5 steps in literature review

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.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

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 July 22, 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, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

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

What is a literature review?

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

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

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

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

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

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

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

2. Decide on the scope of your review

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

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

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

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

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

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

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

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

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

Tips: 

• Review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
• Create a matrix of the studies for easy analysis, and synthesis, across all of the studies.
• << Previous: Recommended Books
• Last Updated: Jun 20, 2024 9:08 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

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.

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

Steps in the literature review process.

• What is a literature review?
• Define your research question
• Determine inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Choose databases and search
• Review Results
• Synthesize Results
• Analyze Results
• Librarian Support
• Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools
• You may need to some exploratory searching of the literature to get a sense of scope, to determine whether you need to narrow or broaden your focus
• Identify databases that provide the most relevant sources, and identify relevant terms (controlled vocabularies) to add to your search strategy
• Finalize your research question
• Think about relevant dates, geographies (and languages), methods, and conflicting points of view
• Conduct searches in the published literature via the identified databases
• Check to see if this topic has been covered in other discipline's databases
• Examine the citations of on-point articles for keywords, authors, and previous research (via references) and cited reference searching.
• Save your search results in a citation management tool (such as Zotero, Mendeley or EndNote)
• De-duplicate your search results
• Make sure that you've found the seminal pieces -- they have been cited many times, and their work is considered foundational 
• Check with your professor or a librarian to make sure your search has been comprehensive
• Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of individual sources and evaluate for bias, methodologies, and thoroughness
• Group your results in to an organizational structure that will support why your research needs to be done, or that provides the answer to your research question  
• Develop your conclusions
• Are there gaps in the literature?
• Where has significant research taken place, and who has done it?
• Is there consensus or debate on this topic?
• Which methodological approaches work best?
• For example: Background, Current Practices, Critics and Proponents, Where/How this study will fit in 
• Organize your citations and focus on your research question and pertinent studies
• Compile your bibliography

Note: The first four steps are the best points at which to contact a librarian. Your librarian can help you determine the best databases to use for your topic, assess scope, and formulate a search strategy.

Videos Tutorials about Literature Reviews

This 4.5 minute video from Academic Education Materials has a Creative Commons License and a British narrator.

Recommended Reading

• Last Updated: Jun 18, 2024 1:00 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

The Sheridan Libraries

• Write a Literature Review
• Sheridan Libraries
• Find This link opens in a new window
• Evaluate This link opens in a new window

What Will You Do Differently?

Please help your librarians by filling out this two-minute survey of today's class session..

Professor, this one's for you .

Introduction

Literature reviews take time. here is some general information to know before you start.  .

•  VIDEO -- This video is a great overview of the entire process.  (2020; North Carolina State University Libraries) --The transcript is included --This is for everyone; ignore the mention of "graduate students" --9.5 minutes, and every second is important  
• OVERVIEW -- Read this page from Purdue's OWL. It's not long, and gives some tips to fill in what you just learned from the video.  
• NOT A RESEARCH ARTICLE -- A literature review follows a different style, format, and structure from a research article.  

Steps to Completing a Literature Review

• Next: Find >>
• Last Updated: Sep 26, 2023 10:25 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.jhu.edu/lit-review

How To Write An A-Grade Literature Review

3 straightforward steps (with examples) + free template.

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Expert Reviewed By: Dr. Eunice Rautenbach | October 2019

Quality research is about building onto the existing work of others , “standing on the shoulders of giants”, as Newton put it. The literature review chapter of your dissertation, thesis or research project is where you synthesise this prior work and lay the theoretical foundation for your own research.

Long story short, this chapter is a pretty big deal, which is why you want to make sure you get it right . In this post, I’ll show you exactly how to write a literature review in three straightforward steps, so you can conquer this vital chapter (the smart way).

Overview: The Literature Review Process

• Understanding the “ why “
• Finding the relevant literature
• Cataloguing and synthesising the information
• Outlining & writing up your literature review
• Example of a literature review

But first, the “why”…

Before we unpack how to write the literature review chapter, we’ve got to look at the why . To put it bluntly, if you don’t understand the function and purpose of the literature review process, there’s no way you can pull it off well. So, what exactly is the purpose of the literature review?

Well, there are (at least) four core functions:

• For you to gain an understanding (and demonstrate this understanding) of where the research is at currently, what the key arguments and disagreements are.
• For you to identify the gap(s) in the literature and then use this as justification for your own research topic.
• To help you build a conceptual framework for empirical testing (if applicable to your research topic).
• To inform your methodological choices and help you source tried and tested questionnaires (for interviews ) and measurement instruments (for surveys ).

Most students understand the first point but don’t give any thought to the rest. To get the most from the literature review process, you must keep all four points front of mind as you review the literature (more on this shortly), or you’ll land up with a wonky foundation.

Okay – with the why out the way, let’s move on to the how . As mentioned above, writing your literature review is a process, which I’ll break down into three steps:

• Finding the most suitable literature
• Understanding , distilling and organising the literature
• Planning and writing up your literature review chapter

Importantly, you must complete steps one and two before you start writing up your chapter. I know it’s very tempting, but don’t try to kill two birds with one stone and write as you read. You’ll invariably end up wasting huge amounts of time re-writing and re-shaping, or you’ll just land up with a disjointed, hard-to-digest mess . Instead, you need to read first and distil the information, then plan and execute the writing.

Step 1: Find the relevant literature

Naturally, the first step in the literature review journey is to hunt down the existing research that’s relevant to your topic. While you probably already have a decent base of this from your research proposal , you need to expand on this substantially in the dissertation or thesis itself.

Essentially, you need to be looking for any existing literature that potentially helps you answer your research question (or develop it, if that’s not yet pinned down). There are numerous ways to find relevant literature, but I’ll cover my top four tactics here. I’d suggest combining all four methods to ensure that nothing slips past you:

Method 1 – Google Scholar Scrubbing

Google’s academic search engine, Google Scholar , is a great starting point as it provides a good high-level view of the relevant journal articles for whatever keyword you throw at it. Most valuably, it tells you how many times each article has been cited, which gives you an idea of how credible (or at least, popular) it is. Some articles will be free to access, while others will require an account, which brings us to the next method.

Method 2 – University Database Scrounging

Generally, universities provide students with access to an online library, which provides access to many (but not all) of the major journals.

So, if you find an article using Google Scholar that requires paid access (which is quite likely), search for that article in your university’s database – if it’s listed there, you’ll have access. Note that, generally, the search engine capabilities of these databases are poor, so make sure you search for the exact article name, or you might not find it.

Method 3 – Journal Article Snowballing

At the end of every academic journal article, you’ll find a list of references. As with any academic writing, these references are the building blocks of the article, so if the article is relevant to your topic, there’s a good chance a portion of the referenced works will be too. Do a quick scan of the titles and see what seems relevant, then search for the relevant ones in your university’s database.

Method 4 – Dissertation Scavenging

Similar to Method 3 above, you can leverage other students’ dissertations. All you have to do is skim through literature review chapters of existing dissertations related to your topic and you’ll find a gold mine of potential literature. Usually, your university will provide you with access to previous students’ dissertations, but you can also find a much larger selection in the following databases:

• Open Access Theses & Dissertations
• Stanford SearchWorks

Keep in mind that dissertations and theses are not as academically sound as published, peer-reviewed journal articles (because they’re written by students, not professionals), so be sure to check the credibility of any sources you find using this method. You can do this by assessing the citation count of any given article in Google Scholar. If you need help with assessing the credibility of any article, or with finding relevant research in general, you can chat with one of our Research Specialists .

Alright – with a good base of literature firmly under your belt, it’s time to move onto the next step.

Need a helping hand?

Step 2: Log, catalogue and synthesise

Once you’ve built a little treasure trove of articles, it’s time to get reading and start digesting the information – what does it all mean?

While I present steps one and two (hunting and digesting) as sequential, in reality, it’s more of a back-and-forth tango – you’ll read a little , then have an idea, spot a new citation, or a new potential variable, and then go back to searching for articles. This is perfectly natural – through the reading process, your thoughts will develop , new avenues might crop up, and directional adjustments might arise. This is, after all, one of the main purposes of the literature review process (i.e. to familiarise yourself with the current state of research in your field).

As you’re working through your treasure chest, it’s essential that you simultaneously start organising the information. There are three aspects to this:

• Logging reference information
• Building an organised catalogue
• Distilling and synthesising the information

I’ll discuss each of these below:

2.1 – Log the reference information

As you read each article, you should add it to your reference management software. I usually recommend Mendeley for this purpose (see the Mendeley 101 video below), but you can use whichever software you’re comfortable with. Most importantly, make sure you load EVERY article you read into your reference manager, even if it doesn’t seem very relevant at the time.

2.2 – Build an organised catalogue

In the beginning, you might feel confident that you can remember who said what, where, and what their main arguments were. Trust me, you won’t. If you do a thorough review of the relevant literature (as you must!), you’re going to read many, many articles, and it’s simply impossible to remember who said what, when, and in what context . Also, without the bird’s eye view that a catalogue provides, you’ll miss connections between various articles, and have no view of how the research developed over time. Simply put, it’s essential to build your own catalogue of the literature.

I would suggest using Excel to build your catalogue, as it allows you to run filters, colour code and sort – all very useful when your list grows large (which it will). How you lay your spreadsheet out is up to you, but I’d suggest you have the following columns (at minimum):

• Author, date, title – Start with three columns containing this core information. This will make it easy for you to search for titles with certain words, order research by date, or group by author.
• Categories or keywords – You can either create multiple columns, one for each category/theme and then tick the relevant categories, or you can have one column with keywords.
• Key arguments/points – Use this column to succinctly convey the essence of the article, the key arguments and implications thereof for your research.
• Context – Note the socioeconomic context in which the research was undertaken. For example, US-based, respondents aged 25-35, lower- income, etc. This will be useful for making an argument about gaps in the research.
• Methodology – Note which methodology was used and why. Also, note any issues you feel arise due to the methodology. Again, you can use this to make an argument about gaps in the research.
• Quotations – Note down any quoteworthy lines you feel might be useful later.
• Notes – Make notes about anything not already covered. For example, linkages to or disagreements with other theories, questions raised but unanswered, shortcomings or limitations, and so forth.

If you’d like, you can try out our free catalog template here (see screenshot below).

2.3 – Digest and synthesise

Most importantly, as you work through the literature and build your catalogue, you need to synthesise all the information in your own mind – how does it all fit together? Look for links between the various articles and try to develop a bigger picture view of the state of the research. Some important questions to ask yourself are:

• What answers does the existing research provide to my own research questions ?
• Which points do the researchers agree (and disagree) on?
• How has the research developed over time?
• Where do the gaps in the current research lie?

To help you develop a big-picture view and synthesise all the information, you might find mind mapping software such as Freemind useful. Alternatively, if you’re a fan of physical note-taking, investing in a large whiteboard might work for you.

Step 3: Outline and write it up!

Once you’re satisfied that you have digested and distilled all the relevant literature in your mind, it’s time to put pen to paper (or rather, fingers to keyboard). There are two steps here – outlining and writing:

3.1 – Draw up your outline

Having spent so much time reading, it might be tempting to just start writing up without a clear structure in mind. However, it’s critically important to decide on your structure and develop a detailed outline before you write anything. Your literature review chapter needs to present a clear, logical and an easy to follow narrative – and that requires some planning. Don’t try to wing it!

Naturally, you won’t always follow the plan to the letter, but without a detailed outline, you’re more than likely going to end up with a disjointed pile of waffle , and then you’re going to spend a far greater amount of time re-writing, hacking and patching. The adage, “measure twice, cut once” is very suitable here.

In terms of structure, the first decision you’ll have to make is whether you’ll lay out your review thematically (into themes) or chronologically (by date/period). The right choice depends on your topic, research objectives and research questions, which we discuss in this article .

Once that’s decided, you need to draw up an outline of your entire chapter in bullet point format. Try to get as detailed as possible, so that you know exactly what you’ll cover where, how each section will connect to the next, and how your entire argument will develop throughout the chapter. Also, at this stage, it’s a good idea to allocate rough word count limits for each section, so that you can identify word count problems before you’ve spent weeks or months writing!

PS – check out our free literature review chapter template…

3.2 – Get writing

With a detailed outline at your side, it’s time to start writing up (finally!). At this stage, it’s common to feel a bit of writer’s block and find yourself procrastinating under the pressure of finally having to put something on paper. To help with this, remember that the objective of the first draft is not perfection – it’s simply to get your thoughts out of your head and onto paper, after which you can refine them. The structure might change a little, the word count allocations might shift and shuffle, and you might add or remove a section – that’s all okay. Don’t worry about all this on your first draft – just get your thoughts down on paper.

Once you’ve got a full first draft (however rough it may be), step away from it for a day or two (longer if you can) and then come back at it with fresh eyes. Pay particular attention to the flow and narrative – does it fall fit together and flow from one section to another smoothly? Now’s the time to try to improve the linkage from each section to the next, tighten up the writing to be more concise, trim down word count and sand it down into a more digestible read.

Once you’ve done that, give your writing to a friend or colleague who is not a subject matter expert and ask them if they understand the overall discussion. The best way to assess this is to ask them to explain the chapter back to you. This technique will give you a strong indication of which points were clearly communicated and which weren’t. If you’re working with Grad Coach, this is a good time to have your Research Specialist review your chapter.

Finally, tighten it up and send it off to your supervisor for comment. Some might argue that you should be sending your work to your supervisor sooner than this (indeed your university might formally require this), but in my experience, supervisors are extremely short on time (and often patience), so, the more refined your chapter is, the less time they’ll waste on addressing basic issues (which you know about already) and the more time they’ll spend on valuable feedback that will increase your mark-earning potential.

Literature Review Example

In the video below, we unpack an actual literature review so that you can see how all the core components come together in reality.

Let’s Recap

In this post, we’ve covered how to research and write up a high-quality literature review chapter. Let’s do a quick recap of the key takeaways:

• It is essential to understand the WHY of the literature review before you read or write anything. Make sure you understand the 4 core functions of the process.
• The first step is to hunt down the relevant literature . You can do this using Google Scholar, your university database, the snowballing technique and by reviewing other dissertations and theses.
• Next, you need to log all the articles in your reference manager , build your own catalogue of literature and synthesise all the research.
• Following that, you need to develop a detailed outline of your entire chapter – the more detail the better. Don’t start writing without a clear outline (on paper, not in your head!)
• Write up your first draft in rough form – don’t aim for perfection. Remember, done beats perfect.
• Refine your second draft and get a layman’s perspective on it . Then tighten it up and submit it to your supervisor.

Psst… there’s more!

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

38 Comments

Thank you very much. This page is an eye opener and easy to comprehend.

This is awesome!

I wish I come across GradCoach earlier enough.

But all the same I’ll make use of this opportunity to the fullest.

Thank you for this good job.

Keep it up!

You’re welcome, Yinka. Thank you for the kind words. All the best writing your literature review.

Thank you for a very useful literature review session. Although I am doing most of the steps…it being my first masters an Mphil is a self study and one not sure you are on the right track. I have an amazing supervisor but one also knows they are super busy. So not wanting to bother on the minutae. Thank you.

You’re most welcome, Renee. Good luck with your literature review 🙂

This has been really helpful. Will make full use of it. 🙂

Thank you Gradcoach.

Really agreed. Admirable effort

thank you for this beautiful well explained recap.

Thank you so much for your guide of video and other instructions for the dissertation writing.

It is instrumental. It encouraged me to write a dissertation now.

Thank you the video was great – from someone that knows nothing thankyou

an amazing and very constructive way of presetting a topic, very useful, thanks for the effort,

It is timely

It is very good video of guidance for writing a research proposal and a dissertation. Since I have been watching and reading instructions, I have started my research proposal to write. I appreciate to Mr Jansen hugely.

I learn a lot from your videos. Very comprehensive and detailed.

Thank you for sharing your knowledge. As a research student, you learn better with your learning tips in research

I was really stuck in reading and gathering information but after watching these things are cleared thanks, it is so helpful.

Really helpful, Thank you for the effort in showing such information

This is super helpful thank you very much.

Thank you for this whole literature writing review.You have simplified the process.

I’m so glad I found GradCoach. Excellent information, Clear explanation, and Easy to follow, Many thanks Derek!

You’re welcome, Maithe. Good luck writing your literature review 🙂

Thank you Coach, you have greatly enriched and improved my knowledge

Great piece, so enriching and it is going to help me a great lot in my project and thesis, thanks so much

This is THE BEST site for ANYONE doing a masters or doctorate! Thank you for the sound advice and templates. You rock!

Thanks, Stephanie 🙂

This is mind blowing, the detailed explanation and simplicity is perfect.

I am doing two papers on my final year thesis, and I must stay I feel very confident to face both headlong after reading this article.

thank you so much.

if anyone is to get a paper done on time and in the best way possible, GRADCOACH is certainly the go to area!

This is very good video which is well explained with detailed explanation

Thank you excellent piece of work and great mentoring

Thanks, it was useful

Thank you very much. the video and the information were very helpful.

Good morning scholar. I’m delighted coming to know you even before the commencement of my dissertation which hopefully is expected in not more than six months from now. I would love to engage my study under your guidance from the beginning to the end. I love to know how to do good job

Thank you so much Derek for such useful information on writing up a good literature review. I am at a stage where I need to start writing my one. My proposal was accepted late last year but I honestly did not know where to start

Like the name of your YouTube implies you are GRAD (great,resource person, about dissertation). In short you are smart enough in coaching research work.

This is a very well thought out webpage. Very informative and a great read.

Very timely.

I appreciate.

Very comprehensive and eye opener for me as beginner in postgraduate study. Well explained and easy to understand. Appreciate and good reference in guiding me in my research journey. Thank you

Thank you. I requested to download the free literature review template, however, your website wouldn’t allow me to complete the request or complete a download. May I request that you email me the free template? Thank you.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

• Resources Home 🏠
• Try SciSpace Copilot
• Search research papers
• Add Copilot Extension
• Try AI Detector
• Try Paraphraser
• Try Citation Generator
• April Papers
• June Papers
• July Papers

How To Write A Literature Review - A Complete Guide

Table of Contents

A literature review is much more than just another section in your research paper. It forms the very foundation of your research. It is a formal piece of writing where you analyze the existing theoretical framework, principles, and assumptions and use that as a base to shape your approach to the research question.

Curating and drafting a solid literature review section not only lends more credibility to your research paper but also makes your research tighter and better focused. But, writing literature reviews is a difficult task. It requires extensive reading, plus you have to consider market trends and technological and political changes, which tend to change in the blink of an eye.

Now streamline your literature review process with the help of SciSpace Copilot. With this AI research assistant, you can efficiently synthesize and analyze a vast amount of information, identify key themes and trends, and uncover gaps in the existing research. Get real-time explanations, summaries, and answers to your questions for the paper you're reviewing, making navigating and understanding the complex literature landscape easier.

In this comprehensive guide, we will explore everything from the definition of a literature review, its appropriate length, various types of literature reviews, and how to write one.

What is a literature review?

A literature review is a collation of survey, research, critical evaluation, and assessment of the existing literature in a preferred domain.

Eminent researcher and academic Arlene Fink, in her book Conducting Research Literature Reviews , defines it as the following:

“A literature review surveys books, scholarly articles, and any other sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, and by so doing, provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works in relation to the research problem being investigated.

Literature reviews are designed to provide an overview of sources you have explored while researching a particular topic, and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits within a larger field of study.”

Simply put, a literature review can be defined as a critical discussion of relevant pre-existing research around your research question and carving out a definitive place for your study in the existing body of knowledge. Literature reviews can be presented in multiple ways: a section of an article, the whole research paper itself, or a chapter of your thesis.

A literature review does function as a summary of sources, but it also allows you to analyze further, interpret, and examine the stated theories, methods, viewpoints, and, of course, the gaps in the existing content.

As an author, you can discuss and interpret the research question and its various aspects and debate your adopted methods to support the claim.

What is the purpose of a literature review?

A literature review is meant to help your readers understand the relevance of your research question and where it fits within the existing body of knowledge. As a researcher, you should use it to set the context, build your argument, and establish the need for your study.

What is the importance of a literature review?

The literature review is a critical part of research papers because it helps you:

• Gain an in-depth understanding of your research question and the surrounding area
• Convey that you have a thorough understanding of your research area and are up-to-date with the latest changes and advancements
• Establish how your research is connected or builds on the existing body of knowledge and how it could contribute to further research
• Elaborate on the validity and suitability of your theoretical framework and research methodology
• Identify and highlight gaps and shortcomings in the existing body of knowledge and how things need to change
• Convey to readers how your study is different or how it contributes to the research area

How long should a literature review be?

Ideally, the literature review should take up 15%-40% of the total length of your manuscript. So, if you have a 10,000-word research paper, the minimum word count could be 1500.

Your literature review format depends heavily on the kind of manuscript you are writing — an entire chapter in case of doctoral theses, a part of the introductory section in a research article, to a full-fledged review article that examines the previously published research on a topic.

Another determining factor is the type of research you are doing. The literature review section tends to be longer for secondary research projects than primary research projects.

What are the different types of literature reviews?

All literature reviews are not the same. There are a variety of possible approaches that you can take. It all depends on the type of research you are pursuing.

Here are the different types of literature reviews:

Argumentative review

It is called an argumentative review when you carefully present literature that only supports or counters a specific argument or premise to establish a viewpoint.

Integrative review

It is a type of literature review focused on building a comprehensive understanding of a topic by combining available theoretical frameworks and empirical evidence.

Methodological review

This approach delves into the ''how'' and the ''what" of the research question —  you cannot look at the outcome in isolation; you should also review the methodology used.

Systematic review

This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research and collect, report, and analyze data from the studies included in the review.

Meta-analysis review

Meta-analysis uses statistical methods to summarize the results of independent studies. By combining information from all relevant studies, meta-analysis can provide more precise estimates of the effects than those derived from the individual studies included within a review.

Historical review

Historical literature reviews focus on examining research throughout a period, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, or phenomenon emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and identify future research's likely directions.

