one article literature review

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

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

Table of Contents

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

How to write a good literature review 

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

What is a literature review?

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

What is the purpose of literature review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature review example

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

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

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

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

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

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

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

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

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

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conducting a literature review

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

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

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

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

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

Select Databases for Searches:

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

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

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

Review the Literature:

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

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

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

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

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

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

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

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

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

Frequently asked questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 

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

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

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

Related Reads:

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

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

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

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the parts of a lit review?

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

Introduction:

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

Conclusion:

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

How should I organize my lit review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

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

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.

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

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 September 3, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

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

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CAREER FEATURE
• 04 December 2020
• Correction 09 December 2020

How to write a superb literature review

Andy Tay is a freelance writer based in Singapore.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Literature reviews are important resources for scientists. They provide historical context for a field while offering opinions on its future trajectory. Creating them can provide inspiration for one’s own research, as well as some practice in writing. But few scientists are trained in how to write a review — or in what constitutes an excellent one. Even picking the appropriate software to use can be an involved decision (see ‘Tools and techniques’). So Nature asked editors and working scientists with well-cited reviews for their tips.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03422-x

Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Updates & Corrections

Correction 09 December 2020 : An earlier version of the tables in this article included some incorrect details about the programs Zotero, Endnote and Manubot. These have now been corrected.

Hsing, I.-M., Xu, Y. & Zhao, W. Electroanalysis 19 , 755–768 (2007).

Article   Google Scholar  

Ledesma, H. A. et al. Nature Nanotechnol. 14 , 645–657 (2019).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Brahlek, M., Koirala, N., Bansal, N. & Oh, S. Solid State Commun. 215–216 , 54–62 (2015).

Choi, Y. & Lee, S. Y. Nature Rev. Chem . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41570-020-00221-w (2020).

Download references

Related Articles

• Research management

Tales of a migratory marine biologist

Career Feature 28 AUG 24

Nail your tech-industry interviews with these six techniques

Career Column 28 AUG 24

How to harness AI’s potential in research — responsibly and ethically

Career Feature 23 AUG 24

Binning out-of-date chemicals? Somebody think about the carbon!

Correspondence 27 AUG 24

No more hunting for replication studies: crowdsourced database makes them easy to find

Nature Index 27 AUG 24

Partners in drug discovery: how to collaborate with non-governmental organizations

How can I publish open access when I can’t afford the fees?

Career Feature 02 SEP 24

Exclusive: the papers that most heavily cite retracted studies

News 28 AUG 24

Chain retraction: how to stop bad science propagating through the literature

Comment 28 AUG 24

Faculty Positions & Postdocs at Institute of Physics (IOP), Chinese Academy of Sciences

IOP is the leading research institute in China in condensed matter physics and related fields. Through the steadfast efforts of generations of scie...

Beijing, China

Institute of Physics (IOP), Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS)

FACULTY POSITION IN THE MOLECULAR BIOLOGY OF REPRODUCTION

Dallas, Texas (US)

The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (UT Southwestern Medical Center)

FACULTY RECRUITING IN GENE REGULATION

Permanent researcher positions for materials science.

NIMS (Tsukuba, Japan) invites international applications from researchers who can conduct research in materials science.

Tsukuba, Ibaraki (JP)

National Institute for Materials Science (NIMS)

Osaka University Immunology Frontier Research Center Postdoctoral Researcher

IFReC, Osaka University in Japan offers Advanced Postdoc Positions for Immunology, Cell Biology, Bioinformatics and Bioimaging.

Suita Campus, Osaka University in Osaka, Japan

Immunology Frontier Research Center, Osaka University

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

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

How To Write An A-Grade Literature Review

3 straightforward steps (with examples) + free template.

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

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

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

Overview: The Literature Review Process

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

But first, the “why”…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Step 1: Find the relevant literature

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

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

Method 1 – Google Scholar Scrubbing

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

Method 2 – University Database Scrounging

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

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

Method 3 – Journal Article Snowballing

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

Method 4 – Dissertation Scavenging

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

• Open Access Theses & Dissertations
• Stanford SearchWorks

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

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

Need a helping hand?

Step 2: Log, catalogue and synthesise

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

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

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

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

I’ll discuss each of these below:

2.1 – Log the reference information

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

2.2 – Build an organised catalogue

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

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

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

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

2.3 – Digest and synthesise

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

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

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

Step 3: Outline and write it up!

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

3.1 – Draw up your outline

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

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

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

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

PS – check out our free literature review chapter template…

3.2 – Get writing

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

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

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

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

Literature Review Example

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

Let’s Recap

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

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

Psst… there’s more!

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

38 Comments

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

This is awesome!

I wish I come across GradCoach earlier enough.

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

Thank you for this good job.

Keep it up!

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

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

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

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

Thank you Gradcoach.

Really agreed. Admirable effort

thank you for this beautiful well explained recap.

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

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

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

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

It is timely

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

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

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

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

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

This is super helpful thank you very much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, Stephanie 🙂

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

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

thank you so much.

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

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

Thank you excellent piece of work and great mentoring

Thanks, it was useful

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

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

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

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

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

Very timely.

I appreciate.

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

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

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

The Sheridan Libraries

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

What Will You Do Differently?

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

Professor, this one's for you .

Introduction

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

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

• Next: Evaluate >>
• Last Updated: Jul 30, 2024 1:42 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.jhu.edu/lit-review

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

How To Write A Literature Review - A Complete Guide

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

What is a literature review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the purpose of a literature review?

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

What is the importance of a literature review?

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

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

How long should a literature review be?

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

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

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

What are the different types of literature reviews?

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

Here are the different types of literature reviews:

Argumentative review

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

Integrative review

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

Methodological review

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

Systematic review

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

Meta-analysis review

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

Historical review

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

Theoretical Review

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

Scoping Review

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

State-of-the-Art Review

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

Can you use the first person in a literature review?

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

Do you need an abstract for a literature review?

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

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

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

Is a literature review written in the past tense?

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

How many sources for a literature review?

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

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

Quick tips on how to write a literature review

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

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

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

1. Outline and identify the purpose of  a literature review

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

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

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

2. Search relevant literature

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

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

• Google Scholar
• Microsoft Academic
• Science.gov

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

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

3. Examine and assess the sources

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

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

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

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

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

4. Discover connections

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

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

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

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

5. Structure planning to write a good literature review

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

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

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

Literature review samples

1. Standalone

2. As a section of a research paper

How SciSpace Discover makes literature review a breeze?

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

Find the right information

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

Assess credibility of papers quickly

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

Get the complete picture in no time

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

Make referring sources super easy

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

Final tips on how to write a literature review

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

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

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

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. how to start a literature review.

• What questions do you want to answer?

• What sources do you need to answer these questions?

• What information do these sources contain?

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

2. What to include in a literature review?

• A brief background of the problem or issue

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

• A description of what you will do in your project

• How this study will contribute to research on the subject

3. Why literature review is important?

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

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

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

5. What are the components of a literature review?

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

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

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

6. What are common errors in writing literature review?

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

• Totally relying on secondary data while ignoring primary data.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. How many sources should a literature review have?

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

9. Can literature review have diagrams?

• To represent an abstract idea or concept

• To explain the steps of a process or procedure

• To help readers understand the relationships between different concepts

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

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

11. What are the types of literature review?

• Argumentative review

• Integrative review

• Methodological review

• Systematic review

• Meta-analysis review

• Historical review

• Theoretical review

• Scoping review

• State-of-the-Art review

12. Is a literature review mandatory?

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

But before you go,

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

You might also like

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

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

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

Literature Review Guide: Examples of Literature Reviews

• What is a Literature Review?
• How to start?
• Picking your research question and searching
• Search strategies and Databases
• How to organise the review
• Examples of Literature Reviews
• Library summary

All good quality journal articles will include a small Literature Review after the Introduction paragraph.  It may not be called a Literature Review but gives you an idea of how one is created in miniature.

Sample Literature Reviews as part of a articles or Theses

• Hackett, G and Melia, D . The hotel as the holiday/stay destination:trends and innovations. Presented at TRIC Conference, Belfast, Ireland- June 2012 and EuroCHRIE Conference

Links to sample Literature Reviews from other libraries

• Sample literature reviews from University of West Florida

Irish Theses

• Phillips, Martin (2015) European airline performance: a data envelopment analysis with extrapolations based on model outputs. Master of Business Studies thesis, Dublin City University.
• The customers’ perception of servicescape’s influence on their behaviours, in the food retail industry : Dublin Business School 2015
• Coughlan, Ray (2015) What was the role of leadership in the transformation of a failing Irish Insurance business. Masters thesis, Dublin, National College of Ireland.
• << Previous: How to organise the review
• Next: Library summary >>
• Last Updated: Aug 28, 2024 5:05 PM
• URL: https://ait.libguides.com/literaturereview

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

• UWF Libraries

Literature Review: Conducting & Writing

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

Sample 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: Aug 8, 2024 11:00 AM
• URL: https://libguides.uwf.edu/litreview

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 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

• Next: Planning the Review >>
• Last Updated: Jul 8, 2024 11:22 AM
• URL: https://libguides.northwestern.edu/literaturereviews

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Grad Med Educ
• v.8(3); 2016 Jul

The Literature Review: A Foundation for High-Quality Medical Education Research

a  These are subscription resources. Researchers should check with their librarian to determine their access rights.

