpose and articulate key goals?

Evaluating Methods

• How appropriate are the study design and methods for the purposes of the study?
• How detailed are the methods being described? Is the author leaving out important steps or considerations?
• Have the procedures been presented in enough detail to enable the reader to duplicate them?

Evaluating Data

• Scan and spot-check calculations. Are the statistical methods appropriate?
• Do you find any content repeated or duplicated?
• How many errors of fact and interpretation does the author include? (You can check on this by looking up the references the author cites).
• What pertinent literature has the author cited, and have they used this literature appropriately?

Following, we have an example of a summary and an evaluation of a research article. Note that in most literature review contexts, the summary and evaluation would be much shorter. This extended example shows the different ways a student can critique and write about an article.

Chik, A. (2012). Digital gameplay for autonomous foreign language learning: Gamers’ and language teachers’ perspectives. In H. Reinders (ed.),  Digital games in language learning and teaching  (pp. 95-114). Eastbourne, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Be sure to include the full citation either in a reference page or near your evaluation if writing an  annotated bibliography .

In Chik’s article “Digital Gameplay for Autonomous Foreign Language Learning: Gamers’ and Teachers’ Perspectives”, she explores the ways in which “digital gamers manage gaming and gaming-related activities to assume autonomy in their foreign language learning,” (96) which is presented in contrast to how teachers view the “pedagogical potential” of gaming. The research was described as an “umbrella project” consisting of two parts. The first part examined 34 language teachers’ perspectives who had limited experience with gaming (only five stated they played games regularly) (99). Their data was recorded through a survey, class discussion, and a seven-day gaming trial done by six teachers who recorded their reflections through personal blog posts. The second part explored undergraduate gaming habits of ten Hong Kong students who were regular gamers. Their habits were recorded through language learning histories, videotaped gaming sessions, blog entries of gaming practices, group discussion sessions, stimulated recall sessions on gaming videos, interviews with other gamers, and posts from online discussion forums. The research shows that while students recognize the educational potential of games and have seen benefits of it in their lives, the instructors overall do not see the positive impacts of gaming on foreign language learning.

The summary includes the article’s purpose, methods, results, discussion, and citations when necessary.

This article did a good job representing the undergraduate gamers’ voices through extended quotes and stories. Particularly for the data collection of the undergraduate gamers, there were many opportunities for an in-depth examination of their gaming practices and histories. However, the representation of the teachers in this study was very uneven when compared to the students. Not only were teachers labeled as numbers while the students picked out their own pseudonyms, but also when viewing the data collection, the undergraduate students were more closely examined in comparison to the teachers in the study. While the students have fifteen extended quotes describing their experiences in their research section, the teachers only have two of these instances in their section, which shows just how imbalanced the study is when presenting instructor voices.

Some research methods, like the recorded gaming sessions, were only used with students whereas teachers were only asked to blog about their gaming experiences. This creates a richer narrative for the students while also failing to give instructors the chance to have more nuanced perspectives. This lack of nuance also stems from the emphasis of the non-gamer teachers over the gamer teachers. The non-gamer teachers’ perspectives provide a stark contrast to the undergraduate gamer experiences and fits neatly with the narrative of teachers not valuing gaming as an educational tool. However, the study mentioned five teachers that were regular gamers whose perspectives are left to a short section at the end of the presentation of the teachers’ results. This was an opportunity to give the teacher group a more complex story, and the opportunity was entirely missed.

Additionally, the context of this study was not entirely clear. The instructors were recruited through a master’s level course, but the content of the course and the institution’s background is not discussed. Understanding this context helps us understand the course’s purpose(s) and how those purposes may have influenced the ways in which these teachers interpreted and saw games. It was also unclear how Chik was connected to this masters’ class and to the students. Why these particular teachers and students were recruited was not explicitly defined and also has the potential to skew results in a particular direction.

Overall, I was inclined to agree with the idea that students can benefit from language acquisition through gaming while instructors may not see the instructional value, but I believe the way the research was conducted and portrayed in this article made it very difficult to support Chik’s specific findings.

Some professors like you to begin an evaluation with something positive but isn’t always necessary.

The evaluation is clearly organized and uses transitional phrases when moving to a new topic.

This evaluation includes a summative statement that gives the overall impression of the article at the end, but this can also be placed at the beginning of the evaluation.

This evaluation mainly discusses the representation of data and methods. However, other areas, like organization, are open to critique.

How to write a journal article review: Do the writing

• What's in this Guide
• What is a journal article?
• Create a template
• Choose your article to review
• Read your article carefully

Do the writing

• Remember to edit
• Additional resources

Start to write. Follow the instructions of your assessment, then structure your writing accordingly.

The four key parts of a journal article review are:

3. A critique, or a discussion about the key points of the journal article.

A critique is a discussion about the key points of the journal article. It should be a balanced discussion about the  strengths and weaknesses of the key points and structure of the article.

You will also need to discuss if the author(s) points are valid (supported by other literature) and robust (would you get the same outcome if the way the information was gathered was repeated).

Example of part of a critique

4. A conclusion - a final evaluation of the article

1. Give an overall opinion of the text.

2. Briefly summarise key points and determine if they are valid, useful, accurate etc.

3. Remember, do not include new ideas or opinions in the conclusion.

Pathways and Academic Learning Support

• << Previous: Read your article carefully
• Next: Remember to edit >>
• Last Updated: Apr 27, 2023 4:28 PM
• URL: https://libguides.newcastle.edu.au/how-to-write-a-journal-article-review

How to Write an Article Review: Tips and Examples

Did you know that article reviews are not just academic exercises but also a valuable skill in today's information age? In a world inundated with content, being able to dissect and evaluate articles critically can help you separate the wheat from the chaff. Whether you're a student aiming to excel in your coursework or a professional looking to stay well-informed, mastering the art of writing article reviews is an invaluable skill.

Short Description

In this article, our research paper writing service experts will start by unraveling the concept of article reviews and discussing the various types. You'll also gain insights into the art of formatting your review effectively. To ensure you're well-prepared, we'll take you through the pre-writing process, offering tips on setting the stage for your review. But it doesn't stop there. You'll find a practical example of an article review to help you grasp the concepts in action. To complete your journey, we'll guide you through the post-writing process, equipping you with essential proofreading techniques to ensure your work shines with clarity and precision!

What Is an Article Review: Grasping the Concept 

A review article is a type of professional paper writing that demands a high level of in-depth analysis and a well-structured presentation of arguments. It is a critical, constructive evaluation of literature in a particular field through summary, classification, analysis, and comparison.

If you write a scientific review, you have to use database searches to portray the research. Your primary goal is to summarize everything and present a clear understanding of the topic you've been working on.

Writing Involves:

• Summarization, classification, analysis, critiques, and comparison.
• The analysis, evaluation, and comparison require the use of theories, ideas, and research relevant to the subject area of the article.
• It is also worth nothing if a review does not introduce new information, but instead presents a response to another writer's work.
• Check out other samples to gain a better understanding of how to review the article.

Types of Review

When it comes to article reviews, there's more than one way to approach the task. Understanding the various types of reviews is like having a versatile toolkit at your disposal. In this section, we'll walk you through the different dimensions of review types, each offering a unique perspective and purpose. Whether you're dissecting a scholarly article, critiquing a piece of literature, or evaluating a product, you'll discover the diverse landscape of article reviews and how to navigate it effectively.

Journal Article Review

Just like other types of reviews, a journal article review assesses the merits and shortcomings of a published work. To illustrate, consider a review of an academic paper on climate change, where the writer meticulously analyzes and interprets the article's significance within the context of environmental science.

Research Article Review

Distinguished by its focus on research methodologies, a research article review scrutinizes the techniques used in a study and evaluates them in light of the subsequent analysis and critique. For instance, when reviewing a research article on the effects of a new drug, the reviewer would delve into the methods employed to gather data and assess their reliability.

Science Article Review

In the realm of scientific literature, a science article review encompasses a wide array of subjects. Scientific publications often provide extensive background information, which can be instrumental in conducting a comprehensive analysis. For example, when reviewing an article about the latest breakthroughs in genetics, the reviewer may draw upon the background knowledge provided to facilitate a more in-depth evaluation of the publication.

Need a Hand From Professionals?

Address to Our Writers and Get Assistance in Any Questions!

Formatting an Article Review

The format of the article should always adhere to the citation style required by your professor. If you're not sure, seek clarification on the preferred format and ask him to clarify several other pointers to complete the formatting of an article review adequately.

How Many Publications Should You Review?

• In what format should you cite your articles (MLA, APA, ASA, Chicago, etc.)?
• What length should your review be?
• Should you include a summary, critique, or personal opinion in your assignment?
• Do you need to call attention to a theme or central idea within the articles?
• Does your instructor require background information?

When you know the answers to these questions, you may start writing your assignment. Below are examples of MLA and APA formats, as those are the two most common citation styles.

Using the APA Format

Articles appear most commonly in academic journals, newspapers, and websites. If you write an article review in the APA format, you will need to write bibliographical entries for the sources you use:

• Web : Author [last name], A.A [first and middle initial]. (Year, Month, Date of Publication). Title. Retrieved from {link}
• Journal : Author [last name], A.A [first and middle initial]. (Publication Year). Publication Title. Periodical Title, Volume(Issue), pp.-pp.
• Newspaper : Author [last name], A.A [first and middle initial]. (Year, Month, Date of Publication). Publication Title. Magazine Title, pp. xx-xx.

Using MLA Format

• Web : Last, First Middle Initial. “Publication Title.” Website Title. Website Publisher, Date Month Year Published. Web. Date Month Year Accessed.
• Newspaper : Last, First M. “Publication Title.” Newspaper Title [City] Date, Month, Year Published: Page(s). Print.
• Journal : Last, First M. “Publication Title.” Journal Title Series Volume. Issue (Year Published): Page(s). Database Name. Web. Date Month Year Accessed.

Enhance your writing effortlessly with EssayPro.com , where you can order an article review or any other writing task. Our team of expert writers specializes in various fields, ensuring your work is not just summarized, but deeply analyzed and professionally presented. Ideal for students and professionals alike, EssayPro offers top-notch writing assistance tailored to your needs. Elevate your writing today with our skilled team at your article review writing service !

The Pre-Writing Process

Facing this task for the first time can really get confusing and can leave you unsure of where to begin. To create a top-notch article review, start with a few preparatory steps. Here are the two main stages from our dissertation services to get you started:

Step 1: Define the right organization for your review. Knowing the future setup of your paper will help you define how you should read the article. Here are the steps to follow:

• Summarize the article — seek out the main points, ideas, claims, and general information presented in the article.
• Define the positive points — identify the strong aspects, ideas, and insightful observations the author has made.
• Find the gaps —- determine whether or not the author has any contradictions, gaps, or inconsistencies in the article and evaluate whether or not he or she used a sufficient amount of arguments and information to support his or her ideas.
• Identify unanswered questions — finally, identify if there are any questions left unanswered after reading the piece.

Step 2: Move on and review the article. Here is a small and simple guide to help you do it right:

• Start off by looking at and assessing the title of the piece, its abstract, introductory part, headings and subheadings, opening sentences in its paragraphs, and its conclusion.
• First, read only the beginning and the ending of the piece (introduction and conclusion). These are the parts where authors include all of their key arguments and points. Therefore, if you start with reading these parts, it will give you a good sense of the author's main points.
• Finally, read the article fully.

These three steps make up most of the prewriting process. After you are done with them, you can move on to writing your own review—and we are going to guide you through the writing process as well.

Outline and Template

As you progress with reading your article, organize your thoughts into coherent sections in an outline. As you read, jot down important facts, contributions, or contradictions. Identify the shortcomings and strengths of your publication. Begin to map your outline accordingly.

If your professor does not want a summary section or a personal critique section, then you must alleviate those parts from your writing. Much like other assignments, an article review must contain an introduction, a body, and a conclusion. Thus, you might consider dividing your outline according to these sections as well as subheadings within the body. If you find yourself troubled with the pre-writing and the brainstorming process for this assignment, seek out a sample outline.

Your custom essay must contain these constituent parts:

• Pre-Title Page - Before diving into your review, start with essential details: article type, publication title, and author names with affiliations (position, department, institution, location, and email). Include corresponding author info if needed.
• Running Head - In APA format, use a concise title (under 40 characters) to ensure consistent formatting.
• Summary Page - Optional but useful. Summarize the article in 800 words, covering background, purpose, results, and methodology, avoiding verbatim text or references.
• Title Page - Include the full title, a 250-word abstract, and 4-6 keywords for discoverability.
• Introduction - Set the stage with an engaging overview of the article.
• Body - Organize your analysis with headings and subheadings.
• Works Cited/References - Properly cite all sources used in your review.
• Optional Suggested Reading Page - If permitted, suggest further readings for in-depth exploration.
• Tables and Figure Legends (if instructed by the professor) - Include visuals when requested by your professor for clarity.

Example of an Article Review

You might wonder why we've dedicated a section of this article to discuss an article review sample. Not everyone may realize it, but examining multiple well-constructed examples of review articles is a crucial step in the writing process. In the following section, our essay writing service experts will explain why.

Looking through relevant article review examples can be beneficial for you in the following ways:

• To get you introduced to the key works of experts in your field.
• To help you identify the key people engaged in a particular field of science.
• To help you define what significant discoveries and advances were made in your field.
• To help you unveil the major gaps within the existing knowledge of your field—which contributes to finding fresh solutions.
• To help you find solid references and arguments for your own review.
• To help you generate some ideas about any further field of research.
• To help you gain a better understanding of the area and become an expert in this specific field.
• To get a clear idea of how to write a good review.

View Our Writer’s Sample Before Crafting Your Own!

Why Have There Been No Great Female Artists?

Steps for Writing an Article Review

Here is a guide with critique paper format on how to write a review paper:

Step 1: Write the Title

First of all, you need to write a title that reflects the main focus of your work. Respectively, the title can be either interrogative, descriptive, or declarative.

Step 2: Cite the Article

Next, create a proper citation for the reviewed article and input it following the title. At this step, the most important thing to keep in mind is the style of citation specified by your instructor in the requirements for the paper. For example, an article citation in the MLA style should look as follows:

Author's last and first name. "The title of the article." Journal's title and issue(publication date): page(s). Print

Abraham John. "The World of Dreams." Virginia Quarterly 60.2(1991): 125-67. Print.

Step 3: Article Identification

After your citation, you need to include the identification of your reviewed article:

• Title of the article
• Title of the journal
• Year of publication

All of this information should be included in the first paragraph of your paper.

The report "Poverty increases school drop-outs" was written by Brian Faith – a Health officer – in 2000.

Step 4: Introduction

Your organization in an assignment like this is of the utmost importance. Before embarking on your writing process, you should outline your assignment or use an article review template to organize your thoughts coherently.

• If you are wondering how to start an article review, begin with an introduction that mentions the article and your thesis for the review.
• Follow up with a summary of the main points of the article.
• Highlight the positive aspects and facts presented in the publication.
• Critique the publication by identifying gaps, contradictions, disparities in the text, and unanswered questions.

Step 5: Summarize the Article

Make a summary of the article by revisiting what the author has written about. Note any relevant facts and findings from the article. Include the author's conclusions in this section.

Step 6: Critique It

Present the strengths and weaknesses you have found in the publication. Highlight the knowledge that the author has contributed to the field. Also, write about any gaps and/or contradictions you have found in the article. Take a standpoint of either supporting or not supporting the author's assertions, but back up your arguments with facts and relevant theories that are pertinent to that area of knowledge. Rubrics and templates can also be used to evaluate and grade the person who wrote the article.

Step 7: Craft a Conclusion

In this section, revisit the critical points of your piece, your findings in the article, and your critique. Also, write about the accuracy, validity, and relevance of the results of the article review. Present a way forward for future research in the field of study. Before submitting your article, keep these pointers in mind:

• As you read the article, highlight the key points. This will help you pinpoint the article's main argument and the evidence that they used to support that argument.
• While you write your review, use evidence from your sources to make a point. This is best done using direct quotations.
• Select quotes and supporting evidence adequately and use direct quotations sparingly. Take time to analyze the article adequately.
• Every time you reference a publication or use a direct quotation, use a parenthetical citation to avoid accidentally plagiarizing your article.
• Re-read your piece a day after you finish writing it. This will help you to spot grammar mistakes and to notice any flaws in your organization.
• Use a spell-checker and get a second opinion on your paper.

The Post-Writing Process: Proofread Your Work

Finally, when all of the parts of your article review are set and ready, you have one last thing to take care of — proofreading. Although students often neglect this step, proofreading is a vital part of the writing process and will help you polish your paper to ensure that there are no mistakes or inconsistencies.

To proofread your paper properly, start by reading it fully and checking the following points:

• Punctuation
• Other mistakes

Afterward, take a moment to check for any unnecessary information in your paper and, if found, consider removing it to streamline your content. Finally, double-check that you've covered at least 3-4 key points in your discussion.

And remember, if you ever need help with proofreading, rewriting your essay, or even want to buy essay , our friendly team is always here to assist you.

Need an Article REVIEW WRITTEN?

Just send us the requirements to your paper and watch one of our writers crafting an original paper for you.

What Is A Review Article?

