Have a language expert improve your writing

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

  • Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research that you can later apply to your paper, thesis, or dissertation topic .

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

A good literature review doesn’t just summarize sources—it analyzes, synthesizes , and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

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

upload-your-document-ai-proofreader

Table of contents

What is the purpose of a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1 – search for relevant literature, step 2 – evaluate and select sources, step 3 – identify themes, debates, and gaps, step 4 – outline your literature review’s structure, step 5 – write your literature review, free lecture slides, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions, introduction.

  • Quick Run-through
  • Step 1 & 2

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

  • Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and its scholarly context
  • Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
  • Position your work in relation to other researchers and theorists
  • Show how your research addresses a gap or contributes to a debate
  • Evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of the scholarly debates around your topic.

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

Literature review guide

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing - try for free!

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

what is the literature review in a research paper

Try for free

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

You can also use boolean operators to help narrow down your search.

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

  • Academic style
  • Vague sentences
  • Style consistency

See an example

what is the literature review in a research paper

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

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

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

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

There are various approaches to organizing the body of a literature review. Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

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

It is often written as part of a thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved February 12, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Shona McCombes

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

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

OWL logo

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the parts of a lit review?

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

Introduction:

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

Conclusion:

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

How should I organize my lit review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

University of Texas

  • University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

  • What is a literature review?
  • Steps in the Literature Review Process
  • Define your research question
  • Determine inclusion and exclusion criteria
  • Choose databases and search
  • Review Results
  • Synthesize Results
  • Analyze Results
  • Librarian Support

What is a Literature Review?

A literature or narrative review is a comprehensive review and analysis of the published literature on a specific topic or research question. The literature that is reviewed contains: books, articles, academic articles, conference proceedings, association papers, and dissertations. It contains the most pertinent studies and points to important past and current research and practices. It provides background and context, and shows how your research will contribute to the field. 

A literature review should: 

  • Provide a comprehensive and updated review of the literature;
  • Explain why this review has taken place;
  • Articulate a position or hypothesis;
  • Acknowledge and account for conflicting and corroborating points of view

From  S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

A literature review can be written as an introduction to a study to:

  • Demonstrate how a study fills a gap in research
  • Compare a study with other research that's been done

Or it can be a separate work (a research article on its own) which:

  • Organizes or describes a topic
  • Describes variables within a particular issue/problem

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

  • It's a snapshot in time. Unlike other reviews, this one has beginning, a middle and an end. There may be future developments that could make your work less relevant.
  • It may be too focused. Some niche studies may miss the bigger picture.
  • It can be difficult to be comprehensive. There is no way to make sure all the literature on a topic was considered.
  • It is easy to be biased if you stick to top tier journals. There may be other places where people are publishing exemplary research. Look to open access publications and conferences to reflect a more inclusive collection. Also, make sure to include opposing views (and not just supporting evidence).

Source: Grant, Maria J., and Andrew Booth. “A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies.” Health Information & Libraries Journal, vol. 26, no. 2, June 2009, pp. 91–108. Wiley Online Library, doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.

Meryl Brodsky : Communication and Information Studies

Hannah Chapman Tripp : Biology, Neuroscience

Carolyn Cunningham : Human Development & Family Sciences, Psychology, Sociology

Larayne Dallas : Engineering

Janelle Hedstrom : Special Education, Curriculum & Instruction, Ed Leadership & Policy ​

Susan Macicak : Linguistics

Imelda Vetter : Dell Medical School

For help in other subject areas, please see the guide to library specialists by subject .

Periodically, UT Libraries runs a workshop covering the basics and library support for literature reviews. While we try to offer these once per academic year, we find providing the recording to be helpful to community members who have missed the session. Following is the most recent recording of the workshop, Conducting a Literature Review. To view the recording, a UT login is required.

  • October 26, 2022 recording
  • Last Updated: Oct 26, 2022 2:49 PM
  • URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

Creative Commons License

  • USC Libraries
  • Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of a Good Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

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

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

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

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

II.  Development of the Literature Review

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

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

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

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

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

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

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

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

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

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

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

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

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

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

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

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

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

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

  • << Previous: Theoretical Framework
  • Next: Citation Tracking >>
  • Last Updated: Feb 8, 2024 1:57 PM
  • URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

The Writing Center • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Literature Reviews

What this handout is about.

This handout will explain what literature reviews are and offer insights into the form and construction of literature reviews in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences.

Introduction

OK. You’ve got to write a literature review. You dust off a novel and a book of poetry, settle down in your chair, and get ready to issue a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” as you leaf through the pages. “Literature review” done. Right?

Wrong! The “literature” of a literature review refers to any collection of materials on a topic, not necessarily the great literary texts of the world. “Literature” could be anything from a set of government pamphlets on British colonial methods in Africa to scholarly articles on the treatment of a torn ACL. And a review does not necessarily mean that your reader wants you to give your personal opinion on whether or not you liked these sources.

What is a literature review, then?

A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area, and sometimes information in a particular subject area within a certain time period.

A literature review can be just a simple summary of the sources, but it usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis. A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information. It might give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations. Or it might trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates. And depending on the situation, the literature review may evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant.

But how is a literature review different from an academic research paper?

The main focus of an academic research paper is to develop a new argument, and a research paper is likely to contain a literature review as one of its parts. In a research paper, you use the literature as a foundation and as support for a new insight that you contribute. The focus of a literature review, however, is to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of others without adding new contributions.

Why do we write literature reviews?

Literature reviews provide you with a handy guide to a particular topic. If you have limited time to conduct research, literature reviews can give you an overview or act as a stepping stone. For professionals, they are useful reports that keep them up to date with what is current in the field. For scholars, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the writer in his or her field. Literature reviews also provide a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. Comprehensive knowledge of the literature of the field is essential to most research papers.

Who writes these things, anyway?

Literature reviews are written occasionally in the humanities, but mostly in the sciences and social sciences; in experiment and lab reports, they constitute a section of the paper. Sometimes a literature review is written as a paper in itself.

Let’s get to it! What should I do before writing the literature review?

If your assignment is not very specific, seek clarification from your instructor:

  • Roughly how many sources should you include?
  • What types of sources (books, journal articles, websites)?
  • Should you summarize, synthesize, or critique your sources by discussing a common theme or issue?
  • Should you evaluate your sources?
  • Should you provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history?

Find models

Look for other literature reviews in your area of interest or in the discipline and read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or ways to organize your final review. You can simply put the word “review” in your search engine along with your other topic terms to find articles of this type on the Internet or in an electronic database. The bibliography or reference section of sources you’ve already read are also excellent entry points into your own research.

Narrow your topic

There are hundreds or even thousands of articles and books on most areas of study. The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to get a good survey of the material. Your instructor will probably not expect you to read everything that’s out there on the topic, but you’ll make your job easier if you first limit your scope.

Keep in mind that UNC Libraries have research guides and to databases relevant to many fields of study. You can reach out to the subject librarian for a consultation: https://library.unc.edu/support/consultations/ .

And don’t forget to tap into your professor’s (or other professors’) knowledge in the field. Ask your professor questions such as: “If you had to read only one book from the 90’s on topic X, what would it be?” Questions such as this help you to find and determine quickly the most seminal pieces in the field.

Consider whether your sources are current

Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. In the sciences, for instance, treatments for medical problems are constantly changing according to the latest studies. Information even two years old could be obsolete. However, if you are writing a review in the humanities, history, or social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be what is needed, because what is important is how perspectives have changed through the years or within a certain time period. Try sorting through some other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to consider what is currently of interest to scholars in this field and what is not.

Strategies for writing the literature review

Find a focus.

A literature review, like a term paper, is usually organized around ideas, not the sources themselves as an annotated bibliography would be organized. This means that you will not just simply list your sources and go into detail about each one of them, one at a time. No. As you read widely but selectively in your topic area, consider instead what themes or issues connect your sources together. Do they present one or different solutions? Is there an aspect of the field that is missing? How well do they present the material and do they portray it according to an appropriate theory? Do they reveal a trend in the field? A raging debate? Pick one of these themes to focus the organization of your review.

Convey it to your reader

A literature review may not have a traditional thesis statement (one that makes an argument), but you do need to tell readers what to expect. Try writing a simple statement that lets the reader know what is your main organizing principle. Here are a couple of examples:

The current trend in treatment for congestive heart failure combines surgery and medicine. More and more cultural studies scholars are accepting popular media as a subject worthy of academic consideration.

Consider organization

You’ve got a focus, and you’ve stated it clearly and directly. Now what is the most effective way of presenting the information? What are the most important topics, subtopics, etc., that your review needs to include? And in what order should you present them? Develop an organization for your review at both a global and local level:

First, cover the basic categories

Just like most academic papers, literature reviews also must contain at least three basic elements: an introduction or background information section; the body of the review containing the discussion of sources; and, finally, a conclusion and/or recommendations section to end the paper. The following provides a brief description of the content of each:

  • Introduction: Gives a quick idea of the topic of the literature review, such as the central theme or organizational pattern.
  • Body: Contains your discussion of sources and is organized either chronologically, thematically, or methodologically (see below for more information on each).
  • Conclusions/Recommendations: Discuss what you have drawn from reviewing literature so far. Where might the discussion proceed?

Organizing the body

Once you have the basic categories in place, then you must consider how you will present the sources themselves within the body of your paper. Create an organizational method to focus this section even further.

To help you come up with an overall organizational framework for your review, consider the following scenario:

You’ve decided to focus your literature review on materials dealing with sperm whales. This is because you’ve just finished reading Moby Dick, and you wonder if that whale’s portrayal is really real. You start with some articles about the physiology of sperm whales in biology journals written in the 1980’s. But these articles refer to some British biological studies performed on whales in the early 18th century. So you check those out. Then you look up a book written in 1968 with information on how sperm whales have been portrayed in other forms of art, such as in Alaskan poetry, in French painting, or on whale bone, as the whale hunters in the late 19th century used to do. This makes you wonder about American whaling methods during the time portrayed in Moby Dick, so you find some academic articles published in the last five years on how accurately Herman Melville portrayed the whaling scene in his novel.

Now consider some typical ways of organizing the sources into a review:

  • Chronological: If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials above according to when they were published. For instance, first you would talk about the British biological studies of the 18th century, then about Moby Dick, published in 1851, then the book on sperm whales in other art (1968), and finally the biology articles (1980s) and the recent articles on American whaling of the 19th century. But there is relatively no continuity among subjects here. And notice that even though the sources on sperm whales in other art and on American whaling are written recently, they are about other subjects/objects that were created much earlier. Thus, the review loses its chronological focus.
  • By publication: Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on biological studies of sperm whales if the progression revealed a change in dissection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies.
  • By trend: A better way to organize the above sources chronologically is to examine the sources under another trend, such as the history of whaling. Then your review would have subsections according to eras within this period. For instance, the review might examine whaling from pre-1600-1699, 1700-1799, and 1800-1899. Under this method, you would combine the recent studies on American whaling in the 19th century with Moby Dick itself in the 1800-1899 category, even though the authors wrote a century apart.
  • Thematic: Thematic reviews of literature are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time. However, progression of time may still be an important factor in a thematic review. For instance, the sperm whale review could focus on the development of the harpoon for whale hunting. While the study focuses on one topic, harpoon technology, it will still be organized chronologically. The only difference here between a “chronological” and a “thematic” approach is what is emphasized the most: the development of the harpoon or the harpoon technology.But more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. For instance, a thematic review of material on sperm whales might examine how they are portrayed as “evil” in cultural documents. The subsections might include how they are personified, how their proportions are exaggerated, and their behaviors misunderstood. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point made.
  • Methodological: A methodological approach differs from the two above in that the focusing factor usually does not have to do with the content of the material. Instead, it focuses on the “methods” of the researcher or writer. For the sperm whale project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of whales in American, British, and French art work. Or the review might focus on the economic impact of whaling on a community. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed. Once you’ve decided on the organizational method for the body of the review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out. They should arise out of your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period. A thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue.

Sometimes, though, you might need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. Put in only what is necessary. Here are a few other sections you might want to consider:

  • Current Situation: Information necessary to understand the topic or focus of the literature review.
  • History: The chronological progression of the field, the literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
  • Methods and/or Standards: The criteria you used to select the sources in your literature review or the way in which you present your information. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed articles and journals.

Questions for Further Research: What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

Begin composing

Once you’ve settled on a general pattern of organization, you’re ready to write each section. There are a few guidelines you should follow during the writing stage as well. Here is a sample paragraph from a literature review about sexism and language to illuminate the following discussion:

However, other studies have shown that even gender-neutral antecedents are more likely to produce masculine images than feminine ones (Gastil, 1990). Hamilton (1988) asked students to complete sentences that required them to fill in pronouns that agreed with gender-neutral antecedents such as “writer,” “pedestrian,” and “persons.” The students were asked to describe any image they had when writing the sentence. Hamilton found that people imagined 3.3 men to each woman in the masculine “generic” condition and 1.5 men per woman in the unbiased condition. Thus, while ambient sexism accounted for some of the masculine bias, sexist language amplified the effect. (Source: Erika Falk and Jordan Mills, “Why Sexist Language Affects Persuasion: The Role of Homophily, Intended Audience, and Offense,” Women and Language19:2).

Use evidence

In the example above, the writers refer to several other sources when making their point. A literature review in this sense is just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence to show that what you are saying is valid.

Be selective

Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the review’s focus, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological.

Use quotes sparingly

Falk and Mills do not use any direct quotes. That is because the survey nature of the literature review does not allow for in-depth discussion or detailed quotes from the text. Some short quotes here and there are okay, though, if you want to emphasize a point, or if what the author said just cannot be rewritten in your own words. Notice that Falk and Mills do quote certain terms that were coined by the author, not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. But if you find yourself wanting to put in more quotes, check with your instructor.

Summarize and synthesize

Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each paragraph as well as throughout the review. The authors here recapitulate important features of Hamilton’s study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study’s significance and relating it to their own work.

Keep your own voice

While the literature review presents others’ ideas, your voice (the writer’s) should remain front and center. Notice that Falk and Mills weave references to other sources into their own text, but they still maintain their own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with their own ideas and their own words. The sources support what Falk and Mills are saying.

Use caution when paraphrasing

When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author’s information or opinions accurately and in your own words. In the preceding example, Falk and Mills either directly refer in the text to the author of their source, such as Hamilton, or they provide ample notation in the text when the ideas they are mentioning are not their own, for example, Gastil’s. For more information, please see our handout on plagiarism .

Revise, revise, revise

Draft in hand? Now you’re ready to revise. Spending a lot of time revising is a wise idea, because your main objective is to present the material, not the argument. So check over your review again to make sure it follows the assignment and/or your outline. Then, just as you would for most other academic forms of writing, rewrite or rework the language of your review so that you’ve presented your information in the most concise manner possible. Be sure to use terminology familiar to your audience; get rid of unnecessary jargon or slang. Finally, double check that you’ve documented your sources and formatted the review appropriately for your discipline. For tips on the revising and editing process, see our handout on revising drafts .

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Anson, Chris M., and Robert A. Schwegler. 2010. The Longman Handbook for Writers and Readers , 6th ed. New York: Longman.

Jones, Robert, Patrick Bizzaro, and Cynthia Selfe. 1997. The Harcourt Brace Guide to Writing in the Disciplines . New York: Harcourt Brace.

Lamb, Sandra E. 1998. How to Write It: A Complete Guide to Everything You’ll Ever Write . Berkeley: Ten Speed Press.

Rosen, Leonard J., and Laurence Behrens. 2003. The Allyn & Bacon Handbook , 5th ed. New York: Longman.

Troyka, Lynn Quittman, and Doug Hesse. 2016. Simon and Schuster Handbook for Writers , 11th ed. London: Pearson.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

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

upload-your-document-ai-proofreader

Table of contents

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

  • Quick Run-through
  • Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

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

Literature review guide

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

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

what is the literature review in a research paper

Correct my document today

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 12 February 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Shona McCombes

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

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

  • Collections
  • Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

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

What is a literature review?

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

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

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

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

APA7 Style resources

Cover Art

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

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

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

2. Decide on the scope of your review

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

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

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

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

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

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

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

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

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

Tips: 

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

Creative Commons

Libraries | Research Guides

Literature reviews, what is a literature review, learning more about how to do a literature review.

  • Planning the Review
  • The Research Question
  • Choosing Where to Search
  • Organizing the Review
  • Writing the Review

A literature review is a review and synthesis of existing research on a topic or research question. A literature review is meant to analyze the scholarly literature, make connections across writings and identify strengths, weaknesses, trends, and missing conversations. A literature review should address different aspects of a topic as it relates to your research question. A literature review goes beyond a description or summary of the literature you have read. 

  • Sage Research Methods Core Collection This link opens in a new window SAGE Research Methods supports research at all levels by providing material to guide users through every step of the research process. SAGE Research Methods is the ultimate methods library with more than 1000 books, reference works, journal articles, and instructional videos by world-leading academics from across the social sciences, including the largest collection of qualitative methods books available online from any scholarly publisher. – Publisher

Cover Art

  • Next: Planning the Review >>
  • Last Updated: Jan 17, 2024 10:05 AM
  • URL: https://libguides.northwestern.edu/literaturereviews
  • Privacy Policy
  • SignUp/Login

Research Method

Home » Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples

Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples

Table of Contents

Literature Review

Literature Review

Definition:

A literature review is a comprehensive and critical analysis of the existing literature on a particular topic or research question. It involves identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing relevant literature, including scholarly articles, books, and other sources, to provide a summary and critical assessment of what is known about the topic.

Types of Literature Review

Types of Literature Review are as follows:

  • Narrative literature review : This type of review involves a comprehensive summary and critical analysis of the available literature on a particular topic or research question. It is often used as an introductory section of a research paper.
  • Systematic literature review: This is a rigorous and structured review that follows a pre-defined protocol to identify, evaluate, and synthesize all relevant studies on a specific research question. It is often used in evidence-based practice and systematic reviews.
  • Meta-analysis: This is a quantitative review that uses statistical methods to combine data from multiple studies to derive a summary effect size. It provides a more precise estimate of the overall effect than any individual study.
  • Scoping review: This is a preliminary review that aims to map the existing literature on a broad topic area to identify research gaps and areas for further investigation.
  • Critical literature review : This type of review evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of the existing literature on a particular topic or research question. It aims to provide a critical analysis of the literature and identify areas where further research is needed.
  • Conceptual literature review: This review synthesizes and integrates theories and concepts from multiple sources to provide a new perspective on a particular topic. It aims to provide a theoretical framework for understanding a particular research question.
  • Rapid literature review: This is a quick review that provides a snapshot of the current state of knowledge on a specific research question or topic. It is often used when time and resources are limited.
  • Thematic literature review : This review identifies and analyzes common themes and patterns across a body of literature on a particular topic. It aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the literature and identify key themes and concepts.
  • Realist literature review: This review is often used in social science research and aims to identify how and why certain interventions work in certain contexts. It takes into account the context and complexities of real-world situations.
  • State-of-the-art literature review : This type of review provides an overview of the current state of knowledge in a particular field, highlighting the most recent and relevant research. It is often used in fields where knowledge is rapidly evolving, such as technology or medicine.
  • Integrative literature review: This type of review synthesizes and integrates findings from multiple studies on a particular topic to identify patterns, themes, and gaps in the literature. It aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the current state of knowledge on a particular topic.
  • Umbrella literature review : This review is used to provide a broad overview of a large and diverse body of literature on a particular topic. It aims to identify common themes and patterns across different areas of research.
  • Historical literature review: This type of review examines the historical development of research on a particular topic or research question. It aims to provide a historical context for understanding the current state of knowledge on a particular topic.
  • Problem-oriented literature review : This review focuses on a specific problem or issue and examines the literature to identify potential solutions or interventions. It aims to provide practical recommendations for addressing a particular problem or issue.
  • Mixed-methods literature review : This type of review combines quantitative and qualitative methods to synthesize and analyze the available literature on a particular topic. It aims to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the research question by combining different types of evidence.

Parts of Literature Review

Parts of a literature review are as follows:

Introduction

The introduction of a literature review typically provides background information on the research topic and why it is important. It outlines the objectives of the review, the research question or hypothesis, and the scope of the review.

Literature Search

This section outlines the search strategy and databases used to identify relevant literature. The search terms used, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and any limitations of the search are described.

Literature Analysis

The literature analysis is the main body of the literature review. This section summarizes and synthesizes the literature that is relevant to the research question or hypothesis. The review should be organized thematically, chronologically, or by methodology, depending on the research objectives.