Despite a surge in published scholarship in medical education 1 and rapid growth in journals that publish educational research, manuscript acceptance rates continue to fall. 2 Failure to conduct a thorough, accurate, and up-to-date literature review identifying an important problem and placing the study in context is consistently identified as one of the top reasons for rejection. 3 , 4 The purpose of this editorial is to provide a road map and practical recommendations for planning a literature review. By understanding the goals of a literature review and following a few basic processes, authors can enhance both the quality of their educational research and the likelihood of publication in the Journal of Graduate Medical Education ( JGME ) and in other journals.

The Literature Review Defined

In medical education, no organization has articulated a formal definition of a literature review for a research paper; thus, a literature review can take a number of forms. Depending on the type of article, target journal, and specific topic, these forms will vary in methodology, rigor, and depth. Several organizations have published guidelines for conducting an intensive literature search intended for formal systematic reviews, both broadly (eg, PRISMA) 5 and within medical education, 6 and there are excellent commentaries to guide authors of systematic reviews. 7 , 8

• A literature review forms the basis for high-quality medical education research and helps maximize relevance, originality, generalizability, and impact.
• A literature review provides context, informs methodology, maximizes innovation, avoids duplicative research, and ensures that professional standards are met.
• Literature reviews take time, are iterative, and should continue throughout the research process.
• Researchers should maximize the use of human resources (librarians, colleagues), search tools (databases/search engines), and existing literature (related articles).
• Keeping organized is critical.

Such work is outside the scope of this article, which focuses on literature reviews to inform reports of original medical education research. We define such a literature review as a synthetic review and summary of what is known and unknown regarding the topic of a scholarly body of work, including the current work's place within the existing knowledge . While this type of literature review may not require the intensive search processes mandated by systematic reviews, it merits a thoughtful and rigorous approach.

Purpose and Importance of the Literature Review

An understanding of the current literature is critical for all phases of a research study. Lingard 9 recently invoked the “journal-as-conversation” metaphor as a way of understanding how one's research fits into the larger medical education conversation. As she described it: “Imagine yourself joining a conversation at a social event. After you hang about eavesdropping to get the drift of what's being said (the conversational equivalent of the literature review), you join the conversation with a contribution that signals your shared interest in the topic, your knowledge of what's already been said, and your intention.” 9

The literature review helps any researcher “join the conversation” by providing context, informing methodology, identifying innovation, minimizing duplicative research, and ensuring that professional standards are met. Understanding the current literature also promotes scholarship, as proposed by Boyer, 10 by contributing to 5 of the 6 standards by which scholarly work should be evaluated. 11 Specifically, the review helps the researcher (1) articulate clear goals, (2) show evidence of adequate preparation, (3) select appropriate methods, (4) communicate relevant results, and (5) engage in reflective critique.

Failure to conduct a high-quality literature review is associated with several problems identified in the medical education literature, including studies that are repetitive, not grounded in theory, methodologically weak, and fail to expand knowledge beyond a single setting. 12 Indeed, medical education scholars complain that many studies repeat work already published and contribute little new knowledge—a likely cause of which is failure to conduct a proper literature review. 3 , 4

Likewise, studies that lack theoretical grounding or a conceptual framework make study design and interpretation difficult. 13 When theory is used in medical education studies, it is often invoked at a superficial level. As Norman 14 noted, when theory is used appropriately, it helps articulate variables that might be linked together and why, and it allows the researcher to make hypotheses and define a study's context and scope. Ultimately, a proper literature review is a first critical step toward identifying relevant conceptual frameworks.

Another problem is that many medical education studies are methodologically weak. 12 Good research requires trained investigators who can articulate relevant research questions, operationally define variables of interest, and choose the best method for specific research questions. Conducting a proper literature review helps both novice and experienced researchers select rigorous research methodologies.

Finally, many studies in medical education are “one-offs,” that is, single studies undertaken because the opportunity presented itself locally. Such studies frequently are not oriented toward progressive knowledge building and generalization to other settings. A firm grasp of the literature can encourage a programmatic approach to research.

Approaching the Literature Review

Considering these issues, journals have a responsibility to demand from authors a thoughtful synthesis of their study's position within the field, and it is the authors' responsibility to provide such a synthesis, based on a literature review. The aforementioned purposes of the literature review mandate that the review occurs throughout all phases of a study, from conception and design, to implementation and analysis, to manuscript preparation and submission.

Planning the literature review requires understanding of journal requirements, which vary greatly by journal ( table 1 ). Authors are advised to take note of common problems with reporting results of the literature review. Table 2 lists the most common problems that we have encountered as authors, reviewers, and editors.

Sample of Journals' Author Instructions for Literature Reviews Conducted as Part of Original Research Article a

Common Problem Areas for Reporting Literature Reviews in the Context of Scholarly Articles

Locating and Organizing the Literature

Three resources may facilitate identifying relevant literature: human resources, search tools, and related literature. As the process requires time, it is important to begin searching for literature early in the process (ie, the study design phase). Identifying and understanding relevant studies will increase the likelihood of designing a relevant, adaptable, generalizable, and novel study that is based on educational or learning theory and can maximize impact.

Human Resources

A medical librarian can help translate research interests into an effective search strategy, familiarize researchers with available information resources, provide information on organizing information, and introduce strategies for keeping current with emerging research. Often, librarians are also aware of research across their institutions and may be able to connect researchers with similar interests. Reaching out to colleagues for suggestions may help researchers quickly locate resources that would not otherwise be on their radar.

During this process, researchers will likely identify other researchers writing on aspects of their topic. Researchers should consider searching for the publications of these relevant researchers (see table 3 for search strategies). Additionally, institutional websites may include curriculum vitae of such relevant faculty with access to their entire publication record, including difficult to locate publications, such as book chapters, dissertations, and technical reports.

Strategies for Finding Related Researcher Publications in Databases and Search Engines

Search Tools and Related Literature

Researchers will locate the majority of needed information using databases and search engines. Excellent resources are available to guide researchers in the mechanics of literature searches. 15 , 16

Because medical education research draws on a variety of disciplines, researchers should include search tools with coverage beyond medicine (eg, psychology, nursing, education, and anthropology) and that cover several publication types, such as reports, standards, conference abstracts, and book chapters (see the box for several information resources). Many search tools include options for viewing citations of selected articles. Examining cited references provides additional articles for review and a sense of the influence of the selected article on its field.

Box Information Resources

• Web of Science a
• Education Resource Information Center (ERIC)
• Cumulative Index of Nursing & Allied Health (CINAHL) a
• Google Scholar

Once relevant articles are located, it is useful to mine those articles for additional citations. One strategy is to examine references of key articles, especially review articles, for relevant citations.

Getting Organized

As the aforementioned resources will likely provide a tremendous amount of information, organization is crucial. Researchers should determine which details are most important to their study (eg, participants, setting, methods, and outcomes) and generate a strategy for keeping those details organized and accessible. Increasingly, researchers utilize digital tools, such as Evernote, to capture such information, which enables accessibility across digital workspaces and search capabilities. Use of citation managers can also be helpful as they store citations and, in some cases, can generate bibliographies ( table 4 ).

Citation Managers

Knowing When to Say When

Researchers often ask how to know when they have located enough citations. Unfortunately, there is no magic or ideal number of citations to collect. One strategy for checking coverage of the literature is to inspect references of relevant articles. As researchers review references they will start noticing a repetition of the same articles with few new articles appearing. This can indicate that the researcher has covered the literature base on a particular topic.

Putting It All Together

In preparing to write a research paper, it is important to consider which citations to include and how they will inform the introduction and discussion sections. The “Instructions to Authors” for the targeted journal will often provide guidance on structuring the literature review (or introduction) and the number of total citations permitted for each article category. Reviewing articles of similar type published in the targeted journal can also provide guidance regarding structure and average lengths of the introduction and discussion sections.

When selecting references for the introduction consider those that illustrate core background theoretical and methodological concepts, as well as recent relevant studies. The introduction should be brief and present references not as a laundry list or narrative of available literature, but rather as a synthesized summary to provide context for the current study and to identify the gap in the literature that the study intends to fill. For the discussion, citations should be thoughtfully selected to compare and contrast the present study's findings with the current literature and to indicate how the present study moves the field forward.

To facilitate writing a literature review, journals are increasingly providing helpful features to guide authors. For example, the resources available through JGME include several articles on writing. 17 The journal Perspectives on Medical Education recently launched “The Writer's Craft,” which is intended to help medical educators improve their writing. Additionally, many institutions have writing centers that provide web-based materials on writing a literature review, and some even have writing coaches.

The literature review is a vital part of medical education research and should occur throughout the research process to help researchers design a strong study and effectively communicate study results and importance. To achieve these goals, researchers are advised to plan and execute the literature review carefully. The guidance in this editorial provides considerations and recommendations that may improve the quality of literature reviews.

PSYC 210: Foundations of Psychology

• Tips for Searching for Articles

What is a literature review?

Conducting a literature review, organizing a literature review, writing a literature review, helpful book.

• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Google Scholar

A  literature review  is a compilation 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.

• 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

Source: "What is a Literature Review?", Old Dominion University,  https://guides.lib.odu.edu/c.php?g=966167&p=6980532

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question. 

