literature review pieces

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 This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission.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.

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

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

Table of Contents

What is the purpose of literature review , a. habitat loss and species extinction: , b. range shifts and phenological changes: , c. ocean acidification and coral reefs: , d. adaptive strategies and conservation efforts: .

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

Frequently asked questions 

What is a literature review .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature review example 

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

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to write a good literature review 

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

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

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

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

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

Write and Cite as yo u go with Paperpal Research. Start now for free!

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

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

Conducting a literature review 

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

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:  

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

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:  

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

Select Databases for Searches:  

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

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:  

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

Review the Literature:  

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

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:  

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

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

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?  

Paperpal, an AI writing assistant, integrates powerful academic search capabilities within its writing platform. With the Research | Cite feature, you get 100% factual insights, with citations backed by 250M+ verified research articles, directly within your writing interface. It also allows you auto-cite references in 10,000+ styles and save relevant references in your Citation Library. By eliminating the need to switch tabs to find answers to all your research questions, Paperpal saves time and helps you stay focused on your writing.   

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

• Ask a question: Get started with a new document on paperpal.com. Click on the “Research | Cite” feature and type your question in plain English. Paperpal will scour over 250 million research articles, including conference papers and preprints, to provide you with accurate insights and citations. 

• Review and Save: Paperpal summarizes the information, while citing sources and listing relevant reads. You can quickly scan the results to identify relevant references and save these directly to your built-in citations library for later access. 
• Cite with Confidence: Paperpal makes it easy to incorporate relevant citations and references in 10,000+ styles into your writing, ensuring your arguments are well-supported by credible sources. This translates to a polished, well-researched literature review. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 

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

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 22+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.  

Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.  

Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!  

Related Reads:

• Empirical Research: A Comprehensive Guide for Academics 
• How to Write a Scientific Paper in 10 Steps 
• How Long Should a Chapter Be?
• How to Use Paperpal to Generate Emails & Cover Letters?

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

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, academic integrity vs academic dishonesty: types & examples, dissertation printing and binding | types & comparison , what is a dissertation preface definition and examples , the ai revolution: authors’ role in upholding academic..., the future of academia: how ai tools are..., how to write a research proposal: (with examples..., how to write your research paper in apa..., how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write a phd research proposal, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide).

• 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

How To Structure Your Literature Review

3 options to help structure your chapter.

By: Amy Rommelspacher (PhD) | Reviewer: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | November 2020 (Updated May 2023)

Writing the literature review chapter can seem pretty daunting when you’re piecing together your dissertation or thesis. As  we’ve discussed before , a good literature review needs to achieve a few very important objectives – it should:

• Demonstrate your knowledge of the research topic
• Identify the gaps in the literature and show how your research links to these
• Provide the foundation for your conceptual framework (if you have one)
• Inform your own  methodology and research design

To achieve this, your literature review needs a well-thought-out structure . Get the structure of your literature review chapter wrong and you’ll struggle to achieve these objectives. Don’t worry though – in this post, we’ll look at how to structure your literature review for maximum impact (and marks!).

But wait – is this the right time?

Deciding on the structure of your literature review should come towards the end of the literature review process – after you have collected and digested the literature, but before you start writing the chapter. 

In other words, you need to first develop a rich understanding of the literature before you even attempt to map out a structure. There’s no use trying to develop a structure before you’ve fully wrapped your head around the existing research.

Equally importantly, you need to have a structure in place before you start writing , or your literature review will most likely end up a rambling, disjointed mess. 

Importantly, don’t feel that once you’ve defined a structure you can’t iterate on it. It’s perfectly natural to adjust as you engage in the writing process. As we’ve discussed before , writing is a way of developing your thinking, so it’s quite common for your thinking to change – and therefore, for your chapter structure to change – as you write. 

Need a helping hand?

Like any other chapter in your thesis or dissertation, your literature review needs to have a clear, logical structure. At a minimum, it should have three essential components – an  introduction , a  body   and a  conclusion . 

Let’s take a closer look at each of these.

1: The Introduction Section

Just like any good introduction, the introduction section of your literature review should introduce the purpose and layout (organisation) of the chapter. In other words, your introduction needs to give the reader a taste of what’s to come, and how you’re going to lay that out. Essentially, you should provide the reader with a high-level roadmap of your chapter to give them a taste of the journey that lies ahead.

Here’s an example of the layout visualised in a literature review introduction:

Your introduction should also outline your topic (including any tricky terminology or jargon) and provide an explanation of the scope of your literature review – in other words, what you  will   and  won’t   be covering (the delimitations ). This helps ringfence your review and achieve a clear focus . The clearer and narrower your focus, the deeper you can dive into the topic (which is typically where the magic lies). 

Depending on the nature of your project, you could also present your stance or point of view at this stage. In other words, after grappling with the literature you’ll have an opinion about what the trends and concerns are in the field as well as what’s lacking. The introduction section can then present these ideas so that it is clear to examiners that you’re aware of how your research connects with existing knowledge .

2: The Body Section

The body of your literature review is the centre of your work. This is where you’ll present, analyse, evaluate and synthesise the existing research. In other words, this is where you’re going to earn (or lose) the most marks. Therefore, it’s important to carefully think about how you will organise your discussion to present it in a clear way. 

The body of your literature review should do just as the description of this chapter suggests. It should “review” the literature – in other words, identify, analyse, and synthesise it. So, when thinking about structuring your literature review, you need to think about which structural approach will provide the best “review” for your specific type of research and objectives (we’ll get to this shortly).

There are (broadly speaking)  three options  for organising your literature review.

Option 1: Chronological (according to date)

Organising the literature chronologically is one of the simplest ways to structure your literature review. You start with what was published first and work your way through the literature until you reach the work published most recently. Pretty straightforward.

The benefit of this option is that it makes it easy to discuss the developments and debates in the field as they emerged over time. Organising your literature chronologically also allows you to highlight how specific articles or pieces of work might have changed the course of the field – in other words, which research has had the most impact . Therefore, this approach is very useful when your research is aimed at understanding how the topic has unfolded over time and is often used by scholars in the field of history. That said, this approach can be utilised by anyone that wants to explore change over time .

For example , if a student of politics is investigating how the understanding of democracy has evolved over time, they could use the chronological approach to provide a narrative that demonstrates how this understanding has changed through the ages.

Here are some questions you can ask yourself to help you structure your literature review chronologically.

• What is the earliest literature published relating to this topic?
• How has the field changed over time? Why?
• What are the most recent discoveries/theories?

In some ways, chronology plays a part whichever way you decide to structure your literature review, because you will always, to a certain extent, be analysing how the literature has developed. However, with the chronological approach, the emphasis is very firmly on how the discussion has evolved over time , as opposed to how all the literature links together (which we’ll discuss next ).

Option 2: Thematic (grouped by theme)

The thematic approach to structuring a literature review means organising your literature by theme or category – for example, by independent variables (i.e. factors that have an impact on a specific outcome).

As you’ve been collecting and synthesising literature , you’ll likely have started seeing some themes or patterns emerging. You can then use these themes or patterns as a structure for your body discussion. The thematic approach is the most common approach and is useful for structuring literature reviews in most fields.

For example, if you were researching which factors contributed towards people trusting an organisation, you might find themes such as consumers’ perceptions of an organisation’s competence, benevolence and integrity. Structuring your literature review thematically would mean structuring your literature review’s body section to discuss each of these themes, one section at a time.

Here are some questions to ask yourself when structuring your literature review by themes:

• Are there any patterns that have come to light in the literature?
• What are the central themes and categories used by the researchers?
• Do I have enough evidence of these themes?

PS – you can see an example of a thematically structured literature review in our literature review sample walkthrough video here.

Option 3: Methodological

The methodological option is a way of structuring your literature review by the research methodologies used . In other words, organising your discussion based on the angle from which each piece of research was approached – for example, qualitative , quantitative or mixed  methodologies.

Structuring your literature review by methodology can be useful if you are drawing research from a variety of disciplines and are critiquing different methodologies. The point of this approach is to question  how  existing research has been conducted, as opposed to  what  the conclusions and/or findings the research were.

For example, a sociologist might centre their research around critiquing specific fieldwork practices. Their literature review will then be a summary of the fieldwork methodologies used by different studies.

Here are some questions you can ask yourself when structuring your literature review according to methodology:

• Which methodologies have been utilised in this field?
• Which methodology is the most popular (and why)?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the various methodologies?
• How can the existing methodologies inform my own methodology?

3: The Conclusion Section

Once you’ve completed the body section of your literature review using one of the structural approaches we discussed above, you’ll need to “wrap up” your literature review and pull all the pieces together to set the direction for the rest of your dissertation or thesis.

The conclusion is where you’ll present the key findings of your literature review. In this section, you should emphasise the research that is especially important to your research questions and highlight the gaps that exist in the literature. Based on this, you need to make it clear what you will add to the literature – in other words, justify your own research by showing how it will help fill one or more of the gaps you just identified.

Last but not least, if it’s your intention to develop a conceptual framework for your dissertation or thesis, the conclusion section is a good place to present this.

Example: Thematically Structured Review

In the video below, we unpack a literature review chapter so that you can see an example of a thematically structure review in practice.

Let’s Recap

In this article, we’ve  discussed how to structure your literature review for maximum impact. Here’s a quick recap of what  you need to keep in mind when deciding on your literature review structure:

• Just like other chapters, your literature review needs a clear introduction , body and conclusion .
• The introduction section should provide an overview of what you will discuss in your literature review.
• The body section of your literature review can be organised by chronology , theme or methodology . The right structural approach depends on what you’re trying to achieve with your research.
• The conclusion section should draw together the key findings of your literature review and link them to your research questions.

If you’re ready to get started, be sure to download our free literature review template to fast-track your chapter outline.

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 .

28 Comments

Great work. This is exactly what I was looking for and helps a lot together with your previous post on literature review. One last thing is missing: a link to a great literature chapter of an journal article (maybe with comments of the different sections in this review chapter). Do you know any great literature review chapters?

I agree with you Marin… A great piece

I agree with Marin. This would be quite helpful if you annotate a nicely structured literature from previously published research articles.

Awesome article for my research.

I thank you immensely for this wonderful guide

It is indeed thought and supportive work for the futurist researcher and students

Very educative and good time to get guide. Thank you

Great work, very insightful. Thank you.

Thanks for this wonderful presentation. My question is that do I put all the variables into a single conceptual framework or each hypothesis will have it own conceptual framework?

Thank you very much, very helpful

This is very educative and precise . Thank you very much for dropping this kind of write up .

Pheeww, so damn helpful, thank you for this informative piece.

I’m doing a research project topic ; stool analysis for parasitic worm (enteric) worm, how do I structure it, thanks.

comprehensive explanation. Help us by pasting the URL of some good “literature review” for better understanding.

great piece. thanks for the awesome explanation. it is really worth sharing. I have a little question, if anyone can help me out, which of the options in the body of literature can be best fit if you are writing an architectural thesis that deals with design?

I am doing a research on nanofluids how can l structure it?

Beautifully clear.nThank you!

Lucid! Thankyou!

Brilliant work, well understood, many thanks

I like how this was so clear with simple language 😊😊 thank you so much 😊 for these information 😊

Insightful. I was struggling to come up with a sensible literature review but this has been really helpful. Thank you!

You have given thought-provoking information about the review of the literature.

Thank you. It has made my own research better and to impart your work to students I teach

I learnt a lot from this teaching. It’s a great piece.

I am doing research on EFL teacher motivation for his/her job. How Can I structure it? Is there any detailed template, additional to this?

You are so cool! I do not think I’ve read through something like this before. So nice to find somebody with some genuine thoughts on this issue. Seriously.. thank you for starting this up. This site is one thing that is required on the internet, someone with a little originality!

I’m asked to do conceptual, theoretical and empirical literature, and i just don’t know how to structure it

Asking questions are actually fastidious thing if you are not understanding anything fully, but this article presents good understanding yet.

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

University Library

Write a literature review.

• Examples and Further Information

1. Introduction

Not to be confused with a book review, a literature review surveys scholarly articles, books and other sources (e.g. dissertations, conference proceedings) relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, providing a description, summary, and critical evaluation of each work. The purpose is to offer an overview of significant literature published on a topic.

2. Components

Similar to primary research, development of the literature review requires four stages:

• Problem formulation—which topic or field is being examined and what are its component issues?
• Literature search—finding materials relevant to the subject being explored
• Data evaluation—determining which literature makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the topic
• Analysis and interpretation—discussing the findings and conclusions of pertinent literature

Literature reviews should comprise the following elements:

• An overview of the subject, issue or theory under consideration, along with the objectives of the literature review
• Division of works under review into categories (e.g. those in support of a particular position, those against, and those offering alternative theses entirely)
• 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

In assessing each piece, consideration should be given to:

• 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)?
• 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/least convincing?
• Value—Are the author's arguments and conclusions convincing? Does the work ultimately contribute in any significant way to an understanding of the subject?

3. Definition and Use/Purpose

A literature review may constitute an essential chapter of a thesis or dissertation, or may be a self-contained review of writings on a subject. In either case, its purpose is to:

• Place each work in the context of its contribution to the understanding of the subject under review
• Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration
• Identify new ways to interpret, and shed light on any gaps in, previous research
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort
• Point the way forward for further research
• Place one's original work (in the case of theses or dissertations) in the context of existing literature

The literature review itself, however, does not present new primary scholarship.

• Next: Examples and Further Information >>

Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License except where otherwise noted.

Land Acknowledgement

The land on which we gather is the unceded territory of the Awaswas-speaking Uypi Tribe. The Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, comprised of the descendants of indigenous people taken to missions Santa Cruz and San Juan Bautista during Spanish colonization of the Central Coast, is today working hard to restore traditional stewardship practices on these lands and heal from historical trauma.

The land acknowledgement used at UC Santa Cruz was developed in partnership with the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band Chairman and the Amah Mutsun Relearning Program at the UCSC Arboretum .

• Library Homepage

Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide: Literature Reviews?

• Literature Reviews?
• Strategies to Finding Sources
• Keeping up with Research!
• Evaluating Sources & Literature Reviews
• Organizing for Writing
• Writing Literature Review
• Other Academic Writings

What is a Literature Review?

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." - Quote from Taylor, D. (n.d)."The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting it".

• Citation: "The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting it"

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

Each field has a particular way to do reviews for academic research literature. In the social sciences and humanities the most common are:

• Narrative Reviews: The purpose of this type of review is to describe the current state of the research on a specific research topic and to offer a critical analysis of the literature reviewed. Studies are grouped by research/theoretical categories, and themes and trends, strengths and weaknesses, and gaps are identified. The review ends with a conclusion section that 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.
• Book review essays/ Historiographical review essays : A type of literature review typical in History and related fields, e.g., Latin American studies. For example, the Latin American Research Review explains that the purpose of this type of review is to “(1) to familiarize readers with the subject, approach, arguments, and conclusions found in a group of books whose common focus is a historical period; a country or region within Latin America; or a practice, development, or issue of interest to specialists and others; (2) to locate these books within current scholarship, critical methodologies, and approaches; and (3) to probe the relation of these new books to previous work on the subject, especially canonical texts. Unlike individual book reviews, the cluster reviews found in LARR seek to address the state of the field or discipline and not solely the works at issue.” - LARR

What are the Goals of Creating a Literature Review?

• 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.

When do you need to write a Literature Review?

• When writing a prospectus or a thesis/dissertation
• When writing a research paper
• When writing a grant proposal

In all these cases you need to dedicate a chapter in these works to showcase what has been written about your research topic and to point out how your own research will shed new light into a body of scholarship.

Where I can find examples of Literature Reviews?

Note:  In the humanities, even if they don't use the term "literature review", they may have a dedicated  chapter that reviewed the "critical bibliography" or they incorporated that review in the introduction or first chapter of the dissertation, book, or article.

• UCSB electronic theses and dissertations In partnership with the Graduate Division, the UC Santa Barbara Library is making available theses and dissertations produced by UCSB students. Currently included in ADRL are theses and dissertations that were originally filed electronically, starting in 2011. In future phases of ADRL, all theses and dissertations created by UCSB students may be digitized and made available.

Where to Find Standalone Literature Reviews

Literature reviews are also written as standalone articles as a way to survey a particular research topic in-depth. This type of literature review looks at a topic from a historical perspective to see how the understanding of the topic has changed over time. 

• Find e-Journals for Standalone Literature Reviews The best way to get familiar with and to learn how to write literature reviews is by reading them. You can use our Journal Search option to find journals that specialize in publishing literature reviews from major disciplines like anthropology, sociology, etc. Usually these titles are called, "Annual Review of [discipline name] OR [Discipline name] Review. This option works best if you know the title of the publication you are looking for. Below are some examples of these journals! more... less... Journal Search can be found by hovering over the link for Research on the library website.

Social Sciences

• Annual Review of Anthropology
• Annual Review of Political Science
• Annual Review of Sociology
• Ethnic Studies Review

Hard science and health sciences:

• Annual Review of Biomedical Data Science
• Annual Review of Materials Science
• Systematic Review From journal site: "The journal Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct, and reporting of systematic reviews" in the health sciences.
• << Previous: Overview
• Next: Strategies to Finding Sources >>
• Last Updated: Mar 5, 2024 11:44 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.ucsb.edu/litreview

• 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

Types of Literature Review — A Guide for Researchers

Table of Contents

Researchers often face challenges when choosing the appropriate type of literature review for their study. Regardless of the type of research design and the topic of a research problem , they encounter numerous queries, including:

What is the right type of literature review my study demands?

• How do we gather the data?
• How to conduct one?
• How reliable are the review findings?
• How do we employ them in our research? And the list goes on.

If you’re also dealing with such a hefty questionnaire, this article is of help. Read through this piece of guide to get an exhaustive understanding of the different types of literature reviews and their step-by-step methodologies along with a dash of pros and cons discussed.

Heading from scratch!

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review provides a comprehensive overview of existing knowledge on a particular topic, which is quintessential to any research project. Researchers employ various literature reviews based on their research goals and methodologies. The review process involves assembling, critically evaluating, and synthesizing existing scientific publications relevant to the research question at hand. It serves multiple purposes, including identifying gaps in existing literature, providing theoretical background, and supporting the rationale for a research study.

What is the importance of a Literature review in research?

Literature review in research serves several key purposes, including:

• Background of the study: Provides proper context for the research. It helps researchers understand the historical development, theoretical perspectives, and key debates related to their research topic.
• Identification of research gaps: By reviewing existing literature, researchers can identify gaps or inconsistencies in knowledge, paving the way for new research questions and hypotheses relevant to their study.
• Theoretical framework development: Facilitates the development of theoretical frameworks by cultivating diverse perspectives and empirical findings. It helps researchers refine their conceptualizations and theoretical models.
• Methodological guidance: Offers methodological guidance by highlighting the documented research methods and techniques used in previous studies. It assists researchers in selecting appropriate research designs, data collection methods, and analytical tools.
• Quality assurance and upholding academic integrity: Conducting a thorough literature review demonstrates the rigor and scholarly integrity of the research. It ensures that researchers are aware of relevant studies and can accurately attribute ideas and findings to their original sources.

Types of Literature Review

Literature review plays a crucial role in guiding the research process , from providing the background of the study to research dissemination and contributing to the synthesis of the latest theoretical literature review findings in academia.

However, not all types of literature reviews are the same; they vary in terms of methodology, approach, and purpose. Let's have a look at the various types of literature reviews to gain a deeper understanding of their applications.

1. Narrative Literature Review

A narrative literature review, also known as a traditional literature review, involves analyzing and summarizing existing literature without adhering to a structured methodology. It typically provides a descriptive overview of key concepts, theories, and relevant findings of the research topic.

Unlike other types of literature reviews, narrative reviews reinforce a more traditional approach, emphasizing the interpretation and discussion of the research findings rather than strict adherence to methodological review criteria. It helps researchers explore diverse perspectives and insights based on the research topic and acts as preliminary work for further investigation.

Steps to Conduct a Narrative Literature Review

Source:- https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Steps-of-writing-a-narrative-review_fig1_354466408

Define the research question or topic:

The first step in conducting a narrative literature review is to clearly define the research question or topic of interest. Defining the scope and purpose of the review includes — What specific aspect of the topic do you want to explore? What are the main objectives of the research? Refine your research question based on the specific area you want to explore.

Conduct a thorough literature search

Once the research question is defined, you can conduct a comprehensive literature search. Explore and use relevant databases and search engines like SciSpace Discover to identify credible and pertinent, scholarly articles and publications.

Select relevant studies

Before choosing the right set of studies, it’s vital to determine inclusion (studies that should possess the required factors) and exclusion criteria for the literature and then carefully select papers. For example — Which studies or sources will be included based on relevance, quality, and publication date?

*Important (applies to all the reviews): Inclusion criteria are the factors a study must include (For example: Include only peer-reviewed articles published between 2022-2023, etc.). Exclusion criteria are the factors that wouldn’t be required for your search strategy (Example: exclude irrelevant papers, preprints, written in non-English, etc.)

Critically analyze the literature

Once the relevant studies are shortlisted, evaluate the methodology, findings, and limitations of each source and jot down key themes, patterns, and contradictions. You can use efficient AI tools to conduct a thorough literature review and analyze all the required information.

Synthesize and integrate the findings

Now, you can weave together the reviewed studies, underscoring significant findings such that new frameworks, contrasting viewpoints, and identifying knowledge gaps.

Discussion and conclusion

This is an important step before crafting a narrative review — summarize the main findings of the review and discuss their implications in the relevant field. For example — What are the practical implications for practitioners? What are the directions for future research for them?