Critical Evaluation

Critical evaluation involves assessing the quality and validity of the literature. This includes evaluating the reliability and validity of the studies reviewed, the methodology used, and the strength of the evidence.

The conclusion of the literature review should summarize the main findings, identify any gaps in the literature, and suggest areas for future research. It should also reiterate the importance of the research question or hypothesis and the contribution of the literature review to the overall research project.

The references list includes all the sources cited in the literature review, and follows a specific referencing style (e.g., APA, MLA, Harvard).

How to write Literature Review

Here are some steps to follow when writing a literature review:

  • Define your research question or topic : Before starting your literature review, it is essential to define your research question or topic. This will help you identify relevant literature and determine the scope of your review.
  • Conduct a comprehensive search: Use databases and search engines to find relevant literature. Look for peer-reviewed articles, books, and other academic sources that are relevant to your research question or topic.
  • Evaluate the sources: Once you have found potential sources, evaluate them critically to determine their relevance, credibility, and quality. Look for recent publications, reputable authors, and reliable sources of data and evidence.
  • Organize your sources: Group the sources by theme, method, or research question. This will help you identify similarities and differences among the literature, and provide a structure for your literature review.
  • Analyze and synthesize the literature : Analyze each source in depth, identifying the key findings, methodologies, and conclusions. Then, synthesize the information from the sources, identifying patterns and themes in the literature.
  • Write the literature review : Start with an introduction that provides an overview of the topic and the purpose of the literature review. Then, organize the literature according to your chosen structure, and analyze and synthesize the sources. Finally, provide a conclusion that summarizes the key findings of the literature review, identifies gaps in knowledge, and suggests areas for future research.
  • Edit and proofread: Once you have written your literature review, edit and proofread it carefully to ensure that it is well-organized, clear, and concise.

Examples of Literature Review

Here’s an example of how a literature review can be conducted for a thesis on the topic of “ The Impact of Social Media on Teenagers’ Mental Health”:

  • Start by identifying the key terms related to your research topic. In this case, the key terms are “social media,” “teenagers,” and “mental health.”
  • Use academic databases like Google Scholar, JSTOR, or PubMed to search for relevant articles, books, and other publications. Use these keywords in your search to narrow down your results.
  • Evaluate the sources you find to determine if they are relevant to your research question. You may want to consider the publication date, author’s credentials, and the journal or book publisher.
  • Begin reading and taking notes on each source, paying attention to key findings, methodologies used, and any gaps in the research.
  • Organize your findings into themes or categories. For example, you might categorize your sources into those that examine the impact of social media on self-esteem, those that explore the effects of cyberbullying, and those that investigate the relationship between social media use and depression.
  • Synthesize your findings by summarizing the key themes and highlighting any gaps or inconsistencies in the research. Identify areas where further research is needed.
  • Use your literature review to inform your research questions and hypotheses for your thesis.

For example, after conducting a literature review on the impact of social media on teenagers’ mental health, a thesis might look like this:

“Using a mixed-methods approach, this study aims to investigate the relationship between social media use and mental health outcomes in teenagers. Specifically, the study will examine the effects of cyberbullying, social comparison, and excessive social media use on self-esteem, anxiety, and depression. Through an analysis of survey data and qualitative interviews with teenagers, the study will provide insight into the complex relationship between social media use and mental health outcomes, and identify strategies for promoting positive mental health outcomes in young people.”

Reference: Smith, J., Jones, M., & Lee, S. (2019). The effects of social media use on adolescent mental health: A systematic review. Journal of Adolescent Health, 65(2), 154-165. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.03.024

Reference Example: Author, A. A., Author, B. B., & Author, C. C. (Year). Title of article. Title of Journal, volume number(issue number), page range. doi:0000000/000000000000 or URL

Applications of Literature Review

some applications of literature review in different fields:

  • Social Sciences: In social sciences, literature reviews are used to identify gaps in existing research, to develop research questions, and to provide a theoretical framework for research. Literature reviews are commonly used in fields such as sociology, psychology, anthropology, and political science.
  • Natural Sciences: In natural sciences, literature reviews are used to summarize and evaluate the current state of knowledge in a particular field or subfield. Literature reviews can help researchers identify areas where more research is needed and provide insights into the latest developments in a particular field. Fields such as biology, chemistry, and physics commonly use literature reviews.
  • Health Sciences: In health sciences, literature reviews are used to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments, identify best practices, and determine areas where more research is needed. Literature reviews are commonly used in fields such as medicine, nursing, and public health.
  • Humanities: In humanities, literature reviews are used to identify gaps in existing knowledge, develop new interpretations of texts or cultural artifacts, and provide a theoretical framework for research. Literature reviews are commonly used in fields such as history, literary studies, and philosophy.

Role of Literature Review in Research

Here are some applications of literature review in research:

  • Identifying Research Gaps : Literature review helps researchers identify gaps in existing research and literature related to their research question. This allows them to develop new research questions and hypotheses to fill those gaps.
  • Developing Theoretical Framework: Literature review helps researchers develop a theoretical framework for their research. By analyzing and synthesizing existing literature, researchers can identify the key concepts, theories, and models that are relevant to their research.
  • Selecting Research Methods : Literature review helps researchers select appropriate research methods and techniques based on previous research. It also helps researchers to identify potential biases or limitations of certain methods and techniques.
  • Data Collection and Analysis: Literature review helps researchers in data collection and analysis by providing a foundation for the development of data collection instruments and methods. It also helps researchers to identify relevant data sources and identify potential data analysis techniques.
  • Communicating Results: Literature review helps researchers to communicate their results effectively by providing a context for their research. It also helps to justify the significance of their findings in relation to existing research and literature.

Purpose of Literature Review

Some of the specific purposes of a literature review are as follows:

  • To provide context: A literature review helps to provide context for your research by situating it within the broader body of literature on the topic.
  • To identify gaps and inconsistencies: A literature review helps to identify areas where further research is needed or where there are inconsistencies in the existing literature.
  • To synthesize information: A literature review helps to synthesize the information from multiple sources and present a coherent and comprehensive picture of the current state of knowledge on the topic.
  • To identify key concepts and theories : A literature review helps to identify key concepts and theories that are relevant to your research question and provide a theoretical framework for your study.
  • To inform research design: A literature review can inform the design of your research study by identifying appropriate research methods, data sources, and research questions.

Characteristics of Literature Review

Some Characteristics of Literature Review are as follows:

  • Identifying gaps in knowledge: A literature review helps to identify gaps in the existing knowledge and research on a specific topic or research question. By analyzing and synthesizing the literature, you can identify areas where further research is needed and where new insights can be gained.
  • Establishing the significance of your research: A literature review helps to establish the significance of your own research by placing it in the context of existing research. By demonstrating the relevance of your research to the existing literature, you can establish its importance and value.
  • Informing research design and methodology : A literature review helps to inform research design and methodology by identifying the most appropriate research methods, techniques, and instruments. By reviewing the literature, you can identify the strengths and limitations of different research methods and techniques, and select the most appropriate ones for your own research.
  • Supporting arguments and claims: A literature review provides evidence to support arguments and claims made in academic writing. By citing and analyzing the literature, you can provide a solid foundation for your own arguments and claims.
  • I dentifying potential collaborators and mentors: A literature review can help identify potential collaborators and mentors by identifying researchers and practitioners who are working on related topics or using similar methods. By building relationships with these individuals, you can gain valuable insights and support for your own research and practice.
  • Keeping up-to-date with the latest research : A literature review helps to keep you up-to-date with the latest research on a specific topic or research question. By regularly reviewing the literature, you can stay informed about the latest findings and developments in your field.

Advantages of Literature Review

There are several advantages to conducting a literature review as part of a research project, including:

  • Establishing the significance of the research : A literature review helps to establish the significance of the research by demonstrating the gap or problem in the existing literature that the study aims to address.
  • Identifying key concepts and theories: A literature review can help to identify key concepts and theories that are relevant to the research question, and provide a theoretical framework for the study.
  • Supporting the research methodology : A literature review can inform the research methodology by identifying appropriate research methods, data sources, and research questions.
  • Providing a comprehensive overview of the literature : A literature review provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge on a topic, allowing the researcher to identify key themes, debates, and areas of agreement or disagreement.
  • Identifying potential research questions: A literature review can help to identify potential research questions and areas for further investigation.
  • Avoiding duplication of research: A literature review can help to avoid duplication of research by identifying what has already been done on a topic, and what remains to be done.
  • Enhancing the credibility of the research : A literature review helps to enhance the credibility of the research by demonstrating the researcher’s knowledge of the existing literature and their ability to situate their research within a broader context.

Limitations of Literature Review

Limitations of Literature Review are as follows:

  • Limited scope : Literature reviews can only cover the existing literature on a particular topic, which may be limited in scope or depth.
  • Publication bias : Literature reviews may be influenced by publication bias, which occurs when researchers are more likely to publish positive results than negative ones. This can lead to an incomplete or biased picture of the literature.
  • Quality of sources : The quality of the literature reviewed can vary widely, and not all sources may be reliable or valid.
  • Time-limited: Literature reviews can become quickly outdated as new research is published, making it difficult to keep up with the latest developments in a field.
  • Subjective interpretation : Literature reviews can be subjective, and the interpretation of the findings can vary depending on the researcher’s perspective or bias.
  • Lack of original data : Literature reviews do not generate new data, but rather rely on the analysis of existing studies.
  • Risk of plagiarism: It is important to ensure that literature reviews do not inadvertently contain plagiarism, which can occur when researchers use the work of others without proper attribution.

About the author

' src=

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Research Paper Conclusion

Research Paper Conclusion – Writing Guide and...

Appendices

Appendices – Writing Guide, Types and Examples

Research Report

Research Report – Example, Writing Guide and...

Delimitations

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Scope of the Research

Scope of the Research – Writing Guide and...

Research Contribution

Research Contribution – Thesis Guide

How to Write a Literature Review

What is a literature review.

  • What Is the Literature
  • Writing the Review

A literature review is much more than an annotated bibliography or a list of separate reviews of articles and books. It is a critical, analytical summary and synthesis of the current knowledge of a topic. Thus it should compare and relate different theories, findings, etc, rather than just summarize them individually. In addition, it should have a particular focus or theme to organize the review. It does not have to be an exhaustive account of everything published on the topic, but it should discuss all the significant academic literature and other relevant sources important for that focus.

This is meant to be a general guide to writing a literature review: ways to structure one, what to include, how it supplements other research. For more specific help on writing a review, and especially for help on finding the literature to review, sign up for a Personal Research Session .

The specific organization of a literature review depends on the type and purpose of the review, as well as on the specific field or topic being reviewed. But in general, it is a relatively brief but thorough exploration of past and current work on a topic. Rather than a chronological listing of previous work, though, literature reviews are usually organized thematically, such as different theoretical approaches, methodologies, or specific issues or concepts involved in the topic. A thematic organization makes it much easier to examine contrasting perspectives, theoretical approaches, methodologies, findings, etc, and to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of, and point out any gaps in, previous research. And this is the heart of what a literature review is about. A literature review may offer new interpretations, theoretical approaches, or other ideas; if it is part of a research proposal or report it should demonstrate the relationship of the proposed or reported research to others' work; but whatever else it does, it must provide a critical overview of the current state of research efforts. 

Literature reviews are common and very important in the sciences and social sciences. They are less common and have a less important role in the humanities, but they do have a place, especially stand-alone reviews.

Types of Literature Reviews

There are different types of literature reviews, and different purposes for writing a review, but the most common are:

  • Stand-alone literature review articles . These provide an overview and analysis of the current state of research on a topic or question. The goal is to evaluate and compare previous research on a topic to provide an analysis of what is currently known, and also to reveal controversies, weaknesses, and gaps in current work, thus pointing to directions for future research. You can find examples published in any number of academic journals, but there is a series of Annual Reviews of *Subject* which are specifically devoted to literature review articles. Writing a stand-alone review is often an effective way to get a good handle on a topic and to develop ideas for your own research program. For example, contrasting theoretical approaches or conflicting interpretations of findings can be the basis of your research project: can you find evidence supporting one interpretation against another, or can you propose an alternative interpretation that overcomes their limitations?
  • Part of a research proposal . This could be a proposal for a PhD dissertation, a senior thesis, or a class project. It could also be a submission for a grant. The literature review, by pointing out the current issues and questions concerning a topic, is a crucial part of demonstrating how your proposed research will contribute to the field, and thus of convincing your thesis committee to allow you to pursue the topic of your interest or a funding agency to pay for your research efforts.
  • Part of a research report . When you finish your research and write your thesis or paper to present your findings, it should include a literature review to provide the context to which your work is a contribution. Your report, in addition to detailing the methods, results, etc. of your research, should show how your work relates to others' work.

A literature review for a research report is often a revision of the review for a research proposal, which can be a revision of a stand-alone review. Each revision should be a fairly extensive revision. With the increased knowledge of and experience in the topic as you proceed, your understanding of the topic will increase. Thus, you will be in a better position to analyze and critique the literature. In addition, your focus will change as you proceed in your research. Some areas of the literature you initially reviewed will be marginal or irrelevant for your eventual research, and you will need to explore other areas more thoroughly. 

Examples of Literature Reviews

See the series of Annual Reviews of *Subject* which are specifically devoted to literature review articles to find many examples of stand-alone literature reviews in the biomedical, physical, and social sciences. 

Research report articles vary in how they are organized, but a common general structure is to have sections such as:

  • Abstract - Brief summary of the contents of the article
  • Introduction - A explanation of the purpose of the study, a statement of the research question(s) the study intends to address
  • Literature review - A critical assessment of the work done so far on this topic, to show how the current study relates to what has already been done
  • Methods - How the study was carried out (e.g. instruments or equipment, procedures, methods to gather and analyze data)
  • Results - What was found in the course of the study
  • Discussion - What do the results mean
  • Conclusion - State the conclusions and implications of the results, and discuss how it relates to the work reviewed in the literature review; also, point to directions for further work in the area

Here are some articles that illustrate variations on this theme. There is no need to read the entire articles (unless the contents interest you); just quickly browse through to see the sections, and see how each section is introduced and what is contained in them.

The Determinants of Undergraduate Grade Point Average: The Relative Importance of Family Background, High School Resources, and Peer Group Effects , in The Journal of Human Resources , v. 34 no. 2 (Spring 1999), p. 268-293.

This article has a standard breakdown of sections:

  • Introduction
  • Literature Review
  • Some discussion sections

First Encounters of the Bureaucratic Kind: Early Freshman Experiences with a Campus Bureaucracy , in The Journal of Higher Education , v. 67 no. 6 (Nov-Dec 1996), p. 660-691.

This one does not have a section specifically labeled as a "literature review" or "review of the literature," but the first few sections cite a long list of other sources discussing previous research in the area before the authors present their own study they are reporting.

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

Libraries Home

Writing Literature Reviews: What is a "Literature Review"?

  • What is a "Literature Review"?
  • 1. Brainstorm
  • 3. Refine Search and Topic
  • 4. Structure Your Lit Review
  • Helpful Sites

Literature reviews:

  • provide a summary of the published academic work on a topic
  • help "make the case" for why someone is writing their paper or conducting their research
  • can be the "background" section of a larger paper or it can be the focus of an entire paper

Goals of a Literature Review

  • including the major theories, issues, works, and debates in the field
  • synthesize all this information into an organized summary
  • critique current knowledge of a topic
  • identify aspects of the topic that need further investigation

Plagiarism and Citation

Citation is when you give credit to someone else's ideas, words, creative works, or contributions in your own paper.

Reasons to cite:

  • Give credit the author(s) of the works that you used to write your paper.
  • Avoid plagiarism (which means you are claiming someone else's work as your own. This will get you in big trouble. See the Purdue Online Writing Lab for more information.)
  • Show that you know your topic well and have read and thought about what others have already said.
  • Show your readers where to find the original sources of the information you present so they can read them fully.

When to cite? What to cite?

  • Cite other people's words, ideas and other intellectual property that you use in your papers or that influence your ideas, including things such as books, articles, reports, data/statistics, speeches, academic articles, works of art, songs.
  • Cite direct quotes, facts or statistics AND when you summarize or paraphrase others' ideas.

Helpful Sites on Literature Reviews

Much of the information in this guide and more information can be found on the websites listed on the  Helpful Sites tab .

Ask A Librarian

Make an appointment

Chat with a Librarian

Email [email protected]

Profile Photo

  • Next: 1. Brainstorm >>
  • University of Colorado Boulder Libraries
  • Research Guides
  • Writing Literature Reviews
  • Last Updated: Dec 31, 2023 1:22 PM
  • URL: https://libguides.colorado.edu/litreview

Literature Reviews

  • Tools & Visualizations
  • Literature Review Examples
  • Videos, Books & Links

Business & Econ Librarian

Profile Photo

Click to Chat with a Librarian

Text: (571) 248-7542

What is a literature review?

A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area. Often part of the introduction to an essay, research report or thesis, the literature review is literally a "re" view or "look again" at what has already been written about the topic, wherein the author analyzes a segment of a published body of knowledge through summary, classification, and comparison of prior research studies, reviews of literature, and theoretical articles. Literature reviews provide the reader with a bibliographic history of the scholarly research in any given field of study. As such,  as new information becomes available, literature reviews grow in length or become focused on one specific aspect of the topic.

A literature review can be just a simple summary of the sources, but usually contains an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis. A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, whereas a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information. The literature review might give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations. Or it might trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates. Depending on the situation, the literature review may evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant.

A literature review is NOT:

  • An annotated bibliography – a list of citations to books, articles and documents that includes a brief description and evaluation for each citation. The annotations inform the reader of the relevance, accuracy and quality of the sources cited.
  • A literary review – a critical discussion of the merits and weaknesses of a literary work.
  • A book review – a critical discussion of the merits and weaknesses of a particular book.
  • Teaching Information Literacy Reframed: 50+ Framework-Based Exercises for Creating Information-Literate Learners
  • The UNC Writing Center – Literature Reviews
  • The UW-Madison Writing Center: The Writer’s Handbook – Academic and Professional Writing – Learn How to Write a Literature Review

What is the difference between a literature review and a research paper?

The focus of a literature review is to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of others without adding new contributions, whereas academic research papers present and develop new arguments that build upon the previously available body of literature.

How do I write a literature review?

There are many resources that offer step-by-step guidance for writing a literature review, and you can find some of them under Other Resources in the menu to the left. Writing the Literature Review: A Practical Guide suggests these steps:

  • Chose a review topic and develop a research question
  • Locate and organize research sources
  • Select, analyze and annotate sources
  • Evaluate research articles and other documents
  • Structure and organize the literature review
  • Develop arguments and supporting claims
  • Synthesize and interpret the literature
  • Put it all together

Cover Art

What is the purpose of writing a literature review?

Literature reviews serve as a guide to a particular topic: professionals can use literature reviews to keep current on their field; scholars can determine credibility of the writer in his or her field by analyzing the literature review.

As a writer, you will use the literature review to:

  • See what has, and what has not, been investigated about your topic
  • Identify data sources that other researches have used
  • Learn how others in the field have defined and measured key concepts
  • Establish context, or background, for the argument explored in the rest of a paper
  • Explain what the strengths and weaknesses of that knowledge and ideas might be
  • Contribute to the field by moving research forward
  • To keep the writer/reader up to date with current developments in a particular field of study
  • Develop alternative research projects
  • Put your work in perspective
  • Demonstrate your understanding and your ability to critically evaluate research in the field
  • Provide evidence that may support your own findings
  • Next: Tools & Visualizations >>
  • Last Updated: Sep 7, 2023 8:35 AM
  • URL: https://subjectguides.library.american.edu/literaturereview

Research Methods

  • Getting Started
  • Literature Review Research
  • Research Design
  • Research Design By Discipline
  • SAGE Research Methods
  • Teaching with SAGE Research Methods

Literature Review

  • What is a Literature Review?
  • What is NOT a Literature Review?
  • Purposes of a Literature Review
  • Types of Literature Reviews
  • Literature Reviews vs. Systematic Reviews
  • Systematic vs. Meta-Analysis

Literature Review  is a comprehensive survey of the works published in a particular field of study or line of research, usually over a specific period of time, in the form of an in-depth, critical bibliographic essay or annotated list in which attention is drawn to the most significant works.