How to write an article review, how to write an article review in apa format, related articles.

When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.

• PLOS Biology
• PLOS Climate
• PLOS Complex Systems
• PLOS Computational Biology
• PLOS Digital Health
• PLOS Genetics
• PLOS Global Public Health
• PLOS Medicine
• PLOS Mental Health
• PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
• PLOS Pathogens
• PLOS Sustainability and Transformation
• PLOS Collections

How to Write a Peer Review

When you write a peer review for a manuscript, what should you include in your comments? What should you leave out? And how should the review be formatted?

This guide provides quick tips for writing and organizing your reviewer report.

Review Outline

Use an outline for your reviewer report so it’s easy for the editors and author to follow. This will also help you keep your comments organized.

Think about structuring your review like an inverted pyramid. Put the most important information at the top, followed by details and examples in the center, and any additional points at the very bottom.

Here’s how your outline might look:

1. Summary of the research and your overall impression

In your own words, summarize what the manuscript claims to report. This shows the editor how you interpreted the manuscript and will highlight any major differences in perspective between you and the other reviewers. Give an overview of the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses. Think about this as your “take-home” message for the editors. End this section with your recommended course of action.

2. Discussion of specific areas for improvement

It’s helpful to divide this section into two parts: one for major issues and one for minor issues. Within each section, you can talk about the biggest issues first or go systematically figure-by-figure or claim-by-claim. Number each item so that your points are easy to follow (this will also make it easier for the authors to respond to each point). Refer to specific lines, pages, sections, or figure and table numbers so the authors (and editors) know exactly what you’re talking about.

Major vs. minor issues

What’s the difference between a major and minor issue? Major issues should consist of the essential points the authors need to address before the manuscript can proceed. Make sure you focus on what is  fundamental for the current study . In other words, it’s not helpful to recommend additional work that would be considered the “next step” in the study. Minor issues are still important but typically will not affect the overall conclusions of the manuscript. Here are some examples of what would might go in the “minor” category:

• Missing references (but depending on what is missing, this could also be a major issue)
• Technical clarifications (e.g., the authors should clarify how a reagent works)
• Data presentation (e.g., the authors should present p-values differently)
• Typos, spelling, grammar, and phrasing issues

3. Any other points

Confidential comments for the editors.

Some journals have a space for reviewers to enter confidential comments about the manuscript. Use this space to mention concerns about the submission that you’d want the editors to consider before sharing your feedback with the authors, such as concerns about ethical guidelines or language quality. Any serious issues should be raised directly and immediately with the journal as well.

This section is also where you will disclose any potentially competing interests, and mention whether you’re willing to look at a revised version of the manuscript.

Do not use this space to critique the manuscript, since comments entered here will not be passed along to the authors.  If you’re not sure what should go in the confidential comments, read the reviewer instructions or check with the journal first before submitting your review. If you are reviewing for a journal that does not offer a space for confidential comments, consider writing to the editorial office directly with your concerns.

Get this outline in a template

Giving Feedback

Giving feedback is hard. Giving effective feedback can be even more challenging. Remember that your ultimate goal is to discuss what the authors would need to do in order to qualify for publication. The point is not to nitpick every piece of the manuscript. Your focus should be on providing constructive and critical feedback that the authors can use to improve their study.

If you’ve ever had your own work reviewed, you already know that it’s not always easy to receive feedback. Follow the golden rule: Write the type of review you’d want to receive if you were the author. Even if you decide not to identify yourself in the review, you should write comments that you would be comfortable signing your name to.

In your comments, use phrases like “ the authors’ discussion of X” instead of “ your discussion of X .” This will depersonalize the feedback and keep the focus on the manuscript instead of the authors.

General guidelines for effective feedback

• Justify your recommendation with concrete evidence and specific examples.
• Be specific so the authors know what they need to do to improve.
• Be thorough. This might be the only time you read the manuscript.
• Be professional and respectful. The authors will be reading these comments too.
• Remember to say what you liked about the manuscript!

Don’t

• Recommend additional experiments or  unnecessary elements that are out of scope for the study or for the journal criteria.
• Tell the authors exactly how to revise their manuscript—you don’t need to do their work for them.
• Use the review to promote your own research or hypotheses.
• Focus on typos and grammar. If the manuscript needs significant editing for language and writing quality, just mention this in your comments.
• Submit your review without proofreading it and checking everything one more time.

Before and After: Sample Reviewer Comments

Keeping in mind the guidelines above, how do you put your thoughts into words? Here are some sample “before” and “after” reviewer comments

✗ Before

“The authors appear to have no idea what they are talking about. I don’t think they have read any of the literature on this topic.”

✓ After

“The study fails to address how the findings relate to previous research in this area. The authors should rewrite their Introduction and Discussion to reference the related literature, especially recently published work such as Darwin et al.”

“The writing is so bad, it is practically unreadable. I could barely bring myself to finish it.”

“While the study appears to be sound, the language is unclear, making it difficult to follow. I advise the authors work with a writing coach or copyeditor to improve the flow and readability of the text.”

“It’s obvious that this type of experiment should have been included. I have no idea why the authors didn’t use it. This is a big mistake.”

“The authors are off to a good start, however, this study requires additional experiments, particularly [type of experiment]. Alternatively, the authors should include more information that clarifies and justifies their choice of methods.”

Suggested Language for Tricky Situations

You might find yourself in a situation where you’re not sure how to explain the problem or provide feedback in a constructive and respectful way. Here is some suggested language for common issues you might experience.

What you think : The manuscript is fatally flawed. What you could say: “The study does not appear to be sound” or “the authors have missed something crucial”.

What you think : You don’t completely understand the manuscript. What you could say : “The authors should clarify the following sections to avoid confusion…”

What you think : The technical details don’t make sense. What you could say : “The technical details should be expanded and clarified to ensure that readers understand exactly what the researchers studied.”

What you think: The writing is terrible. What you could say : “The authors should revise the language to improve readability.”

What you think : The authors have over-interpreted the findings. What you could say : “The authors aim to demonstrate [XYZ], however, the data does not fully support this conclusion. Specifically…”

What does a good review look like?

Check out the peer review examples at F1000 Research to see how other reviewers write up their reports and give constructive feedback to authors.

Time to Submit the Review!

Be sure you turn in your report on time. Need an extension? Tell the journal so that they know what to expect. If you need a lot of extra time, the journal might need to contact other reviewers or notify the author about the delay.

Tip: Building a relationship with an editor

You’ll be more likely to be asked to review again if you provide high-quality feedback and if you turn in the review on time. Especially if it’s your first review for a journal, it’s important to show that you are reliable. Prove yourself once and you’ll get asked to review again!

• Getting started as a reviewer
• Responding to an invitation
• Reading a manuscript
• Writing a peer review

The contents of the Peer Review Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

The contents of the Writing Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

There’s a lot to consider when deciding where to submit your work. Learn how to choose a journal that will help your study reach its audience, while reflecting your values as a researcher…

Write a Critical Review

Introduction, how can i improve my critical review, ask us: chat, email, visit or call.

Video: How to Integrate Critical Voice into Your Literature Review

Video: Note-taking and Writing Tips to Avoid Plagiarism

More help: Writing

• Book Writing Appointments Get help on your writing assignments.
• To introduce the source, its main ideas, key details, and its place within the field
• To present your assessment of the quality of the source

In general, the introduction of your critical review should include

• Author(s) name
• Title of the source 
• What is the author's central purpose?
• What methods or theoretical frameworks were used to accomplish this purpose?
• What topic areas, chapters, sections, or key points did the author use to structure the source?
• What were the results or findings of the study?
• How were the results or findings interpreted? How were they related to the original problem (author's view of evidence rather than objective findings)?
• Who conducted the research? What were/are their interests?
• Why did they do this research?
• Was this research pertinent only within the author’s field, or did it have broader (even global) relevance?
• On what prior research was this source-based? What gap is the author attempting to address?
• How important was the research question posed by the researcher?
• Your overall opinion of the quality of the source. Think of this like a thesis or main argument.
• Present your evaluation of the source, providing evidence from the text (or other sources) to support your assessment.

In general, the body of your critical review should include

• Is the material organized logically and with appropriate headings?
• Are there stylistic problems in logical, clarity or language?
• Were the author(s) able to answer the question (test the hypothesis) raised
• What was the objective of the study?
• Does all the information lead coherently to the purpose of the study?
• Are the methods valid for studying the problem or gap?
• Could the study be duplicated from the information provided?
• Is the experimental design logical and reliable?
• How are the data organized? Is it logical and interpretable?
• Do the results reveal what the researcher intended?
• Do the authors present a logical interpretation of the results?
• Have the limitations of the research been addressed?
• Does the study consider other key studies in the field or other research possibilities or directions?
• How was the significance of the work described?
• Follow the structure of the journal article (e.g. Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion) - highlighting the strengths and weaknesses in each section
• Present the weaknesses of the article, and then the strengths of the article (or vice versa).
• Group your ideas according to different research themes presented in the source
• Group the strengths and weaknesses of the article into the following areas: originality, reliability, validity, relevance, and presentation

Purpose: 

• To summarize the strengths and weaknesses of the article as a whole
• To assert the article’s practical and theoretical significance

In general, the conclusion of your critical review should include

• A restatement of your overall opinion
• A summary of the key strengths and weaknesses of the research that support your overall opinion of the source
• Did the research reported in this source result in the formation of new questions, theories or hypotheses by the authors or other researchers?
• Have other researchers subsequently supported or refuted the observations or interpretations of these authors?
• Did the research provide new factual information, a new understanding of a phenomenon in the field, a new research technique?
• Did the research produce any practical applications? 
• What are the social, political, technological, or medical implications of this research?
• How do you evaluate the significance of the research? 
• Find out what style guide you are required to follow (e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago) and follow the guidelines to create a reference list (may be called a bibliography or works cited).
• Be sure to include citations in the text when you refer to the source itself or external sources. 
• Check out our Cite Your Sources Guide for more information. 
• Read assignment instructions carefully and refer to them throughout the writing process.
• Make an outline of your main sections before you write.
• If your professor does not assign a topic or source, you must choose one yourself. Select a source that interests you and is written clearly so you can understand it.
• << Previous: Start Here
• Last Updated: Sep 26, 2023 10:58 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uoguelph.ca/CriticalReview

Suggest an edit to this guide

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

• All eBooks & Audiobooks
• Academic eBook Collection
• Home Grown eBook Collection
• Off-Campus Access
• Literature Resource Center
• Opposing Viewpoints
• ProQuest Central
• Course Guides
• Citing Sources
• Library Research
• Websites by Topic
• Book-a-Librarian
• Research Tutorials
• Use the Catalog
• Use Databases
• Use Films on Demand
• Use Home Grown eBooks
• Use NC LIVE
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary vs. Secondary
• Scholarly vs. Popular
• Make an Appointment
• Writing Tools
• Annotated Bibliographies
• Summaries, Reviews & Critiques
• Writing Center

Service Alert

Article Summaries, Reviews & Critiques

• Writing an article SUMMARY

Writing an article REVIEW

• Writing an article CRITIQUE
• Citing Sources This link opens in a new window
• About RCC Library

Text: 336-308-8801

Email: [email protected]

Call: 336-633-0204

Schedule: Book-a-Librarian

Like us on Facebook

Links on this guide may go to external web sites not connected with Randolph Community College. Their inclusion is not an endorsement by Randolph Community College and the College is not responsible for the accuracy of their content or the security of their site.

A journal article review is written for a reader who is knowledgeable in the discipline and is interested not just in the coverage and content of the article being reviewed, but also in your critical assessment of the ideas and argument that are being presented by the author.

Your review might be guided by the following questions:

Additional Resources

All links open in a new window.

How to Write an Article Review (from Essaypro.com)

How to Review a Journal Article (from University of Illinois Springfield)

Writing Critical Reviews (from Queen's University Library)

• << Previous: Writing an article SUMMARY
• Next: Writing an article CRITIQUE >>
• Last Updated: Mar 15, 2024 9:32 AM
• URL: https://libguides.randolph.edu/summaries

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

Published on January 2, 2023 by Shona McCombes . Revised on September 11, 2023.

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 that you can later apply to your paper, thesis, or dissertation topic .

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 summarize sources—it analyzes, synthesizes , and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

What is the purpose of 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, free lecture slides, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions, introduction.

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

When you write a thesis , dissertation , or research paper , you will likely 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 its scholarly context
• Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
• Position your work in relation to other researchers and theorists
• Show how your research addresses a gap or contributes to a debate
• Evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of the scholarly debates around your topic.

Writing literature reviews is a particularly important skill if you want to apply for graduate school or pursue a career in research. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

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 problem and questions .

Make a list of keywords

Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research question. 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 as 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 useful 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 also use boolean operators to help narrow down your search.

Make sure to 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.

You likely won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on your topic, so it will be necessary to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your research question.

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?
• 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 use our template to summarize and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using. Click on either button below to download.

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 is important to keep track of your sources with citations to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography , where you compile full citation 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.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

To begin organizing your literature review’s argument and structure, be sure you 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 organizing the body of a literature review. 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 summarizing sources in order.

Try to analyze 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 organize 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.

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, you can follow these tips:

• 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 sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts

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

When you’ve finished writing and revising your literature review, don’t forget to proofread thoroughly before submitting. Not a language expert? Check out Scribbr’s professional proofreading services !

This article has been adapted into lecture slides that you can use to teach your students about writing a literature review.

Scribbr slides are free to use, customize, and distribute for educational purposes.

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

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 thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.

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

• To familiarize 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 thesis or dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .

A literature review is a survey of credible sources on a topic, often used in dissertations , theses, and research papers . Literature reviews give an overview of knowledge on a subject, helping you identify relevant theories and methods, as well as gaps in existing research. Literature reviews are set up similarly to other  academic texts , with an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion .

An  annotated bibliography is a list of  source references that has a short description (called an annotation ) for each of the sources. It is often assigned as part of the research process for a  paper .  

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 Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved April 2, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, what is your plagiarism score.

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.

• Other Guides
• Article Review: How's and Why's Explained
• Speech Topics
• Basics of Essay Writing
• Essay Topics
• Other Essays
• Main Academic Essays
• Research Paper Topics
• Basics of Research Paper Writing
• Miscellaneous
• Chicago/ Turabian
• Data & Statistics
• Methodology
• Admission Writing Tips
• Admission Advice
• Student Life
• Studying Tips
• Understanding Plagiarism
• Academic Writing Tips
• Basics of Dissertation & Thesis Writing

• Essay Guides
• Research Paper Guides
• Formatting Guides
• Basics of Research Process
• Admission Guides
• Dissertation & Thesis Guides

Article Review: How's and Why's Explained

Table of contents

Use our free Readability checker

An article review is a critical evaluation of a published journal article. It typically provides an overview of the main points, the author’s arguments, and general quality. Article reviews are usually conducted as part of an academic course or as professional development for educators.

Preparing material before writing an article review requires a thorough study of facts. Assessing what should be stated in your paper plays a crucial role in your research process. The main difficulty is that you should consider the specified information with extra care and formulate your thoughts clearly when writing. It is impossible to write a review article without studying the work. You can't conduct a fair review without having a certain knowledge base. Provided information must be reasonable and contain valid arguments. If these basic characteristics are absent, it indicates that such an evaluation is unfair.

What Is a Review Article?

Writing this type of professional paper requires preparation. A review article or a literature review is an article critique of another author's work that was published previously. Its purpose is to survey existing research and provide readers with your critical assessment of this specific topic. You will be able to create a high-quality article review using these principles:

• main topic in-depth analysis;
• generalization and classification;
• comparison of information from several sources.

When specifying a definition of a review article, a thorough analysis of relevant information and an appropriate database use are a must. The main task is to identify the topic correctly and share the results of your research. The subject of paperwork and the conclusions' validity of its author are your main targets.

Review Article Structure

Preparation for writing a review contains several stages. They include research and making your own opinion. Without an outline of your review article , nothing will work. So it is worth considering an outline and focusing on this issue as well. In addition, your finished work should include:

• criticism and comparison (introduction);
• detailed topic analysis;
• new information.

Finished work should contain a personal conclusion. If you don't include it, an article will be incomplete. You can learn more about how to write such paperwork correctly by exploring the other information below.

How to Write a Good Introduction for a Review Article

Preliminary preparation for writing a piece in a new format will let you:

• determine the author’s focus;
• mark arguments;
• pay attention to structuring.

Studying headlines and arguments plays a critical role in your finished work. Eventually, it makes it more helpful to readers. You should also focus on the introduction of how to start an essay . The introduction makes it possible to get acquainted with a perspective of its topic. For greater efficiency, it is worth pointing out the main thesis. It is important to display issues raised in an article when writing an introduction. When you start your paper, make sure your introduction is catchy enough. It should be interesting and bring some value to your readers. The first few sentences will be your hook for grabbing attention. Tell your audience why you have chosen that particular topic. Also, mention why the subject you surveyed is important.

The Body of Review Article

When studying materials, you should identify different ways of argumentation . Then you will have to highlight them in your work. Please note that the body of article review is an essential component that needs careful work on its details. Remember that your body paragraphs will vary depending on your topic. The bulk of the work includes:

• describing the author's arguments;
• providing a personal assessment.