Write a cohesive narrative review

Organize the review into coherent sections and structure your review logically, guiding the reader through the research landscape and offering valuable insights. Use clear and concise language to convey key points effectively.

Structure of Narrative Literature Review

A well-structured, narrative analysis or literature review typically includes the following components:

• Introduction: Provides an overview of the topic, objectives of the study, and rationale for the review.
• Background: Highlights relevant background information and establish the context for the review.
• Main Body: Indexes the literature into thematic sections or categories, discussing key findings, methodologies, and theoretical frameworks.
• Discussion: Analyze and synthesize the findings of the reviewed studies, stressing similarities, differences, and any gaps in the literature.
• Conclusion: Summarizes the main findings of the review, identifies implications for future research, and offers concluding remarks.

Pros and Cons of Narrative Literature Review

• Flexibility in methodology and doesn’t necessarily rely on structured methodologies
• Follows traditional approach and provides valuable and contextualized insights
• Suitable for exploring complex or interdisciplinary topics. For example — Climate change and human health, Cybersecurity and privacy in the digital age, and more
• Subjectivity in data selection and interpretation
• Potential for bias in the review process
• Lack of rigor compared to systematic reviews

Example of Well-Executed Narrative Literature Reviews

Paper title:  Examining Moral Injury in Clinical Practice: A Narrative Literature Review

Source: SciSpace

You can also chat with the papers using SciSpace ChatPDF to get a thorough understanding of the research papers.

While narrative reviews offer flexibility, academic integrity remains paramount. So, ensure proper citation of all sources and maintain a transparent and factual approach throughout your critical narrative review, itself.

2. Systematic Review

A systematic literature review is one of the comprehensive types of literature review that follows a structured approach to assembling, analyzing, and synthesizing existing research relevant to a particular topic or question. It involves clearly defined criteria for exploring and choosing studies, as well as rigorous methods for evaluating the quality of relevant studies.

It plays a prominent role in evidence-based practice and decision-making across various domains, including healthcare, social sciences, education, health sciences, and more. By systematically investigating available literature, researchers can identify gaps in knowledge, evaluate the strength of evidence, and report future research directions.

Steps to Conduct Systematic Reviews

Source:- https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Steps-of-Systematic-Literature-Review_fig1_321422320

Here are the key steps involved in conducting a systematic literature review

Formulate a clear and focused research question

Clearly define the research question or objective of the review. It helps to centralize the literature search strategy and determine inclusion criteria for relevant studies.

Develop a thorough literature search strategy

Design a comprehensive search strategy to identify relevant studies. It involves scrutinizing scientific databases and all relevant articles in journals. Plus, seek suggestions from domain experts and review reference lists of relevant review articles.

Screening and selecting studies

Employ predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria to systematically screen the identified studies. This screening process also typically involves multiple reviewers independently assessing the eligibility of each study.

Data extraction

Extract key information from selected studies using standardized forms or protocols. It includes study characteristics, methods, results, and conclusions.

Critical appraisal

Evaluate the methodological quality and potential biases of included studies. Various tools (BMC medical research methodology) and criteria can be implemented for critical evaluation depending on the study design and research quetions .

Data synthesis

Analyze and synthesize review findings from individual studies to draw encompassing conclusions or identify overarching patterns and explore heterogeneity among studies.

Interpretation and conclusion

Interpret the findings about the research question, considering the strengths and limitations of the research evidence. Draw conclusions and implications for further research.

The final step — Report writing

Craft a detailed report of the systematic literature review adhering to the established guidelines of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). This ensures transparency and reproducibility of the review process.

By following these steps, a systematic literature review aims to provide a comprehensive and unbiased summary of existing evidence, help make informed decisions, and advance knowledge in the respective domain or field.

Structure of a systematic literature review

A well-structured systematic literature review typically consists of the following sections:

• Introduction: Provides background information on the research topic, outlines the review objectives, and enunciates the scope of the study.
• Methodology: Describes the literature search strategy, selection criteria, data extraction process, and other methods used for data synthesis, extraction, or other data analysis..
• Results: Presents the review findings, including a summary of the incorporated studies and their key findings.
• Discussion: Interprets the findings in light of the review objectives, discusses their implications, and identifies limitations or promising areas for future research.
• Conclusion: Summarizes the main review findings and provides suggestions based on the evidence presented in depth meta analysis.

*Important (applies to all the reviews): Remember, the specific structure of your literature review may vary depending on your topic, research question, and intended audience. However, adhering to a clear and logical hierarchy ensures your review effectively analyses and synthesizes knowledge and contributes valuable insights for readers.

Pros and Cons of Systematic Literature Review

• Adopts rigorous and transparent methodology
• Minimizes bias and enhances the reliability of the study
• Provides evidence-based insights
• Time and resource-intensive
• High dependency on the quality of available literature (literature research strategy should be accurate)
• Potential for publication bias

Example of Well-Executed Systematic Literature Review

Paper title: Systematic Reviews: Understanding the Best Evidence For Clinical Decision-making in Health Care: Pros and Cons.

Read this detailed article on how to use AI tools to conduct a systematic review for your research!

3. Scoping Literature Review

A scoping literature review is a methodological review type of literature review that adopts an iterative approach to systematically map the existing literature on a particular topic or research area. It involves identifying, selecting, and synthesizing relevant papers to provide an overview of the size and scope of available evidence. Scoping reviews are broader in scope and include a diverse range of study designs and methodologies especially focused on health services research.

The main purpose of a scoping literature review is to examine the extent, range, and nature of existing studies on a topic, thereby identifying gaps in research, inconsistencies, and areas for further investigation. Additionally, scoping reviews can help researchers identify suitable methodologies and formulate clinical recommendations. They also act as the frameworks for future systematic reviews or primary research studies.

Scoping reviews are primarily focused on —

• Emerging or evolving topics — where the research landscape is still growing or budding. Example — Whole Systems Approaches to Diet and Healthy Weight: A Scoping Review of Reviews .
• Broad and complex topics : With a vast amount of existing literature.
• Scenarios where a systematic review is not feasible: Due to limited resources or time constraints.

Steps to Conduct a Scoping Literature Review

While Scoping reviews are not as rigorous as systematic reviews, however, they still follow a structured approach. Here are the steps:

Identify the research question: Define the broad topic you want to explore.

Identify Relevant Studies: Conduct a comprehensive search of relevant literature using appropriate databases, keywords, and search strategies.

Select studies to be included in the review: Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, determine the appropriate studies to be included in the review.

Data extraction and charting : Extract relevant information from selected studies, such as year, author, main results, study characteristics, key findings, and methodological approaches.  However, it varies depending on the research question.

Collate, summarize, and report the results: Analyze and summarize the extracted data to identify key themes and trends. Then, present the findings of the scoping review in a clear and structured manner, following established guidelines and frameworks .

Structure of a Scoping Literature Review

A scoping literature review typically follows a structured format similar to a systematic review. It includes the following sections:

• Introduction: Introduce the research topic and objectives of the review, providing the historical context, and rationale for the study.
• Methods : Describe the methods used to conduct the review, including search strategies, study selection criteria, and data extraction procedures.
• Results: Present the findings of the review, including key themes, concepts, and patterns identified in the literature review.
• Discussion: Examine the implications of the findings, including strengths, limitations, and areas for further examination.
• Conclusion: Recapitulate the main findings of the review and their implications for future research, policy, or practice.

Pros and Cons of Scoping Literature Review

• Provides a comprehensive overview of existing literature
• Helps to identify gaps and areas for further research
• Suitable for exploring broad or complex research questions
• Doesn’t provide the depth of analysis offered by systematic reviews
• Subject to researcher bias in study selection and data extraction
• Requires careful consideration of literature search strategies and inclusion criteria to ensure comprehensiveness and validity.

In short, a scoping review helps map the literature on developing or emerging topics and identifying gaps. It might be considered as a step before conducting another type of review, such as a systematic review. Basically, acts as a precursor for other literature reviews.

Example of a Well-Executed Scoping Literature Review

Paper title: Health Chatbots in Africa Literature: A Scoping Review

Check out the key differences between Systematic and Scoping reviews — Evaluating literature review: systematic vs. scoping reviews

4. Integrative Literature Review

Integrative Literature Review (ILR) is a type of literature review that proposes a distinctive way to analyze and synthesize existing literature on a specific topic, providing a thorough understanding of research and identifying potential gaps for future research.

Unlike a systematic review, which emphasizes quantitative studies and follows strict inclusion criteria, an ILR embraces a more pliable approach. It works beyond simply summarizing findings — it critically analyzes, integrates, and interprets research from various methodologies (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods) to provide a deeper understanding of the research landscape. ILRs provide a holistic and systematic overview of existing research, integrating findings from various methodologies. ILRs are ideal for exploring intricate research issues, examining manifold perspectives, and developing new research questions.

Steps to Conduct an Integrative Literature Review

• Identify the research question: Clearly define the research question or topic of interest as formulating a clear and focused research question is critical to leading the entire review process.
• Literature search strategy: Employ systematic search techniques to locate relevant literature across various databases and sources.
• Evaluate the quality of the included studies : Critically assess the methodology, rigor, and validity of each study by applying inclusion and exclusion criteria to filter and select studies aligned with the research objectives.
• Data Extraction: Extract relevant data from selected studies using a structured approach.
• Synthesize the findings : Thoroughly analyze the selected literature, identify key themes, and synthesize findings to derive noteworthy insights.
• Critical appraisal: Critically evaluate the quality and validity of qualitative research and included studies by using BMC medical research methodology.
• Interpret and present your findings: Discuss the purpose and implications of your analysis, spotlighting key insights and limitations. Organize and present the findings coherently and systematically.

Structure of an Integrative Literature Review

• Introduction : Provide an overview of the research topic and the purpose of the integrative review.
• Methods: Describe the opted literature search strategy, selection criteria, and data extraction process.
• Results: Present the synthesized findings, including key themes, patterns, and contradictions.
• Discussion: Interpret the findings about the research question, emphasizing implications for theory, practice, and prospective research.
• Conclusion: Summarize the main findings, limitations, and contributions of the integrative review.

Pros and Cons of Integrative Literature Review

• Informs evidence-based practice and policy to the relevant stakeholders of the research.
• Contributes to theory development and methodological advancement, especially in the healthcare arena.
• Integrates diverse perspectives and findings
• Time-consuming process due to the extensive literature search and synthesis
• Requires advanced analytical and critical thinking skills
• Potential for bias in study selection and interpretation
• The quality of included studies may vary, affecting the validity of the review

Example of Integrative Literature Reviews

Paper Title: An Integrative Literature Review: The Dual Impact of Technological Tools on Health and Technostress Among Older Workers

5. Rapid Literature Review

A Rapid Literature Review (RLR) is the fastest type of literature review which makes use of a streamlined approach for synthesizing literature summaries, offering a quicker and more focused alternative to traditional systematic reviews. Despite employing identical research methods, it often simplifies or omits specific steps to expedite the process. It allows researchers to gain valuable insights into current research trends and identify key findings within a shorter timeframe, often ranging from a few days to a few weeks — unlike traditional literature reviews, which may take months or even years to complete.

When to Consider a Rapid Literature Review?

• When time impediments demand a swift summary of existing research
• For emerging topics where the latest literature requires quick evaluation
• To report pilot studies or preliminary research before embarking on a comprehensive systematic review

Steps to Conduct a Rapid Literature Review

• Define the research question or topic of interest. A well-defined question guides the search process and helps researchers focus on relevant studies.
• Determine key databases and sources of relevant literature to ensure comprehensive coverage.
• Develop literature search strategies using appropriate keywords and filters to fetch a pool of potential scientific articles.
• Screen search results based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria.
• Extract and summarize relevant information from the above-preferred studies.
• Synthesize findings to identify key themes, patterns, or gaps in the literature.
• Prepare a concise report or a summary of the RLR findings.

Structure of a Rapid Literature Review

An effective structure of an RLR typically includes the following sections:

• Introduction: Briefly introduce the research topic and objectives of the RLR.
• Methodology: Describe the search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and data extraction process.
• Results: Present a summary of the findings, including key themes or patterns identified.
• Discussion: Interpret the findings, discuss implications, and highlight any limitations or areas for further research
• Conclusion: Summarize the key findings and their implications for practice or future research

Pros and Cons of Rapid Literature Review

• RLRs can be completed quickly, authorizing timely decision-making
• RLRs are a cost-effective approach since they require fewer resources compared to traditional literature reviews
• Offers great accessibility as RLRs provide prompt access to synthesized evidence for stakeholders
• RLRs are flexible as they can be easily adapted for various research contexts and objectives
• RLR reports are limited and restricted, not as in-depth as systematic reviews, and do not provide comprehensive coverage of the literature compared to traditional reviews.
• Susceptible to bias because of the expedited nature of RLRs. It would increase the chance of overlooking relevant studies or biases in the selection process.
• Due to time constraints, RLR findings might not be robust enough as compared to systematic reviews.

Example of a Well-Executed Rapid Literature Review

Paper Title: What Is the Impact of ChatGPT on Education? A Rapid Review of the Literature

A Summary of Literature Review Types

Tools and Resources for Conducting Different Types of Literature Reviews

Online scientific databases.

Platforms such as SciSpace , PubMed , Scopus , Elsevier , and Web of Science provide access to a vast array of scholarly literature, facilitating the search and data retrieval process.

Reference management software

Tools like SciSpace Citation Generator , EndNote, Zotero , and Mendeley assist researchers in organizing, annotating, and citing relevant literature, streamlining the review process altogether.

Automate Literature Review with AI tools

Automate the literature review process by using tools like SciSpace literature review which helps you compare and contrast multiple papers all on one screen in an easy-to-read matrix format. You can effortlessly analyze and interpret the review findings tailored to your study. It also supports the review in 75+ languages, making it more manageable even for non-English speakers.

Goes without saying — literature review plays a pivotal role in academic research to identify the current trends and provide insights to pave the way for future research endeavors. Different types of literature review has their own strengths and limitations, making them suitable for different research designs and contexts. Whether conducting a narrative review, systematic review, scoping review, integrative review, or rapid literature review, researchers must cautiously consider the objectives, resources, and the nature of the research topic.

If you’re currently working on a literature review and still adopting a manual and traditional approach, switch to the automated AI literature review workspace and transform your traditional literature review into a rapid one by extracting all the latest and relevant data for your research!

There you go!

Frequently Asked Questions

Narrative reviews give a general overview of a topic based on the author's knowledge. They may lack clear criteria and can be biased. On the other hand, systematic reviews aim to answer specific research questions by following strict methods. They're thorough but time-consuming.

A systematic review collects and analyzes existing research to provide an overview of a topic, while a meta-analysis statistically combines data from multiple studies to draw conclusions about the overall effect of an intervention or relationship between variables.

A systematic review thoroughly analyzes existing research on a specific topic using strict methods. In contrast, a scoping review offers a broader overview of the literature without evaluating individual studies in depth.

A systematic review thoroughly examines existing research using a rigorous process, while a rapid review provides a quicker summary of evidence, often by simplifying some of the systematic review steps to meet shorter timelines.

A systematic review carefully examines many studies on a single topic using specific guidelines. Conversely, an integrative review blends various types of research to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.

You might also like

This ChatGPT Alternative Will Change How You Read PDFs Forever!

Smallpdf vs SciSpace: Which ChatPDF is Right for You?

Adobe PDF Reader vs. SciSpace ChatPDF — Best Chat PDF Tools

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
• Clinics (Sao Paulo)

Approaching literature review for academic purposes: The Literature Review Checklist

Debora f.b. leite.

I Departamento de Ginecologia e Obstetricia, Faculdade de Ciencias Medicas, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, SP, BR

II Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Pernambuco, PE, BR

III Hospital das Clinicas, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Pernambuco, PE, BR

Maria Auxiliadora Soares Padilha

Jose g. cecatti.

A sophisticated literature review (LR) can result in a robust dissertation/thesis by scrutinizing the main problem examined by the academic study; anticipating research hypotheses, methods and results; and maintaining the interest of the audience in how the dissertation/thesis will provide solutions for the current gaps in a particular field. Unfortunately, little guidance is available on elaborating LRs, and writing an LR chapter is not a linear process. An LR translates students’ abilities in information literacy, the language domain, and critical writing. Students in postgraduate programs should be systematically trained in these skills. Therefore, this paper discusses the purposes of LRs in dissertations and theses. Second, the paper considers five steps for developing a review: defining the main topic, searching the literature, analyzing the results, writing the review and reflecting on the writing. Ultimately, this study proposes a twelve-item LR checklist. By clearly stating the desired achievements, this checklist allows Masters and Ph.D. students to continuously assess their own progress in elaborating an LR. Institutions aiming to strengthen students’ necessary skills in critical academic writing should also use this tool.

INTRODUCTION

Writing the literature review (LR) is often viewed as a difficult task that can be a point of writer’s block and procrastination ( 1 ) in postgraduate life. Disagreements on the definitions or classifications of LRs ( 2 ) may confuse students about their purpose and scope, as well as how to perform an LR. Interestingly, at many universities, the LR is still an important element in any academic work, despite the more recent trend of producing scientific articles rather than classical theses.

The LR is not an isolated section of the thesis/dissertation or a copy of the background section of a research proposal. It identifies the state-of-the-art knowledge in a particular field, clarifies information that is already known, elucidates implications of the problem being analyzed, links theory and practice ( 3 - 5 ), highlights gaps in the current literature, and places the dissertation/thesis within the research agenda of that field. Additionally, by writing the LR, postgraduate students will comprehend the structure of the subject and elaborate on their cognitive connections ( 3 ) while analyzing and synthesizing data with increasing maturity.

At the same time, the LR transforms the student and hints at the contents of other chapters for the reader. First, the LR explains the research question; second, it supports the hypothesis, objectives, and methods of the research project; and finally, it facilitates a description of the student’s interpretation of the results and his/her conclusions. For scholars, the LR is an introductory chapter ( 6 ). If it is well written, it demonstrates the student’s understanding of and maturity in a particular topic. A sound and sophisticated LR can indicate a robust dissertation/thesis.

A consensus on the best method to elaborate a dissertation/thesis has not been achieved. The LR can be a distinct chapter or included in different sections; it can be part of the introduction chapter, part of each research topic, or part of each published paper ( 7 ). However, scholars view the LR as an integral part of the main body of an academic work because it is intrinsically connected to other sections ( Figure 1 ) and is frequently present. The structure of the LR depends on the conventions of a particular discipline, the rules of the department, and the student’s and supervisor’s areas of expertise, needs and interests.

Interestingly, many postgraduate students choose to submit their LR to peer-reviewed journals. As LRs are critical evaluations of current knowledge, they are indeed publishable material, even in the form of narrative or systematic reviews. However, systematic reviews have specific patterns 1 ( 8 ) that may not entirely fit with the questions posed in the dissertation/thesis. Additionally, the scope of a systematic review may be too narrow, and the strict criteria for study inclusion may omit important information from the dissertation/thesis. Therefore, this essay discusses the definition of an LR is and methods to develop an LR in the context of an academic dissertation/thesis. Finally, we suggest a checklist to evaluate an LR.

WHAT IS A LITERATURE REVIEW IN A THESIS?

Conducting research and writing a dissertation/thesis translates rational thinking and enthusiasm ( 9 ). While a strong body of literature that instructs students on research methodology, data analysis and writing scientific papers exists, little guidance on performing LRs is available. The LR is a unique opportunity to assess and contrast various arguments and theories, not just summarize them. The research results should not be discussed within the LR, but the postgraduate student tends to write a comprehensive LR while reflecting on his or her own findings ( 10 ).

Many people believe that writing an LR is a lonely and linear process. Supervisors or the institutions assume that the Ph.D. student has mastered the relevant techniques and vocabulary associated with his/her subject and conducts a self-reflection about previously published findings. Indeed, while elaborating the LR, the student should aggregate diverse skills, which mainly rely on his/her own commitment to mastering them. Thus, less supervision should be required ( 11 ). However, the parameters described above might not currently be the case for many students ( 11 , 12 ), and the lack of formal and systematic training on writing LRs is an important concern ( 11 ).

An institutional environment devoted to active learning will provide students the opportunity to continuously reflect on LRs, which will form a dialogue between the postgraduate student and the current literature in a particular field ( 13 ). Postgraduate students will be interpreting studies by other researchers, and, according to Hart (1998) ( 3 ), the outcomes of the LR in a dissertation/thesis include the following:

• To identify what research has been performed and what topics require further investigation in a particular field of knowledge;
• To determine the context of the problem;
• To recognize the main methodologies and techniques that have been used in the past;
• To place the current research project within the historical, methodological and theoretical context of a particular field;
• To identify significant aspects of the topic;
• To elucidate the implications of the topic;
• To offer an alternative perspective;
• To discern how the studied subject is structured;
• To improve the student’s subject vocabulary in a particular field; and
• To characterize the links between theory and practice.

A sound LR translates the postgraduate student’s expertise in academic and scientific writing: it expresses his/her level of comfort with synthesizing ideas ( 11 ). The LR reveals how well the postgraduate student has proceeded in three domains: an effective literature search, the language domain, and critical writing.

Effective literature search

All students should be trained in gathering appropriate data for specific purposes, and information literacy skills are a cornerstone. These skills are defined as “an individual’s ability to know when they need information, to identify information that can help them address the issue or problem at hand, and to locate, evaluate, and use that information effectively” ( 14 ). Librarian support is of vital importance in coaching the appropriate use of Boolean logic (AND, OR, NOT) and other tools for highly efficient literature searches (e.g., quotation marks and truncation), as is the appropriate management of electronic databases.