Also, we can define a literature review as the collected body of scholarly works related to a topic:

  • Summarizes and analyzes previous research relevant to a topic
  • Includes scholarly books and articles published in academic journals
  • Can be an specific scholarly paper or a section in a research paper

The objective of a Literature Review is to find previous published scholarly works relevant to an specific topic

  • Help gather ideas or information
  • Keep up to date in current trends and findings
  • Help develop new questions

A literature review is important because it:

  • Explains the background of research on a topic.
  • Demonstrates why a topic is significant to a subject area.
  • Helps focus your own research questions or problems
  • Discovers relationships between research studies/ideas.
  • Suggests unexplored ideas or populations
  • Identifies major themes, concepts, and researchers on a topic.
  • Tests assumptions; may help counter preconceived ideas and remove unconscious bias.
  • Identifies critical gaps, points of disagreement, or potentially flawed methodology or theoretical approaches.
  • Indicates potential directions for future research.

All content in this section is from Literature Review Research from Old Dominion University 

Keep in mind the following, a literature review is NOT:

Not an essay 

Not an annotated bibliography  in which you summarize each article that you have reviewed.  A literature review goes beyond basic summarizing to focus on the critical analysis of the reviewed works and their relationship to your research question.

Not a research paper   where you select resources to support one side of an issue versus another.  A lit review should explain and consider all sides of an argument in order to avoid bias, and areas of agreement and disagreement should be highlighted.

A literature review serves several purposes. For example, it

  • provides thorough knowledge of previous studies; introduces seminal works.
  • helps focus one’s own research topic.
  • identifies a conceptual framework for one’s own research questions or problems; indicates potential directions for future research.
  • suggests previously unused or underused methodologies, designs, quantitative and qualitative strategies.
  • identifies gaps in previous studies; identifies flawed methodologies and/or theoretical approaches; avoids replication of mistakes.
  • helps the researcher avoid repetition of earlier research.
  • suggests unexplored populations.
  • determines whether past studies agree or disagree; identifies controversy in the literature.
  • tests assumptions; may help counter preconceived ideas and remove unconscious bias.

As Kennedy (2007) notes*, it is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers. First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish. Second are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the original studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally that become part of the lore of field. In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews.

Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources you have explored, there are several approaches to how they can be done, depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study. Listed below are definitions of types of literature reviews:

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

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

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

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

Systematic Review      This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyse data from the studies that are included in the review. Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?"

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

* Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature."  Educational Researcher  36 (April 2007): 139-147.

All content in this section is from The Literature Review created by Dr. Robert Larabee USC

Robinson, P. and Lowe, J. (2015),  Literature reviews vs systematic reviews.  Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 39: 103-103. doi: 10.1111/1753-6405.12393

what is the literature review in a research paper

What's in the name? The difference between a Systematic Review and a Literature Review, and why it matters . By Lynn Kysh from University of Southern California

what is the literature review in a research paper

Systematic review or meta-analysis?

A  systematic review  answers a defined research question by collecting and summarizing all empirical evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria.

A  meta-analysis  is the use of statistical methods to summarize the results of these studies.

Systematic reviews, just like other research articles, can be of varying quality. They are a significant piece of work (the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at York estimates that a team will take 9-24 months), and to be useful to other researchers and practitioners they should have:

  • clearly stated objectives with pre-defined eligibility criteria for studies
  • explicit, reproducible methodology
  • a systematic search that attempts to identify all studies
  • assessment of the validity of the findings of the included studies (e.g. risk of bias)
  • systematic presentation, and synthesis, of the characteristics and findings of the included studies

Not all systematic reviews contain meta-analysis. 

Meta-analysis is the use of statistical methods to summarize the results of independent studies. By combining information from all relevant studies, meta-analysis can provide more precise estimates of the effects of health care than those derived from the individual studies included within a review.  More information on meta-analyses can be found in  Cochrane Handbook, Chapter 9 .

A meta-analysis goes beyond critique and integration and conducts secondary statistical analysis on the outcomes of similar studies.  It is a systematic review that uses quantitative methods to synthesize and summarize the results.

An advantage of a meta-analysis is the ability to be completely objective in evaluating research findings.  Not all topics, however, have sufficient research evidence to allow a meta-analysis to be conducted.  In that case, an integrative review is an appropriate strategy. 

Some of the content in this section is from Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: step by step guide created by Kate McAllister.

  • << Previous: Getting Started
  • Next: Research Design >>
  • Last Updated: Aug 21, 2023 4:07 PM
  • URL: https://guides.lib.udel.edu/researchmethods
  • UWF Libraries

Literature Review: Conducting & Writing

  • Sample Literature Reviews
  • Steps for Conducting a Lit Review
  • Finding "The Literature"
  • Organizing/Writing
  • Chicago: Notes Bibliography

Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts

Have an exemplary literature review.

  • Literature Review Sample 1
  • Literature Review Sample 2
  • Literature Review Sample 3

Have you written a stellar literature review you care to share for teaching purposes?

Are you an instructor who has received an exemplary literature review and have permission from the student to post?

Please contact Britt McGowan at [email protected] for inclusion in this guide. All disciplines welcome and encouraged.

  • << Previous: MLA Style
  • Next: Get Help! >>
  • Last Updated: Jan 18, 2024 9:21 AM
  • URL: https://libguides.uwf.edu/litreview
  • Search This Site All UCSD Sites Faculty/Staff Search Term
  • Contact & Directions
  • Climate Statement
  • Cognitive Behavioral Neuroscience
  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Developmental Psychology
  • Social Psychology
  • Adjunct Faculty
  • Non-Senate Instructors
  • Researchers
  • Psychology Grads
  • Affiliated Grads
  • New and Prospective Students
  • Honors Program
  • Experiential Learning
  • Programs & Events
  • Psi Chi / Psychology Club
  • Prospective PhD Students
  • Current PhD Students
  • Area Brown Bags
  • Colloquium Series
  • Anderson Distinguished Lecture Series
  • Speaker Videos
  • Undergraduate Program
  • Academic and Writing Resources

Writing Research Papers

  • Writing a Literature Review

When writing a research paper on a specific topic, you will often need to include an overview of any prior research that has been conducted on that topic.  For example, if your research paper is describing an experiment on fear conditioning, then you will probably need to provide an overview of prior research on fear conditioning.  That overview is typically known as a literature review.  

Please note that a full-length literature review article may be suitable for fulfilling the requirements for the Psychology B.S. Degree Research Paper .  For further details, please check with your faculty advisor.

Different Types of Literature Reviews

Literature reviews come in many forms.  They can be part of a research paper, for example as part of the Introduction section.  They can be one chapter of a doctoral dissertation.  Literature reviews can also “stand alone” as separate articles by themselves.  For instance, some journals such as Annual Review of Psychology , Psychological Bulletin , and others typically publish full-length review articles.  Similarly, in courses at UCSD, you may be asked to write a research paper that is itself a literature review (such as, with an instructor’s permission, in fulfillment of the B.S. Degree Research Paper requirement). Alternatively, you may be expected to include a literature review as part of a larger research paper (such as part of an Honors Thesis). 

Literature reviews can be written using a variety of different styles.  These may differ in the way prior research is reviewed as well as the way in which the literature review is organized.  Examples of stylistic variations in literature reviews include: 

  • Summarization of prior work vs. critical evaluation. In some cases, prior research is simply described and summarized; in other cases, the writer compares, contrasts, and may even critique prior research (for example, discusses their strengths and weaknesses).
  • Chronological vs. categorical and other types of organization. In some cases, the literature review begins with the oldest research and advances until it concludes with the latest research.  In other cases, research is discussed by category (such as in groupings of closely related studies) without regard for chronological order.  In yet other cases, research is discussed in terms of opposing views (such as when different research studies or researchers disagree with one another).

Overall, all literature reviews, whether they are written as a part of a larger work or as separate articles unto themselves, have a common feature: they do not present new research; rather, they provide an overview of prior research on a specific topic . 

How to Write a Literature Review

When writing a literature review, it can be helpful to rely on the following steps.  Please note that these procedures are not necessarily only for writing a literature review that becomes part of a larger article; they can also be used for writing a full-length article that is itself a literature review (although such reviews are typically more detailed and exhaustive; for more information please refer to the Further Resources section of this page).

Steps for Writing a Literature Review

1. Identify and define the topic that you will be reviewing.

The topic, which is commonly a research question (or problem) of some kind, needs to be identified and defined as clearly as possible.  You need to have an idea of what you will be reviewing in order to effectively search for references and to write a coherent summary of the research on it.  At this stage it can be helpful to write down a description of the research question, area, or topic that you will be reviewing, as well as to identify any keywords that you will be using to search for relevant research.

2. Conduct a literature search.

Use a range of keywords to search databases such as PsycINFO and any others that may contain relevant articles.  You should focus on peer-reviewed, scholarly articles.  Published books may also be helpful, but keep in mind that peer-reviewed articles are widely considered to be the “gold standard” of scientific research.  Read through titles and abstracts, select and obtain articles (that is, download, copy, or print them out), and save your searches as needed.  For more information about this step, please see the Using Databases and Finding Scholarly References section of this website.

3. Read through the research that you have found and take notes.

Absorb as much information as you can.  Read through the articles and books that you have found, and as you do, take notes.  The notes should include anything that will be helpful in advancing your own thinking about the topic and in helping you write the literature review (such as key points, ideas, or even page numbers that index key information).  Some references may turn out to be more helpful than others; you may notice patterns or striking contrasts between different sources ; and some sources may refer to yet other sources of potential interest.  This is often the most time-consuming part of the review process.  However, it is also where you get to learn about the topic in great detail.  For more details about taking notes, please see the “Reading Sources and Taking Notes” section of the Finding Scholarly References page of this website.

4. Organize your notes and thoughts; create an outline.

At this stage, you are close to writing the review itself.  However, it is often helpful to first reflect on all the reading that you have done.  What patterns stand out?  Do the different sources converge on a consensus?  Or not?  What unresolved questions still remain?  You should look over your notes (it may also be helpful to reorganize them), and as you do, to think about how you will present this research in your literature review.  Are you going to summarize or critically evaluate?  Are you going to use a chronological or other type of organizational structure?  It can also be helpful to create an outline of how your literature review will be structured.

5. Write the literature review itself and edit and revise as needed.

The final stage involves writing.  When writing, keep in mind that literature reviews are generally characterized by a summary style in which prior research is described sufficiently to explain critical findings but does not include a high level of detail (if readers want to learn about all the specific details of a study, then they can look up the references that you cite and read the original articles themselves).  However, the degree of emphasis that is given to individual studies may vary (more or less detail may be warranted depending on how critical or unique a given study was).   After you have written a first draft, you should read it carefully and then edit and revise as needed.  You may need to repeat this process more than once.  It may be helpful to have another person read through your draft(s) and provide feedback.

6. Incorporate the literature review into your research paper draft.

After the literature review is complete, you should incorporate it into your research paper (if you are writing the review as one component of a larger paper).  Depending on the stage at which your paper is at, this may involve merging your literature review into a partially complete Introduction section, writing the rest of the paper around the literature review, or other processes.

Further Tips for Writing a Literature Review

Full-length literature reviews

  • Many full-length literature review articles use a three-part structure: Introduction (where the topic is identified and any trends or major problems in the literature are introduced), Body (where the studies that comprise the literature on that topic are discussed), and Discussion or Conclusion (where major patterns and points are discussed and the general state of what is known about the topic is summarized)

Literature reviews as part of a larger paper

  • An “express method” of writing a literature review for a research paper is as follows: first, write a one paragraph description of each article that you read. Second, choose how you will order all the paragraphs and combine them in one document.  Third, add transitions between the paragraphs, as well as an introductory and concluding paragraph. 1
  • A literature review that is part of a larger research paper typically does not have to be exhaustive. Rather, it should contain most or all of the significant studies about a research topic but not tangential or loosely related ones. 2   Generally, literature reviews should be sufficient for the reader to understand the major issues and key findings about a research topic.  You may however need to confer with your instructor or editor to determine how comprehensive you need to be.

Benefits of Literature Reviews

By summarizing prior research on a topic, literature reviews have multiple benefits.  These include:

  • Literature reviews help readers understand what is known about a topic without having to find and read through multiple sources.
  • Literature reviews help “set the stage” for later reading about new research on a given topic (such as if they are placed in the Introduction of a larger research paper). In other words, they provide helpful background and context.
  • Literature reviews can also help the writer learn about a given topic while in the process of preparing the review itself. In the act of research and writing the literature review, the writer gains expertise on the topic .

Downloadable Resources

  • How to Write APA Style Research Papers (a comprehensive guide) [ PDF ]
  • Tips for Writing APA Style Research Papers (a brief summary) [ PDF ]
  • Example APA Style Research Paper (for B.S. Degree – literature review) [ PDF ]

Further Resources

How-To Videos     

  • Writing Research Paper Videos
  • UCSD Library Psychology Research Guide: Literature Reviews

External Resources

  • Developing and Writing a Literature Review from N Carolina A&T State University
  • Example of a Short Literature Review from York College CUNY
  • How to Write a Review of Literature from UW-Madison
  • Writing a Literature Review from UC Santa Cruz  
  • Pautasso, M. (2013). Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review. PLoS Computational Biology, 9 (7), e1003149. doi : 1371/journal.pcbi.1003149

1 Ashton, W. Writing a short literature review . [PDF]     

2 carver, l. (2014).  writing the research paper [workshop]. , prepared by s. c. pan for ucsd psychology.

Back to top

  • Research Paper Structure
  • Formatting Research Papers
  • Using Databases and Finding References
  • What Types of References Are Appropriate?
  • Evaluating References and Taking Notes
  • Citing References
  • Writing Process and Revising
  • Improving Scientific Writing
  • Academic Integrity and Avoiding Plagiarism
  • Writing Research Papers Videos

U.S. flag

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
  • Advanced Search
  • Journal List
  • PLoS Comput Biol
  • v.9(7); 2013 Jul

Logo of ploscomp

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

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

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

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

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

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

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

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

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is pcbi.1003149.g001.jpg

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

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

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

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

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

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

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

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

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

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

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

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgments

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

Funding Statement

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

Logo for Alaska Digital Texts

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

What is a Literature Review?

What’s a literature review.

The straightforward answer is that a literature review is a review or synthesis of all the research published on a certain topic. But I’d rather explain it from a skateboarder’s perspective:

One of my favorite movies is the 1989 classic Back to the Future Part 2 where the bodacious skater Marty McFly time-travels to the future and sees a hoverboard. As a kid, I was a dabbling skateboarder and thought if I could just have one of those hoverboards, all my troubles would disappear. It was an optimistic time.

Trouble is, hoverboards are really hard to make. We’ve already passed the year 2015 when the “Future” of Back to the Future Part 2 takes place, and guess what? No hoverboards. I know you’ve seen a skateboard-like, two-wheeled device marketed with the name “Hoverboard” but that’s just an electric, no-handled scooter.

1024px-Hover_board_hovering.jpg

I want a real hoverboard. That you ride in the air . So how can we know when real hoverboards will be available? How can we know where the technology is now? Will we know a real hoverboard when we see one? Tony Hawk, the best skateboarder of all time (whose face was incidentally taped to my wall in the ’80s) recently filmed a 2-minute video of how far real hoverboard technology has come–filmed on the very day Marty McFly supposedly went to the future: October 21, 2015:

Tony Hawk and the cutting edge of hoverboard research

Image preview of a YouTube video

Although this “hoverboard” was really a huge black rectangle the size of Delaware floating only an inch off the ground, and although Tony Hawk fell off a lot, he was technically in the air, so I’m taking that as a good sign. Then recently, a professional jet ski rider broke the world record for longest time “hovering” in the air with a highly dangerous jet-engine-propelled contraption called Flyboard Air. It’s also definitely a step in the right direction, but there’s a big problem (beside extreme danger): it’s projected to cost around $250,000.

The good news is, now we’ve found the point where hoverboard research actually is. The bad news: we have to face the sad truth that it might still be a while before we get real flying hoverboards. But at least now we know.

The State of a Field on a Topic

That leads me to literature reviews. Whenever you want to know the state of a field of research like how far hoverboard technology has come, the best way to find out is probably not YouTube videos. It turns out you can do something much more reliable: conduct a literature review . In this case, “literature” doesn’t mean the Victorian novels you read in English class, it means all the research published on a certain topic. So a literature review is simply a review or a synthesis of the research published on a topic.

Researchers today don’t just start projects out of the blue–they do their homework first by finding out what others have already researched. So if you want to make a hoverboard, you don’t just go to Home Depot and buy random parts–you research what others have done and check out the conversation so you don’t have to reinvent the wheel.

“If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” –Sir Isaac Newton (and the motto of Google Scholar)

Before good researchers set up any surveys or experiments, or even write a proposal for funding, they figure out exactly which research questions have already been asked and answered. Same goes for anyone wanting to make a product that will sell. But more importantly, they look for the gaps in the research where answers have yet to be found. And then they focus their own research on filling in some of those gaps. That’ll be your job, too.

In other words, the goal of a literature review is to find the sweet spot where the most promising research is happening now–we call that the cutting edge.

How is a Literature Review different from a typical Research Paper?

You’ve probably been writing research papers most of your life– starting from the five-paragraph essay you learned in high school to the term paper you wrote last semester that had a thesis statement and lots of quotes. So it can seem daunting to switch gears to writing a literature review, but there are some distinct advantages to making the switch. The trick is first understanding the difference between the two.

Research Papers are Thesis Driven

The difference between a typical research paper and a literature review is your purpose and strategy. When you’re assigned to write a research paper, you start with a thesis or argument that you’d like to make. Your thesis has to do with changes you’d like to see in the future. Then you search for sources that support your point. You might adjust your thesis if you come across sources that challenge your claim, but generally, the sources you’ve gathered become evidence for your thesis and you use them to support your point. In other words, your argumentative research paper is driven by your thesis .

Literature Reviews are Source Driven

In contrast, when you write a Literature Review, the sources themselves dictate what you’ll say in your paper. Remember, your goal is to tell your audience the state of the field on a topic–what’s been happening in the published research–so you can find the cutting edge and where the research gaps are. Therefore, you need to find and evaluate the most relevant sources surrounding a topic and then write a review based on what you find . You can’t decide on a thesis statement or know what points you’ll make before you start because you have to find out what researchers are doing before you can report on that. Simply put, your literature review is driven by your sources .

You’ll still have an overarching point/thesis that controls your literature review paper structure, but it will be a claim about what patterns you found in the research– not an argument about a change you want to see in the future or a new way to look at something. And you’ll decide on your thesis much later in the writing process. Here’s a table that compares the writing process of a traditional research paper with that of a literature review:

Literature Reviews: Catching up with Old Friends

What do you do when you meet an old friend? You ask,

“How are you? What have you been up to? Fill me in!”

people-talking-908342_1280.jpg

Literature Reviews are like getting filled in by an old friend . Only this time, you’re explaining how a field of research has gotten to the present (like how far hoverboard technology has come). But like a conversation with an old friend, you want to review only the details most relevant to the situation. You don’t usually give a moment-by-moment chronology of what you’ve done in your life (no one has time for that); rather, you talk in terms of categories–work, family, travel, etc. This is like the synthesis that happens in a Literature Review. As you read sources about a specific topic, you’ll look for themes, for similarities and differences, for points of agreement and disagreement, for gaps in the research that haven’t been filled in yet. Those themes become the categories you’ll talk about in your literature review so your audience will understand the big picture about your topic.

Literature Reviews in the Sciences

Grant proposals.

Any grant proposal submitted to request research funding begins with an extensive literature review to justify the need for the research funds. If you can prove there’s a gap in knowledge, it makes it that much easier to convince your audience to give you funding to fill that gap.

IMRAD Articles

Wineglass_model_for_IMRaD_structure..png

The Introduction of an IMRAD article includes a literature review. Photo by Tom Toyosak i on Wikimedia Commons

IMRAD (pronounced “im-rad”) stands for Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion and is the most common genre published in the social sciences and sciences. Most of the sources you gather will likely be IMRAD-format papers. The I in IMRAD stands for Introduction and usually consists of a review of the literature on the authors’ research topic. The author(s) usually use the Introduction section to report on the published literature about their research topic and reveal the trends and gaps in current research. An added benefit to beginning an article this way is that by showing the gaps in the research, the author(s) can justify their own research and explain the significance of the topic they chose to examine. Clever!