Your literature review should be guided by a central research question. It 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.
• Write down terms that are related to your question for they will be useful for searches later. 

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.
• Consider these things when planning your time for research. 

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

• By Research Guide 

4. Conduct your searches and find the literature. 

• Review the abstracts carefully - this will save you time!
• Many databases will have a search history tab for you to return to for later.
• Use bibliographies and references of research studies to locate others.
• Use citation management software such as Zotero to keep track of your research citations. 

5. Review the literature. 

Some questions to help you analyze the research: 

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

Source: "Literature Review", University of West Florida,  https://libguides.uwf.edu/c.php?g=215113&p=5139469

A literature review is not a summary of the sources but a synthesis of the sources. It is made up of the topics the sources are discussing. Each section of the review is focused on a topic, and the relevant sources are discussed within the context of that topic. 

1. Select the most relevant material from the sources

• Could be material that answers the question directly
• Extract as a direct quote or paraphrase 

2. Arrange that material so you can focus on it apart from the source text itself

• You are now working with fewer words/passages
• Material is all in one place

3. Group similar points, themes, or topics together and label them 

• The labels describe the points, themes, or topics that are the backbone of your paper’s structure

4. Order those points, themes, or topics as you will discuss them in the paper, and turn the labels into actual assertions

• A sentence that makes a point that is directly related to your research question or thesis 

This is now the outline for your literature review. 

Source: "Organizing a Review of the Literature – The Basics", George Mason University Writing Center,  https://writingcenter.gmu.edu/writing-resources/research-based-writing/organizing-literature-reviews-the-basics

• Literature Review Matrix Here is a template on how people tend to organize their thoughts. The matrix template is a good way to write out the key parts of each article and take notes. Downloads as an XLSX file.

The most common way that literature reviews are organized is by theme or author. Find a general pattern of structure for the review. When organizing the review, consider the following: 

• the methodology 
• the quality of the findings or conclusions
• major strengths and weaknesses
• any other important information

Writing Tips: 

• Be selective - Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. It should directly relate to the review's focus.
• Use quotes sparingly.
• Keep your own voice - Your voice (the writer's) should remain front and center. .   
• Aim for one key figure/table per section to illustrate complex content, summarize a large body of relevant data, or describe the order of a process
• Legend below image/figure and above table and always refer to them in text 

Source: "Composing your Literature Review", Florida A&M University,  https://library.famu.edu/c.php?g=577356&p=3982811

• << Previous: Tips for Searching for Articles
• Next: Citing Your Sources >>
• Last Updated: Aug 21, 2024 3:43 PM
• URL: https://infoguides.pepperdine.edu/PSYC210

Explore. Discover. Create.

Copyright ©  2022  Pepperdine University

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Request Info
• Search Search Site Faculty/Staff
• Open Navigation Menu Menu Close Navigation Menu
• Literature Review Guidelines

Making sense of what has been written on your topic.

Goals of a literature review:.

Before doing work in primary sources, historians must know what has been written on their topic.  They must be familiar with theories and arguments–as well as facts–that appear in secondary sources.

Before you proceed with your research project, you too must be familiar with the literature: you do not want to waste time on theories that others have disproved and you want to take full advantage of what others have argued.  You want to be able to discuss and analyze your topic.

Your literature review will demonstrate your familiarity with your topic’s secondary literature.

GUIDELINES FOR A LITERATURE REVIEW:

1) LENGTH:  8-10 pages of text for Senior Theses (485) (consult with your professor for other classes), with either footnotes or endnotes and with a works-consulted bibliography. [See also the  citation guide  on this site.]

2) NUMBER OF WORKS REVIEWED: Depends on the assignment, but for Senior Theses (485), at least ten is typical.

3) CHOOSING WORKS:

Your literature review must include enough works to provide evidence of both the breadth and the depth of the research on your topic or, at least, one important angle of it.  The number of works necessary to do this will depend on your topic. For most topics, AT LEAST TEN works (mostly books but also significant scholarly articles) are necessary, although you will not necessarily give all of them equal treatment in your paper (e.g., some might appear in notes rather than the essay). 4) ORGANIZING/ARRANGING THE LITERATURE:

As you uncover the literature (i.e., secondary writing) on your topic, you should determine how the various pieces relate to each other.  Your ability to do so will demonstrate your understanding of the evolution of literature.

You might determine that the literature makes sense when divided by time period, by methodology, by sources, by discipline, by thematic focus, by race, ethnicity, and/or gender of author, or by political ideology.  This list is not exhaustive.  You might also decide to subdivide categories based on other criteria.  There is no “rule” on divisions—historians wrote the literature without consulting each other and without regard to the goal of fitting into a neat, obvious organization useful to students.

The key step is to FIGURE OUT the most logical, clarifying angle.  Do not arbitrarily choose a categorization; use the one that the literature seems to fall into.  How do you do that?  For every source, you should note its thesis, date, author background, methodology, and sources.  Does a pattern appear when you consider such information from each of your sources?  If so, you have a possible thesis about the literature.  If not, you might still have a thesis.

Consider: Are there missing elements in the literature?  For example, no works published during a particular (usually fairly lengthy) time period?  Or do studies appear after long neglect of a topic?  Do interpretations change at some point?  Does the major methodology being used change?  Do interpretations vary based on sources used?

Follow these links for more help on analyzing  historiography  and  historical perspective .

5) CONTENTS OF LITERATURE REVIEW:

The literature review is a research paper with three ingredients:

a) A brief discussion of the issue (the person, event, idea). [While this section should be brief, it needs to set up the thesis and literature that follow.] b) Your thesis about the literature c) A clear argument, using the works on topic as evidence, i.e., you discuss the sources in relation to your thesis, not as a separate topic.

These ingredients must be presented in an essay with an introduction, body, and conclusion.

6) ARGUING YOUR THESIS:

The thesis of a literature review should not only describe how the literature has evolved, but also provide a clear evaluation of that literature.  You should assess the literature in terms of the quality of either individual works or categories of works.  For instance, you might argue that a certain approach (e.g. social history, cultural history, or another) is better because it deals with a more complex view of the issue or because they use a wider array of source materials more effectively. You should also ensure that you integrate that evaluation throughout your argument.  Doing so might include negative assessments of some works in order to reinforce your argument regarding the positive qualities of other works and approaches to the topic.

Within each group, you should provide essential information about each work: the author’s thesis, the work’s title and date, the author’s supporting arguments and major evidence.

In most cases, arranging the sources chronologically by publication date within each section makes the most sense because earlier works influenced later ones in one way or another.  Reference to publication date also indicates that you are aware of this significant historiographical element.

As you discuss each work, DO NOT FORGET WHY YOU ARE DISCUSSING IT.  YOU ARE PRESENTING AND SUPPORTING A THESIS ABOUT THE LITERATURE.

When discussing a particular work for the first time, you should refer to it by the author’s full name, the work’s title, and year of publication (either in parentheses after the title or worked into the sentence).

For example, “The field of slavery studies has recently been transformed by Ben Johnson’s The New Slave (2001)” and “Joe Doe argues in his 1997 study, Slavery in America, that . . . .”

Your paper should always note secondary sources’ relationship to each other, particularly in terms of your thesis about the literature (e.g., “Unlike Smith’s work, Mary Brown’s analysis reaches the conclusion that . . . .” and “Because of Anderson’s reliance on the president’s personal papers, his interpretation differs from Barry’s”). The various pieces of the literature are “related” to each other, so you need to indicate to the reader some of that relationship.  (It helps the reader follow your thesis, and it convinces the reader that you know what you are talking about.)

7) DOCUMENTATION:

Each source you discuss in your paper must be documented using footnotes/endnotes and a bibliography.  Providing author and title and date in the paper is not sufficient.  Use correct Turabian/Chicago Manual of Style form.  [See  Bibliography  and  Footnotes/Endnotes  pages.]

In addition, further supporting, but less significant, sources should be included in  content foot or endnotes .  (e.g., “For a similar argument to Ben Johnson’s, see John Terry, The Slave Who Was New (New York: W. W. Norton, 1985), 3-45.”)

8 ) CONCLUSION OF LITERATURE REVIEW:

Your conclusion should not only reiterate your argument (thesis), but also discuss questions that remain unanswered by the literature.  What has the literature accomplished?  What has not been studied?  What debates need to be settled?

Additional writing guidelines

History and American Studies

• About the Department
• Major Requirements & Courses
• What courses will I take as an History major?
• What can I do with my History degree?
• History 485
• Methodology
• Choosing a Topic
• Book Reviews
• Historiographic Clues
• Understanding Historical Perspective
• Sample Literature Review
• Using Quotations
• Ellipses and Brackets
• Footnotes and Endnotes
• Content Notes
• Citation Guide
• Citing Non-Print Resources
• How to Annotate
• Annotated Examples
• Journals vs. Magazines
• Understanding Plagiarism
• Historians Define Plagiarism
• Plagiarism Tutorial
• UMW Honor System
• Presentation Guidelines
• Tips for Leading Seminars
• Hints for Class Discussion
• Speaking Center
• Guidelines for a Research Paper
• Library Research Plan
• How to Use ILL
• Database Guide
• Guide to Online Research
• Writing Guidelines
• Recognizing Passive Voice
• Introduction and Conclusion
• MS Word’s Grammar and Spellcheck
• Writing Center
• What You Need to Know
• Links to Online Primary Sources by Region
• What will I learn from my American Studies major?
• What courses will I take as an American Studies major?
• What can I do with my American Studies degree?
• American Studies 485
• For Prospective Students
• Honors and Award Recipients
• Internships

Alumni Intros

How have History & American Studies majors built careers after earning their degrees? Learn more by clicking the image above.  