Study the text of the first paragraphs. Then try to retell them in your own words. Retelling will help you understand your topic better and transfer your attention from the background to the foreground. Ultimately, you will have to summarize what you’ve read. Tell your opinion about its choice of arguments and evidence base.

How to Write Conclusion to Review Article

Writing a conclusion is always hard. You will need to outline the topic raised by the author and share your impressions. Use the citation from the author's work. Identify the most compelling arguments. Then address them in the conclusion of your review article. Also you can try to use our Conclusion Generator to find interesting ideas. You can’t finish reviewing without providing new information. This will mean that your research was unproductive. Discover new sides of a raised topic. Then search for the presence of arguments from similar literature. It will let you compile a summary of materials you have read and offer food for thought.

Review Article Format

Article review format is necessary for a correct presentation of data about used articles and scientific papers. While writing research, you will need to use citations of both the author and other reliable sources. Depending on your choice, you should write a description. It is worth stopping at APA in some cases. This type of data presentation is more common. There are different rules for writing descriptions of citations in MLA format. Special attention is paid to allocating primary information. Initials, titles, indications of sources, and other information are drawn in accordance with the rules. Looking for a book review format ? We have one more blog dedicated to this theme.

APA Format Article Review

Knowing how to cite a quote is mandatory because they can be used as arguments. Studying materials and presenting data about sources in a certain style requires careful focus on the order of placement of bibliographic data. Choosing APA format for article review is a popular decision for authors who prefer citing information from Internet sources, magazines, and newspapers.

MLA Format Article Review

To write this type of paper, people use quotes from literature covering the given topic. Formatting choice depends on your personal preference. However, if you have decided what style to use, you still should follow some basic rules. Article review in MLA format assumes an indication of publication date, bibliographic data, and titles. Don’t make mistakes when citing authors. Take your time to study the requirements.

How to Write an Article Review

In order to write such a paper, you should decide on your goal. As an author, you should use your analytical skills, critical thinking, and logical arguments. If you still don’t understand how to write an article review, you should follow the tips below:

• come up with some catchy title;
• use the author's quotes of your publication;
• don’t forget to include the title that you are analyzing;
• reflect your main ideas in the introduction;
• write a resume.

The final part is displaying your material's strengths and weaknesses. Identifying your opinion about the work is also a goal. Use informed criticism to achieve the desired result.

Last Thoughts on Writing a Review Article

A review article is a type of professional essay writing . So you need to study its subject carefully. Use multiple sources and highlight the main arguments. Then form your own opinion on the given topic. In conclusion of your article review, you should bring new arguments for or against the author's opinion. Use the authors' work with an excellent reputation and quote them in your article sections. Finally, don't forget to summarize and point out your work's strengths and weaknesses. Healthy criticism will let you draw up proper conclusions and challenge the author's opinion.

If you need help with your article review, feel free to contact our essay writing service. Our proficient academic writers will execute a perfect paper while being in touch for immediate revisions all the time.

FAQ About Article Review

1. what is a systematic article review.

Reviews of publications that highlight important research are thoroughly analyzed by peers and other representatives in its field. Writing a systematic review article will let you provide strong and weak arguments. Besides, it will help you give your reasons and draw correct conclusions. This will require exploring other relevant articles and databases. Research work allows you to identify erroneous conclusions. It also allows you to produce quality material for interested readers.

2. How long should an article review be?

Preparing and writing a review article requires a serious approach to the work being studied. It is rather difficult to determine how much such an article should take. Many things depend on your chosen topic: the volume of source material (number of words), research quality carried out. Ultimately, you will need to show the author's arguments as well as bring yours in order to support or refute a central thought.

3. How to title an article review?

When writing a review, selecting the right title is also an important task. It is permissible to use interrogative, summarizing, and other sentences to fully reflect the main idea. Heading becomes the focus for drawing attention, so it should be appropriate for your work. The finished review article should reflect the selected topic. It also should present a composed heading for a better understanding of readers.

4. Why articles are peer-reviewed?

In their works, researchers raise important questions that cannot be ignored. Reviewing materials allows you to determine your conclusion’s validity and to achieve better results. Conducting new independent research guarantees discovering new sides of an issue. In addition, more readers manage to study the journal article review.

Rachel R. Hill is a real educational devotee. She prides in writing exceptional general guides while listening to every need of students.

You may also like

How to Write an Article Review That Stands Out

An article review is a critical assessment of another writer’s  research paper  or scholarly article. Such an activity aims to expand one’s knowledge by evaluating the original author’s research.

Of course, writing an article review could be tricky. But a few expert tips and tricks can get you on the right track. That’s what this interesting blog post is all about. So, ensure you read it till the end to make the most out of it.

Table of Contents

A Step-by-step Guide on How to Write an Article Review

Master the art of writing an article review with this step-by-step guide from professional  paper help  providers. 

Step 1: Select the Right Article

The first step is to pick a suitable article for a review. Choose a scholarly source that’s connected to your area of study. You can look for pieces printed in trustworthy journals or by respected authors.

For Example:

For reviewing an article on climate change, consider selecting one from scientific journals like Nature or Science.

Step 2: Read and Understand the Article

It’s super important to read and understand the article before writing your review. Read the article a few times and jot down the notes as you go. Focus on the main arguments, major points, evidence, and how it’s structured. 

Let’s say you’re looking at an article on how social media affects mental health. Ensure to take note of the following: 

• The number of people involved 
• How the data is analyzed 
• The Results 

Step 3: Structure and Introduction

To start a solid review, start with an introduction that gives readers the background info they need. Must include the article’s title, the author, and where it was published. Also, write a summary of the main point or argument in the article.

“In the article ‘The Impact of Social Media on Mental Health by John Smith, published in the Journal of Psychology: 

The author examines the correlation between excessive social media usage and adolescent mental health disorders.”

Step 4: Summarize the Article

In this part, you’ll need to quickly go over the main points and arguments from the article. Make it short but must cover the most important elements and the evidence that backs them up. Leave your opinions and analysis out of it for now. 

For instance, you could write:

“The author discusses various studies highlighting the negative effects of excessive social media usage on mental health.

Smith’s research reveals a significant correlation between 

Increased social media consumption and higher rates of anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem among teenagers. 

The article also explores the underlying mechanisms, such as social comparison and cyberbullying. All are contributing to the adverse mental health outcomes.”

Step 5: Critically Analyze and Evaluate

Now that you’ve given a rundown of the article, it’s time to take a closer look. Think about what the author did well and what could have been done better. 

Check out the proof they used and if it seems solid. Give a thorough assessment, and use examples from the text to support your thoughts. 

For Example

“While the article presents compelling evidence linking social media usage to mental health issues , it is important to acknowledge some limitations in Smith’s study. 

The sample size of the research was relatively small. It comprises only 100 participants, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. 

Additionally, the study primarily focused on one specific age group, namely adolescents. This way, there’s room for further research on other demographic groups.”

Step 6: Express Your Perspective

Here’s your chance to give your two cents and show off your smarts. Put your spin on the article by pointing out the pros, cons, and other potential improvements. Remember to back up your thoughts with facts and sound arguments.

Continuing with the Previous Example

Despite the limitations, Smith’s research offers valuable insights into the complex relationship between social media and mental health. 

Future studies could expand the sample size and include a more diverse range of age groups. It is better to understand the broader impact of social media on mental well-being. 

Furthermore, exploring strategies for developing digital literacy programs could be potential avenues for future research.

Step 7: Conclusion and Final Thoughts

At the end of your article review, wrap it up with a brief and powerful conclusion. Give a summary of your main points and overall thoughts about the article. 

Point out its importance to the field and the impact of the study. Finish off with a thought-provoking conclusion. Give the reader a sense of finality and emphasize the need for additional research or discussion.

For instance

“In conclusion, John Smith’s article provides valuable insights into the detrimental effects of excessive social media usage on adolescent mental health. 

While the research has limitations, it serves as a starting point for further investigation in this rapidly evolving field. 

By addressing the research gaps and implementing targeted interventions: 

We can strive to promote a healthier relationship between social media and mental well-being in our digitally connected society.”

Step 8: Editing and Proofreading

Before submission, set aside some time for editing and proofreading. 

Ensure everything makes sense and everything is correct. Check out how it reads and if your points come across clearly. Get feedback from other people to get a different point of view and make it even better.

Types of Article Reviews

In college, you might be asked to write different types of review articles, including: 

Narrative Review

This type of review needs you to look into the author’s background and experiences. You have to go through the specialist’s theories and practices and compare them. For the success of a narrative review, ensure that your arguments are qualitative and make sense.

Evidence Review

For a solid evidence paper, you got to put in the work and study the topic. You’ll need to research the facts, analyze the author’s ideas, their effects, and more. 

Systematic Review

This task involves reviewing a bunch of research papers and summarizing the existing knowledge about a certain subject. A systematic paper type uses an organized approach and expects you to answer questions linked to the research.

Tips for Writing a Great Article Review

Here are some expert tips you could use to write an exceptional article review:

1. Figure out the main points you want to cover and why they matter.

• It will help you zero in on the key points.

2. Look for and assess pertinent sources, both from the past and present.

• It will give you a better understanding of the article you’re looking at.

3. Come Up with a Catchy Title, Summarize Your Topic in an Abstract, and Select Keywords

• It will help people read your review and get a good idea of what it’s about.

4. Write the main point of a review along with introducing the topic. 

• It should help readers get a better grasp of the topic.

Outline for Writing a Good Article Review

Here’s an outline to write an excellent article review. 

Introduction

– Begin with a summary of the article 

– Put in background knowledge of the topic 

– State why you are writing the review 

– Give an overview of the article’s main points 

– Figure out why the author choose to write something 

– Look at the article and consider what it does well and what it could have done better.

– Highlight the shortcomings in the article

– Restate why you are writing the review 

– Sum up the main points in a few sentences 

– Suggest what could be achieved in the future research 

Review Article Example

Title: “The Power of Vulnerability: A Review of Brené Brown’s Daring Greatly”

Introduction:

In her revolutionary book “Daring Greatly,” 

Brené Brown, a renowned researcher and storyteller. Delves into vulnerability and how it can positively impact our lives, both professionally and personally. 

Brown’s work has gained lots of praise. Since it resonates with people looking to build real connections in a world that often feels isolated. 

This article looks to recap the main ideas and concepts from “Daring Greatly.” Also explains why it is such a captivating and insightful read.

Summary of Key Ideas:

“Daring Greatly” is all about how the vulnerability isn’t a sign of being weak. but it’s actually what it takes to be brave, strong and live a full life. 

Brene Brown examines how society and culture can make it hard to be vulnerable. And, how fear of being judged or shamed stops us from being our authentic selves.

The book puts a lot of emphasis on shame and how it affects us. 

Brown explains that shame thrives when it’s kept hidden away and can only be cured by being open, understanding, and compassionate. 

By admitting our weaknesses, we can create meaningful connections and a sense of community.

Brown looks into the connection between being open to vulnerability and unleashing creative leadership and innovation. 

She uses her own experiences and research to support her viewpoint. The book also gives useful advice on how to include vulnerability in different parts of life. Such as relationships, parenting, and the workplace.

Strengths of the Book:

Brown’s book is remarkable for her ability to mix her own experiences with comprehensive research. Combining her stories and evidence makes the material engaging and easy to understand. 

Plus, her writing style is so friendly that readers feel they’re being acknowledged and accepted.

There’s advice on how to be kind to yourself. Set your limits, and accept that things won’t always be perfect. It’s like a toolkit to help you build strength and make positive changes.

Final Verdict

This book is really helpful for everyone, no matter who you are. It can help you figure out how to grow in life, have better relationships, and become a better leader. Plus, since it applies to all kinds of people, everyone can get something out of it.

If you want to write a great article review, it’s important to pick the right article, understand and analyze it critically. Finally, express your thoughts on it clearly. Ensure to stay impartial, back up your points with evidence, and write clearly and coherently.

Still if you are having troubles writing an article review, don’t hesitate to count on the expertise of  our writers .

Order Original Papers & Essays

Your First Custom Paper Sample is on Us!

Timely Deliveries

No Plagiarism & AI

100% Refund

Try Our Free Paper Writing Service

Related blogs.

Connections with Writers and support

Privacy and Confidentiality Guarantee

Average Quality Score

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
• PLoS Comput Biol
• v.9(7); 2013 Jul

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

1 Centre for Functional and Evolutionary Ecology (CEFE), CNRS, Montpellier, France

2 Centre for Biodiversity Synthesis and Analysis (CESAB), FRB, Aix-en-Provence, France

Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications [1] . For example, compared to 1991, in 2008 three, eight, and forty times more papers were indexed in Web of Science on malaria, obesity, and biodiversity, respectively [2] . Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every single new paper relevant to their interests [3] . Thus, it is both advantageous and necessary to rely on regular summaries of the recent literature. Although recognition for scientists mainly comes from primary research, timely literature reviews can lead to new synthetic insights and are often widely read [4] . For such summaries to be useful, however, they need to be compiled in a professional way [5] .

When starting from scratch, reviewing the literature can require a titanic amount of work. That is why researchers who have spent their career working on a certain research issue are in a perfect position to review that literature. Some graduate schools are now offering courses in reviewing the literature, given that most research students start their project by producing an overview of what has already been done on their research issue [6] . However, it is likely that most scientists have not thought in detail about how to approach and carry out a literature review.

Reviewing the literature requires the ability to juggle multiple tasks, from finding and evaluating relevant material to synthesising information from various sources, from critical thinking to paraphrasing, evaluating, and citation skills [7] . In this contribution, I share ten simple rules I learned working on about 25 literature reviews as a PhD and postdoctoral student. Ideas and insights also come from discussions with coauthors and colleagues, as well as feedback from reviewers and editors.

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

How to choose which topic to review? There are so many issues in contemporary science that you could spend a lifetime of attending conferences and reading the literature just pondering what to review. On the one hand, if you take several years to choose, several other people may have had the same idea in the meantime. On the other hand, only a well-considered topic is likely to lead to a brilliant literature review [8] . The topic must at least be:

• interesting to you (ideally, you should have come across a series of recent papers related to your line of work that call for a critical summary),
• an important aspect of the field (so that many readers will be interested in the review and there will be enough material to write it), and
• a well-defined issue (otherwise you could potentially include thousands of publications, which would make the review unhelpful).

Ideas for potential reviews may come from papers providing lists of key research questions to be answered [9] , but also from serendipitous moments during desultory reading and discussions. In addition to choosing your topic, you should also select a target audience. In many cases, the topic (e.g., web services in computational biology) will automatically define an audience (e.g., computational biologists), but that same topic may also be of interest to neighbouring fields (e.g., computer science, biology, etc.).

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

After having chosen your topic and audience, start by checking the literature and downloading relevant papers. Five pieces of advice here:

• keep track of the search items you use (so that your search can be replicated [10] ),
• keep a list of papers whose pdfs you cannot access immediately (so as to retrieve them later with alternative strategies),
• use a paper management system (e.g., Mendeley, Papers, Qiqqa, Sente),
• define early in the process some criteria for exclusion of irrelevant papers (these criteria can then be described in the review to help define its scope), and
• do not just look for research papers in the area you wish to review, but also seek previous reviews.

The chances are high that someone will already have published a literature review ( Figure 1 ), if not exactly on the issue you are planning to tackle, at least on a related topic. If there are already a few or several reviews of the literature on your issue, my advice is not to give up, but to carry on with your own literature review,

The bottom-right situation (many literature reviews but few research papers) is not just a theoretical situation; it applies, for example, to the study of the impacts of climate change on plant diseases, where there appear to be more literature reviews than research studies [33] .

• discussing in your review the approaches, limitations, and conclusions of past reviews,
• trying to find a new angle that has not been covered adequately in the previous reviews, and
• incorporating new material that has inevitably accumulated since their appearance.

When searching the literature for pertinent papers and reviews, the usual rules apply:

• be thorough,
• use different keywords and database sources (e.g., DBLP, Google Scholar, ISI Proceedings, JSTOR Search, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science), and
• look at who has cited past relevant papers and book chapters.

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

If you read the papers first, and only afterwards start writing the review, you will need a very good memory to remember who wrote what, and what your impressions and associations were while reading each single paper. My advice is, while reading, to start writing down interesting pieces of information, insights about how to organize the review, and thoughts on what to write. This way, by the time you have read the literature you selected, you will already have a rough draft of the review.

Of course, this draft will still need much rewriting, restructuring, and rethinking to obtain a text with a coherent argument [11] , but you will have avoided the danger posed by staring at a blank document. Be careful when taking notes to use quotation marks if you are provisionally copying verbatim from the literature. It is advisable then to reformulate such quotes with your own words in the final draft. It is important to be careful in noting the references already at this stage, so as to avoid misattributions. Using referencing software from the very beginning of your endeavour will save you time.

Rule 4: Choose the Type of Review You Wish to Write

After having taken notes while reading the literature, you will have a rough idea of the amount of material available for the review. This is probably a good time to decide whether to go for a mini- or a full review. Some journals are now favouring the publication of rather short reviews focusing on the last few years, with a limit on the number of words and citations. A mini-review is not necessarily a minor review: it may well attract more attention from busy readers, although it will inevitably simplify some issues and leave out some relevant material due to space limitations. A full review will have the advantage of more freedom to cover in detail the complexities of a particular scientific development, but may then be left in the pile of the very important papers “to be read” by readers with little time to spare for major monographs.