As you might guess, the sections following the Introduction (Methods, Results, Discussion) describe the primary research the author(s) conducted to answer their research question. First they report on their quantitative and/or qualitative M ethods (M in IMRAD) including statistical analyses. Then they publish their R esults (R in IMRAD). Finally, the author(s) embark on a D iscussion (D in IMRAD) of their results in the context of the greater field of research and make suggestions for future research. This starts the research cycle over again as someone else reads their article as part of their own review of the literature and discovers a gap in the research that can be filled by new primary research. 

Published Literature Reviews

In the world of science and social science, literature reviews can also be published on their own. For example, if someone does an extensive investigation into an important topic, the publishers of academic journals will often publish that literature review on its own to help other researchers understand that topic better.

Popular Literature Reviews

196px-Wikipedia-logo-en-big.png

Lest you think nerdy academics are the only ones who rely on literature reviews, recall the last time you went on Wikipedia . If you think about it, Wikipedia is really just a giant literature review on millions of topics. Although the information on Wikipedia is not formally peer-reviewed like the reviews published in academic journals, they do cite all their sources and frequently revise to keep the information current. Clearly there’s a market for relevant information. If you really want your mind to explode Inception -style, look up “Wikipedia” on Wikipedia and you’ll find a literature review about a literature review.

Adapted from “What is a Literature Review?” in Writing in the Social Sciences. Authored by Christie Cowles Charles. Located at: https://edtechbooks.org/writing.

License: CC BY- SA

What is a Literature Review? Copyright © 2020 by Sara Rufner is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Grad Coach (R)

What’s Included: Research Paper Template

If you’re preparing to write an academic research paper, our free research paper template is the perfect starting point. In the template, we cover every section step by step, with clear, straightforward explanations and examples .

The template’s structure is based on the tried and trusted best-practice format for formal academic research papers. The template structure reflects the overall research process, ensuring your paper will have a smooth, logical flow from chapter to chapter.

The research paper template covers the following core sections:

  • The title page/cover page
  • Abstract (sometimes also called the executive summary)
  • Section 1: Introduction 
  • Section 2: Literature review 
  • Section 3: Methodology
  • Section 4: Findings /results
  • Section 5: Discussion
  • Section 6: Conclusion
  • Reference list

Each section is explained in plain, straightforward language , followed by an overview of the key elements that you need to cover within each section. We’ve also included links to free resources to help you understand how to write each section.

The cleanly formatted Google Doc can be downloaded as a fully editable MS Word Document (DOCX format), so you can use it as-is or convert it to LaTeX.

FAQs: Research Paper Template

What format is the template (doc, pdf, ppt, etc.).

The research paper template is provided as a Google Doc. You can download it in MS Word format or make a copy to your Google Drive. You’re also welcome to convert it to whatever format works best for you, such as LaTeX or PDF.

What types of research papers can this template be used for?

The template follows the standard best-practice structure for formal academic research papers, so it is suitable for the vast majority of degrees, particularly those within the sciences.

Some universities may have some additional requirements, but these are typically minor, with the core structure remaining the same. Therefore, it’s always a good idea to double-check your university’s requirements before you finalise your structure.

Is this template for an undergrad, Masters or PhD-level research paper?

This template can be used for a research paper at any level of study. It may be slight overkill for an undergraduate-level study, but it certainly won’t be missing anything.

How long should my research paper be?

This depends entirely on your university’s specific requirements, so it’s best to check with them. We include generic word count ranges for each section within the template, but these are purely indicative. 

What about the research proposal?

If you’re still working on your research proposal, we’ve got a template for that here .

We’ve also got loads of proposal-related guides and videos over on the Grad Coach blog .

How do I write a literature review?

We have a wealth of free resources on the Grad Coach Blog that unpack how to write a literature review from scratch. You can check out the literature review section of the blog here.

How do I create a research methodology?

We have a wealth of free resources on the Grad Coach Blog that unpack research methodology, both qualitative and quantitative. You can check out the methodology section of the blog here.

Can I share this research paper template with my friends/colleagues?

Yes, you’re welcome to share this template. If you want to post about it on your blog or social media, all we ask is that you reference this page as your source.

Can Grad Coach help me with my research paper?

Within the template, you’ll find plain-language explanations of each section, which should give you a fair amount of guidance. However, you’re also welcome to consider our private coaching services .

Free Webinar: Literature Review 101

Log in using your username and password

  • Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
  • Latest content
  • Current issue
  • BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

You are here

  • Online First
  • Rapid reviews methods series: guidance on rapid qualitative evidence synthesis
  • Article Text
  • Article info
  • Citation Tools
  • Rapid Responses
  • Article metrics

Download PDF

  • http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4808-3880 Andrew Booth 1 , 2 ,
  • Isolde Sommer 3 , 4 ,
  • Jane Noyes 2 , 5 ,
  • Catherine Houghton 2 , 6 ,
  • Fiona Campbell 1 , 7
  • The Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group and Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group (CQIMG)
  • 1 EnSyGN Sheffield Evidence Synthesis Group , University of Sheffield , Sheffield , UK
  • 2 Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group (CQIMG) , London , UK
  • 3 Department for Evidence-based Medicine and Evaluation , University for Continuing Education Krems , Krems , Austria
  • 4 Cochrane Rapid Reviews Group & Cochrane Austria , Krems , Austria
  • 5 Bangor University , Bangor , UK
  • 6 University of Galway , Galway , Ireland
  • 7 University of Newcastle upon Tyne , Newcastle upon Tyne , UK
  • Correspondence to Professor Andrew Booth, Univ Sheffield, Sheffield, UK; a.booth{at}sheffield.ac.uk

This paper forms part of a series of methodological guidance from the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group and addresses rapid qualitative evidence syntheses (QESs), which use modified systematic, transparent and reproducible methodsu to accelerate the synthesis of qualitative evidence when faced with resource constraints. This guidance covers the review process as it relates to synthesis of qualitative research. ‘Rapid’ or ‘resource-constrained’ QES require use of templates and targeted knowledge user involvement. Clear definition of perspectives and decisions on indirect evidence, sampling and use of existing QES help in targeting eligibility criteria. Involvement of an information specialist, especially in prioritising databases, targeting grey literature and planning supplemental searches, can prove invaluable. Use of templates and frameworks in study selection and data extraction can be accompanied by quality assurance procedures targeting areas of likely weakness. Current Cochrane guidance informs selection of tools for quality assessment and of synthesis method. Thematic and framework synthesis facilitate efficient synthesis of large numbers of studies or plentiful data. Finally, judicious use of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach for assessing the Confidence of Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research assessments and of software as appropriate help to achieve a timely and useful review product.

  • Systematic Reviews as Topic
  • Patient Care

Data availability statement

No data are available. Not applicable. All data is from published articles.

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ .

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112620

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC

Rapid Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) is a relatively recent innovation in evidence synthesis and few published examples currently exists.

Guidance for authoring a rapid QES is scattered and requires compilation and summary.

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

This paper represents the first attempt to compile current guidance, illustrated by the experience of several international review teams.

We identify features of rapid QES methods that could be accelerated or abbreviated and where methods resemble those for conventional QESs.

HOW THIS STUDY MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH, PRACTICE OR POLICY

This paper offers guidance for researchers when conducting a rapid QES and informs commissioners of research and policy-makers what to expect when commissioning such a review.

Introduction

This paper forms part of a series from the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group providing methodological guidance for rapid reviews. While other papers in the series 1–4 focus on generic considerations, we aim to provide in-depth recommendations specific to a resource-constrained (or rapid) qualitative evidence synthesis (rQES). 5 This paper is accompanied by recommended resources ( online supplemental appendix A ) and an elaboration with practical considerations ( online supplemental appendix B ).

Supplemental material

The role of qualitative evidence in decision-making is increasingly recognised. 6 This, in turn, has led to appreciation of the value of qualitative evidence syntheses (QESs) that summarise findings across multiple contexts. 7 Recognition of the need for such syntheses to be available at the time most useful to decision-making has, in turn, driven demand for rapid qualitative evidence syntheses. 8 The breadth of potential rQES mirrors the versatility of QES in general (from focused questions to broad overviews) and outputs range from descriptive thematic maps through to theory-informed syntheses (see table 1 ).

  • View inline

Glossary of important terms (alphabetically)

As with other resource-constrained reviews, no one size fits all. A team should start by specifying the phenomenon of interest, the review question, 9 the perspectives to be included 9 and the sample to be determined and selected. 10 Subsequently, the team must finalise the appropriate choice of synthesis. 11 Above all, the review team should consider the intended knowledge users, 3 including requirements of the funder.

An rQES team, in particular, cannot afford any extra time or resource requirements that might arise from either a misunderstanding of the review question, an unclear picture of user requirements or an inappropriate choice of methods. The team seeks to align the review question and the requirements of the knowledge user with available time and resources. They also need to ensure that the choice of data and choice of synthesis are appropriate to the intended ‘knowledge claims’ (epistemology) made by the rQES. 11 This involves the team asking ‘what types of data are meaningful for this review question?’, ‘what types of data are trustworthy?’ and ‘is the favoured synthesis method appropriate for this type of data?’. 12 This paper aims to help rQES teams to choose methods that best fit their project while understanding the limitations of those choices. Our recommendations derive from current QES guidance, 5 evidence on modified QES methods, 8 13 and practical experience. 14 15

This paper presents an overview of considerations and recommendations as described in table 2 . Supplemental materials including additional resources details of our recommendations and practical examples are provided in online supplemental appendices A and B .

Recommendations for resource-constrained qualitative evidence synthesis (rQES)

Setting the review question and topic refinement

Rapid reviews summarise information from multiple research studies to produce evidence for ‘the public, researchers, policymakers and funders in a systematic, resource-efficient manner’. 16 Involvement of knowledge users is critical. 3 Given time constraints, individual knowledge users could be asked only to feedback on very specific decisions and tasks or on selective sections of the protocol. Specifically, whenever a QES is abbreviated or accelerated, a team should ensure that the review question is agreed by a minimum number of knowledge users with expertise or experience that reflects all the important review perspectives and with authority to approve the final version 2 5 11 ( table 2 , item R1).

Involvement of topic experts can ensure that the rQES is responsive to need. 14 17 One Cochrane rQES saved considerable time by agreeing the review topic within a single meeting and one-phase iteration. 9 Decisions on topics to be omitted are also informed by a knowledge of existing QESs. 17

An information specialist can help to manage the quantity and quality of available evidence by setting conceptual boundaries and logistic limits. A structured question format, such as Setting-Perspective-Interest, phenomenon of-Comparison-Evaluation or Population-Interest, phenomenon of-Context helps in communicating the scope and, subsequently, in operationalising study selection. 9 18

Scoping (of review parameters) and mapping (of key types of evidence and likely richness of data) helps when planning the review. 5 19 The option to choose purposive sampling over comprehensive sampling approaches, as offered by standard QES, may be particularly helpful in the context of a rapid QES. 8 Once a team knows the approximate number and distribution of studies, perhaps mapping them against country, age, ethnicity, etc), they can decide whether or not to use purposive sampling. 12 An rQES for the WHO combined purposive with variation sampling. Sampling in two stages started by reducing the initial number of studies to a more manageable sampling frame and then sampling approximately a third of the remaining studies from within the sampling frame. 20

Sampling may target richer studies and/or privilege diversity. 8 21 A rich qualitative study typically illustrates findings with verbatim extracts from transcripts from interviews or textual responses from questionnaires. Rich studies are often found in specialist qualitative research or social science journals. In contrast, less rich studies may itemise themes with an occasional indicative text extract and tend to summarise findings. In clinical or biomedical journals less rich findings may be placed within a single table or box.

No rule exists on an optimal number of studies; too many studies makes it challenging to ‘maintain insight’, 22 too few does not sustain rigorous analysis. 23 Guidance on sampling is available from the forthcoming Cochrane-Campbell QES Handbook.

A review team can use templates to fast-track writing of a protocol. The protocol should always be publicly available ( table 2 , item R2). 24 25 Formal registration may require that the team has not commenced data extraction but should be considered if it does not compromise the rQES timeframe. Time pressures may require that methods are left suitably flexible to allow well-justified changes to be made as a detailed picture of the studies and data emerge. 26 The first Cochrane rQES drew heavily on text from a joint protocol/review template previously produced within Cochrane. 24

Setting eligibility criteria

An rQES team may need to limit the number of perspectives, focusing on those most important for decision-making 5 9 27 ( table 2 , item R3). Beyond the patients/clients each additional perspective (eg, family members, health professionals, other professionals, etc) multiplies the additional effort involved.

A rapid QES may require strict date and setting restrictions 17 and language restrictions that accommodate the specific requirements of the review. Specifically, the team should consider whether changes in context over time or substantive differences between geographical regions could be used to justify a narrower date range or a limited coverage of countries and/or languages. The team should also decide if ‘indirect evidence’ is to substitute for the absence of direct evidence. An rQES typically focuses on direct evidence, except when only indirect evidence is available 28 ( table 2 , item R4). Decisions on relevance are challenging—precautions for swine influenza may inform precautions for bird influenza. 28 A smoking ban may operate similarly to seat belt legislation, etc. A review team should identify where such shared mechanisms might operate. 28 An rQES team must also decide whether to use frameworks or models to focus the review. Theories may be unearthed within the topic search or be already known to team members, fro example, Theory of Planned Behaviour. 29

Options for managing the quantity and quality of studies and data emerge during the scoping (see above). In summary, the review team should consider privileging rich qualitative studies 2 ; consider a stepwise approach to inclusion of qualitative data and explore the possibility of sampling ( table 2 , item R5). For example, where data is plentiful an rQES may be limited to qualitative research and/or to mixed methods studies. Where data is less plentiful then surveys or other qualitative data sources may need to be included. Where plentiful reviews already exist, a team may decide to conduct a review of reviews 5 by including multiple QES within a mega-synthesis 28 29 ( table 2 , item R6).

Searching for QES merits its own guidance, 21–23 30 this section reinforces important considerations from guidance specific to qualitative research. Generic guidance for rapid reviews in this series broadly applies to rapid QESs. 1

In addition to journal articles, by far the most plentiful source, qualitative research is found in book chapters, theses and in published and unpublished reports. 21 Searches to support an rQES can (a) limit the number of databases searched, deliberately selecting databases from diverse disciplines, (b) use abbreviated study filters to retrieve qualitative designs and (c) employ high yield complementary methods (eg, reference checking, citation searching and Related Articles features). An information specialist (eg, librarian) should be involved in prioritising sources and search methods ( table 2 , item R7). 11 14

According to empirical evidence optimal database combinations include Scopus plus CINAHL or Scopus plus ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global (two-database combinations) and Scopus plus CINAHL plus ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global (three-database combination) with both choices retrieving between 89% and 92% of relevant studies. 30

If resources allow, searches should include one or two specialised databases ( table 2 , item R8) from different disciplines or contexts 21 (eg, social science databases, specialist discipline databases or regional or institutional repositories). Even when resources are limited, the information specialist should factor in time for peer review of at least one search strategy ( table 2 , item R9). 31 Searches for ‘grey literature’ should selectively target appropriate types of grey literature (such as theses or process evaluations) and supplemental searches, including citation chaining or Related Articles features ( table 2 , item R10). 32 The first Cochrane rQES reported that searching reference lists of key papers yielded an extra 30 candidate papers for review. However, the team documented exclusion of grey literature as a limitation of their review. 15

Study selection

Consistency in study selection is achieved by using templates, by gaining a shared team understanding of the audience and purpose, and by ongoing communication within, and beyond, the team. 2 33 Individuals may work in parallel on the same task, as in the first Cochrane rQES, or follow a ‘segmented’ approach where each reviewer is allocated a different task. 14 The use of machine learning in the specific context of rQES remains experimental. However, the possibility of developing qualitative study classifiers comparable to those for randomised controlled trials offers an achievable aspiration. 34

Title and abstract screening

The entire screening team should use pre-prepared, pretested title and abstract templates to limit the scale of piloting, calibration and testing ( table 2 , item R11). 1 14 The first Cochrane rQES team double-screened titles and abstracts within Covidence review software. 14 Disagreements were resolved with reference to a third reviewer achieving a shared understanding of the eligibility criteria and enhancing familiarity with target studies and insight from data. 14 The team should target and prioritise identified risks of either over-zealous inclusion or over-exclusion specific to each rQES ( table 2 , item R12). 14 The team should maximise opportunities to capture divergent views and perspectives within study findings. 35

Full-text screening

Full-text screening similarly benefits from using a pre-prepared pretested standardised template where possible 1 14 ( table 2 , item R11). If a single reviewer undertakes full-text screening, 8 the team should identify likely risks to trustworthiness of findings and focus quality control procedures (eg, use of additional reviewers and percentages for double screening) on specific threats 14 ( table 2 , item R13). The Cochrane rQES team opted for double screening to assist their immersion within the topic. 14

Data extraction

Data extraction of descriptive/contextual data may be facilitated by review management software (eg, EPPI-Reviewer) or home-made approaches using Google Forms, or other survey software. 36 Where extraction of qualitative findings requires line-by-line coding with multiple iterations of the data then a qualitative data management analysis package, such as QSR NVivo, reaps dividends. 36 The team must decide if, collectively, they favour extracting data to a template or coding direct within an electronic version of an article.

Quality control must be fit for purpose but not excessive. Published examples typically use a single reviewer for data extraction 8 with use of two independent reviewers being the exception. The team could limit data extraction to minimal essential items. They may also consider re-using descriptive details and findings previously extracted within previous well-conducted QES ( table 2 , item R14). A pre-existing framework, where readily identified, may help to structure the data extraction template. 15 37 The same framework may be used to present the findings. Some organisations may specify a preferred framework, such as an evidence-to-decision-making framework. 38

Assessment of methodological limitations

The QES community assess ‘methodological limitations’ rather than use ‘risk of bias’ terminology. An rQES team should pick an approach appropriate to their specific review. For example, a thematic map may not require assessment of individual studies—a brief statement of the generic limitations of the set of studies may be sufficient. However, for any synthesis that underpins practice recommendations 39 assessment of included studies is integral to the credibility of findings. In any decision-making context that involves recommendations or guidelines, an assessment of methodological limitations is mandatory. 40 41

Each review team should work with knowledge users to determine a review-specific approach to quality assessment. 27 While ‘traffic lights’, similar to the outputs from the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, may facilitate rapid interpretation, accompanying textual notes are invaluable in highlighting specific areas for concern. In particular, the rQES team should demonstrate that they are aware (a) that research designs for qualitative research seek to elicit divergent views, rather than control for variation; (b) that, for qualitative research, the selection of the sample is far more informative than the size of the sample; and (c) that researchers from primary research, and equally reviewers for the qualitative synthesis, need to be thoughtful and reflexive about their possible influences on interpretation of either the primary data or the synthesised findings.

Selection of checklist

Numerous scales and checklists exist for assessing the quality of qualitative studies. In the absence of validated risk of bias tools for qualitative studies, the team should choose a tool according to Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group (CQIMG) guidance together with expediency (according to ease of use, prior familiarity, etc) ( table 2 , item R15). 41 In comparison to the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist which was never designed for use in synthesis, 42 the Cochrane qualitative tool is similarly easy to use and was designed for QES use. Work is underway to identify an assessment process that is compatible with QESs that support decision-making. 41 For now the choice of a checklist remains determined by interim Cochrane guidance and, beyond this, by personal preference and experience. For an rQES a team could use a single reviewer to assess methodological limitations, with verification of judgements (and support statements) by a second reviewer ( table 2 , item R16).

The CQIMG endorses three types of synthesis; thematic synthesis, framework synthesis and meta-ethnography ( box 1 ). 43 44 Rapid QES favour descriptive thematic synthesis 45 or framework synthesis, 46 47 except when theory generation (meta-ethnography 48 49 or analytical thematic synthesis) is a priority ( table 2 , item R17).

Choosing a method for rapid qualitative synthesis

Thematic synthesis: first choice method for rQES. 45 For example, in their rapid QES Crooks and colleagues 44 used a thematic synthesis to understand the experiences of both academic and lived experience coresearchers within palliative and end of life research. 45

Framework synthesis: alternative where a suitable framework can be speedily identified. 46 For example, Bright and colleagues 46 considered ‘best-fit framework synthesis’ as appropriate for mapping study findings to an ‘a priori framework of dimensions measured by prenatal maternal anxiety tools’ within their ‘streamlined and time-limited evidence review’. 47

Less commonly, an adapted meta-ethnographical approach was used for an implementation model of social distancing where supportive data (29 studies) was plentiful. 48 However, this QES demonstrates several features that subsequently challenge its original identification as ‘rapid’. 49

Abbrevations: QES, qualitative evidence synthesis; rQES, resource-constrained qualitative evidence synthesis.