Recent Posts

• History and American Studies Symposium–April 26, 2024
• Fall 2024 Courses
• Fall 2023 Symposium – 12/8 – All Welcome!
• Spring ’24 Course Flyers
• Internship Opportunity – Chesapeake Gateways Ambassador
• Congratulations to our Graduates!
• History and American Studies Symposium–April 21, 2023
• View umwhistory’s profile on Facebook
• View umwhistory’s profile on Twitter

• Open access
• Published: 02 September 2024

The right care in the right place: a scoping review of digital health education and training for rural healthcare workers

• Leanna Woods 1 , 2 ,
• Priya Martin 3 ,
• Johnson Khor 1 , 4 ,
• Lauren Guthrie 1 &
• Clair Sullivan 1 , 2 , 5  

BMC Health Services Research volume  24 , Article number:  1011 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Digital health offers unprecedented opportunities to enhance health service delivery across vast geographic regions. However, these benefits can only be realized with effective capabilities and clinical leadership of the rural healthcare workforce. Little is known about how rural healthcare workers acquire skills in digital health, how digital health education or training programs are evaluated and the barriers and enablers for high quality digital health education and training.

To conduct a scoping review to identify and synthesize existing evidence on digital health education and training of the rural healthcare workforce.

Inclusion criteria

Sources that reported digital health and education or training in the healthcare workforce in any healthcare setting outside metropolitan areas.

We searched for published and unpublished studies written in English in the last decade to August 2023. The databases searched were PubMed, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL and Education Resources Information Centre. We also searched the grey literature (Google, Google Scholar), conducted citation searching and stakeholder engagement. The JBI Scoping Review methodology and PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews were used.

Five articles met the eligibility criteria. Two case studies, one feasibility study, one micro-credential and one fellowship were described. The mode of delivery was commonly modular online learning. Only one article described an evaluation, and findings showed the train-the-trainer model was technically and pedagogically feasible and well received. A limited number of barriers and enablers for high quality education or training of the rural healthcare workforce were reported across macro (legal, regulatory, economic), meso (local health service and community) and micro (day-to-day practice) levels.

Conclusions

Upskilling rural healthcare workers in digital health appears rare. Current best practice points to flexible, blended training programs that are suitably embedded with interdisciplinary and collaborative rural healthcare improvement initiatives. Future work to advance the field could define rural health informatician career pathways, address concurrent rural workforce issues, and conduct training implementation evaluations.

Review registration number

Open Science Framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/N2RMX .

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Globally, healthcare workers (HCWs) face multiple pressures simultaneously: increasing demand for care, co-morbidities and condition complexity, budget pressures, and rapid digital disruption [ 1 ]. The digital disruption in healthcare promises an unprecedented circumstance to improve outcomes and strengthen health systems [ 2 ]. However, this opportunity depends on a capable healthcare workforce with adequate skills and knowledge in data and emerging technologies [ 3 ]. HCW capability in digital health and clinical informatics is increasingly acknowledged as an essential component to the delivery of high-quality patient care [ 4 ]. Universities do not yet routinely teach these curricula in clinical degrees, and the capability gap in the current workforce is often filled by brief, reactive, and on-the-job training [ 5 ]. Sustainability of healthcare includes developing a skilled healthcare workforce educated and competent in digital health [ 6 ].

The rural healthcare workforce is faced with the location-based issues of resource constraints, workforce shortages, high staff turnover rates, stress, burnout, and an ageing workforce [ 7 ]. The World Health Organization has acknowledged in a recent report (2021) the complex challenge of shortage of healthcare workers globally in rural areas [ 7 ]. This report has acknowledged that the workforce density is lower than national averages in most of these areas. In places where there isn’t a national shortage, maldistribution of the workforce has been noted [ 7 ]. Digitally enabled models of care are well placed to enhance health service delivery across vast and distributed geographic regions. However, rural health service organizations require uplift to align with their metropolitan counterparts in workforce digital readiness [ 8 ]. Building digital health capability in rural settings is critical because higher digital health capability is associated with better outcomes, including the ability to maintain an accurate patient health record, track patient experience data, track the patient journey, and mitigate clinical risks [ 9 ]. Rurality is contributing to widening digital health inequities [ 10 ] with significant efforts required to adequately manage the rural digital divide [ 11 , 12 ]. Building digital capabilities of healthcare providers in rural and remote settings through education, training and support is needed [ 13 ].

Existing evidence on the education and training the rural healthcare workforce is limited. Firstly, while health science faculties are progressively integrating digital health into the undergraduate curricula for the future workforce [ 14 , 15 , 16 ], it is unclear how the education of current HCW is approached [ 14 ]. Despite global exemplars such as fellowship training for physicians [ 17 ], certification for nurses [ 18 ], and advanced education for clinical and non-clinical professionals [ 19 ], limited evidence of successful workforce programs to build digital health skills exist [ 4 ]. None focus on the rural healthcare setting.

Secondly, in literature reporting digital health in rural settings, there is a notable scarcity on workforce training programs. Existing studies focus on efficacy of delivered healthcare [ 20 , 21 ], workforce perceptions of digital health tool implementation [ 22 , 23 ] or are limited to training of specific interventions (e.g., clinical telehealth [ 24 ]). This review sought to explore the literature where these two gaps coexist, the intersection of digital health education and training and the rural healthcare workforce, and synthesize the available evidence on digital health education and training for the rural healthcare workforce.

Review question

The research questions for this review were:

What are the existing practices and approaches to digital health education and training for rural HCWs?

How has digital health education and training been evaluated following implementation?

What are the barriers and enablers for high quality digital health education and training in the rural healthcare workforce?

Participants

The review considered studies and reports on any members of the workforce in healthcare settings outside of metropolitan areas. The healthcare workforce refers to ‘all individuals who deliver or assist in the delivery of health services or support the operation of health care facilities’ [ 3 ]. All clinical (e.g., medical doctors, nurses, allied health professionals, pharmacists, Indigenous HCWs, pre-registration/qualification students undertaking placements in health care facilities) and non-clinical workers (e.g., administration, executive and management, clinical support, and volunteers) were considered regardless of professional body or government registration status. Patients, healthcare consumers, and the public were excluded.

The core concepts of digital health and training were combined in this review. Digital health and clinical informatics are often used interchangeably, and both were considered in this review. While digital health refers to the use of digital technologies for health [ 25 ], clinical informatics refers to more specialized practice of analyzing, designing, implementing and evaluating information and communication systems [ 26 ]. Specific digital health systems (e.g., IT infrastructure, telehealth, electronic medical records) were included. Training relates to the education or training initiatives (e.g., programs, curriculum, course) that build an individuals’ digital health capability to confidently use technologies to respond to the needs of consumers now and into the future [ 1 ]. Both education and training activities were considered. Education often refers to theoretical learning (e.g., by an academic institution, qualification), and training often teaches practical skills (e.g., employer-provided professional development, ‘just-in-time’ training) [ 3 , 24 ]. This review did not consider HCW education delivered at a distance through technologies (e.g., telesupervision for clinical skills training).

This review considered studies and reports from rural healthcare settings defined as outside metropolitan cities, inclusive of regional, rural, remote, and very remote settings. When the term ‘rural’ is used in this review, it refers to all areas outside major metropolitan cities as described by authors of individual studies and reports. All healthcare facilities across primary, secondary, and tertiary care settings were included in any country.

Types of sources

All research studies, irrespective of the study design, were considered. Reviews, conference abstracts and non-research sources (e.g., policy documents, program or course curriculum) were considered. The grey literature was included to capture reactionary training developed by rural health services that were not published as peer-reviewed research studies.

This review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews [ 27 ] and reported as per the Preferred Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) [ 28 ] (Additional file 1 ). The review protocol was registered in Open Science Framework [ https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/N2RMX ].

A scoping review approach was chosen over a systematic review to address a general, formative review question on this topic that is emerging in the literature and where the literature is complex and heterogenous [ 29 ]. An initial preliminary search of the topic in the academic databases, Cochrane Library, Open Science Framework and Prospero registry resulted in a very small number of relevant articles. It was determined that a broader search strategy and inclusion of non-research sources was required, consistent with the scoping review methodology [ 29 ]. Scoping review format is also well suited to the vast, diverse healthcare education topic across different disciplines, interventions and outcomes realised [ 30 ]. Mapping and synthesis across sources in this scoping review aims to inform research agendas and identify implications for policy and practice [ 31 ].

Deviations from the protocol

There were no deviations to the protocol.

Search strategy

The three phase JBI search process was followed. An initial limited search of PubMed was performed to identify keywords on the topic, followed by an analysis of the text words and index terms contained in the title and abstract. A subsequent preliminary search in Prospero registry, Cochrane Library and Open Science Framework informed the development of a full search strategy in PubMed. The search strategy, including all identified keyworks and index terms, was adapted for each included database and information source after refining the strategy with an information specialist. The reference lists of all included sources of evidence were screened for additional studies.