Theoretical Review

This form aims to examine the corpus of theory accumulated regarding an issue, concept, theory, and phenomenon. The theoretical literature review helps to establish what theories exist, the relationships between them, the degree the existing approaches have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested.

Scoping Review

The Scoping Review is often used at the beginning of an article, dissertation, or research proposal. It is conducted before the research to highlight gaps in the existing body of knowledge and explains why the project should be greenlit.

State-of-the-Art Review

The State-of-the-Art review is conducted periodically, focusing on the most recent research. It describes what is currently known, understood, or agreed upon regarding the research topic and highlights where there are still disagreements.

Can you use the first person in a literature review?

When writing literature reviews, you should avoid the usage of first-person pronouns. It means that instead of "I argue that" or "we argue that," the appropriate expression would be "this research paper argues that."

Do you need an abstract for a literature review?

Ideally, yes. It is always good to have a condensed summary that is self-contained and independent of the rest of your review. As for how to draft one, you can follow the same fundamental idea when preparing an abstract for a literature review. It should also include:

• The research topic and your motivation behind selecting it
• A one-sentence thesis statement
• An explanation of the kinds of literature featured in the review
• Summary of what you've learned
• Conclusions you drew from the literature you reviewed
• Potential implications and future scope for research

Here's an example of the abstract of a literature review

Is a literature review written in the past tense?

Yes, the literature review should ideally be written in the past tense. You should not use the present or future tense when writing one. The exceptions are when you have statements describing events that happened earlier than the literature you are reviewing or events that are currently occurring; then, you can use the past perfect or present perfect tenses.

How many sources for a literature review?

There are multiple approaches to deciding how many sources to include in a literature review section. The first approach would be to look level you are at as a researcher. For instance, a doctoral thesis might need 60+ sources. In contrast, you might only need to refer to 5-15 sources at the undergraduate level.

The second approach is based on the kind of literature review you are doing — whether it is merely a chapter of your paper or if it is a self-contained paper in itself. When it is just a chapter, sources should equal the total number of pages in your article's body. In the second scenario, you need at least three times as many sources as there are pages in your work.

Quick tips on how to write a literature review

To know how to write a literature review, you must clearly understand its impact and role in establishing your work as substantive research material.

You need to follow the below-mentioned steps, to write a literature review:

• Outline the purpose behind the literature review
• Search relevant literature
• Examine and assess the relevant resources
• Discover connections by drawing deep insights from the resources
• Structure planning to write a good literature review

1. Outline and identify the purpose of  a literature review

As a first step on how to write a literature review, you must know what the research question or topic is and what shape you want your literature review to take. Ensure you understand the research topic inside out, or else seek clarifications. You must be able to the answer below questions before you start:

• How many sources do I need to include?
• What kind of sources should I analyze?
• How much should I critically evaluate each source?
• Should I summarize, synthesize or offer a critique of the sources?
• Do I need to include any background information or definitions?

Additionally, you should know that the narrower your research topic is, the swifter it will be for you to restrict the number of sources to be analyzed.

2. Search relevant literature

Dig deeper into search engines to discover what has already been published around your chosen topic. Make sure you thoroughly go through appropriate reference sources like books, reports, journal articles, government docs, and web-based resources.

You must prepare a list of keywords and their different variations. You can start your search from any library’s catalog, provided you are an active member of that institution. The exact keywords can be extended to widen your research over other databases and academic search engines like:

• Google Scholar
• Microsoft Academic
• Science.gov

Besides, it is not advisable to go through every resource word by word. Alternatively, what you can do is you can start by reading the abstract and then decide whether that source is relevant to your research or not.

Additionally, you must spend surplus time assessing the quality and relevance of resources. It would help if you tried preparing a list of citations to ensure that there lies no repetition of authors, publications, or articles in the literature review.

3. Examine and assess the sources

It is nearly impossible for you to go through every detail in the research article. So rather than trying to fetch every detail, you have to analyze and decide which research sources resemble closest and appear relevant to your chosen domain.

While analyzing the sources, you should look to find out answers to questions like:

• What question or problem has the author been describing and debating?
• What is the definition of critical aspects?
• How well the theories, approach, and methodology have been explained?
• Whether the research theory used some conventional or new innovative approach?
• How relevant are the key findings of the work?
• In what ways does it relate to other sources on the same topic?
• What challenges does this research paper pose to the existing theory
• What are the possible contributions or benefits it adds to the subject domain?

Be always mindful that you refer only to credible and authentic resources. It would be best if you always take references from different publications to validate your theory.

Always keep track of important information or data you can present in your literature review right from the beginning. It will help steer your path from any threats of plagiarism and also make it easier to curate an annotated bibliography or reference section.

4. Discover connections

At this stage, you must start deciding on the argument and structure of your literature review. To accomplish this, you must discover and identify the relations and connections between various resources while drafting your abstract.

A few aspects that you should be aware of while writing a literature review include:

• Rise to prominence: Theories and methods that have gained reputation and supporters over time.
• Constant scrutiny: Concepts or theories that repeatedly went under examination.
• Contradictions and conflicts: Theories, both the supporting and the contradictory ones, for the research topic.
• Knowledge gaps: What exactly does it fail to address, and how to bridge them with further research?
• Influential resources: Significant research projects available that have been upheld as milestones or perhaps, something that can modify the current trends

Once you join the dots between various past research works, it will be easier for you to draw a conclusion and identify your contribution to the existing knowledge base.

5. Structure planning to write a good literature review

There exist different ways towards planning and executing the structure of a literature review. The format of a literature review varies and depends upon the length of the research.

Like any other research paper, the literature review format must contain three sections: introduction, body, and conclusion. The goals and objectives of the research question determine what goes inside these three sections.

Nevertheless, a good literature review can be structured according to the chronological, thematic, methodological, or theoretical framework approach.

Literature review samples

1. Standalone

2. As a section of a research paper

How SciSpace Discover makes literature review a breeze?

SciSpace Discover is a one-stop solution to do an effective literature search and get barrier-free access to scientific knowledge. It is an excellent repository where you can find millions of only peer-reviewed articles and full-text PDF files. Here’s more on how you can use it:

Find the right information

Find what you want quickly and easily with comprehensive search filters that let you narrow down papers according to PDF availability, year of publishing, document type, and affiliated institution. Moreover, you can sort the results based on the publishing date, citation count, and relevance.

Assess credibility of papers quickly

When doing the literature review, it is critical to establish the quality of your sources. They form the foundation of your research. SciSpace Discover helps you assess the quality of a source by providing an overview of its references, citations, and performance metrics.

Get the complete picture in no time

SciSpace Discover’s personalized suggestion engine helps you stay on course and get the complete picture of the topic from one place. Every time you visit an article page, it provides you links to related papers. Besides that, it helps you understand what’s trending, who are the top authors, and who are the leading publishers on a topic.

Make referring sources super easy

To ensure you don't lose track of your sources, you must start noting down your references when doing the literature review. SciSpace Discover makes this step effortless. Click the 'cite' button on an article page, and you will receive preloaded citation text in multiple styles — all you've to do is copy-paste it into your manuscript.

Final tips on how to write a literature review

A massive chunk of time and effort is required to write a good literature review. But, if you go about it systematically, you'll be able to save a ton of time and build a solid foundation for your research.

We hope this guide has helped you answer several key questions you have about writing literature reviews.

Would you like to explore SciSpace Discover and kick off your literature search right away? You can get started here .

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. how to start a literature review.

• What questions do you want to answer?

• What sources do you need to answer these questions?

• What information do these sources contain?

• How can you use this information to answer your questions?

2. What to include in a literature review?

• A brief background of the problem or issue

• What has previously been done to address the problem or issue

• A description of what you will do in your project

• How this study will contribute to research on the subject

3. Why literature review is important?

The literature review is an important part of any research project because it allows the writer to look at previous studies on a topic and determine existing gaps in the literature, as well as what has already been done. It will also help them to choose the most appropriate method for their own study.

4. How to cite a literature review in APA format?

To cite a literature review in APA style, you need to provide the author's name, the title of the article, and the year of publication. For example: Patel, A. B., & Stokes, G. S. (2012). The relationship between personality and intelligence: A meta-analysis of longitudinal research. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(1), 16-21

5. What are the components of a literature review?

• A brief introduction to the topic, including its background and context. The introduction should also include a rationale for why the study is being conducted and what it will accomplish.

• A description of the methodologies used in the study. This can include information about data collection methods, sample size, and statistical analyses.

• A presentation of the findings in an organized format that helps readers follow along with the author's conclusions.

6. What are common errors in writing literature review?

• Not spending enough time to critically evaluate the relevance of resources, observations and conclusions.

• Totally relying on secondary data while ignoring primary data.

• Letting your personal bias seep into your interpretation of existing literature.

• No detailed explanation of the procedure to discover and identify an appropriate literature review.

7. What are the 5 C's of writing literature review?

• Cite - the sources you utilized and referenced in your research.

• Compare - existing arguments, hypotheses, methodologies, and conclusions found in the knowledge base.

• Contrast - the arguments, topics, methodologies, approaches, and disputes that may be found in the literature.

• Critique - the literature and describe the ideas and opinions you find more convincing and why.

• Connect - the various studies you reviewed in your research.

8. How many sources should a literature review have?

When it is just a chapter, sources should equal the total number of pages in your article's body. if it is a self-contained paper in itself, you need at least three times as many sources as there are pages in your work.

9. Can literature review have diagrams?

• To represent an abstract idea or concept

• To explain the steps of a process or procedure

• To help readers understand the relationships between different concepts

10. How old should sources be in a literature review?

Sources for a literature review should be as current as possible or not older than ten years. The only exception to this rule is if you are reviewing a historical topic and need to use older sources.

11. What are the types of literature review?

• Argumentative review

• Integrative review

• Methodological review

• Systematic review

• Meta-analysis review

• Historical review

• Theoretical review

• Scoping review

• State-of-the-Art review

12. Is a literature review mandatory?

Yes. Literature review is a mandatory part of any research project. It is a critical step in the process that allows you to establish the scope of your research, and provide a background for the rest of your work.

But before you go,

• Six Online Tools for Easy Literature Review
• Evaluating literature review: systematic vs. scoping reviews
• Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review
• Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples

You might also like

Consensus GPT vs. SciSpace GPT: Choose the Best GPT for Research

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

Types of Essays in Academic Writing - Quick Guide (2024)

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

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

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

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

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Correct my document today

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 22 July 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

Writing a Literature Review

• What is a Literature Review?
• Step 1: Choosing a Topic
• Step 2: Finding Information
• Step 3: Evaluating Content
• Step 4: Taking Notes
• Step 5: Synthesizing Content
• Step 6: Writing the Review
• Step 7: Citing Your Sources
• Meet the Library Team
• Off-Campus & Mobile Access
• Software, Printing, & IT Help
• Other Helpful Guides

Library Hours

*Hours may differ on holidays and when classes are out of session. Up-to-date hours can be found here:  https://library.llu.edu/all-library-hours . 

Monday:        7:00am - 10:00pm

Tuesday:       7:00am - 10:00pm

Wednesday:  7:00am - 10:00pm

Thursday:      7:00am - 10:00pm

Friday:           7:00am - 4:00pm

Saturday:       Closed

Sunday:         10:00am - 10:00pm

Steps To Write a Literature Review

• << Previous: What is a Literature Review?
• Next: Step 1: Choosing a Topic >>
• Last Updated: Jul 24, 2024 12:15 PM
• URL: https://libguides.llu.edu/literaturereview

Reference management. Clean and simple.

How to write a literature review in 6 steps

What is a literature review?

How to write a literature review, 1. determine the purpose of your literature review, 2. do an extensive search, 3. evaluate and select literature, 4. analyze the literature, 5. plan the structure of your literature review, 6. write your literature review, other resources to help you write a successful literature review, frequently asked questions about writing a literature review, related articles.

A literature review is an assessment of the sources in a chosen topic of research.

A good literature review does not just summarize sources. It analyzes the state of the field on a given topic and creates a scholarly foundation for you to make your own intervention. It demonstrates to your readers how your research fits within a larger field of study.

In a thesis, a literature review is part of the introduction, but it can also be a separate section. In research papers, a literature review may have its own section or it may be integrated into the introduction, depending on the field.

➡️ Our guide on what is a literature review covers additional basics about literature reviews.

• Identify the main purpose of the literature review.
• Do extensive research.
• Evaluate and select relevant sources.
• Analyze the sources.
• Plan a structure.
• Write the review.

In this section, we review each step of the process of creating a literature review.

In the first step, make sure you know specifically what the assignment is and what form your literature review should take. Read your assignment carefully and seek clarification from your professor or instructor if needed. You should be able to answer the following questions:

• How many sources do I need to include?
• What types of sources should I review?
• Should I evaluate the sources?
• Should I summarize, synthesize or critique sources?
• Do I need to provide any definitions or background information?

In addition to that, be aware that the narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to get a good overview of the topic.

Now you need to find out what has been written on the topic and search for literature related to your research topic. Make sure to select appropriate source material, which means using academic or scholarly sources , including books, reports, journal articles , government documents and web resources.

➡️ If you’re unsure about how to tell if a source is scholarly, take a look at our guide on how to identify a scholarly source .

Come up with a list of relevant keywords and then start your search with your institution's library catalog, and extend it to other useful databases and academic search engines like:

• Google Scholar
• Science.gov

➡️ Our guide on how to collect data for your thesis might be helpful at this stage of your research as well as the top list of academic search engines .

Once you find a useful article, check out the reference list. It should provide you with even more relevant sources. Also, keep a note of the:

• authors' names
• page numbers

Keeping track of the bibliographic information for each source will save you time when you’re ready to create citations. You could also use a reference manager like Paperpile to automatically save, manage, and cite your references.

Read the literature. You will most likely not be able to read absolutely everything that is out there on the topic. Therefore, read the abstract first to determine whether the rest of the source is worth your time. If the source is relevant for your topic:

• Read it critically.
• Look for the main arguments.
• Take notes as you read.
• Organize your notes using a table, mind map, or other technique.

Now you are ready to analyze the literature you have gathered. While your are working on your analysis, you should ask the following questions:

• What are the key terms, concepts and problems addressed by the author?
• How is this source relevant for my specific topic?
• How is the article structured? What are the major trends and findings?
• What are the conclusions of the study?
• How are the results presented? Is the source credible?
• When comparing different sources, how do they relate to each other? What are the similarities, what are the differences?
• Does the study help me understand the topic better?
• Are there any gaps in the research that need to be filled? How can I further my research as a result of the review?

Tip: Decide on the structure of your literature review before you start writing.

There are various ways to organize your literature review:

• Chronological method : Writing in the chronological method means you are presenting the materials according to when they were published. Follow this approach only if a clear path of research can be identified.
• Thematic review : A thematic review of literature is organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time.
• Publication-based : You can order your sources by publication, if the way you present the order of your sources demonstrates a more important trend. This is the case when a progression revealed from study to study and the practices of researchers have changed and adapted due to the new revelations.
• Methodological approach : A methodological approach focuses on the methods used by the researcher. If you have used sources from different disciplines that use a variety of research methods, you might want to compare the results in light of the different methods and discuss how the topic has been approached from different sides.

Regardless of the structure you chose, a review should always include the following three sections:

• An introduction, which should give the reader an outline of why you are writing the review and explain the relevance of the topic.
• A body, which divides your literature review into different sections. Write in well-structured paragraphs, use transitions and topic sentences and critically analyze each source for how it contributes to the themes you are researching.
• A conclusion , which summarizes the key findings, the main agreements and disagreements in the literature, your overall perspective, and any gaps or areas for further research.

➡️ If your literature review is part of a longer paper, visit our guide on what is a research paper for additional tips.

➡️ UNC writing center: Literature reviews

➡️ How to write a literature review in 3 steps

➡️ How to write a literature review in 30 minutes or less

The goal of a literature review is to asses the state of the field on a given topic in preparation for making an intervention.

A literature review should have its own independent section. You should indicate clearly in the table of contents where it can be found, and address this section as “Literature Review.”

There is no set amount of words for a literature review; the length depends on the research. If you are working with a large amount of sources, then it will be long. If your paper does not depend entirely on references, then it will be short.

Most research papers include a literature review. By assessing the available sources in your field of research, you will be able to make a more confident argument about the topic.

Literature reviews are most commonly found in theses and dissertations. However, you find them in research papers as well.

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• 5. The Literature Review
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

A literature review surveys prior research published in books, scholarly articles, and any other sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, and by so doing, provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works in relation to the research problem being investigated. Literature reviews are designed to provide an overview of sources you have used in researching a particular topic and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits within existing scholarship about the topic.

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . Fourth edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2014.

Importance of a Good Literature Review

A literature review may consist of simply a summary of key sources, but in the social sciences, a literature review usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis, often within specific conceptual categories . A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information in a way that informs how you are planning to investigate a research problem. The analytical features of a literature review might:

• Give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations,
• Trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates,
• Depending on the situation, evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant research, or
• Usually in the conclusion of a literature review, identify where gaps exist in how a problem has been researched to date.

Given this, the purpose of a literature review is to:

• Place each work in the context of its contribution to understanding the research problem being studied.
• Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration.
• Identify new ways to interpret prior research.
• Reveal any gaps that exist in the literature.
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies.
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort.
• Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research.
• Locate your own research within the context of existing literature [very important].

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2011; Knopf, Jeffrey W. "Doing a Literature Review." PS: Political Science and Politics 39 (January 2006): 127-132; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012.

Types of Literature Reviews

It is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers. First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish. Second are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the primary studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally among scholars that become part of the body of epistemological traditions within the field.

In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews. Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources you have explored, there are a number of approaches you could adopt depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study.

Argumentative Review This form examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply embedded assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the literature. The purpose is to develop a body of literature that establishes a contrarian viewpoint. Given the value-laden nature of some social science research [e.g., educational reform; immigration control], argumentative approaches to analyzing the literature can be a legitimate and important form of discourse. However, note that they can also introduce problems of bias when they are used to make summary claims of the sort found in systematic reviews [see below].

Integrative Review Considered a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. The body of literature includes all studies that address related or identical hypotheses or research problems. A well-done integrative review meets the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication. This is the most common form of review in the social sciences.

Historical Review Few things rest in isolation from historical precedent. Historical literature reviews focus on examining research throughout a period of time, often starting with the first time an issue, concept, theory, phenomena emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and to identify the likely directions for future research.

Methodological Review A review does not always focus on what someone said [findings], but how they came about saying what they say [method of analysis]. Reviewing methods of analysis provides a framework of understanding at different levels [i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches, and data collection and analysis techniques], how researchers draw upon a wide variety of knowledge ranging from the conceptual level to practical documents for use in fieldwork in the areas of ontological and epistemological consideration, quantitative and qualitative integration, sampling, interviewing, data collection, and data analysis. This approach helps highlight ethical issues which you should be aware of and consider as you go through your own study.

Systematic Review This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. The goal is to deliberately document, critically evaluate, and summarize scientifically all of the research about a clearly defined research problem . Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?" This type of literature review is primarily applied to examining prior research studies in clinical medicine and allied health fields, but it is increasingly being used in the social sciences.

Theoretical Review The purpose of this form is to examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. The theoretical literature review helps to establish what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree the existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested. Often this form is used to help establish a lack of appropriate theories or reveal that current theories are inadequate for explaining new or emerging research problems. The unit of analysis can focus on a theoretical concept or a whole theory or framework.

NOTE: Most often the literature review will incorporate some combination of types. For example, a review that examines literature supporting or refuting an argument, assumption, or philosophical problem related to the research problem will also need to include writing supported by sources that establish the history of these arguments in the literature.

Baumeister, Roy F. and Mark R. Leary. "Writing Narrative Literature Reviews."  Review of General Psychology 1 (September 1997): 311-320; Mark R. Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature." Educational Researcher 36 (April 2007): 139-147; Petticrew, Mark and Helen Roberts. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide . Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2006; Torracro, Richard. "Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples." Human Resource Development Review 4 (September 2005): 356-367; Rocco, Tonette S. and Maria S. Plakhotnik. "Literature Reviews, Conceptual Frameworks, and Theoretical Frameworks: Terms, Functions, and Distinctions." Human Ressource Development Review 8 (March 2008): 120-130; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

The structure of a literature review should include the following in support of understanding the research problem :

• An overview of the subject, issue, or theory under consideration, along with the objectives of the literature review,
• Division of works under review into themes or categories [e.g. works that support a particular position, those against, and those offering alternative approaches entirely],
• An explanation of how each work is similar to and how it varies from the others,
• Conclusions as to which pieces are best considered in their argument, are most convincing of their opinions, and make the greatest contribution to the understanding and development of their area of research.

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

• Provenance -- what are the author's credentials? Are the author's arguments supported by evidence [e.g. primary historical material, case studies, narratives, statistics, recent scientific findings]?
• Methodology -- were the techniques used to identify, gather, and analyze the data appropriate to addressing the research problem? Was the sample size appropriate? Were the results effectively interpreted and reported?
• Objectivity -- is the author's perspective even-handed or prejudicial? Is contrary data considered or is certain pertinent information ignored to prove the author's point?
• Persuasiveness -- which of the author's theses are most convincing or least convincing?
• Validity -- are the author's arguments and conclusions convincing? Does the work ultimately contribute in any significant way to an understanding of the subject?

II.  Development of the Literature Review

Four Basic Stages of Writing 1.  Problem formulation -- which topic or field is being examined and what are its component issues? 2.  Literature search -- finding materials relevant to the subject being explored. 3.  Data evaluation -- determining which literature makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the topic. 4.  Analysis and interpretation -- discussing the findings and conclusions of pertinent literature.