The team should consider whether a conceptual model, theory or framework offers a rapid way for organising, coding, interpreting and presenting findings ( table 2 , item R18). If the extracted data appears rich enough to sustain further interpretation, data from a thematic or framework synthesis can subsequently be explored within a subsequent meta-ethnography. 43 However, this requires a team with substantial interpretative expertise. 11

Assessments of confidence in the evidence 4 are central to any rQES that seeks to support decision-making and the QES-specific Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach for assessing the Confidence of Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) approach is designed to assess confidence in qualitative evidence. 50 This can be performed by a single reviewer, confirmed by a second reviewer. 26 Additional reviewers could verify all, or a sample of, assessments. For a rapid assessment a team must prioritise findings, using objective criteria; a WHO rQES focused only on the three ‘highly synthesised findings’. 20 The team could consider reusing GRADE-CERQual assessments from published QESs if findings are relevant and of demonstrable high quality ( table 2 , item R19). 50 No rapid approach to full application of GRADE-CERQual currently exists.

Reporting and record management

Little is written on optimal use of technology. 8 A rapid review is not a good time to learn review management software or qualitative analysis management software. Using such software for all general QES processes ( table 2 , item R20), and then harnessing these skills and tools when specifically under resource pressures, is a sounder strategy. Good file labelling and folder management and a ‘develop once, re-use multi-times’ approach facilitates resource savings.

Reporting requirements include the meta-ethnography reporting guidance (eMERGe) 51 and the Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research (ENTREQ) statement. 52 An rQES should describe limitations and their implications for confidence in the evidence even more thoroughly than a regular QES; detailing the consequences of fast-tracking, streamlining or of omitting processes all together. 8 Time spent documenting reflexivity is similarly important. 27 If QES methodology is to remain credible rapid approaches must be applied with insight and documented with circumspection. 53 54 (56)

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication.

Not applicable.

Ethics approval

  • Klerings I ,
  • Robalino S ,
  • Booth A , et al
  • Nussbaumer-Streit B ,
  • Hamel C , et al
  • Garritty C ,
  • Tricco AC ,
  • Smith M , et al
  • Gartlehner G ,
  • Devane D , et al
  • NHS Scotland
  • Campbell F ,
  • Flemming K , et al
  • Glenton C ,
  • Lubarsky S ,
  • Varpio L , et al
  • Meskell P ,
  • Glenton C , et al
  • Houghton C ,
  • Delaney H , et al
  • Beecher C ,
  • Maeso B , et al
  • McKenzie JE , et al
  • Harris JL ,
  • Cargo M , et al
  • Varley-Campbell J , et al
  • Downe S , et al
  • Shamseer L ,
  • Clarke M , et al
  • Nussbaumer-Streit B , et al
  • Finlayson KW ,
  • Lawrie TA , et al
  • Lewin S , et al
  • Frandsen TF ,
  • Gildberg FA ,
  • Tingleff EB
  • Mshelia S ,
  • Analo CV , et al
  • Husk K , et al
  • Carmona C ,
  • Carroll C ,
  • Ilott I , et al
  • Meehan B , et al
  • Munthe-Kaas H ,
  • Bohren MA ,
  • Munthe-Kaas HM ,
  • French DP ,
  • Flemming K ,
  • Garside R , et al
  • Shulman C , et al
  • Dixon-Woods M
  • Bright KS ,
  • Norris JM ,
  • Letourneau NL , et al
  • Sadjadi M ,
  • Mörschel KS ,
  • Petticrew M
  • France EF ,
  • Cunningham M ,
  • Ring N , et al
  • McInnes E , et al
  • Britten N ,
  • Garside R ,
  • Pope C , et al

Supplementary materials

Supplementary data.

This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

  • Data supplement 1

Contributors All authors (AB, IS, JN, CH, FC) have made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the guidance document. AB led on drafting the work and revising it critically for important intellectual content. All other authors (IS, JN, CH, FC) contributed to revisions of the document. All authors (AB, IS, JN, CH, FC) have given final approval of the version to be published. As members of the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group and/or the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group all authors (AB, IS, JN, CH, FC) agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interests AB is co-convenor of the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group. In the last 36 months, he received royalties from Systematic Approaches To a Successful Literature Review (Sage 3rd edition), honoraria from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and travel support from the WHO. JN is lead convenor of the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group. In the last 36 months, she has received honoraria from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and travel support from the WHO. CH is co-convenor of the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group.

Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

  • Open access
  • Published: 06 February 2024

What are the learning objectives in surgical training – a systematic literature review of the surgical competence framework

  • Niklas Pakkasjärvi 1 , 2 ,
  • Henrika Anttila 3 &
  • Kirsi Pyhältö 3 , 4  

BMC Medical Education volume  24 , Article number:  119 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

179 Accesses

2 Altmetric

Metrics details

To map the landscape of contemporary surgical education through a competence framework by conducting a systematic literature review on learning outcomes of surgical education and the instructional methods applied to attain the outcomes.

Surgical education has seen a paradigm shift towards competence-based training. However, a gap remains in the literature regarding the specific components of competency taught and the instructional methods employed to achieve these outcomes. This paper aims to bridge this gap by conducting a systematic review on the learning outcomes of surgical education within a competence framework and the instructional methods applied. The primary outcome measure was to elucidate the components of competency emphasized by modern surgical curricula. The secondary outcome measure was to discern the instructional methods proven effective in achieving these competencies.

A search was conducted across PubMed, Medline, ProQuest Eric, and Cochrane databases, adhering to PRISMA guidelines, limited to 2017–2021. Keywords included terms related to surgical education and training. Inclusion criteria mandated original empirical studies that described learning outcomes and methods, and targeted both medical students and surgical residents.

Out of 42 studies involving 2097 participants, most concentrated on technical skills within competency-based training, with a lesser emphasis on non-technical competencies. The effect on clinical outcomes was infrequently explored.

The shift towards competency in surgical training is evident. However, further studies on its ramifications on clinical outcomes are needed. The transition from technical to clinical competence and the creation of validated assessments are crucial for establishing a foundation for lifelong surgical learning.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Surgery requires a highly specialized set of surgical knowledge, skills, and attitudes that will allow a surgeon to perform the requisite procedures in collaboration with the patient and the multi-professional team. These competencies are fundamental to a surgeon’s ability to function effectively, necessitating flexibility, adaptability, and continuous professional development. In the field of learning sciences, the term competence is used to refer to the combination of knowledge, skills, and attitudes that allows an individual to solve the job-related task or a problem at hand and act professionally [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]. Accordingly, it can be claimed that cultivating a set of surgical competencies organically integrating knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed in surgeons’ work is imperative for high-quality surgical education. This calls for the understanding of both the range of competencies acquired in surgery training and the kinds of instructional methods that are effective in adopting them. Interestingly, many studies in surgical education, including systematic literature reviews, appear to often focus on a single learning outcome. This typically involves exploring either a specific technical skill or content knowledge in a surgical area, along with assessing the effectiveness of a particular instructional method [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 ].

The traditional Halstedian methods, with their focus on incremental responsibility and volume-based exposure, have been foundational in surgical training. Over the past few decades, the approach has been complemented with more tailored instructional methods [ 10 , 11 ]. For example, technical skills are often contemplated with models and simulators [ 12 , 13 ], thus increasing patient safety during surgery, and allowing the training surgeon to focus on the operation without feeling pressured to execute technical tasks [ 11 ]. Simulation training has demonstrated positive effects, especially in technical skills [ 14 , 15 , 16 ], but also in the longitudinal transfer of skills [ 17 ]. Much of the research on simulation has focused on training assessment with validated programs becoming more widely available [ 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 ]. Procedure-specific assessment has become common in evaluating surgical learning outcomes and has resulted in a set of validated task-specific assessment tools, such as OSATS (Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills) [ 23 ]. However, reducing surgery to separated technical tasks infers risks related to developing surgical competence, mainly a lack of integration in the learning of surgical skills, knowledge, and attitudes, further compromising continuous professional development, and thus potentially occupational wellbeing. There is also contradictory evidence on the effectiveness of the surgical training method in achieving the desired learning outcomes, but this may be more related to the unrealized potential of evidence-based training methods [ 24 ]. Further, the implementation of modern surgical training is lagging [ 25 ]. To sum up, while research on surgical education has significantly advanced our understanding of more tailored methods for cultivating surgical learning, it has also typically adapted a single ingredient approach [ 10 , 11 ]. A problem with this approach is that it neglects the complexity of surgical competence development and, without coherence building, bears the inherent risk of reducing surgery into mastering a series of technical tasks rather than providing tools for cultivating surgical competencies. Moreover, only a few prior systematic reviews on surgical education have studied surgical learning across the fields of surgery or among both medical students and surgical residents. Our study aims to comprehensively analyze the competencies targeted in contemporary surgical education, as revealed through a systematic literature review. We seek to elucidate the nature of these competencies—including skills, knowledge, and attitudes—and the instructional methods employed to develop them in medical students and surgical residents. This approach will highlight how competencies are defined, integrated, and cultivated in surgical education according to existing literature. Specifically, our primary outcome is to identify and detail the competencies (skills, knowledge, and attitudes) emphasized in the existing research on surgical education. We aim to understand how these competencies are conceptualized, taught, and developed, providing insights into the current focus of surgical training programs. As a secondary objective, we will examine the instructional methods discussed in the literature for teaching these competencies. This involves analyzing the effectiveness and application of different teaching strategies in nurturing a comprehensive set of surgical competencies, focusing on integrating technical and non-technical skills. To our knowledge, this is the first published effort within surgery to review the literature comprehensively on surgical competencies development and instructional methods across the fields of surgery, with studies conducted with both medical students and surgical residents.

We conducted a systematic literature review by using the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis statement (PRISMA) [ 26 ].

Research strategy and data sources

We searched four electronic databases: PubMed, Medline, ProQuest Eric, and Cochrane databases on 18 February 2021. Only articles in English were considered, and the search was limited to years 2017–2021. This restriction was based on a pilot search, which identified a high volume of review articles before 2017 and a significant increase in the quantity and relevance of primary research studies on the surgical competence framework beginning in 2017. The search string consisted of the following keywords: “Surgical Education”, “Surgical Training”, “Surgical Intern*”, “surgical resident” OR “surgical apprentice” AND “learning”. The detailed syntax of the search was: (“surgical intern” AND learning) OR (“surgical training” AND learning) OR (“surgical intern*” AND learning) OR (“surgical resident” AND learning) OR (“surgical apprentice” AND learning). The database search resulted 1305 articles (1297 from PubMed/Medline, 6 from Cochrane databases, and 2 from ProQuest Eric).

Inclusion criteria and study selection

We applied five inclusion criteria for the data. To be included in the review, the articles had to fulfil the following criteria:

be original empirical studies.

be published in a peer-reviewed journal between 2017 and 2021.

be written in English, although the study could have been conducted in any country.

include surgical residents and/or medical students as participants.

include descriptions of learning outcomes and methods of learning in the results of the study.

Data were extracted manually in several increments. Two of the authors (NP) and (HA) independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of all articles identified by the search and marked potentially relevant articles for full-text retrieval (see Fig.  1 for the PRISMA diagram for the review flow). After reading the titles and abstracts, and removing the duplicates, 1236 articles were excluded as they did not meet the inclusion criteria. This also included 13 literature reviews that were excluded from the study as they were not empirical. However, the references of the reviews were reviewed by using a snowball method to detect additional references. This resulted in 16 studies being added to the full-text analysis. After this, the two authors independently examined the full texts of the remaining 85 articles with the inclusion criteria and selected the studies eligible for inclusion in the review. At this point, 43 articles were excluded as they did not explain learning outcomes or learning activities. Disagreements between the two authors were minimal and were resolved through a joint review of the full-text articles and discussion with the third co-author (KP). All articles that matched the inclusion criteria were included in the review, resulting in 42 articles being included in the review.

figure 1

The PRISMA diagram depicts the flow of the systematic review, from the initial identification of 1305 database hits to the ultimate inclusion of 42 articles

Data extraction

Two of the authors (NP) and (HA) extracted and documented information about 11 factors of each study into the Excel file to create a data sheet for the analysis. The following characteristics of the studies were recorded: country, participants, field of surgery, study design, use of a control group, tool, outcome measure, core finding, results on surgical learning outcomes, instructional design applied and clinical setting. Learning outcomes were categorized according to the three components of surgical competence: (a) knowledge , (b) skills (including both technical and non-technical skills), and (c) attitudes [ 22 ]. Surgical knowledge included results concerning training surgeons’ theoretical and practical knowledge about surgery, procedure, or medicine in more general. Surgical skills entailed results on their technical and non-technical skills, strategies, reflection, and self-regulation. Surgical attitudes involved results on training surgeons about their attitudes to their work and views about themselves as surgeons. The instructional design reported in the studies was coded into seven categories according to the mode of instruction applied in the study for training surgeons: (a) learning by doing , including (b) learning through reflection , including instructions where the training surgeons reflected their own learning (c) learning by modelling , (d) learning by direct instruction , (e) learning by self-directed study , (f) learning by mentoring or teaching , and (g) learning by gaming.

The “ Learning by doing ” category included instructional situations in which medical students and surgeons learned while working as surgeons, for example, by completing surgical tasks and procedures. “ Learning through reflection ” included situations in which they learned by reflecting on their prior experiences, thoughts, own development, and performance in specific tasks.

In the “ Learning by modeling ” category, learning occurred by observing or copying the behaviors of their peers or more experienced surgeons. “ Learning by direct instruction ” included situations in which they learned while attending formal education, lectures, or seminars and by receiving tips or practical guidance from others.

The “ Learning by self-directed study ” category encompassed situations where training surgeons learned through self-directed study, such as reading, seeking information, and independently watching procedure videos, without any external intervention.

In the “ Learning by mentoring or teaching ” category, training surgeons learned while they taught or mentored their peers. “ Learning by gaming ” included situations where training surgeons played games to improve their competence.

Regarding categorization, each of the studies included in the review could belong to one or more of these categories. However, to be included in a category, the article needed to clearly explain that the instructional method in question was used in the study. For example, even though performing surgical procedures might also involve self-reflection, the article was categorized under “ learning by doing ” and not additionally under “ learning by self-reflection ” unless the reflection was explicitly mentioned in the article.

We included 42 empirical studies involving 2097 medical students and surgeons in training in this systematic review. The studies on surgical learning were geographically distributed across ten countries. Most of the studies were conducted in the USA ( n  = 22), and Canada ( n  = 12), however studies from the UK, the Netherlands, Austria, Chile, Germany, Finland, and Switzerland were also present. Surgical learning was typically explored with small-scale studies with a median of 28 participants, interquartile range 46 (see Table  1 ). Most of the studies focused on surgical residents’ learning ( n  = 29), whereas medical students’ surgical learning was explored in 11 studies. One study had both residents and medical students as participants. Twenty-seven studies investigated surgical learning in general surgery, with the remaining 16 in various other surgical specialties (including gynecology, cardiology, urology, pediatrics, neurosurgery, microsurgery, orthopedics, vascular surgery, gastro surgery and otolaryngology). The study design of the empirical studies varied from simulation (including bench models, animals, human cadavers, and virtual reality (VR)), operating room (OR) procedures, interviews, surveys, writing tasks, to knowledge tests and the resident report card. Most of the studies employed multimodal designs. Eighteen of the studies were controlled; 13 studies were randomized controlled trials (RCT), and five were controlled trials (CT). The core finding was discussed in all studies and where applicable, statistical tests were applied to highlight the significance. Almost half of the studies ( n  = 18) were conducted in clinical settings.

Primary outcome measures: learning objectives of surgeons in training and competency components

Most of the included studies on surgical learning focused on surgical skills and their attainment ( n  = 36) (See Table  1 ). Training surgeons commonly learned technical skills such as knot tying, distinct surgical procedures, and robotic skills ( n  = 25). In contrast, learning of non-technical skills ( n  = 11), such as communication, patient management, reflection, self-regulation, and decision-making skills, were less often reported. Twenty-two studies focused on the acquisition of surgical knowledge, such as general medical or surgical knowledge or more specific knowledge of certain procedures. Some of the studies ( n  = 10) reported attitudinal learning outcomes including confidence, resilience, and self-efficacy. Most of the studies ( n  = 26) had a single focus on surgical competence, i.e., they focused on learning of skills, knowledge, or attitudes. However, in 19 studies, the training surgeons’ learning was a combination of several skills, knowledge, and attitudes, most typically technical skills, and surgical knowledge. Empirical studies relied on performance assessment ( n  = 15), including studies in which the performance assessment was utilized by other reports, such as senior surgeons assessing the performance of the training surgeons, and self-reporting of the learning outcomes ( n  = 11). Sixteen studies combined both performance assessment and self-report of learning.

Learning was measured with validated objective tools in half of the studies. Most studies utilized either the OSATS global evaluation tool or a derivative optimized for the given conditions. These derivatives included ABSITE (The American Board of Surgery In-Service Training Exam) [ 69 ]; OSA-LS (OSATS salpingectomy-specific form) [ 70 ]; ASSET (Arthroscopic Surgical Skill Evaluation Tool) [ 71 ]; SP-CAT (Simulation Participants-Communication Assessment Tool) [ 72 ]; UWOMSA (University of Western Ontario Microsurgical Acquisition/assessment instrument) [ 73 ], and NRS (Numeric Rating Scale). Cognitive task analysis (CTA) was utilized in only two studies. In both studies, CTA improved scores in outcome testing [ 62 , 64 ]. CTA-based training was considered suitable for expediting learning but based on our study cohort, it is scarcely applied.

Secondary outcome measures: what kind of instructional designs do surgeons in training learn through?

The included studies in the present review employed various instructional methods ranging from learning by doing to mentoring and teaching fellow residents. Learning by doing , including technical training (of specific procedures, knot tying, etc.) both in OR settings and in simulation (e.g., VR, robotic, bench model, human cadaver, and animal), was most typically applied as the primary instructional method ( n  = 26), especially in teaching technical skills and non-technical surgical skills both for surgical residents and medical students. Partly mixed resulted in terms of the effectiveness of the method for novice and more advanced surgical students. For example, while Feins et al. showed that residents’ performance in component tasks and complete cardiac surgical procedures improved by simulation, Korte et al. reported, that especially more novice surgeons benefitted from simulations more than those who had more experience [ 29 , 37 ]. Most skill curricula improved assessment scores, but surgical outcomes may remain unaffected by similar interventions as shown by Jokinen et al. [ 43 ]. Also, learning through reflection , through which training surgeons reflecting on their own learning experiences and development, such as by participating in debriefing after operations or via video-based guided reflection ( n  = 13) was a commonly emphasized instructional method. Engaging in reflection was shown to be effective in promoting the learning of non-technical skills and attitudes. Trickey et al. showed that reflecting on positive learning experiences increased residents’ confidence and improved their communication skills, while Soucisse et al. and Naik et al. reported that self-reflecting on surgical tasks performed improved technical skills as well [ 55 , 57 , 65 ]. Ranney et al. furthermore showed that residents, who can reflect on their learning and thought processes are more in control and proceed to autonomy more quickly [ 56 ].

Commonly used instructional methods for enhancing surgical learning include modeling ( n  = 5), particularly observing more experienced surgeons performing surgical procedures, s elf-directed study ( n  = 6), such as preparing for surgery, reading, and self-studying and direct instruction ( n  = 7). The latter included participating in contact teaching and lectures, watching videos, and getting practical advice from senior surgeons, and these were frequently used in teaching future surgeons. Raiche et al. showed that observing and modelling, have their limitations, as residents have challenges in identifying where to focus their attention and in understanding what it is teaching them [ 52 ]. To be effective, such a form of instruction seems to call for explanation and support from senior surgeons. Naik et al. showed that receiving feedback during technical skill learning had a significant impact on residents’ performance in technical skills [ 57 ]. The results also emphasized the importance of pre-preparation for the OR for learning gains. For example, Logishetty et al. showed that residents preparing for arthroplasty with a CTA tool improved operative times and reduced mistakes and were taught both decision-making skills as well as technical skills [ 64 ].