There is probably a continuum between mini- and full reviews. The same point applies to the dichotomy of descriptive vs. integrative reviews. While descriptive reviews focus on the methodology, findings, and interpretation of each reviewed study, integrative reviews attempt to find common ideas and concepts from the reviewed material [12] . A similar distinction exists between narrative and systematic reviews: while narrative reviews are qualitative, systematic reviews attempt to test a hypothesis based on the published evidence, which is gathered using a predefined protocol to reduce bias [13] , [14] . When systematic reviews analyse quantitative results in a quantitative way, they become meta-analyses. The choice between different review types will have to be made on a case-by-case basis, depending not just on the nature of the material found and the preferences of the target journal(s), but also on the time available to write the review and the number of coauthors [15] .

Rule 5: Keep the Review Focused, but Make It of Broad Interest

Whether your plan is to write a mini- or a full review, it is good advice to keep it focused 16 , 17 . Including material just for the sake of it can easily lead to reviews that are trying to do too many things at once. The need to keep a review focused can be problematic for interdisciplinary reviews, where the aim is to bridge the gap between fields [18] . If you are writing a review on, for example, how epidemiological approaches are used in modelling the spread of ideas, you may be inclined to include material from both parent fields, epidemiology and the study of cultural diffusion. This may be necessary to some extent, but in this case a focused review would only deal in detail with those studies at the interface between epidemiology and the spread of ideas.

While focus is an important feature of a successful review, this requirement has to be balanced with the need to make the review relevant to a broad audience. This square may be circled by discussing the wider implications of the reviewed topic for other disciplines.

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

Reviewing the literature is not stamp collecting. A good review does not just summarize the literature, but discusses it critically, identifies methodological problems, and points out research gaps [19] . After having read a review of the literature, a reader should have a rough idea of:

• the major achievements in the reviewed field,
• the main areas of debate, and
• the outstanding research questions.

It is challenging to achieve a successful review on all these fronts. A solution can be to involve a set of complementary coauthors: some people are excellent at mapping what has been achieved, some others are very good at identifying dark clouds on the horizon, and some have instead a knack at predicting where solutions are going to come from. If your journal club has exactly this sort of team, then you should definitely write a review of the literature! In addition to critical thinking, a literature review needs consistency, for example in the choice of passive vs. active voice and present vs. past tense.

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

Like a well-baked cake, a good review has a number of telling features: it is worth the reader's time, timely, systematic, well written, focused, and critical. It also needs a good structure. With reviews, the usual subdivision of research papers into introduction, methods, results, and discussion does not work or is rarely used. However, a general introduction of the context and, toward the end, a recapitulation of the main points covered and take-home messages make sense also in the case of reviews. For systematic reviews, there is a trend towards including information about how the literature was searched (database, keywords, time limits) [20] .

How can you organize the flow of the main body of the review so that the reader will be drawn into and guided through it? It is generally helpful to draw a conceptual scheme of the review, e.g., with mind-mapping techniques. Such diagrams can help recognize a logical way to order and link the various sections of a review [21] . This is the case not just at the writing stage, but also for readers if the diagram is included in the review as a figure. A careful selection of diagrams and figures relevant to the reviewed topic can be very helpful to structure the text too [22] .

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

Reviews of the literature are normally peer-reviewed in the same way as research papers, and rightly so [23] . As a rule, incorporating feedback from reviewers greatly helps improve a review draft. Having read the review with a fresh mind, reviewers may spot inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and ambiguities that had not been noticed by the writers due to rereading the typescript too many times. It is however advisable to reread the draft one more time before submission, as a last-minute correction of typos, leaps, and muddled sentences may enable the reviewers to focus on providing advice on the content rather than the form.

Feedback is vital to writing a good review, and should be sought from a variety of colleagues, so as to obtain a diversity of views on the draft. This may lead in some cases to conflicting views on the merits of the paper, and on how to improve it, but such a situation is better than the absence of feedback. A diversity of feedback perspectives on a literature review can help identify where the consensus view stands in the landscape of the current scientific understanding of an issue [24] .

Rule 9: Include Your Own Relevant Research, but Be Objective

In many cases, reviewers of the literature will have published studies relevant to the review they are writing. This could create a conflict of interest: how can reviewers report objectively on their own work [25] ? Some scientists may be overly enthusiastic about what they have published, and thus risk giving too much importance to their own findings in the review. However, bias could also occur in the other direction: some scientists may be unduly dismissive of their own achievements, so that they will tend to downplay their contribution (if any) to a field when reviewing it.

In general, a review of the literature should neither be a public relations brochure nor an exercise in competitive self-denial. If a reviewer is up to the job of producing a well-organized and methodical review, which flows well and provides a service to the readership, then it should be possible to be objective in reviewing one's own relevant findings. In reviews written by multiple authors, this may be achieved by assigning the review of the results of a coauthor to different coauthors.

Rule 10: Be Up-to-Date, but Do Not Forget Older Studies

Given the progressive acceleration in the publication of scientific papers, today's reviews of the literature need awareness not just of the overall direction and achievements of a field of inquiry, but also of the latest studies, so as not to become out-of-date before they have been published. Ideally, a literature review should not identify as a major research gap an issue that has just been addressed in a series of papers in press (the same applies, of course, to older, overlooked studies (“sleeping beauties” [26] )). This implies that literature reviewers would do well to keep an eye on electronic lists of papers in press, given that it can take months before these appear in scientific databases. Some reviews declare that they have scanned the literature up to a certain point in time, but given that peer review can be a rather lengthy process, a full search for newly appeared literature at the revision stage may be worthwhile. Assessing the contribution of papers that have just appeared is particularly challenging, because there is little perspective with which to gauge their significance and impact on further research and society.

Inevitably, new papers on the reviewed topic (including independently written literature reviews) will appear from all quarters after the review has been published, so that there may soon be the need for an updated review. But this is the nature of science [27] – [32] . I wish everybody good luck with writing a review of the literature.

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to M. Barbosa, K. Dehnen-Schmutz, T. Döring, D. Fontaneto, M. Garbelotto, O. Holdenrieder, M. Jeger, D. Lonsdale, A. MacLeod, P. Mills, M. Moslonka-Lefebvre, G. Stancanelli, P. Weisberg, and X. Xu for insights and discussions, and to P. Bourne, T. Matoni, and D. Smith for helpful comments on a previous draft.

Funding Statement

This work was funded by the French Foundation for Research on Biodiversity (FRB) through its Centre for Synthesis and Analysis of Biodiversity data (CESAB), as part of the NETSEED research project. The funders had no role in the preparation of the manuscript.

REVIEW article

This article is part of the research topic.

Advancing Sustainability, Battling Climate Change

Strengthening Resilience: Decentralised Decision-Making and Multi-Criteria Analysis in the Energy-Water-Food Nexus Systems Provisionally Accepted

• 1 Hamad bin Khalifa University, Qatar

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

The Energy-Water-Food (EWF) nexus is a complex and multidimensional system, in which the energy, water and food resources are strongly interconnected. EWF nexus systems are seriously threatened by natural hazards (e.g., climate change and extreme weather events) along with other human-driven threats, including rapid population growth, urbanisation, terrorism, and geopolitical uncertainty. As such, integrated analysis, as encouraged by the EWF nexus can facilitate the identification of essential connections and potential conflicts that may arise in the planning and operation of resource systems. Moreover, in order to consider immediate shocks and long-term pressures, it is imperative to prioritize the strengthening of EWF system resilience by incorporating robust and efficient resource management strategies, which consider various dimensions of sustainability and security such as technical, environmental, economic, and societal aspects. Decentralisation is one concept that has the potential of improving the resilience of nexus systems faced to the multiple risks governing them through reducing single points of failure and enabling swifter responses to sudden shocks and continuous volatilities. However, in order to achieve a holistic system resilience through decentralisation, the assessment of the different risks impacting each nexus sector is fundamental, yet it can be particularly challenging. Therefore, the objective of this study is to review the currently available resilience assessment methods for the EWF nexus system. The systematic literature review will connect various assessment methods used within decentralisation studies that are applied to improve the resilience performance of the EWF nexus system. A total of 84 journal papers were evaluated. The review demonstrates that the deployment of multi-criteria decision-making framework based on composite indicators can be effective in addressing risks and uncertainties within EWF systems. Furthermore, findings of this review illustrate complementary connections between decentralisation and resilience concepts, which when integrated with the EWF nexus approach, can be effectively utilised for integrated sustainable resource management.

Keywords: resilience, Decentralisation, EWF Nexus, decision-making, MCDM (multi criteria Decision Making)

Received: 09 Jan 2024; Accepted: 04 Apr 2024.

Copyright: © 2024 Haji, Namany and Al-Ansari. 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) or licensor 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: Dr. Tareq Al-Ansari, Hamad bin Khalifa University, Doha, Qatar

People also looked at

Advertisement

Migraine: from pathophysiology to treatment

• Neurological Update
• Open access
• Published: 08 April 2023
• Volume 270 , pages 3654–3666, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Francesca Puledda   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1933-4049 1 ,
• Elisa Martins Silva 2 ,
• Kanokrat Suwanlaong 3 &
• Peter J. Goadsby 1 , 4  

16k Accesses

17 Citations

161 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Migraine is an extremely disabling, common neurological disorder characterized by a complex neurobiology, involving a series of central and peripheral nervous system areas and networks. A growing increase in the understanding of migraine pathophysiology in recent years has facilitated translation of that knowledge into novel treatments, which are currently becoming available to patients in many parts of the world and are substantially changing the clinical approach to the disease. In the first part of this review, we will provide an up to date overview of migraine pathophysiology by analyzing the anatomy and function of the main regions involved in the disease, focusing on how these give rise to the plethora of symptoms characterizing the attacks and overall disease. The second part of the paper will discuss the novel therapeutic agents that have emerged for the treatment of migraine, including molecules targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide (gepants and monoclonal antibodies), serotonin 5-HT 1F receptor agonists (ditans) and non-invasive neuromodulation, as well as providing a brief overview of new evidence for classic migraine treatments.

Similar content being viewed by others

An update on migraine: current understanding and future directions

Francesca Puledda, Roberta Messina & Peter J. Goadsby

Recent Advances in Pharmacotherapy for Migraine Prevention: From Pathophysiology to New Drugs

Jonathan Jia Yuan Ong, Diana Yi-Ting Wei & Peter J. Goadsby

Migraine neuroscience: from experimental models to target therapy

Rosaria Greco, Chiara Demartini, … Cristina Tassorelli

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Migraine is currently listed as the sixth most disabling disorder globally, with the highest ranking among all neurological disorders [ 1 ]. The biology of migraine is complex, multifactorial and still, for certain aspects, unsolved. The underlying feature seems to be a, probably complex, genetic predisposition combined with behavioral and environmental conditions that causes an alteration of sensory brain processing, resulting in increased sensory susceptibility. This in turn results in otherwise normal sensory inputs being perceived as bothersome in migraineurs [ 2 ].

Over the years, our knowledge around migraine has improved considerably, largely thanks to basic science and imaging studies allowing us to better understand the complex models that are needed to explain the plethora of migraine symptoms. In fact, pain, the cardinal symptom of the disorder, is not necessarily the most bothersome for all patients at all times [ 3 , 4 ]. Migraine is characterized by a succession of key phases that often overlap: the premonitory (prodromal), aura, pain and postdromal phases [ 5 , 6 ]. Better recognition of these events has allowed us to conceptualize migraine as a network disorder involving multiple cortical, subcortical and brainstem regions, generating a wide constellation of signs and symptoms [ 7 ]. These areas, which we will analyze in detail in the following sections, have altered function and structure in individuals with migraine and in animal models of the disease.

The current review follows a translational and anatomical approach, beginning with an outline of the mechanisms and regions that are known to be a part of migraine biology, before moving on to current acute and preventive treatments, providing updated references and insights with respect to our previous review of 5 years ago [ 8 ].

Migraine: functional anatomy and pathophysiology

The trigeminovascular system and brainstem nuclei.

The trigeminovascular system consists of peripheral axons from the trigeminal ganglion that innervate the meninges and intracranial blood vessels peripherally, and converge centrally in the trigeminocervical complex (TCC), composed of the spinal trigeminal nucleus caudalis and upper cervical spinal cord [ 9 , 10 ]. Second-order neurons ascend from the TCC to thalamocortical neurons and further project to key brain nuclei in the diencephalon and brainstem, such as the locus coeruleus (LC), periaqueductal gray (PAG) and hypothalamus [ 11 , 12 ]. Activation of the trigeminovascular pain pathways is thought to mediate part of the qualities of migraine pain by release of neuropeptides, such as calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and pituitary adenylate cyclase activating polypeptide (PACAP), at the level of the dura mater [ 13 , 14 , 15 ]. CGRP is widely expressed in both peripheral and central neurons and has potent dilatator qualities. It also shows a regulatory action on second- and third-order neurons, which seems to underlie its modulatory role in central pain mechanisms. CGRP elevation in migraineurs has been linked to a decrease in descending inhibitory mechanisms, which in turn might lead to migraine susceptibility through sensitization of multiple central neuronal circuits [ 13 ].

Neurogenic inflammation in the periphery was initially proposed to be the generator of migraine pain [ 16 ], although this role has been revisited largely due to the fact that blockers of plasma protein extravasation have failed to treat migraine in clinical trials [ 17 , 18 ]. While trigeminal activation with associated neurogenic inflammation continues to be discussed [ 19 ], direct evidence for a dural inflammatory component in migraine is lacking. As described above, migraine is associated with a spectrum of sensory dysfunctions with cycling behavior, during which the headache phase represents the plateau of trigeminal nociceptive activation [ 20 ]. One hypothesis is that peripheral trigeminovascular neurons are sensitized, and thereafter sensitize second-order neurons in the trigeminal nucleus caudalis and upper cervical spinal cord, and project rostrally to thalamic nuclei and key medullary, brainstem and diencephalic regions [ 21 ]. Studies have reliably provided evidence for early brainstem involvement in the nociceptive migraine phase; however, it is becoming clearer that the initiation of a migraine attack is linked to intrinsic brain dysfunction in more central areas such as the hypothalamus, and possibly to external factors as well [ 22 ]. Whether the central dysfunction, very clearly demonstrated in the premonitory phase, facilitates central sensitization remains an intriguing area of study.

The role for brainstem regions, such as the PAG and the dorsolateral pons in migraine is well established thanks to observational [ 23 ] and neuroimaging studies [ 24 , 25 , 26 ], as well as animal models of migraine showing that the brainstem acts as a driver of changes in cortical activity during migraine [ 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 ]. Indeed, nuclei such as the LC, rostral ventral medulla, superior salivatory and cuneiform nucleus are key in modulating trigeminovascular pain transmission and autonomic responses in migraine and represent a site of action for triptans [ 31 , 32 ], ergot derivatives [ 33 , 34 ] and the novel CGRP receptor antagonists [ 35 , 36 ]. Further, direct and indirect trigeminal activation of the parabrachial nucleus may explain why head and facial pain is so intense when compared with noncephalic pain, whereas upward trigemino–parabrachial–limbic connections, particularly to the amygdala, can explain affective-motivational aspects of migraine and even appetite and taste abnormalities [ 12 ]. Linking the premonitory phase and the onset of pain, neurons in the ventral tegmental parabrachial pigmented (VTA PBP ) nucleus can modulate trigeminocervical nociceptive traffic in rat. These effects can be seen with glutamate, naratriptan (5HT 1B/1D receptor agonist), PACAP and dopamine D 2/3 mediation [ 37 ]. Given the role of the VTA PBP in hedonic feeding, and the influence of glucose on trigeminocervical nociceptive transmission [ 38 ], the data suggest plausible pathways to explain the much celebrated, yet seldom clinically useful, issues of food triggers [ 39 ]. One might re-think some triggers in terms of behaviors arising from central nervous system activation in the premonitory phase [ 40 ], with very different conclusions concerning cause and effect. Finally, central sensitization of the trigeminovascular system, especially the trigeminal nucleus caudalis, plays an important role in the development of chronic migraine, possibly influenced by cytokines release and increased astrocytic activation [ 41 , 42 ]. Interestingly, as shown by neurophysiological [ 43 ] and neuroimaging studies [ 44 ], brainstem activations seems most prominent in the 24 h preceding the headache onset, and declines during the attack.

The hypothalamus

The theories on migraine as a cyclic sensory threshold disorder have highlighted the importance of the hypothalamus as a central facilitator of pain, and also of the constellation of premonitory symptoms such as yawning, thirst and polyuria [ 45 ], which can precede and continue into the pain phase. Functional neuroimaging performed during spontaneous and nitroglycerin-triggered attacks has consolidated the role of the hypothalamus in migraine initiation [ 46 ]. Altered hypothalamic-brainstem connectivity with the spinal trigeminal nuclei and the dorsal rostral pons has been shown in the premonitory phase of migraine [ 44 ] for up to 48 h preceding pain onset [ 47 ]. Positron emission tomography has also previously revealed hypothalamic activation during both spontaneous migraine headache [ 48 ] and the premonitory phase [ 49 ]. Recent functional imaging studies have even shown that changes in hypothalamic connectivity with the spinal trigeminal nucleus and cortical regions are associated with the development of chronic migraine [ 50 , 51 ].