Consider the following issues before writing the literature review: Clarify If your assignment is not specific about what form your literature review should take, seek clarification from your professor by asking these questions: 1.  Roughly how many sources would be appropriate to include? 2.  What types of sources should I review (books, journal articles, websites; scholarly versus popular sources)? 3.  Should I summarize, synthesize, or critique sources by discussing a common theme or issue? 4.  Should I evaluate the sources in any way beyond evaluating how they relate to understanding the research problem? 5.  Should I provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history? Find Models Use the exercise of reviewing the literature to examine how authors in your discipline or area of interest have composed their literature review sections. Read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or to identify ways to organize your final review. The bibliography or reference section of sources you've already read, such as required readings in the course syllabus, are also excellent entry points into your own research. Narrow the Topic The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to obtain a good survey of relevant resources. Your professor will probably not expect you to read everything that's available about the topic, but you'll make the act of reviewing easier if you first limit scope of the research problem. A good strategy is to begin by searching the USC Libraries Catalog for recent books about the topic and review the table of contents for chapters that focuses on specific issues. You can also review the indexes of books to find references to specific issues that can serve as the focus of your research. For example, a book surveying the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may include a chapter on the role Egypt has played in mediating the conflict, or look in the index for the pages where Egypt is mentioned in the text. Consider Whether Your Sources are Current Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. This is particularly true in disciplines in medicine and the sciences where research conducted becomes obsolete very quickly as new discoveries are made. However, when writing a review in the social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be required. In other words, a complete understanding the research problem requires you to deliberately examine how knowledge and perspectives have changed over time. Sort through other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to explore what is considered by scholars to be a "hot topic" and what is not.

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

Chronology of Events If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials according to when they were published. This approach should only be followed if a clear path of research building on previous research can be identified and that these trends follow a clear chronological order of development. For example, a literature review that focuses on continuing research about the emergence of German economic power after the fall of the Soviet Union. By Publication Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on environmental studies of brown fields if the progression revealed, for example, a change in the soil collection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies. Thematic [“conceptual categories”] A thematic literature review is the most common approach to summarizing prior research in the social and behavioral sciences. Thematic reviews are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time, although the progression of time may still be incorporated into a thematic review. For example, a review of the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics could focus on the development of online political satire. While the study focuses on one topic, the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics, it would still be organized chronologically reflecting technological developments in media. The difference in this example between a "chronological" and a "thematic" approach is what is emphasized the most: themes related to the role of the Internet in presidential politics. Note that more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point being made. Methodological A methodological approach focuses on the methods utilized by the researcher. For the Internet in American presidential politics project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of American presidents on American, British, and French websites. Or the review might focus on the fundraising impact of the Internet on a particular political party. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed.

Other Sections of Your Literature Review Once you've decided on the organizational method for your literature review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out because they arise from your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period; a thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue. However, sometimes you may need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. However, only include what is necessary for the reader to locate your study within the larger scholarship about the research problem.

Here are examples of other sections, usually in the form of a single paragraph, you may need to include depending on the type of review you write:

• Current Situation : Information necessary to understand the current topic or focus of the literature review.
• Sources Used : Describes the methods and resources [e.g., databases] you used to identify the literature you reviewed.
• History : The chronological progression of the field, the research literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
• Selection Methods : Criteria you used to select (and perhaps exclude) sources in your literature review. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed [i.e., scholarly] sources.
• Standards : Description of the way in which you present your information.
• Questions for Further Research : What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

Once you've settled on how to organize your literature review, you're ready to write each section. When writing your review, keep in mind these issues.

Use Evidence A literature review section is, in this sense, just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence [citations] that demonstrates that what you are saying is valid. Be Selective Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the research problem, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological. Related items that provide additional information, but that are not key to understanding the research problem, can be included in a list of further readings . Use Quotes Sparingly Some short quotes are appropriate if you want to emphasize a point, or if what an author stated cannot be easily paraphrased. Sometimes you may need to quote certain terminology that was coined by the author, is not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. Do not use extensive quotes as a substitute for using your own words in reviewing the literature. Summarize and Synthesize Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each thematic paragraph as well as throughout the review. Recapitulate important features of a research study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study's significance and relating it to your own work and the work of others. Keep Your Own Voice While the literature review presents others' ideas, your voice [the writer's] should remain front and center. For example, weave references to other sources into what you are writing but maintain your own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with your own ideas and wording. Use Caution When Paraphrasing When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author's information or opinions accurately and in your own words. Even when paraphrasing an author’s work, you still must provide a citation to that work.

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

These are the most common mistakes made in reviewing social science research literature.

• Sources in your literature review do not clearly relate to the research problem;
• You do not take sufficient time to define and identify the most relevant sources to use in the literature review related to the research problem;
• Relies exclusively on secondary analytical sources rather than including relevant primary research studies or data;
• Uncritically accepts another researcher's findings and interpretations as valid, rather than examining critically all aspects of the research design and analysis;
• Does not describe the search procedures that were used in identifying the literature to review;
• Reports isolated statistical results rather than synthesizing them in chi-squared or meta-analytic methods; and,
• Only includes research that validates assumptions and does not consider contrary findings and alternative interpretations found in the literature.

Cook, Kathleen E. and Elise Murowchick. “Do Literature Review Skills Transfer from One Course to Another?” Psychology Learning and Teaching 13 (March 2014): 3-11; Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . London: SAGE, 2011; Literature Review Handout. Online Writing Center. Liberty University; Literature Reviews. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2016; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012; Randolph, Justus J. “A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review." Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation. vol. 14, June 2009; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016; Taylor, Dena. The Literature Review: A Few Tips On Conducting It. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Writing a Literature Review. Academic Skills Centre. University of Canberra.

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

Thinking interdisciplinarily about a research problem can be a rewarding exercise in applying new ideas, theories, or concepts to an old problem. For example, what might cultural anthropologists say about the continuing conflict in the Middle East? In what ways might geographers view the need for better distribution of social service agencies in large cities than how social workers might study the issue? You don’t want to substitute a thorough review of core research literature in your discipline for studies conducted in other fields of study. However, particularly in the social sciences, thinking about research problems from multiple vectors is a key strategy for finding new solutions to a problem or gaining a new perspective. Consult with a librarian about identifying research databases in other disciplines; almost every field of study has at least one comprehensive database devoted to indexing its research literature.

Frodeman, Robert. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity . New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

While conducting a review of the literature, maximize the time you devote to writing this part of your paper by thinking broadly about what you should be looking for and evaluating. Review not just what scholars are saying, but how are they saying it. Some questions to ask:

• How are they organizing their ideas?
• What methods have they used to study the problem?
• What theories have been used to explain, predict, or understand their research problem?
• What sources have they cited to support their conclusions?
• How have they used non-textual elements [e.g., charts, graphs, figures, etc.] to illustrate key points?

When you begin to write your literature review section, you'll be glad you dug deeper into how the research was designed and constructed because it establishes a means for developing more substantial analysis and interpretation of the research problem.

Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1 998.

Yet Another Writing Tip

When Do I Know I Can Stop Looking and Move On?

Here are several strategies you can utilize to assess whether you've thoroughly reviewed the literature:

• Look for repeating patterns in the research findings . If the same thing is being said, just by different people, then this likely demonstrates that the research problem has hit a conceptual dead end. At this point consider: Does your study extend current research?  Does it forge a new path? Or, does is merely add more of the same thing being said?
• Look at sources the authors cite to in their work . If you begin to see the same researchers cited again and again, then this is often an indication that no new ideas have been generated to address the research problem.
• Search Google Scholar to identify who has subsequently cited leading scholars already identified in your literature review [see next sub-tab]. This is called citation tracking and there are a number of sources that can help you identify who has cited whom, particularly scholars from outside of your discipline. Here again, if the same authors are being cited again and again, this may indicate no new literature has been written on the topic.

Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 2016; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: Jul 3, 2024 10:07 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

• UConn Library
• Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide
• Introduction

Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide — Introduction

• Getting Started
• How to Pick a Topic
• Strategies to Find Sources
• Evaluating Sources & Lit. Reviews
• Tips for Writing Literature Reviews
• Writing Literature Review: Useful Sites
• Citation Resources
• Other Academic Writings

What are Literature Reviews?

So, what is a literature review? "A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. In writing the literature review, your purpose is to convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As a piece of writing, the literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (e.g., your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries." Taylor, D.  The literature review: A few tips on conducting it . University of Toronto Health Sciences Writing Centre.

Goals of Literature Reviews

What are the goals of creating a Literature Review?  A literature could be written to accomplish different aims:

• To develop a theory or evaluate an existing theory
• To summarize the historical or existing state of a research topic
• Identify a problem in a field of research 

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews .  Review of General Psychology , 1 (3), 311-320.

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

• A research paper assigned in a course
• A thesis or dissertation
• A grant proposal
• An article intended for publication in a journal

All these instances require you to collect what has been written about your research topic so that you can demonstrate how your own research sheds new light on the topic.

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

Narrative review: The purpose of this type of review is to describe the current state of the research on a specific topic/research and to offer a critical analysis of the literature reviewed. Studies are grouped by research/theoretical categories, and themes and trends, strengths and weakness, and gaps are identified. The review ends with a conclusion section which summarizes the findings regarding the state of the research of the specific study, the gaps identify and if applicable, explains how the author's research will address gaps identify in the review and expand the knowledge on the topic reviewed.

• Example : Predictors and Outcomes of U.S. Quality Maternity Leave: A Review and Conceptual Framework:  10.1177/08948453211037398  

Systematic review : "The authors of a systematic review use a specific procedure to search the research literature, select the studies to include in their review, and critically evaluate the studies they find." (p. 139). Nelson, L. K. (2013). Research in Communication Sciences and Disorders . Plural Publishing.

• Example : The effect of leave policies on increasing fertility: a systematic review:  10.1057/s41599-022-01270-w

Meta-analysis : "Meta-analysis is a method of reviewing research findings in a quantitative fashion by transforming the data from individual studies into what is called an effect size and then pooling and analyzing this information. The basic goal in meta-analysis is to explain why different outcomes have occurred in different studies." (p. 197). Roberts, M. C., & Ilardi, S. S. (2003). Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology . Blackwell Publishing.

• Example : Employment Instability and Fertility in Europe: A Meta-Analysis:  10.1215/00703370-9164737

Meta-synthesis : "Qualitative meta-synthesis is a type of qualitative study that uses as data the findings from other qualitative studies linked by the same or related topic." (p.312). Zimmer, L. (2006). Qualitative meta-synthesis: A question of dialoguing with texts .  Journal of Advanced Nursing , 53 (3), 311-318.

• Example : Women’s perspectives on career successes and barriers: A qualitative meta-synthesis:  10.1177/05390184221113735

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

• UConn Health subject guide on systematic reviews Explanation of the different review types used in health sciences literature as well as tools to help you find the right review type
• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: How to Pick a Topic >>
• Last Updated: Sep 21, 2022 2:16 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uconn.edu/literaturereview

Literature Reviews: Getting Started: The 5 Steps

• Introduction
• Getting Started: The 5 Steps
• Searching for Literature
• Advanced Searching Tips This link opens in a new window
• Organising Your Research
• Writing the Literature Review
• Example Reviews & Useful Books
• Research Tools
• Library 101 This link opens in a new window

These are the steps which you should follow to complete your literature review. 

Evaluating sources

It is important to make sure that the sources you're using are good quality, academic-appropriate sources.  You need to read critically when searching for literature. 

Evaluate the sources for their credibility. How have they arrived at their conclusions? Are there any conflicting theories or findings? Is the publisher reputable? Reading at this critical level will help you decide whether a publication should or should not be included in your literature review.

Author credentials

Examine how the contributors are affiliated. Are the researchers connected to a university, a research lab or a pharmaceutical company? Are the authors considered credible in their field? Are they promoting special interests?

Relevance and scope

Make sure the publications you include in your literature review are relevant and within the scope of your topic, in terms of theoretical argument, research methodology, timeframe and currency.

Reliability

How well is the study designed? Do you see any room for improvement? Do similar studies come to the same conclusion? Have the authors explored the topic from different points of view, or do they rely on a more one-sided argument?

Click HERE to see our help guide on evaluating information you find online. 

Feedback Poll

We would love feedback if this page was useful to you! If you have additional questions please reach out to us and we can try our best to help.

Step 1: Decide on your research question

The very first step in a literature review is deciding what it is you will be researching. Your research question defines the entirety of your final piece of work, including the literature review. It should focus on something from the research field that needs to be explored, where there are gaps in the information. This will ensure that your contribution is valuable and that you are providing readers with a different angle or perspective on an issue or problem.

Remember, a literature review is not a collection of vaguely related studies, but instead it represents background and research developments related to your specific research question - analysed, interpreted, and synthesised by you.  

For this reason it is important to hit on the right research question. 

Ask yourself: 

• Is it too broad? Is it too narrow? For example, a research question like “why are social networking sites harmful?” is too broad; there will be too much information to write a concise literature review. Change it to “how are online users experiencing or addressing privacy issues on Twitter and Facebook?" and it is more specific. It gives you a niche within the research field to focus on and explore.
• Has it been used as a research question by someone else before?
• Have you discussed it with your lecturer? They can guide you if your question isn't quite right yet. 

Step 2: Decide how broad or narrow your scope will be

You need to decide how broadly or narrowly you are going to search for literature. This will depend on a few factors: what your research question or topic is, what your lecturer says, and how well written on the topic is. 

Remember, the goal is not to examine everything that's ever been written on  your topic. To avoid your search results being too numerous, you should narrow down your scope by thinking of the following factors:

• How many years should your search cover?
• How comprehensive should it be? Will it cover every facet of a topic or focus on one area?
• Are there criteria by which you can narrow down the topic? For example, by age, by gender, by location, by methodology (e.g qualitative or quantitative research, case studies), by theoretical framework, etc.?

Here are some examples of topics and searches that are too braod, and more narrow approaches you could take: 

You can also narrow the scope of your search by utilising advanced search techniques, and using filters to eliminate irrelevant search results. You can find more information on both of these  HERE

Step 3: Decide where you will search

It is important to select the right databases in which to conduct your search. Rather than searching generally across all the library databases, some of which may not have anything to do with your topic, it would be more efficient to go to databases which are more closely aligned with your topic.

You can see IADT Library's list of databases  here . 

Ask your lecturer which databases they think you should search.

For information on how to use our databases, click HERE .

Step 4: Conduct your search

Searching for the literature is one of the steps which can take the most time. Take your time to be thorough and methodical. One of the best things you can do is keep track of your searches. The software we recommend to do this is Zotero . Zotero is a tool which allows you to save sources and citations, including taking notes about them as you read them, which will save you lots of time down the road when you come to analysing these sources. You can read all about Zotero here .

Tips to finding relevant literature

• Review the abstracts of research studies carefully. An abstract is a comprehensive summary of what the article is about. This will save you time because you can quickly see if the article is relevant to you or not. 
• Document the searches you conduct in each database so that you can duplicate them if you need to later (or avoid dead-end searches that you'd forgotten you'd already tried).
• Use the bibliographies and references of research studies you find to locate others.  You can also use citation tracking to see who has used a piece of work in their own research and how they've built on this.
• Note what key words are used by authors, usually in their abstracts and search for those. Sometimes having the right vocabulary for the topic can help you find many more sources you might have missed otherwise.
• Ask your lecturer if you are missing any key works in the field.

What about searching Google? Googling your topic can bring up hundreds of thousands of hits, but rarely will the sources from a Google search be appropriate to use in an academic assignment like a literature review. For a literature review, the sources need to be academically authoritative - for example, academic books, journals, research reports, government publications. Using non-scholarly or non-authoritative sources in your literature review will likely result in a poor grade. 

Step 5: Review the literature

This step is the output that you will be graded on in the end. 

Here are some questions to help you analyse the research:

• What was the research question of the study you are reviewing? What were the authors trying to discover or argue?
• Was the research funded by a source that could influence the findings?
• What were the research methodologies? Analyse its literature review, the samples and variables used, the results, and the conclusions. Does the research seem to be complete? Could it have been conducted more soundly? What further questions does it raise?
• If there are conflicting studies, why do you think that is?
• How are the authors viewed in the field? Has this study been cited?; if so, how has it been analysed by others?
• Has your topic been written about very rarely? If so, why do you think that is? What  has  been written that's close to the topic?

Tips: 

• Again, review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.

IADT LibGuides are licenced under a  Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License  (CC-BY-NC 4.0) 

• << Previous: Introduction
• Next: Searching for Literature >>
• Last Updated: May 29, 2024 3:49 PM
• URL: https://iadt.libguides.com/litreview

Research Process :: Step by Step

• Introduction
• Select Topic
• Identify Keywords
• Background Information
• Develop Research Questions
• Refine Topic
• Search Strategy
• Popular Databases
• Evaluate Sources
• Types of Periodicals
• Reading Scholarly Articles
• Primary & Secondary Sources
• Organize / Take Notes
• Writing & Grammar Resources
• Annotated Bibliography
• Literature Review
• Citation Styles
• Paraphrasing
• Privacy / Confidentiality
• Research Process
• Selecting Your Topic
• Identifying Keywords
• Gathering Background Info
• Evaluating Sources

Organize the literature review into sections that present themes or identify trends, including relevant theory. You are not trying to list all the material published, but to synthesize and evaluate it according to the guiding concept of your thesis or research question.  

What is a literature review?

A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. Occasionally you will be asked to write one as a separate assignment, but more often it is part of the introduction to an essay, research report, or thesis. In writing the literature review, your purpose is to convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As a piece of writing, the literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (e.g., your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries

A literature review must do these things:

• be organized around and related directly to the thesis or research question you are developing
• synthesize results into a summary of what is and is not known
• identify areas of controversy in the literature
• formulate questions that need further research

Ask yourself questions like these:

• What is the specific thesis, problem, or research question that my literature review helps to define?
• What type of literature review am I conducting? Am I looking at issues of theory? methodology? policy? quantitative research (e.g. on the effectiveness of a new procedure)? qualitative research (e.g., studies of loneliness among migrant workers)?
• What is the scope of my literature review? What types of publications am I using (e.g., journals, books, government documents, popular media)? What discipline am I working in (e.g., nursing psychology, sociology, medicine)?
• How good was my information seeking? Has my search been wide enough to ensure I've found all the relevant material? Has it been narrow enough to exclude irrelevant material? Is the number of sources I've used appropriate for the length of my paper?
• Have I critically analyzed the literature I use? Do I follow through a set of concepts and questions, comparing items to each other in the ways they deal with them? Instead of just listing and summarizing items, do I assess them, discussing strengths and weaknesses?
• Have I cited and discussed studies contrary to my perspective?
• Will the reader find my literature review relevant, appropriate, and useful?

Ask yourself questions like these about each book or article you include:

• Has the author formulated a problem/issue?
• Is it clearly defined? Is its significance (scope, severity, relevance) clearly established?
• Could the problem have been approached more effectively from another perspective?
• What is the author's research orientation (e.g., interpretive, critical science, combination)?
• What is the author's theoretical framework (e.g., psychological, developmental, feminist)?
• What is the relationship between the theoretical and research perspectives?
• Has the author evaluated the literature relevant to the problem/issue? Does the author include literature taking positions she or he does not agree with?
• In a research study, how good are the basic components of the study design (e.g., population, intervention, outcome)? How accurate and valid are the measurements? Is the analysis of the data accurate and relevant to the research question? Are the conclusions validly based upon the data and analysis?
• In material written for a popular readership, does the author use appeals to emotion, one-sided examples, or rhetorically-charged language and tone? Is there an objective basis to the reasoning, or is the author merely "proving" what he or she already believes?
• How does the author structure the argument? Can you "deconstruct" the flow of the argument to see whether or where it breaks down logically (e.g., in establishing cause-effect relationships)?
• In what ways does this book or article contribute to our understanding of the problem under study, and in what ways is it useful for practice? What are the strengths and limitations?
• How does this book or article relate to the specific thesis or question I am developing?

Text written by Dena Taylor, Health Sciences Writing Centre, University of Toronto

http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/specific-types-of-writing/literature-review

• << Previous: Annotated Bibliography
• Next: Step 5: Cite Sources >>
• Last Updated: Jun 13, 2024 4:27 PM
• URL: https://libguides.uta.edu/researchprocess

University of Texas Arlington Libraries 702 Planetarium Place · Arlington, TX 76019 · 817-272-3000

• Internet Privacy
• Accessibility
• Problems with a guide? Contact Us.

How to Write a Literature Review: Six Steps to Get You from Start to Finish

Writing-a-literature-review-six-steps-to-get-you-from-start-to-finish.

Tanya Golash-Boza, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of California

February 03, 2022

Writing a literature review is often the most daunting part of writing an article, book, thesis, or dissertation. “The literature” seems (and often is) massive. I have found it helpful to be as systematic as possible when completing this gargantuan task.

Sonja Foss and William Walters* describe an efficient and effective way of writing a literature review. Their system provides an excellent guide for getting through the massive amounts of literature for any purpose: in a dissertation, an M.A. thesis, or preparing a research article for publication  in any field of study. Below is a  summary of the steps they outline as well as a step-by-step method for writing a literature review.

How to Write a Literature Review

Step One: Decide on your areas of research:

Before you begin to search for articles or books, decide beforehand what areas you are going to research. Make sure that you only get articles and books in those areas, even if you come across fascinating books in other areas. A literature review I am currently working on, for example, explores barriers to higher education for undocumented students.

Step Two: Search for the literature:

Conduct a comprehensive bibliographic search of books and articles in your area. Read the abstracts online and download and/or print those articles that pertain to your area of research. Find books in the library that are relevant and check them out. Set a specific time frame for how long you will search. It should not take more than two or three dedicated sessions.

Step Three: Find relevant excerpts in your books and articles:

Skim the contents of each book and article and look specifically for these five things:

1. Claims, conclusions, and findings about the constructs you are investigating

2. Definitions of terms

3. Calls for follow-up studies relevant to your project

4. Gaps you notice in the literature

5. Disagreement about the constructs you are investigating

When you find any of these five things, type the relevant excerpt directly into a Word document. Don’t summarize, as summarizing takes longer than simply typing the excerpt. Make sure to note the name of the author and the page number following each excerpt. Do this for each article and book that you have in your stack of literature. When you are done, print out your excerpts.

Step Four: Code the literature:

Get out a pair of scissors and cut each excerpt out. Now, sort the pieces of paper into similar topics. Figure out what the main themes are. Place each excerpt into a themed pile. Make sure each note goes into a pile. If there are excerpts that you can’t figure out where they belong, separate those and go over them again at the end to see if you need new categories. When you finish, place each stack of notes into an envelope labeled with the name of the theme.