Language domain

Academic writing must be concise and precise: unnecessary words distract the reader from the essential content ( 15 ). In this context, reading about issues distant from the research topic ( 16 ) may increase students’ general vocabulary and familiarity with grammar. Ultimately, reading diverse materials facilitates and encourages the writing process itself.

Critical writing

Critical judgment includes critical reading, thinking and writing. It supposes a student’s analytical reflection about what he/she has read. The student should delineate the basic elements of the topic, characterize the most relevant claims, identify relationships, and finally contrast those relationships ( 17 ). Each scientific document highlights the perspective of the author, and students will become more confident in judging the supporting evidence and underlying premises of a study and constructing their own counterargument as they read more articles. A paucity of integration or contradictory perspectives indicates lower levels of cognitive complexity ( 12 ).

Thus, while elaborating an LR, the postgraduate student should achieve the highest category of Bloom’s cognitive skills: evaluation ( 12 ). The writer should not only summarize data and understand each topic but also be able to make judgments based on objective criteria, compare resources and findings, identify discrepancies due to methodology, and construct his/her own argument ( 12 ). As a result, the student will be sufficiently confident to show his/her own voice .

Writing a consistent LR is an intense and complex activity that reveals the training and long-lasting academic skills of a writer. It is not a lonely or linear process. However, students are unlikely to be prepared to write an LR if they have not mastered the aforementioned domains ( 10 ). An institutional environment that supports student learning is crucial.

Different institutions employ distinct methods to promote students’ learning processes. First, many universities propose modules to develop behind the scenes activities that enhance self-reflection about general skills (e.g., the skills we have mastered and the skills we need to develop further), behaviors that should be incorporated (e.g., self-criticism about one’s own thoughts), and each student’s role in the advancement of his/her field. Lectures or workshops about LRs themselves are useful because they describe the purposes of the LR and how it fits into the whole picture of a student’s work. These activities may explain what type of discussion an LR must involve, the importance of defining the correct scope, the reasons to include a particular resource, and the main role of critical reading.

Some pedagogic services that promote a continuous improvement in study and academic skills are equally important. Examples include workshops about time management, the accomplishment of personal objectives, active learning, and foreign languages for nonnative speakers. Additionally, opportunities to converse with other students promotes an awareness of others’ experiences and difficulties. Ultimately, the supervisor’s role in providing feedback and setting deadlines is crucial in developing students’ abilities and in strengthening students’ writing quality ( 12 ).

HOW SHOULD A LITERATURE REVIEW BE DEVELOPED?

A consensus on the appropriate method for elaborating an LR is not available, but four main steps are generally accepted: defining the main topic, searching the literature, analyzing the results, and writing ( 6 ). We suggest a fifth step: reflecting on the information that has been written in previous publications ( Figure 2 ).

First step: Defining the main topic

Planning an LR is directly linked to the research main question of the thesis and occurs in parallel to students’ training in the three domains discussed above. The planning stage helps organize ideas, delimit the scope of the LR ( 11 ), and avoid the wasting of time in the process. Planning includes the following steps:

• Reflecting on the scope of the LR: postgraduate students will have assumptions about what material must be addressed and what information is not essential to an LR ( 13 , 18 ). Cooper’s Taxonomy of Literature Reviews 2 systematizes the writing process through six characteristics and nonmutually exclusive categories. The focus refers to the reviewer’s most important points of interest, while the goals concern what students want to achieve with the LR. The perspective assumes answers to the student’s own view of the LR and how he/she presents a particular issue. The coverage defines how comprehensive the student is in presenting the literature, and the organization determines the sequence of arguments. The audience is defined as the group for whom the LR is written.
• Designating sections and subsections: Headings and subheadings should be specific, explanatory and have a coherent sequence throughout the text ( 4 ). They simulate an inverted pyramid, with an increasing level of reflection and depth of argument.
• Identifying keywords: The relevant keywords for each LR section should be listed to guide the literature search. This list should mirror what Hart (1998) ( 3 ) advocates as subject vocabulary . The keywords will also be useful when the student is writing the LR since they guide the reader through the text.
• Delineating the time interval and language of documents to be retrieved in the second step. The most recently published documents should be considered, but relevant texts published before a predefined cutoff year can be included if they are classic documents in that field. Extra care should be employed when translating documents.

Second step: Searching the literature

The ability to gather adequate information from the literature must be addressed in postgraduate programs. Librarian support is important, particularly for accessing difficult texts. This step comprises the following components:

• Searching the literature itself: This process consists of defining which databases (electronic or dissertation/thesis repositories), official documents, and books will be searched and then actively conducting the search. Information literacy skills have a central role in this stage. While searching electronic databases, controlled vocabulary (e.g., Medical Subject Headings, or MeSH, for the PubMed database) or specific standardized syntax rules may need to be applied.

In addition, two other approaches are suggested. First, a review of the reference list of each document might be useful for identifying relevant publications to be included and important opinions to be assessed. This step is also relevant for referencing the original studies and leading authors in that field. Moreover, students can directly contact the experts on a particular topic to consult with them regarding their experience or use them as a source of additional unpublished documents.

Before submitting a dissertation/thesis, the electronic search strategy should be repeated. This process will ensure that the most recently published papers will be considered in the LR.

• Selecting documents for inclusion: Generally, the most recent literature will be included in the form of published peer-reviewed papers. Assess books and unpublished material, such as conference abstracts, academic texts and government reports, are also important to assess since the gray literature also offers valuable information. However, since these materials are not peer-reviewed, we recommend that they are carefully added to the LR.

This task is an important exercise in time management. First, students should read the title and abstract to understand whether that document suits their purposes, addresses the research question, and helps develop the topic of interest. Then, they should scan the full text, determine how it is structured, group it with similar documents, and verify whether other arguments might be considered ( 5 ).

Third step: Analyzing the results

Critical reading and thinking skills are important in this step. This step consists of the following components:

• Reading documents: The student may read various texts in depth according to LR sections and subsections ( defining the main topic ), which is not a passive activity ( 1 ). Some questions should be asked to practice critical analysis skills, as listed below. Is the research question evident and articulated with previous knowledge? What are the authors’ research goals and theoretical orientations, and how do they interact? Are the authors’ claims related to other scholars’ research? Do the authors consider different perspectives? Was the research project designed and conducted properly? Are the results and discussion plausible, and are they consistent with the research objectives and methodology? What are the strengths and limitations of this work? How do the authors support their findings? How does this work contribute to the current research topic? ( 1 , 19 )
• Taking notes: Students who systematically take notes on each document are more readily able to establish similarities or differences with other documents and to highlight personal observations. This approach reinforces the student’s ideas about the next step and helps develop his/her own academic voice ( 1 , 13 ). Voice recognition software ( 16 ), mind maps ( 5 ), flowcharts, tables, spreadsheets, personal comments on the referenced texts, and note-taking apps are all available tools for managing these observations, and the student him/herself should use the tool that best improves his/her learning. Additionally, when a student is considering submitting an LR to a peer-reviewed journal, notes should be taken on the activities performed in all five steps to ensure that they are able to be replicated.

Fourth step: Writing

The recognition of when a student is able and ready to write after a sufficient period of reading and thinking is likely a difficult task. Some students can produce a review in a single long work session. However, as discussed above, writing is not a linear process, and students do not need to write LRs according to a specific sequence of sections. Writing an LR is a time-consuming task, and some scholars believe that a period of at least six months is sufficient ( 6 ). An LR, and academic writing in general, expresses the writer’s proper thoughts, conclusions about others’ work ( 6 , 10 , 13 , 16 ), and decisions about methods to progress in the chosen field of knowledge. Thus, each student is expected to present a different learning and writing trajectory.

In this step, writing methods should be considered; then, editing, citing and correct referencing should complete this stage, at least temporarily. Freewriting techniques may be a good starting point for brainstorming ideas and improving the understanding of the information that has been read ( 1 ). Students should consider the following parameters when creating an agenda for writing the LR: two-hour writing blocks (at minimum), with prespecified tasks that are possible to complete in one section; short (minutes) and long breaks (days or weeks) to allow sufficient time for mental rest and reflection; and short- and long-term goals to motivate the writing itself ( 20 ). With increasing experience, this scheme can vary widely, and it is not a straightforward rule. Importantly, each discipline has a different way of writing ( 1 ), and each department has its own preferred styles for citations and references.

Fifth step: Reflecting on the writing

In this step, the postgraduate student should ask him/herself the same questions as in the analyzing the results step, which can take more time than anticipated. Ambiguities, repeated ideas, and a lack of coherence may not be noted when the student is immersed in the writing task for long periods. The whole effort will likely be a work in progress, and continuous refinements in the written material will occur once the writing process has begun.

LITERATURE REVIEW CHECKLIST

In contrast to review papers, the LR of a dissertation/thesis should not be a standalone piece or work. Instead, it should present the student as a scholar and should maintain the interest of the audience in how that dissertation/thesis will provide solutions for the current gaps in a particular field.

A checklist for evaluating an LR is convenient for students’ continuous academic development and research transparency: it clearly states the desired achievements for the LR of a dissertation/thesis. Here, we present an LR checklist developed from an LR scoring rubric ( 11 ). For a critical analysis of an LR, we maintain the five categories but offer twelve criteria that are not scaled ( Figure 3 ). The criteria all have the same importance and are not mutually exclusive.

First category: Coverage

1. justified criteria exist for the inclusion and exclusion of literature in the review.

This criterion builds on the main topic and areas covered by the LR ( 18 ). While experts may be confident in retrieving and selecting literature, postgraduate students must convince their audience about the adequacy of their search strategy and their reasons for intentionally selecting what material to cover ( 11 ). References from different fields of knowledge provide distinct perspective, but narrowing the scope of coverage may be important in areas with a large body of existing knowledge.

Second category: Synthesis

2. a critical examination of the state of the field exists.

A critical examination is an assessment of distinct aspects in the field ( 1 ) along with a constructive argument. It is not a negative critique but an expression of the student’s understanding of how other scholars have added to the topic ( 1 ), and the student should analyze and contextualize contradictory statements. A writer’s personal bias (beliefs or political involvement) have been shown to influence the structure and writing of a document; therefore, the cultural and paradigmatic background guide how the theories are revised and presented ( 13 ). However, an honest judgment is important when considering different perspectives.

3. The topic or problem is clearly placed in the context of the broader scholarly literature

The broader scholarly literature should be related to the chosen main topic for the LR ( how to develop the literature review section). The LR can cover the literature from one or more disciplines, depending on its scope, but it should always offer a new perspective. In addition, students should be careful in citing and referencing previous publications. As a rule, original studies and primary references should generally be included. Systematic and narrative reviews present summarized data, and it may be important to cite them, particularly for issues that should be understood but do not require a detailed description. Similarly, quotations highlight the exact statement from another publication. However, excessive referencing may disclose lower levels of analysis and synthesis by the student.

4. The LR is critically placed in the historical context of the field

Situating the LR in its historical context shows the level of comfort of the student in addressing a particular topic. Instead of only presenting statements and theories in a temporal approach, which occasionally follows a linear timeline, the LR should authentically characterize the student’s academic work in the state-of-art techniques in their particular field of knowledge. Thus, the LR should reinforce why the dissertation/thesis represents original work in the chosen research field.

5. Ambiguities in definitions are considered and resolved

Distinct theories on the same topic may exist in different disciplines, and one discipline may consider multiple concepts to explain one topic. These misunderstandings should be addressed and contemplated. The LR should not synthesize all theories or concepts at the same time. Although this approach might demonstrate in-depth reading on a particular topic, it can reveal a student’s inability to comprehend and synthesize his/her research problem.

6. Important variables and phenomena relevant to the topic are articulated

The LR is a unique opportunity to articulate ideas and arguments and to purpose new relationships between them ( 10 , 11 ). More importantly, a sound LR will outline to the audience how these important variables and phenomena will be addressed in the current academic work. Indeed, the LR should build a bidirectional link with the remaining sections and ground the connections between all of the sections ( Figure 1 ).

7. A synthesized new perspective on the literature has been established

The LR is a ‘creative inquiry’ ( 13 ) in which the student elaborates his/her own discourse, builds on previous knowledge in the field, and describes his/her own perspective while interpreting others’ work ( 13 , 17 ). Thus, students should articulate the current knowledge, not accept the results at face value ( 11 , 13 , 17 ), and improve their own cognitive abilities ( 12 ).

Third category: Methodology

8. the main methodologies and research techniques that have been used in the field are identified and their advantages and disadvantages are discussed.

The LR is expected to distinguish the research that has been completed from investigations that remain to be performed, address the benefits and limitations of the main methods applied to date, and consider the strategies for addressing the expected limitations described above. While placing his/her research within the methodological context of a particular topic, the LR will justify the methodology of the study and substantiate the student’s interpretations.

9. Ideas and theories in the field are related to research methodologies

The audience expects the writer to analyze and synthesize methodological approaches in the field. The findings should be explained according to the strengths and limitations of previous research methods, and students must avoid interpretations that are not supported by the analyzed literature. This criterion translates to the student’s comprehension of the applicability and types of answers provided by different research methodologies, even those using a quantitative or qualitative research approach.

Fourth category: Significance

10. the scholarly significance of the research problem is rationalized.

The LR is an introductory section of a dissertation/thesis and will present the postgraduate student as a scholar in a particular field ( 11 ). Therefore, the LR should discuss how the research problem is currently addressed in the discipline being investigated or in different disciplines, depending on the scope of the LR. The LR explains the academic paradigms in the topic of interest ( 13 ) and methods to advance the field from these starting points. However, an excess number of personal citations—whether referencing the student’s research or studies by his/her research team—may reflect a narrow literature search and a lack of comprehensive synthesis of ideas and arguments.

11. The practical significance of the research problem is rationalized

The practical significance indicates a student’s comprehensive understanding of research terminology (e.g., risk versus associated factor), methodology (e.g., efficacy versus effectiveness) and plausible interpretations in the context of the field. Notably, the academic argument about a topic may not always reflect the debate in real life terms. For example, using a quantitative approach in epidemiology, statistically significant differences between groups do not explain all of the factors involved in a particular problem ( 21 ). Therefore, excessive faith in p -values may reflect lower levels of critical evaluation of the context and implications of a research problem by the student.

Fifth category: Rhetoric

12. the lr was written with a coherent, clear structure that supported the review.

This category strictly relates to the language domain: the text should be coherent and presented in a logical sequence, regardless of which organizational ( 18 ) approach is chosen. The beginning of each section/subsection should state what themes will be addressed, paragraphs should be carefully linked to each other ( 10 ), and the first sentence of each paragraph should generally summarize the content. Additionally, the student’s statements are clear, sound, and linked to other scholars’ works, and precise and concise language that follows standardized writing conventions (e.g., in terms of active/passive voice and verb tenses) is used. Attention to grammar, such as orthography and punctuation, indicates prudence and supports a robust dissertation/thesis. Ultimately, all of these strategies provide fluency and consistency for the text.

Although the scoring rubric was initially proposed for postgraduate programs in education research, we are convinced that this checklist is a valuable tool for all academic areas. It enables the monitoring of students’ learning curves and a concentrated effort on any criteria that are not yet achieved. For institutions, the checklist is a guide to support supervisors’ feedback, improve students’ writing skills, and highlight the learning goals of each program. These criteria do not form a linear sequence, but ideally, all twelve achievements should be perceived in the LR.

CONCLUSIONS

A single correct method to classify, evaluate and guide the elaboration of an LR has not been established. In this essay, we have suggested directions for planning, structuring and critically evaluating an LR. The planning of the scope of an LR and approaches to complete it is a valuable effort, and the five steps represent a rational starting point. An institutional environment devoted to active learning will support students in continuously reflecting on LRs, which will form a dialogue between the writer and the current literature in a particular field ( 13 ).

The completion of an LR is a challenging and necessary process for understanding one’s own field of expertise. Knowledge is always transitory, but our responsibility as scholars is to provide a critical contribution to our field, allowing others to think through our work. Good researchers are grounded in sophisticated LRs, which reveal a writer’s training and long-lasting academic skills. We recommend using the LR checklist as a tool for strengthening the skills necessary for critical academic writing.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Leite DFB has initially conceived the idea and has written the first draft of this review. Padilha MAS and Cecatti JG have supervised data interpretation and critically reviewed the manuscript. All authors have read the draft and agreed with this submission. Authors are responsible for all aspects of this academic piece.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful to all of the professors of the ‘Getting Started with Graduate Research and Generic Skills’ module at University College Cork, Cork, Ireland, for suggesting and supporting this article. Funding: DFBL has granted scholarship from Brazilian Federal Agency for Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education (CAPES) to take part of her Ph.D. studies in Ireland (process number 88881.134512/2016-01). There is no participation from sponsors on authors’ decision to write or to submit this manuscript.

No potential conflict of interest was reported.

1 The questions posed in systematic reviews usually follow the ‘PICOS’ acronym: Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, Study design.

2 In 1988, Cooper proposed a taxonomy that aims to facilitate students’ and institutions’ understanding of literature reviews. Six characteristics with specific categories are briefly described: Focus: research outcomes, research methodologies, theories, or practices and applications; Goals: integration (generalization, conflict resolution, and linguistic bridge-building), criticism, or identification of central issues; Perspective: neutral representation or espousal of a position; Coverage: exhaustive, exhaustive with selective citations, representative, central or pivotal; Organization: historical, conceptual, or methodological; and Audience: specialized scholars, general scholars, practitioners or policymakers, or the general public.

Literature Reviews

• What is a Literature Review?
• Steps for Creating a Literature Review
• Providing Evidence / Critical Analysis
• Challenges when writing a Literature Review
• Systematic Literature Reviews

Developing a Literature Review

1. Purpose and Scope

To help you develop a literature review, gather information on existing research, sub-topics, relevant research, and overlaps. Note initial thoughts on the topic - a mind map or list might be helpful - and avoid unfocused reading, collecting irrelevant content.  A literature review serves to place your research within the context of existing knowledge. It demonstrates your understanding of the field and identifies gaps that your research aims to fill. This helps in justifying the relevance and necessity of your study.

To avoid over-reading, set a target word count for each section and limit reading time. Plan backwards from the deadline and move on to other parts of the investigation. Read major texts and explore up-to-date research. Check reference lists and citation indexes for common standard texts. Be guided by research questions and refocus on your topic when needed. Stop reading if you find similar viewpoints or if you're going off topic.

You can use a "Synthesis Matrix" to keep track of your reading notes. This concept map helps you to provide a summary of the literature and its connections is produced as a result of this study. Utilizing referencing software like RefWorks to obtain citations, you can construct the framework for composing your literature evaluation.

2. Source Selection

Focus on searching for academically authoritative texts such as academic books, journals, research reports, and government publications. These sources are critical for ensuring the credibility and reliability of your review. 

• Academic Books: Provide comprehensive coverage of a topic.
• Journal Articles: Offer the most up-to-date research and are essential for a literature review.
• Research Reports: Detailed accounts of specific research projects.
• Government Publications: Official documents that provide reliable data and insights.

3. Thematic Analysis

Instead of merely summarizing sources, identify and discuss key themes that emerge from the literature. This involves interpreting and evaluating how different authors have tackled similar issues and how their findings relate to your research.

4. Critical Evaluation

Adopt a critical attitude towards the sources you review. Scrutinize, question, and dissect the material to ensure that your review is not just descriptive but analytical. This helps in highlighting the significance of various sources and their relevance to your research.

Each work's critical assessment should take into account:

Provenance:  What qualifications does the author have? Are the author's claims backed up by proof, such as first-hand accounts from history, case studies, stories, statistics, and current scientific discoveries? Methodology:  Were the strategies employed to locate, collect, and evaluate the data suitable for tackling the study question? Was the sample size suitable? Were the findings properly reported and interpreted? Objectivity : Is the author's viewpoint impartial or biased? Does the author's thesis get supported by evidence that refutes it, or does it ignore certain important facts? Persuasiveness:  Which of the author's arguments is the strongest or weakest in terms of persuasiveness? Value:  Are the author's claims and deductions believable? Does the study ultimately advance our understanding of the issue in any meaningful way?

5. Categorization

Organize your literature review by grouping sources into categories based on themes, relevance to research questions, theoretical paradigms, or chronology. This helps in presenting your findings in a structured manner.

6. Source Validity

Ensure that the sources you include are valid and reliable. Classic texts may retain their authority over time, but for fields that evolve rapidly, prioritize the most recent research. Always check the credibility of the authors and the impact of their work in the field.

7. Synthesis and Findings

Synthesize the information from various sources to draw conclusions about the current state of knowledge. Identify trends, controversies, and gaps in the literature. Relate your findings to your research questions and suggest future directions for research.

Practical Tips

• Use a variety of sources, including online databases, university libraries, and reference lists from relevant articles. This ensures a comprehensive coverage of the literature.
• Avoid listing sources without analysis. Use tables, bulk citations, and footnotes to manage references efficiently and make your review more readable.
• Writing a literature review is an ongoing process. Start writing early and revise as you read more. This iterative process helps in refining your arguments and identifying additional sources as needed.  

Brown University Library (2024) Organizing and Creating Information. Available at: https://libguides.brown.edu/organize/litreview (Accessed: 30 July 2024).

Pacheco-Vega, R. (2016) Synthesizing different bodies of work in your literature review: The Conceptual Synthesis Excel Dump (CSED) technique . Available at: http://www.raulpacheco.org/2016/06/synthesizing-different-bodies-of-work-in-your-literature-review-the-conceptual-synthesis-excel-dump-technique/ (Accessed: 30 July 2024).

Study Advice at the University of Reading (2024) Literature reviews . Available at: https://libguides.reading.ac.uk/literaturereview/developing (Accessed: 31 July 2024).