The review included only studies and reports in English (due to translation resourcing limitations) in the last 10 years (due to the relative novelty of the digital transformation of healthcare). The search was conducted in August 2023. The databases searched included PubMed, Scopus, Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, and Education Resources Information Center (ERIC). Scopus was chosen over Web of Science as it provides 20% more coverage and the relative recency of articles indexed (publish date after 1995 [ 32 ]) was not a concern for our research question. The search for unpublished studies and grey literature included Google and Google Scholar, using a modified search strategy as required. In addition, national and international stakeholders ( n  = 29) from Asia, the Pacific Islands, Australia, USA and the UK known to have subject matter expertise on the topic were contacted via direct email. Stakeholders were asked to share any relevant work underway or otherwise undiscoverable using our scoping review methods. The full search strategy for each information source is provided in Additional file 2 .

Study selection

Following the search, identified articles were collated and uploaded into Covidence review software (Veritas Health Innovation Ltd; Melbourne, Australia) and duplicates removed. Two reviewers (among LW, JK and LG) then independently screened the title and abstract of each citation and selected studies that met the inclusion criteria. The full text articles were retrieved and uploaded into Covidence. These studies and reports were assessed independently by two reviewers (listed previously) for full assessment against the inclusion criteria. Any disagreements that arose between the reviewers at each stage of the selection process were resolved through discussion or with an additional reviewer (among LG and PM). Three meetings occurred to discuss any voting conflicts that occurred during title and abstract screening and full-text screening. Articles that did not satisfy the criteria were excluded with reasons for exclusion recorded. Search results and study selection process is presented in accordance to the PRISMA-ScR flow diagram (Fig. 1 ) [ 28 ]. Quality appraisal of selected studies was not conducted, consistent with scoping reviews methods [ 33 ].

Search results and source selection and inclusion process

Data extraction

Extracted data included the specific details about the participants, concept, context, study methods and key findings relevant to each review question. Data was extracted by one reviewer (JK) and checked by a second reviewer (LW). Data were extracted using the data extraction tool developed and piloted by the team (Additional file 3 ).

Data synthesis and presentation

The characteristics of the included studies were analyzed and organized in tabular format, accompanied by a narrative summary. Results of each research question was presented under separate headings. The data analysis for research question three (barriers and enablers of high-quality digital health education and training) was enhanced. We adopted the socio-institutional framework described by Smith et al [ 34 ] and used in education research [ 35 ] to classify macro, meso, micro level enablers and barriers to help improve the generalizability of the synthesized insights and identify stakeholders that are able to influence change. Gaps and limitations of the current literature were discovered from the evidence with recommendations for policy, practice and future research provided.

Study inclusion

Database searching yielded 1005 articles and stakeholder engagement yielded two articles. After removing duplicates, 660 articles were screened for title and abstract, after which 29 articles underwent full text review. Of the 29 articles, 24 articles were excluded: the setting was metropolitan or otherwise inadequately described as non-metropolitan ( n  = 6); the intervention was not a training or education initiative for digital health or clinical informatics ( n  = 16), or the population was not rural healthcare workers ( n  = 2). In total, following full-text screening, five articles were included in the final review (Fig.  1 ).

Characteristics of included studies

Of the five included articles, three were academic publications including two case studies [ 36 , 37 ] and one feasibility study [ 38 ] (Table 1 ). The two articles identified through stakeholder engagement presented course summaries [ 39 , 40 ] where one described a micro-credential [ 40 ] and the other described a fellowship [ 39 ]. Most articles ( n  = 3) were published recently between 2021 and 2023 [ 38 , 39 , 40 ]. Healthcare workforce settings were distributed across the continents of the United States of America [ 36 ], Asia [ 37 ], Africa [ 38 ] and Australia [ 39 , 40 ], with no articles reporting a setting in the European continent. Further study characteristics are available in Table 1 .

Review findings

What are the existing approaches to digital health education and training for rural hcws.

Training and education programs were needed due to identified gaps in knowledge, skills and expertise to support healthcare delivery in rural contexts with digital health [ 36 , 37 , 38 ], [ 40 ]. One article reported the target learners as village doctors, who may have “limited training and inadequate medical knowledge, yet they are generally the mainstay of health services” [ 37 ]. The mode of teaching in the included studies were four modular online learning courses [ 36 , 37 , 38 ], [ 40 ] and one fellowship [ 39 ]. Of the four modular online learning courses, one was supplemented by a facilitator-led train-the-trainer model [ 38 ], informed by an academic framework [ 41 ], with cohort-based discussion via a social media platform. The second was a certification in the form of a self-paced micro-credential completed individually [ 40 ]. Of the four modular online learning courses, the number of modules ranged from three to eight and covered a variety of digital health topics including innovation, commercialization, bioinformatics, technology use, data and information, professionalism, implementation and evaluation. One had a particular focus on information and communication technology tool use [ 37 ] while another focused on remote consulting [ 38 ]. The mode of delivery of the fellowship was not reported in the article.

Four [ 36 , 37 , 39 , 40 ] of the five included articles did not report an evaluation. One article in rural Tanzania described the evaluation of the train-the-trainer digital health training program using a mixed-method design [ 38 ]: (1) questionnaire informed by Kirkpatrick’s model of evaluation to capture knowledge gained and perceived behavior change on a Likert scale, (2) qualitative interviews to explore training experiences and views of remote consulting, and (3) document analysis from texts, emails and training reports [ 38 ]. Of the tier 1 trainees (senior medical figure trainers who were trained to educate their peers) that completed the questionnaire ( n  = 10, 83%), nine (90%) recommended the training program and reported receiving relevant skills and applying learning to daily work, demonstrating satisfaction, learning and perceived behavior change [ 38 ]. Overall, the feasibility study confirmed that remotely delivered training supported by cascade training was technically and pedagogically feasible and well received in rural Tanzania [ 38 ].

What are the barriers and enablers for high quality digital health education and training of the rural healthcare workforce?

Reported enablers and barriers are presented using the macro, meso, micro framework [ 34 ] (Table 2 ).

This scoping review reflects the scarcity of reported digital health education and training programs in existence for rural HCWs globally. This review responds to the World Health Organization (WHO) recommendation to design and enable access to continuing education and professional development programs that meet the needs of rural HCWs [ 7 ], and the Sustainable Development Goal for inclusive and equitable quality education [ 42 ].

Concurrent challenges of people (workforce), setting (rural) and content (digital health) are reported in included articles alongside enablers and barriers to education and training programs. Included studies reported a shortage of doctors and specialists [ 36 ], lack of technical knowledge [ 36 ] (people); higher cost of delivering rural healthcare, high burden of illness [ 40 ], medically underserved population due to rural hospital closures [ 36 ] (setting); and limited use of digital health tools due to coordination challenges among non-government organisations [ 37 ] (content). These additional macro, meso and micro level factors are described by authors firstly as influencing the need for digital health programs in rural settings, and secondly, as contributing to the challenges of implementing effective programs. The rural health workforce challenges in digital health education and training reflect the broader workforce development issues experienced globally [ 7 ]. While this review sought to identify workforce development programs, the WHO model indicates the need for attractiveness, recruitment and retention to enable workforce performance (i.e., appropriate and competent multidisciplinary teams providing care) and health system performance (i.e., improving universal health coverage) [ 7 ].

In low-resource settings such as rural areas, education and training may not be prioritized among other competing workload demands. As the value of digital health transformations are realized for strengthening healthcare systems [ 25 , 43 ], the value of digital health education or training programs may become realized. This value was evidenced in the implementation of the teleconsulting training intervention in rural Tanzania [ 38 ] in rapid response to supporting care delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic period. With evaluations of programs largely absent from an already small number of programs globally, it will be important for future research to focus on implementation evaluation studies. As Table 2 presents only limited enablers and barriers, more evidence is needed to build on the findings from this scoping review to inform strategies for policy and practice.

The interdisciplinarity of digital health presents challenges and opportunities for nurturing digital health expertise across the rural healthcare workforce. Included articles largely described the target learners of education and training programs as clinicians, practitioners and healthcare workforce. Walden et al. further indicated that users of online content may extend beyond rural health clinicians to healthcare administrators, researchers and providers relevant to address the regulatory factors of clinical validation and implementation [ 36 ]. Therefore, for their program of work, the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences identified and fostered collaboration with an interprofessional team of clinicians, researchers, informaticists, a bioethicist, lawyers, technology investment experts, and educators [ 36 ]. No articles in the review described education or training health informaticians or similar digital health leadership role types, yet building defined career pathways for health informaticians is recommended [ 4 ]. Existing pedagogy shows that the learning principles of interprofessional practice is grounded in understanding one’s own practice as well as the practice of other health professionals and remains aligned to the educational needs of specific professions [ 44 ] (i.e., medicine, nursing, pharmacy). Defining new career pathways for interdisciplinary leaders in digital health within a specific clinical context, like the ‘rural health informatician’, will be important to identify or define the (hidden) specialized workforce.