Step Five: Create Your Conceptual Schema:

Type, in large font, the name of each of your coded themes. Print this out, and cut the titles into individual slips of paper. Take the slips of paper to a table or large workspace and figure out the best way to organize them. Are there ideas that go together or that are in dialogue with each other? Are there ideas that contradict each other? Move around the slips of paper until you come up with a way of organizing the codes that makes sense. Write the conceptual schema down before you forget or someone cleans up your slips of paper.

Step Six: Begin to Write Your Literature Review:

Choose any section of your conceptual schema to begin with. You can begin anywhere, because you already know the order. Find the envelope with the excerpts in them and lay them on the table in front of you. Figure out a mini-conceptual schema based on that theme by grouping together those excerpts that say the same thing. Use that mini-conceptual schema to write up your literature review based on the excerpts that you have in front of you. Don’t forget to include the citations as you write, so as not to lose track of who said what. Repeat this for each section of your literature review.

Once you complete these six steps, you will have a complete draft of your literature review. The great thing about this process is that it breaks down into manageable steps something that seems enormous: writing a literature review.

I think that Foss and Walter’s system for writing the literature review is ideal for a dissertation, because a Ph.D. candidate has already read widely in his or her field through graduate seminars and comprehensive exams.

It may be more challenging for M.A. students, unless you are already familiar with the literature. It is always hard to figure out how much you need to read for deep meaning, and how much you just need to know what others have said. That balance will depend on how much you already know.

For people writing literature reviews for articles or books, this system also could work, especially when you are writing in a field with which you are already familiar. The mere fact of having a system can make the literature review seem much less daunting, so I recommend this system for anyone who feels overwhelmed by the prospect of writing a literature review.

*Destination Dissertation: A Traveler's Guide to a Done Dissertation

Image Credit/Source: Goldmund Lukic/Getty Images

Watch our Webinar to help you get published

Please enter your Email Address

Please enter valid email address

Please Enter your First Name

Please enter your Last Name

Please enter your Questions or Comments.

Please enter the Privacy

Please enter the Terms & Conditions

Leveraging user research to improve author guidelines at the Council of Science Editors Annual Meeting

How research content supports academic integrity

Finding time to publish as a medical student: 6 tips for Success

Software to Improve Reliability of Research Image Data: Wiley, Lumina, and Researchers at Harvard Medical School Work Together on Solutions

Driving Research Outcomes: Wiley Partners with CiteAb

ISBN, ISSN, DOI: what they are and how to find them

Image Collections for Medical Practitioners with TDS Health

How do you Discover Content?

Writing for Publication for Nurses (Mandarin Edition)

Get Published - Your How to Webinar

Related articles.

User Experience (UX) Research is the process of discovering and understanding user requirements, motivations, and behaviours 

Learn how Wiley partners with plagiarism detection services to support academic integrity around the world

Medical student Nicole Foley shares her top tips for writing and getting your work published.

Wiley and Lumina are working together to support the efforts of researchers at Harvard Medical School to develop and test new machine learning tools and artificial intelligence (AI) software that can

Learn more about our relationship with a company that helps scientists identify the right products to use in their research

What is ISBN? ISSN? DOI? Learn about some of the unique identifiers for book and journal content.

Learn how medical practitioners can easily access and search visual assets from our article portfolio

Explore free-to-use services that can help you discover new content

Watch this webinar to help you learn how to get published.

Finding time to publish as a medical student: 6 tips for success

How to Easily Access the Most Relevant Research: A Q&A With the Creator of Scitrus

Atypon launches Scitrus, a personalized web app that allows users to create a customized feed of the latest research.

FOR INDIVIDUALS

FOR INSTITUTIONS & BUSINESSES

WILEY NETWORK

ABOUT WILEY

Corporate Responsibility

Corporate Governance

Leadership Team

Cookie Preferences

Copyright @ 2000-2024  by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., or related companies. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies.

Rights & Permissions

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Literature Reviews

• What is a Literature Review?
• Six Steps to Writing a Literature Review
• Finding Articles
• Try A Citation Manager
• Avoiding Plagiarism

Selecting a Research Topic 

The first step in the process involves exploring and selecting a topic. You may revise the topic/scope of your research as you learn more from the literature. Be sure to select a topic that you are willing to work with for a considerable amount of time.

When thinking about a topic, it is important to consider the following: 

Does the topic interest you?

Working on something that doesn’t excite you will make the process tedious. The research content should reflect your passion for research so it is essential to research in your area of interest rather than choosing a topic that interests someone else. While developing your research topic, broaden your thinking and creativity to determine what works best for you. Consider an area of high importance to your profession, or identify a gap in the research. It may take some time to narrow down on a topic and get started, but it’s worth the effort.

Is the Topic Relevant?

Be sure your subject meets the assignment/research requirements. When in doubt, review the guidelines and seek clarification from your professor. 

What is the Scope and Purpose?

Sometimes your chosen topic may be too broad. To find direction, try limiting the scope and purpose of the research by identifying the concepts you wish to explore. Once this is accomplished, you can fine-tune your topic by experimenting with keyword searches our  A-Z Databases  until you are satisfied with your retrieval results.

Are there Enough Resources to Support Your Research? 

If the topic is too narrow, you may not be able to provide the depth of results needed. When selecting a topic make sure you have adequate material to help with the research. Explore a variety of resources: journals, books, and online information. 

Adapted from https://jgateplus.com/home/2018/10/11/the-dos-of-choosing-a-research-topic-part-1/

Why use keywords to search? 

• Library databases work differently than Google. Library databases work best when you search for concepts and keywords.
• For your research, you will want to brainstorm keywords related to your research question. These keywords can lead you to relevant sources that you can use to start your research project.
• Identify those terms relevant to your research and add 2-3 in the search box. 

Now its time to decide whether or not to incorporate what you have found into your literature review.  E valuate  your resources to make sure they contain information that is authoritative, reliable, relevant and the most useful in supporting your research.

Remember to be:

• Objective : keep an open mind
• Unbiased : Consider all viewpoints, and include all sides of an argument,  even ones that don't support your own

Criteria for Evaluating Research Publications

Significance and Contribution to the Field

• What is the author’s aim?

• To what extent has this aim been achieved?

• What does this text add to the body of knowledge? (theory, data and/or practical application)

• What relationship does it bear to other works in the field?

• What is missing/not stated?

• Is this a problem?

Methodology or Approach (Formal, research-based texts)

• What approach was used for the research? (eg; quantitative or qualitative, analysis/review of theory or current practice, comparative, case study, personal reflection etc…)

• How objective/biased is the approach?

• Are the results valid and reliable?

• What analytical framework is used to discuss the results?

Argument and Use of Evidence

• Is there a clear problem, statement or hypothesis?

• What claims are made?

• Is the argument consistent?

• What kinds of evidence does the text rely on?

• How valid and reliable is the evidence?

• How effective is the evidence in supporting the argument?

• What conclusions are drawn?

• Are these conclusions justified?

Writing Style and Text Structure

• Does the writing style suit the intended audience? (eg; expert/non-expert, academic/non- academic)

• What is the organizing principle of the text?

• Could it be better organized?

Prepared by Pam Mort, Lyn Hallion and Tracey Lee Downey, The Learning Centre © April 2005 The University of New South Wales. 

Analysis: the Starting Point for Further Analysis & Inquiry

After evaluating your retrieved sources you will be ready to explore both what has been  found  and what is  missing . Analysis involves breaking the study into parts,  understanding  each part, assessing the  strength  of evidence, and drawing  conclusions  about its relationship to your topic. 

Read through the information sources you have selected and try to analyze, understand and critique what you read.  Critically  review each source's methods, procedures, data validity/reliability, and other themes of interest.  Consider  how each source approaches your topic in addition to their collective points of  intersection  and  separation .  Offer an appraisal of past and current thinking, ideas, policies, and practices, identify gaps within the research, and place your current work and research within this wider discussion by considering how your research supports, contradicts, or departs from other scholars’ research and offer recommendations for future research.

Top 10 Tips for Analyzing the Research

• Define key terms
• Note key statistics 
• Determine emphasis, strengths & weaknesses
• Critique research methodologies used in the studies
• Distinguish between author opinion and actual results
• Identify major trends, patterns, categories, relationships, and inconsistencies
• Recognize specific aspects in the study that relate to your topic
• Disclose any gaps in the literature
• Stay focused on your topic
• Excluding landmark studies, use current, up-to-date sources

Prepared by the fine librarians at California State University Sacramento. 

Synthesis vs Summary

Your literature review should not simply be a summary of the articles, books, and other scholarly writings you find on your topic. It should synthesize the various ideas from your sources with your own observations to create a map of the scholarly conversation taking place about your research topics along with gaps or areas for further research.

Bringing together your review results is called synthesis. Synthesis relies heavily on pattern recognition and relationships or similarities between different phenomena. Recognizing these patterns and relatedness helps you make  creative connections  between previously unrelated research and identify any gaps.

As you read, you'll encounter various ideas, disagreements, methods, and perspectives which can be hard to organize in a meaningful way.  A  synthesis matrix  also known as a Literature Review Matrix is an effective and efficient method to organize your literature by recording the main points of each source and documenting how sources relate to each other. If you know how to make an Excel spreadsheet, you can create your own synthesis matrix, or use one of the templates below. 

Because a literature review is NOT a summary of these different sources, it can be very difficult to keep your research organized. It is especially difficult to organize the information in a way that makes the writing process simpler. One way that seems particularly helpful in organizing literature reviews is the synthesis matrix. Click on the link below for a short tutorial and synthesis matrix spreadsheet.

• Literature Review and Synthesis
• Lit Review Synthesis Matrix
• Synthesis Matrix Example

A literature review must include a thesis statement, which is your perception of the information found in the literature. 

A literature review: 

• Demonstrates your thorough  investigation  of and acquaintance with sources related to your topic
• Is not a simple listing, but a  critical discussion
• Must  compare  and  contrast  opinions
• Must  relate  your study to previous studies
• Must show  gaps  in research
• Can  focus  on a research question or a thesis
• Includes a  compilation  of the primary questions and subject areas involved
• Identifies  sources

https://custom-writing.org/blog/best-literature-review

Organizing Your Literature Review

The structure of the review is divided into three main parts—an introduction, body, and the conclusion.

Introduction

Discuss what is already known about your topic and what readers need to know in order to understand your literature review. 

• Scope, Method, Framework: ​ Explain your selection criteria and similarities between your sources. Be sure to mention any consistent methods, theoretical frameworks, or approaches.  
• Research Question or Problem Statement:  State the problem you are addressing and why it is important. Try to write your research question as a statement. 
• Thesis : Address the connections between your sources, current state of knowledge in the field, and consistent approaches to your topic. 
• Format:  Describe your literature review’s organization and adhere to it throughout.   

​ Body 

The discussion of your research and its importance to the literature should be presented in a logical structure.

• Chronological: Structure your discussion by the literature’s publication date moving from the oldest to the newest research. Discuss how your research relates to the literature and highlight any breakthroughs and any gaps in the research.
• Historical: Similar to the chronological structure, the historical structure allows for a discussion of concepts or themes and how they have evolved over time.
• Thematic: Identify and discuss the different themes present within the research. Make sure that you relate the themes to each other and to your research.
• Methodological: This type of structure is used to discuss not so much what is found but how. For example, an methodological approach could provide an analysis of research approaches, data collection or and analysis techniques.

Provide a concise summary of your review and provide suggestions for future research.

Writing for Your Audience 

Writing within your discipline means learning:

• the  specialized vocabulary  your discipline uses
• the rhetorical conventions and  discourse  of your discipline
• the research  methodologies  which are employed

Learn how to write in your discipline by  familiarizing  yourself with the journals and trade publications professionals, researchers, and scholars use. 

Use our Databases by Title  to access:

• The best journals
• The most widely circulated trade publications
• The additional ways professionals and researchers communicate, such as conferences, newsletters, or symposiums.
• << Previous: What is a Literature Review?
• Next: Finding Articles >>
• Last Updated: Jan 18, 2024 1:14 PM
• URL: https://niagara.libguides.com/litreview

• UWF Libraries

Literature Review: Conducting & Writing

• Steps for Conducting a Lit Review

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

2. decide on the scope of your review., 3. select the databases you will use to conduct your searches., 4. conduct your searches and find the literature. keep track of your searches, 5. review the literature..

• Finding "The Literature"
• Organizing/Writing
• APA Style This link opens in a new window
• Chicago: Notes Bibliography This link opens in a new window
• MLA Style This link opens in a new window
• Sample Literature Reviews

Disclaimer!!

Conducting a literature review is usually recursive, meaning that somewhere along the way, you'll find yourself repeating steps out-of-order.

That is actually a good sign.  

Reviewing the research should lead to more research questions and those questions will likely lead you to either revise your initial research question or go back and find more literature related to a more specific aspect of your research question.

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

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

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

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

Make a list of the databases you will search.  Remember to include comprehensive databases such as WorldCat and Dissertations & Theses, if you need to.

Where to find databases:

• Find Databases by Subject UWF Databases categorized by discipline
• Find Databases via Research Guides Librarians create research guides for all of the disciplines on campus! Take advantage of their expertise and see what discipline-specific search strategies they recommend!
• Review the abstracts of research studies carefully. This will save you time.
• Write down the searches you conduct in each database so that you may duplicate them if you need to later (or avoid dead-end searches   that you'd forgotten you'd already tried).
• Use the bibliographies and references of research studies you find to locate others.
• Ask your professor or a scholar in the field if you are missing any key works in the field.
• Use RefWorks to keep track of your research citations. See the RefWorks Tutorial if you need help.

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

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

Tips: 

• Again, review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
• << Previous: Home
• Next: Finding "The Literature" >>
• Last Updated: Mar 22, 2024 9:37 AM
• URL: https://libguides.uwf.edu/litreview

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.

University Libraries      University of Nevada, Reno

• Skill Guides
• Subject Guides

Literature Reviews

• Searching for Literature
• Organizing Literature and Taking Notes
• Writing and Editing the Paper
• Help and Resources

Book an Appointment

What Is a Literature Review?

A literature review surveys and synthesizes the scholarly research literature related to a particular topic. Literature reviews both explain research findings and analyze the quality of the research in order to arrive at new insights.

Literature reviews may describe not only the key research related to a topic of inquiry but also seminal sources, influential scholars, key theories or hypotheses, common methodologies used, typical questions asked, or common patterns of inquiry.

There are different types of literature reviews.  A narrative literature review summarizes and synthesizes the findings of numerous research articles, but the purpose and scope of narrative literature reviews vary widely. The term "literature review" is most commonly used to refer to narrative literature reviews, and these are the types of works that are described in this guide. 

Some types of literature reviews that use prescribed methods for identifying and evaluating evidence-based literature related to specific questions are known as systematic reviews or meta-analyses . Systematic reviews or meta-analyses are typically conducted by at least two scholars working in collaboration as prescribed by certain guidelines, but narrative literature reviews may be conducted by authors working alone.

Purpose of a Literature Review

Literature reviews serve an important function in developing the scholarly record. Because of the vast amount of scholarly literature that exists, it can be difficult for readers to keep up with the latest developments related to a topic, or to discern which ideas, themes, authors, or methods are worthy of more attention. Literature reviews help readers to understand and make sense of a large body of scholarship.

Literature reviews also play an important function in assessing the quality of the evidence base in relation to a particular topic. Literature reviews contain assessments of the evidence in support of particular interventions, policies, programs, or treatments.

The literature that is reviewed may include a variety of types of research, including empirical research, theoretical works, and reports of practical application. The scholarly works that are considered for inclusion in a literature review may appear in a variety of publication types, including scholarly journals, books, conference proceedings, reports, and others. 

Steps in the Process

Follow these steps to conduct your literature review:

• Select a topic and prepare for searching.  Formulate a research question and establish inclusion and exclusion criteria for your search.
• Search for and organize the research. Use tools like the library website, library-subscription databases, Google Scholar, and others to locate research on your topic.
• Organize your research, read and evaluate it, and take notes. Use organizational and note-taking strategies to read sources and prepare for writing. 
• Write and edit the paper. Synthesize information from sources to arrive at new insights.

Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students

View the video below for an overview of the process of writing literature review papers.

Video:  Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students  by  libncsu

• Next: Searching for Literature >>

• Discoveries
• Right Journal
• Journal Metrics
• Journal Fit
• Abbreviation
• In-Text Citations
• Bibliographies
• Writing an Article
• Peer Review Types
• Acknowledgements
• Withdrawing a Paper
• Form Letter
• ISO, ANSI, CFR
• Google Scholar
• Journal Manuscript Editing
• Research Manuscript Editing

Book Editing

• Manuscript Editing Services

Medical Editing

• Bioscience Editing
• Physical Science Editing
• PhD Thesis Editing Services
• PhD Editing
• Master’s Proofreading
• Bachelor’s Editing
• Dissertation Proofreading Services
• Best Dissertation Proofreaders
• Masters Dissertation Proofreading
• PhD Proofreaders
• Proofreading PhD Thesis Price
• Journal Article Editing
• Book Editing Service
• Editing and Proofreading Services
• Research Paper Editing
• Medical Manuscript Editing
• Academic Editing
• Social Sciences Editing
• Academic Proofreading
• PhD Theses Editing
• Dissertation Proofreading
• Proofreading Rates UK
• Medical Proofreading
• PhD Proofreading Services UK
• Academic Proofreading Services UK

Medical Editing Services

• Life Science Editing
• Biomedical Editing
• Environmental Science Editing
• Pharmaceutical Science Editing
• Economics Editing
• Psychology Editing
• Sociology Editing
• Archaeology Editing
• History Paper Editing
• Anthropology Editing
• Law Paper Editing
• Engineering Paper Editing
• Technical Paper Editing
• Philosophy Editing
• PhD Dissertation Proofreading
• Lektorat Englisch
• Akademisches Lektorat
• Lektorat Englisch Preise
• Wissenschaftliches Lektorat
• Lektorat Doktorarbeit

PhD Thesis Editing

• Thesis Proofreading Services
• PhD Thesis Proofreading
• Proofreading Thesis Cost
• Proofreading Thesis
• Thesis Editing Services
• Professional Thesis Editing
• Thesis Editing Cost
• Proofreading Dissertation
• Dissertation Proofreading Cost
• Dissertation Proofreader
• Correção de Artigos Científicos
• Correção de Trabalhos Academicos
• Serviços de Correção de Inglês
• Correção de Dissertação
• Correção de Textos Precos
• 定額 ネイティブチェック
• Copy Editing
• FREE Courses
• Revision en Ingles
• Revision de Textos en Ingles
• Revision de Tesis
• Revision Medica en Ingles
• Revision de Tesis Precio
• Revisão de Artigos Científicos
• Revisão de Trabalhos Academicos
• Serviços de Revisão de Inglês
• Revisão de Dissertação
• Revisão de Textos Precos
• Corrección de Textos en Ingles
• Corrección de Tesis
• Corrección de Tesis Precio
• Corrección Medica en Ingles
• Corrector ingles

Select Page

How To Write a Literature Review in Five Steps

Posted by Rene Tetzner | Apr 24, 2021 | How To Get Published | 0 |

How To Write a Literature Review in Five Steps Years of acquired knowledge and experience often lie behind the best literature reviews. Whether an author has been writing and publishing research papers for decades, however, or is just beginning to write about his or her work, the same basic processes remain essential when determining how to write a literature review for a scientific or academic paper. These processes can be considered as five key steps or stages for how to write a literature review that will prove a successful part of a research paper submitted for publication or university credit.

Step 1: Research of Two Kinds The research necessary for a literature review is of two kinds: learning about the published scholarship relevant to the research topic, and discovering exactly what is required for the literature review. The guidelines provided by an instructor or an academic or scientific publisher should therefore be consulted with care, and the literature reviews found in published research papers can be read as models of how to write a literature review well. Once the requirements for the literature review are established, research into the topic under investigation can proceed via keyword searches in the databases commonly used in the discipline. Library catalogues can be extremely helpful as well, and the lists of references in published studies often lead to further sources. It is imperative for an author to include not just publications that support his or her perspective, but also studies that run contrary to it. The research topic of a paper is often refined during this initial search, so the scope of the review may be widened or more likely narrowed as sources are discovered and precisely how to write a literature review about them is considered.

Step 2: Reading and Evaluating Sources Each publication identified as relevant in the initial search for sources should be read carefully and thoroughly while deciding how to write a literature review. In particular, each source should be read critically with the focus usually lying on major aspects of the research, such as the methods and materials used, the results obtained, and the conclusions and implications communicated by the investigator(s). Particular attention should be paid to elements that are especially pertinent to the topic of the current research paper, so if an innovative method is central to the new research, methodological concerns in the studies consulted and any changes or developments in research methods over the years will be important. Accurate notes of three kinds should be recorded while reading and evaluating sources and determining how to write a literature review: 1) the bibliographical information for each source; 2) content important to the current research; and 3) the researcher’s critical thoughts, which should be clearly distinguished from source content.

Step 3: Comparison and Synthesis Comparison and synthesis of the publications considered are vital to determining how to write a literature review that effectively supports the original research reported in a paper. As sources are compared and the body of relevant scholarship is viewed as a whole, the author should consider the methods and findings, ideas and theories, contrary and confirmative arguments of other researchers in direct relation to the findings and implications of the current research. The establishment of themes and categories can facilitate organisation of both an author’s thoughts and a literature review’s structure, thereby enhancing reader comprehension. Major patterns and trends in the body of scholarship should be a special concern, and careful attention to contradictions, inconsistencies, abrupt shifts, dead ends or seemingly inexplicable gaps in the literature can enhance effective explanations of how the current research clarifies confusing matters, resolves ongoing problems, fills significant gaps or provides new directions for investigation. A working outline of how to write a literature review can effectively be constructed during this stage of reflection and analysis.