Further Reading

Frameworks for creating answerable (re)search questions  How to Guide

Literature Searching How to Guide

• << Previous: Steps for Creating a Literature Review
• Next: Providing Evidence / Critical Analysis >>
• Last Updated: Sep 4, 2024 11:43 AM
• URL: https://library.lsbu.ac.uk/literaturereviews

• 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: Aug 26, 2024 5:59 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

Literature Review Guide

The literature review, database search tips.

• Back to Research Help
• What is a Literature Review?
• Plan Your Literature Review
• Identify a Research Gap
• Define Your Research Question
• Search the Literature
• Analyze Your Research Results
• Manage Research Results
• Write the Literature Review

What is a Literature Review?  What is its purpose?

The purpose of a literature review is to offer a  comprehensive review of scholarly literature on a specific topic along with an  evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of authors' arguments . In other words, you are summarizing research available on a certain topic and then drawing conclusions about researchers' findings. To make gathering research easier, be sure to start with a narrow/specific topic and then widen your topic if necessary.

A thorough literature review provides an accurate description of current knowledge on a topic and identifies areas for future research.  Are there gaps or areas that require further study and exploration? What opportunities are there for further research? What is missing from my collection of resources? Are more resources needed?

It is important to note that conclusions described in the literature you gather may contradict each other completely or in part.  Recognize that knowledge creation is collective and cumulative.  Current research is built upon past research findings and discoveries.  Research may bring previously accepted conclusions into question.  A literature review presents current knowledge on a topic and may point out various academic arguments within the discipline.

What a Literature Review is not

• A literature review is not an annotated bibliography .  An annotated bibliography provides a brief summary, analysis, and reflection of resources included in the bibliography.  Often it is not a systematic review of existing research on a specific subject.  That said, creating an annotated bibliography throughout your research process may be helpful in managing the resources discovered through your research.
• A literature review is not a research paper .  A research paper explores a topic and uses resources discovered through the research process to support a position on the topic.  In other words, research papers present one side of an issue.  A literature review explores all sides of the research topic and evaluates all positions and conclusions achieved through the scientific research process even though some conclusions may conflict partially or completely.

From the Online Library

SAGE Research Methods is a web-based research methods tool that covers quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods. Researchers can explore methods and concepts to help design research projects, understand a particular method or identify a new method, and write up research. Sage Research Methods focuses on methodology rather than disciplines, and is of potential use to researchers from the social sciences, health sciences and other research areas.

• Sage Research Methods Project Planner - Reviewing the Literature View the resources and videos for a step-by-step guide to performing a literature review.

The Literature Review: Step by Step

Follow this step-by-step process by using the related tabs in this Guide.

• Define your Research question
• Analyze the material you’ve found
• Manage the results of your research
• Write your Review

Getting Started

Consider the following questions as you develop your research topic, conduct your research, and begin evaluating the resources discovered in the research process:

• What is known about the subject?
• Are there any gaps in the knowledge of the subject?
• Have areas of further study been identified by other researchers that you may want to consider?
• Who are the significant research personalities in this area?
• Is there consensus about the topic?
• What aspects have generated significant debate on the topic?
• What methods or problems were identified by others studying in the field and how might they impact your research?
• What is the most productive methodology for your research based on the literature you have reviewed?
• What is the current status of research in this area?
• What sources of information or data were identified that might be useful to you?
• How detailed? Will it be a review of ALL relevant material or will the scope be limited to more recent material, e.g., the last five years.
• Are you focusing on methodological approaches; on theoretical issues; on qualitative or quantitative research?

What is Academic Literature?

What is the difference between popular and scholarly literature?

To better understand the differences between popular and scholarly articles, comparing characteristics and purpose of the publications where these articles appear is helpful.

Popular Article (Magazine)

• Articles are shorter and are written for the general public
• General interest topics or current events are covered
• Language is simple and easy to understand
• Source material is not cited
• Articles often include glossy photographs, graphics, or visuals
• Articles are written by the publication's staff of journalists
• Articles are edited and information is fact checked

Examples of magazines that contain popular articles:

Scholarly Article (Academic Journal)

• Articles are written by scholars and researchers for academics, professionals, and experts in the field
• Articles are longer and report original research findings
• Topics are narrower in focus and provide in-depth analysis
• Technical or scholarly language is used
• Source material is cited
• Charts and graphs illustrating research findings are included
• Many are  "peer reviewed"  meaning that panels of experts review articles submitted for publication to ensure that proper research methods were used and research findings are contributing something new to the field before selecting for publication.

Examples of academic journals that contain scholarly articles:

Define your research question

Selecting a research topic can be overwhelming.  Consider following these steps:

1.  Brainstorm  research topic ideas

      - Free write: Set a timer for five minutes and write down as many ideas as you can in the allotted time

      -  Mind-Map  to explore how ideas are related

2.  Prioritize  topics based on personal interest and curiosity

3.  Pre-research

      - Explore encyclopedias and reference books for background information on the topic

      - Perform a quick database or Google search on the topic to explore current issues. 

4.  Focus the topic  by evaluating how much information is available on the topic

         - Too much information?  Consider narrowing the topic by focusing on a specific issue 

         - Too little information?  Consider broadening the topic 

5.  Determine your purpose  by considering whether your research is attempting to:

         - further the research on this topic

         - fill a gap in the research

         - support existing knowledge with new evidence

         - take a new approach or direction

         - question or challenge existing knowledge

6.  Finalize your research question

NOTE:  Be aware that your initial research question may change as you conduct research on your topic.

Searching the Literature

Research on your topic should be conducted in the academic literature.  The  Rasmussen University Online Library contains subject-focused databases that contain the leading academic journals in your programmatic area.

Consult the  Using the Online Library video tutorials  for information about how to effectively search library databases.

Watch the video below for tips on how to create a search statement that will provide relevant results

Need help starting your research?  Make a  research appointment with a Rasmussen Librarian .

TIP:  Document as you research.  Begin building your references list using the citation managers in one of these resources:

• APA Academic Writer
• NoodleTools

Recommended programmatic databases include:

Data Science

Coverage includes computer engineering, computer theory & systems, research and development, and the social and professional implications of new technologies. Articles come from more than 1,900 academic journals, trade magazines, and professional publications.

Provides access to full-text peer-reviewed journals, transactions, magazines, conference proceedings, and published standards in the areas of electrical engineering, computer science, and electronics. It also provides access to the IEEE Standards Dictionary Online. Full-text available.

Computing, telecommunications, art, science and design databases from ProQuest.

Healthcare Management

Articles from scholarly business journals back as far as 1886 with content from all disciplines of business, including marketing, management, accounting, management information systems, production and operations management, finance, and economics. Contains 55 videos from the Harvard Faculty Seminar Series, on topics such as leadership, sustaining competitive advantage, and globalization. To access the videos, click "More" in the blue bar at the top. Select "Images/ Business Videos." Uncheck "Image Quick View Collection" to indicate you only wish to search for videos. Enter search terms.

Provides a truly comprehensive business research collection. The collection consists of the following databases and more: ABI/INFORM Complete, ProQuest Entrepreneurship, ProQuest Accounting & Tax, International Bibliography of Social Sciences (IBSS), ProQuest Asian Business and Reference, and Banking Information Source.

The definitive research tool for all areas of nursing and allied health literature. Geared towards the needs of nurses and medical professionals. Covers more than 750 journals from 1937 to present.

HPRC provides information on the creation, implementation and study of health care policy and the health care system. Topics covered include health care administration, economics, planning, law, quality control, ethics, and more.

PolicyMap is an online mapping site that provides data on demographics, real estate, health, jobs, and other areas across the U.S. Access and visualize data from Census and third-party records.

Human Resources

Articles from all subject areas gathered from more than 11,000 magazines, journals, books and reports. Subjects include astronomy, multicultural studies, humanities, geography, history, law, pharmaceutical sciences, women's studies, and more. Coverage from 1887 to present. Start your research here.

Cochrane gathers and summarizes the best evidence from research to help you make informed choices about treatments. Whether a doctor or nurse, patient, researcher or student, Cochrane evidence provides a tool to enhance your healthcare knowledge and decision making on topics ranging from allergies, blood disorders, and cancer, to mental health, pregnancy, urology, and wounds.

Health sciences, biology, science, and pharmaceutical information from ProQuest. Includes articles from scholarly, peer-reviewed journals, practical and professional development content from professional journals, and general interest articles from magazines and newspapers.

Joanna Briggs Institute Academic Collection contains evidence-based information from across the globe, including evidence summaries, systematic reviews, best practice guidelines, and more. Subjects include medical, nursing, and healthcare specialties.

Comprehensive source of full-text articles from more than 1,450 scholarly medical journals.

Articles from more than 35 nursing journals in full text, searchable as far back as 1995.

Analyzing Your Research Results

You have completed your research and discovered many, many academic articles on your topic.  The next step involves evaluating and organizing the literature found in the research process.

As you review, keep in mind that there are three types of research studies:

• Quantitative
• Qualitative 
• Mixed Methods

Consider these questions as you review the articles you have gathered through the research process:

1. Does the study relate to your topic?

2. Were sound research methods used in conducting the study?

3. Does the research design fit the research question? What variables were chosen? Was the sample size adequate?

4. What conclusions were drawn?  Do the authors point out areas for further research?

Reading Academic Literature

Academic journals publish the results of research studies performed by experts in an academic discipline.  Articles selected for publication go through a rigorous peer-review process.  This process includes a thorough evaluation of the research submitted for publication by journal editors and other experts or peers in the field.  Editors select articles based on specific criteria including the research methods used, whether the research contributes new findings to the field of study, and how the research fits within the scope of the academic journal.  Articles selected often go through a revision process prior to publication.

Most academic journal articles include the following sections:

• Abstract    (An executive summary of the study)
• Introduction  (Definition of the research question to be studied)
• Literature Review  (A summary of past research noting where gaps exist)
• Methods  (The research design including variables, sample size, measurements)
• Data   (Information gathered through the study often displayed in tables and charts)
• Results   (Conclusions reached at the end of the study)
• Conclusion   (Discussion of whether the study proved the thesis; may suggest opportunities for further research)
• Bibliography  (A list of works cited in the journal article)

TIP:  To begin selecting articles for your research, read the   highlighted sections   to determine whether the academic journal article includes information relevant to your research topic.

Step 1: Skim the article

When sorting through multiple articles discovered in the research process, skimming through these sections of the article will help you determine whether the article will be useful in your research.

1.  Article title   and subject headings assigned to the article

2.   Abstract

3.   Introduction

4.  Conclusion

If the article fits your information need, go back and  read the article thoroughly.

TIP:  Create a folder on your computer to save copies of articles you plan to use in your thesis or research project.  Use  NoodleTools  or  APA Academic Writer  to save APA references.

Step 2: Determine Your Purpose

Think about how you will evaluate the academic articles you find and how you will determine whether to include them in your research project.  Ask yourself the following questions to focus your search in the academic literature:

• ​Are you looking for an overview of a topic? an explanation of a specific concept, idea, or position?
• Are you exploring gaps in the research to identify a new area for academic study?
• Are you looking for research that supports or disagrees with your thesis or research question?
• Are you looking for examples of a research design and/or research methods you are considering for your own research project?

Step 3: Read Critically

Before reading the article, ask yourself the following:

• What is my research question?  What position am I trying to support?
• What do I already know about this topic?  What do I need to learn?
• How will I evaluate the article?  Author's reputation? Research design? Treatment of topic? 
• What are my biases about the topic?

As you read the article make note of the following:

• Who is the intended audience for this article?
• What is the author's purpose in writing this article?
• What is the main point?
• How was the main point proven or supported?  
• Were scientific methods used in conducting the research?
• Do you agree or disagree with the author? Why?
• How does this article compare or connect with other articles on the topic?
• Does the author recommend areas for further study?
• How does this article help to answer your research question?

Managing your Research

Tip:  Create APA references for resources as you discover them in the research process

Use APA Academic Writer or NoodleTools to generate citations and manage your resources.  Find information on how to use these resources in the Citation Tools Guide .

Writing the Literature Review

Once research has been completed, it is time to structure the literature review and begin summarizing and synthesizing information.  The following steps may help with this process:

• Chronological
• By research method used
• Explore contradictory or conflicting conclusions
• Read each study critically
• Critique methodology, processes, and conclusions
• Consider how the study relates to your topic

• Description of public health nursing nutrition assessment and interventions for home‐visited women. This article provides a nice review of the literature in the article introduction. You can see how the authors have used the existing literature to make a case for their research questions. more... less... Horning, M. L., Olsen, J. M., Lell, S., Thorson, D. R., & Monsen, K. A. (2018). Description of public health nursing nutrition assessment and interventions for home‐visited women. Public Health Nursing, 35(4), 317–326. https://doi.org/10.1111/phn.12410
• Improving Diabetes Self-Efficacy in the Hispanic Population Through Self-Management Education Doctoral papers are a good place to see how literature reviews can be done. You can learn where they searched, what search terms they used, and how they decided which articles were included. Notice how the literature review is organized around the three main themes that came out of the literature search. more... less... Robles, A. N. (2023). Improving diabetes self-efficacy in the hispanic population through self-management education (Order No. 30635901). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global: The Sciences and Engineering Collection. https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/improving-diabetes-self-efficacy-hispanic/docview/2853708553/se-2
• Exploring mediating effects between nursing leadership and patient safety from a person-centred perspective: A literature review Reading articles that publish the results of a systematic literature review is a great way to see in detail how a literature review is conducted. These articles provide an article matrix, which provides you an example of how you can document information about the articles you find in your own search. To see more examples, include "literature review" or "systematic review" as a search term. more... less... Wang, M., & Dewing, J. (2021). Exploring mediating effects between nursing leadership and patient safety from a person‐centred perspective: A literature review. Journal of Nursing Management, 29(5), 878–889. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.13226
• Boolean Operators
• Keywords vs. Subjects
• Creating a Search String
• Library databases are collections of resources that are searchable, including full-text articles, books, and encyclopedias.
• Searching library databases is different than searching Google. Best results are achieved when using Keywords linked with Boolean Operators . 
• Applying Limiters such as full-text, publication date, resource type, language, geographic location, and subject help to refine search results.
• Utilizing Phrases or Fields , in addition to an awareness of Stop Words , can focus your search and retrieve more useful results.
• Have questions? Ask a Librarian

Boolean Operators connect keywords or concepts logically to retrieve relevant articles, books, and other resources.  There are three Boolean Operators:

Using AND 

• Narrows search results
• Connects two or more keywords/concepts
• All keywords/concepts connected with "and" must be in an article or resource to appear in the search results list

Venn diagram of the AND connector

Example: The result list will include resources that include both keywords -- "distracted driving" and "texting" -- in the same article or resource, represented in the shaded area where the circles intersect (area shaded in purple).

• Broadens search results ("OR means more!")
• Connects two or more synonyms or related keywords/concepts
• Resources appearing in the results list will include any of the terms connected with the OR connector

Venn diagram of the OR connector

Example:  The result list will include resources that include the keyword "texting" OR the keyword "cell phone" (entire area shaded in blue); either is acceptable.

• Excludes keywords or concepts from the search
• Narrows results by removing resources that contain the keyword or term connected with the NOT connector
• Use sparingly

Venn diagram of the NOT connector

Example: The result list will include all resources that include the term "car" (green area) but will exclude any resource that includes the term "motorcycle" (purple area) even though the term car may be present in the resource.

A library database searches for keywords throughout the entire resource record including the full-text of the resource, subject headings, tags, bibliographic information, etc.

• Natural language words or short phrases that describe a concept or idea
• Can retrieve too few or irrelevant results due to full-text searching (What words would an author use to write about this topic?)
• Provide flexibility in a search
• Must consider synonyms or related terms to improve search results
• TIP: Build a Keyword List

Example:  The keyword list above was developed to find resources that discuss how texting while driving results in accidents.  Notice that there are synonyms (texting and "text messaging"), related terms ("cell phones" and texting), and spelling variations ("cell phone" and cellphone).  Using keywords when searching full text requires consideration of various words that express an idea or concept.

• Subject Headings
• Predetermined "controlled vocabulary" database editors apply to resources to describe topical coverage of content
• Can retrieve more precise search results because every article assigned that subject heading will be retrieved.
• Provide less flexibility in a search
• Can be combined with a keyword search to focus search results.
• TIP: Consult database subject heading list or subject headings assigned to relevant resources

Example 1: In EBSCO's Academic Search Complete, clicking on the "Subject Terms" tab provides access to the entire subject heading list used in the database.  It also allows a search for specific subject terms.

Example 2:  A subject term can be incorporated into a keyword search by clicking on the down arrow next to "Select a Field" and selecting "Subject Terms" from the dropdown list.  Also, notice how subject headings are listed below the resource title, providing another strategy for discovering subject headings used in the database.

When a search term is more than one word, enclose the phrase in quotation marks to retrieve more precise and accurate results.  Using quotation marks around a term will search it as a "chunk," searching for those particular words together in that order within the text of a resource. 

"cell phone"

"distracted driving"

"car accident"

TIP: In some databases, neglecting to enclose phrases in quotation marks will insert the AND Boolean connector between each word resulting in unintended search results.

Truncation provides an option to search for a root of a keyword in order to retrieve resources that include variations of that word.  This feature can be used to broaden search results, although some results may not be relevant.  To truncate a keyword, type an asterisk (*) following the root of the word.

For example:

Library databases provide a variety of tools to limit and refine search results.  Limiters provide the ability to limit search results to resources having specified characteristics including:

• Resource type
• Publication date
• Geographic location

In both the EBSCO and ProQuest databases, the limiting tools are located in the left panel of the results page.

                                                 EBSCO                                                     ProQuest

The short video below provides a demonstration of how to use limiters to refine a list of search results.

Each resource in a library database is stored in a record.  In addition to the full-text of the resources, searchable Fields are attached that typically include:

• Journal title
• Date of Publication

Incorporating Fields into your search can assist in focusing and refining search results by limiting the results to those resources that include specific information in a particular field.

In both EBSCO and ProQuest databases, selecting the Advanced Search option will allow Fields to be included in a search.

For example, in the Advanced Search option in EBSCO's Academic Search Complete database, clicking on the down arrow next to "Select a Field" provides a list of fields that can be searched within that database.  Select the field and enter the information in the text box to the left to use this feature.

Stop words are short, commonly used words--articles, prepositions, and pronouns-- that are automatically dropped from a search.  Typical stop words include:

In library databases, a stop word will not be searched even if it is included in a phrase enclosed in quotation marks.  In some instances, a word will be substituted for the stop word to allow for the other words in the phrase to be searched in proximity to one another within the text of the resource.

For example, if you searched company of America, your result list will include these variatons:

• company in America
• company of America
• company for America

Creating an Search String

This short video demonstrates how to create a search string -- keywords connected with Boolean operators -- to use in a library database search to retrieve relevant resources for any research assignment.

• Database Search Menu Template Use this search menu template to plan a database search.
• Next: Back to Research Help >>
• Last Updated: Jun 14, 2024 10:44 AM
• URL: https://guides.rasmussen.edu/LitReview

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 04 September 2024

Biopsy strategies in the era of mpMRI: a comprehensive review

• Olivier Windisch   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8963-5445 1 , 2 ,
• Massimo Valerio 1 , 2 ,
• Chi-Hang Yee   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6557-3107 3 ,
• Paolo Gontero 4 ,
• Baris Bakir   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6587-9787 5 ,
• Christof Kastner 6 ,
• Hashim U. Ahmed   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1674-6723 7 , 8 ,
• Cosimo De Nunzio   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2190-512X 9 &
• Jean de la Rosette   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6308-1763 10  

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

• Cancer screening
• Prostate cancer

Since its initial description the prostate biopsy technique for detection of prostate cancer (PCA) has constantly evolved. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has been proven to have a sensitivity exceeding 90% to detect the index lesion. This narrative review discusses the evidence around several biopsy strategies, especially in the context of patients that might be eligible for focal therapy.

A non-systematic literature research was performed on February 15th 2024 using the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (Medline), Web of Science and Google Scholar.

The transrectal (TR) route is associated with an increased postoperative sepsis rate, even with adequate antibiotic prophylaxis. The transperineal (TP) route is now recommended by international guidelines, firstly for its decreased rate of urosepsis. Recent evidence shows a non-inferiority of TP compared to TR route, and even a higher detection rate of clinically significant PCA (csPCA) in the anterior and apical region, that are usually difficult to target using the TR route. Several targeting techniques (cognitive, software-fusion or in-bore) enhance our ability to provide an accurate risk assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness and burden, while reducing the number of cores and reducing the number of clinically insignificant prostate cancer (ciPCA). While MRI-TB have proven their role, the role of systematic biopsies (SB) is still important because it detects 5–16% of csPCA that would have been missed by MRI-TB alone. The strategies of SB depend mainly on the route used (TR vs. TP) and the number of cores to be collected (10–12 cores vs. saturation biopsies vs. trans-perineal template mapping-biopsies or Ginsburg Protocol vs. regional biopsies).

Several biopsy strategies have been described and should be known when assessing patients for focal therapy. Because MRI systematically under evaluates the lesion size, systematic biopsies, and especially perilesional biopsies, can help to increase sensitivity at the cost of an increased number of cores.

Similar content being viewed by others

Transperineal magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy versus transrectal route in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy techniques compared to transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy of the prostate: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: a scoping review on the benefits and harm of mpMRI in different biopsy scenarios

Introduction.