Local, informal organizational initiatives for digital health learning were discovered alongside formal education or training programs in included studies. Programs were often reported in articles alongside concurrent digital health implementation or healthcare improvement programs, sometimes referred to as ‘outreach’ [ 36 ] activities. These informal initiatives included special interest groups, in-person conferences, networking events, working groups [ 36 ] and seminars [ 37 ]. Current evidence from this scoping review suggests that the efficacy and sustainability of education or training programs are reliant on integrated approaches, like the train-the-trainer [ 38 ] or academic organization approach [ 36 ], that foster translational research for rural healthcare improvement. As illustrated by Walden et al., success in digital health is likely to require a foundational environment where technologies can be discussed, developed and deployed [ 36 ]. Success in rural digital health skills acquisition likely requires a similar, longitudinal and collaborative approach beyond the confines of an online course completed individually. Previous research shows us that blended learning, which merges face-to-face with online learning, translates to better knowledge outcomes [ 44 ]. Blended learning can also overcome the barrier of rural HCWs travelling large distances to attend face-to-face training that comes at a great cost to themselves and the work unit. A key recommendation to improve the digital health training program described by Downie et al. was more face-to-face time with trainers, from the perspective of both trainee and facilitator [ 38 ]. This, however, can only be realized with targeted planning and budgeting of such offerings by involved rural healthcare organizations.

The opportunities to advance digital health education and training for rural HCWs are presented across the macro, meso and micro levels in the socio-institutional framework, with suggested relevant stakeholders suited to actioning the recommendations (Table  3 ). While the context for this is likely to vary across the globe, these recommendations and stakeholders are expected to provide a starting point to initiate a dialogue that can influence change. These recommendations are not meant to be prescriptive or rigid, but rather meant to flag actionable solutions that can be contextualized for any given setting.

Strengths and limitations

It is possible that there is a greater number of published educational and training programs than those reported in this review (i.e., publication bias). To mitigate this, we used a scoping review methodology and stakeholder engagement activity to identify unpublished or emerging programs that answer the review question but may not be discoverable in the academic databases. The review is limited to articles available in the English language. The small number of programs, heterogeneity of programs and limited evaluation of programs significantly limit generalizability of findings. Due to data availability, the barriers and enablers findings summary contain an overrepresentation from a small number of studies limiting conclusions that can be drawn.

Digital health offers the best opportunity for innovative sustainable change to address critical issues in health and care in rural settings. Workforce education and training initiatives in rural healthcare settings are scarce, largely delivered via online training, and are rarely evaluated. Current best practice points to flexible, blended (online and face-to-face) training programs that are suitably embedded with interdisciplinary, collaborative rural healthcare improvement initiatives. More research will expand the evidence base to deliver high-quality digital health education to strengthen rural healthcare delivery. Future work to advance the field could define rural health informatician career pathways, address concurrent rural workforce issues, and conduct implementation evaluations.

Availability of data and materials

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Abbreviations

Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature

Education Resources Information Centre

Healthcare worker

Joanna Briggs Institute

Preferred Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses for scoping reviews

World Health Organization

Australian Digital Health Agency. The national digital health capability action plan. Australia: Australian Government; 2022. p. 36.

Google Scholar  

World Health Organization. Global strategy on digital health 2020–2025. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021. p. 60.

Australian Digital Health Agency. National digital health workforce and education roadmap. Sydney; 2020.

Woods L, Janssen A, Robertson S, et al. The typing is on the wall: Australia’s healthcare future needs a digitally capable workforce. Aust Health Rev. September 2023;2023:25. https://doi.org/10.1071/AH23142 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Younge VL, Borycki EM, Kushniruk AW. On-the-job training of health professionals for electronic health record and electronic medical record use: A scoping review. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal. 2015;7:436–69.

Thomas EE, Haydon HM, Mehrotra A, et al. Building on the momentum: sustaining telehealth beyond COVID-19. J Telemed Telecare. 2022;28:301–8.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

World Health Organization. WHO guideline on health workforce development, attraction, recruitment and retention in rural and remote areas. 2021.

Woods L, Eden R, Pearce A, et al. Evaluating Digital Health Capability at Scale Using the Digital Health Indicator. Appl Clin Inform. 2022;13:991–1001. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1757554 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Woods L, Dendere R, Eden R, et al. Perceived Impact of Digital Health Maturity on Patient Experience, Population Health, Health Care Costs, and Provider Experience: Mixed Methods Case Study. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25: e45868. https://doi.org/10.2196/45868 .

Yao R, Zhang W, Evans R, et al. Inequities in health care services caused by the adoption of digital health technologies: scoping review. J Med Internet Res. 2022;24:e34144. https://doi.org/10.2196/34144 .

Clark CR, Akdas Y, Wilkins CH, et al. TechQuity is an imperative for health and technology business: Let’s work together to achieve it. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2021;28:2013–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocab103 .

Esteban-Navarro M-Á, García-Madurga M-Á, Morte-Nadal T, et al. The rural digital divide in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe—recommendations from a scoping review. Informatics. 2020;7:54.  https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics7040054 .

Macklin S. Understanding the pathway to consumer centred healthcare information in rural and remote Queensland. Brisbane: The University of Queensland; 2022.

Aungst TD, Patel R. Integrating digital health into the curriculum—considerations on the current landscape and future developments. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2020;7:2382120519901275.

Edirippulige S, Gong S, Hathurusinghe M, et al. Medical students’ perceptions and expectations regarding digital health education and training: a qualitative study. J Telemed Telecare. 2022;28:258–65.

Veikkolainen P, Tuovinen T, Jarva E, et al. eHealth competence building for future doctors and nurses–Attitudes and capabilities. Int J Med Informatics. 2023;169:104912.

American Medical Informatics Association. Informatics academic programs. 2022 https://amia.org/careers-certifications/informatics-academic-programs . Accessed 21 June 2022.

American Nurses Credentialing Center. Informatics nursing board certification examination. Maryland, USA2018, p. https://www.nursingworld.org/~490a495b/globalassets/certification/certification-specialty-pages/resources/test-content-outlines/427-tco-rds-2016-effective-date-march-2023-2018_100317.pdf .

Topol E. The topol review: preparing the healthcare workforce to deliver the digital future. United Kingdom: Health Education England NHS; 2019. p. 1–48.

McCleery J, Laverty J, Quinn TJ. Diagnostic test accuracy of telehealth assessment for dementia and mild cognitive impairment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;7(7):CD013786.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Janjua S, Carter D, Threapleton CJ, et al. Telehealth interventions: remote monitoring and consultations for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Cochrane database of systematic reviews; 2021.

Xyrichis A, Iliopoulou K, Mackintosh NJ, et al. Healthcare stakeholders’ perceptions and experiences of factors affecting the implementation of critical care telemedicine (CCT): qualitative evidence synthesis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;2(2):CD012876.

Odendaal WA, Watkins JA, Leon N, et al. Health workers’ perceptions and experiences of using mHealth technologies to deliver primary healthcare services: a qualitative evidence synthesis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;3(3):CD011942.

Edirippulige S, Armfield N. Education and training to support the use of clinical telehealth: A review of the literature. J Telemed Telecare. 2017;23:273–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633x16632968 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

World Health Organization. Recommendations on digital interventions for health system strengthening. World Health Organization. 2019. 2020–2010.

Gardner RM, Overhage JM, Steen EB, et al. Core content for the subspecialty of clinical informatics. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009;16:153–7.

JBI. JBI manual for evidence synthesis. 2020.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:467–73.

Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18(10):2119–26. https://doi.org/10.11124/jbies-20-00167 .

Shead DA, Olivier B. Traditional or digital health care education? JBI Evidence Synthesis. 2020;18:861–2.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2016; 16: 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4 .

Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, et al. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, web of science, and Google scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J. 2008;22:338–42.

Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, et al. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. JBI Evid Implement. 2015;13:141–6.

Smith T, McNeil K, Mitchell R, et al. A study of macro-, meso-and micro-barriers and enablers affecting extended scopes of practice: the case of rural nurse practitioners in Australia. BMC Nurs. 2019;18:1–12.

Desai D, Mayne C, Bates H, et al. A rapid review of the barriers and enablers of medical student participation in research in health settings. 2022. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/5XZWN .

Walden A, Kemp AS, Larson-Prior LJ, et al. Establishing a digital health platform in an academic medical center supporting rural communities. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science. 2020;4:384–8.

Mridha M and Islam M. To improve patient care & safety of rural patients empowering the village doctors. In: EMBEC & NBC 2017: Joint Conference of the European Medical and Biological Engineering Conference (EMBEC) and the Nordic-Baltic Conference on Biomedical Engineering and Medical Physics (NBC), Tampere, Finland, June 2017 2018, pp.502-505. Springer.

Downie A, Mashanya T, Chipwaza B, et al. Remote Consulting in Primary Health Care in Low-and Middle-Income Countries: Feasibility Study of an Online Training Program to Support Care Delivery During the COVID-19 Pandemic. JMIR Formative Research. 2022;6:e32964.

Australian College of Rural & Remote Medicine. Rural Generalist Curriculum - Fellowship. Brisbane, Australia: ACRRM; 2021. p. 174.

Northern Australia Regional Digital Health Collaborative and James Cook University (NARDHC and JCU). Digital Health for the Rural and Remote Health Workforce Micro-credential (Brochure). Townsville: JCU; 2023.

Mormina M, Pinder S. A conceptual framework for training of trainers (ToT) interventions in global health. Glob Health. 2018;14:1–11.