Step 4: Writing the Literature Review Careful preparation via the steps above will certainly help, but precisely how to write a literature review is generally determined through the actual process of writing. The primary purpose of a literature review within a research paper is to demonstrate how the current state of scholarship in the area necessitates the research presented in the paper, and that purpose usually provides the core argument for the literature review and guides the presentation of sources. Maintaining a clear line of thought based on the current research can prevent unnecessary digressions into the detailed contents and arguments of sources. Relationships, themes, developments and anomalies in the scholarship tend to be most effectively introduced via precise transitional words and phrases, and the entire literature review will be most successful if working to achieve a formal scholarly style that uses correct grammar, spelling and punctuation constitutes an important part of how to write a literature review. Citations and references in the exact style and format indicated by publisher or instructor guidelines must be provided for all the sources discussed in a literature review.

Step 5: Revising and Editing Using an unedited version of a review of scholarship in a research paper is never a sound strategy for how to write a literature review. The first draft of a literature review should be read critically and both revised and edited as an important part of the entire research paper. Ideally, an author will dedicate considerable time to this refinement process, and mentors, colleagues and professional proofreaders might offer valuable insight on content, language and formatting. Clarifying and streamlining the argument of the literature review to ensure that it successfully provides the support and rationale needed for the research presented in the paper are essential, but so too is attention to many seemingly small details. Correcting typing and content errors, improving grammar, spelling and punctuation, clarifying formatting and transitions, ensuring consistency in terminology and abbreviations, and checking citations and the summaries, paraphrases and quotations they herald are all necessary aspects of how to write a literature review for an academic or scientific paper.

You might be interested in Services offered by Proof-Reading-Service.com

Journal editing.

Journal article editing services

PhD thesis editing services

Scientific Editing

Manuscript editing.

Manuscript editing services

Expert Editing

Expert editing for all papers

Research Editing

Research paper editing services

Professional book editing services

How To Write a Literature Review In Five Essential Steps

Related posts.

Choosing the Right Journal

September 10, 2021

Example of a Quantitative Research Paper

September 4, 2021

What Is a Good H-Index Required for an Academic Position?

September 3, 2021

Acknowledgements Example for an Academic Research Paper

September 1, 2021

Our Recent Posts

Our review ratings

• Examples of Research Paper Topics in Different Study Areas Score: 98%
• Dealing with Language Problems – Journal Editor’s Feedback Score: 95%
• Making Good Use of a Professional Proofreader Score: 92%
• How To Format Your Journal Paper Using Published Articles Score: 95%
• Journal Rejection as Inspiration for a New Perspective Score: 95%

Explore our Categories

• Abbreviation in Academic Writing (4)
• Career Advice for Academics (5)
• Dealing with Paper Rejection (11)
• Grammar in Academic Writing (5)
• Help with Peer Review (7)
• How To Get Published (146)
• Paper Writing Advice (17)
• Referencing & Bibliographies (16)

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

Self-guided help & training, evidence synthesis process.

Below are the steps required to complete a rigorous evidence synthesis.  View this process as a graphic

• Build your evidence synthesis team
• Review reporting guidelines, best practice handbooks, and training modules
• Formulate question and decide on review type
• Search for previous published literature and protocols
• Develop and register a protocol
• Develop and test search strategies
• Peer review of search strategies
• Execute search
• De-duplicate results
• Screen title and abstracts
• Retrieve full-text articles
• Screen articles in full-text
• Search for grey literature
• Quality assessment and data extraction
• Citation chasing
• Update database searches
• Synthesize data
• Manuscript development

Review Types

Title: "What type of Review Could You Write"

Top of chart begins Q: "How big is your team?"

• If "Yes" to robust methodology, then "Rapid Review"
• If "No to robust methodology, then "Narrative Review"
• If "Yes", then "Systematic Review and Meta-analysis"
• If "Open", then "Scoping Review"

Training for Getting Started

Medical Library Systematic Searches Tutorials

This series covers the fundamental concepts and general procedure of searching the health science literature to ensure your search is comprehensive, methodical, transparent and reproducible.

Campbell Collaboration

Video recordings that explain Campbell methods, for both beginners in evidence synthesis or experienced systematic reviewers.

All Medical Library classes

Interested in learning more? Check out training and events offered by the medical library.

• Systematic Review
• Open access
• Published: 25 July 2024

Educational interventions aimed at improving knowledge of delirium among nursing home staff—a realist review

• Vincent Molitor   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0108-4459 1 , 7 ,
• Theresa Sophie Busse   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1821-749X 2 ,
• Chantal Giehl   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3771-1394 2 , 6 ,
• Romy Lauer   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0404-6095 2 ,
• Ina Carola Otte   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0280-0899 2 ,
• Horst Christian Vollmar   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0117-7188 2 ,
• Petra Thürmann   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9724-1422 3 , 4 ,
• Bernhard Holle   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2549-7765 1 , 5 &
• Rebecca Palm   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4910-8413 1 , 7  

BMC Geriatrics volume  24 , Article number:  633 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Delirium is a neuropathological syndrome that is characterised by fluctuating impairments in attention, cognitive performance, and consciousness. Since delirium represents a medical emergency, it can be associated with adverse clinical and economic outcomes. Although nursing home residents face a high risk of developing delirium, health care professionals in this field appear to have limited knowledge of delirium despite the critical role they play in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of delirium in nursing homes.

The purpose of this realist review is to develop an initial programme theory with the goal of understanding how, why, and under what circumstances educational interventions can improve the delirium-specific knowledge of health care professionals in nursing homes.

This realist review was conducted in accordance with the RAMESES (Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: and Evolving Standards) guidelines and includes the following steps: (1) search strategy and literature review; (2) study selection and assessment; (3) data extraction; (4) data synthesis; and (5) development of an initial programme theory. It also included stakeholder discussions with health care professionals recruited from nursing home care, which focused on their experiences with delirium.

From a set of 1703 initially identified publications, ten publications were included in this realist review. Based on these publications, context-mechanism-outcome configurations were developed; these configurations pertained to (1) management support, (2) cognitive impairments among residents, (3) familiarity with residents, (4) participatory intervention development, (5) practical application, (6) case scenarios, (7) support from experts and (8) relevance of communication.

Conclusions

Educational interventions aimed at improving the delirium-specific knowledge of health care professionals should feature methodological diversity if they are to enhance health care professionals’ interest in delirium and highlight the fundamental contributions they make to the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of delirium. Educational interventions should also take into account the multidimensional contextual factors that can have massive impacts on the relevant mode of action as well as the responses of health care professionals in nursing homes. The identification of delirium in residents is a fundamental responsibility for nursing home staff.

Trial registration

This review has been registered at Open Science Framework https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/6ZKM3

Peer Review reports

Delirium involves the neuropathological impairment of attention, awareness, and cognitive functions. It is characterised by a fluctuating course and can vary in intensity and severity throughout the day [ 1 ]. Delirium is considered to constitute a medical emergency because the prognosis is negative if it is not detected and treated early [ 2 ]. The causes of delirium may include existing medical conditions such as infection, dehydration, or substance intoxication as well as the effects of pharmacotherapy [ 3 ]. Delirium can present with different motor subtypes, where hypoactive delirium is characterised predominantly by somnolence and hyperactive delirium is best described by agitation and possibly aggression. Mixed forms of delirium are often observed, in which the symptoms change throughout the day [ 4 ].

Delirium in nursing homes

Nursing home residents face the risk of delirium due to various predisposing risk factors, including older age, neurodegenerative diseases such as dementia or Parkinson’s disease, and interactions among the many medications they take [ 5 ]. Prevalence estimates of the occurrence of delirium in nursing homes have varied from 1.4% to 70% [ 6 ]. No precise figures are available in the context of Germany. The reasons for this wide variation include different study designs and populations as well as the different measurement tools used to diagnose delirium. Furthermore, the diagnosis of delirium in the presence of dementia, which is known as delirium superimposed on dementia (DSD), is particularly challenging as it is partly similar in symptoms to dementia without delirium [ 7 ]. Another reason could be the variety of different definitions of nursing homes. These facilities differ from settings in which individuals are supported by outpatient services in their own homes and are instead places at which on-site nursing support is available 24 h per day, seven days per week [ 8 ].

Among nursing home residents, delirium is also associated with a variety of negative outcomes, including hospitalisations and increased mortality [ 9 ]. In addition, delirium can be linked to functional decline in nursing home residents [ 10 ]. For example, delirium and dementia have been shown to exhibit a complex interrelationship. Individuals who develop delirium are more likely to develop dementia at a later point and vice versa [ 11 ]. The economic burden of delirium, which results in prolonged hospital stays and loss of function, should not be neglected [ 12 , 13 ].

Lack of delirium-specific knowledge

Although delirium is one of the most common and serious complications of institutionalisation, it is often not recognised by nurses [ 14 ]. Nevertheless, prevention and early detection are the most important components of delirium care. Nurses’ clinical judgements determine whether the general practitioners providing treatment to these patients are notified and whether measures for diagnosis and therapy are implemented. However, studies have indicated that the level of delirium-specific knowledge among nurses in nursing homes is rather low [ 15 , 16 ]. The reasons for this lack of knowledge are diverse. Research on curricula and discussions with nursing educators have revealed that little to no weight is given to the topic of delirium, e.g., in generalist nursing training in Germany. This limitation also seems to apply to health care professionals in other countries [ 17 ].

An interdisciplinary statement issued by scientific societies at the European level demanded the structured anchoring of delirium-specific knowledge throughout the training of all health care professionals [ 18 ]. Several multicomponent interventions drawn from the acute hospital setting, including those aimed at providing education on delirium to health care professionals, have achieved positive results in the acute hospital setting [ 19 ]. However, these interventions are not easily transferable to the nursing home setting [ 20 ]. Therefore, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) called for the development of adapted multicomponent interventions that could be applied in different settings [ 21 ].

Complexity of educational interventions

Educational interventions can additionally be described as complex because they aim to change behaviour based on several determinants, such as the acquisition of knowledge, and often consist of discrete components that interact with each other and are not linear [ 22 ]. The authors of the updated Medical Research Council framework recommended a theory-based evaluation of complex interventions [ 23 ]. Given that complex interventions in general are highly dependent on the social context in which they are situated, it is crucial to examine how, why, for whom, and under what circumstances educational interventions work. This focus is primarily associated with proponents of the realist review methodology, which is grounded in critical realism.

The aim of the realist review presented here is to understand how, why, and under what circumstances educational interventions improve the knowledge of health care professionals concerning the phenomenon of delirium in nursing homes. Based on the results of this study, we present an initial programme theory concerning educational interventions and how they work.

A realist review, which was guided by the “Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards” (RAMESES) guidelines [ 24 ], was conducted. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) checklist was also used and can be found in Appendix 1 .

Context-mechanism-outcome configurations

The goal of a realist review is to understand the relationships among the relevant context, mechanisms, and outcomes. Context refers to elements in the environment surrounding an intervention that influence the corresponding outcomes (e.g., demographic, geographic, or cultural norms or laws) [ 25 ]. Mechanisms are the resources that are offered by an intervention and the associated responses to those resources (e.g., motivation, self-efficacy, or responsibility) [ 26 ]. Outcomes are based on the interactions between context and mechanism, which are usually measurable and occur at the behavioural or systems level [ 27 ]. Accordingly, realistic review methodology can be viewed as a suitable method for identifying context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOcs), which then collectively constitute a programme theory.

Steps in the realist review process

The realist review included the following five steps: (1) search strategy and literature review; (2) study selection and assessment; (3) data extraction; (4) data synthesis; and (5) development of an initial programme theory. The sequence of steps can be found in Fig.  1 .

Steps involved in our realist review (authors’ own illustration)

Step (1) – Search strategy and literature review

To obtain an initial understanding, an exploratory and setting-independent literature search was conducted by VM. In addition, VM conducted a specific search to reveal learning theories that addressed the question of this realist review. The literature search illustrated in Fig.  2 was subsequently performed by reference to the Medline [PubMed], CINAHL [Ebsco], Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Additionally, the German databases GeroLit and CareLit were searched by hand based on the search string used for the rest of the search, as searching with complex search strings is not supported in these databases. The grey literature was searched for in a nonsystematic way. The literature search was conducted from October 2022 to January 2023 (by VM and CG).

Flow chart for selection of the publications

The search strategy can be found in Appendix 2 ; furthermore, the inclusion and exclusion criteria developed for this search can be found in Appendix 3 .

Step 2 – Study selection and assessment

The title and abstract screening of the publications was performed independently by two researchers (VM, CG) using the platform Rayyan (Rayyan Systems, Inc., USA). These two researchers met regularly to discuss any disagreements regarding the inclusion or exclusion of individual publications. To reach consensus in two cases, RP was consulted to vote on whether the publications in question should be included or excluded. Full-text screening was conducted independently by VM and TSB. In this context, a high level of quality was ensured through detailed discussion of the criteria and objective. With regard to one publication, RP was consulted to discuss whether it should be included or excluded.

The selected publications were then subjected to quality appraisal (VM, TSB). The relevance and rigour of the data included in these publications were featured as key principles in the quality appraisal tool, which was developed by experts [ 24 ].

Step 3 – Data extraction

After the quality appraisal, two researchers (VM, TSB) independently developed CMOcs for each included publication, which were compared and adjusted after completion and discussed among the research team (VM, TSB, RL, RP). This process resulted in 1–3 individual CMOcs per publication, which were discussed once again with the goal of enhancing the quality of this process (VM, RP, TSB). Subsequently, all included publications were transferred into the analysis software MAXQDA (VERBI – Software. Consult. Sozialforschung. GmbH, Germany) to search for all CMOcs with the goal of supporting a realist synthesis (VM, TSB).

Step 4 – Data synthesis

The CMOcs that referred to individual publications were broken down into their components and compared to those associated with other identified publications. We searched for components of CMOcs that were identified in several publications and investigated whether different outcomes were achieved.

Step 5 – Development of an initial programme theory

After comparing the CMOcs, an overarching analysis was conducted to identify the contextual factors that could impact the mechanism underlying educational interventions and the corresponding changes in outcomes. Finally, we categorised the CMOcs based on various important mechanisms and outcomes.

Stakeholder involvement

Throughout the review process, we invited stakeholders experienced in geriatric care, four nurses and two general practitioners. These exchanges with the stakeholders encouraged us to focus on the aspects that were most relevant to them. We recruited these stakeholders through existing networks. RP, VM, TSB, and RL participated in the appointments. The exchange started with brief comments by the research team on delirium and the challenges of detecting it. This introduction was followed by questions about participants’ experiences recognising, dealing with and preventing delirium. Additionally, this study focused on interprofessional work in the context of delirium treatment and the existing delirium-specific knowledge of nursing staff. The conversations were logged, compared, and reviewed once again during the literature analysis.

Protocol and registration

The protocol used for this realist review has been published elsewhere [ 28 ] and has been registered with the Open Science Framework ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/HTFU4 ).

Changes from the submitted protocol during the review process

As part of the ongoing process of conducting the review, minor deviations from this were made to achieve the best possible results with regard to the research question. These changes are briefly described here.

The protocol indicated that the stakeholders would be involved only once, i.e., at the beginning of the realist review, with the goal of obtaining thematic input. During the course of the realist review, however, various stakeholders were involved throughout the entire review process to enable us to learn about and discuss their practical experiences with delirium in nursing homes.

The protocol described the aim of the realist review in terms of the development of an initial programme theory pertaining to nurses and general practitioners in nursing homes with the goal of developing educational interventions aimed at promoting knowledge about delirium. The literature revealed by the realist review focused almost exclusively on nurses, with the exception of one publication on multiprofessional teams. Therefore, the initial programme theory mostly addressed nurses/nursing assistants. In the protocol, the inclusion criteria focused on the reporting of delirium in any form alongside the fulfilment of the criteria stipulated in the International Classification of Disease-10 (ICD-10) or Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-V (DSM-V) classifications. Due to the strict limitations stipulated by these criteria and the focus of the research question on education rather than solely on nursing/medical findings in terms of prevalence, references to delirium per se were considered to be sufficient for the review.

Researchers

The researchers who participated in the realist review had experience in health care/nursing/elderly care (RP, VM, TSB, BH) and had undergone graduate studies in nursing science (RP, VM, BH) and nursing (RP, VM, TSB, BH). In addition, researchers from the fields of health sciences/public health (TSB, CG, RL, IO, HCV) health economics (RL), gerontology (IO) and medicine (HCV, PT) contributed to this study. Furthermore, RP had experience with regard to the realist review methodology.

From the initial set of 1703 publications identified by the systematic literature search, evidence from ten publications was ultimately included. The publication selection process is described in Fig.  2 .

The initial search resulted in a total of 1701 publications from four databases (Medline: n  = 287, 17%; CINAHL: n  = 608, 36%; Scopus: n  = 746, 43%; Web of Science: n  = 60, 4%). In addition, two records were identified through a manual search. No grey literature could be obtained. From the total of 1703 publications revealed by the initial search and the manual search, 991 (58%) publications remained after the elimination of duplicates.

Of these 991 publications, 948 (96%) were excluded during the title and abstract screening. The remaining 43 publications were subjected to full-text screening, which resulted in the inclusion of a total of ten publications in the evaluation. The studies described in these publications were conducted between 2008 and 2022 in the UK ( n  = 6 [ 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 ]), Canada ( n  = 2 [ 35 , 36 ]), the USA ( n  = 1 [ 37 ]) and Korea ( n  = 1 [ 38 ]). The metadata of the studies included in this review can be found in Table  1 .

Description of the educational interventions

Due to the diverse types of design employed in educational interventions, this realist review uses the Predisposing, Reinforcing and Enabling Constructs in Educational Diagnosis and Evaluation (PRECEDE) model to systematise the educational interventions drawn from the included publications [ 39 ] (see Fig.  3 ). This model, which originated in the context of continuing medical education, assigns interventions to one of four types: Type 1 – predisposing factors (dissemination of information, communication, and didactics); Type 2 – predisposing factors and enabling strategies (facilitation of desired performance change, e.g., by using protocols and guidelines or by providing resources); Type 3 – predisposing and reinforcing factors (reinforcement of learning through reminders and feedback from peers and experts); and Type 4 – a single, multifaceted intervention or a combination of all three types of interventions.

Classification of the publications included in this review according to the PRECEDE model (own illustration) [ 39 ]

We categorised the intervention investigated by Garden et al. as Type 1 (Predisposing) [ 30 ]. This intervention contained information delivery as well as support from a speech and language therapist. Additionally, educational information was developed by the participants in the publication. The study was oriented on the Stop Delirium! Intervention, but structured in a reduced way, as described in the following. We categorised six publications as Type 2 (Enabling) [ 29 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 37 ]. Five of these publications referred to the intervention Stop delirium! [ 29 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 ]. This intervention is characterised by a training package that includes three twenty-minute sessions. In these flexible, interactive sessions, a delirium practitioner provides knowledge about delirium using a variety of written materials. In addition, facilities designate delirium champions who are available to answer questions concerning delirium. The Stop Delirium! intervention also includes a so-called delirium box. This box contains materials that were developed during the project by working groups in the facilities. The box thus serves as a resource for ongoing learning based on the use of checklists and care pathways. These customised materials were developed by the groups for their own facilities but can also be used across groups. In this context, delirium champions serve as supporters and contact persons within the facilities. In one publication, an educational intervention based on Stop Delirium! was used in a reduced form [ 30 ]. Another study was also classified as Type 2. The educational intervention included in this publication featured educational sessions as well as case scenarios in the form of videos [ 37 ].

We classified one study [ 35 ] as Type 3 (Predisposing and Reinforcing). The educational intervention reported in this publication was based on self-learning modules. Additionally, team-observed structured clinical encounter elements and a theory burst were used.

Type 4 (Predisposing, Enabling, Reinforcing) combines all three factors, and two publications included in the review were associated with this type [ 36 , 38 ]. In the study conducted by Jeong et al. [ 38 ], predisposing factors were shown to include a combination of didactic training with related delirium case scenarios observed among patients in nursing homes, which were used to enhance the participants' understanding. Enabling factors were shown to include delirium screening tools, a delirium care flowchart and educational materials that can be implemented in clinical practice. Reinforcing factors were discussed with regard to the intervention group at the end of each educational session on a weekly basis. The educational intervention reported in the study conducted by Voyer et al. [ 36 ] was shaped by a multicomponent intervention consisting of PowerPoint presentations, a decision tree and an evaluation and intervention instruction manual. Additionally, a long-term-care clinical nurse specialist provided support for nurses in educational interventions.

Context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOcs) identified in the individual publications

Nine of the included publications reported educational interventions that were targeted solely at nurses [ 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 36 , 37 , 38 ]. One publication focused on interprofessional teamwork, in which context nurses were included on teams alongside members of other professional groups [ 35 ]. The corresponding CMOcs are shown in Table  2 .

Merged CMOcs

The components of the initial programme theory are the synthesised CMOcs (see Fig.  4 ). The combined CMOcs are based on the CMOcs identified in the individual publications.

Initial programme theory on educational interventions aimed at improving delirium-specific knowledge among nursing home staff (authors’ own illustration)

Management support

We observed that support for management in the nursing home determines whether the educational intervention is successful [ 29 , 30 , 33 , 34 , 36 ]. We formulated the following CMOc by combining the findings reported in the included publications:

When nursing home management supports (does not support) nursing home staff in the task of implementing educational interventions aimed at promoting delirium-specific expertise, the barriers faced by nursing home staff that lead them to accept (reject) the educational intervention and change (avoid changing) their behaviour are broken down (built up) [ 29 , 30 , 33 , 34 , 36 ].

Management support with regard to the implementation of educational interventions enables nursing home staff to use resources (e.g., time resources or shift scheduling) to address the phenomenon of delirium [ 29 ]. Financial support provided by external sources can support the establishment of free spaces and the integration of educational interventions in a sustainable way [ 30 , 34 ]. In the discussions that occurred during the development of the realist review, stakeholders also considered management to be a fundamental component of educational interventions in general.

Cognitive impairment among residents

One reason why the implementation of educational interventions targeting delirium may fail pertains to the high number of residents who exhibit severe cognitive impairments and the complexity of detecting delirium among this group [ 31 , 32 ]. The following CMOc was formulated for this purpose:

A high prevalence of (severe) cognitive impairment among residents from nursing homes may lead to unsuccessful educational interventions targeting nursing home staff, particularly because the detection of delirium among residents with severe cognitive impairment is a major challenge [ 31 , 32 ].