Since its first description in the early 1920s, by transperineal open surgery, prostate biopsy techniques have evolved fast towards less invasive, less morbid, and more accurate sampling. The first description of the transrectal approach using the sextant transrectal biopsy with ultrasound guidance was reported by Hodge in 1989 [ 1 ]. After this first description, the 10–12 cores became the standard method because of the acceptable balance of increased detection rate and acceptable side-effect rate compared to high core numbers [ 2 ]. The prostate biopsy evolution timeline is displayed in Fig.  1 . A randomized-controlled trial (RCT) published in 1990 initially showed no benefit of prostate MRI over transrectal ultrasound, both modalities significantly underestimating prostate cancer risk, limiting at that moment its adoption. Since then, prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) gained significant attention after reports showing improved cancer detection. A 30-fold increase in the use of mpMRI before biopsy was observed in the US from 2009 to 2015 (from 0.2% to 6.5%) even before formal recommendation was formulated [ 3 ]. Since then, growing evidence supports the routine use of mpMRI; the PROMIS trial showed a sensitivity to detect clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCA) exceeding 90%, while the PRECISION trial showed the ability of mpMRI targeted biopsy (MRI-TB) to increase the detection of csPCA while decreasing the detection of clinically insignificant prostate cancer (ciPCA) and at the same time avoiding the need for biopsies in 28% of the patients [ 4 , 5 ]. The European Association of Urology (EAU) recommends mpMRI as an upfront tool to guide biopsies in biopsy-naïve patients and for patients with previous negative systematic biopsies with persistent cancer suspicion [ 6 ].

Figure 1 provides a timeline of the different biopsy techniques described in the procedure. Name in parenthesis correspond to the first author of the technique first description [ 1 , 49 , 51 , 52 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 ].

The advance of mpMRI has changed the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway. Prior to MR-imaging, the debate around prostate biopsy concerned density and location. The 10–12 cores transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy became the pragmatic response to sample the area of the prostate more likely to harbor PCA, namely the peripheral zone, in a systematic fashion from the base to the apex. A prostate MRI prior to biopsy offers clinicians an imaging phenotype which prompts different questions to be addressed. First, after the identification of a MR-visible lesion, the need for a precise targeting is required to realize targeted biopsies (TB). The distribution and density of targeted biopsies in and around a lesion are still matters of debate, which are particularly important in the context of focal therapy. Second, the value of additional systematic biopsy as well as the intensity and the route of sampling are key questions to be answered.

This manuscript aims to provide a comprehensive review of the most commonly used biopsy strategies reported in literature. While some are now considered obsolete by many, they will be included to provide a wide overview and to better assess the comparative diagnostic performance against technological evolutions. The manuscript will first focus on targeted biopsies, perilesional biopsies and the several types of guidance that the MRI information offers (cognitive, TRUS-MRI fusion or MRI in-bore), then discuss the role of systematic biopsies and combined biopsies. Safety aspects will be then discussed. The performance of these strategies in adequately identifying patients for FT concludes the discussion. Pros and conns of each technique are summarized in Table  1 .

mpMRI targeted biopsies

Key concepts.

The European Association of Urology (EAU) and the American Urology Association (AUA) both integrate the use of mpMRI in their diagnostic pathway. The EAU 2024 update recommends the use of MRI-TB and perilesional prostate biopsy for patients presenting a positive mpMRI [ 7 ]. The AUA considers mpMRI as an optional exam before initial prostate biopsy, and if positive, recommend targeted biopsies (at least 2 cores) ± systematic biopsies [ 8 ].

The PI-RADS latest version (2.1) was published in 2019 to standardize image acquisition and quality to increase and spread diagnostic performance beyond reference centers [ 9 ]. The PI-QUAL score has been described as a tool to help assess mpMRI quality underlining the need for good quality images [ 10 , 11 ]. Current guidelines recommend MRI-TB in the presence of equivocal or more suspicious lesions (PI-RADS ≥ 3), defined as a positive mpMRI. Because of the relatively low proportion of csPCA in the PI-RADS 3 (around 12%), current recommendation suggest using PSA-density cut-offs to decide whether to biopsy or not [ 12 ]. This is a more recent practice since most studies reported in this manuscript regarding MRI-TB usually considered PI-RADS3 as a positive mpMRI and prompted subsequent MRI-TB.

mpMRI has a 92% sensitivity to identify the index lesion, also called region of interest (ROI). The index lesion has been defined as the largest, highest grade or lesion with extraprostatic extension (EPE). The index lesion is thought to be the lesion containing the most aggressive cancer cells, and therefore the clone with metastasis potential. Treating this lesion in patients in whom it can be identified is therefore the aim of focal therapy [ 13 , 14 ]. While mpMRI is a central tool in the MRI-TB pathway, it tends to underestimate the actual burden of prostate cancer, as well as its borders, that are usually irregular and not as circumscribed as the mpMRI lesion [ 15 , 16 ].

Fusion biopsies : techniques, accuracy and comparison

The benefits of MRI-based diagnostics heavily depend on image quality and reading quality [ 17 , 18 ]. The region of interest (ROI) on MRI has to be identified and marked by the specialist reader and then be transferred onto the live prostate during the biopsy. The ROI information can be used with cognitive transfer, software-driven US-MRI fusion and in-bore targeting. Cognitive targeted biopsy (COG-TB) describes a term where the operator uses his brain only to register MRI-derived targets to a transrectal ultrasound. No additional equipment to standard transrectal ultrasound is required, hence it is the easiest form with no cost implication of fusion [ 19 ]. However, it inevitably carries a risk of operator-dependent transfer error. MRI-US fusion targeted biopsy (FUS-TB) consists of a fusion of previously acquired mpMRI images with pre-marked ROI with real-time TRUS imaging, allowing for a potentially more precise targeting. Several platforms have been successfully developed, with no clear superior diagnostic ability reported of one over the others [ 20 ]. In-bore MRI targeted biopsy (IB-TB) implies to proceed to the biopsy directly in the bore of an MRI scanner, requiring specific compatible equipment. It usually requires the previous acquisition of mpMRI images to identify lesions, and a reacquisition at the moment of biopsy. Usually, a sedation or general anesthesia is performed, while only targeted-biopsies are acquired because of the lengthy time and difficulty to perform systematic biopsies at the same time [ 21 ].

When comparing the three different techniques of targeting techniques in a systematic review, Wegelin et al. could show no difference in 2019 between FUS-TB and COG-TB (sensitivity of 81% vs. 72%, p  = 0.11), while IB-TB significantly outperformed COG-TB (sensitivity 89% vs. 72%, p  = 0.02) for PCA detection. For csPCA, COG-TB had an 86% sensitivity similar to FUS-TB (89%, p  = 0.62) and MRI-TB (92%, p  = 0.42). In this meta-analysis encompassing records utill 2015, 43 studies were included, 39.5% (17/43) using FUS-TB, 25.6% (11/43) using IB-TB, and 25.6% (11/43) using COG-TB. In 2022, Bass et al. reported an updated systematic review and showed that FUS-TB was the most represented technique (76.7%; 33/43 studies) while COG-TB (18.6%; 8/43) came second and IB-TB came last (4.6%; 2/43), possibly suggesting a decreased used of IB-TB with the larger implantation of FUS-TB [ 22 ]. This meta-analysis confirmed similar sensitivities of IB-TB (87%), COG-TB (81%) and FUS-TB (81%) for the detection of csPCA ( p  = 0.55), as well as similar ciPCA yield of IB-TB (10%), COG-TB (5%) and FUS-TB (8%, p  = 0.46). Wegelin et al. afterwards reported the results of the FUTURE trial, a multicenter randomized control trial that confirmed the absence of difference regarding csPCA between the different MRI-TB techniques. They however stated as an important limitation the lack of power of the study, that would have required the inclusion of 9886 additional patients [ 23 ].

When comparing MRI-TB to transrectal ultrasound guided systematic biopsy (TRUS-SB), both meta-analyses agreed ; Wegelin reported an increased detection of csPCA using MRI-TB (RR : 1.16) corresponding to an MRI-TB sensitivity of 90% compared to TRUS-SB sensitivity of 79%, as well as a decreased detection of ciPCA (RR = 0.47). Bass confirmed these findings, with an increased detection of csPCA seen with MRI-TB (RR : 1.24, p  = 0.02) compared to TRUS-SB corresponding to an MRI-TB sensitivity of 83% compared to TRUS sensitivity of 63%, as well as a decreased detection of ciPCA (RR = 0.58, p  < 0.01). Overall, data on fusion biopsies can be biased by differences in urologist expertise. However, trained residents ( > 50 cases) tend to perform similar as consultant urologists, suggesting an acceptable learning curve [ 24 ]. Microultrasound, is a novel technology using a high-frequency 29-Mhz transrectal probe, that allows real-time recognition and targeting of lesions during biopsy. The diagnostic value of this technology seems to be comparable to MRI, at least in expert centers [ 25 ]. In addition, MRI and microultrasound seem to be complementary technologies that might enhance the risk stratification, especially in case of focal therapy [ 26 ]. An explanatory RCT evaluating microultrasound against MRI in ongoing, and will further clarify the role of this technology [ 27 ]. Another promising technology is the multiparametric ultrasound (mpUS). Recently, a high-quality diagnostic study (CADMUS) has compared mpUS to mpMRI and showed a 73% agreement between both modalities. Each test alone resulted in a 26% vs. 30% csPCA detection rate respectively for patient that underwent modality diagnosed and guided biopsies. While mpUS detected slighty less csPCA (−4%), it also increased the number of patients referred for biopsies, still being inferior to mpMRI [ 28 ]. Further studies are required to precise its future perspectives in prostate cancer diagnosis, but it could already play an interesting role for patient that cannot benefit from mpMRI.

Role of perilesional sampling

Several authors reported on the importance of perilesional sampling [ 29 , 30 ]. Brisbane et al. accounted for the phenomenon of invisible cancer around the index lesion, under the concept of “penumbra” ; a distance starting at the border of the ROI and containing the 90% of all csPCA in the gland. They showed that only 50% of the csPCA was contained within the ROI for patients presenting with PI-RADS 3, compared to 60% for PI-RADS 4 and 74% for PI-RADS 5. The radius of the penumbra depended on the PI-RADS score, with an additional perimeter of 16 mm, 12 mm and 5 mm for PI-RADS 3, 4 and 5 respectively [ 29 ]. This concept is important in focal therapy since margins of treatment have to been assessed [ 31 , 32 ].

Meanwhile, Hansen et al. established in 2020 that a targeted saturation biopsy on the same side as the ROI is highly effective for diagnosing cancer, although the exact size of the “penumbra” relative to the PIRADS score of the ROI remains a subject of discussion [ 32 ]. More recently, Noujeim et al. conducted a thorough analysis to assess the distance between systematic cores containing clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) and the region of interest (ROI). The authors demonstrated that sampling around the lesion combined with TB was as effective as SB + TB for detecting csPCa (35% vs. 37%, p  = 0.2). By employing a machine learning algorithm and categorizing three risk groups based on PIRADS score and PSA density, they found the risk of missing csPCa beyond the 10 mm penumbra was 2%, 8%, and 29% for low, intermediate, and high-risk groups, respectively [ 33 ]. Furthermore, the cumulative distribution rate for csPCa reached 86% within a 10 mm margin. It was concluded that for men with PIRADS 3–5 lesions and a PSA density below 0.15 ng/ml 2 , biopsies beyond the 10 mm penumbra might be unnecessary. This goes in the same direction as the 2019 PIRADS committee recommendation to conduct template biopsies (TB) of the region of interest (ROI) in addition with a 5-mm penumbra for lesions rated as PIRADS 4 and 5 [ 34 ]. Tafuri et al. also noted that for PIRADS 5 lesions with a PSA density greater than 0.15 ng/ml 2 , systematic samples offered only a marginal increase in csPCA detection [ 35 ]. Standard biopsy seems to remain important, especially in the perilesional area, especially for PI-RADS 4/5 lesions and a PSA density above 0.15 ng/ml. If confirmed in wider studies, these findings suggest the need for a risk-group based approach, based on PI-RADS score and PSA density to potentially avoid systematic or contralateral biopsies [ 36 , 37 , 38 ].

Systematic biopsies

While systematic transrectal biopsies were a long-lasting standard, their role has been superseded by mpMRI targeted as seen in the previous section. Delongchamps et al. reported the result of a per-patient analysis comparing TRUS-SB (10–12 cores) to TRUS-TB (3 cores). They reported a reduced overall PCA rate but a similar csPCA rate (46.2% vs. 48.1%, p  = 0.69) [ 39 ]. Later, the PRECISION trial showed a higher detection of csPCA in biopsy-naïve patients benefitting from transrectal (TR) MRI-TB (38% vs. 26%) compared to TRUS-SB alone, while 28% of the randomized men in the MRI group could avoid biopsies [ 4 ]. Despite this best performance, allowing for a precise staging with less cores, about between 0 to 16% csPCA would be missed if concomitant systematic biopsies were not performed [ 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 ].

Systematic samples of the prostate might be performed in different ways. These techniques are summarized as well in Fig.  2 .

Figure 2 displays the most frequently employed biopsy techniques, differentiated by the biopsy route, type of systematic biopsies and use of targeted biopsies. It displays a coronal cut of the prostate and the relative positive of the biopsies. Transperineal biopsies are perpendicular to the coronal plane and shown as dots, whereas transrectal are parallel and appear as traits. Ginsburg protocol uses anterior, mid-sector and posterior biopsies (as displayed) and depends on the size of the gland (this template is valid for glands up to 30 ml). For glands larger than 30 ml, 8 additional biopsies (not displayed on this figure) are obtained from the basal sector, in the extension of the mid-sector (total 32 cores). For glands larger than 50 ml, the number of cores per sector (anterior, mid and posterior) and per side is 5 (total 38 cores). TTPM uses a brachytherapy grid to obtain biopsies at regular interval of 5 mm. Created with Biorender.com. TP transperineal, TR transrectal, TB targeted biopsy, TTPM transperineal template prostate-mapping.

TRUS 10–12 systematic cores (TRUS-SB)

10 or 12-TRUS cores was considered the standard TRUS-guided technique and its technique has been largely reported [ 43 ]. The main problem that arose from 10–12 TRUS cores pattern is the random and systematic errors. Random errors are due to the absence of targeting ; it promotes the detection of ciPCA while missing csPCA. Systematic errors happen when a zone (such as the anterior zone, anterior zones and midline under the urethra) is hard to target and will systematically be missed or inadequately sampled [ 44 ]. Therefore, the TRUS-SB present with a high risk of false negative (30–45%) and an accuracy of only around 59% [ 41 , 44 ]. Valerio et al. compared the efficiency (number of cores required to detect one significant cancer) and showed that 37 cores vs. 9 cores were required respectively for TRUS-SB compared to MRI-TB (median difference of 32.1 cores). When assessing utility (number of men with PCA that have been detected with a sampling strategy that would have been missed using the other strategy), they reported an 9% additional csPCA detection using MRI-TB, compared to 2% when using TRUS-SB alone [ 45 ].

TRUS saturation biopsies (TRUS-SatB)

The term “saturation biopsies” (SatB) has been reported several times in the literature, but no clear and accepted definition defines it. Most authors agree that it is a higher density biopsy protocol, that usually includes at least 20 cores. It has mainly been advocated for re-biopsy after one or several previous negative TRUS-SB, before MRI-TB was recommended, since it allowed the detection of previously missed csPCA [ 46 , 47 ]. Despite initial promising results, a randomized control trial showed no benefit when comparing 20-cores to the standard 12-cores biopsies, therefore limiting its widespread adoption afterwards [ 2 , 47 , 48 ].

Transperineal systematic biopsies

The first description of the technique of transperineal, ultrasound guided biopsies was reported in 1981 by Holm and Gammelgard [ 49 ]. Based on the transrectal techniques, several templates were reported. The most known and standardized techniques are the Transperineal Template Prostate Mapping (TTPM), and Ginsburg protocol. Other techniques have been reported, such as the 10-sector template, 12-core template and the MUSIC template [ 50 ]. These techniques, using a reduced number of cores, are possible to perform under local anesthesia. Figure  3 provides an illustration of the local anesthesia for TP-Bx.

Figure 3 displays one of the frequently used and reported technique (Emiliozzi). The orange line illustrate the para-sagital axis where the puncture will be made. This axis is found using a 45 degree angle from the anus in the lithotomy position, at a 1.5 cm distance on each side (left and right). Using a linear transrectal ultrasound probe, the sagittal (more precisely the para-sagital axis) is obtained. A needle (22 G) is inserted between the Denonviliers fascia and the apex of the prostate. Slow injection will lift the prostate upwards and be visible. The technique requires a bilateral injection of 10 ml of rapid acting anesthetic [ 83 ]. Created with Biorender.com.

The concept of TTPM was first described by Barzell and Whitmore in 2003 and later standardized in 2007 [ 51 ]. TTPM uses a brachytherapy grid to exhaustively biopsy the prostate, with cores taken every 5 mm, with at least one biopsy from each hole of the grid [ 52 ]. On a 3-dimensional virtually created model, this strategy yields a > 95% correct risk stratification of all clinically significant cancers (defined as lesions of 0.5 ml or greater) [ 53 ]. This strategy results in a high biopsy density, and high number of cores per patient (mean of 63 cores, ranges described as high as 160 for very large glands) [ 53 ]. Valerio et al. reported that reducing the number of biopsies has a negative impact on its ability to exclude clinically significant disease and is therefore inferior [ 54 ]. TTPM served as a the gold-standard for the PROMIS study that was the first level 1b evidence-study to prove the increased sensitivity of MRI-TB compared to TRUS-SB [ 5 ].

The Ginsburg protocol is based on a multidisciplinary panel agreement (Ginsburg Study Group for Enhanced Prostate Diagnostics) to provide a reproducible dataset to standardize reporting among future studies. The number of cores is directly dependent on the prostate size ; it involves a minimum of 24 cores for prostate ≤ 30 ml (as displayed in Fig.  2 ), 32 cores for prostate >30–50 ml and length >4 cm, and up to 38 cores for larger prostate [ 52 ]. After its original description, it was tested on 534 patients with a median number of biopsy cores of 26 (IQR 24–28) and a mean procedure length between 25 to 60 min. It allowed the detection of csPCA in 39% biopsy-naïve patients, 27% of patients that previously had previous negative biopsies, and 45% of patients on active surveillance for low-risk cancers [ 55 ].

Combined targeted and systematic biopsies

Combined MRI-TB and TRUS-SB or TP systematic biopsies (TP-SB) is recommended as the upfront strategy for biopsy-naïve men by the European Association of Urology [ 6 ]. In general, MRI-TB consist of 3–4 cores/target, but more variations exist regarding SB, also depending on the route used. In general, ipsilateral and contralateral biopsies to MRI-TB are collected. 10–12 cores (TR or TP), Ginsburg protocol, TTPM or RB have been described in addition to MRI-TB.

Hagens et al. conducted a recent meta-analysis comparing the performance of MRI-TB alone compared to MRI-TB + RB or MRI-TB + SB. The median number of cores was 9.5 in the MRI-TB + RB group compared to 16.5 in the MRI-TB + SB, while no difference in csPCA detection was seen (RR = 0.95, p  = 0.09). Interestingly, the RB strategy avoided contralateral SB. As awaited, MRI-TB + SBx overperformed when compared to MRI-TB only (RR:1.24, p  < 0.001), but at a cost of increasing the median number of cores from 3.5 to 16.5. Interestingly, when adding RB to MRI-TB, only 6 cores were necessary to increase substantially the detection compared to MRI-TB alone (RR:1.18, p  < 0.001) [ 56 ]. The risk of such strategy is however a grade inflation and grade shift that may overestimate the cancer burden [ 57 ]. This grade shift may compromise the use of nomograms, frequently used for lymph node invasion or EPE prediction. Another recent prospective RCT compared MRI-TB and regional saturation biopsies (RSB) using 9 cores, for men with PSA 4–20 ng/ml, and found a similar performance of MRI + RSB compared to MRI-TB + SB (csPCA detection rate in 44.1% vs. 40.7%, p  = 0.3) while requiring less cores. It significantly overperformed TB alone (csPCA detection rate 44.1% vs. 31.8, p  = 0.01). When comparing their biopsy results with whole mount histology (WMH) analysis, 97% of the significant cancer were identified using RSB. They could also determine that the average underestimation of size comparing WMH and mpMRI was 0.76 cm confirming previously reported mpMRI cancer burden underestimation of 0.9 cm suggested by Le Nobin et al. [ 15 , 31 ]. Tschirdewahn et al. reported a per-patient detection of 99% of csPCA using the RB-saturation technique compared to 87% ( p  = 0.001) for MRI-TB (4 cores) and 81% ( p  < 0.001) for extended systematic biopsies (24 cores), suggesting increased diagnostic performance of the RB-saturation technique [ 58 ]. However, the same team conducted afterwards a RCT comparing 4 cores MRI-TB to MRI-TB + RB (9 cores total) where they could not show a statistical difference regarding per-patient csPCA detection (91.6% vs. 100%, p  = 0.058) [ 59 ]. Although these results did not show a statistical difference, they raise the question whether the Ginsburg protocol should still be adopted, or if MRI-TB + RB may be accurate enough to supersede it [ 32 ].

Transrectal vs. transperineal route

Some factors have been limiting the widespread adoption of TP. The need for general anesthesia at the beginning of the experience, and the need to switch equipment for a generation of urologists naïve to the TP approach have limited initial widespread adoption. Also, the biopsy strategy needs to take into account external factors as well, such as the time of the procedure, cost and access to the operating theater, since TP are usually more expensive, lengthy and less frequently performed under local anesthesia [ 39 , 60 , 61 ]. For example, Altok et al. reported in a cost-efficacy analysis a 2.5x times increase of the price of general anesthesia for TTPM (3554$) compared to local anesthesia TRUS-SB (1405$), with a cost even superior to in-bore MRI biopsy (2.2x times increase – 3158 $) [ 61 ]. Also, until recently, there was no certainty regarding the staging accuracy of TP route compared to TR route.