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Sustainable Development. Sustainable development goals. 2023. https://sdgs.un.org/goals . Accessed 20 Feb 2024

Woods L, Eden R, Canfell OJ, et al. Show me the money: how do we justify spending health care dollars on digital health? Med J Aust 2022 2022/12/12. https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.51799 .

Dizon JMR. Educating future health professionals to keep pace with changing times. LWW, 2021, p. 2904–2905.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

No external funding.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Queensland Digital Health Centre, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

Leanna Woods, Johnson Khor, Lauren Guthrie & Clair Sullivan

Centre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

Leanna Woods & Clair Sullivan

Rural Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Toowoomba, Australia

Priya Martin

Ochsner Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

Johnson Khor

Metro North Hospital and Health Service, Herston, Australia

Clair Sullivan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

LW, PM and CS designed the study. LW, PM, JK and LG acquired data; analyzed and interpreted results and drafted the manuscript and all subsequent drafts. CS read and contributed to manuscript drafts. All authors read and approved the final manuscript draft.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leanna Woods .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Supplementary Information

12913_2024_11313_moesm1_esm.docx.

Additional File 1. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist.

Additional File 2. Full search strategy for each information source.

Additional file 3. data extraction instrument template., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, 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 you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. 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-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Woods, L., Martin, P., Khor, J. et al. The right care in the right place: a scoping review of digital health education and training for rural healthcare workers. BMC Health Serv Res 24 , 1011 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11313-4

Download citation

Received : 13 March 2024

Accepted : 15 July 2024

Published : 02 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11313-4

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

• Clinical informatics
• Health informaticians
• Digital health
• Health personnel
• Rural population
• Rural health
• Low-resource settings

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Loading metrics

Open Access

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliations Centre for Functional and Evolutionary Ecology (CEFE), CNRS, Montpellier, France, Centre for Biodiversity Synthesis and Analysis (CESAB), FRB, Aix-en-Provence, France

• Marco Pautasso

Published: July 18, 2013

• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149
• Reader Comments

Citation: Pautasso M (2013) Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review. PLoS Comput Biol 9(7): e1003149. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149

Editor: Philip E. Bourne, University of California San Diego, United States of America

Copyright: © 2013 Marco Pautasso. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: 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.

Competing interests: The author has declared that no competing interests exist.

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,

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

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] .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149.g001

• 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.

• 1. Rapple C (2011) The role of the critical review article in alleviating information overload. Annual Reviews White Paper. Available: http://www.annualreviews.org/userimages/ContentEditor/1300384004941/Annual_Reviews_WhitePaper_Web_2011.pdf . Accessed May 2013.
• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 7. Budgen D, Brereton P (2006) Performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Proc 28th Int Conf Software Engineering, ACM New York, NY, USA, pp. 1051–1052. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/1134285.1134500 .
• 16. Eco U (1977) Come si fa una tesi di laurea. Milan: Bompiani.
• 17. Hart C (1998) Doing a literature review: releasing the social science research imagination. London: SAGE.
• 21. Ridley D (2008) The literature review: a step-by-step guide for students. London: SAGE.

Something old, new, and borrowed . Rise of the systematic reviews

• Published: 24 August 2024

Cite this article

• Gheorghe-Gavrilă Hognogi 1 &
• Ana-Maria Pop   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9958-1391 1  

106 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Systematic reviews and other types of literature reviews are more prevalent in clinical medicine than in other fields. The recurring need for improvement and updates in these disciplines has led to the Living Systematic Review (LSR) concept to enhance the effectiveness of scientific synthesis efforts. While LSR was introduced in 2014, its adoption outside clinical medicine has been limited, with one exception. However, it is anticipated that this will change in the future, prompting a detailed exploration of four key dimensions for LSR development, regardless of the scientific domain. These dimensions include (a) compliance with FAIR principles, (b) interactivity to facilitate easier access to scientific knowledge, (c) public participation for a more comprehensive review, and (d) extending the scope beyond mere updates to living systematic reviews. Each field needs to establish clear guidelines for drafting literature reviews as independent studies, with discussions centring around the central theme of the Living Systematic Review.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Explore related subjects

• Artificial Intelligence

Aguilar Gómez, F., & Bernal, I. (2023). FAIR EVA: Bringing institutional multidisciplinary repositories into the FAIR picture. Scientific Data . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-02652-8

Article   Google Scholar  

Akl, E. A., Meerpohl, J. J., Elliott, J., Kahale, L. A., & Schünemann, H. J. (2017). Living systematic reviews: 4. Living guideline recommendations. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 91 , 47–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.009

Amaral, O. B. (2022). To fix peer review, break it into stages. Nature, 611 , 637. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-03791-5

Breuer, C., Meerpohl, J. J., & Siemens, W. (2022). From standard systematic reviews to living systematic reviews. Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat Im Gesundheitswesen, 176 , 76–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zefq.2022.11.007

Dajani, R. (2023). Scientists in diaspora are a powerful resource for their home countries. Nature . https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03300-2

Eisen, M. B., Akhmanova, A., Behrens, T. E., Harper, D. M., Weigel, D., & Zaidi, M. (2020). Implementing a “publish, then review” model of publishing. eLife, 9 , e64910. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.64910

Elliott, J. H., Synnot, A., Turner, T., Simmonds, M., Akl, E. A., McDonald, S., Salanti, G., Meerpohl, J., MacLehose, H., Hilton, J., Tovey, D., Shemilt, I., Thomas, J., Agoritsas, T., Hilton, J., Perron, C., Akl, E., Hodder, R., Pestridge, C., …, Pearson, L. (2017). Living systematic review: 1. Introduction—The why, what, when, and how. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 91 , 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.010

Elliott, J. H., Turner, T., Clavisi, O., Thomas, J., Higgins, J. P. T., Mavergames, C., & Gruen, R. L. (2014). Living systematic reviews: An emerging opportunity to narrow the evidence-practice gap. PLoS Medicine . https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001603

Enck, P. (2018). Living systematic reviews, not only for clinical (placebo) research. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 98 , 153–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.01.001

Gerber, L. R. (2023). Bridging the gap between science and policy for a sustainable future. Nature Water . https://doi.org/10.1038/s44221-023-00145-x

Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26 (2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

Griebler, U., Dobrescu, A., Ledinger, D., Klingenstein, P., Sommer, I., Emprechtinger, R., Persad, E., Gadinger, A., Trivella, M., Klerings, I., & Nussbaumer-Streit, B. (2023). Evaluation of the interim Cochrane rapid review methods guidance—A mixed-methods study on the understanding of and adherence to the guidance. Research Synthesis Methods . https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1656

Hill, J. E., Harris, C., & Clegg, A. (2023). Methods for using Bing’s AI-powered search engine for data extraction for a systematic review. Research Synthesis Methods, 15 (2), 347–353. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1689

Kahale, L. A., Piechotta, V., & McKenzie, J. E. (2022). Extension of the PRISMA 2020 statement for living systematic reviews (LSRs): Protocol [version 2; peer review: 1 approved]. F1000Research . https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.75449.2

Macdonald, H., Loder, E., & Abbasi, K. (2020). Living systematic reviews at The BMJ. BMJ, 370 , m2925. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m2925

Marshall, I. J., & Wallace, B. C. (2019). Toward systematic review automation: A practical guide to using machine learning tools in research synthesis. Systematic Reviews . https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1074-9

Norström, A., V., Cvitanovic, C., Löf, M. F., West, S., Wyborn, C., Balvanera, P., Bednarek, A. T., Bennett, E. M., Biggs, R., Bremond, A., Campbell, B. M., Canadell, J. G., Carpenter, S. R., Folke, C., Fulton, E. A., Gaffney, O., Gelcich, S., Jouffray, J.-B., Leach, M., …, Österblom, H. (2020). Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nature Sustainability, 3 , 182–190. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2

Paul, M., & Leeflang, M. M. (2023). Living systematic reviews: Aims and standards. Clinical Microbiology and Infection, 30 (3), 265–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2023.08.005

Polonioli, A. (2019). A plea for minimally biased naturalistic philosophy. Synthese, 196 , 3841–3867. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1628-0

Polonioli, A. (2020). In search of better science: On the epistemic costs of systematic reviews and the need for a pluralistic stance to literature search. Scientometrics, 122 , 1267–1274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03333-3

Riley, S. P., Swanson, B. T., Shaffer, S. M., Flowers, D. W., Cook, C. E., & Brismée, J. M. (2023). Why do ‘Trustworthy’ living systematic reviews matter? Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, 31 (4), 215–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/10669817.2023.2229610

Ripberger, J., Bell, A., Fox, A., Forney, A., Livingston, W., Gaddie, C., Silva, C., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (2022). Communicating probability information in weather forecasts: Findings and recommendations from a living systematic review of the research literature. Weather, Climate, and Society, 14 (2), 481–498. https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-21-0034.1

Roche, D. G., Kruuk, L. E. B., Lanfear, R., & Binning, S. A. (2015). Public data archiving in ecology and evolution: How well are we doing? PLoS Biology, 13 (11), e1002295. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002295

Saulnier, K. M., Bujold, D., Dyke, S. O. M., Dupras, C., Beck, S., Bourque, G., & Joly, Y. (2019). Benefits and barriers in the design of harmonized access agreements for international data sharing. Scientific Data . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-019-0310-4