One challenge in this context pertains to the detection of delirium in the target group. Even for experienced nursing home staff, detecting delirium in residents who exhibit severe cognitive impairment can be challenging [ 31 ].

In the exchanges with stakeholders, it became clear that recognising hypoactive delirium, which is distinct from hyperactive delirium, is also particularly challenging. This distinction is often only possible based on an extensive interview or medical history.

Familiarity with residents

We assumed that the nursing home staff members’ knowledge of and familiarity with the residents is highly important [ 32 , 33 ].

If nursing home staff members (do not) know the residents in nursing homes in which they work, educational interventions aimed at promoting delirium-specific expertise can be successful (unsuccessful) because these staff members can (cannot) identify the behavioural changes that are characteristic of delirium due to their (lack of) familiarity with the residents; accordingly, delirium-sensitive care can (cannot) be improved [ 32 , 33 ].

It became clear in the publications that challenges arise with regard to recognising the symptoms of delirium due to such a lack of familiarity [ 32 , 33 ]. Behavioural abnormalities and changes cannot be perceived if the typical behaviour of residents is unknown. This issue arose in the included publications as a result of high degrees of staff turnover [ 32 , 33 ]. In this case, educational interventions aimed at promoting delirium-specific expertise remain ineffective [ 32 , 33 ].

In addition, the review revealed that knowing the residents well is closely linked to the development of curiosity about behavioural changes, which results in an improved ability to identify delirium [ 31 ]. This reference to familiarity is closely linked to the realisation that knowledge of the needs of residents leads to the development of a delirium-sensitive environment [ 29 ].

The stakeholders confirmed our assumption that it is common for nursing home staff to notice that something is wrong; however, no structured approach to the assessment of delirium is available. Nurses are familiar with the progression of this phenomenon and can therefore be well equipped to differentiate between dementia and delirium.

Participatory intervention development

Involving nursing home staff in the development of educational interventions in planning and implementation can promote their subsequent acceptance of the intervention due to their development of a sense of ownership [ 29 , 33 , 36 ] and pride [ 29 , 34 ]. The integration of nursing home staff can therefore facilitate the development of tailored interventions [ 29 , 33 , 34 , 36 ].

When nursing home staff are involved in the development of educational interventions aimed at promoting delirium-specific knowledge, they experience a sense of pride, thus increasing their acceptance of and interest in the intervention [ 29 , 33 , 34 , 36 ].

The integration of nursing home staff is also helpful because they have essential information about barriers to the organisation of sessions, which can thereby be lowered [ 29 ].

Practical application

It was particularly clear that educational interventions aimed at promoting delirium-specific expertise that also provided opportunities to engage in hands-on activities were helpful with regard to the application of theoretical knowledge. A sole focus on theoretical knowledge is not effective with regard to the application of the newly acquired knowledge in everyday life [ 36 , 37 , 38 ].

When nursing home staff have the opportunity to apply the knowledge they have learned practically through educational interventions, their learning needs are addressed in a way that enables them to become more confident and self-efficient with regard to the provision of delirium-sensitive care [ 36 , 37 , 38 ].

Educational interventions that provide the opportunity to engage at a hands-on level and directly apply one’s knowledge to enhance one’ skills and actively learn can be promising in this respect [ 37 ].

From the stakeholder discussion it was apparent that although learning opportunities can raise awareness, the topic of delirium is complex and thus involves barriers to active practice and implementation. It was also mentioned that real-life situations from health care are much more memorable and less likely to be forgotten than purely theoretical content. One nurse mentioned that a skills lab experience could also be helpful here.

Case scenarios

Combining educational interventions that include practical components and lead nursing home staff through case scenarios in discussions can provide increased confidence in delirium-sensitive care [ 38 ].

In five publications, positive results were obtained by working with case scenarios [ 29 , 31 , 35 , 37 , 38 ]. The presentation of case scenarios in this context ranged from purely written accounts [ 29 , 31 , 35 , 38 ] to videos.

When nursing home staff have the opportunity to share and discuss their experiences using case scenarios in the context of educational interventions aimed at promoting delirium-specific expertise, they can improve their understanding of the clinical expression and relevance of delirium in their daily work and thereby provide more delirium-sensitive care [ 29 , 31 , 35 , 37 , 38 ].

Working with case scenarios was experienced in the publications as very enriching with regard to the exchange of experiences involving comparable situations [ 38 ]. Brajtman et al. further noted that such exchange is conducive to interprofessional work and understanding [ 35 ]. An understanding of the clinical manifestations of delirium that is facilitated in this manner may be particularly helpful. According to Featherstone et al., case studies can help individuals relate educational interventions to their daily work and identify parallels [ 29 ].

Case studies in the context of learning opportunities were also cited as helpful in discussions with stakeholders. In addition, videos were viewed as helpful, and it was noted that texts should be rather short. It was also noted that discussions and exchanges can often convey more knowledge than pure information input. Case scenarios can certainly provide support in this context.

Support from experts

Individual publications have shown that it is crucial to ensure that people who have rich experience or specific training are available as experts [ 29 , 37 ].

When nursing home staff are supported by delirium experts in the context of educational interventions, these experts can serve as role models and reduce barriers to ensure that participants’ learning needs can be addressed individually and that the training is accepted, thereby contributing to the improvement of their knowledge [ 29 , 37 ].

Nursing home staff benefit from the training they receive from experts in delirium [ 32 , 33 , 34 ]. The decisive factor in the publications was that the persons in question were accompanied throughout a more extensive process and received ongoing support [ 37 ]. Furthermore, the regularity of the training sessions was crucial. In addition, experienced delirium practitioners can detect the barriers that arise in the context of educational interventions and help remove them [ 29 ].

Relevance of communication

Communication among nursing home staff plays an essential role in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of delirium. Therefore, educational interventions aimed at promoting delirium-specific knowledge that focus on communication among nursing home staff can have positive impacts [ 29 , 31 , 32 , 33 ]. Relevant possibilities regarding structured handovers with sufficient time can enable risk profiles and behavioural changes to be communicated and thus enable the fluctuating course that is characteristic of delirium to be identified [ 32 ].

When nursing home staff understand that communication concerning behavioural changes and existing risk factors for the development of delirium among residents is highly relevant, they become aware of the importance of communication and their own roles, thus enabling them to provide delirium-sensitive care [ 29 , 31 , 32 , 33 ].

The exchanges with stakeholders highlighted the relevance of integrating the term “delirium” into communication. The use of other terminology may trivialise delirium and thus decrease nurses' awareness of the syndrome, which is associated with numerous negative outcomes.

The aim of this realist review was to develop an initial programme theory to determine how, why and under what conditions educational interventions aimed at promoting delirium-specific knowledge among health care professionals in nursing homes work. In the following, the theory is summarized once again, compared with the findings of implementation research and individual aspects are discussed in more detail.

Initial programme theory

The initial programme theory, which is based on the theory of situated learning, suggests that the following factors have impacts in this context: (1) management support, (2) cognitive impairment among residents, (3) familiarity with residents, (4) participatory intervention development, (5) practical application, (6) case scenarios, (7) support from experts, and (8) relevance of communication. They can be divided into two groups concerning their focus on the context (factors 1–3) and the intervention (factors 4–8).

Consistency with implementation science

Some of the results observed are consistent with the findings of implementation research [ 40 ]. In addition to structural support from management, the involvement of delirium experts, who can serve as role models for nursing staff, and participatory and practical approaches have been shown to support nursing staff in the development and implementation of an educational intervention on delirium in nursing homes. Support from management and experts enables health care professionals to develop sufficient confidence to act competently with regard to the detection and treatment of delirium [ 41 ].

Impact on delirium superimposed on dementia

As mentioned beforehand, it is crucial to consider the fact that residents with existing (severe) cognitive impairment are at more risk of developing delirium than are residents without cognitive impairment. It is therefore crucial to provide specific support here. Particularly in regard to DSD, the recognition of delirium has proven to constitute a special challenge, such that even educational interventions may not be sufficient to improve the current situation. Although diagnostic tests can be used to detect DSD, validation publications remain very sparse, and these tests are characterised by an insufficient level of diagnostic quality [ 42 ]. The involvement of relatives could be an option for assessing the condition of a resident with suspected DSD. Due to the fact that the majority of nursing home residents are affected by (severe) cognitive impairments and are getting older, the proportion of delirium will also increase in the future [ 43 ]. In this context, the risk of confusion between dementia and delirium must also be taken into account. This target group should be given special consideration in the context of educational interventions on delirium in nursing homes.

Considerations on staff shortages

This point is followed by another aspect of initial programme theory, which refers to the degree of familiarity of nursing home staff members with residents. Nursing home staff who know their residents will have fewer problems recognising and then intervening in sudden changes in behaviour; thus, residents who are particularly at risk for delirium should be cared for by nursing home staff who know them well [ 21 ]. However, staff turnover in nursing homes can exacerbate this lack of familiarity. Accordingly, from a delirium prevention perspective, consideration should be given to ways of limiting staff turnover and to ensure that delirium is assessed by nursing home staff who know the residents.

Strengthening sensitivity regarding delirium in nursing homes

Moreover, educational interventions should also focus on communication. It is important to ensure that high-risk profiles are described and that behavioural changes are relayed during shift handoffs to provide an overview of delirium (risk) [ 21 ]. If delirium is understood as an interprofessional problem, the focus is not only on exchanges between shifts but also extends beyond the boundaries of the profession. It is therefore very important to use the term delirium in everyday nursing care and to avoid using terms that tend to obscure the existing emergency situation, which can also cause interprofessional communication to be impaired [ 44 ].

We know from discussions with stakeholders that delirium is a familiar phenomenon in hospitals, whereas in nursing homes, the term delirium is not even known or used by many nurses. Publications on existing knowledge of delirium in nursing homes remain scarce, but figures drawn from other settings, such as hospitals or hospice, support the claim that nurses' knowledge of delirium is limited [ 45 , 46 ], although hospitals feature at least some awareness of the importance of delirium knowledge [ 47 ]. Educational interventions aimed at enhancing the delirium-specific knowledge of health care professionals in nursing homes are therefore highly important with regard to raising awareness of this topic.

If people are not aware of or vigilant with regard to the phenomenon of delirium in nursing homes, this gap can represent a major barrier. This conclusion can be viewed as a key finding of the realist review. Nursing staff must be trained accordingly so that they have the necessary self-confidence and an open attitude towards the phenomenon to play an active role in preventing and recognizing delirium in terms of knowing, meaning and doing [ 48 ]. A delirium-sensitive culture in nursing homes can support sensitivity [ 49 ], and it is helpful if the phenomenon is not misjudged during the course of the strenuous daily routines and if hospitalisations can be prevented.

Didactic implementation

It is evident that educational interventions aimed at promoting delirium-specific knowledge should include interactive elements [ 50 ]. In other settings, for example, simulation-based education [ 51 , 52 ] or the use of serious games [ 53 ] have already been identified as innovative approaches to the task of increasing delirium-specific knowledge. The initial programme theory developed in this context will be further refined in the future and will serve as a basis for the development of complex interventions aimed at the prevention of delirium in nursing homes.

Strengths and limitations

Since we found nine publications on educational interventions for nurses and only one publication on a general multiprofessional educational intervention, we assume that the education and training of other professional groups and additional multiprofessional approaches are currently at an insufficient stage of development. The development of such approaches may be helpful with regard to the initial programme theory included in this review.

A strength of this review pertained to the discussions with the stakeholders, which enabled the study team to reflect on their theoretical assumptions and interpret their findings.

Because no standardised procedure was available for the inclusion of stakeholders, we described this phase of the review in detail so it can be used as a blueprint for potential further realist reviews. The inclusion of stakeholders also enabled the review to be closely related to practice as a result of the constant comparisons between findings from the literature and practice. In addition, the researchers were sensitised to particular challenges in practice through such exchange, thus enabling them to detect these issues in the publications and to interpret them in an informed manner. A discrepancy between the included publications and the experiences of the stakeholders can be noted in this context. While the publications included in this review, which were almost exclusively conducted in the Anglo-American region, showed that delirium care is recognised as an integral part of nursing in nursing homes, this fact does not seem to be taken for granted in the German context. One possible reason for this difference is the structural neglect of the phenomenon of delirium in nursing homes and the associated dominant view of delirium, which depicts it as a hospital-specific or specifically intensive care phenomenon.

One critical point is that no grey literature could be obtained in this review. Due to the unstructured method used for the grey literature search on account of project-related time constraints, it was unfortunately not possible to find publications that met the inclusion criteria. An iterative process that involves searching, analysing, searching, and analysing could also not be used due to time constraints. Nonetheless, the literature analysis was based on an iterative process, although it contained only the literature that was identified in the systematic search.

Finally, it should be mentioned that the majority of the publications focused on the Stop Delirium! intervention. This is crucial to consider, as a procedure has been implemented in a similar way in several studies and thus extensive information is available on this approach.

Educational interventions aimed at promoting delirium-specific expertise among nursing home staff should be characterised by methodological diversity if they are to be sufficiently sensitive to the clinical manifestations of delirium. Nursing home staff members are fundamentally responsible for identifying delirium in vulnerable residents and thus detecting medical emergencies associated with numerous negative outcomes. The targeted promotion of delirium-specific knowledge must therefore be emphasised in the context of training and continuing education.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and analysed during the realist review are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. Arlington: American Psychiatric Association; 2013.

Witlox J, Eurelings LS, de Jonghe JF, Kalisvaart KJ, Eikelenboom P, van Gool WA. Delirium in elderly patients and the risk of postdischarge mortality, institutionalization, and dementia: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2010;304(4):443–51.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Wilson JE, Mart MF, Cunningham C, Shehabi Y, Girard TD, MacLullich AMJ, et al. Delirium. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2020;6(1):90.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Meagher D. Motor subtypes of delirium: past, present and future. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2009;21(1):59–73.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Komici K, Guerra G, Addona F, Fantini C. Delirium in nursing home residents: a narrative review. Healthcare (Basel). 2022;10(8):1544.

de Lange E, Verhaak PF, van der Meer K. Prevalence, presentation and prognosis of delirium in older people in the population, at home and in long term care: a review. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2013;28(2):127–34.

Morandi A, Davis D, Bellelli G, Arora RC, Caplan GA, Kamholz B, et al. The diagnosis of delirium superimposed on dementia: an emerging challenge. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017;18(1):12–8.

Sanford AM, Orrell M, Tolson D, Abbatecola AM, Arai H, Bauer JM, et al. An international definition for “nursing home.” J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2015;16(3):181–4.

Kosar CM, Thomas KS, Inouye SK, Mor V. Delirium during postacute nursing home admission and risk for adverse outcomes. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2017;65(7):1470–5.

Boockvar K, Signor D, Ramaswamy R, Hung W. Delirium during acute illness in nursing home residents. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2013;14(9):656–60.

Fong TG, Inouye SK. The inter-relationship between delirium and dementia: the importance of delirium prevention. Nat Rev Neurol. 2022;18(10):579–96.

Caplan GA, Teodorczuk A, Streatfeild J, Agar MR. The financial and social costs of delirium. Eur Geriatr Med. 2020;11(1):105–12.

Kinchin I, Mitchell E, Agar M, Trepel D. The economic cost of delirium: a systematic review and quality assessment. Alzheimers Dement. 2021;17(6):1026–41.

Voyer P, Richard S, McCusker J, Cole MG, Monette J, Champoux N, et al. Detection of delirium and its symptoms by nurses working in a long term care facility. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2012;13(3):264–71.

Buettel A, Cleary M, Bramble M. Delirium in a residential care facility: an exploratory study of staff knowledge. Australas J Ageing. 2017;36(3):228–33.

El Hussein M, Hirst S, Salyers V. Factors that contribute to underrecognition of delirium by registered nurses in acute care settings: a scoping review of the literature to explain this phenomenon. J Clin Nurs. 2015;24(7–8):906–15.

Bellelli G, Brathwaite JS, Mazzola P. Delirium: a marker of vulnerability in older people. Front Aging Neurosci. 2021;13: 626127.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Morandi A, Pozzi C, Milisen K, Hobbelen H, Bottomley JM, Lanzoni A, et al. An interdisciplinary statement of scientific societies for the advancement of delirium care across Europe (EDA, EANS, EUGMS, COTEC, IPTOP/WCPT). BMC Geriatr. 2019;19(1):253.

Singler K, Thomas C. HELP - Hospital Elder Life Program - multimodal delirium prevention in elderly patients. Internist (Berl). 2017;58(2):125–31.

Boockvar KS, Teresi JA, Inouye SK. Preliminary data: an adapted hospital elder life program to prevent delirium and reduce complications of acute illness in long-term care delivered by certified nursing assistants. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2016;64(5):1108–13.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Delirium: prevention, diagnosis and management in hospital and long-term care. (NICE guideline CG103). London: NICE; 2010. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg103 .

Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Pawson R. Realist methods in medical education research: what are they and what can they contribute? Med Educ. 2012;46(1):89–96.

Skivington K, Matthews L, Simpson SA, Craig P, Baird J, Blazeby JM, et al. A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2021;374: n2061.

Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Buckingham J, Pawson R. RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses. BMC Med. 2013;11:21.

Greenhalgh J, Manzano A. Understanding ‘context’ in realist evaluation and synthesis. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2022;25(5):583–95.

Article   Google Scholar  

Dalkin SM, Greenhalgh J, Jones D, Cunningham B, Lhussier M. What’s in a mechanism? Development of a key concept in realist evaluation. Implement Sci. 2015;10:49.

Pawson R, Tilley N. Realistic evaluation. London: Sage; 1997.

Google Scholar  

Molitor V, Busse TS, Giehl C, Lauer R, Otte IC, Vollmar HC, et al. How and why educational interventions work to increase knowledge of delirium among healthcare professionals in nursing homes: a protocol for a realist review. BMJ Open. 2023;13(7): e072591.

Featherstone I, Hopton A, Siddiqi N. An intervention to reduce delirium in care homes. Nurs Older People. 2010;22(4):16–21.

Garden G, Green S, Pieniak S, Gladman J. The Bromhead Care Home Service: the impact of a service for care home residents with dementia on hospital admission and dying in preferred place of care. Clin Med (Lond). 2016;16(2):114–8.

Peacock R, Hopton A, Featherstone I, Edwards J. Care home staff can detect the difference between delirium, dementia and depression. Nurs Older People. 2012;24(1):26–30.

Siddiqi N, Cheater F, Collinson M, Farrin A, Forster A, George D, et al. The PiTSTOP study: a feasibility cluster randomized trial of delirium prevention in care homes for older people. Age Ageing. 2016;45(5):652–61.

Siddiqi N, Young J, Cheater FM, Harding RA. Educating staff working in long-term care about delirium: the Trojan horse for improving quality of care? J Psychosom Res. 2008;65(3):261–6.

Siddiqi N, Young J, House AO, Featherstone I, Hopton A, Martin C, et al. Stop Delirium! A complex intervention to prevent delirium in care homes: a mixed-methods feasibility study. Age Ageing. 2011;40(1):90–8.

Brajtman S, Wright D, Hall P, Bush SH, Bekele E. Toward better care of delirious patients at the end of life: a pilot study of an interprofessional educational intervention. J Interprof Care. 2012;26(5):422–5.

Voyer P, McCusker J, Cole MG, Monette J, Champoux N, Vu M, et al. Feasibility and acceptability of a delirium prevention program for cognitively impaired long term care residents: a participatory approach. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2014;15(1):77 e1-9.

Lewallen KM, Voyer P. Delirium knowledge improvement and implementation of the RADAR screening tool in two skilled nursing facilities. Ann Longterm Care. 2018;12:19-24.

Jeong E, Chang SO. Can multifaceted educational intervention improve clinical practice and patient outcomes regarding delirium in nursing homes? Jpn J Nurs Sci. 2022;19(1): e12447.

Green LW, Kreuter M, Deeds SG, Partridge KB, Bartlett E. Health education planning: a diagnostic approach. Mountain View: Mayfield Publishing Company; 1980.

Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4: 50.

Zhao Y, Missbrenner N, Xu HD, Josephson J. Enhancing delirium assessment and management through nursing education interventions: a scoping review. Nurse Educ Pract. 2024;75: 103887.

Shrestha P, Fick DM. Recognition of delirium superimposed on dementia: is there an ideal tool? Geriatrics (Basel). 2023;8(1):22.

Bellelli G, Ornago AM, Cherubini A. Delirium in long-term care and the myth of Proteus. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2024;72(4):988–92.

Hall RJ, Meagher DJ, MacLullich AM. Delirium detection and monitoring outside the ICU. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2012;26(3):367–83.

Papaioannou M, Papastavrou E, Kouta C, Tsangari H, Merkouris A. Investigating nurses’ knowledge and attitudes about delirium in older persons: a cross-sectional study. BMC Nurs. 2023;22(1):10.

Waterfield K, Weiand D, Dewhurst F, Kiltie R, Pickard J, Karandikar U, et al. A qualitative study of nursing staff experiences of delirium in the hospice setting. Int J Palliat Nurs. 2018;24(11):524–34.

Lee G, Roh YS. Knowledge, barriers, and training needs of nurses working in delirium care. Nurs Crit Care. 2023;28(5):637–44.

Grealish L, Todd JA, Krug M, Teodorczuk A. Education for delirium prevention: knowing, meaning and doing. Nurse Educ Pract. 2019;40: 102622.

Kim SH, Moon KJ. Exploring influential factors on patient safety culture in delirium nursing care within long-term care facilities: a cross-sectional survey. BMC Health Serv Res. 2023;23(1):1411.

Lee SY, Fisher J, Wand APF, Milisen K, Detroyer E, Sockalingam S, et al. Developing delirium best practice: a systematic review of education interventions for healthcare professionals working in inpatient settings. Eur Geriatr Med. 2020;11(1):1–32.

Ho MH, Yu LF, Lin PH, Chang HR, Traynor V, Huang WC, et al. Effects of a simulation-based education programme on delirium care for critical care nurses: a randomized controlled trial. J Adv Nurs. 2021;77(8):3483–93.