Ber et al. reported a non-inferiority within-person study comparing TP and TR, that proved non-inferiority and actually suggested that TP route was superior for csPCA detection rate (42% vs. 27%, p  = 0.03) [ 62 ]. Loy et al. found a comparable sensitivity and specificity (81% vs. 80%, 99% vs. 95%, for TR and TP respectively) in a recent systematic analysis and meta-analysis [ 63 ]. A large recent multicenter retrospective cohort including 5200 patients compared TR and TP route for patients benefitting of MRI-TB for lesions PI-RADS ≥ 3 and showed a higher rate of PCA and csPCA detection using TP route (64% vs. 50%, 49% vs. 35%, p  < 0.01 respectively) [ 64 ]. TP route was an independent predictor of PCA (OR:1.37) and especially csPCA (OR:1.19), with higher performance in the apex (OR:4.81), transition/central zone (OR:2.67) and anterior zone (OR:5.62). Those finding were confirmed by Uleri et al. in a 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis including 8662 patients, showing that TP significantly outperformed TR for anterior lesions (OR : 2.17, p  < 0.001) and apical lesions (OR : 1.86, p  = 0.01) with a similar overall csPCA rate (OR = 1.11, p  = 0.1). TP significantly outperformed TR for PI-RADS 4 lesions (OR : 1.57, p  = 0.02), possibly hinting at a more precise targeting with TP since PI-RADS 4 lesions are usually smaller [ 65 ]. Wu et al. also showed a higher csPCA detection rate of TP compared to TR (RR 1.33, p  = 0.005) on a per-patient analysis and comparing two cohorts (RR:1.37, p  = 0.0002) as well. They also reported an increased csPCA detection in the anterior region on a per patient analysis (RR:2.55) as well as per-lesion analysis (RR:1.52), but did not provide information regarding apical lesions [ 66 ]. These findings confirm that TP is an adequate and safe substitute to transrectal mpMRI targeted lesions, and possibly provides a higher diagnostic accuracy when focusing on apical and anterior lesions that are subject to systematic sampling error using the TR route.

Safety aspects

Another important aspect to discuss is the possible complications related to transperineal and transrectal route. Overall, some trials have assessed the complications of the TP + antibiotics, TP alone and TR + antibiotics strategies. A systematic review (SR) including 165 studies with 162,577 patients reported sepsis rates of 0.1% for TP and 0.9% for TR biopsies [ 67 ]. Additionally, a population-based study from the UK involving 73,630 patients demonstrated lower re-admission rates for sepsis in those who underwent TP biopsies (1.0%) compared to those who underwent transrectal biopsies (1.4%) [ 68 ]. These results collectively indicate a lower risk of infectious complications with transperineal biopsies compared to transrectal methods. However, a recent randomized controlled trial by Mian et al. of 840 men challenges the abovementioned results. In terms of complications both routes showed similar results with a 2,6% and 2,7% of infectious complications and a 1,7% and 2,2% rate of other complications [ 69 ]. The present study with such large numbers clearly challenges the results of the Cochrane review. Regarding the u antibiotic prophylaxis, a multicenter, randomized trial compared TP biopsy without antibiotic prophylaxis to TR biopsy with targeted prophylaxis based on rectal culture screening. No infections were reported in the TP group, whereas the TR group experienced a 1.4% infection rate (difference –1.4%; p  = 0.059). Participants undergoing TP biopsies reported higher levels of periprocedural pain, with a small adjusted difference of 0.6 on a 0–10 scale, but this discomfort resolved within 7 days [ 70 ]. A systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis of eight non-randomized controlled trials (non-RCTs) evaluated the impact of antibiotic prophylaxis on infection outcomes for patients undergoing TP biopsies. The analysis found no significant differences between patients who received antibiotic prophylaxis and those who did not in terms of post-biopsy infection rates (0.11% vs. 0.31%) and sepsis rates (0.13% vs. 0.09%) [ 71 ]. These results suggest that antibiotic prophylaxis may not significantly affect the incidence of infections or sepsis following TP biopsies, which might be another reason to choose TP over TR route.

Focal therapy : adaptation of the biopsy strategy

After having described several prostate biopsy strategies, the question is ; is there a recognized “best strategy” for focal therapy? The Ginsburg Protocol and TTPM have been advocated as a reference for focal therapy, but required to be performed under general anesthesia which is a non-deliverable expensive strategy across the board. Also, minimizing the toxicity is also important, since higher core number is associated with increased adverse events [ 72 ]. To answer this question, several authors have compared the sensitivity of several biopsy strategy to WMH to identify whether preoperative biopsy were accurate enough to detect all csPCA.

Nassiri et al. investigated FT eligibility of men that underwent MRI-TB using FUS-TB and 12-cores TRUS-SB. On a cohort of 454 men with biopsy proven region of interest, 175 were candidates after biopsies. When compared with WHM, this biopsy strategy showed a 80% sensitivity, 73.5% specificity, 75% accuracy for FT eligibility [ 73 ]. Johnson et al. investigated the reliability of MRI-TB using TR route. They included 665 patients of a prospectively maintained database and identified 92 as candidates after the biopsies. Among them, 44 (48%) were inadequately considered as candidate when studying the WMH. Reason for exclusion was the tumor crossing the midline (21 patients), contralateral csPCA (20 patients) and ipsilateral high-risk tumor (3 patients). Interestingly, men with anterior index tumor where 2.4 times more likely to present undetected contralateral csPCA when compared to men with posterior tumor. Unfortunately, the number of targeted cores and the total number of cores were not reported [ 74 ]. Choi reported in 2023 a study on 120 men that underwent TTPM + MRI-TB and RP. On the 120 studied men, 52 were deemed eligible. Forty-two (80.7%) of them were correctly eligible based on WMH, while only 10 (19.2%) would have been contra-indicated (6 had bilateral disease, 4 had small ISUP2 volume priorly undetected), suggesting a more accurate staging. Their biopsy strategy used a median 29 cores on mean prostatic volume of 36 ml and required general anesthesia [ 75 ]. Lee recently reported a retrospective analysis of 398 patients that underwent TP-SatB (around 24 cores) combined with TP MRI-TB. They studied the impact of the reduction of number of systematic cores on the eligibility for focal therapy, using 4 different strategies (2/3 cores, ½ cores, 1/3 cores, ¼ cores), using a computer algorithm to evenly and artificially suppress biopsies and erase any systematic biopsy that overlapped MRI-TB. Patients had a treatment plan based on the biopsy finding, that could either consist of single quadrant ablation, hemi-ablation (anterior or lateral), three-quadrant ablation or whole-gland ablation. They reported a median number of 33 cores per patient [ 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 ], with a median of 9 targeted cores. When compared to the plan that would have been realized on the basis of MRI-TB alone, adding the full systematic biopsy set resulted in a treatment plan change in 44% of the patients, with 10% of them becoming unsuitable for FT. Reducing the number of systematic cores had an important impact on FT treatment plan, with a modification in 12% of the patient (2/3 cores), 19% (1/2 cores), 24% (1/3 cores), and 29% (1/4 cores), showing that inadequate systematic sampling would probably result in suboptimal focal therapy planning [ 40 ].

Several consensus statement have been published for preoperative biopsy strategy as well as follow-up. Ong et al. studied all consensuses statement published regarding focal therapy up to 2023. All these consensuses agreed that mpMRI was the imaging modality of choice, and that MRI-TB + SB were required. While some authors agreed that in absence of mpMRI the TTPM can be sufficient, other agreed that systematic TRUS biopsies were sufficient, underlining the ongoing heterogeneity of practice and lack of identified “best biopsy strategy” yet [ 76 ]. The heterogeneity in csPCa definition as well as what we can accept as a community in the untreated area of men undergoing focal therapy are matters of debate which widely explain the ongoing controversy. This is beyond the purpose of this study. Follow-up after focal therapy is needed since as high as 20–30% patients will require re-treatment after the 1 st treatment. While no consensus was reached, most consensuses recommend a first mpMRI at 6 month with follow-up prostate biopsy at 6–12 months (targeted on the treated region, and SB) [ 76 ].

A large heterogeneity of practice exists regarding prostate biopsies, in term of access (transrectal versus transperineal), type of targeting used for MRI-targeted biopsies (cognitive, software-based, in-bore), and template of systematic biopsies. Transrectal access is easier to perform under local anesthesia and is still widely perform. Transperineal has been advocated as a safer route because of a reduced risk of postoperative urosepsis, possibility to perform without antibiotic prophylaxis, and increasing evidence show increased diagnostic performance especially in the apex and anterior zone, that are difficult zones to biopsy using transrectal biopsy. Biopsy protocols have emerged to standardize study reporting concerning transperineal biopsies, especially for focal therapy but have not seen widespread adoption yet. Systematic biopsies are subject to random and systematic errors and often misclassify patient (overdetection of ciPCA, underdetection of csPCA) and have been progressively abandoned as an alone procedure. MRI-TB alone reduces the detection of ciPCA but misses csPCA when compared to combined biopsy techniques, therefore asking for adequate combination strategy. Among the combinations and systematic strategies, the TTPM and Ginsburg protocol have shown to be have the highest negative predictive value, but require a high number of cores, exposing patients to potential combinations and the need for general anesthesia that limit this widespread implantation. Regional biopsies are gaining a lot of interest recently, since they have an overall sensitivity of about 90%, while importantly reducing the number of cores and avoiding the detection of ciPCA and are easily performed under local anesthesia. PSA density, and PI-RADS score as important markers to guide the biopsy strategy (only ipsilateral biopsies (regional)) or addition of contralateral biopsies. Finally, the accuracy of staging has a direct impact on focal therapy eligibility, with the need to define the borders of the index lesion to target as well as to minimize the likelihood of missed csPCA that may expose the patient to undertreatment. All these aspects have to be taken into consideration when planning biopsy for patients who might be eligible and considering focal therapy.

Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK, Stamey TA. Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol. 1989;142:71–4.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Ukimura O, Coleman JA, de la Taille A, Emberton M, Epstein JI, Freedland SJ, et al. Contemporary role of systematic prostate biopsies: indications, techniques, and implications for patient care. Eur Urol. 2013;63:214–30.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Liu W, Patil D, Howard DH, Moore RH, Wang H, Sanda MG, et al. Adoption of prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging for men undergoing prostate biopsy in the United States. Urology. 2018;117:57–63.

Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH, et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N. Engl J Med. 2018;378:1767–77.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017;389:815–22.

Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, Van den Broeck T, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer-2020 update. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2021;79:243–62.

Cornford P, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, Van den Broeck T, Brunckhorst O, Darraugh J, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer—2024 update. Part i: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2024; Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0302283824022541 .

Wei JT, Barocas D, Carlsson S, Coakley F, Eggener S, Etzioni R, et al. Early detection of prostate cancer: AUA/SUO guideline part i: prostate cancer screening. J Urol. 2023; Available from: https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003491 .

Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, Padhani AR, Villeirs G, Macura KJ, et al. Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. Eur Urol. 2019;76:340–51.

Giganti F, Allen C, Emberton M, Moore CM, Kasivisvanathan V. PRECISION study group. Prostate imaging quality (PI-QUAL): a new quality control scoring system for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate from the PRECISION trial. Eur Urol Oncol. 2020;3:615–9.

Windisch O, Benamran D, Dariane C, Favre MM, Djouhri M, Chevalier M, et al. Role of the prostate imaging quality PI-QUAL score for prostate magnetic resonance image quality in pathological upstaging after radical prostatectomy: a multicentre European study. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2023;47:94–101.

Uroweb - European Association of Urology [Internet]. Citing, Usage & Republication - Uroweb. 2024 Available from: https://uroweb.org/eau-guidelines/citing-usage-republication .

Liu W, Laitinen S, Khan S, Vihinen M, Kowalski J, Yu G, et al. Copy number analysis indicates monoclonal origin of lethal metastatic prostate cancer. Nat Med. 2009;15:559–65.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Ahmed HU. The index lesion and the origin of prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:1704–6.

Le Nobin J, Rosenkrantz AB, Villers A, Orczyk C, Deng FM, Melamed J, et al. Image guided focal therapy for magnetic resonance imaging visible prostate cancer: defining a 3-dimensional treatment margin based on magnetic resonance imaging histology co-registration analysis. J Urol. 2015;194:364–70.

Priester A, Natarajan S, Khoshnoodi P, Margolis DJ, Raman SS, Reiter RE, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging underestimation of prostate cancer geometry: use of patient specific molds to correlate images with whole mount pathology. J Urol. 2017;197:320–6.

Gaziev G, Wadhwa K, Barrett T, Koo BC, Gallagher FA, Serrao E, et al. Defining the learning curve for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate using MRI-transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) fusion-guided transperineal prostate biopsies as a validation tool. BJU Int. 2016;117:80–6.

Brizmohun Appayya M, Adshead J, Ahmed HU, Allen C, Bainbridge A, Barrett T, et al. National implementation of multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer detection – recommendations from a UK consensus meeting. BJU Int. 2018;122:13–25.

Rifkin MD, Zerhouni EA, Gatsonis CA, Quint LE, Paushter DM, Epstein JI, et al. Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography in staging early prostate cancer. N. Engl J Med. 1990;323:621–6.

Paesano N, Catalá V, Tcholakian L, Trilla E, Morote J. A systematic review of the current status of magnetic resonance-ultrasound images fusion software platforms for transperineal prostate biopsies. Cancers. 2023;15:3329.

Le JD, Huang J, Marks LS. Targeted prostate biopsy: value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in detection of localized cancer. Asian J Androl. 2014;16:522–9.

Bass EJ, Pantovic A, Connor MJ, Loeb S, Rastinehad AR, Winkler M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy techniques compared to transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy of the prostate: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2022;25:174–9.

Wegelin O, Exterkate L, van der Leest M, Kummer JA, Vreuls W, de Bruin PC, et al. The FUTURE Trial: a multicenter randomised controlled trial on target biopsy techniques based on magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer in patients with prior negative biopsies. Eur Urol. 2019;75:582–90.

Turchi B, Lombardo R, Franco A, Tema G, Nacchia A, Cicione A, et al. Residents and consultants have equal outcomes when performing transrectal fusion biopsies: a randomized clinical trial. Curr Oncol. 2024;31:747–58.

Sountoulides P, Pyrgidis N, Polyzos SA, Mykoniatis I, Asouhidou E, Papatsoris A, et al. Micro-ultrasound-guided vs. multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol. 2021;205:1254–62.

Rakauskas A, Peters M, Martel P, van Rossum PSN, La Rosa S, Meuwly JY, et al. Do cancer detection rates differ between transperineal and transrectal micro-ultrasound mpMRI-fusion-targeted prostate biopsies? A propensity score-matched study. PLoS ONE. 2023;18:e0280262.

Klotz L, Andriole G, Cash H, Cooperberg M, Crawford ED, Emberton M, et al. Optimization of prostate biopsy - Micro-Ultrasound versus MRI (OPTIMUM): A 3-arm randomized controlled trial evaluating the role of 29 MHz micro-ultrasound in guiding prostate biopsy in men with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer. Contemp Clin Trials. 2022;112:106618.

Grey ADR, Scott R, Shah B, Acher P, Liyanage S, Pavlou M, et al. Multiparametric ultrasound versus multiparametric MRI to diagnose prostate cancer (CADMUS): a prospective, multicentre, paired-cohort, confirmatory study. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23:428–38.

Brisbane WG, Priester AM, Ballon J, Kwan L, Delfin MK, Felker ER, et al. Targeted prostate biopsy: umbra, penumbra, and value of perilesional sampling. Eur Urol. 2022;82:303–10.

Raman AG, Sarma KV, Raman SS, Priester AM, Mirak SA, Riskin-Jones HH, et al. Optimizing spatial biopsy sampling for the detection of prostate cancer. J Urol. 2021; Available from: https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001832 .

Jiang X, Chen M, Tian J, Li X, Liu R, Wang Y, et al. Comparison of regional saturation biopsy, targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy in patients with prostate-specific antigen levels of 4–20 ng/ml: a prospective, single-center, randomized controlled trial. Eur Urol Oncol. 2024;7:944–53.

Hansen NL, Barrett T, Lloyd T, Warren A, Samel C, Bratt O, et al. Optimising the number of cores for magnetic resonance imaging-guided targeted and systematic transperineal prostate biopsy. BJU Int. 2020;125:260–9.

Noujeim JP, Belahsen Y, Lefebvre Y, Lemort M, Deforche M, Sirtaine N, et al. Optimizing multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy and detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: the role of perilesional sampling. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2023;26:575–80.

Padhani AR, Weinreb J, Rosenkrantz AB, Villeirs G, Turkbey B, Barentsz J. Prostate imaging-reporting and data system steering committee: PI-RADS v2 status update and future directions. Eur Urol. 2019;75:385–96.

Tafuri A, Iwata A, Shakir A, Iwata T, Gupta C, Sali A, et al. Systematic biopsy of the prostate can be omitted in men with PI-RADS TM 5 and prostate specific antigen density greater than 15. J Urol. 2021;206:289–97.

Thomas C. Perilesional sampling: the new standard for imaging-targeted prostate biopsies? Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2023;26:439–40.

Zambon A, Nguyen TA, Fourcade A, Segalen T, Saout K, Deruelle C, et al. Which protocol for prostate biopsies in patients with a positive MRI? Interest of systematic biopsies by sectors. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2024;27:500–6.

Lombardo R, Tema G, Nacchia A, Mancini E, Franco S, Zammitti F, et al. Role of perilesional sampling of patients undergoing fusion prostate biopsies. Life. 2023;13:1719.

Delongchamps NB, Portalez D, Brugui ère E, Rouvi ère O, Malavaud B, Mozer P, et al. Are magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound guided targeted biopsies noninferior to transrectal ultrasound guided systematic biopsies for the detection of prostate cancer? J Urol. 2016;196:1069–75.

Lee AYM, Chen K, Tan YG, Lee HJ, Shutchaidat V, Fook-Chong S, et al. Reducing the number of systematic biopsy cores in the era of MRI targeted biopsy—implications on clinically-significant prostate cancer detection and relevance to focal therapy planning. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2022;25:720–6.

Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, George AK, Rothwax J, Shakir N, et al. Comparison of MR/Ultrasound fusion–guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA. 2015;313:390–7.

Baco E, Ukimura O, Rud E, Vlatkovic L, Svindland A, Aron M, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging–transectal ultrasound image-fusion biopsies accurately characterize the index tumor: correlation with step-sectioned radical prostatectomy specimens in 135 patients. Eur Urol. 2015;67:787–94.

Bauer JJ, Zeng J, Zhang W, McLeod DG, Sesterhenn IA, Connelly RR, et al. Lateral biopsies added to the traditional sextant prostate biopsy pattern increases the detection rate of prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2000;3:43–6.

El-Shater Bosaily A, Parker C, Brown LC, Gabe R, Hindley RG, Kaplan R, et al. PROMIS — Prostate MR imaging study: a paired validating cohort study evaluating the role of multi-parametric MRI in men with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer. Contemp Clin Trials. 2015;42:26–40.

Valerio M, Donaldson I, Emberton M, Ehdaie B, Hadaschik BA, Marks LS, et al. Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging–ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2015;68:8–19.

Sajadi KP, Kim T, Terris MK, Brown JA, Lewis RW. High yield of saturation prostate biopsy for patients with previous negative biopsies and small prostates. Urology. 2007;70:691–5.

Scattoni V, Zlotta A, Montironi R, Schulman C, Rigatti P, Montorsi F. Extended and saturation prostatic biopsy in the diagnosis and characterisation of prostate cancer: a critical analysis of the literature. Eur Urol. 2007;52:1309–22.

Irani J, Blanchet P, Salomon L, Coloby P, Hubert J, Malavaud B, et al. Is an extended 20-core prostate biopsy protocol more efficient than the standard 12-core? A randomized multicenter trial. J Urol. 2013;190:77–83.

Holm HH, Gammelgaard J. Ultrasonically guided precise needle placement in the prostate and the seminal vesicles. J Urol. 1981;125:385–7.

Sidana A, Blank F, Wang H, Patil N, George AK, Abbas H. Schema and cancer detection rates for transperineal prostate biopsy templates: a review. Ther Adv Urol. 2022;14:17562872221105019.

Barzell WE, Melamed MR. Appropriate patient selection in the focal treatment of prostate cancer: the role of transperineal 3-dimensional pathologic mapping of the prostate–a 4-year experience. Urology. 2007;70:27–35.

Kuru TH, Wadhwa K, Chang RTM, Echeverria LMC, Roethke M, Polson A, et al. Definitions of terms, processes and a minimum dataset for transperineal prostate biopsies: a standardization approach of the Ginsburg Study Group for Enhanced Prostate Diagnostics. BJU Int. 2013;112:568–77.

Ahmed HU, Hu Y, Carter T, Arumainayagam N, Lecornet E, Freeman A, et al. Characterizing clinically significant prostate cancer using template prostate mapping biopsy. J Urol. 2011;186:458–64.

Valerio M, Anele C, Charman SC, van der Meulen J, Freeman A, Jameson C, et al. Transperineal template prostate-mapping biopsies: an evaluation of different protocols in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2016;118:384–90.