On the other hand, learning through gaming (including playing escape rooms, jeopardy, and other quiz games) ( n  = 4) and mentoring or teaching fellow training surgeons ( N  = 1) were seldomly applied in the teaching of future surgeons. The empirical evidence still implies that such instructional methods can enhance surgical learning. Hancock et al., Chon et al., Kinio et al. and Amer et al., all showed that gaming improved surgical knowledge [ 40 , 42 , 54 , 61 ]. Zundel et al. found that peers are an extremely important source of instruction for training surgeons and that they both acquire knowledge and learn technical skills every day from each other [ 44 ]. Unfortunately, they receive little educational training in peer mentoring and thus the resource of peers as learning support is not exploited to its full potential [ 44 ].

To sum up, the results indicate that multimodal instructional designs are more commonly applied in studies exploring surgical learning and means to enhance it. In just over half of the studies ( n  = 23) participants were engaged in a combination of two to three different instructional activities.

Our results show that studies on surgical residents and medical students’ surgical learning focus heavily on learning surgical skills, particularly technical skills, and acquiring knowledge on how to perform specific procedures or surgical tasks. This indicates that, at least implicitly, quite a few studies on surgical learning are drawing on a competence framework by combining the learning of surgical skills and knowledge acquisition. However, the scope of such studies typically remains very specific.

Learning surgical soft skills such as communication and teamwork, learning skills, and adaptability were rarely investigated. Interestingly, none of the studies address learning skills such as self- or co-regulated learning as part of surgical learning. However, they are fundamental for flexible and adaptive professional behaviors and engagement in continuous professional development [ 74 , 75 ]. In addition, the studies included in the review rarely addressed learning of attitudes such as self- or co-efficacy or resilience as part of surgical learning, though self-efficacy has shown to be one of the main predictors of learning outcomes and good performance [ 76 , 77 ]. This may imply that such skills and attitudes are not considered to be at the core of surgical learning or that they are expected to result as by-product of other surgical learning activities. This can be considered to be a gap in the literature on surgical learning. The lack of knowledge on developing soft skills and attitudes among future surgeons also has practical implications since they play a central role in patient safety and a surgeon’s recovery from adverse events [ 78 , 79 ]. The importance of these non-technical skills is further supported by research from Galayia et al. and Gleason et al. [ 80 , 81 ]. Their studies highlight how factors like workload, emotional intelligence, and resilience are crucial in managing burnout, with a clear correlation shown between these skills, job resources, and burnout rates among surgical trainees.

Surgeons’ lack of familiarity with non-technical skills and insufficient training for handling adverse events [ 82 , 83 ] exacerbate this issue. In our review, systematic approaches to address adverse events were notably absent. The fact that soft skills and attitudes are often overlooked in surgical competencies poses a challenge for both research on surgical learning and the development of informed surgical education.

Recently, high incidences of burnout among surgery residents have been reported [ 84 ]. This concerning trend underscores the need for a holistic approach to surgical education. Addressing stressors in surgical education is not solely an individual concern but a systemic issue, necessitating substantial transformations in healthcare delivery and success measurement [ 85 ]. Fortunately, there has been a noticeable increase in publications emphasizing the acquisition of non-technical skills, reflecting a growing awareness of their importance in surgical training [ 86 ]. However, it is essential to note that most literature on simulation-based surgical training still predominantly focuses on technical skills [ 86 ]. This ongoing emphasis suggests that while strides are being made towards a more comprehensive educational approach, there remains a significant skew towards technical proficiency in current training paradigms.

The studies we reviewed applied various validated assessment tools. In this systematic review, learning was most focused on technical skills and evaluated by OSATS or a derivative. OSATS is a validated evaluation tool used for technical skill assessment [ 87 ]. While it is the gold standard in evaluation, it has limitations. The use of OSATS is limited in clinical operating room settings. Hence many studies have attempted to optimize and modify it according to their specific needs [ 32 , 88 , 89 ]. An assessment tool must meet the following requirements: (1) the inter-rater reliability must exceed 0.90, and (2) this reliability should be based on the amount of agreement between the observers [ 90 ]. Based on Groenier et al.’s systematic review and meta-analysis, considerable caution is required with the use of assessment tools, especially when high-stake decision-making is required [ 91 ]. Advancing proficiency in technical skills with progression toward clinical application poses many issues. Surgeons gaining false self-confidence through inadequate testing may increase the risks of adverse events in clinical applications. Thus, competence testing protocols must be validated, and must be evidence based. In addition to technical proficiency, a surgical intervention requires vast competence and robust, validated assessment tools for surgical soft skills, including learning and interpersonal skills and attitudes.

The results showed that learning by doing, typically simulation, and learning through guided reflection were the most used instructional methods to promote surgical residents’ and medical students’ surgical learning. Both methods effectively promote acquiring knowledge about performing surgical tasks and surgical skills. For instance, simulation training has been shown to enhance fluency in technical performance of specific surgical procedures and patient safety and in increasing a surgeon’s confidence [ 17 , 51 , 91 ]. While building confidence is essential for progression, self-reflection to maintain competence awareness is needed. Hence, self-assessment is fundamental to surgical learning and can be used in many forms [ 92 ]. Also, modeling, particularly observing more experienced surgeons performing surgical procedures, self-directed study, and direct instruction were commonly applied to enhance surgical learning. In turn, learning by gaming and mentoring or teaching fellow training surgeons was rarely applied in the studies as forms of instruction in cultivating surgical learning. The result indicates that gaming and peer learning are still both under-studied and under-utilized resources for systematically promoting the learning of future surgeons. The quality and quantity of social interactions with peers, senior surgeons, and patients are fundamental for surgical learning. Learning of all higher-order competencies proceeds from an inter-individual to an intra-individual sphere [ 93 , 94 , 95 ]. Moreover, since no surgeon works alone, the surgeon must be trained to work with and within the team. Accordingly, systematic use of peer learning would be essential not only for enhancing specific surgical knowledge and skills, but also for cultivating much-needed surgical soft skills. Nevertheless, emerging qualitative evidence suggests that peer learning is being increasingly implemented in medical education [ 96 ]. This trend underscores the growing recognition of the value of collaborative learning environments, where peers can share knowledge, challenge each other, and collectively develop the comprehensive skill set required in modern surgical practice.

Half of the studies we reviewed applied multimodal instruction to enhance surgical learning. This reflects a more modern understanding of learning in which varied instructional methods should be used depending on the object of learning, participants, and context. It also implies that traditional surgical teaching methods of incremental responsibility, with increasing volume-based exposure during residency, will gradually complement more varied research-informed instructional practices. However, it is essential to recall that learning always depends on our actions. This means that if we want to educate reflective practitioners who are good at solving complex problems [ 36 ], able to work in teams and engaged in continuous professional development, the instructional designs must systematically engage the future surgeons in such activities [ 97 ].

However, based on our review, many questions remain unanswered. The most fundamental of these is related to the transfer of surgical learning from a learning setting to other settings and across the competence ingredients. Firstly, further studies are needed on the extent and how surgical competencies, particularly beyond the technical skills attained in simulation (for instance), transfer into clinical work. This is also connected with the optimal length of the interval between preparation and execution, which was not analyzed thoroughly in most articles, nor was the time for initiation of skill waning explicitly stated. Feins et al. observed a transient decline from the end of one session to the beginning of the next, which was subsequently recovered and improved [ 37 ]. Green et al. showed that technical skills attained during preparatory courses are maintained into residency without additional interventions, with similar results from Maertens et al. and Lee-Riddle et al., who recorded proficiency levels to be maintained for at least three months [ 41 , 51 , 60 ]. Secondly, based on our review, studies addressing the learning and training of surgical competencies were highly task specific. Accordingly, further studies on the interrelation between competence ingredients, including surgical knowledge, technical and soft skills, and attitudes, are needed to promote the development of comprehensive surgical competencies among future surgeons. Thirdly, while simulation has proven essential for technical training, many operative interventions contain elements that cannot be simulated with current systems. The preparation for such interventions demands a multimodal approach, including preparatory discussions and visualization, until further methods become available.

Surgical residency is demanding in many aspects, not the least timewise. Among surgeons, mini-fellowships are uncommon as a learning method as opposed to traditional learning-by-doing approaches. While more effective methods are acknowledged, they are not applied due to time concerns [ 98 ]. As shown by Bohl et al., dedicated synthetic model training may alleviate time demands, allowing residents to recover better and thus improving preparedness for subsequent tasks [ 45 ]. Cognitive task analysis-based training is a valuable adjunct to the modern surgical curriculum, especially considering the global reduction in operating times and volumes during training [ 99 , 100 ]. CTA-based training improves procedural knowledge and technical performance [ 99 ]. However, it was applied in only a few of the studies analyzed here. Interestingly, CTA seems more effective in the later stages of surgical education, with less impact on medical students [ 101 ]. In addition, CTA-based training is suitable for electronic delivery, utilization through web-based tools, and gaming applications, all of which are accessible and provide opportunities for frequent revisits without personnel or resource investments [ 102 , 103 ]. Learning through gaming was also rarely applied in teaching situations in the studies analyzed here. While serious gaming in medical education is beneficial, validating each application for a specific purpose is mandatory [ 104 ].

Postgraduate medical education has recently moved towards competency-based education in many countries. Entrusted professional activities (EPA) are utilized as milestones in many competency frameworks [ 105 ]. Although EPAs have been applied to and gained rapid acceptance in postgraduate medical education, their potential within undergraduate education remains unverified [ 106 ]. In addition, while EPAs are becoming more prominent in surgical education, their widespread adoption and dissemination remain challenging [ 107 ]. We advocate for using all tools that collectively embrace a holistic approach to all competency components within surgical learning.

Our study is not without limitations. While we attempted to acquire a comprehensive picture of the pedagogical surgical landscape, we may have yet to detect some reports. Although geographical coverage was acceptable, all the studies we identified were from Western countries. Thus, the actual coverage of multimodal surgical learning warrants further studies. One potential limitation of our study is the decision to restrict our literature search to studies published from 2017 onwards. While this approach allowed us to focus on the most recent and relevant developments in surgical training and competence, it may have excluded earlier studies that could provide additional historical context or foundational insights into the evolution of surgical education practices. Finally, although we limited our study population to students and residents, learning continues through a surgeon’s career and evolves depending on the learner’s situation. Competence-based learning applies equally to all stages of surgical learning and should be incorporated, irrespective of career stage.

Advancing proficiency through adequate competency assessment is crucial for effective surgical learning. As we observe, contemporary surgical education is high quality and continuously evolves. Most studies focused on objective assessments, yet the measurement and assurance of the transition from technical to clinical proficiency remain areas for further exploration. Defining competency and creating validated assessments are fundamental to lifelong surgical learning.

While acquiring operational skills, decision-making knowledge, and confidence in performing technical tasks are teachable, the ultimate success in learning also hinges on the learner’s attitude and willingness to learn. Therefore, it is vital to incorporate non-technical skills alongside technical aptitude testing and academic achievements in designing modern surgical curricula.

To optimize learning outcomes, learners must adopt an approach encompassing the full spectrum of surgical education. This means integrating technical and non-technical skills to create a learning environment that nurtures a broad range of competencies essential for comprehensive surgical expertise.

Availability of data and materials

The dataset supporting the conclusions of the current study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Lizzio A, Wilson K. Action learning in higher education: an investigation of its potential to develop professional capability. Stud High Educ. 2004;29(4):469–88.

Article   Google Scholar  

Parry S. Just what is a competency? (and why should you care?). Training. 1996;35(6):58–64.

Google Scholar  

Eraut M. Developing professional knowledge and competence. London: Taylor & Francis Group; 1994.

Baartman L, Bastiaens T, Kirschner P, Van der Vleuten C. Evaluating assessment quality in competence-based education: a qualitative comparison of two frameworks. Educational Res Rev. 2007;2(2):114–29.

Aim F, Lonjon G, Hannouche D, Nizard R. Effectiveness of virtual reality training on orthopaedic surgery. Arthroscopy. 2016;32(1):224–32.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Alaker M, Wynn GR, Arulampalam T. Virtual reality training in laparoscopic surgery: a systematic review & meta-analysis. Int J Surg. 2016;29:85–94.

Zendekas B, Brydges R, Hamstra S, Cook D. State of the evidence on simulation-based training for laparoscopic surgery - a systematic review. Ann Surg. 2013;257(4):586–93.

Yokoyama S, Mizunuma K, Kurashima Y, Watanabe Y, Mizota T, Poudel S, et al. Evaluation methods and impact of simulation-based training in pediatric surgery: a systematic review. Pediatr Surg Int. 2019;35(10):1085–94.

Herrera-Aliaga E, Estrada LD. Trends and innovations of simulation for twenty first century medical education. Front Public Health. 2022;10: 619769.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Haluck RS, Krummel TM. Computers and virtual reality for surgical education in the 21st century. Arch Surg. 2000;135(7):786–92.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Reznick RK, MacRae H. Teaching surgical skills–changes in the wind. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(25):2664–9.

Scallon SE, Fairholm DJ, Cochrane DD, Taylor DC. Evaluation of the operating room as a surgical teaching venue. Can J Surg. 1992;35(2):173–6.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Reznick RK. Teaching and testing technical skills. Am J Surg. 1993;165(3):358–61.

Sutherland LM, Middleton PF, Anthony A, Hamdorf J, Cregan P, Scott D, et al. Surgical simulation: a systematic review. Ann Surg. 2006;243(3):291–300.

Tavakol M, Mohagheghi MA, Dennick R. Assessing the skills of surgical residents using simulation. J Surg Educ. 2008;65(2):77–83.

Young M, Lewis C, Kailavasan M, Satterthwaite L, Safir O, Tomlinson J, et al. A systematic review of methodological principles and delivery of surgical simulation bootcamps. Am J Surg. 2022;223(6):1079–87.

Dawe SR, Pena GN, Windsor JA, Broeders JA, Cregan PC, Maddern GJ. Systematic review of skills transfer after surgical simulation-based training. Br J Surg. 2014;101(9):1063–76.

Grober ED, Hamstra SJ, Wanzel KR, Reznick RK, Matsumoto ED, Sidhu RS, et al. The educational impact of bench model fidelity on the acquisition of technical skill: the use of clinically relevant outcome measures. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):374–81.

Grantcharov TP, Kristiansen VB, Bendix J, Bardram L, Rosenberg J, Funch-Jensen P. Randomized clinical trial of virtual reality simulation for laparoscopic skills training. Br J Surg. 2004;91(2):146–50.

Seymour NE, Gallagher AG, Roman SA, O’Brien MK, Bansal VK, Andersen DK, et al. Virtual reality training improves operating room performance: results of a randomized, double-blinded study. Ann Surg. 2002;236(4):458-463. discussion 63-4.

Grantcharov TP, Reznick RK. Teaching procedural skills. BMJ. 2008;336(7653):1129–31.

Seil R, Hoeltgen C, Thomazeau H, Anetzberger H, Becker R. Surgical simulation training should become a mandatory part of orthopaedic education. J Exp Orthop. 2022;9(1):22.

Reznick R, Regehr G, MacRae H, Martin J, McCulloch W. Testing technical skill via an innovative “bench station” examination. Am J Surg. 1997;173(3):226–30.

Bjerrum F, Thomsen ASS, Nayahangan LJ, Konge L. Surgical simulation: current practices and future perspectives for technical skills training. Med Teach. 2018;40(7):668–75.

Kurashima Y, Hirano S. Systematic review of the implementation of simulation training in surgical residency curriculum. Surg Today. 2017;47(7):777–82.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.

Babchenko O, Scott K, Jung S, Frank S, Elmaraghi S, Thiagarajasubramaniam S, et al. Resident perspectives on Effective Surgical training: incivility, confidence, and Mindset. J Surg Educ. 2020;77(5):1088–96.

Geoffrion R, Koenig NA, Sanaee MS, Lee T, Todd NJ. Optimizing resident operative self-confidence through competency-based surgical education modules: are we there yet? Int Urogynecol J. 2019;30(3):423–8.

Korte W, Merz C, Kirchhoff F, Heimeshoff J, Goecke T, Beckmann E, et al. Train early and with deliberate practice: simple coronary surgery simulation platform results in fast increase in technical surgical skills in residents and students. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2020;30(6):871–8.

Pandian TK, Buckarma EH, Mohan M, Gas BL, Naik ND, Abbott EF, et al. At home preresidency preparation for general surgery internship: a pilot study. J Surg Educ. 2017;74(6):952–7.

Charak G, Prigoff JG, Heneghan S, Cooper S, Weil H, Nowygrod R. Surgical education and the longitudinal model at the columbia-bassett program. J Surg Educ. 2020;77(4):854–8.

Harriman D, Singla R, Nguan C. The resident report card: A tool for operative feedback and evaluation of technical skills. J Surg Res. 2019;239:261–8.

Kumins NH, Qin VL, Driscoll EC, Morrow KL, Kashyap VS, Ning AY, et al. Computer-based video training is effective in teaching basic surgical skills to novices without faculty involvement using a self-directed, sequential and incremental program. Am J Surg. 2021;221(4):780–7.

Peshkepija AN, Basson MD, Davis AT, Ali M, Haan PS, Gupta RN, et al. Perioperative self-reflection among surgical residents. Am J Surg. 2017;214(3):564–70.

Cadieux DC, Mishra A, Goldszmidt MA. Before the scalpel: exploring surgical residents’ preoperative preparatory strategies. Med Educ. 2021;55(6):733–40.

Dressler JA, Ryder BA, Connolly M, Blais MD, Miner TJ, Harrington DT. Tweet-format writing is an effective tool for medical student reflection. J Surg Educ. 2018;75(5):1206–10.

Feins RH, Burkhart HM, Conte JV, Coore DN, Fann JI, Hicks GL Jr, et al. Simulation-based training in cardiac surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 2017;103(1):312–21.

Patel P, Martimianakis MA, Zilbert NR, Mui C, Hammond Mobilio M, Kitto S, et al. Fake it ‘Til you make it: pressures to measure up in surgical training. Acad Med. 2018;93(5):769–74.

Acosta D, Castillo-Angeles M, Garces-Descovich A, Watkins AA, Gupta A, Critchlow JF, et al. Surgical practical skills learning curriculum: implementation and interns’ confidence perceptions. J Surg Educ. 2018;75(2):263–70.

Chon SH, Timmermann F, Dratsch T, Schuelper N, Plum P, Bertlh F, et al. Serious games in surgical medical education: a virtual emergency department as a tool for teaching clinical reasoning to medical students. JMIR Serious Games. 2019;7(1):e13028.

Green CA, Huang E, Zhao NW, O’Sullivan PS, Kim E, Chern H. Technical skill improvement with surgical preparatory courses: what advantages are reflected in residency? Am J Surg. 2018;216(1):155–9.

Hancock KJ, Klimberg VS, Williams TP, Tyler DS, Radhakrishnan R, Tran S. Surgical Jeopardy: play to learn. J Surg Res. 2021;257:9–14.

Jokinen E, Mikkola TS, Harkki P. Effect of structural training on surgical outcomes of residents’ first operative laparoscopy: a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc. 2019;33(11):3688–95.

Zundel S, Stocker M, Szavay P. Resident as teacher in pediatric surgery: Innovation is overdue in Central Europe. J Pediatr Surg. 2017;52(11):1859–65.

Bohl MA, McBryan S, Spear C, Pais D, Preul MC, Wilhelmi B, et al. Evaluation of a novel surgical skills training course: are cadavers still the gold standard for surgical skills training? World Neurosurg. 2019;127:63–71.

Lees MC, Zheng B, Daniels LM, White JS. Factors affecting the development of confidence among surgical trainees. J Surg Educ. 2019;76(3):674–83.

Harris DJ, Vine SJ, Wilson MR, McGrath JS, LeBel ME, Buckingham G. A randomised trial of observational learning from 2D and 3D models in robotically assisted surgery. Surg Endosc. 2018;32(11):4527–32.

Gabrysz-Forget F, Young M, Zahabi S, Nepomnayshy D, Nguyen LHP. Surgical errors happen, but are learners trained to recover from them? A survey of North American surgical residents and fellows. J Surg Educ. 2020;77(6):1552–61.

Klitsie PJ, Ten Brinke B, Timman R, Busschbach JJV, Theeuwes HP, Lange JF, et al. Training for endoscopic surgical procedures should be performed in the dissection room: a randomized study. Surg Endosc. 2017;31(4):1754–9.

Siroen KL, Ward CDW, Escoto A, Naish MD, Bureau Y, Patel RV, et al. Mastery learning - does the method of learning make a difference in skills acquisition for robotic surgery? Int J Med Robot. 2017;13(4):e1828.

Maertens H, Aggarwal R, Moreels N, Vermassen F, Van Herzeele I. A proficiency based stepwise endovascular curricular training (PROSPECT) program enhances operative performance in real life: a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2017;54(3):387–96.