The mechanism(s) by which the hypothalamus can become ‘overactive’ in migraine, leading to sensitization of trigeminal nociceptors is still unclear. Anatomically, the hypothalamus has direct and indirect connections to the thalamus [ 52 ], the trigeminovascular system [ 53 ] and to sympathetic and parasympathetic brainstem neurons [ 54 ], influencing nociceptive and autonomic regulation in migraine. Stress, which is said to be a common trigger of migraine, can activate the kappa opioid receptor on tuberoinfundibular dopaminergic neurons and lead to an increase in circulating prolactin causing sensitization of trigeminal afferents, particularly in females [ 55 ]. Further, the hypothalamus has chemosensitive neurons that can detect metabolic changes in the brain and periphery. Exogenous stimuli causing a change in homeostasis and this intrinsic biorhythm could thus possibly ‘tip’ the brain towards a migraine attack via activation of the hypothalamus [ 56 ].

The thalamus

The thalamus has a critical role in sensory processing, receiving inputs from the extracranial skin and dura mater from second-order trigeminovascular neurons, and projecting to cortical regions involved in autonomic, affective, and cognitive functions—all of which explains in part the complexity of migraine features [ 57 ]. Thalamocortical synchronization is affected by a network of neurotransmitters and neuropeptides in the brainstem (glutamate, serotonin, and noradrenaline), reticular thalamic regions (γ-aminobutyric acid—GABA) and hypothalamic nuclei (dopamine, histamine, orexin, and melanin-containing hormone [ 58 ]). There is abundant clinical and preclinical evidence showing that the thalamus is crucial for the development of central sensitization, photophobia and allodynia in migraine [ 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 ].

Structural neuroimaging studies have shown differences in volume of thalamic nuclei with microstructural abnormalities [ 65 , 66 , 67 ]. However, such changes were not seen in a recent large study involving female patients with aura [ 68 ]. Functional MRI studies have also shown important changes in the thalamus, both within and outside of attacks. In migraine without aura, connectivity between the thalamus and pain modulating areas seems to be affected during the ictal phase [ 69 ]. Abnormal low-frequency oscillations in dynamic thalamocortical networks are implicated in the interictal phase [ 70 ], with changes in pulvinar activity allowing differentiation between migraineurs and controls [ 71 ]. Another recent study showed that both episodic and chronic migraine patients have greater activation of ascending trigeminal somatosensory pathways and lower activation of top-down pain modulatory circuits. This could indicate interictal dysfunction of the descending pain modulatory system and amplification of nociceptive processing in migraineurs, mediated by the thalamus and possibly contributing to central sensitization [ 72 ].

The processing of trigeminovascular nociceptive information in the thalamus can represent a target for management, and indeed several migraine treatments including triptans [ 31 , 73 ], preventives [ 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 ] and non-invasive neuromodulation have been shown to modulate thalamocortical activity [ 78 , 79 ].

The role of the cerebral cortex in migraine was initially linked to the aura phenomenon and its peculiar symptoms [ 80 , 81 ]. Aura is thought to be generated by cortical spreading depression (CSD) [ 82 ], which has been indirectly evidenced in humans through functional neuroimaging [ 83 ]. Although CSD can activate the trigeminovascular system in animals [ 84 , 85 ] possibly through CGRP-mediated mechanisms [ 86 ], it is unlikely to contribute to the headache and possibly constitutes an epiphenomenon of migraine [ 87 , 88 ].

Regardless of CSD, the cortex has been increasingly implicated in migraine genesis, and in fact many changes in the structure and function of key cortical areas associated with pain processing have been reported in patients, both in the ictal and interictal period [ 89 ]. During the headache phase, cortical networks including the salience, sensorimotor, default mode, executive and attentional networks, show functional changes; this reflects the cognitive, painful and emotional symptoms of migraine [ 90 ]. Studies in patents with aura have consistently shown differences in brain structure [ 91 , 92 ], functional connectivity [ 92 ], cortical excitability [ 93 , 94 , 95 ] and pain modulation in the visual pathways [ 96 ]. Occipital cortex involvement in particular can explain the plethora of visual symptoms associated with migraine, from light sensitivity to visual aura and visual snow [ 97 ]. Menstrual migraine has recently been linked to structural and functional connectivity changes in the right anterior cingulum [ 98 ] an area involved in the cognitive processing of pain and previously associated with migraine biology [ 99 ]. However, evidence from neuroimaging studies has been inconclusive at times [ 100 ], with meta-regression analyses failing to pinpoint alterations that are specific to migraine [ 101 ], showing that further research on the topic is needed.

Of note, the association of white matter hyperintensity (WMH) in migraine has long been debated [ 102 ], particularly in migraine with aura [ 103 , 104 ]. Recently, an association was identified between the presence of juxtacortical WMHs within the frontal lobe with patient age and duration of disease [ 105 ]. WMHs have also been associated with nausea, vomiting, dizziness and pain intensity during attacks, [ 106 ].

Dysfunctional cortical mechanisms and in particular thalamocortical dysrhythmia have also been implicated in the mechanism underlying the lack of habituation typical of migraine [ 107 ]; in this, repeated sensory stimuli cause an incremental, instead of a reduction, increase in the amplitudes of sensory responses [ 108 , 109 ]. Lack of habituation, measured for different sensory modalities, usually occurs during the pain-free period and reverts during the ictal phase or when attacks become more frequent [ 110 ].

Finally, large genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified susceptibility gene variants in migraine patients, mostly involved in glutamatergic neurotransmission, which could lead to abnormal cortical excitability and altered plasticity [ 111 ], as evidenced by numerous magnetic resonance spectroscopy studies performed over the years [ 112 ]. Readers interested in the genetics are referred to this recent article [ 113 ]. Given the complexity that has emerged from GWAS work, in which each change has such a modest effect on the overall phenotype, one might reflect on whether clinically useful genetic changes will emerge in the near term that will have an impact on management and treatment.

Novel therapies in migraine

The last few years have represented an exciting and promising time in the field of migraine, thanks to the introduction of several new medications in clinical practice, and with other therapeutic targets, such as glutamate, amylin, adrenomedullin, orexins and pituitary adenylate cyclase activating polypeptide, currently all in the therapeutic pipeline [ 114 , 115 ]. The new novel treatments have rapidly changed the paradigm of migraine management, particularly challenging the dichotomous division between acute and preventive medication, which we will however, follow in this review for simplicity. Further, patient-reported outcomes such as interictal burden and time lost due to an attack are becoming more relevant in the consideration of efficacy and tolerability of these drugs [ 116 , 117 ], allowing for significant advances in the management of this condition [ 118 ].

Acute treatments

Therapy for migraine attacks includes non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), combination analgesics, ergotamine preparations and migraine-specific medications. The latter class, which until a few years ago meant triptans, has recently grown to include ditans, serotonin 5HT 1F receptor agonists, and gepants, CGRP receptor antagonists. Triptans are full agonists of presynaptic serotonin receptors 5-HT 1B and 5-HT 1D [ 119 ], which inhibit CGRP release [ 120 ]. The class includes seven options in different formulations [ 121 ], which can be switched to find the optimal combination for efficacy and tolerability in the individual patient and which can be combined with NSAIDs to prolong therapeutic effect and limit rebounds [ 122 , 123 ]. There are gender-related differences in triptan tolerability, as women seem to present higher adverse event frequency and headache recurrence rates with these drugs [ 124 ].

Non-responsiveness to triptans may be categorized into refractory: failure of three triptans, one of which should be subcutaneous sumatriptan; and resistant: failure of at least two triptans [ 125 ]. Non-responsiveness can have a significant impact on health-related quality of life and work productivity [ 126 ] and has been linked by recent neuroimaging data to changes in hippocampal volume [ 127 ]. Importantly, even if clinical practice has not demonstrated strong drug-related cardiovascular risk [ 128 ], triptans are still contraindicated in at-risk patients due to their vasoconstrictive qualities [ 129 ]. The new classes of ditans and gepants do not present this disadvantage.

Lasmiditan is the only ditan currently available; it is a potent and selective 5-HT 1F receptor agonist [ 130 ], acting in migraine by blocking activation of neurons in the trigeminal nucleus caudalis [ 131 ] without affecting the vasculature [ 130 ]. Lasmiditan has now been studied in two-phase two studies [ 132 , 133 ] and three large phase three randomized controlled trials [ 134 , 135 , 136 ] and shown to have better efficacy compared to placebo on rates of 2-h pain freedom and freedom from most bothersome symptoms, particularly with the 100 and 200 mg doses. Pooled data from the phase 3 studies showed no cardiovascular safety concerns, and in fact, these included patients with coronary artery disease, complicated cardiac arrhythmias and/or hypertension [ 137 ]. Across these studies, neurological side effects—particularly dizziness, nausea and somnolence—were common, but mostly mild to moderate and self-limiting [ 138 ].

Gepants are small-molecule CGRP receptor antagonists developed for use in the acute treatment of migraine. Six gepants were initially developed for acute use in migraine, with two being discontinued due to liver toxicity [ 139 , 140 ], one due to lack of oral availability [ 141 ] and one for commercial reasons [ 142 ]. Ubrogepant and rimegepant represent a new generation of oral gepants that have received FDA approval for acute migraine therapy [ 143 , 144 ] following phase 3 studies: Achieve I [ 145 ] and II [ 146 ] for ubrogepant, and Study 301 [ 147 ], 302 [ 148 ] and 303 [ 149 ] for rimegepant. Ubrogepant has been approved at 50 and 100 mg doses and Rimegepant is available in an orodispersible (lyophilized) form at a dose of 75 mg. Preliminary evidence also shows effectiveness of the zavegepant nasal spray, a non-oral gepant [ 150 ]. Importantly, gepants do not seem to cause medication overuse headache, making them a useful option when managing this complication [ 151 ] and can be taken in multiple doses during the attack with good rates of success [ 152 ]. The low side effect profile of gepants is appealing; however, caution in the early days of real-world use is merited [ 153 ].

Metabotropic and ionotropic glutamate receptors may become important targets in the future acute therapy of migraine, although adverse event issues need to be overcome. Experimental and clinical studies have shown an effect of NMDA, AMPA, iGluR5 and mGluR5 receptor antagonists in migraine, although their efficacy was lower than that of sumatriptan and visual side effects were observed [ 154 , 155 , 156 ]. Blockers of the metabotropic glutamate receptor 5 in particular, or glurants , have a strong clinical potential for becoming a candidate drug class for migraine, if the relevant issues of hepatoxicity and transient dizziness can be resolved [ 157 ]. The NMDA receptor is also relevant for migraine with aura, as evidenced by a small RCT showing the efficacy of ketamine on reducing the severity of auras [ 158 ].

Preventive treatments

Preventive therapy is recommended in patients who are affected by migraine on at least 2 days per month, when there is medication overuse and/or when quality of life is impaired [ 159 ]. The application of this guidance will be governed by clinical judgment in the individual case. Classic prevention includes different drug categories, such as β blockers, anticonvulsants, tricyclic antidepressants and calcium channel modulators, which, however, often lead to tolerability issues and poor compliance [ 160 ]. In recent years, monoclonal antibodies (mABs) against the CGRP peptide (galcanezumab, fremanezumab, eptinezumab) or its canonical receptor (erenunmab) have been widely introduced in clinical practice and treatment guidelines [ 161 ]. These treatments have persistently confirmed their efficacy in phase 3 trials [ 162 , 163 , 164 , 165 , 166 , 167 , 168 , 169 , 170 , 171 , 172 , 173 , 174 ], with convenient dosing, faster onset of efficacy and mild to moderate adverse events [ 175 , 176 ]. Further, real-world studies have shown improvement with mABs and worsening of migraine frequency following discontinuation, with most patients resuming treatment as soon as possible following breaks due to regulatory restrictions [ 177 , 178 , 179 , 180 ]. The European Headache Federation currently recommends CGRP mABs as a first-line option for migraine prevention, with treatment to be continued as long as needed [ 181 ], although in most jurisdictions, this is not possible to operationalize easily.

Two gepants, atogepant and rimegepant, have recently been introduced into the market after proving effective and well tolerated for the preventive treatment of migraine [ 182 , 183 , 184 ]. Both have a similar short half-life of around 11 h [ 185 , 186 ], which facilitates their preventive indication. They bring the advantage of fewer adverse events and increased safety, particularly in women who have unplanned pregnancies given the difference in half-life compared to monoclonal antibodies [ 151 ]. Atogepant was directly designed as a preventive agent, and has been FDA-approved for episodic migraine [ 187 ]. The most common side effects in the phase 2b and 3 studies were constipation and nausea, each at 10% at the 60 mg daily dose. The currently available data suggests safety on cardiac repolarization even with supratherapeutic doses and, in contrast with the first gepants, no elevation of serum alanine aminotransferase [ 188 , 189 ]. A further study for the preventive treatment in chronic migraine has been reported in abstract form [ 190 ]. It is being studied in combination with onabotulinumtoxinA (NCT05216263) and for long-term safety and tolerability in another trial (NCT04686136).

Rimegepant, initially trialed for acute use, can prevent episodic migraine in adults when taken every other day [ 184 ] with the additional benefit of it being used concomitantly during a migraine attack. It is well tolerated, with nausea occurring in 2% of cases and this is the most common side effect.

New evidence on efficacy and tolerability has also emerged for well-known migraine preventives. A meta-analysis has documented the efficacy in chronic migraine of OnabotulinumtoxinA, which allows for a reduction of over 50% in migraine days after 24 weeks of treatment [ 191 ]. Several open-label studies have also shown a benefit of combining onabotulinumtoxinA with mAbs to CGRP for CM [ 192 , 193 , 194 ]. A recent head-to-head trial for chronic migraine showed non-inferiority between propranolol and topiramate, with no significant difference in adverse events incidence between the two [ 195 ]. Another prospective randomized trial in chronic migraine compared flunarizine 10 mg with topiramate 50 mg daily, showing both drugs had a similar safety profile, with flunarizine being overall more effective [ 196 ]. Recent retrospective studies have confirmed the usefulness of candesartan as a first-line migraine preventive, even in patients who failed numerous previous drugs [ 197 , 198 ]. Finally, meta-analyses have been conducted on melatonin [ 199 , 200 ] and memantine [ 201 ], both showing favorable side effect profiles and good efficacy in migraine.

• Neuromodulation

Non-invasive neuromodulation is an evolving field and is of particular clinical interest for migraine management as it offers the option of being used both as an acute and preventive treatment. It also presents near to no systemic side effects and can thus be offered to patients that present tolerability issues or who need to avoid medication interaction [ 202 ].

The devices used in migraine target the nervous system through a transcutaneous approach, either centrally (single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation, or sTMS) or in the periphery (non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation or nVNS, supraorbital nerve stimulation or SNS and transcranial direct current stimulation or tDCS).

A handheld sTMS device is now approved in the USA and Europe for the acute and preventive treatment of migraine, following positive results as an acute migraine treatment in a RCT involving 164 migraineurs with aura [ 203 ] and subsequent post-marketing survey [ 204 ] and open-label study [ 205 ] demonstrating an effect on headache day reduction and 50% responder rate. The efficacy of sTMS in migraine prevention has also been shown in difficult-to-treat patients [ 206 ].

External trigeminal (supraorbital) nerve stimulation has also shown promise with supporting evidence for the treatment of migraine, with one RCT showing higher efficacy and tolerability than sham in 109 patients after 1 h of acute treatment [ 207 ]. For prevention, its effect seems greater in episodic migraine [ 208 ] than in refractory [ 209 ] or chronic migraine patients [ 210 ].

Regarding non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS), it has shown evidence of efficacy in a RCT for the acute treatment of migraine [ 211 ], but not for prevention [ 212 , 213 , 214 ]. From a mechanistic perspective, this approach at the bench can suppress cortical spreading depression [ 215 ] and inhibit trigeminocervical neurons responding to durovascular nociceptive activation [ 216 ].

Another approach has focused on the application of repeated cathodal or anodal transcranial direct current stimulation over the cortex, although data on its therapeutic effect in migraineurs has been conflicting [ 217 , 218 ]. This may be due to methodological differences regarding the techniques, the targeted brain regions and stimulation types [ 219 ], warranting further investigation.

Novel options for neuromodulation include the remote noncephalic electrical neurostimulation of the upper arm skin. The device works non-invasively through conditioned pain modulation and [ 220 ] has been evaluated in a RCT involving 253 patients. Participants reported clinically meaningful relief from migraine pain and pain freedom after 2 h of treatment compared to sham, with a low incidence of device-related adverse events [ 221 ]. A recent open-label study showed preliminary evidence supporting its use in chronic migraine [ 222 ]. Finally, repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS) targeting the muscles in the neck and shoulder muscles has shown efficacy in the prevention of episodic migraine, particularly in patients with a high level of muscular involvement [ 223 , 224 ].

Although these techniques are promising for the management of a disabling condition with often little treatment options, further evidence is needed to evaluate the scope of their effect in migraine, including novel mechanisms and targets [ 225 , 226 ].