Hansen N, Patruno G, Wadhwa K, Gaziev G, Miano R, Barrett T, et al. Magnetic resonance and ultrasound image fusion supported transperineal prostate biopsy using the ginsburg protocol: technique, learning points, and biopsy results. Eur Urol. 2016;70:332–40.

Hagens MJ, Fernandez Salamanca M, Padhani AR, van Leeuwen PJ, van der Poel HG, Schoots IG. Diagnostic performance of a magnetic resonance imaging-directed targeted plus regional biopsy approach in prostate cancer diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2022;40:95–103.

Ahdoot M, Wilbur AR, Reese SE, Lebastchi AH, Mehralivand S, Gomella PT, et al. MRI-targeted, systematic, and combined biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:917–28.

Tschirdewahn S, Wiesenfarth M, Bonekamp D, Püllen L, Reis H, Panic A, et al. Detection of significant prostate cancer using target saturation in transperineal magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasonography–fusion biopsy. Eur Urol Focus. 2021;7:1300–7.

Saner YM, Wiesenfarth M, Weru V, Ladyzhensky B, Tschirdewahn S, Püllen L, et al. Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using targeted biopsy with four cores versus target saturation biopsy with nine cores in transperineal prostate fusion biopsy: a prospective randomized trial. Eur Urol Oncol. 2023;6:49–55.

Kim HY, Choi YH, Lee SJ. Effect of sedation anesthesia with intravenous propofol on transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy outcomes. J Korean Med Sci. 2022;37:e115.

Altok M, Kim B, Patel BB, Shih YCT, Ward JF, McRae SE, et al. Cost and efficacy comparison of five prostate biopsy modalities: a platform for integrating cost into novel-platform comparative research. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2018;21:524–32.

Ber Y, Segal N, Tamir S, Benjaminov O, Yakimov M, Sela S, et al. A noninferiority within-person study comparing the accuracy of transperineal to transrectal MRI-US fusion biopsy for prostate-cancer detection. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2020;23:449–56.

Loy LM, Lim GH, Leow JJ, Lee CH, Tan TW, Tan CH. A systematic review and meta-analysis of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound guided fusion biopsy of prostate for cancer detection-Comparing transrectal with transperineal approaches. Urol Oncol. 2020;38:650–60.

Zattoni F, Marra G, Kasivisvanathan V, Grummet J, Nandurkar R, Ploussard G, et al. The detection of prostate cancer with magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsies is superior with the transperineal vs. the transrectal approach. A European association of urology-young academic urologists prostate cancer working group multi-institutional study. J Urol. 2022;208:830–7.

Uleri A, Baboudjian M, Tedde A, Gallioli A, Long-Depaquit T, Palou J, et al. Is there an impact of transperineal versus transrectal magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy in clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Oncol. 2023;6:621–8.

Wu Q, Tu X, Zhang C, Ye J, Lin T, Liu Z, et al. Transperineal magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy versus transrectal route in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2023;2:1–10.

Google Scholar  

Bennett HY, Roberts MJ, Doi SAR, Gardiner RA. The global burden of major infectious complications following prostate biopsy. Epidemiol Infect. 2016;144:1784–91.

Berry B, Parry MG, Sujenthiran A, Nossiter J, Cowling TE, Aggarwal A, et al. Comparison of complications after transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy: a national population-based study. BJU Int. 2020;126:97–103.

Mian BM, Feustel PJ, Aziz A, Kaufman RP, Bernstein A, Fisher HAG. Clinically significant prostate cancer detection following transrectal and transperineal biopsy: results of the prostate biopsy efficacy and complications randomized clinical trial. J Urol. 2024;212:21–31.

Hu JC, Assel M, Allaf ME, Ehdaie B, Vickers AJ, Cohen AJ, et al. Transperineal versus transrectal magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic prostate biopsy to prevent infectious complications: the PREVENT randomized trial. Eur Urol. 2024;S0302-2838(23)03342-0.

Castellani D, Pirola GM, Law YXT, Gubbiotti M, Giulioni C, Scarcella S, et al. Infection rate after transperineal prostate biopsy with and without prophylactic antibiotics: results from a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. J Urol. 2022;207:25–34.

Wegelin O, Exterkate L, van der Leest M, Kelder JC, Bosch JLHR, Barentsz JO, et al. Complications and adverse events of three magnetic resonance imaging–based target biopsy techniques in the diagnosis of prostate cancer among men with prior negative biopsies: results from the FUTURE Trial, a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Eur Urol Oncol. 2019;2:617–24.

Nassiri N, Chang E, Lieu P, Priester AM, Margolis DJA, Huang J, et al. Focal therapy eligibility determined by magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy. J Urol. 2018;199:453–8.

Johnson DC, Yang JJ, Kwan L, Barsa DE, Mirak SA, Pooli A, et al. Do contemporary imaging and biopsy techniques reliably identify unilateral prostate cancer? Implications for hemiablation patient selection. Cancer. 2019;125:2955–64.

Choi YH, Lee CU, Song W, Chang Jeong B, Seo SI, Jeon SS, et al. Combination of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and transperineal template-guided mapping prostate biopsy to determine potential candidates for focal therapy. Prostate Int. 2023;11:100–6.

Ong S, Chen K, Grummet J, Yaxley J, Scheltema MJ, Stricker P, et al. Guidelines of guidelines: focal therapy for prostate cancer, is it time for consensus? BJU Int. 2023;131:20–31.

Levine MA, Ittman M, Melamed J, Lepor H. Two consecutive sets of transrectal ultrasound guided sextant biopsies of the prostate for the detection of prostate cancer. J Urol. 1998;159:471–5.

Stewart CS, Leibovich BC, Weaver AL, Lieber MM. Prostate cancer diagnosis using a saturation needle biopsy technique after previous negative sextant biopsies. J Urol. 2001;166:86–91.

Kaplan I, Oldenburg NE, Meskell P, Blake M, Church P, Holupka EJ. Real time MRI-ultrasound image guided stereotactic prostate biopsy. Magn Reson Imaging. 2002;20:295–9.

Bourne R, Katelaris P, Danieletto S, Dzendrowskyj T, Stanwell P, Mountford C. Detection of prostate cancer by magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy in vivo. ANZ J Surg. 2003;73:666–8.

Beyersdorff D, Winkel A, Hamm B, Lenk S, Loening SA, Taupitz M. MR imaging-guided prostate biopsy with a closed MR unit at 1.5 T: initial results. Radiology. 2005;234:576–81.

Barrett T, Patterson AJ, Koo BC, Wadhwa K, Warren AY, Doble A, et al. Targeted transperineal biopsy of the prostate has limited additional benefit over background cores for larger MRI-identified tumors. World J Urol. 2016;34:501–8.

Emiliozzi P, Longhi S, Scarpone P, Pansadoro A, DePaula F, Pansadoro V. The value of a single biopsy with 12 transperineal cores for detecting prostate cancer in patients with elevated prostate specific antigen. J Urol. 2001;166:845–50.

Download references

Open access funding provided by University of Geneva.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Division of Urology, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland

Olivier Windisch & Massimo Valerio

Faculty of Medicine, Geneva University, Geneva, Switzerland

SH Ho Urology Centre, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong

Chi-Hang Yee

Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Sciences, San Giovanni Battista Hospital, University of Studies of Torino, Torino, Italy

Paolo Gontero

Department of Radiology, Istanbul University, Istanbul Medical School, Istanbul, Turkey

Baris Bakir

Department of Urology, Cambridge University Hospitals and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

Christof Kastner

Imperial Prostate, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK

Hashim U. Ahmed

Imperial Urology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK

Department of Urology, University Sapienza, Rome, Italy

Cosimo De Nunzio

Department of Urology, Istanbul Medipol Mega University Hospital, Istanbul, Türkiye

Jean de la Rosette

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

OW : conception and design of the study, data acquisition and interpretation, manuscript drafting, MD : conception and design of the study, manuscript drafting data acquisition and interpretation, critical revision, CY: data acquisition and interpretation, critical revision, PG : data acquisition and interpretation, critical revision, BB : data acquisition and interpretation, critical revision, CK : data acquisition and interpretation, critical revision, HUA : data acquisition and interpretation, critical revision, JDLR : conception and design of the study, manuscript drafting, critical revision, supervision. All authors have approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olivier Windisch .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

Cosimo De Nunzio is Editor In Chief of Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases.

Additional information

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Windisch, O., Valerio, M., Yee, CH. et al. Biopsy strategies in the era of mpMRI: a comprehensive review. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-024-00884-2

Download citation

Received : 13 June 2024

Revised : 21 July 2024

Accepted : 15 August 2024

Published : 04 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-024-00884-2

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

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

5 of the best activity and games bars in Sheffield, according to Tripadvisor reviews

Amazon is selling a £140 Tefal air fryer for just £55 and users say it's the best one they've owned

• Coronavirus
• Traffic and Travel
• Sheffield Telegraph
• Other Sport
• Sport Opinion
• Homes & Gardens
• Food and Drink
• Submit Your Story
• Newsletters
• Travel & Staycations
• Advertise My Business
• Place Announcement
• Place A Public Notice
• Advertise A Job

Soundcore Space One Pro headphones review: A polished performance with a perfect party piece

This article contains affiliate links. We may earn a small commission on items purchased through this article, but that does not affect our editorial judgement.

Over-ear headphones are the dream ticket for audiophiles like me. Unlike the admittedly more convenient earbuds, they have cushioned cups to envelop your ears, and plenty of space to build powerful driver and diaphragm setups.

They can hold much bigger batteries, there's more room to bake in better noise-cancelling technology , and their headbands can make them a much more secure fit.

The trouble is, they tend to be a bit cumbersome. The truly compact ones are often flimsy, or uncomfortable to wear, but the plusher ones we'd happily spend all day wearing are bulky things to carry around.

Sign up to our daily newsletter

Thank you for signing up.

Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Star, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more.

This was one of the core problems Soundcore set out to solve when reimagining its superb Space One headphones. They've been topping the round-ups for over a year now, thanks to their performance, comfort, and value for money. So the new Pro version had big shoes to fill.

Thankfully, Soundcore has pulled it off. The new Pro version is better in just about every way. It's also quite a bit more expensive, but I'll get to that.

Fundamentally, you've now got a smattering of new technology built into the attractive new design, including improved four-stage noise cancelling , which can adapt to changing environments to tune out a wider range of sounds.

There's also a set of advanced drivers, with triple composite diaphragms, with an LDAC mode for high-resolution audio, and a slightly better battery. You can now listen for up to 60 hours without the noise cancelling , or 40 hours with it turned on.

It also charges quickly, with eight hours of playback achievable in just five minutes.

And then there's the party trick. While the Space One was loved for its compact folding mechanism, the Pro version takes things a stage further, with the cups rotating against one another and slipping up into the headband. This gives you a neat, round "ball" that fits into the palm of a hand. It's great for popping into a bag of perhaps an inside coat pocket.

On paper, then, it's all shaping up well. But how about its performance? The good news is, the sound output is absolutely lovely. The noise cancelling is, obviously, impressive but even without it switched on, the comfy cups sat well on my ears and pumped out a variety of music styles without a hint of distortion.

There's a welcome clarity to the sound, but plenty of power to drive the lower frequencies, giving an overall rich, relaxing experience. It's just a huge step above the audio quality you'll get from earbuds and, while it doesn't have the acoustic majesty of, say, a top Bose headset, it doesn't cost anything like as much.

And that brings me on to the price. At launch, the Space One Pro costs £149.99. And while that may sound like a lot of money, the amount of technology you get for that price is pretty much unrivalled.

Compare the Space One Pro to a similarly priced set, for example, the JBL Live 770NC which I've also tested, and the sound quality is significantly crisper. The new noise cancelling on the Souncore set also completely outperforms the JBLs.

And that's before we consider that trick folding mechanism , which makes the JBLs look clumsy and dated.

Truth be told, there are better-sounding headphones out there. But I can’t think of any for this price. And none of the ones I've tested blend comfort and practicality quite as well.

For travellers , then, these are absolutely perfect. But even if you're just after a fresh set of cans and don't want to shell out £500 for the premium brands, you can't go far wrong with the Soundcore Space One Pro . They're terrific all-rounders.

• all-news All the latest Android & Tech News
• amazon Amazon News
• bolt All Android News
• android Android Apps
• phone Android Best Phones Rankings
• ic_best-android-games2x Android Games News
• bolt PlayStation
• android-news Android News
• android-tv Android TV
• best-android-phones Best Android Phones Rankings
• _460 Android OS Version News
• android Android OS Version 1.5 Cupcake
• android Android OS Version 1.6 Donut
• android Android OS Version 2.1 Eclair
• android Android OS Version 2.2 Froyo
• android Android OS Version 2.3 Gingerbread
• android Android OS Version 3.0 Honeycomb
• android Android OS Version 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich
• android Android OS Version 4.1 Jelly Bean
• android Android OS Version 4.4 KitKat
• android Android OS Version 5.0 Lollipop
• android Android OS Version 6.0 Marshmallow
• android Android OS Version 7.0 Nougat
• android Android OS Version 8.0 Oreo
• android Android OS Version 9.0 Pie
• android Android OS Version 10
• android Android OS Version 11
• android Android OS Version 12
• android Android OS Version 13
• android Android OS Version 14
• android Android OS Version 15
• reviews Android and Tech Reviews
• _460 Android Phone News
• best-android-phones Android Best Phones Rankings
• bolt All Google Pixel News
• pixel Google Pixel 6
• pixel Google Pixel 7
• pixel Google Pixel 8
• pixel Google Pixel 9
• pixel Google Pixel Fold
• pixel Google Pixel Fold 2
• huawei Huawei
• uniF2DB HONOR
• motorola Motorola
• nokia Nokia
• bolt All OnePlus News
• oneplus OnePlus 10
• oneplus OnePlus 11
• oneplus OnePlus 12
• oneplus OnePlus Open
• bolt All Samsung News
• samsung Samsung Galaxy S20
• samsung Samsung Galaxy S21
• samsung Samsung Galaxy S22
• samsung Samsung Galaxy S23
• samsung Samsung Galaxy S24
• samsung Samsung Galaxy S25
• samsung Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 3
• samsung Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 4
• samsung Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 5
• samsung Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 6
• samsung Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 3
• samsung Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 4
• samsung Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 5
• samsung Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 6
• xiaomi Xiaomi
• android-tablets Android Tablets
• phone All Apple News
• phone Apple iPhone 14
• phone Apple iPhone 15
• phone Apple iPhone 16
• phone Apple iPad
• vr Apple Vision Pro
• phone Apple Watch
• deals Best Cell Phone Deals
• ultimate-tech-gift Android & Tech Gift Guide
• deals Black Friday Deals 2023
• ic_android-buyers-guide2x Buyer Guides
• carriers Carrier News
• carriers AT&T
• uniF1A0 Google Fi
• bolt Verizon
• android-app-game Android Games
• android-app-game Xbox
• android-app-game PlayStation
• _460 All Google News
• bolt Google Gemini
• uniF1A0 Gmail
• calendar Google Calendar
• chrome Google Chrome
• pencil Google Docs
• uniF1A0 Google Drive
• pencil Google Keep
• uniF1A0 Google Maps
• uniF1A0 Google Messages
• android-app-game Google Play
• _460 All Google Pixel News
• pixel Google Pixel Tablet
• pixel Google Pixel Watch
• uniF1A0 Google Photos
• uniF1A0 Google Sheets
• uniF1A0 Google Translate
• android-tv Google TV
• uniF1A0 Google Voice
• giveaway Giveaways
• mobile-events Mobile Events News
• giveaway Awards
• google-io Google I/O News
• ifa IFA News
• mbc Mobile World Congress News
• _460 All Samsung News
• samsung Samsung Galaxy Buds
• samsung Samsung Galaxy Watch 4
• samsung Samsung Galaxy Watch 5
• samsung Samsung Galaxy Watch 6
• samsung Samsung Galaxy Watch 7
• special-features Special Features
• _460 All Streaming News
• android-tv Direct TV Stream
• android-tv Disney Plus
• android-tv ESPN Plus
• android-tv Fubo
• android-tv Peacock
• android-tv Hulu
• android-tv Netflix
• samsung Samsung TV Plus
• android-tv Tubi TV
• youtube YouTube
• youtube YouTube Music
• youtube YouTube TV
• tech-news All Tech News
• bolt Artificial Intelligence
• home Smart Home
• tech-news Wearables News
• uniF2CE Audio
• about About
• _460 Advertise
• fire Our Team
• contact Contact Us
• eye Privacy Policy
• envelope_alt Submit News Tips

Sign Up! envelope_alt

Get the latest Android News in your inbox every day arrow_right

• facebook +1.8m
• X_logo_2023_original +464k
• youtube +91k
• instagram +50k
• linkedin2 +21k

Sign up to receive the latest Android News every weekday:

Only send updates once a week

Android Headlines / Android and Tech Reviews / Google Pixel 9 Pro Fold Review: A Sleek Upgrade with a Few Missing Pieces

Google Pixel 9 Pro Fold Review: A Sleek Upgrade with a Few Missing Pieces

Google went back to the drawing board for Pixel 9 Pro Fold and developed one of the biggest year-over-year upgrades we've seen in years.

• Good battery life
• Great design, comfortable to hold
• Beautiful, bright displays (eliminating one of the Pixel Fold's biggest issues)
• Display crease still exists, but far less noticeable
• Software isn't well optimized for larger, foldable displays
• Telephoto camera is somewhat disappointing
• Charging speeds are abysmal
• UFS 3.1 storage on a $1,799 phone should be a crime

Google provided AndroidHeadlines with a review unit of the Porcelain Pixel 9 Pro Fold in the 256GB variant. We’ve been using it for about a week before putting this review together. This is not a sponsored review, and Google did not see this review before it was published.

Google is fairly new to the foldable game, so seeing such a huge change year-over-year is kind of expected. And we’re seeing just that with the Pixel 9 Pro Fold. It looks completely different from the Pixel Fold that debuted last year, and that’s not a bad thing. Google made the outer display taller, making it essentially the same size as a regular smartphone – in fact it is the exact same size and display panel as the Pixel 9. Also made it thinner and lighter, while changing up the camera bar.

While many of us loved the passport-style of the Pixel Fold from last year, this was probably the right decision by Google. Especially given all the praise the OnePlus Open has received – which the Pixel 9 Pro Fold definitely took inspiration from. But the real question here is, did Google do enough to warrant charging $1,799 for the Pixel 9 Pro Fold? Let’s find out in our full review.

Table of Contents

Google Pixel 9 Pro Fold Review: Design and Build Quality

I absolutely love the design and the build quality on the Pixel 9 Pro Fold – now the name is a different story. The Pixel 9 Pro Fold shaved off about 2mm when folded, and about 0.7mm when unfolded. While also shaving off almost an entire ounce in weight. Despite that weight loss, the Pixel 9 Pro Fold is still one of the heaviest foldables on the market at  257g. But I have no complaints with either one. Sure there are thinner and lighter foldables out there – like the HONOR Magic V3 . But the Pixel 9 Pro Fold is comfortable.

What helps the Pixel 9 Pro Fold be more comfortable is the fact that the sides are flat, but also rounded. Similar to the rest of the Pixel 9 lineup, the sides are flat, with the edges of them being rounded and melting into the front and rear glass. This helps the phone feel more comfortable in the hand, on top of that, it also makes it more durable, than a rounded frame.

The model I have here is the porcelain Pixel 9 Pro Fold which looks really nice, I have to say. It’s an off-white color for the back, with a sort of, really light gold color on the frame. It’s a really nice contrast, and looks very similar to the Porcelain Pixel 9 Pro XL that I already reviewed .

The bezels are pretty small here, though they do look larger on the front display in this porcelain color, due to that goldish frame. So there is room for Google to make that front display even larger. But it doesn’t bother me much. However, something that does is the power button and volume rocker. For some reason, Google insists on putting them opposite of literally every other Android manufacturer. You’ll get used to them being flipped, but why Google? Why?

There have been some conspiracies out there that Google is actually using OPPO to build their foldables, since the Pixel Fold was a mirror image of the OPPO Find N2, and now the Pixel 9 Pro Fold is a mirror image of the OPPO Find N3/OnePlus Open. If they are, cool. They are great designs and very high-quality foldables. Now, we just need Google to take inspiration from OPPO and OnePlus on software for foldables. But more on that later.

Google Pixel 9 Pro Fold Review: Displays

When the Pixel 9 Pro Fold launched last year, it was before Google made a number of upgrades to its Pixel lineup. Like the Super Actua displays, the new Tensor G3, and of course 7 years of updates. This year, the Pixel 9 Pro Fold gets all of those upgrades. And the most noticeable upgrade is with the displays. Both displays are now Super Actua displays, hitting peak brightness of 2,700 nits (the same as Pixel 9), with High Brightness Mode or HBM hitting 1800 nits on the front display and 1600 nits on the internal display.

Brightness was a big problem for the Pixel Fold last year. Because foldable displays do use plastic, since glass doesn’t really fold well, and plastic is naturally reflective, it made it pretty difficult to use the internal display outdoors. This was probably the single biggest complaint from the Pixel Fold last year, and I’m happy to report, that is no longer an issue. The screens look great outdoors, under direct sunlight, and are still very usable.

Google touts that the Pixel 9 Pro Fold has the largest internal display of any other foldable on the market, which is true but only slightly. You see, Google is listing the Pixel 9 Pro Fold as having a 8-inch display, when in all honesty, it’s probably like 7.98-inches, as Google tends to round up. While there are plenty of other foldables in the 7.9-inch to 8-inch segment, like the Xiaomi Mix Fold 4 and HONOR Magic V3. Nevertheless, this is a great looking 8-inch display.