Shikino K, Ide N, Kubota Y, Ishii I, Ito S, Ikusaka M, et al. Effective situation-based delirium simulation training using flipped classroom approach to improve interprofessional collaborative practice competency: a mixed-methods study. BMC Med Educ. 2022;22(1):408.

Buijs-Spanjers KR, Hegge HH, Cnossen F, Jaarsma DA, de Rooij SE. Reasons to engage in and learning experiences from different play strategies in a web-based serious game on delirium for medical students: mixed methods design. JMIR Serious Games. 2020;8(3):e18479.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Dr. Stephanie Goldhammer and Corinna Koch as well as the other stakeholders for their expertise and advice in the review process.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. This realist review is a subobjective of the project DeliA (Delir in Altenpflegeeinrichtungen/Delirium in Nursing Homes which is supported by a grant of the Innovation Fund of the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA), Germany, under the number 01VSF20003).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Health, School of Nursing Science, Witten Herdecke University, Witten, Germany

Vincent Molitor, Bernhard Holle & Rebecca Palm

Institute of General Practice and Family Medicine (AM RUB), Medical Faculty, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany

Theresa Sophie Busse, Chantal Giehl, Romy Lauer, Ina Carola Otte & Horst Christian Vollmar

Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Chair of Clinical Pharmacology, Witten Herdecke University, Witten, Germany

Petra Thürmann

Philipp Klee-Institute of Clinical Pharmacology, Helios University Hospital Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany

German Center for, Deutsches Zentrum fur Neurodegenerative Erkrankungen (DZNE) Standort Witten, Witten, Germany

Bernhard Holle

Department of Geriatric Medicine, Marien Hospital Herne, Ruhr University Bochum, Herne, Germany

Chantal Giehl

School VI -School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Carl von Ossietzky Universität, Oldenburg, Germany

Vincent Molitor & Rebecca Palm

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

RP initiated the review. VM was responsible for conducting the review under the supervision of RP. VM, TSB, RL and RP participated in discussions with stakeholders. VM, TSB and CG were responsible for the literature review. The formulation of the context-mechanism-outcome configurations and associated initial program theory was mainly conducted by VM, TSB and RP. VM wrote the first draft of the report, which was subsequently reviewed by TSB, CG, RL, ICO, HCV, PT, BH and RP. VM, TSB and RP completed the review. RP, HCV, ICO, PT and BH contributed to the project acquisition. All authors (VM, TSB, CG, RL, ICO, HCV, PT, BH and RP) approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vincent Molitor .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

As part of the realist review, stakeholders were involved in the form of an advisory board throughout this realist review process, while their input supported the process of assessing the validity of the review results. As the stakeholders acted as experts in this process and no personal data were collected, there was no ethics approval.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary material 1., supplementary material 2., supplementary material 3., 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/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Molitor, V., Busse, T.S., Giehl, C. et al. Educational interventions aimed at improving knowledge of delirium among nursing home staff—a realist review. BMC Geriatr 24 , 633 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-05213-9

Download citation

Received : 05 April 2024

Accepted : 10 July 2024

Published : 25 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-05213-9

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

• Interprofessional Work
• Interprofessional Education
• Realist Review
• Nursing Homes
• Cognitive Dysfunction
• Health Personnel
• Communication

BMC Geriatrics

ISSN: 1471-2318

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Tumor neoepitope-based vaccines: a scoping review on current predictive computational strategies.

1. Introduction

• Scopus: article type, abstract, keywords; all open access; publication stage: final; article journal.
• Pubmed: free full text, full text.
• Web of science: open access; articles; English language.
• Science Direct: open access and open archive; research article (search in “title, abstract, keywords”).
• Dataset (next-generation sequencing data sequencing)
• Type of tumor
• Variant calling
• Neoepitope prediction program
• Alleles of MHC-I and II
• Statistics (the score used to classify epitopes)
• Evaluated immunological characteristics (biological and biochemical aspects affecting the immune response)
• Whether a structural model was evaluated
• Whether in vitro and in vivo validations were performed
• Positive/negative aspects
• Whether mutational data were evaluated
• Length of MHC-I and II epitopes
• Algorithm/matrix used
• Training data (tumor or microbiome)
• Steps of prioritization of neoepitopes
• Performance

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. critical steps in identifying immunogenic neoepitopes, 3.2. main types of tumors studied and variant calling, 3.2.1. mutation frequency, 3.2.2. variant calling, limitations of variant calling, 3.3. algorithms employed for prediction and prioritization of neoepitopes, 3.3.1. neoepitope prediction programs, 3.3.2. hla-i restriction, 3.3.3. hla-ii restriction, 3.3.4. prediction algorithms for neoepitopes, 3.3.5. limitations in mhc-i neoepitope prediction, 3.3.6. limitations in mhc-ii neoepitope prediction, 3.3.7. prioritization methods of immunogenic neoepitopes, 3.4. training datasets models, 3.5. performance and in silico validation, 3.6. can this prediction accurately guide the identification of potential targets for the development of therapeutic vaccines, 3.7. restrictions regarding the article selection process, 4. conclusions and perspectives, supplementary materials, author contributions, conflicts of interest.

• Schmidt, J.; Smith, A.R.; Magnin, M.; Racle, J.; Devlin, J.R.; Bobisse, S.; Cesbron, J.; Bonnet, V.; Carmona, S.J.; Huber, F.; et al. Prediction of Neo-Epitope Immunogenicity Reveals TCR Recognition Determinants and Provides Insight into Immunoediting. Cell Rep. Med. 2021 , 2 , 100194. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lundegaard, C.; Lamberth, K.; Harndahl, M.; Buus, S.; Lund, O.; Nielsen, M. NetMHC-3.0: Accurate web accessible predictions of human, mouse and monkey MHC class I affinities for peptides of length 8–11. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018 , 36 (Suppl. 2), W509–W512. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Brennick, C.A.; George, M.M.; Corwin, W.L.; Srivastava, P.K.; Ebrahimi-Nik, H. Neoepitopes as cancer immunotherapy targets: Key challenges and opportunities. Immunotherapy 2017 , 9 , 361–371. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Nagpal, G.; Chaudhary, K.; Agrawal, P.; Raghava, G.P.S. Computer-aided prediction of antigen presenting cell modulators for designing peptide-based vaccine adjuvants. J. Transl. Med. 2018 , 16 , 181. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Tomar, N.; De, R.K. Immunoinformatics: An Integrated Scenario. Immunology 2010 , 131 , 153–168. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Reardon, B.; Koşaloğlu-Yalçın, Z.; Paul, S.; Peters, B.; Sette, A. Allele-specific thresholds of eluted ligands for T-cell epitope prediction. Mol.Cell. Proteom. 2021 , 20 , 100122. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ghosh, M.; Di Marco, M.; Stevanović, S. Identification of MHC Ligands and Establishing MHC Class I Peptide Motifs. Met. Mol. Biol. 2019 , 1988 , 137–147. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, P.; Sidney, J.; Kim, Y.; Sette, A.; Lund, O.; Nielsen, M.; Peters, B. Peptide Binding Predictions for HLA DR, DP and DQ Molecules. BMC Bioinform. 2010 , 11 , 568. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Lv, J.; Zhu, Y.; Ji, A.; Zhang, Q.; Liao, G. Mining TCGA Database for Tumor Mutation Burden and Their Clinical Significance in Bladder Cancer. Biosci. Rep. 2020 , 40 , BSR20194337. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Suda, K.; Tomizawa, K.; Mitsudomi, T. Biological and Clinical Significance of KRAS Mutations in Lung Cancer: An Oncogenic Driver That Contrasts with EGFR Mutation. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2010 , 29 , 49–60. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tomczak, K.; Czerwińska, P.; Wiznerowicz, M. Review The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA): An Immeasurable Source of Knowledge. Contemp. Oncol. 2015 , 19 , 68–77. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• The UK10K Consortium; Writing Group; Walter, K.; Min, J.L.; Huang, J.; Crooks, L.; Memari, Y.; McCarthy, S.; Perry, J.R.B.; Xu, C.; et al. The UK10K Project Identifies Rare Variants in Health and Disease. Nature 2015 , 526 , 82–90. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Butterfield, L.H. Cancer Vaccines. BMJ 2015 , 350 , h988. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Sanchez-Trincado, J.L.; Gomez-Perosanz, M.; Reche, P.A. Fundamentals and methods for T- and B-cell epitope prediction. J. Immunol. Res. 2017 , 2017 , 2680160. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Moreira, A.L.; Eng, J. Personalized Therapy for Lung Cancer. Chest 2014 , 146 , 1649–1657. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Behjati, S.; Tarpey, P.S. What Is next Generation Sequencing? Arch. Dis. Child. Educ. Pract. Ed. 2013 , 98 , 236–238. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Blanc, E.; Holtgrewe, M.; Dhamodaran, A.; Messerschmidt, C.; Willimsky, G.; Blankenstein, T.; Beule, D. Identification and Ranking of Recurrent Neo-Epitopes in Cancer. BMC Med. Genom. 2019 , 12 , 171. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Tricco, A.C.; Lillie, E.; Zarin, W.; O’Brien, K.K.; Colquhoun, H.; Levac, D.; Moher, D.; Peters, M.D.; Horsley, T.; Weeks, L.; et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMAScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann. Intern. Med. 2018 , 169 , 467–473. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Boegel, S.; Löwer, M.; Bukur, T.; Sahin, U.; Castle, J.C. A Catalog of HLA Type, HLA Expression, and Neo-Epitope Candidates in Human Cancer Cell Lines. Oncoimmunology 2014 , 3 , e954893. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Xiang, H.; Zhang, L.; Bu, F.; Guan, X.; Chen, L.; Zhang, H.; Zhao, Y.; Chen, H.; Zhang, W.; Li, Y.; et al. A Novel Proteogenomic Integration Strategy Expands the Breadth of Neo-Epitope Sources. Cancers 2022 , 14 , 3016. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• de Mey, W.; De Schrijver, P.; Autaers, D.; Pfitzer, L.; Fant, B.; Locy, H.; Esprit, A.; Lybaert, L.; Bogaert, C.; Verdonck, M.; et al. A Synthetic DNA Template for Fast Manufacturing of Versatile Single Epitope MRNA. Mol. Ther. Nucleic Acids 2022 , 29 , 943–954. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Zhang, X.; Kim, S.; Hundal, J.; Herndon, J.; Li, S.; Petti, A.; Soysal, S.; Li, L.; McLellan, M.; Hoog, J.; et al. Breast Cancer Neoantigens Can Induce CD8 + T-Cell Responses and Antitumor Immunity. Cancer Immunol. Res. 2017 , 5 , 516–523. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Aparicio, B.; Repáraz, D.; Ruiz, M.; Llopiz, D.; Silva, L.; Vercher, E.; Theunissen, P.; Tamayo, I.; Smerdou, C.; Igea, A.; et al. Identification of HLA Class I-Restricted Immunogenic Neoantigens in Triple Negative Breast Cancer. Front. Immunol. 2022 , 13 , 985886. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Cafri, G.; Gartner, J.J.; Zaks, T.; Hopson, K.; Levin, N.; Paria, B.C.; Parkhurst, M.R.; Yossef, R.; Lowery, F.J.; Jafferji, M.S.; et al. MRNA Vaccine-Induced Neoantigen-Specific T Cell Immunity in Patients with Gastrointestinal Cancer. J. Clin. Investig. 2020 , 130 , 5976–5988. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hartmaier, R.J.; Charo, J.; Fabrizio, D.; Goldberg, M.E.; Albacker, L.A.; Pao, W.; Chmielecki, J. Genomic Analysis of 63,220 Tumors Reveals Insights into Tumor Uniqueness and Targeted Cancer Immunotherapy Strategies. Genome Med. 2017 , 9 , 16. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Thakur, S.; Jain, M.; Zhang, C.; Major, C.; Bielamowicz, K.J.; Lacayo, N.J.; Vaske, O.; Lewis, V.; Murguia-Favela, L.; Narendran, A. Identification and in Vitro Validation of Neoantigens for Immune Activation against High-Risk Pediatric Leukemia Cells. Hum. Vaccin. Immunother. 2021 , 17 , 5558–5562. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Reimann, H.; Nguyen, A.; Sanborn, J.Z.; Vaske, C.J.; Benz, S.C.; Niazi, K.; Rabizadeh, S.; Spilman, P.; Mackensen, A.; Ruebner, M.; et al. Identification and Validation of Expressed HLA-Binding Breast Cancer Neoepitopes for Potential Use in Individualized Cancer Therapy. J. Immunother. Cancer 2021 , 9 , e002605. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Nonomura, C.; Otsuka, M.; Kondou, R.; Iizuka, A.; Miyata, H.; Ashizawa, T.; Sakura, N.; Yoshikawa, S.; Kiyohara, Y.; Ohshima, K.; et al. Identification of a Neoantigen Epitope in a Melanoma Patient with Good Response to Anti-PD-1 Antibody Therapy. Immunol. Lett. 2019 , 208 , 52–59. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• James, C.A.; Ronning, P.; Cullinan, D.; Cotto, K.C.; Barnell, E.K.; Campbell, K.M.; Skidmore, Z.L.; Sanford, D.E.; Goedegebuure, S.P.; Gillanders, W.E.; et al. In Silico Epitope Prediction Analyses Highlight the Potential for Distracting Antigen Immunodominance with Allogeneic Cancer Vaccines. Cancer Res. Commun. 2021 , 1 , 115–126. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Martin, S.D.; Brown, S.D.; Wick, D.A.; Nielsen, J.S.; Kroeger, D.R.; Twumasi-Boateng, K.; Holt, R.A.; Nelson, B.H. Low Mutation Burden in Ovarian Cancer May Limit the Utility of Neoantigen-Targeted Vaccines. PLoS ONE 2016 , 11 , e0155189. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sarivalasis, A.; Boudousquié, C.; Balint, K.; Stevenson, B.J.; Gannon, P.O.; Iancu, E.M.; Rossier, L.; Martin Lluesma, S.; Mathevet, P.; Sempoux, C.; et al. A Phase I/II Trial Comparing Autologous Dendritic Cell Vaccine Pulsed Either with Personalized Peptides (PEP-DC) or with Tumor Lysate (OC-DC) in Patients with Advanced High-Grade Ovarian Serous Carcinoma. J. Transl. Med. 2019 , 17 , 391. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Löffler, M.; Mohr, C.; Bichmann, L.; Freudenmann, L.; Walzer, M.; Schroeder, C.; Trautwein, N.; Hilke, F.; Zinser, R.; Mühlenbruch, L.; et al. Multi-Omics Discovery of Exome-Derived Neoantigens in Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Genome Med. 2019 , 11 , 28. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Marcu, A.; Schlosser, A.; Keupp, A.; Trautwein, N.; Johann, P.; Wölfl, M.; Lager, J.; Monoranu, C.M.; Walz, J.S.; Henkel, L.M.; et al. Natural and Cryptic Peptides Dominate the Immunopeptidome of Atypical Teratoid Rhabdoid Tumors. J. ImmunoTherapy Cancer 2021 , 9 , e003404. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, F.; Zou, Z.; Du, J.; Su, S.; Shao, J.; Meng, F.; Yang, J.; Xu, Q.; Ding, N.; Yang, Y.; et al. Neoantigen Identification Strategies Enable Personalized Immunotherapy in Refractory Solid Tumors. J. Clin. Investig. 2019 , 129 , 2056–2070. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hashimoto, S.; Noguchi, E.; Bando, H.; Miyadera, H.; Morii, W.; Nakamura, T.; Hara, H. Neoantigen Prediction in Human Breast Cancer Using RNA Sequencing Data. Cancer Sci. 2021 , 112 , 465–475. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Keskin, D.; Anandappa, A.; Sun, J.; Tirosh, I.; Mathewson, N.; Li, S.; Oliveira, G.; Giobbie-Hurder, A.; Felt, K.; Gjini, E.; et al. Neoantigen Vaccine Generates Intratumoral T Cell Responses in Phase Ib Glioblastoma Trial. Nature 2019 , 565 , 234–239. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Repáraz, D.; Ruiz, M.; Llopiz, D.; Silva, L.; Vercher, E.; Aparicio, B.; Egea, J.; Tamayo-Uria, I.; Hervás-Stubbs, S.; García-Balduz, J.; et al. Neoantigens as Potential Vaccines in Hepatocellular Carcinoma. J. Immunother. Cancer 2022 , 10 , e003978. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Löffler, M.W.; Chandran, P.A.; Laske, K.; Schroeder, C.; Bonzheim, I.; Walzer, M.; Hilke, F.J.; Trautwein, N.; Kowalewski, D.J.; Schuster, H.; et al. Personalized Peptide Vaccine-Induced Immune Response Associated with Long-Term Survival of a Metastatic Cholangiocarcinoma Patient. J. Hepatol. 2016 , 65 , 849–855. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Han, K.-C.; Park, D.; Ju, S.; Lee, Y.E.; Heo, S.-H.; Kim, Y.-A.; Lee, J.E.; Lee, Y.; Park, K.H.; Park, S.-H.; et al. Streamlined Selection of Cancer Antigens for Vaccine Development through Integrative Multi-Omics and High-Content Cell Imaging. Sci. Rep. 2020 , 10 , 5885. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rajasagi, M.; Shukla, S.A.; Fritsch, E.F.; Keskin, D.B.; DeLuca, D.; Carmona, E.; Zhang, W.; Sougnez, C.; Cibulskis, K.; Sidney, J.; et al. Systematic Identification of Personal Tumor-Specific Neoantigens in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia. Blood 2014 , 124 , 453–462. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• McCann, K.; von Witzleben, A.; Thomas, J.; Wang, C.; Wood, O.; Singh, D.; Boukas, K.; Bendjama, K.; Silvestre, N.; Nielsen, F.C.; et al. Targeting the Tumor Mutanome for Personalized Vaccination in a TMB Low Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. J. Immunother. Cancer 2022 , 10 , e003821. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Conev, A.; Devaurs, D.; Rigo, M.M.; Antunes, D.A.; Kavraki, L.E. 3pHLA-Score Improves Structure-Based Peptide-HLA Binding Affinity Prediction. Sci. Rep. 2022 , 12 , 10749. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Xu, S.; Wang, X.; Fei, C. A Highly Effective System for Predicting MHC-II Epitopes with Immunogenicity. Front. Oncol. 2022 , 12 , 888556. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hu, Y.; Wang, Z.; Hu, H.; Wan, F.; Chen, L.; Xiong, Y.; Wang, X.; Zhao, D.; Huang, W.; Zeng, J. ACME: Pan-Specific Peptide-MHC Class i Binding Prediction through Attention-Based Deep Neural Networks. Bioinformatics 2019 , 35 , 4946–4954. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Mettu, R.; Charles, T.; Landry, S. CD4 + T-Cell Epitope Prediction Using Antigen Processing Constraints. J. Immunol. Methods 2016 , 432 , 72–81. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, G.; Iyer, B.; Prasath, V.B.S.; Ni, Y.; Salomonis, N. DeepImmuno: Deep Learning-Empowered Prediction and Generation of Immunogenic Peptides for T Cell Immunity. Brief. Bioinform. 2021 , 22 , bbab160. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Yang, X.; Zhao, L.; Wei, F.; Li, J. DeepNetBim: Deep Learning Model for Predicting HLA-Epitope Interactions Based on Network Analysis by Harnessing Binding and Immunogenicity Information. BMC Bioinform. 2021 , 22 , 231. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Xin, K.; Wei, X.; Shao, J.; Chen, F.; Liu, Q.; Liu, B. Establishment of a Novel Tumor Neoantigen Prediction Tool for Personalized Vaccine Design. Hum. Vaccin. Immunother. 2024 , 20 , 2300881. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hao, Q.; Wei, P.; Shu, Y.; Zhang, Y.-G.; Xu, H.; Zhao, J.-N. Improvement of Neoantigen Identification Through Convolution Neural Network. Front. Immunol. 2021 , 12 , 682103. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, G.; Wan, H.; Jian, X.; Li, Y.; Ouyang, J.; Tan, X.; Zhao, Y.; Lin, Y.; Xie, L. INeo-Epp: A Novel T-Cell HLA Class-I Immunogenicity or Neoantigenic Epitope Prediction Method Based on Sequence-Related Amino Acid Features. Biomed. Res. Int. 2020 , 2020 , 5798356. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Moise, L.; Gutierrez, A.; Kibria, F.; Martin, R.; Tassone, R.; Liu, R.; Terry, F.; Martin, B.; De Groot, A.S. IVAX: An Integrated Toolkit for the Selection and Optimization of Antigens and the Design of Epitope-Driven Vaccines. Hum. Vaccin. Immunother. 2015 , 11 , 2312–2321. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• O’Donnell, T.J.; Rubinsteyn, A.; Bonsack, M.; Riemer, A.B.; Laserson, U.; Hammerbacher, J. MHCflurry: Open-Source Class I MHC Binding Affinity Prediction. Cell Syst. 2018 , 7 , 129–132.e4. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Phloyphisut, P.; Pornputtapong, N.; Sriswasdi, S.; Chuangsuwanich, E. MHCSeqNet: A Deep Neural Network Model for Universal MHC Binding Prediction. BMC Bioinform. 2019 , 20 , 270. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Declercq, A.; Bouwmeester, R.; Hirschler, A.; Carapito, C.; Degroeve, S.; Martens, L.; Gabriels, R. MS2Rescore: Data-Driven Rescoring Dramatically Boosts Immunopeptide Identification Rates. Mol. Cell. Proteom. 2022 , 21 , 100266. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Richard, G.; De Groot, A.S.; Steinberg, G.D.; Garcia, T.I.; Kacew, A.; Ardito, M.; Martin, W.D.; Berdugo, G.; Princiotta, M.F.; Balar, A.V.; et al. Multi-Step Screening of Neoantigens’ HLA- and TCR-Interfaces Improves Prediction of Survival. Sci. Rep. 2021 , 11 , 9983. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kim, S.; Kim, H.S.; Kim, E.; Lee, M.G.; Shin, E.-C.; Paik, S.; Kim, S. Neopepsee: Accurate Genome-Level Prediction of Neoantigens by Harnessing Sequence and Amino Acid Immunogenicity Information. Ann. Oncol. 2018 , 29 , 1030–1036. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Jurtz, V.; Paul, S.; Andreatta, M.; Marcatili, P.; Peters, B.; Nielsen, M. NetMHCpan-4.0: Improved Peptide-MHC Class I Interaction Predictions Integrating Eluted Ligand and Peptide Binding Affinity Data. J. Immunol. 2017 , 199 , 3360–3368. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Saxena, S.; Animesh, S.; Fullwood, M.J.; Mu, Y. Onionmhc: A Deep Learning Model for Peptide—Hla-A*02:01 Binding Predictions Using Both Structure and Sequence Feature Sets. J. Micromechanics Mol. Phys. 2020 , 5 , 2050009. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pyke, R.M.; Mellacheruvu, D.; Dea, S.; Abbott, C.W.; Zhang, S.V.; Phillips, N.A.; Harris, J.; Bartha, G.; Desai, S.; McClory, R.; et al. Precision Neoantigen Discovery Using Large-Scale Immunopeptidomes and Composite Modeling of MHC Peptide Presentation. Mol. Cell Proteom. 2021 , 20 , 100111. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schneidman-Duhovny, D.; Khuri, N.; Dong, G.Q.; Winter, M.B.; Shifrut, E.; Friedman, N.; Craik, C.S.; Pratt, K.P.; Paz, P.; Aswad, F.; et al. Predicting CD4 + T-Cell Epitopes Based on Antigen Cleavage, MHCII Presentation, and TCR Recognition. PLoS ONE 2018 , 13 , e0206654. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, B.; Khodadoust, M.S.; Olsson, N.; Wagar, L.E.; Fast, E.; Liu, C.L.; Muftuoglu, Y.; Sworder, B.J.; Diehn, M.; Levy, R.; et al. Predicting HLA Class II Antigen Presentation through Integrated Deep Learning. Nat. Biotechnol. 2019 , 37 , 1332–1343. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rao, A.A.; Madejska, A.A.; Pfeil, J.; Paten, B.; Salama, S.R.; Haussler, D. ProTECT—Prediction of T-Cell Epitopes for Cancer Therapy. Front. Immunol. 2020 , 11 , 483296. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhou, C.; Wei, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, B.; Zhu, C.; Chen, K.; Chuai, G.; Qu, S.; Xie, L.; Gao, Y.; et al. PTuneos: Prioritizing Tumor Neoantigens from next-Generation Sequencing Data. Genome Med. 2019 , 11 , 67. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hundal, J.; Kiwala, S.; McMichael, J.; Miller, C.A.; Xia, H.; Wollam, A.T.; Liu, C.J.; Zhao, S.; Feng, Y.-Y.; Graubert, A.P.; et al. PVACtools: A Computational Toolkit to Identify and Visualize Cancer Neoantigens. Cancer Immunol. Res. 2020 , 8 , 409–420. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sherafat, E.; Force, J.; Măndoiu, I.I. Semi-Supervised Learning for Somatic Variant Calling and Peptide Identification in Personalized Cancer Immunotherapy. BMC Bioinform. 2020 , 21 , 498. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Diao, K.; Chen, J.; Wu, T.; Wang, X.; Wang, G.; Sun, X.; Zhao, X.; Wu, C.; Wang, J.; Yao, H.; et al. Seq2Neo: A Comprehensive Pipeline for Cancer Neoantigen Immunogenicity Prediction. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022 , 23 , 11624. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ye, Y.; Shen, Y.; Wang, J.; Li, D.; Zhu, Y.; Zhao, Z.; Pan, Y.; Wang, Y.; Liu, X.; Wan, J. SIGANEO: Similarity Network with GAN Enhancement for Immunogenic Neoepitope Prediction. Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J. 2023 , 21 , 5538–5543. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Australian Pancreatic Cancer Genome Initiative; ICGC Breast Cancer Consortium; ICGC MMML-Seq Consortium; ICGC PedBrain; Alexandrov, L.B.; Nik-Zainal, S.; Wedge, D.C.; Aparicio, S.A.J.R.; Behjati, S.; Biankin, A.V.; et al. Signatures of Mutational Processes in Human Cancer. Nature 2013 , 500 , 415–421. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hilf, N.; Kuttruff-Coqui, S.; Frenzel, K.; Bukur, V.; Stevanović, S.; Gouttefangeas, C.; Platten, M.; Tabatabai, G.; Dutoit, V.; Van Der Burg, S.H.; et al. Actively Personalized Vaccination Trial for Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma. Nature 2019 , 565 , 240–245. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Martínez-Pérez, E.; Molina-Vila, M.A.; Marino-Buslje, C. Panels and Models for Accurate Prediction of Tumor Mutation Burden in Tumor Samples. NPJ Precis. Oncol. 2021 , 5 , 31. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Blaeschke, F.; Paul, M.C.; Schuhmann, M.U.; Rabsteyn, A.; Schroeder, C.; Casadei, N.; Matthes, J.; Mohr, C.; Lotfi, R.; Wagner, B.; et al. Low Mutational Load in Pediatric Medulloblastoma Still Translates into Neoantigens as Targets for Specific T-Cell Immunotherapy. Cytotherapy 2019 , 21 , 973–986. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• World Health Organization. World Health Statistics 2023: Monitoring Health for the SDGs, Sustainable Development Goals ; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2023. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vivekanandhan, S.; Bahr, D.; Kothari, A.; Ashary, M.A.; Baksh, M.; Gabriel, E. Immunotherapies in rare cancers. Mol. Cancer 2023 , 22 , 23. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Koboldt, D.C. Best Practices for Variant Calling in Clinical Sequencing. Genome Med. 2020 , 12 , 91. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• do Valle, Í.F.; Giampieri, E.; Simonetti, G.; Padella, A.; Manfrini, M.; Ferrari, A.; Castellani, G. Optimized pipeline of MuTect and GATK tools to improve the detection of somatic single nucleotide polymorphisms in whole-exome sequencing data. BMC Bioinform. 2016 , 17 , 27–35. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Chen, Z.; Yuan, Y.; Chen, X.; Chen, J.; Lin, S.; Li, X.; Du, H. Systematic Comparison of Somatic Variant Calling Performance among Different Sequencing Depth and Mutation Frequency. Sci. Rep. 2020 , 10 , 3501. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ghandi, M.; Huang, F.W.; Jané-Valbuena, J.; Kryukov, G.V.; Lo, C.C.; McDonald, E.R.; Barretina, J., 3rd; Gelfand, E.T.; Bielski, C.M.; Li, H.; et al. Next-generation characterization of the Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia. Nature 2019 , 569 , 503–508. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Tate, J.G.; Bamford, S.; Jubb, H.C.; Sondka, Z.; Beare, D.M.; Bindal, N.; Boutselakis, H.; Cole, C.G.; Creatore, C.; Dawson, E.; et al. COSMIC: The Catalogue Of Somatic Mutations In Cancer. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019 , 47 , D941–D947. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sherry, S.T.; Ward, M.H.; Kholodov, M.; Baker, J.; Phan, L.; Smigielski, E.M.; Sirotkin, K. dbSNP: The NCBI database of genetic variation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2001 , 29 , 308–311. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Broeckx, B.J.G.; Peelman, L.; Saunders, J.H.; Deforce, D.; Clement, L. Using variant databases for variant prioritization and to detect erroneous genotype-phenotype associations. BMC Bioinform. 2017 , 18 , 535. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mullaney, J.M.; Mills, R.E.; Pittard, W.S.; Devine, S.E. Small Insertions and Deletions (INDELs) in Human Genomes. Hum. Mol. Genet. 2010 , 19 , R131–R136. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Weber, J.L.; David, D.; Heil, J.; Fan, Y.; Zhao, C.; Marth, G. Human diallelic insertion/deletion polymorphisms. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2002 , 71 , 854–862. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cibulskis, K.; Lawrence, M.S.; Carter, S.L.; Sivachenko, A.; Jaffe, D.; Sougnez, C.; Gabriel, S.; Meyerson, M.; Lander, E.S.; Getz, G. Sensitive Detection of Somatic Point Mutations in Impure and Heterogeneous Cancer Samples. Nat. Biotechnol. 2013 , 31 , 213–219. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Trevarton, A.J.; Chang, J.T.; Symmans, W.F. Simple combination of multiple somatic variant callers to increase accuracy. Sci. Rep. 2023 , 13 , 8463. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Fennemann, F.L.; de Vries, I.J.M.; Figdor, C.G.; Verdoes, M. Attacking Tumors From All Sides: Personalized Multiplex Vaccines to Tackle Intratumor Heterogeneity. Front. Immunol. 2019 , 10 , 824. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Van Dijk, E.L.; Jaszczyszyn, Y.; Naquin, D.; Thermes, C. The Third Revolution in Sequencing Technology. Trends Genet. 2018 , 34 , 666–681. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, Z.; Liu, X.; Yang, B.-Z.; Gelernter, J. The Role and Challenges of Exome Sequencing in Studies of Human Diseases. Front. Genet. 2013 , 4 , 160. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ding, S.; Chen, X.; Shen, K. Single-cell RNA sequencing in breast cancer: Understanding tumor heterogeneity and paving roads to individualized therapy. Cancer Commun. 2020 , 40 , 329–344. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Robinson, J.; Barker, D.J.; Georgiou, X.; Cooper, M.A.; Flicek, P.; Marsh, S.G.E. IPD-IMGT/HLA Database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2020 , 48 , D948–D955. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hurley, C.K.; Kempenich, J.; Wadsworth, K.; Sauter, J.; Hofmann, J.A.; Schefzyk, D.; Schmidt, A.H.; Galarza, P.; Cardozo, M.B.R.; Dudkiewicz, M.; et al. Common, Intermediate and Well-documented HLA Alleles in World Populations: CIWD Version 3.0.0. HLA 2020 , 95 , 516–531. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gonzalez-Galarza, F.F.; McCabe, A.; Santos, E.J.M.D.; Jones, J.; Takeshita, L.; Ortega-Rivera, N.D.; Cid-Pavon, G.M.D.; Ramsbottom, K.; Ghattaoraya, G.; Alfirevic, A.; et al. Allele Frequency Net Database (AFND) 2020 Update: Gold-Standard Data Classification, Open Access Genotype Data and New Query Tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 2020 , 48 , D783–D788. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Roider, J.; Meissner, T.; Kraut, F.; Vollbrecht, T.; Stirner, R.; Bogner, J.R.; Draenert, R. Comparison of Experimental Fine-mapping to in Silico Prediction Results of HIV -1 Epitopes Reveals Ongoing Need for Mapping Experiments. Immunology 2014 , 143 , 193–201. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Momburg, F.; Roelse, J.; Hämmerling, G.J.; Neefjes, J.J. Peptide size selection by the major histocompatibility complex-encoded peptide transporter. J. Exp. Med. 1994 , 179 , 1613–1623. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sahin, U.; Derhovanessian, E.; Miller, M.; Kloke, B.-P.; Simon, P.; Löwer, M.; Bukur, V.; Tadmor, A.D.; Luxemburger, U.; Schrörs, B.; et al. Personalized RNA Mutanome Vaccines Mobilize Poly-Specific Therapeutic Immunity against Cancer. Nature 2017 , 547 , 222–226. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Falk, K.; Rötzschke, O.; Stevanovié, S.; Jung, G.; Rammensee, H.-G. Allele-Specific Motifs Revealed by Sequencing of Self-Peptides Eluted from MHC Molecules. Nature 1991 , 351 , 290–296. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Lundegaard, C.; Lund, O.; Nielsen, M. Prediction of Epitopes Using Neural Network Based Methods. J. Immunol. Methods 2011 , 374 , 26–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Luo, H.; Ye, H.; Ng, H.W.; Shi, L.; Tong, W.; Mendrick, D.L.; Hong, H. Machine Learning Methods for Predicting HLA-Peptide Binding Activity. Bioinform. Biol. Insights 2015 , 9 (Suppl. 3), 21–29. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jesdale, B.M.; Deocampo, G.; Meisell, J.; Beall, J.; Marinello, M.J.; Chicz, R.M.; De Groot, A.S. Matrix-based prediction of MHC-binding peptides: The EpiMatrix algorithm, reagent for HIV research. Vaccines 1997 , 57–64. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen, T.; Guestrin, C. XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD ‘16), San Francisco, CA, USA, 13–17 August 2016; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 785–794. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ghansah, B.; Wu, S.; Ghansah, N. Rankboost-based result merging. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer and Information Technology; Ubiquitous Computing and Communications; Dependable, Autonomic and Secure Computing; Pervasive Intelligence and Computing, Liverpool, UK, 26–28 October 2015; pp. 907–914. [ Google Scholar ]
• Song, D.; Chen, J.; Chen, G.; Li, N.; Li, J.; Fan, J.; Li, S.C. Parameterized BLOSUM matrices for protein alignment. Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinform. 2014 , 12 , 686–694. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Rigatti, S.J. Random Forest. J. Insur. Med. 2017 , 47 , 31–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hesterberg, T. Bootstrap. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Comput. Stat. 2011 , 3 , 497–526. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Freitas, P.; Silva, F.; Sousa, J.V.; Ferreira, R.M.; Figueiredo, C.; Pereira, T.; Oliveira, H.P. Machine learning-based approaches for cancer prediction using microbiome data. Sci. Rep. 2023 , 13 , 11821. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Bassani-Sternberg, M.; Pletscher-Frankild, S.; Jensen, L.J.; Mann, M. Mass Spectrometry of Human Leukocyte Antigen Class I Peptidomes Reveals Strong Effects of Protein Abundance and Turnover on Antigen Presentation. Mol. Cell. Proteom. 2015 , 14 , 658–673. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Blum, J.S.; Wearsch, P.A.; Cresswell, P. Pathways of Antigen Processing. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 2013 , 31 , 443–473. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Alspach, E.; Lussier, D.M.; Miceli, A.P.; Kizhvatov, I.; DuPage, M.; Luoma, A.M.; Meng, W.; Lichti, C.F.; Esaulova, E.; Vomund, A.N.; et al. MHC-II Neoantigens Shape Tumour Immunity and Response to Immunotherapy. Nature 2019 , 574 , 696–701. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Reynisson, B.; Alvarez, B.; Paul, S.; Peters, B.; Nielsen, M. NetMHCpan-4.1 and NetMHCIIpan-4.0: Improved Predictions of MHC Antigen Presentation by Concurrent Motif Deconvolution and Integration of MS MHC Eluted Ligand Data. Nucleic Acids Res. 2020 , 48 , W449–W454. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Fritsch, E.F.; Rajasagi, M.; Ott, P.A.; Brusic, V.; Hacohen, N.; Wu, C.J. HLA-binding properties of tumor neoepitopes in humans. Cancer Immunol. Res. 2014 , 2 , 522–529. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bulik-Sullivan, B.; Busby, J.; Palmer, C.D.; Davis, M.J.; Murphy, T.; Clark, A.; Busby, M.; Duke, F.; Yang, A.; Young, L.; et al. Deep learning using tumor HLA peptide mass spectrometry datasets improves neoantigen identification. Nat. Biotechnol. 2018 , 37 , 55–63. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• O’Donnell, T.J.; Rubinsteyn, A.; Laserson, U. MHCflurry 2.0: Improved Pan-Allele Prediction of MHC Class I-Presented Peptides by Incorporating Antigen Processing. Cell Syst. 2020 , 11 , 42–48.e7. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vitiello, A.; Zanetti, M. Neoantigen prediction and the need for validation. Nat. Biotechnol. 2017 , 35 , 815–817. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Rocha, L.G.d.N.; Guimarães, P.A.S.; Carvalho, M.G.R.; Ruiz, J.C. Tumor Neoepitope-Based Vaccines: A Scoping Review on Current Predictive Computational Strategies. Vaccines 2024 , 12 , 836. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines12080836