Conclusions

The last 2 decades have been an incredibly exciting period for clinicians and researchers interested in migraine, as they have seen a rapid increase in studies that have led to a greater knowledge and understanding of the neurobiology of the disorder. From suffering with a condition that was often overlooked and under-managed, migraineurs are now being offered novel treatments that are more and more tailored to their needs, and that are fundamentally re-shaping our approach to the disease.

More research and progress is needed and is expected in the coming years, and hopefully this will continue to raise awareness around a complex phenomenon affecting millions of people all over the world.

Global Burden of Disease Study 2013 Collaborators (2013) Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 301 acute and chronic diseases and injuries in 188 countries, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet (London, England) 386(9995):743–800

Google Scholar  

Goadsby PJ, Holland PR, Martins-Oliveira M, Hoffmann J, Schankin C, Akerman S (2017) Pathophysiology of migraine—a disorder of sensory processing. Physiol Rev 97(2):553–622

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Lipton RB, Dodick DW, Ailani J, McGill L, Hirman J, Cady R (2021) Patient-identified most bothersome symptom in preventive migraine treatment with eptinezumab: a novel patient-centered outcome. Headache 61(5):766–776

Lampl C, Thomas H, Stovner LJ, Tassorelli C, Katsarava Z, Laínez JM et al (2016) Interictal burden attributable to episodic headache: findings from the Eurolight project. J Headache Pain 17:9

Dodick DW (2018) A Phase-by-phase review of migraine pathophysiology. Headache 58(Suppl 1):4–16

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Karsan N, Goadsby PJ (2018) Biological insights from the premonitory symptoms of migraine. Nat Rev Neurol 14(12):699–710

Charles A (2013) Migraine: a brain state. Curr Opin Neurol 26(3):235–239

Puledda F, Messina R, Goadsby PJ (2017) An update on migraine: current understanding and future directions. J Neurol 264(9):2031–2039

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Goadsby PJ, Hoskin KL (1997) The distribution of trigeminovascular afferents in the nonhuman primate brain Macaca nemestrina: a c-fos immunocytochemical study. J Anat 190(Pt 3):367–375

Hoskin KL, Zagami A, Goadsby PJ (1999) Stimulation of the middle meningeal artery leads to Fos expression in the trigeminocervical nucleus: a comparative study of monkey and cat. J Anat 194:579–588

Akerman S, Holland PR, Goadsby PJ (2011) Diencephalic and brainstem mechanisms in migraine. Nat Rev Neurosci 12(10):570–584

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Goadsby PJ, Holland PR (2019) An update: pathophysiology of migraine. Neurol Clin 37(4):651–671

Ho TW, Edvinsson L, Goadsby PJ (2010) CGRP and its receptors provide new insights into migraine pathophysiology. Nat Rev Neurol 6(10):573–582

Iyengar S, Johnson KW, Ossipov MH, Aurora SK (2019) CGRP and the trigeminal system in migraine. Headache 59(5):659–681

Zagami AS, Edvinsson L, Goadsby PJ (2014) Pituitary adenylate cyclase activating polypeptide and migraine. Ann Clin Transl Neurol 1(12):1036–1040

Markowitz S, Saito K, Moskowitz MA (1987) Neurogenically mediated leakage of plasma proteins occurs from blood vessels in dura mater but not brain. J Neurosci 7:4129–4136

May A, Goadsby PJ (2001) Substance P receptor antagonists in the therapy of migraine. Expert Opin Investig Drugs 10:1–6

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Peroutka SJ (2005) Neurogenic inflammation and migraine: implications for therapeutics. Mol Interv 5:306–313

Article   Google Scholar  

Ramachandran R (2018) Neurogenic inflammation and its role in migraine. Semin Immunopathol 40(3):301–314

Peng KP, May A, Basedau H (2022) Cycling multisensory changes in migraine: more than a headache. Curr Opin Neurol 35(3):367–372

Harriott AM, Orlova Y (2022) Anatomy and physiology of headache. Semin Neurol 42(4):459–473

Messina R, Gollion C, Christensen RH, Amin FM (2022) Functional MRI in migraine. Curr Opin Neurol 35(3):328–335

Raskin NH, Hosobuchi Y, Lamb S (1987) Headache may arise from perturbation of brain. Headache 27(8):416–420

Weiller C, May A, Limmroth V, Juptner M, Kaube H, Schayck RV et al (1995) Brain stem activation in spontaneous human migraine attacks. Nat Med 1(7):658–660

Bahra A, Matharu MS, Buchel C, Frackowiak RS, Goadsby PJ (2001) Brainstem activation specific to migraine headache. Lancet 357(9261):1016–1017

Stankewitz A, Aderjan D, Eippert F, May A (2011) Trigeminal nociceptive transmission in migraineurs predicts migraine attacks. J Neurosci 31(6):1937–1943

Goadsby PJ, Duckworth JW (1989) Low frequency stimulation of the locus coeruleus reduces regional cerebral blood flow in the spinalized cat. Brain Res 476(1):71–77

Vinogradova LV (2015) Comparative potency of sensory-induced brainstem activation to trigger spreading depression and seizures in the cortex of awake rats: implications for the pathophysiology of migraine aura. Cephalalgia 35(11):979–986

Knight YE, Bartsch T, Kaube H, Goadsby PJ (2002) P/Q-type calcium-channel blockade in the periaqueductal gray facilitates trigeminal nociception: a functional genetic link for migraine? J Neurosci 22(5):Rc213

Knight YE, Goadsby PJ (2001) The periaqueductal grey matter modulates trigeminovascular input: a role in migraine? Neuroscience 106(4):793–800

Kroger IL, May A (2015) Triptan-induced disruption of trigemino-cortical connectivity. Neurology 84(21):2124–2131

Goadsby PJ, Hoskin KL (1996) Inhibition of trigeminal neurons by intravenous administration of the serotonin (5HT)1B/D receptor agonist zolmitriptan (311C90): are brain stem sites therapeutic target in migraine? Pain 67(2–3):355–359

Goadsby PJ, Gundlach AL (1991) Localization of 3H-dihydroergotamine-binding sites in the cat central nervous system: relevance to migraine. Ann Neurol 29(1):91–94

Hoskin KL, Kaube H, Goadsby PJ (1996) Central activation of the trigeminovascular pathway in the cat is inhibited by dihydroergotamine. A c-Fos and electrophysiological study. Brain J Neurol 119(Pt 1):249–256

Pozo-Rosich P, Storer RJ, Charbit AR, Goadsby PJ (2015) Periaqueductal gray calcitonin gene-related peptide modulates trigeminovascular neurons. Cephalalgia 35(14):1298–1307

Storer RJ, Akerman S, Goadsby PJ (2004) Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) modulates nociceptive trigeminovascular transmission in the cat. Br J Pharmacol 142(7):1171–1181

Martins-Oliveira M, Akerman S, Holland PR, Tavares I, Goadsby PJ (2022) Pharmacological modulation of ventral tegmental area neurons elicits changes in trigeminovascular sensory processing and is accompanied by glycemic changes: Implications for migraine. Cephalalgia Int J Headache 42(13):1359–1374

Martins-Oliveira M, Akerman S, Holland PR, Hoffmann JR, Tavares I, Goadsby PJ (2017) Neuroendocrine signaling modulates specific neural networks relevant to migraine. Neurobiol Dis 101:16–26

Martins-Oliveira M, Tavares I, Goadsby PJ (2021) Was it something I ate? Understanding the bidirectional interaction of migraine and appetite neural circuits. Brain Res 1770:147629

Karsan N, Bose P, Newman J, Goadsby PJ (2021) Are some patient-perceived migraine triggers simply early manifestations of the attack? J Neurol 268(5):1885–1893

Edvinsson L, Haanes KA, Warfvinge K (2019) Does inflammation have a role in migraine? Nat Rev Neurol 15(8):483–490

Zhang L, Lu C, Kang L, Li Y, Tang W, Zhao D et al (2022) Temporal characteristics of astrocytic activation in the TNC in a mice model of pain induced by recurrent dural infusion of inflammatory soup. J Headache Pain 23(1):8

Hsiao F-J, Chen W-T, Pan L-LH, Liu H-Y, Wang Y-F, Chen S-P et al (2022) Dynamic brainstem and somatosensory cortical excitability during migraine cycles. J Headache Pain 23(1):21

Schulte LH, May A (2016) The migraine generator revisited: continuous scanning of the migraine cycle over 30 days and three spontaneous attacks. Brain J Neurol 139(Pt 7):1987–1993

Peng KP, May A (2019) Migraine understood as a sensory threshold disease. Pain 160(7):1494–1501

May A, Burstein R (2019) Hypothalamic regulation of headache and migraine. Cephalalgia Int J Headache 39(13):1710–1719

Schulte LH, Mehnert J, May A (2020) Longitudinal neuroimaging over 30 days: temporal characteristics of migraine. Ann Neurol 87(4):646–651

Denuelle M, Fabre N, Payoux P, Chollet F, Geraud G (2007) Hypothalamic activation in spontaneous migraine attacks. Headache 47(10):1418–1426

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Maniyar FH, Sprenger T, Monteith T, Schankin C, Goadsby PJ (2014) Brain activations in the premonitory phase of nitroglycerin-triggered migraine attacks. Brain J Neurol 137(Pt 1):232–241

Lee MJ, Park BY, Cho S, Kim ST, Park H, Chung CS (2019) Increased connectivity of pain matrix in chronic migraine: a resting-state functional MRI study. J Headache Pain 20(1):29

Schulte LH, Allers A, May A (2017) Hypothalamus as a mediator of chronic migraine: evidence from high-resolution fMRI. Neurology 88(21):2011–2016

Kagan R, Kainz V, Burstein R, Noseda R (2013) Hypothalamic and basal ganglia projections to the posterior thalamus: possible role in modulation of migraine headache and photophobia. Neuroscience 248:359–368

Malick A, Burstein R (1998) Cells of origin of the trigeminohypothalamic tract in the rat. J Comp Neurol 400(1):125–144

Abdallah K, Artola A, Monconduit L, Dallel R, Luccarini P (2013) Bilateral descending hypothalamic projections to the spinal trigeminal nucleus caudalis in rats. PLoS One 8(8):e73022

Watanabe M, Kopruszinski CM, Moutal A, Ikegami D, Khanna R, Chen Y et al (2022) Dysregulation of serum prolactin links the hypothalamus with female nociceptors to promote migraine. Brain 145(8):2894–2909

Gross EC, Lisicki M, Fischer D, Sandor PS, Schoenen J (2019) The metabolic face of migraine—from pathophysiology to treatment. Nat Rev Neurol 15(11):627–643

Noseda R, Jakubowski M, Kainz V, Borsook D, Burstein R (2011) Cortical projections of functionally identified thalamic trigeminovascular neurons: implications for migraine headache and its associated symptoms. J Neurosci 31(40):14204–14217

Noseda R, Borsook D, Burstein R (2017) Neuropeptides and neurotransmitters that modulate thalamo-cortical pathways relevant to migraine headache. Headache 57(Suppl 2):97–111

Burstein R, Jakubowski M, Garcia-Nicas E, Kainz V, Bajwa Z, Hargreaves R et al (2010) Thalamic sensitization transforms localized pain into widespread allodynia. Ann Neurol 68(1):81–91

Burstein R, Yamamura H, Malick A, Strassman AM (1998) Chemical stimulation of the intracranial dura induces enhanced responses to facial stimulation in brain stem trigeminal neurons. J Neurophysiol 79(2):964–982

Strassman AM, Raymond SA, Burstein R (1996) Sensitization of meningeal sensory neurons and the origin of headaches. Nature 384(6609):560–564

Suzuki K, Suzuki S, Shiina T, Kobayashi S, Hirata K (2022) Central sensitization in migraine: a narrative review. J Pain Res 15:2673–2682

Noseda R, Bernstein CA, Nir RR, Lee AJ, Fulton AB, Bertisch SM et al (2016) Migraine photophobia originating in cone-driven retinal pathways. Brain 139(Pt 7):1971–1986

Noseda R, Kainz V, Jakubowski M, Gooley JJ, Saper CB, Digre K et al (2010) A neural mechanism for exacerbation of headache by light. Nat Neurosci 13(2):239–245

Magon S, May A, Stankewitz A, Goadsby PJ, Tso AR, Ashina M et al (2015) Morphological abnormalities of thalamic subnuclei in migraine: a multicenter MRI study at 3 Tesla. J Neurosci 35(40):13800–13806

Granziera C, Daducci A, Romascano D, Roche A, Helms G, Krueger G et al (2014) Structural abnormalities in the thalamus of migraineurs with aura: a multiparametric study at 3 T. Hum Brain Mapp 35(4):1461–1468

Messina R, Rocca MA, Colombo B, Pagani E, Falini A, Comi G et al (2015) White matter microstructure abnormalities in pediatric migraine patients. Cephalalgia 35(14):1278–1286

Hougaard A, Nielsen SH, Gaist D, Puonti O, Garde E, Reislev NL et al (2020) Migraine with aura in women is not associated with structural thalamic abnormalities. Neuroimage Clin 28:102361

Amin FM, Hougaard A, Magon S, Sprenger T, Wolfram F, Rostrup E et al (2018) Altered thalamic connectivity during spontaneous attacks of migraine without aura: a resting-state fMRI study. Cephalalgia 38(7):1237–1244

Hodkinson DJ, Wilcox SL, Veggeberg R, Noseda R, Burstein R, Borsook D et al (2016) Increased amplitude of thalamocortical low-frequency oscillations in patients with migraine. J Neurosci 36(30):8026–8036

Tu Y, Fu Z, Zeng F, Maleki N, Lan L, Li Z et al (2019) Abnormal thalamocortical network dynamics in migraine. Neurology 92(23):e2706–e2716

Lim M, Jassar H, Kim DJ, Nascimento TD, DaSilva AF (2021) Differential alteration of fMRI signal variability in the ascending trigeminal somatosensory and pain modulatory pathways in migraine. J Headache Pain 22(1):4

Shields KG, Goadsby PJ (2006) Serotonin receptors modulate trigeminovascular responses in ventroposteromedial nucleus of thalamus: a migraine target? Neurobiol Dis 23(3):491–501

Shields KG, Goadsby PJ (2005) Propranolol modulates trigeminovascular responses in thalamic ventroposteromedial nucleus: a role in migraine? Brain 128(Pt 1):86–97

Tepe N, Filiz A, Dilekoz E, Akcali D, Sara Y, Charles A et al (2015) The thalamic reticular nucleus is activated by cortical spreading depression in freely moving rats: prevention by acute valproate administration. Eur J Neurosci 41(1):120–128

Andreou AP, Shields KG, Goadsby PJ (2010) GABA and valproate modulate trigeminovascular nociceptive transmission in the thalamus. Neurobiol Dis 37(2):314–323

Summ O, Charbit AR, Andreou AP, Goadsby PJ (2010) Modulation of nocioceptive transmission with calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists in the thalamus. Brain J Neurol 133(9):2540–2548

Puledda F, Shields K (2018) Non-pharmacological approaches for migraine. Neurother J Am Soc Exp Neurother 15(2):336–345

Andreou AP, Holland PR, Akerman S, Summ O, Fredrick J, Goadsby PJ (2016) Transcranial magnetic stimulation and potential cortical and trigeminothalamic mechanisms in migraine. Brain J Neurol 139(Pt 7):2002–2014

Olesen J, Larsen B, Lauritzen M (1981) Focal hyperemia followed by spreading oligemia and impaired activation of rCBF in classic migraine. Ann Neurol 9(4):344–352

Barral E, Martins Silva E, García-Azorín D, Viana M, Puledda F (2023) Differential diagnosis of visual phenomena associated with migraine: spotlight on aura and visual snow syndrome. Diagnostics 13(2):252

Leão AAP (1944) Spreading depression of activity in the cerebral cortex. J Neurophysiol 7:359–390

Hadjikhani N, Sanchez Del Rio M, Wu O, Schwartz D, Bakker D, Fischl B et al (2001) Mechanisms of migraine aura revealed by functional MRI in human visual cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98(8):4687–4692

Bolay H, Reuter U, Dunn AK, Huang Z, Boas DA, Moskowitz MA (2002) Intrinsic brain activity triggers trigeminal meningeal afferents in a migraine model. Nat Med 8(2):136–142

Zhang X, Levy D, Kainz V, Noseda R, Jakubowski M, Burstein R (2011) Activation of central trigeminovascular neurons by cortical spreading depression. Ann Neurol 69(5):855–865

Melo-Carrillo A, Noseda R, Nir RR, Schain AJ, Stratton J, Strassman AM et al (2017) Selective inhibition of trigeminovascular neurons by fremanezumab: a humanized monoclonal anti-CGRP antibody. J Neurosci 37(30):7149–7163

Charles A (2018) The migraine aura. Continuum (Minneapolis, Minn). 24(4, Headache):1009–1022

Goadsby PJ (2002) Parallel concept of migraine pathogenesis. Ann Neurol 51:140

Messina R, Filippi M, Goadsby PJ (2018) Recent advances in headache neuroimaging. Curr Opin Neurol 31(4):379–385