Yes, the crease is still there. And honestly, it’s not that noticeable. Only when the screen is off will you really notice the crease. In day-to-day usage, I’ve actually forgotten that there was even a crease there. It’s nowhere near as deep as the Galaxy Z Fold 6’s crease but more prominent than some other foldables we’ve recently used from China, including one that I can’t yet talk about.

Both of the Pixel 9 Pro Fold displays get a big thumbs up from me. And are some of the best I’ve ever seen on a foldable (so far).

Google Pixel 9 Pro Fold Review: Performance

Let me start this section out by saying, performance is another huge improvement for the Pixel 9 Pro Fold. The Tensor G2 in the Pixel Fold last year was a major let down. It would get warm for no reason at all, it was pretty slow, and the modem sucked, all of which has been well documented. But the Tensor G4, fixed all of that.

After using and reviewing the other Pixel 9 models, I was even more excited for the Pixel 9 Pro Fold. Why? Because almost every performance issue we had, was solved. The Tensor G4 is pretty speedy, not quite as speedy as the Snapdragon 8 Gen 3, but I don’t think most would notice the difference. It’s also much more efficient, though that could also be thanks to the vastly improved modem. With this new modem, I’ve gotten around a 20-30% increase in signal strength and speeds, compared to the Tensor G3, and it’s an even bigger improvement from Tensor G2 (closer to 40%).

The other upgrade in the performance department is the RAM, it’s now 16GB instead of 12GB. Though, keep in mind that around 3GB of that 16GB of RAM is being reserved for AI and Gemini. So it’s not that big of an upgrade, however it is still noticeable.

In day-to-day usage, I honestly didn’t notice much of a difference between this and the Galaxy Z Fold 6, in terms of performance. The one area where the Tensor G4 does fall short, though, is with graphics. Qualcomm’s chipsets always outperform ARM’s GPUs for mobile devices. So if you’re a heavy gamer, this is likely not the phone for you.

So how do the numbers of the Tensor G4 stack up? Well, we tested it. We ran three benchmarks, Geekbench 6, 3DMark Wildlife Extreme Stress Test, and a video export test with Capcut. Normally, we compare this with 3 other devices, but we’re actually going to do two different comparisons here. Comparing the Pixel 9 Pro Fold with the other Pixel 9 devices and then comparing it with 3 other foldables – Pixel Fold, Galaxy Z Fold 6 and OnePlus Open.

First up is Geekbench 6. As most of you likely know, Geekbench is a good indicator of the raw performance of single-core, multi-core and the GPU. Above, we can see that the Pixel 9 Pro Fold scored pretty evenly with the other Pixel 9 models. The only major difference being the single-core on Pixel 9, and that’s due to the lack of a vapor chamber there. Otherwise, everything is pretty close here.

Now when we compare it to other foldables, like the Galaxy Z Fold 6 (Snapdragon 8 Gen 3), Pixel Fold (Tensor G2), and OnePlus Open (Snapdragon 8 Gen 2), we can see that the Pixel 9 Pro Fold is pretty close to the Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 and even a bit ahead on the single-core score. It’s also a nice upgrade over the Pixel Fold from last year, but still quite a bit lower than the Snapdragon 8 Gen 3, which is about to get replaced by the Snapdragon 8 Gen 4 next month.

The next test we run is 3DMark Wildlife Extreme Stress Test. This benchmark is designed to push the phone to its absolute limit. Running the same 60-second benchmark 20 times, giving us a Best Loop score, a Lowest Loop Score and from those we get a stability percentage. The Pixel 9 Pro Fold had a Best Loop of 2,571 and a Lowest Loop of 1,911, giving us a stability of 74.3%. While the scores are lower than other recent foldables, the stability score is far higher. Samsung’s Galaxy Z Fold 6 had a stability of 65%, and OnePlus Open of 66%. These scores are also very similar to the other Pixel 9 devices.

Finally, we run the video export test. We’ve run this test the same way on each phone we test. We load up the same 60-second long video, and then export at 1080p30 (only because not all phones support 4K or 1080p60 on Capcut). Then we time how long the export took. For the Pixel 9 series, they were all very close. Though the Pixel 9 Pro Fold did it the fastest at 12.16 seconds. While the other Pixel 9 models were right around 12.6 seconds. Not bad scores at all.

Now when we expand that to the other foldables – Galaxy Z Fold 6, Pixel Fold, OnePlus Open – we can see that it is a huge upgrade over the Pixel Fold’s Tensor G2. It’s also a nice upgrade over the Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 in OnePlus Open. But Samsung’s Galaxy Z Fold 6 is still the best out of these four. The Pixel Fold last year was obnoxiously slow and still the slowest time we’ve ever recorded on this test. The fact that the Pixel 9 Pro Fold is now roughly 3x faster, is a nice upgrade.

Google spent a few minutes in their announcement talking about the vapor chamber inside its new phones. Just to clarify here, it is in all Pro models of the Pixel 9 – that’s Pixel 9 Pro, Pixel 9 Pro XL, and Pixel 9 Pro Fold. There’s been some conflicting information online (particularly Reddit) about whether the Pixel 9 Pro Fold had one or not, and it does. It’s also very noticeable that it does have a vapor chamber in the Geekbench results above, and in the temperature readings in our thermal tests.

The first thermal test we do is, also a benchmark. It’s the 3DMark Wildlife Extreme Stress Test. With this we run the benchmark, and then record the temperature in the hottest place on the phone (typically the camera area). Then we let it cool down to room temperature before performing other tests. On this test, the Pixel 9 Pro Fold hit 109.4 degrees Fahrenheit. That is just point one degree lower than the Pixel 9 Pro XL, and a full degree lower than the Pixel 9 and Pixel 9 Pro. Though still higher than the Galaxy Z Fold 6.

The next thermal test we perform is, playing Genshin Impact for an hour at the highest settings and max brightness (with adaptive brightness turned off). On this test, the Pixel 9 Pro Fold performed pretty well, with a temp of 106.7 degrees. That’s pretty similar to the Pixel 9 and Pixel 9 Pro. Though a few degrees warmer than the Pixel 9 due to that vapor chamber.

Finally, we do a camera test. Recording video at 4K60 for 10 minutes, however we record the temperatures at 5 minutes and then at the end of the 10 minute test. The Pixel 9 Pro Fold performed very well here, recording a temperature of 84.5 degrees at 5 minutes, and 85.6 degrees at the final 10 minute mark. That is actually a solid 14 degrees lower than the Pixel 9 and Pixel 9 Pro.

So where does the vapor chamber really come into play? Mostly in the camera, surprisingly. When gaming, the temperatures are also pretty decent, anything under 110 is pretty good, since a good number of phones are well above that – hell, the ASUS Zenfone 11 Ultra hit 137 degrees. Hopefully, next we get the vapor chamber in all the Pixel models, and not just the pros.

Google Pixel 9 Pro Fold Review: Battery life and Charging

The big question with the Pixel 9 Pro Fold is, how’s the battery life. Given the fact that, both displays are larger, while the battery is smaller on the Pixel 9 Pro Fold. Surprisingly, battery life is pretty good. In daily usage, I found that the Pixel 9 Pro Fold lasted longer than almost any other foldable I’ve tested (including HONOR Magic V2 RSR, Pixel Fold, and Galaxy Z Fold 6), except for one. That’s the OnePlus Open. For the way I use phones, the OnePlus Open still has the best battery life, even a year later. However, the Pixel 9 Pro Fold is not far behind.

I typically wake up around 7AM and unplug the Pixel 9 Pro Fold and start my day. Typically going to bed around 11PM. This is the same schedule I’ve had for many years and the same one I keep for reviewing phones. With the Pixel 9 Pro Fold, I typically have about 20% left by 11PM, after around 6 hours of screen on time. Comparing this to the Galaxy Z Fold 6, which was typically around 5% or had to be charged a bit before bed. The OnePlus Open would typically be around 20-25% in that same time.

During my testing, I probably used the inner display about 40% of the time and the outer display around 60% of the time. So a good mixture of both displays being used. Obviously, using that large 8-inch display means that it’s going to tax the battery more. This was also my daily driver, so it was used on WiFi and 5G throughout the day. If I had to guess, around 80% WiFi and 20% 5G, since I do work from home.

Charging however, that is where things fall apart. Google touts 21W charging speeds on the Pixel 9 Pro Fold. That’s incredibly slow, and the slowest of any Pixel 9 device released this year. That is the same as the Pixel Fold from last year, which sucked last year too. It takes a little over an hour to go from 0% to 100% on the Pixel 9 Pro Fold. That’s unacceptable when we have other foldables that are cheaper, charging fully in about 40 minutes.

Another issue with charging is, the Pixel Stand. Because Google had to move the charging coil lower on the Pixel 9 Pro Fold, it doesn’t work with the Pixel Stand. Which just goes to show that Google really needs to put out a new Pixel Stand. The current model was released 3 years ago, so its time.

So is charging really an issue? For me, no. Unless I’m using it very heavy one day, like I will be this week at IFA. For the most part, it lasts me all day and I’m only charging at night, so the slow charging isn’t a big deal, because it’s still at 100% when I wake up, which is all I care about. The slower charging speeds also means the battery will last much longer.

This year, battery life has been pretty stellar across the board for the Pixel 9 models. I tend to believe that this is mostly down to the Tensor G4 being much more optimized over the Tensor G3, as well as the much improved modem.  So I wasn’t at all surprised to see how well it performed in our battery test.

In our battery rundown test, which we run the same way on every device we review, the Pixel 9 Pro Fold scored the highest time of any foldable. The test in question, plays a 24-hour long YouTube video from 100% to 1% at full brightness (again with Adaptive Brightness turned off). In that test, the Pixel 9 Pro Fold was able to achieve a time of 18 hours and 35 minutes. That’s lower than all other Pixel 9 models, but higher than every other foldable we’ve tested so far. This leads me to believe that Google did a lot to optimize video playback this year.

The Galaxy Z Fold 6 scored 15 hours and 35 minutes, the Pixel Fold from last year was the worst at 13 hours and 25 minutes, and surprisingly the OnePlus Open was 15 hours and 32 minutes. Surprisingly, since it still offers the best battery life for me.

Now, onto charging. After that battery rundown test is complete, we then plug in the phone. If the phone comes with a charger in the box, we use that. Otherwise, we use a charger that can achieve the maximum charging speed, using a USB-C cable that shows the speed to make sure. With the Pixel 9 Pro Fold charging so slowly, it didn’t really matter what charger we used as long as it was 30W or faster. In our test, we found that it took 1 hour and 20 minutes to charge fully. While that is slower than the Pixel 9 Pro and Pro XL, it’s only slower by a minute or two. Though it is a 10% smaller battery.

Google Pixel 9 Pro Fold Review: Software

As we reported before the Made by Google event, the Pixel 9 Pro Fold does indeed launch with Android 14. We’ve also heard recently that Android 15 likely isn’t rolling out until October 2024 . So we will be updating this review (and our other Pixel 9 reviews) after Android 15 rolls out. We’re hopeful that there will be more foldable features available in Android 15. Right now, there’s not many available, and it feels like Google is very far behind.

I am a fan of Google launching with Android 14 though. I’ve been reviewing Pixels and Nexus devices for the past 12 years, and the Pixel 9 series has been the most stable launch ever. Typically, the new phones are riddled with bugs, which is not something you want to do with your brand new phone. Not the case this year. There’s still an odd bug here and there – for instance there’s one with X right now. But none that really hamper the experience, that I’ve seen.

The bug I’m seeing with X (and to be clear, I think this is an X issue not a Google issue, as I have been able to replicate it on other foldables. When you turn the phone on the main screen, into landscape, the tweets shown on X then appear in the middle of the screen, taking up about a third. It’s really odd, but as I said, I’ve seen this on two other foldables I’ve tried it on. So I believe this is an X issue, get on it Elon.

Android 14 , we all know what we’re getting here. So we’re going to focus more on the Pixel 9 Pro Fold exclusive features. You can check out our Pixel 9 Pro review if you want to hear more about things like Pixel Studio and Pixel Screenshots. . One feature that I was really excited to try out, as a YouTube TV user, was multiview on the Pixel 9 Pro Fold. Being able to watch two college football games at the same time on this phone is really cool, and a gamechanger. Since you can also see specs below the game, making it easier to keep up.

Google does also have tabletop mode available, where you unfold your Pixel 9 Pro Fold to about 90 degrees and the lower half of the screen turns into controls. This works in YouTube and also the camera app. It’s definitely useful in the camera app for taking group photos. Surprisingly, many other foldables do not utilize features like this, that work with the phone open part-way. Honestly, it’s really useful, especially with Dual-Screen Mode for Live Transcribe. Making it easier than ever to communicate with those who are deaf or hard of hearing.

Games that are optimized for this nearly 1:1 aspect ratio display are also great to play. I’ve spent a good bit of time playing Wild Rift, and it’s a whole new experience playing it on a foldable, versus a regular slab phone. It truly makes it much more immersive.

There are a few foldable features here, but Google is still behind in this regard. For me, Samsung has the best foldable software. While I don’t like One UI, Samsung has added a ton of very useful features to help take advantage of that larger display. The same goes for OnePlus with its OpenCanvas that it debuted last year (which I actually like better than One UI). There are still a bunch of weird quirks that Google hasn’t fixed, like the ability to have different layouts on your home screens for the inner and outer displays.

Pixel 9 Pro Fold will get 7 years of updates . So that means you will be getting updates until August of 2031. That puts it up there with the Galaxy Z Fold 6 (and Flip 6) as the longest software support of a foldable right now.

Google Pixel 9 Pro Fold Review: Cameras

So, the cameras. This is the part of the Pixel 9 Pro Fold that I was the most disappointed in, when it was announced. Giving us a 48-megapixel primary sensor that is about the same size as the Pixel 8a, along with a 10.5-megapixel ultrawide and a 10.8-megapixel telephoto. Technically the only one that changed from Pixel Fold was the Ultrawide. It’s now 10.5 vs 10.8 megapixels, but it is also a little bit smaller and has a wider field of view.

But how does it work with taking photos? It’s the usual Pixel experience for photos. You’ll get some pretty good photos from the primary sensor, and decent ones out of the other two. I have noticed the colors aren’t quite as vibrant on this year’s Pixel cameras as compared to other phones on the market. It seems that Google is preferring to stick with true-to-life colors over a little bit of saturation to make them look better.

I’ve been spoiled, using the OnePlus Open for the past year, which had some of the best cameras on any phone at the time, and I’d say it still up there a year later. While the cameras aren’t bad on the Pixel 9 Pro Fold, I do feel like Google could have done a bit more with these cameras, especially on a phone that costs $1,799 (+ tax). Given the fact this phone has “pro” in its name, I expected more. In some aspects, the Pixel 8a has a better camera setup and the same size primary sensor, though the Pixel 8a does have a few more megapixels at 64.

The front cameras are also pretty good, actually. These did not get the upgrade that the other Pixel 9 Pro models got, so both of these are still 10-megapixel front-facing cameras. But they are exactly the same. So that’s 23mm focal length, aperture of f/2.2 and 1/3.94″. I’m not a big selfie taker, but I did take a few with these cameras, and they looked pretty good. Beauty mode doesn’t go as crazy as it does on some other phones – especially those from China and South Korea. Google still does a good job with portrait mode, cutting everything out, but it does have trouble with my glasses still, if I’m at an angle.

But the camera experience isn’t just about the photo quality. With these dual displays, Google is adding a good bit of features to make them more useful. Of course, there’s the dual display, so the other person can see the photo you’re taking or make it easier for you to take a selfie with the rear cameras. Google has also added “Made you Look,” which is a new feature that plays a funny animation on the rear display to keep your kids’ attention and get a great picture of them. It’s hard to get a good picture of toddlers looking at the camera and smiling at the same time. Unfortunately, I don’t have any kids I could try this on.

Google also has tabletop mode for group shots. So you can easily set a timer and run into the group shot, with the built-in tripod that the Pixel 9 Pro Fold has. Of course, you can also use the new “Add Me” feature that’s on all of the Pixel 9s this year. Though, as we’ve seen, it’s not perfect and does tend to do weird things with arms, hands, and legs.

It almost seems like Google spent more time on making the camera better with this added screen real estate, than it did the rest of the software. Hopefully after an update or two, the rest of the OS will catch up.

Should you buy the Google Pixel 9 Pro Fold?

It’s tough to say. If this is your first foldable, this is a great option. I actually prefer the hardware here over the Galaxy Z Fold 6, but it’s not perfect, and at $1,799 you probably want it to be close to perfect. Just keep in mind that this is an early adopter type device, and if you’re planning on keeping this for many years, you might want to wait. At least until a nice discount comes along, and knowing Google, that will happen.

You should buy the Google Pixel 9 Pro Fold if:

• You want top-notch hardware, with Google’s flavor of Android.
• You want good battery life with a great foldable.

You should not buy the Google Pixel 9 Pro Fold if:

• You want the best camera experience on a foldable.
• You don’t want a big and heavy phone.
• Join Our Team
• Privacy Policy
• Privacy Manager

Deals & More

• Best Cell Phone Deals
• Best Tech Deals
• Product Reviews
• Android News
• Google News
• News and Tips
• All the latest Android & Tech news

Screen Rant

Return of the jedi's sarlacc pit gets the brick-built lego treatment (review).

Your changes have been saved

Email is sent

Email has already been sent

Please verify your email address.

You’ve reached your account maximum for followed topics.

Everything Missing From Star Wars' Canon Thrawn Trilogy Adaptation (So Far)

Star wars just introduced princess leia's final chance for closure with darth vader, mace windu was the original hero of star wars, not luke or anakin.

The LEGO Group has released a brand-new Star Wars model of the classic Desert Skiff and Sarlacc Pit, recreating the iconic opening battle from Return of the Jedi . Featuring several original trilogy characters that were present during the rescue mission to save Han Solo, the new build comes with an exciting handful of minifigures. However, it also includes an exclusive minifigure as well, celebrating LEGO's 25th anniversary with the galaxy far, far away.

LEGO's new Desert Skiff & Sarlacc Pit (75396) set was recently released on August 1st. This was alongside several other new Star Wars models, including Ahsoka Tano's Duel on Peridea (75385) and a few inspired by LEGO's upcoming Disney+ special Rebuild the Galaxy . However, I recently got my hands on this new Return of the Jedi build, so here's Screen Rant's official review for LEGO's new Desert Skiff & Salracc Pit (75396).

Box Art And Contents Overview For LEGO's Desert Skiff & Sarlacc Pit (75396)

Recreating the iconic dune sea battle.

The box art for this new build features the deserts of Tatooine, specifically the Dune Sea, the site of the Sarlacc pit where Jabba the Hutt enjoyed disposing his rivals. As seen on both the front and back of the box, the dual skiff and Sarlacc builds are prominently featured, as are their various play features . The side of the box also highlights the set's inclusion of its latest 25th-anniversary minifigure, Nien Nunb (who also debuted in Return of the Jedi ) .

Inside the box, both builds are split into six bags total. It's also notable that this is a rare set in which no stickers are included. With a piece count of 558, I wasn't a huge fan of the set's $80 price tag . However, the inclusion of 5 minifigures with updated designs and an exclusive Star Wars minifigure that has never been featured before does justify the cost somewhat.

Build Breakdown For Desert Skiff & Sarlacc Pit (75396)

Lots of desert pieces (but also some fun play features).

Working at a leisurely pace, LEGO's Desert Skiff & Sarlacc Pit (75396) took me just under an hour and a half to build, making it a short but sweet project overall . Starting with the Sarlacc pit, the build features some fun play features such as knobs that can be turned to move the large creatures' four tentacles. Likewise, the overall desert base is bigger than I expected. While it does give some good dimension to the Sarlacc that's largely buried in the sand , it's going to take some creativity to find a good way to display it on my shelves alongside the skiff.

Moving onto the skiff, the small desert craft features some nice design elements to help it resemble the skiff seen in Return of the Jedi. This includes a plank that can extend and retract. While the inclusion of transparent stands to give the skiff is helpful, it would have been nice if a few extra pieces had been added to give the skiff an extra inch or two off the ground given the size of the Sarlacc pit. As it stands, the skiff isn't quite high enough to be easily displayed over the Sarlacc on its own using the pieces given.

A Closer Look At The New Return of the Jedi Minifigures

Including the 25th anniversary nien nunb.

The set's six minifigures are quite impressive as well. Both Luke Skywalker and Lando have received updated designs with extra detail since their inclusion LEGO's 2012 Desert Skiff and Sarlacc set, as have Han and Chewie who were featured in the 2017 iteration (the blinded face print for Han is particularly good). Regardless, it is nice to have all four Rebels included in this new version.

Boba Fett is included as well, though without his signature half cape which I found to be pretty disappointing, as well as the absence of Jabba's guards who came with the older models. That said, the inclusion of Nien Nunb as the 25th-anniversary figure is very exciting, the first time Lando's Battle of Endor co-pilot has received the brick-built treatment since his debut in 1983 . All in all, it's a very good collection of minifigures with this new LEGO Star Wars set, which was a lot of fun to build overall.

Click Here To View/Order Desert Skiff & Sarlacc Pit (75396) on LEGO.com

Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi

Your rating.

Your comment has not been saved

The third film released and the sixth film chronologically in the Star Wars Saga, Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi is a sci-fi epic adventure film that continues the adventures of Luke, Leia, Han, and friends as they battle against the Empire. After a narrow escape but crushing defeat at the hands of the empire, the rebel alliance learns that a new Death Star has been constructed above the moon of Endor. With the war reaching its conclusion, the heroes will team with the forest planet's inhabitants and prepare themselves for one final showdown with Darth Vander and the Galactic Empire.