Rocha LGdN, Guimarães PAS, Carvalho MGR, Ruiz JC. Tumor Neoepitope-Based Vaccines: A Scoping Review on Current Predictive Computational Strategies. Vaccines . 2024; 12(8):836. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines12080836

Rocha, Luiz Gustavo do Nascimento, Paul Anderson Souza Guimarães, Maria Gabriela Reis Carvalho, and Jeronimo Conceição Ruiz. 2024. "Tumor Neoepitope-Based Vaccines: A Scoping Review on Current Predictive Computational Strategies" Vaccines 12, no. 8: 836. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines12080836

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, supplementary material.

ZIP-Document (ZIP, 435 KiB)

Further Information

Mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

You're reading a free article with opinions that may differ from The Motley Fool's Premium Investing Services. Become a Motley Fool member today to get instant access to our top analyst recommendations, in-depth research, investing resources, and more. Learn More

Retirees in These 9 States Risk Losing Some of Their Social Security Checks

• The federal government taxes a portion of Social Security benefits if your income exceeds certain thresholds.
• Retirees in nine states may be subject to additional income taxes from their state government.
• With advance planning, it is often possible to reduce the amount of state taxes that you will owe.
• Motley Fool Issues Rare “All In” Buy Alert

Are you living in one of them?

Social Security is the foundation for most Americans' retirement plans. Without that benefit program, nearly 4 in 10 Americans 65 and older would have incomes that fall below the federal poverty line, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The difference between keeping all of their benefits and losing even a portion of them can be massive for those households. And even for those who enter retirement on a solid financial footing, Social Security usually plays a key role in their budgets.

Unfortunately for people living in nine states, depending on their incomes, there's a chance they'll owe state income taxes on a portion of their Social Security benefits this year.

Here's what you need to know.

How are Social Security benefits taxed?

Anyone collecting Social Security ought to know the details of how the federal government taxes their benefits.

The federal government will tax a portion of your Social Security benefits if your "combined income" exceeds certain thresholds. Combined income is a special metric used just to determine Social Security taxes. It's equal to the sum of half your Social Security income, your adjusted gross income , and any untaxed interest income. Benefits are subject to taxation based on the following table.

Data source: Social Security Administration.

You might look at those thresholds and think they're quite low, and you'd be right. Congress has not updated them for inflation in over 30 years, and there's no plan in Washington to adjust them in the future. But as benefits receive cost-of-living adjustments almost every year, more and more retirees are paying taxes on some of their Social Security.

Careful planning could help you avoid a surprise tax bill come April. Retirees collecting Social Security need to consider how additional capital gains or retirement account withdrawals will impact their overall tax bill. But retirees in nine states have an extra consideration to worry about.

Image source: Getty Images.

9 states that tax Social Security

Most states don't tax Social Security benefits, and the number that do has been dropping. Kansas, for example, just eliminated its tax on Social Security earlier this year, effective for the 2024 tax year.

But nine states still impose some income taxes on some people's benefits. If you live in one of these states you should take the extra time to do some research on your personal situation or consult a professional to learn if there are ways to reduce your tax bill.

Here are the basics for each state.

Colorado: Taxpayers under 65 with more than $20,000 in taxable benefits on their federal income tax return will owe state income taxes on the amount above that threshold. Retirees 65 or older are exempt from state taxes on Social Security benefits. The state tax rate is 4.4%.

Connecticut: The portion of your Social Security income that is taxed at the federal level may be subject to state taxes in Connecticut if your adjusted gross income exceeds $75,000 for individuals or $100,000 for joint filers. However, the amount subject to state taxes is limited to 25% of your benefits, regardless of what percentage is taxed federally. The tax rate ranges from 2% to 4.5%.

Minnesota: Taxpayers can deduct up to $4,560 as individuals or $5,840 for married couples filing jointly in Social Security benefits from their taxable incomes. That deduction begins getting reduced for residents with combined incomes above $69,250 for individuals or $88,630 for married couples, and phases out completely at combined incomes of $78,000 or $100,000, respectively. The income tax rate ranges from 6.8% to 9.85%.

Montana: Any portion of your Social Security income that is taxed at the federal level is also subject to state income tax in Montana. The tax rate ranges from 4.7% to 5.9%.

New Mexico: Taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes exceeding $100,000 for individuals or $150,000 for married couples filing jointly will owe state taxes on any Social Security income that is also taxed at the federal level. https://www.tax.newmexico.gov/social-security-income-tax-exemption/ The state tax rate ranges from 4.9% to 5.9%.

Rhode Island: Taxpayers below their full retirement age as defined by Social Security with adjusted gross incomes above certain thresholds will owe taxes on any portion of Social Security income that is also taxed at the federal level. Those thresholds were $101,000 for individuals or $126,250 for married couples filing jointly in 2023, but they get adjusted for inflation each year. The tax rate ranges from 4.75% to 5.99%.

Utah: Taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes exceeding $45,000 for individuals or $75,000 for married couples filing jointly will owe taxes on any Social Security income that is taxed at the federal level. People below those thresholds qualify for a credit to offset the taxes. The tax rate is 4.65%.

Vermont: Taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes above $50,000 for individuals or $65,000 for married couples filing jointly will owe income taxes on at least a portion of any Social Security income included on their federal income tax return. The tax rate ranges from 3.35% to 8.75%.

West Virginia: 65% of any Social Security income included on your federal income tax return is subject to state income tax in West Virginia. However, those taxes are being phased out. In 2025, 35% will be taxable, and starting in 2026, the state will stop taxing benefits. The tax rate ranges from 2.55% to 5.525%.

Don't make decisions about where to retire based entirely on taxes

While retirees in those nine states may be subject to extra taxes, it's important to consider the big picture in retirement.

Hopefully, you'll have a long retirement, and states' tax policies can change drastically over time. Many have taken steps to reduce or eliminate their taxes on Social Security in just the past few years.

More important considerations for picking where you'll settle down in retirement may include the cost of living and what a community has to offer. Those factors can have much bigger impacts on your ability to live on your own terms in retirement than a few dollars worth of state taxes.

That said, there are many different ways to reduce your tax bill in retirement without changing where you live. Planning in advance, effectively using Roth retirement accounts, and managing your capital gains and losses can help avoid taxes and keep more of your retirement income for yourself.

The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy .

Related Articles

Premium Investing Services

Invest better with The Motley Fool. Get stock recommendations, portfolio guidance, and more from The Motley Fool's premium services.