Coppola G, Parisi V, Di Renzo A, Pierelli F (2020) Cortical pain processing in migraine. J Neural Transm (Vienna) 127(4):551–566

Magon S, May A, Stankewitz A, Goadsby PJ, Schankin C, Ashina M et al (2019) Cortical abnormalities in episodic migraine: a multi-center 3T MRI study. Cephalalgia 39(5):665–673

Park S, Lee DA, Lee HJ, Shin KJ, Park KM (2022) Brain networks in migraine with and without aura: an exploratory arterial spin labeling MRI study. Acta Neurol Scand 145(2):208–214

Arngrim N, Hougaard A, Schytz HW, Vestergaard MB, Britze J, Amin FM et al (2019) Effect of hypoxia on BOLD fMRI response and total cerebral blood flow in migraine with aura patients. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 39(4):680–689

Farago P, Tuka B, Toth E, Szabo N, Kiraly A, Csete G et al (2017) Interictal brain activity differs in migraine with and without aura: resting state fMRI study. J Headache Pain 18(1):8

Vereb D, Szabo N, Tuka B, Tajti J, Kiraly A, Farago P et al (2020) Temporal instability of salience network activity in migraine with aura. Pain 161(4):856–864

Russo A, Tessitore A, Silvestro M, Di Nardo F, Trojsi F, Del Santo T et al (2019) Advanced visual network and cerebellar hyperresponsiveness to trigeminal nociception in migraine with aura. J Headache Pain 20(1):46

Puledda F, Ffytche DH, O’Daly O, Goadsby PJ (2019) Imaging the visual network in the migraine spectrum. Front Neurol 10:1325

Wang ZW, Yin ZH, Wang X, Zhang YT, Xu T, Du JR et al (2022) Brain structural and functional changes during menstrual migraine: relationships with pain. Front Mol Neurosci 15:967103

Maleki N, Becerra L, Brawn J, Bigal M, Burstein R, Borsook D (2012) Concurrent functional and structural cortical alterations in migraine. Cephalalgia Int J Headache 32(8):607–620

Sheng L, Zhao P, Ma H, Yuan C, Zhong J, Dai Z et al (2020) A lack of consistent brain grey matter alterations in migraine. Brain 143(6):e45

Chen ZH, Cui YL, Sun JT, Li YT, Zhang C, Zhang YM et al (2022) The brain structure and function abnormalities of migraineurs: a systematic review and neuroimaging meta-analysis. Front Neurol 13:1022793

Hamedani AG, Rose KM, Peterlin BL, Mosley TH, Coker LH, Jack CR et al (2013) Migraine and white matter hyperintensities: the ARIC MRI study. Neurology 81(15):1308–1313

Kruit MC, van Buchem MA, Launer LJ, Terwindt GM, Ferrari MD (2010) Migraine is associated with an increased risk of deep white matter lesions, subclinical posterior circulation infarcts and brain iron accumulation: the population-based MRI CAMERA study. Cephalalgia 30(2):129–136

Monteith T, Gardener H, Rundek T, Dong C, Yoshita M, Elkind MS et al (2014) Migraine, white matter hyperintensities, and subclinical brain infarction in a diverse community: the northern Manhattan study. Stroke 45(6):1830–1832

Dobrynina LA, Suslina AD, Gubanova MV, Belopasova AV, Sergeeva AN, Evers S et al (2021) White matter hyperintensity in different migraine subtypes. Sci Rep 11(1):10881

Ahmed SR, Mohamed AAM, Salem HH, Helmy S, Moustafa RR, Borham SMF (2022) Association of white matter hyperintensities with migraine phenotypes and response to treatment. Acta Neurol Belg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13760-022-02015-x

Coppola G, Ambrosini A, Di Clemente L, Magis D, Fumal A, Gerard P et al (2007) Interictal abnormalities of gamma band activity in visual evoked responses in migraine: an indication of thalamocortical dysrhythmia? Cephalalgia Int J Headache 27(12):1360–1367

Ambrosini A, Rossi P, De Pasqua V, Pierelli F, Schoenen J (2003) Lack of habituation causes high intensity dependence of auditory evoked cortical potentials in migraine. Brain J Neurol 126(Pt 9):2009–2015

Afra J, Cecchini AP, De Pasqua V, Albert A, Schoenen J (1998) Visual evoked potentials during long periods of pattern-reversal stimulation in migraine. Brain J Neurol 121(Pt 2):233–241

Coppola G, Di Lorenzo C, Schoenen J, Pierelli F (2013) Habituation and sensitization in primary headaches. J Headache Pain 14:65

Freilinger T, Anttila V, de Vries B, Malik R, Kallela M, Terwindt GM et al (2012) Genome-wide association analysis identifies susceptibility loci for migraine without aura. Nat Genet 44(7):777–782

Younis S, Hougaard A, Vestergaard MB, Larsson HBW, Ashina M (2017) Migraine and magnetic resonance spectroscopy: a systematic review. Curr Opin Neurol 30(3):246–262

Ferrari MD, Goadsby PJ, Burstein R, Kurth T, Ayata C, Charles A et al (2022) Migraine. Nat Rev Dis Primers 8(1):2

Moreno-Ajona D, Villar-Martínez MD, Goadsby PJ (2021) Targets for migraine treatment: beyond calcitonin gene-related peptide. Curr Opin Neurol 34(3):363–372

Garelja ML, Hay DL (2022) A narrative review of the calcitonin peptide family and associated receptors as migraine targets: calcitonin gene-related peptide and beyond. Headache 62(9):1093–1104

Houts CR, McGinley JS, Nishida TK, Buse DC, Wirth RJ, Dodick DW et al (2021) Systematic review of outcomes and endpoints in acute migraine clinical trials. Headache 61(2):263–275

McGinley JS, Houts CR, Nishida TK, Buse DC, Lipton RB, Goadsby PJ et al (2021) Systematic review of outcomes and endpoints in preventive migraine clinical trials. Headache 61(2):253–262

Lo SH, Gallop K, Smith T, Powell L, Johnston K, Hubig LT et al (2022) Real-world experience of interictal burden and treatment in migraine: a qualitative interview study. J Headache Pain 23(1):65

Goadsby PJ (2000) The pharmacology of headache. Prog Neurobiol 62(5):509–525

Goadsby PJ, Edvinsson L (1994) Joint 1994 Wolff Award Presentation. Peripheral and central trigeminovascular activation in cat is blocked by the serotonin (5HT)-1D receptor agonist 311C90. Headache 34(7):394–399

Ferrari MD, Goadsby PJ, Roon KI, Lipton RB (2002) Triptans (serotonin, 5-HT1B/1D agonists) in migraine: detailed results and methods of a meta-analysis of 53 trials. Cephalalgia Int J Headache 22(8):633–658

Brandes JL, Kudrow D, Stark SR, O’Carroll CP, Adelman JU, O’Donnell FJ et al (2007) Sumatriptan-naproxen for acute treatment of migraine: a randomized trial. JAMA 297(13):1443–1454

Silberstein SD, Mannix LK, Goldstein J, Couch JR, Byrd SC, Ames MH et al (2008) Multimechanistic (sumatriptan-naproxen) early intervention for the acute treatment of migraine. Neurology 71(2):114–121

van Casteren DS, Kurth T, Danser AHJ, Terwindt GM, MaassenVanDenBrink A (2021) Sex differences in response to triptans: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurology 96(4):162–170

Sacco S, Lampl C, Amin FM, Braschinsky M, Deligianni C, Uludüz D et al (2022) European Headache Federation (EHF) consensus on the definition of effective treatment of a migraine attack and of triptan failure. J Headache Pain 23(1):133

Lombard L, Farrar M, Ye W, Kim Y, Cotton S, Buchanan AS et al (2020) A global real-world assessment of the impact on health-related quality of life and work productivity of migraine in patients with insufficient versus good response to triptan medication. J Headache Pain 21(1):41

Wu JW, Lai PY, Chen YL, Wang YF, Lirng JF, Chen ST et al (2022) The use of neuroimaging for predicting sumatriptan treatment response in patients with migraine. Front Neurol 13:798695

Roberto G, Raschi E, Piccinni C, Conti V, Vignatelli L, D’Alessandro R et al (2015) Adverse cardiovascular events associated with triptans and ergotamines for treatment of migraine: systematic review of observational studies. Cephalalgia 35(2):118–131

Dodick D, Lipton RB, Martin V, Papademetriou V, Rosamond W, MaassenVanDenBrink A et al (2004) Consensus statement: cardiovascular safety profile of triptans (5-HT agonists) in the acute treatment of migraine. Headache 44(5):414–425

Nelson DL, Phebus LA, Johnson KW, Wainscott DB, Cohen ML, Calligaro DO et al (2010) Preclinical pharmacological profile of the selective 5-HT1F receptor agonist lasmiditan. Cephalalgia 30(10):1159–1169

Vila-Pueyo M, Page K, Murdock PR, Loraine HJ, Woodrooffe AJ, Johnson KW et al (2022) The selective 5-HT(1F) receptor agonist lasmiditan inhibits trigeminal nociceptive processing: implications for migraine and cluster headache. Br J Pharmacol 179(3):358–370

Ferrari MD, Färkkilä M, Reuter U, Pilgrim A, Davis C, Krauss M et al (2010) Acute treatment of migraine with the selective 5-HT1F receptor agonist lasmiditan—a randomised proof-of-concept trial. Cephalalgia Int J Headache 30(10):1170–1178

Färkkilä M, Diener H-C, Géraud G, Láinez M, Schoenen J, Harner N et al (2012) Efficacy and tolerability of lasmiditan, an oral 5-HT1F receptor agonist, for the acute treatment of migraine: a phase 2 randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, dose-ranging study. Lancet Neurol 11(5):405–413

Kuca B, Silberstein SD, Wietecha L, Berg PH, Dozier G, Lipton RB (2018) Lasmiditan is an effective acute treatment for migraine: a phase 3 randomized study. Neurology 91(24):e2222–e2232

Goadsby PJ, Wietecha LA, Dennehy EB, Kuca B, Case MG, Aurora SK et al (2019) Phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study of lasmiditan for acute treatment of migraine. Brain J Neurol 142(7):1894–1904

Ashina M, Reuter U, Smith T, Krikke-Workel J, Klise SR, Bragg S et al (2021) Randomized, controlled trial of lasmiditan over four migraine attacks: findings from the CENTURION study. Cephalalgia Int J Headache 41(3):294–304

Shapiro RE, Hochstetler HM, Dennehy EB, Khanna R, Doty EG, Berg PH et al (2019) Lasmiditan for acute treatment of migraine in patients with cardiovascular risk factors: post-hoc analysis of pooled results from 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials. J Headache Pain 20(1):90

Puledda F, Younis S, Huessler E-M, Haghdoost F, Lisicki M, Goadsby PJ et al (2023) Efficacy, safety and indirect comparisons of lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of the literature. Cephalalgia Int J Headache 43(3):0333

Ho TW, Ferrari MD, Dodick DW, Galet V, Kost J, Fan X et al (2008) Efficacy and tolerability of MK-0974 (telcagepant), a new oral antagonist of calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, compared with zolmitriptan for acute migraine: a randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-treatment trial. Lancet 372(9656):2115–2123

Hewitt DJ, Aurora SK, Dodick DW, Goadsby PJ, Ge YJ, Bachman R et al (2011) Randomized controlled trial of the CGRP receptor antagonist MK-3207 in the acute treatment of migraine. Cephalalgia Int J Headache 31(6):712–722

Olesen J, Diener HC, Husstedt IW, Goadsby PJ, Hall D, Meier U et al (2004) Calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist BIBN 4096 BS for the acute treatment of migraine. N Engl J Med 350(11):1104–1110

Diener HC, Barbanti P, Dahlof C, Reuter U, Habeck J, Podhorna J (2011) BI 44370 TA, an oral CGRP antagonist for the treatment of acute migraine attacks: results from a phase II study. Cephalalgia 31(5):573–584

Food and Drug Administration (2020). Drug Approval Package: NURTEC ODT. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2020/212728Orig1s000TOC.cfm . Accessed 13 Mar 2022

Food and Drug Administration (2019) FDA approves new treatment for adults with migraine. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-new-treatment-adults-migraine . Accessed 13 Mar 2022

Dodick DW, Lipton RB, Ailani J, Lu K, Finnegan M, Trugman JM et al (2019) Ubrogepant for the treatment of migraine. N Engl J Med 381(23):2230–2241

Lipton RB, Dodick DW, Ailani J, Lu K, Finnegan M, Szegedi A et al (2019) Effect of ubrogepant vs placebo on pain and the most bothersome associated symptom in the acute treatment of migraine: the ACHIEVE II randomized clinical trial. JAMA 322(19):1887–1898

Lipton R, Coric V, Stock E, Stock D, Morris B, McCormack T, et al (2018). Rimegepant 75 mg, an oral calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonist, for the acute treatment of migraine: two phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Cephalalgia Int J Headache

Lipton RB, Croop R, Stock EG, Stock DA, Morris BA, Frost M et al (2019) Rimegepant, an oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist, for migraine. N Engl J Med 381(2):142–149

Croop R, Goadsby PJ, Stock DA, Conway CM, Forshaw M, Stock EG et al (2019) Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of rimegepant orally disintegrating tablet for the acute treatment of migraine: a randomised, phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 394(10200):737–745

Croop R, Madonia J, Stock DA, Thiry A, Forshaw M, Murphy A et al (2022) Zavegepant nasal spray for the acute treatment of migraine: a Phase 2/3 double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trial. Headache 62(9):1153–1163

Moreno-Ajona D, Villar-Martinez MD, Goadsby PJ (2022) New generation gepants: migraine acute and preventive medications. J Clin Med 11(6):1656

Hutchinson S, Dodick DW, Treppendahl C, Bennett NL, Yu SY, Guo H et al (2021) Ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine: pooled efficacy, safety, and tolerability from the ACHIEVE I and ACHIEVE II phase 3 randomized trials. Neurol Ther 10(1):235–249

Al-Hassany L, Goadsby PJ, Danser AHJ, MaassenVanDenBrink A (2022) Calcitonin gene-related peptide-targeting drugs for migraine: how pharmacology might inform treatment decisions. Lancet Neurol 21(3):284–294

Sang CN, Ramadan NM, Wallihan RG, Chappell AS, Freitag FG, Smith TR et al (2004) LY293558, a novel AMPA/GluR5 antagonist, is efficacious and well-tolerated in acute migraine. Cephalalgia 24(7):596–602

Waung MW, Akerman S, Wakefield M, Keywood C, Goadsby PJ (2016) Metabotropic glutamate receptor 5: a target for migraine therapy. Ann Clin Transl Neurol 3(8):560–571

Gomez-Mancilla B, Brand R, Jurgens TP, Gobel H, Sommer C, Straube A et al (2014) Randomized, multicenter trial to assess the efficacy, safety and tolerability of a single dose of a novel AMPA receptor antagonist BGG492 for the treatment of acute migraine attacks. Cephalalgia 34(2):103–113

Goadsby PJ (2013) Therapeutic prospects for migraine: can paradise be regained? Ann Neurol 74(3):423–434

Afridi SK, Giffin NJ, Kaube H, Goadsby PJ (2013) A randomized controlled trial of intranasal ketamine in migraine with prolonged aura. Neurology 80(7):642–647

Eigenbrodt AK, Ashina H, Khan S, Diener H-C, Mitsikostas DD, Sinclair AJ et al (2021) Diagnosis and management of migraine in ten steps. Nat Rev Neurol 17(8):501–514

Diener HC, Charles A, Goadsby PJ, Holle D (2015) New therapeutic approaches for the prevention and treatment of migraine. Lancet Neurol 14(10):1010–1022

American HS (2019) The American Headache Society position statement on integrating new migraine treatments into clinical practice. Headache 59(1):1–18

Goadsby PJ, Reuter U, Hallström Y, Broessner G, Bonner JH, Zhang F et al (2017) A controlled trial of erenumab for episodic migraine. N Engl J Med 377(22):2123–2132

Reuter U, Goadsby PJ, Lanteri-Minet M, Wen S, Hours-Zesiger P, Ferrari MD et al (2018) Efficacy and tolerability of erenumab in patients with episodic migraine in whom two-to-four previous preventive treatments were unsuccessful: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3b study. Lancet 392(10161):2280–2287

Dodick DW, Ashina M, Brandes JL, Kudrow D, Lanteri-Minet M, Osipova V et al (2018) ARISE: a phase 3 randomized trial of erenumab for episodic migraine. Cephalalgia Int J Headache 38(6):1026–1037

Silberstein SD, Dodick DW, Bigal ME, Yeung PP, Goadsby PJ, Blankenbiller T et al (2017) Fremanezumab for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine. N Engl J Med 377(22):2113–2122

Ferrari MD, Diener HC, Ning X, Galic M, Cohen JM, Yang R et al (2019) Fremanezumab versus placebo for migraine prevention in patients with documented failure to up to four migraine preventive medication classes (FOCUS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3b trial. Lancet (London, England) 394(10203):1030–1040

Dodick DW, Silberstein SD, Bigal ME, Yeung PP, Goadsby PJ, Blankenbiller T et al (2018) Effect of fremanezumab compared with placebo for prevention of episodic migraine: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 319(19):1999–2008