Raiche I, Hamstra S, Gofton W, Balaa F, Dionne E. Cognitive challenges of junior residents attempting to learn surgical skills by observing procedures. Am J Surg. 2019;218(2):430–5.

LeCompte M, Stewart M, Harris T, Rives G, Guth C, Ehrenfeld J, et al. See one, do one, teach one: a randomized controlled study evaluating the benefit of autonomy in surgical education. Am J Surg. 2019;217(2):281–7.

Kinio AE, Dufresne L, Brandys T, Jetty P. Break out of the classroom: the use of escape rooms as an alternative teaching strategy in Surgical Education. J Surg Educ. 2019;76(1):134–9.

Soucisse ML, Boulva K, Sideris L, Drolet P, Morin M, Dube P. Video coaching as an efficient teaching method for surgical residents-a randomized controlled trial. J Surg Educ. 2017;74(2):365–71.

Ranney SE, Bedrin NG, Roberts NK, Hebert JC, Forgione PM, Nicholas CF. Maximizing learning in the operating room: residents’ perspectives. J Surg Res. 2021;263:5–13.

Naik ND, Abbott EF, Gas BL, Murphy BL, Farley DR, Cook DA. Personalized video feedback improves suturing skills of incoming general surgery trainees. Surgery. 2018;163(4):921–6.

Lesch H, Johnson E, Peters J, Cendan JC. VR Simulation leads to enhanced procedural confidence for Surgical trainees. J Surg Educ. 2020;77(1):213–8.

Fletcher BP, Gusic ME, Robinson WP. Simulation training incorporating a pulsatile carotid endarterectomy model results in increased procedure-specific knowledge, confidence, and comfort in post-graduate trainees. J Surg Educ. 2020;77(5):1289–99.

Lee-Riddle GS, Sigmon DF, Newton AD, Kelz RR, Dumon KR, Morris JB. Surgical Boot camps increases confidence for residents transitioning to senior responsibilities. J Surg Educ. 2021;78(3):987–90.

Amer K, Mur T, Amer K, Ilyas A. A mobile-based surgical simulation application: a comparative analysis of efficacy using a carpal tunnel release module. J Hand Surg. 2017;42(5):P389.E1-.E9.

Bhattacharyya R, Davidson DJ, Sugand K, Bartlett MJ, Bhattacharya R, Gupte CM. Knee arthroscopy simulation: a Randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of the imperial knee arthroscopy cognitive task analysis (IKACTA) Tool. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017;99(19):e103.

Levin A, Haq I. Pre-course cognitive training using a smartphone application in orthopaedic intern surgical skills “boot camps.” J Orthop. 2018;15:506–8.

Logishetty K, Gofton WT, Rudran B, Beaule PE, Gupte CM, Cobb JP. A multicenter randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of cognitive training for anterior approach total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020;102(2):e7.

Trickey AW, Newcomb AB, Porrey M, Piscitani F, Wright J, Graling P, et al. Two-year experience implementing a curriculum to improve residents’ patient-centered communication skills. J Surg Educ. 2017;74(6):e124–32.

Grant AL, Temple-Oberle C. Utility of a validated rating scale for self-assessment in microsurgical training. J Surg Educ. 2017;74(2):360–4.

Quick JA, Kudav V, Doty J, Crane M, Bukoski AD, Bennett BJ, et al. Surgical resident technical skill self-evaluation: increased precision with training progression. J Surg Res. 2017;218:144–9.

Jethwa AR, Perdoni CJ, Kelly EA, Yueh B, Levine SC, Adams ME. Randomized controlled pilot study of video self-assessment for resident mastoidectomy training. OTO Open. 2018;2(2):2473974X18770417.

Miller AT, Swain GW, Widmar M, Divino CM. How important are American board of surgery in-training examination scores when applying for fellowships? J Surg Educ. 2010;67(3):149–51.

Larsen CR, Grantcharov T, Schouenborg L, Ottosen C, Soerensen JL, Ottesen B. Objective assessment of surgical competence in gynaecological laparoscopy: development and validation of a procedure-specific rating scale. BJOG. 2008;115(7):908–16.

Koehler RJ, Amsdell S, Arendt EA, Bisson LJ, Braman JP, Butler A, et al. The arthroscopic Surgical skill evaluation Tool (ASSET). Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(6):1229–37.

Makoul G, Krupat E, Chang CH. Measuring patient views of physician communication skills: development and testing of the communication assessment tool. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;67(3):333–42.

Dumestre D, Yeung JK, Temple-Oberle C. Evidence-based microsurgical skills acquisition series part 2: validated assessment instruments–a systematic review. J Surg Educ. 2015;72(1):80–9.

Schunk D, Greene J. Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance. London: Routledge / Taylor & Francis Group; 2018.

Hadwin A, Järvelä D, Miller M. Self-regulated, coregulated and socially shared regulation of learning. In: Zimmerman B, Schunk D, editors. Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance. New York, NY: Routledge; 2011. p. 65–84.

Zimmerman BJ. Self-efficacy: an essential motive to learn. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2000;25(1):82–91.

Jackson JW. Enhancing self-efficacy and learning performance. J Experimental Educ. 2002;70(3):243–54.

Dedy NJ, Bonrath EM, Zevin B, Grantcharov TP. Teaching nontechnical skills in surgical residency: a systematic review of current approaches and outcomes. Surgery. 2013;154(5):1000–8.

Srinivasa S, Gurney J, Koea J. Potential consequences of patient complications for Surgeon Well-being: a systematic review. JAMA Surg. 2019;154(5):451–7.

Galayia R, Kinross J, Arulampalam T. Factors associated with burnout syndrome in surgeons: a systematic review. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2020;102:401–7.

Gleason F, Baker SJ, Wood T, Wood L, Hollis RH, Chu DI, Lindeman B. Emotional Intelligence and Burnout in Surgical residents: a 5-Year study. J Surg Educ. 2020;77(6):e63–70.

Ounounou E, Aydin A, Brunckhorst O, Khan MS, Dasgupta P, Ahmed K. Nontechnical skills in surgery: a systematic review of current training modalities. J Surg Educ. 2019;76(1):14–24.

Turner K, Bolderston H, Thomas K, Greville-Harris M, Withers C, McDougall S. Impact of adverse events on surgeons. Br J Surg. 2022;109(4):308–10.

Hu Y-Y, Ellis RJ, Hewitt DB, Yang AD, Cheung EO, Moskowitz JT, et al. Discrimination, abuse, harassment, and burnout in surgical residency training. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(18):1741–52.

Hartzband P, Groopman J. Physician burnout, interrupted. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(26):2485–7.

Rosendal AA, Sloth SB, Rölfing JD, Bie M, Jensen RD. Techinical, non-technical, or both? A scoping review of skills in simulation-based surgical training. J Surg Educ. 2023;80(5):731–49.

Martin JA, Regehr G, Reznick R, MacRae H, Murnaghan J, Hutchison C, et al. Objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS) for surgical residents. Br J Surg. 1997;84(2):273–8.

Ahmed K, Miskovic D, Darzi A, Athanasiou T, Hanna GB. Observational tools for assessment of procedural skills: a systematic review. Am J Surg. 2011;202(4):469-80 e6.

van Hove PD, Tuijthof GJ, Verdaasdonk EG, Stassen LP, Dankelman J. Objective assessment of technical surgical skills. Br J Surg. 2010;97(7):972–87.

Groenier M, Brummer L, Bunting BP, Gallagher AG. Reliability of observational assessment methods for outcome-based assessment of surgical skill: systematic review and Meta-analyses. J Surg Educ. 2020;77(1):189–201.

Vanderbilt AA, Grover AC, Pastis NJ, Feldman M, Granados DD, Murithi LK, et al. Randomized controlled trials: a systematic review of laparoscopic surgery and simulation-based training. Glob J Health Sci. 2014;7(2):310–27.

Nayar SK, Musto L, Baruah G, Fernandes R, Bharathan R. Self-assessment of surgical skills: a systematic review. J Surg Educ. 2020;77(2):348–61.

Lave J, Wenger E. Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press; 1991.

Book   Google Scholar  

Bruner JS. The process of Education. Cambridge: Mass. Harvard University Press; 1960.

Vygotsky LS. Mind in society development of higher psychological processes.In: Michael Cole, Vera John-Steiner, Sylvia Scribner, and Ellen Souberman, editors. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1978.

Burgess A, van Diggele C, Roberts C, Mellis C. Introduction to the peer teacher training in health professional education supplement series. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20(Suppl 2):454.

Achenbach J, Schafer T. Modelling the effect of age, semester of study and its interaction on self-reflection of competencies in medical students. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(15):9579.

Jaffe TA, Hasday SJ, Knol M, Pradarelli J, Pavuluri Quamme SR, Greenberg CC, et al. Strategies for new skill acquisition by practicing surgeons. J Surg Educ. 2018;75(4):928–34.

Schwartz SI, Galante J, Kaji A, Dolich M, Easter D, Melcher ML, et al. Effect of the 16-hour work limit on general surgery intern operative case volume: a multi-institutional study. JAMA Surg. 2013;148(9):829–33.

Tofel-Grehl C, Feldon D. Cognitive task analysis-based training: a meta-analysis of studies. J Cogn Eng Decis Making. 2013;7:293–304.

Edwards TC, Coombs AW, Szyszka B, Logishetty K, Cobb JP. Cognitive task analysis-based training in surgery: a meta-analysis. BJS Open. 2021;5(6):zrab122.

Maertens H, Madani A, Landry T, Vermassen F, Van Herzeele I, Aggarwal R. Systematic review of e-learning for surgical training. Br J Surg. 2016;103(11):1428–37.

Gentry SV, Gauthier A, L’Estrade Ehrstrom B, Wortley D, Lilienthal A, Tudor Car L, et al. Serious gaming and Gamification Education in Health professions: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(3): e12994.

Graafland M, Schraagen JM, Schijven MP. Systematic review of serious games for medical education and surgical skills training. Br J Surg. 2012;99(10):1322–30.

LoGiudice AB, Sibbald M, Monteiro S, Sherbino J, Keuhl A, Norman GR, et al. Intrinsic or invisible? An audit of CanMEDS roles in Entrustable Professional activities. Acad Med. 2022;97:1213–8.

Bramley AL, McKenna L. Entrustable professional activities in entry-level health professional education: a scoping review. Med Educ. 2021;55:1011–32.

Liu L, Jiang Z, Qi X, Xie A, Wu H, Cheng H, et al. An update on current EPAs in graduate medical education: a scoping review. Med Educ Online. 2021;26:1981198.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Disclosures

This research did not receive any specific grants from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Consent to publish

Not applicable due to the nature of the study.

Conflict of interest

Open access funding provided by Uppsala University.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Pediatric Surgery, New Children’s Hospital, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland

Niklas Pakkasjärvi

Department of Pediatric Surgery, Section of Urology, University Children’s Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden

Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

Henrika Anttila & Kirsi Pyhältö

Centre for Higher and Adult Education, Faculty of Education, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa

Kirsi Pyhältö

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization, N.P. & K.P; methodology, N.P.; software, H.A.; validation, N.P., H.A. and K.P.; formal analysis, N.P., H.A.; investigation, N.P., H.A.; resources, H.A.; data curation, H.A.; writing—original draft preparation, N.P.; writing—review and editing, N.P, , H.A., K.P.; visualization, N.P.; supervision, K.P.; project administration, K.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Niklas Pakkasjärvi .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

This systematic review did not involve any human participants or experimental interventions; therefore, ethical approval was not required. We adhered to PRISMA guidelines for methodology.

Consent for publication

Consent to participate was not applicable due to the nature of the study which did not involve human participants or experimental interventions.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Pakkasjärvi, N., Anttila, H. & Pyhältö, K. What are the learning objectives in surgical training – a systematic literature review of the surgical competence framework. BMC Med Educ 24 , 119 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05068-z

Download citation

Received : 25 September 2023

Accepted : 17 January 2024

Published : 06 February 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05068-z

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

  • Surgical competence
  • Surgical education
  • Systematic literature review

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

what is the literature review in a research paper

The race between global economic growth and carbon emissions: based on a comparative study of developed and developing countries

  • Research Article
  • Published: 15 February 2024

Cite this article

  • Ya Wu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3218-5217 1 &
  • Jing Wan 1  

In recent years, there has been a persistent intensification of the global greenhouse effect. Balancing carbon emission reduction with economic growth poses an unprecedented global challenge. To better comprehend the relationship between economic growth and carbon emissions, this study first utilized the Tapio decoupling index to compare the decoupling relationship (the USA, Japan, and Germany) and three developing countries (China, India, and Russia) from 2000–2020. Additionally, the logarithmic mean Divisia index (LMDI) method was employed to investigate the factors influencing changes in carbon emissions. Our findings indicate that (1) the USA and Germany basically achieved strong decoupling; China, India, and Russia mainly showed weak decoupling; and Japan showed recessive decoupling. (2) Economic growth predominantly contributed to increased carbon emissions, with a lesser impact from population growth. A significant reduction in energy intensity restrained carbon emissions growth, as did energy structure replacement in most countries, excluding Japan. Based on this, a decoupling effort index was formulated. It has shown that the decoupling efforts made by developing countries are weaker than those of developed countries, primarily attributed to a lesser degree of decoupling between energy intensity and structure. This paper offers valuable insights for developing countries undergoing a low-carbon economic transformation. They should counterbalance carbon emission escalation resulting from economic growth through technological and energy structure improvements.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

what is the literature review in a research paper

Data availability

The data sets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Act EP (2005) Energy policy act of 2005. In: US Congress, pp 1–27. https://www.congress.gov/109/plaws/publ58/PLAW-109publ58.pdf

Ang BW (2005) The LMDI approach to decomposition analysis: a practical guide. Energy Policy 33:867–871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2003.10.010

Article   Google Scholar  

Ang BW (2004) Decomposition analysis for policymaking in energy: which is the preferred method? Energy Policy 32:1131–1139. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(03)00076-4

Antao AA (2019) Current status of India’s electric mobility mission. Fr Agnel College of Arts & Commerce 25. https://www.fragnelcollege.edu.in/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/anchor-final.pdf#page=29

BP (2021) Statistical review of world energy. Available at: https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy . Accessed 10 October 2022

CAS (2019) Major national R&D expenditure reports. Available at: http://www.clas.ac.cn/xwzx2016/kxxw2016/zscqly/201905/t20190517_5296744 . Accessed 21 Dec 2023

Chen J, Wang P, Cui L et al (2018) Decomposition and decoupling analysis of CO 2 emissions in OECD. Appl Energy 231:937–950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.09.179

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Danish OB, Ulucak R (2021) An empirical investigation of nuclear energy consumption and carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emission in India: bridging IPAT and EKC hypotheses. Nucl Eng Technol 53:2056–2065. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2020.12.008

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Danish UR, Khan SUD (2020) Relationship between energy intensity and CO 2 emissions: does economic policy matter? Sustain Dev 28:1457–1464. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2098

Diakoulaki D, Mandaraka M (2007) Decomposition analysis for assessing the progress in decoupling industrial growth from CO 2 emissions in the EU manufacturing sector. Energy Econ 29:636–664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2007.01.005

Dong F, Pan Y, Li Y, Zhang S (2021) How public and government matter in industrial pollution mitigation performance: evidence from China. J Clean Prod 306:127099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127099

Dong F, Wang Y, Su B et al (2019) The process of peak CO 2 emissions in developed economies: a perspective of industrialization and urbanization. Resour Conserv Recycl 141:61–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.10.010

Fan Y, Liu LC, Wu G et al (2007) Changes in carbon intensity in China: empirical findings from 1980–2003. Ecol Econ 62:683–691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.08.016

Gan C, Wang K, Voda M (2022) Decoupling relationship between carbon emission and economic development in the service sector: case of 30 provinces in China. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29:63846–63858. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-20032-4

Grand MC (2016) Carbon emission targets and decoupling indicators. Ecol Ind 67:649–656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.03.042

Grossman GM, Krueger AB (1995) Economic growth and the environment. Q J Econ 110:353–377. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118443

Guo F, Zhang L, Wang Z, Ji S (2022) Research on determining the critical influencing factors of carbon emission integrating GRA with an improved STIRPAT model: taking the Yangtze River Delta as an example. Int J Environ Res Public Health 19:8791. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148791

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Hossain MA, Chen S (2020) Decoupling of energy-related CO 2 emissions from economic growth: a case study of Bangladesh. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27:20844–20860. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08541-6

Hua F, Alharthi M, Yin W et al (2022) Carbon emissions and socioeconomic drivers of climate change: empirical evidence from the logarithmic mean Divisia index (LMDI) base model for China. Sustainability 14:2214. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042214

Hussain J, Khan A, Zhou K (2020) The impact of natural resource depletion on energy use and CO 2 emission in Belt & Road Initiative countries: a cross-country analysis. Energy 199:117409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.117409

Investments JC (2009) The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. https://www.energy.wsu.edu/Documents/AmericanRecoveryAndReinvestmentActOf2009.pdf

IPCC (2006) IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Hayama, Japan. Retrieved from Kanagawa: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/2006-ipcc-guidelines-for-national-greenhouse-gas-inventories/ . Accessed 10 August 2022

Jahangir Alam M, Ara Begum I, Buysse J, Van Huylenbroeck G (2012) Energy consumption, carbon emissions and economic growth nexus in Bangladesh: cointegration and dynamic causality analysis. Energy Policy 45:217–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.02.022

Kaya Y (1989) Impact of carbon dioxide emission control on GNP growth: interpretation of proposed scenarios. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/Response Strategies Working Group, May.  https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1570291225678384256

Koilakou E, Hatzigeorgiou E, Bithas K (2022) Carbon and energy intensity of the USA and Germany. A LMDI decomposition approach and decoupling analysis. Environ Sci Pollut Res 30:12412–12427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-22978-x

Kucharski JB, Unesaki H (2017) Japan’s 2014 strategic energy plan: a planned energy system transition. J Energy 2017. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/4107614

Lan-yue Z, Yao L, Jing Z et al (2017) The relationships among energy consumption, economic output and energy intensity of countries at different stage of development. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 74:258–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.02.055

Li H, Wang J, Wang S (2022) The impact of energy tax on carbon emission mitigation: an integrated analysis using CGE and SDA. Sustainability 14:1087. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031087

Li R, Ge S (2022) Towards economic value-added growth without carbon emission embodied growth in North-North trade-an empirical analysis of US-German trade. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29:43874–43890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17461-y

Li R, Jiang R (2020) Investigating effect of R&D investment on decoupling environmental pressure from economic growth in the global top six carbon dioxide emitters. Sci Total Environ 740:140053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140053

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Li S, Meng J, Zheng H et al (2021) The driving forces behind the change in energy consumption in developing countries. Environ Res Lett 16:054002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abde05

Li Z, Sun L, Geng Y et al (2017) Examining industrial structure changes and corresponding carbon emission reduction effect by combining input-output analysis and social network analysis: a comparison study of China and Japan. J Clean Prod 162:61–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.200

Liu B, Li Y, Hou R, Wang H (2021) Assessing the drivers of China’s CO 2 emissions based on PDA. Emerg Mark Financ Trade 57:668–683. https://doi.org/10.1080/1540496X.2019.1598369

Liu F, Kang Y, Guo K (2022a) Is electricity consumption of Chinese counties decoupled from carbon emissions? A study based on Tapio decoupling index. Energy 251:123879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.123879

Liu H, Wong WK, The Cong P et al (2023) Linkage among Urbanization, energy consumption, economic growth and carbon emissions. Panel data analysis for China using ARDL model. Fuel 332:126122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2022.126122

Liu X, Bao Y, Zhang Y, Li J (2022b) Decoupling analysis on China’s civil aviation carbon emissions from transportation revenue: a three-dimension decomposition framework. Sustain Prod Consum 32:718–730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.05.023

Lv D, Wang R, Zhang Y (2021) Sustainability assessment based on integrating EKC with decoupling: empirical evidence from China. Sustainability 13:655. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020655

Ma H, Liu J, Xi J (2022) Decoupling and decomposition analysis of carbon emissions in Beijing’s tourism traffic. Environ Dev Sustain 24:5258–5274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01657-w

Ma X, Wang C, Dong B et al (2019) Carbon emissions from energy consumption in China: its measurement and driving factors. Sci Total Environ 648:1411–1420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.183