Detke HC, Goadsby PJ, Wang S, Friedman DI, Selzler KJ, Aurora SK (2018) Galcanezumab in chronic migraine. The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled REGAIN study. Neurology 91(24):e2211–e2221

Stauffer VL, Dodick DW, Zhang Q, Carter JN, Ailani J, Conley RR (2018) Evaluation of galcanezumab for the prevention of episodic migraine: the EVOLVE-1 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Neurol 75(9):1080–1088

Skljarevski V, Matharu M, Millen BA, Ossipov MH, Kim BK, Yang JY (2018) Efficacy and safety of galcanezumab for the prevention of episodic migraine: results of the EVOLVE-2 Phase 3 randomized controlled clinical trial. Cephalalgia Int J Headache 38(8):1442–1454

Ashina M, Saper J, Cady R, Schaeffler BA, Biondi DM, Hirman J et al (2020) Eptinezumab in episodic migraine: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (PROMISE-1). Cephalalgia Int J Headache 40(3):241–254

Lipton RB, Goadsby PJ, Smith J, Schaeffler BA, Biondi DM, Hirman J et al (2020) Efficacy and safety of eptinezumab in patients with chronic migraine: PROMISE-2. Neurology 94(13):e1365–e1377

Mulleners WM, Kim B-K, Láinez MJA, Lanteri-Minet M, Pozo-Rosich P, Wang S et al (2020) Safety and efficacy of galcanezumab in patients for whom previous migraine preventive medication from two to four categories had failed (CONQUER): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3b trial. Lancet Neurol 19(10):814–825

Ashina M, Lanteri-Minet M, Pozo-Rosich P, Ettrup A, Christoffersen CL, Josiassen MK et al (2022) Safety and efficacy of eptinezumab for migraine prevention in patients with two-to-four previous preventive treatment failures (DELIVER): a multi-arm, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3b trial. Lancet Neurol 21(7):597–607

Haghdoost F, Puledda F, Huessler EM, Messina R, Pozo-Rosich P (2023) Evaluating the efficacy of CGRP mAbs and gepants for the preventive treatment of migraine: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of phase 3 randomised controlled trials. Cephalalgia Int J Headache 43(3):0331

Messina R, Huessler EM, Puledda F, Haghdoost F, Lebedeva ER, Diener HC (2023) Safety and tolerability of monoclonal antibodies targeting the CGRP pathway and gepants in migraine prevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cephalalgia Int J Headache 43(3):0331

Vernieri F, Brunelli N, Messina R, Costa CM, Colombo B, Torelli P et al (2021) Discontinuing monoclonal antibodies targeting CGRP pathway after one-year treatment: an observational longitudinal cohort study. J Headache Pain 22(1):154

Nsaka M, Scheffler A, Wurthmann S, Schenk H, Kleinschnitz C, Glas M et al (2022) Real-world evidence following a mandatory treatment break after a 1-year prophylactic treatment with calcitonin gene-related peptide (pathway) monoclonal antibodies. Brain Behav 12(7):e2662

di Cola FS, Caratozzolo S, Venturelli E, Balducci U, Sidoti V, Pari E et al (2021) Erenumab discontinuation after 12-month treatment: a multicentric, observational real-life study. Neurol Clin Pract 11(6):e834–e900

Terhart M, Mecklenburg J, Neeb L, Overeem LH, Siebert A, Steinicke M et al (2021) Deterioration of headache impact and health-related quality of life in migraine patients after cessation of preventive treatment with CGRP(-receptor) antibodies. J Headache Pain 22(1):158

Sacco S, Amin FM, Ashina M, Bendtsen L, Deligianni CI, Gil-Gouveia R et al (2022) European Headache Federation guideline on the use of monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene related peptide pathway for migraine prevention—2022 update. J Headache Pain 23(1):67

Ailani J, Lipton RB, Goadsby PJ, Guo H, Miceli R, Severt L et al (2021) Atogepant for the preventive treatment of migraine. N Engl J Med 385(8):695–706

Goadsby PJ, Dodick DW, Ailani J, Trugman JM, Finnegan M, Lu K et al (2020) Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of orally administered atogepant for the prevention of episodic migraine in adults: a double-blind, randomised phase 2b/3 trial. Lancet Neurol 19(9):727–737

Croop R, Lipton RB, Kudrow D, Stock DA, Kamen L, Conway CM et al (2021) Oral rimegepant for preventive treatment of migraine: a phase 2/3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet (London, England) 397(10268):51–60

Boinpally R, Jakate A, Butler M, Borbridge L, Periclou A (2021) Single-dose pharmacokinetics and safety of atogepant in adults with hepatic impairment: results from an open-label, phase 1 trial. Clin Pharmacol Drug Dev 10(7):726–733

Tong G, Savant I, Jariwala N, Burt D, Zheng N, Buzescu A et al (2013) Phase I single and multiple dose study to evaluate the safety, tolerability. J Headache Pain 14(Suppl 1):118

AbbVie. (2021) QULIPTA (atogepant) tablets, for oral use: US prescribing information. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2021/215206Orig1s000lbl.pdf . Accessed 13 Mar 2022

Min KC, Kraft WK, Bondiskey P, Colón-González F, Liu W, Xu J et al (2021) Atogepant is not associated with clinically meaningful alanine aminotransferase elevations in healthy adults. Clin Transl Sci 14(2):599–605

Boinpally R, McNamee B, Yao L, Butler M, McGeeney D, Borbridge L et al (2021) A single supratherapeutic dose of atogepant does not affect cardiac repolarization in healthy adults: results from a randomized, single-dose, phase 1 crossover trial. Clin Pharmacol Drug Dev 10(9):1099–1107

Pozo-Rosich P, Ailani J, Ashina M, Goadsby PJ, Lipton R, Reuter U et al (2022) Atogepant for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine: results from the PROGRESS phase 3 trial. Cephalalgia Int J Headache 42(1S):14–15

Lanteri-Minet M, Ducros A, Francois C, Olewinska E, Nikodem M, Dupont-Benjamin L (2022) Effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA (BOTOX(R)) for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine: a meta-analysis on 10 years of real-world data. Cephalalgia 42(14):1543–1564

Armanious M, Khalil N, Lu Y, Jimenez-Sanders R (2021) Erenumab and OnabotulinumtoxinA combination therapy for the prevention of intractable chronic migraine without aura: a retrospective analysis. J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother 35(1):1–6

Scuteri D, Tonin P, Nicotera P, Vulnera M, Altieri GC, Tarsitano A et al (2022) Pooled analysis of real-world evidence supports anti-CGRP mAbs and OnabotulinumtoxinA combined trial in chronic migraine. Toxins (Basel). 14(8):529

Cohen F, Armand C, Lipton RB, Vollbracht S (2021) Efficacy and tolerability of calcitonin gene-related peptide-targeted monoclonal antibody medications as add-on therapy to OnabotulinumtoxinA in patients with chronic migraine. Pain Med 22(8):1857–1863

Chowdhury D, Bansal L, Duggal A, Datta D, Mundra A, Krishnan A et al (2022) TOP-PRO study: a randomized double-blind controlled trial of topiramate versus propranolol for prevention of chronic migraine. Cephalalgia 42(4–5):396–408

Lai KL, Niddam DM, Fuh JL, Chen SP, Wang YF, Chen WT et al (2017) Flunarizine versus topiramate for chronic migraine prophylaxis: a randomized trial. Acta Neurol Scand 135(4):476–483

Messina R, Lastarria Perez CP, Filippi M, Goadsby PJ (2020) Candesartan in migraine prevention: results from a retrospective real-world study. J Neurol 267(11):3243–3247

Sanchez-Rodriguez C, Sierra A, Planchuelo-Gomez A, Martinez-Pias E, Guerrero AL, Garcia-Azorin D (2021) Real world effectiveness and tolerability of candesartan in the treatment of migraine: a retrospective cohort study. Sci Rep 11(1):3846

Liampas I, Siokas V, Brotis A, Vikelis M, Dardiotis E (2020) Endogenous melatonin levels and therapeutic use of exogenous melatonin in migraine: systematic review and meta-analysis. Headache 60(7):1273–1299

Tseng PT, Yang CP, Su KP, Chen TY, Wu YC, Tu YK et al (2020) The association between melatonin and episodic migraine: a pilot network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to compare the prophylactic effects with exogenous melatonin supplementation and pharmacotherapy. J Pineal Res 69(2):e12663

Zhou T, Tang Y, Zhu H (2022) Effectiveness and safety of memantine for headache: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. Clin Neuropharmacol 45(3):40–44

Puledda F, Goadsby PJ (2017) An update on non-pharmacological neuromodulation for the acute and preventive treatment of migraine. Headache 57(4):685–691

Lipton RB, Dodick DW, Silberstein SD, Saper JR, Aurora SK, Pearlman SH et al (2010) Single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation for acute treatment of migraine with aura: a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, sham-controlled trial. Lancet Neurol 9(4):373–380

Bhola R, Kinsella E, Giffin N, Lipscombe S, Ahmed F, Weatherall M et al (2015) Single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (sTMS) for the acute treatment of migraine: evaluation of outcome data for the UK post market pilot program. J Headache Pain 16:535

Starling AJ, Tepper SJ, Marmura MJ, Shamim EA, Robbins MS, Hindiyeh N et al (2018) A multicenter, prospective, single arm, open label, observational study of sTMS for migraine prevention (ESPOUSE Study). Cephalalgia Int J Head 38(6):1038–1048

Lloyd JO, Hill B, Murphy M, Al-Kaisy A, Andreou AP, Lambru G (2022) Single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation for the preventive treatment of difficult-to-treat migraine: a 12-month prospective analysis. J Headache Pain 23(1):63

Chou DE, Shnayderman Yugrakh M, Winegarner D, Rowe V, Kuruvilla D, Schoenen J (2019) Acute migraine therapy with external trigeminal neurostimulation (ACME): a randomized controlled trial. Cephalalgia Int J Headache 39(1):3–14

Schoenen J, Vandersmissen B, Jeangette S, Herroelen L, Vandenheede M, Gerard P et al (2013) Migraine prevention with a supraorbital transcutaneous stimulator: a randomized controlled trial. Neurology 80(8):697–704

Vikelis M, Dermitzakis EV, Spingos KC, Vasiliadis GG, Vlachos GS, Kararizou E (2017) Clinical experience with transcutaneous supraorbital nerve stimulation in patients with refractory migraine or with migraine and intolerance to topiramate: a prospective exploratory clinical study. BMC Neurol 17(1):97

Ordas CM, Cuadrado ML, Pareja JA, de-Las-Casas-Camara G, Gomez-Vicente L, Torres-Gaona G et al (2020) Transcutaneous supraorbital stimulation as a preventive treatment for chronic migraine: a prospective, open-label study. Pain Med 21(2):415–422

Tassorelli C, Grazzi L, de Tommaso M, Pierangeli G, Martelletti P, Rainero I et al (2018) Noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation as acute therapy for migraine: the randomized PRESTO study. Neurology 91(4):e364–e373

Diener HC, Goadsby PJ, Ashina M, Al-Karagholi MA, Sinclair A, Mitsikostas D et al (2019) Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine: the multicentre, double-blind, randomised, sham-controlled PREMIUM trial. Cephalalgia 39(12):1475–1487

Silberstein SD, Calhoun AH, Lipton RB, Grosberg BM, Cady RK, Dorlas S et al (2016) Chronic migraine headache prevention with noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation: the EVENT study. Neurology 87(5):529–538

Najib U, Smith T, Hindiyeh N, Saper J, Nye B, Ashina S et al (2022) Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for prevention of migraine: the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled PREMIUM II trial. Cephalalgia Int J Headache 42(7):560–569

Chen SP, Ay I, de Morais AL, Qin T, Zheng Y, Sadeghian H et al (2016) Vagus nerve stimulation inhibits cortical spreading depression. Pain 157(4):797–805

Akerman S, Simon B, Romero-Reyes M (2017) Vagus nerve stimulation suppresses acute noxious activation of trigeminocervical neurons in animal models of primary headache. Neurobiol Dis 102:96–104

Antal A, Kriener N, Lang N, Boros K, Paulus W (2011) Cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation of the visual cortex in the prophylactic treatment of migraine. Cephalalgia Int J Headache 31(7):820–828

Vigano A, D’Elia TS, Sava SL, Auve M, De Pasqua V, Colosimo A et al (2013) Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) of the visual cortex: a proof-of-concept study based on interictal electrophysiological abnormalities in migraine. J Headache Pain 14:23

Viganò A, Toscano M, Puledda F, Di Piero V (2019) Treating chronic migraine with neuromodulation: the role of neurophysiological abnormalities and maladaptive plasticity. Front Pharmacol 10:32

Nir RR, Yarnitsky D (2015) Conditioned pain modulation. Curr Opin Support Palliat Care 9(2):131–137

Yarnitsky D, Dodick DW, Grosberg BM, Burstein R, Ironi A, Harris D et al (2019) Remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) relieves acute migraine: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial. Headache 59(8):1240–1252

Nierenburg H, Vieira JR, Lev N, Lin T, Harris D, Vizel M et al (2020) Remote electrical neuromodulation for the acute treatment of migraine in patients with chronic migraine: an open-label pilot study. Pain Ther 9(2):531–543

Renner T, Sollmann N, Trepte-Freisleder F, Albers L, Mathonia NM, Bonfert MV et al (2019) Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS) in subjects with migraine-setup presentation and effects on skeletal musculature. Front Neurol 10:738

Borner C, Renner T, Trepte-Freisleder F, Urban G, Schandelmaier P, Lang M et al (2022) Response predictors of repetitive neuromuscular magnetic stimulation in the preventive treatment of episodic migraine. Front Neurol 13:919623

Tepper SJ, Grosberg B, Daniel O, Kuruvilla DE, Vainstein G, Deutsch L et al (2022) Migraine treatment with external concurrent occipital and trigeminal neurostimulation-A randomized controlled trial. Headache 62(8):989–1001

Daniel O, Tepper SJ, Deutsch L, Sharon R (2022) External concurrent occipital and trigeminal neurostimulation relieves migraine headache: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, Sham-controlled trial. Pain Ther 11(3):907–922

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Headache Group, Wolfson CARD, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London, and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) SLaM Clinical Research Facility at King’s, Wellcome Foundation Building, King’s College Hospital, London, SE5 9PJ, UK

Francesca Puledda & Peter J. Goadsby

Department of Neurology, Hospital Garcia de Orta, Almada, Portugal

Elisa Martins Silva

Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, Songkhla Medical Education Center, Songkhla, Thailand

Kanokrat Suwanlaong

Department of Neurology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Peter J. Goadsby

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter J. Goadsby .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Puledda, F., Silva, E.M., Suwanlaong, K. et al. Migraine: from pathophysiology to treatment. J Neurol 270 , 3654–3666 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-023-11706-1

Download citation

Received : 13 March 2023

Accepted : 03 April 2023

Published : 08 April 2023

Issue Date : July 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-023-11706-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Pathophysiology
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Journal of Materials Chemistry C

Review of recent advances and sensing mechanisms in solid-state organic thin-film transistor (otft) sensors.

* Corresponding authors

a University of Ottawa, Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, 161 Louis Pasteur, Ottawa, ON, Canada E-mail: [email protected]

b University of Ottawa, School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, 800 King Edward Ave, Ottawa, ON, Canada

Organic thin-film transistors (OTFTs) have shown great potential as chemical and biological sensors for applications in environmental monitoring and diagnostics with high sensitivities and part-per-billion molar concentration limits of detection. Sensitivity and selectivity of OTFT sensors has been further enhanced by advances in semiconductor processing both by thermal evaporation and solution processing, enabling precise control of thin-film texture and structures. In addition to semiconductor processing, pre- and post-deposition techniques including interfacial engineering through surface chemistry, solvent vapour annealing and fabrication of porous structures have become attractive pathways towards improving sensor performance. This review discusses recent progress in solid-state OTFT sensors and strategies for improving their sensitivity, selectivity, and detection limit. Topics addressed in this review include structure–property relationships of OTFT sensors and different sensing mechanisms such as oxidative and reductive analyte–semiconductor interactions, semiconductor recrystallization by volatile organic compound exposure, and biomolecules reacting with functional groups on the electrodes or semiconductors. Finally, the review covers advances in OTFT fabrication and thin-film processing techniques which improve performance, biocompatibility and sustainability of resulting solid-state sensors.

• This article is part of the themed collection: Journal of Materials Chemistry C Recent Review Articles

Article information

Download citation, permissions.

B. King and B. H. Lessard, J. Mater. Chem. C , 2024, Advance Article , DOI: 10.1039/D3TC03611A

To request permission to reproduce material from this article, please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

If you are an author contributing to an RSC publication, you do not need to request permission provided correct acknowledgement is given.

If you are the author of this article, you do not need to request permission to reproduce figures and diagrams provided correct acknowledgement is given. If you want to reproduce the whole article in a third-party publication (excluding your thesis/dissertation for which permission is not required) please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

Read more about how to correctly acknowledge RSC content .

Social activity

Search articles by author.

This article has not yet been cited.

Advertisements