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Marques AC, Fuinhas JA, Leal PA (2018) The impact of economic growth on CO 2 emissions in Australia: the environmental Kuznets curve and the decoupling index. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:27283–27296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-2768-6

Mirza FM, Kanwal A (2017) Energy consumption, carbon emissions and economic growth in Pakistan: dynamic causality analysis. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 72:1233–1240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.10.081

Miura T, Tamaki T, Kii M, Kajitani Y (2021) Efficiency by sectors in areas considering CO 2 emissions: the case of Japan. Econ Anal Policy 70:514–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2021.04.004

Mochizuki J (2011) Assessing the designs and effectiveness of Japan’s emissions trading scheme. Climate Policy 11:1337–1349. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2011.579289

Mohmmed A, Li Z, Arowolo AO et al (2019) Driving factors of CO 2 emissions and nexus with economic growth, development and human health in the top ten emitting countries. Resour Conserv Recycl 148:157–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2019.03.048

Moinuddin M, Kuriyama A (2019) Japan 2050 low carbon navigator: possible application for assessing climate policy impacts. Energ Strat Rev 26:100384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2019.100384

Murtaugh PA, Schlax MG (2009) Reproduction and the carbon legacies of individuals. Glob Environ Chang 19:14–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.10.007

OECD (2002) Indicators to measure decoupling of environmental pressure from economic growth: sustainable development. OECD General Secretariat. https://www.oecd.org/env/indicators-modelling-outlooks/1933638.pdf

Omri A (2013) CO 2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth nexus in MENA countries: evidence from simultaneous equations models. Energy Econ 40:657–664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2013.09.003

Ortega-Ruiz G, Mena-Nieto A, García-Ramos JE (2020) Is India on the right pathway to reduce CO 2 emissions? Decomposing an enlarged Kaya identity using the LMDI method for the period 1990–2016. Sci Total Environ 737:139638. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2020.139638

Ortega-Ruiz G, Mena-Nieto A, Golpe AA, García-Ramos JE (2022) CO 2 emissions and causal relationships in the six largest world emitters. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 162:112435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112435

Pandve HT (2009) India’s National Action Plan on Climate Change. Indian J Occup Environ Med 13:17–19. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5278.50718

Peters JC (2017) Natural gas and spillover from the US Clean Power Plan into the Paris Agreement. Energy Policy 106:41–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.03.039

Renzhi N, Baek YJ (2020) Can financial inclusion be an effective mitigation measure? evidence from panel data analysis of the environmental Kuznets curve. Financ Res Lett 37:101725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2020.101725

Riti JS, Song D, Shu Y, Kamah M (2017) Decoupling CO 2 emission and economic growth in China: is there consistency in estimation results in analyzing environmental Kuznets curve? J Clean Prod 166:1448–1461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.117

Sadorsky P (2020) Energy related CO 2 emissions before and after the financial crisis. Sustainability 12:3867. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093867

Safonov G, Potashnikov V, Lugovoy O et al (2020) The low carbon development options for Russia. Clim Change 162:1929–1945. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-02780-9

Schaltegger S, Csutora M (2012) Carbon accounting for sustainability and management. Status quo and challenges. J Clean Prod 36:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.06.024

Shuai C, Chen X, Wu Y et al (2019) A three-step strategy for decoupling economic growth from carbon emission: empirical evidences from 133 countries. Sci Total Environ 646:524–543. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2018.07.045

Sun C, Ding D, Yang M (2017) Estimating the complete CO 2 emissions and the carbon intensity in India: from the carbon transfer perspective. Energy Policy 109:418–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.07.022

Sun Y, Razzaq A, Sun H, Irfan M (2022) The asymmetric influence of renewable energy and green innovation on carbon neutrality in China: analysis from non-linear ARDL model. Renew Energy 193:334–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.04.159

Suzuki Y, Kakei F, Yamamoto C et al (2015) Studies on the enforcement of the Low Carbon City Promotion Act and a case example of low carbon city development plan in Omihachiman City. WIT Trans Ecol Environ 193:421–432

Tapio P (2005) Towards a theory of decoupling: degrees of decoupling in the EU and the case of road traffic in Finland between 1970 and 2001. Transp Policy 12:137–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRANPOL.2005.01.001

The World Bank (2022) The world bank data. Available at: https://data.worldbank.org.cn/country . Accessed 3 November 2022

UNCTADstat (2023) Developing and developed regions. Available at: https://unctadstat.unctad.org/EN/Classifications . Accessed 7 July 2023

Vinuya F, DiFurio F, Sandoval E (2010) A decomposition analysis of CO 2 emissions in the United States. Appl Econ Lett 17:925–931. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840902762688

Wan L, Wang ZL, Ng JCY (2016) Measurement research on the decoupling effect of industries’ carbon emissions - based on the equipment manufacturing industry in China. Energies 9:921. https://doi.org/10.3390/en9110921

Wang CN, Nguyen TD, Yu MC (2019a) Energy use efficiency past-to-future evaluation: an international comparison. Energies 12:3804. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12193804

Wang L (2022) Research on the dynamic relationship between China’s renewable energy consumption and carbon emissions based on ARDL model. Resour Policy 77:102764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102764

Wang Q, Han X (2021) Is decoupling embodied carbon emissions from economic output in Sino-US trade possible? Technol Forecast Soc Chang 169:120805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120805

Wang Q, Han X, Li R (2022a) Does technical progress curb India’s carbon emissions? A novel approach of combining extended index decomposition analysis and production-theoretical decomposition analysis. J Environ Manage 310:114720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114720

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Wang Q, Li R (2016) Journey to burning half of global coal: trajectory and drivers of China’s coal use. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 58:341–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.104

Wang Q, Su M (2020) Drivers of decoupling economic growth from carbon emission - an empirical analysis of 192 countries using decoupling model and decomposition method. Environ Impact Assess Rev 81:106356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2019.106356

Wang Q, Wang S (2019a) A comparison of decomposition the decoupling carbon emissions from economic growth in transport sector of selected provinces in eastern, central and western China. J Clean Prod 229:570–581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.375

Wang Q, Wang S (2020) Is energy transition promoting the decoupling economic growth from emission growth? Evidence from the 186 countries. J Clean Prod 260:120768. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2020.120768

Wang Q, Wang S (2019b) Decoupling economic growth from carbon emissions growth in the United States: the role of research and development. J Clean Prod 234:702–713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.174

Wang Q, Zhang F (2020) Does increasing investment in research and development promote economic growth decoupling from carbon emission growth? An empirical analysis of BRICS countries. J Clean Prod 252:119853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119853

Wang Q, Zhang F (2021) The effects of trade openness on decoupling carbon emissions from economic growth - evidence from 182 countries. J Clean Prod 279:123838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123838

Wang Q, Zhang F, Li R (2023a) Revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in 208 counties: the roles of trade openness, human capital, renewable energy and natural resource rent. Environ Res 216:114637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.114637

Wang Q, Zhao M, Li R (2019b) Decoupling sectoral economic output from carbon emissions on city level: a comparative study of Beijing and Shanghai, China. J Clean Prod 209:126–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.188

Wang Q, Zhao M, Li R, Su M (2018) Decomposition and decoupling analysis of carbon emissions from economic growth: a comparative study of China and the United States. J Clean Prod 197:178–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2018.05.285

Wang S, Fang C, Wang Y (2016) Spatiotemporal variations of energy-related CO 2 emissions in China and its influencing factors: an empirical analysis based on provincial panel data. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 55:505–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.140

Wang T, Shen B, Han Springer C, Hou J (2021) What prevents us from taking low-carbon actions? A comprehensive review of influencing factors affecting low-carbon behaviors. Energy Res Soc Sci 71:101844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101844

Wang X, Li J, Song R, Li J (2022b) 350 cities of China exhibited varying degrees of carbon decoupling and green innovation synergy. Energy Rep 8:312–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.03.060

Wang X, Lu C, Cao Y et al (2023b) Decomposition, decoupling, and future trends of environmental effects in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region: a regional heterogeneity-based analysis. J Environ Manage 331:117124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.117124

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Wang X, Lu Y, Chen C et al (2024) Total-factor energy efficiency of ten major global energy-consuming countries. J Environ Sci 137:41–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2023.02.031

Wang X, Yan L (2022) Driving factors and decoupling analysis of fossil fuel related-carbon dioxide emissions in China. Fuel 314:122869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2021.122869

Wang Z, Xie W, Zhang C (2023) Towards COP26 targets: characteristics and influencing factors of spatial correlation network structure on U.S. carbon emission. Resour Policy 81:103285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.103285

Wang Z, Yang L (2015) Delinking indicators on regional industry development and carbon emissions: Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei economic band case. Ecol Ind 48:41–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.07.035

Wu Y, Tam VWY, Shuai C et al (2019) Decoupling China’s economic growth from carbon emissions: empirical studies from 30 Chinese provinces (2001–2015). Sci Total Environ 656:576–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.384

Wu Y, Zhu Q, Zhu B (2018) Decoupling analysis of world economic growth and CO 2 emissions: a study comparing developed and developing countries. J Clean Prod 190:94–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.139

Xie P, Gao S, Sun F et al (2019) An analysis of the decoupling relationship between CO 2 emission in power industry and GDP in China based on LMDI method. J Clean Prod 211:598–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.212

Xin-gang Z, Ying Z (2023) Can China’s renewable energy industry policy support the low-carbon energy transition effectively? Environ Sci Pollut Res 30:29525–29549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-24324-7

Xiuhui J, Raza MY (2022) Delving into Pakistan’s industrial economy and carbon mitigation: an effort toward sustainable development goals. Energ Strat Rev 41:100839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2022.100839

Xu SC, He ZX, Long RY (2014) Factors that influence carbon emissions due to energy consumption in China: decomposition analysis using LMDI. Appl Energy 127:182–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2014.03.093

Yan J, Su B (2020) What drive the changes in China’s energy consumption and intensity during 12th Five-Year Plan period? Energy Policy 140:111383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111383

Yang J, Hao Y, Feng C (2021) A race between economic growth and carbon emissions: what play important roles towards global low-carbon development? Energy Econ 100:105327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105327

Yang L, Yang Y, Zhang X, Tang K (2018) Whether China’s industrial sectors make efforts to reduce CO 2 emissions from production? - a decomposed decoupling analysis. Energy 160:796–809. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2018.06.186

Yasmeen H, Tan Q (2021) Assessing Pakistan’s energy use, environmental degradation, and economic progress based on Tapio decoupling model. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28:68364–68378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15416-x

Yin J, Zheng M, Chen J (2015) The effects of environmental regulation and technical progress on CO 2 Kuznets curve: an evidence from China. Energy Policy 77:97–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.11.008

Zha J, Dai J, Ma S et al (2021) How to decouple tourism growth from carbon emissions? A case study of Chengdu, China. Tour Manag Perspect 39:100849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2021.100849

Zhang M, Bai C (2018) Exploring the influencing factors and decoupling state of residential energy consumption in Shandong. J Clean Prod 194:253–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2018.05.122

Zhang M, Wang W (2013) Decouple indicators on the CO 2 emission-economic growth linkage: the Jiangsu Province case. Ecol Ind 32:239–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.03.033

Zhang W, Huang Y, Wu H (2022) The symmetric and asymmetric effects of economic policy uncertainty and oil prices on carbon emissions in the USA and China: evidence from the ARDL and non-linear ARDL approaches. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29:26465–26482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17839-y

Zhang YJ, Da YB (2015) The decomposition of energy-related carbon emission and its decoupling with economic growth in China. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 41:1255–1266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.09.021

Zhao X, Zhang X, Li N et al (2017) Decoupling economic growth from carbon dioxide emissions in China: a sectoral factor decomposition analysis. J Clean Prod 142:3500–3516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.117

Zhao Y, Su Q, Li B et al (2022) Have those countries declaring “zero carbon” or “carbon neutral” climate goals achieved carbon emissions-economic growth decoupling? J Clean Prod 363:132450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132450

Zhou X, Zhang M, Zhou M, Zhou M (2017) A comparative study on decoupling relationship and influence factors between China’s regional economic development and industrial energy-related carbon emissions. J Clean Prod 142:783–800. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.115

Zhu C, Chang Y, Li X, Shan M (2022) Factors influencing embodied carbon emissions of China’s building sector: an analysis based on extended STIRPAT modeling. Energy Build 255:111607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.111607

Download references

This work was supported by the Humanities and Social Science Fund of Ministry of Education of China (Grant 23YJA790085). The above fund mainly provides financial assistance in the process of paper discussion and language polishing.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Economics, Jinan University, Guangzhou, 510632, Guangdong, China

Ya Wu & Jing Wan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. YW participated in the manuscript concept, writing (review and editing), supervision, and funding acquisition. JW participated in the literature search, methodology, data analysis, and writing the original manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ya Wu .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval.

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Ilhan Ozturk

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Wu, Y., Wan, J. The race between global economic growth and carbon emissions: based on a comparative study of developed and developing countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-32275-4

Download citation

Received : 09 September 2023

Accepted : 26 January 2024

Published : 15 February 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-32275-4

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

  • Carbon emission reduction
  • Economic growth
  • Tapio decoupling
  • Decoupling efforts
  • Find a journal
  • Publish with us
  • Track your research

IMAGES

  1. How To Write A Literature Review

    what is the literature review in a research paper

  2. 39 Best Literature Review Examples (Guide & Samples)

    what is the literature review in a research paper

  3. 50 Smart Literature Review Templates (APA) ᐅ TemplateLab

    what is the literature review in a research paper

  4. ️ An example of a literature review. How to Write a Literature Review

    what is the literature review in a research paper

  5. Sample of Research Literature Review

    what is the literature review in a research paper

  6. 50 Smart Literature Review Templates (APA) ᐅ TemplateLab

    what is the literature review in a research paper

VIDEO

  1. How To Read Research Papers For Literature Review #shorts

  2. Write Your Literature Review FAST

  3. Research Methods: Writing a Literature Review

  4. Want To Finish Your PhD Or Publish Papers FASTER? Do This

  5. Disadvantages of Compact Academic Writing Programs

  6. How To Write An Abstract

COMMENTS

  1. How to Write a Literature Review

    A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research that you can later apply to your paper, thesis, or dissertation topic. There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

  2. Writing a Literature Review

    A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays).

  3. How to write the literature review of your research paper

    Literature review is one of the pillars on which your research idea stands since it provides context, relevance, and background to the research problem you are exploring. Types of literature review Literature reviews can be categorized as experimental and theoretical.

  4. What is a literature review?

    A literature or narrative review is a comprehensive review and analysis of the published literature on a specific topic or research question. The literature that is reviewed contains: books, articles, academic articles, conference proceedings, association papers, and dissertations.

  5. 5. The Literature Review

    Literature reviews are designed to provide an overview of sources you have used in researching a particular topic and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits within existing scholarship about the topic. Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper. Fourth edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2014.

  6. Literature Reviews

    The "literature" of a literature review refers to any collection of materials on a topic, not necessarily the great literary texts of the world. "Literature" could be anything from a set of government pamphlets on British colonial methods in Africa to scholarly articles on the treatment of a torn ACL.

  7. Writing a Literature Review Research Paper: A step-by-step approach

    A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area, and sometimes information in a particular subject area within a certain time period.

  8. What is a Literature Review?

    A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research. There are five key steps to writing a literature review: Search for relevant literature Evaluate sources Identify themes, debates and gaps

  9. Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

    A literature review may be a stand alone work or the introduction to a larger research paper, depending on the assignment. Rely heavily on the guidelines your instructor has given you. Why is it important? A literature review is important because it: Explains the background of research on a topic.

  10. Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide

    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.

  11. Research Guides: Literature Reviews: What is a Literature Review?

    A literature review is a review and synthesis of existing research on a topic or research question. A literature review is meant to analyze the scholarly literature, make connections across writings and identify strengths, weaknesses, trends, and missing conversations. A literature review should address different aspects of a topic as it ...

  12. Literature Review

    A literature review is a comprehensive and critical analysis of the existing literature on a particular topic or research question. It involves identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing relevant literature, including scholarly articles, books, and other sources, to provide a summary and critical assessment of what is known about the topic.

  13. Writing a Literature Review

    A literature review provides a reader with a comprehensive look at previous discussions prior to the one the reviewer will be making in his/her own research paper, thesis, or dissertation. In short, a literature review shows readers where the reviewer is entering the academic conversation on a particular topic in the context of existing ...

  14. How to Write a Literature Review

    A literature review is much more than an annotated bibliography or a list of separate reviews of articles and books. It is a critical, analytical summary and synthesis of the current knowledge of a topic. ... When you finish your research and write your thesis or paper to present your findings, it should include a literature review to provide ...

  15. What is a "Literature Review"?

    Literature reviews: provide a summary of the published academic work on a topic help "make the case" for why someone is writing their paper or conducting their research can be the "background" section of a larger paper or it can be the focus of an entire paper Goals of a Literature Review

  16. Literature Review Overview

    A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area. Often part of the introduction to an essay, research report or thesis, the literature review is literally a "re" view or "look again" at what has already been written about the topic, wherein the author analyzes a segment of a published body of knowledge through summary, classification, and comparison of prior ...

  17. Literature Review Research

    Literature Review is a comprehensive survey of the works published in a particular field of study or line of research, usually over a specific period of time, in the form of an in-depth, critical bibliographic essay or annotated list in which attention is drawn to the most significant works. Also, we can define a literature review as the ...

  18. Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines

    In addition, a literature review is an excellent way of synthesizing research findings to show evidence on a meta-level and to uncover areas in which more research is needed, which is a critical component of creating theoretical frameworks and building conceptual models.

  19. Literature Review: Conducting & Writing

    Steps for Conducting a Lit Review; Finding "The Literature" Organizing/Writing; APA Style; Chicago: Notes Bibliography; MLA Style; Sample Literature Reviews. Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts; Have an exemplary literature review? Get Help!

  20. Writing a literature review

    Writing a literature review requires a range of skills to gather, sort, evaluate and summarise peer-reviewed published data into a relevant and informative unbiased narrative. Digital access to research papers, academic texts, review articles, reference databases and public data sets are all sources of information that are available to enrich ...

  21. Writing a Literature Review

    Writing a Literature Review When writing a research paper on a specific topic, you will often need to include an overview of any prior research that has been conducted on that topic.

  22. Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

    Reviewing the literature requires the ability to juggle multiple tasks, from finding and evaluating relevant material to synthesising information from various sources, from critical thinking to paraphrasing, evaluating, and citation skills [7].

  23. What is a Literature Review?

    Literature Reviews are Source Driven. In contrast, when you write a Literature Review, the sources themselves dictate what you'll say in your paper. Remember, your goal is to tell your audience the state of the field on a topic-what's been happening in the published research-so you can find the cutting edge and where the research gaps are.

  24. Free Research Paper Template (Word Doc & PDF)

    The research paper template covers the following core sections: The title page/cover page. Abstract (sometimes also called the executive summary) Section 1: Introduction. Section 2: Literature review. Section 3: Methodology. Section 4: Findings /results. Section 5: Discussion. Section 6: Conclusion.

  25. Rapid reviews methods series: guidance on rapid qualitative evidence

    This paper forms part of a series of methodological guidance from the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group and addresses rapid qualitative evidence syntheses (QESs), which use modified systematic, transparent and reproducible methodsu to accelerate the synthesis of qualitative evidence when faced with resource constraints. This guidance covers the review process as it relates to synthesis of ...

  26. Literature Review of Teachers' Perspective of Blended ...

    An analysis of the research results reveals that studies on BL have increased in number in the literature since 2006; it has been found that the fields of social sciences, computer, medicine and ...

  27. What are the learning objectives in surgical training

    To map the landscape of contemporary surgical education through a competence framework by conducting a systematic literature review on learning outcomes of surgical education and the instructional methods applied to attain the outcomes. Surgical education has seen a paradigm shift towards competence-based training. However, a gap remains in the literature regarding the specific components of ...

  28. Male Victims of Sexual Assault: A Review of the Literature

    2. Definition of AMSVo. Several terms describe sexual violence, including sexual victimization, sexual assault and rape [28,29], although the literature often uses the terms interchangeably.Adult sexual assault refers to all types of sexual assault, including rape, which is defined as the penetration of the victim's mouth or anus by a penile, digital, or foreign object while using force ...

  29. The race between global economic growth and carbon emissions ...

    Literature review. Research on the relationship between economic growth and carbon emissions. ... In comparison to previous research, this paper introduces two significant contributions. First, it supplements the international comparative study of decoupling states, providing a theoretical foundation to assist developing countries in achieving ...