Schimidt, L., Mohamed, S., Meader, N., Bacardit, J., & Craig, D. (2023). Automated data analysis of unstructured grey literature in health research: A mapping review. Research Synthesis Methods, 15 (2), 178–197. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1692

Siemieniuk, R. A., Bartoszko, J. J., Zeraatkar, D., Kum, E., Qasim, A., Martinez, J. P. D., Izcovich, A., Lamontagne, F., Han, M. A., Agarwal, A., Agoritsas, T., Azab, M., Bravo, G., Chu, D. K., Couban, R., Devji, T., Escamilla, Z., Foroutan, F., Gao, Y., …, Brignardello-Petersen, R. (2020). Drug treatments for Covid-19: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis BMJ, 370 , m3536. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m2980

Simmonds, M., Salanti, G., McKenzie, J., & Elliott, J. (2017). Living systematic reviews: 3. Statistical methods for updating meta-analyses. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 91 , 38–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.008

Siontis, K. C., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2018). Replication, duplication, and waste in a quarter million systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Circulation. Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, 11 (12), e005212. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.118.005212

Thibault, R. T., Amaral, O. B., Argolo, F., Bandrowski, A. E., Davidson, A. R., & Drude, N. I. (2023). Open Science 2.0: Towards a truly collaborative research ecosystem. PLoS Biology, 21 (10), e3002362. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002362

Thomas, J., Noel-Storr, A., Marshall, I., Wallace, B., McDonald, S., Mavergames, C., Glasziou, P., Shemilt, I., Synnot, A., Turner, T., & Elliott, J. (2017). Living systematic reviews: 2. Combining human and machine effort. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 91 , 31–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.011

Thorp, H. H. (2023). Correction is courageous. Science, 382 , 743–743. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adm8205

Turk, V. (2023). Protect the ‘right to science’ for people and the planet. Nature . https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03332-8

Turner, T., Lavis, J. N., Grimshaw, J. M., Green, S., & Elliott, J. (2023). Living evidence and adaptive policy: Perfect partners? Health Research Policy and Systems . https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-023-01085-4

Uttley, L., Quintana, D. S., Montgomery, P., Carroll, C., Page, M. J., Falzon, L., Sutton, A., & Moher, D. (2023). The problems with systematic reviews: A living systematic review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 156 , 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.01.011

Vallet, A., Locatelli, B., Valdivia-Díaz, M., Vallet, A., Locatelli, B., Valdivia-Díaz, M., Conde, Y. Q., Matencio García, G., Criales, A. R., Huamanñahui, F. V., Criales, S. R., Makowski, D., & Lavorel, S. (2023). Knowledge coproduction to improve assessments of nature’s contributions to people. Conservation Biology . https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14182

van Noorden, R. (2023). How big is science’s fake-paper problem? Nature, 623 , 466–467. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03464-x

Wilkinson, M., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I., Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I. J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., Blomberg, N., Boiten, J.-W., Silva Santos, L. B., Bourne, P. E., Bouwman, J., Brookes, A. J., Clark, T., Crosas, M., Dillo, I., Dumon, O., ..., Mons, B. (2016). The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data, 3 , 160018. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank both reviewers for their useful and precious suggestions.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Universitatea Babeș-Bolyai, Facultatea de Geografie, Centrul de Geografie Regională, Str. Clinicilor 5-7, 400006, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

Gheorghe-Gavrilă Hognogi & Ana-Maria Pop

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Gheorghe-Gavrilă Hognogi—substantial contribution to conception and design, acquisition and interpretation of data, writing the comment, revision; Ana-Maria Pop—interpretation of data.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gheorghe-Gavrilă Hognogi .

Ethics declarations

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Hognogi, GG., Pop, AM. Something old, new, and borrowed . Rise of the systematic reviews. Scientometrics (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05133-w

Download citation

Received : 07 February 2024

Accepted : 02 August 2024

Published : 24 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05133-w

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

• Living systematic reviews
• Scientific knowledge
• FAIR principles
• Systematic review
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

arXiv's Accessibility Forum starts next month!

Help | Advanced Search

Computer Science > Machine Learning

Title: multimodal methods for analyzing learning and training environments: a systematic literature review.

Abstract: Recent technological advancements have enhanced our ability to collect and analyze rich multimodal data (e.g., speech, video, and eye gaze) to better inform learning and training experiences. While previous reviews have focused on parts of the multimodal pipeline (e.g., conceptual models and data fusion), a comprehensive literature review on the methods informing multimodal learning and training environments has not been conducted. This literature review provides an in-depth analysis of research methods in these environments, proposing a taxonomy and framework that encapsulates recent methodological advances in this field and characterizes the multimodal domain in terms of five modality groups: Natural Language, Video, Sensors, Human-Centered, and Environment Logs. We introduce a novel data fusion category -- mid fusion -- and a graph-based technique for refining literature reviews, termed citation graph pruning. Our analysis reveals that leveraging multiple modalities offers a more holistic understanding of the behaviors and outcomes of learners and trainees. Even when multimodality does not enhance predictive accuracy, it often uncovers patterns that contextualize and elucidate unimodal data, revealing subtleties that a single modality may miss. However, there remains a need for further research to bridge the divide between multimodal learning and training studies and foundational AI research.

Submission history

Access paper:.

• HTML (experimental)
• Other Formats

References & Citations

• Google Scholar
• Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

• Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

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

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

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

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

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

Original Submission Date Received: .

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

Article Menu

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

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

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

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Impacts of pfas exposure on neurodevelopment: a comprehensive literature review.

1. Introduction

2. materials and methods, 2.1. data sourcing, 2.2. exposure assessment, 2.3. outcomes, 2.4. covariates, 2.5. data extraction, 3.1. the intelligence quotient (iq), 3.2. attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (adhd), 3.3. autism spectrum disorder (asd), 4. discussion, 5. conclusions, author contributions, conflicts of interest.

• Morris-Rosendahl, D.J.; Crocq, M.A. Neurodevelopmental disorders—The history and future of a diagnostic concept. Dialogues Clin. Neurosci. 2020 , 22 , 65–72. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Graf, W.D.; Kekatpure, M.V.; Kosofsky, B.E. Prenatal-onset neurodevelopmental disorders secondary to toxins, nutritional deficiencies, and maternal illness. Handb. Clin. Neurol. 2013 , 111 , 143–159. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ijomone, O.M.; Olung, N.F.; Akingbade, G.T.; Okoh, C.O.A.; Aschner, M. Environmental influence on neurodevelopmental disorders: Potential association of heavy metal exposure and autism. J. Trace Elem. Med. Biol. 2020 , 62 , 126638. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Landrigan, P.J.; Lambertini, L.; Birnbaum, L.S. A research strategy to discover the environmental causes of autism and neurodevelopmental disabilities. Environ. Health Perspect. 2012 , 120 , a258–a260. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Grandjean, P.; Landrigan, P.J. Developmental neurotoxicity of industrial chemicals. Lancet 2006 , 368 , 2167–2178. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Giordano, G.; Costa, L.G. Developmental neurotoxicity: Some old and new issues. ISRN Toxicol. 2012 , 2012 , 814795. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Makris, S.L.; Raffaele, K.; Allen, S.; Bowers, W.J.; Hass, U.; Alleva, E.; Calamandrei, G.; Sheets, L.; Amcoff, P.; Delrue, N.; et al. A retrospective performance assessment of the developmental neurotoxicity study in support of OECD test guideline 426. Environ. Health Perspect. 2009 , 117 , 17–25. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Panieri, E.; Baralic, K.; Djukic-Cosic, D.; Buha Djordjevic, A.; Saso, L. PFAS Molecules: A Major Concern for the Human Health and the Environment. Toxics 2022 , 10 , 44. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Di Nisio, A.; Pannella, M.; Vogiatzis, S.; Sut, S.; Dall’Acqua, S.; Santa Rocca, M.; Antonini, A.; Porzionato, A.; De Caro, R.; Bortolozzi, M.; et al. Toni and C. Foresta. Impairment of human dopaminergic neurons at different developmental stages by perfluoro-octanoic acid (PFOA) and differential human brain areas accumulation of perfluoroalkyl chemicals. Environ. Int. 2022 , 158 , 106982. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sunderland, E.M.; Hu, X.C.; Dassuncao, C.; Tokranov, A.K.; Wagner, C.C.; Allen, J.G. A review of the pathways of human exposure to poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) and present understanding of health effects. J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 2019 , 29 , 131–147. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Spratlen, M.J.; Perera, F.P.; Lederman, S.A.; Rauh, V.A.; Robinson, M.; Kannan, K.; Trasande, L.; Herbstman, J. The association between prenatal exposure to perfluoroalkyl substances and childhood neurodevelopment. Environ. Pollut. 2020 , 263 Pt B , 114444. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Trudel, D.; Horowitz, L.; Wormuth, M.; Scheringer, M.; Cousins, I.T.; Hungerbühler, K. Estimating consumer exposure to PFOS and PFOA. Risk Anal. 2008 , 28 , 251–269. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Death, C.; Bell, C.; Champness, D.; Milne, C.; Reichman, S.; Hagen, T. Per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in livestock and game species: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2021 , 774 , 144795. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ericson, I.M.; Nadal, B.; van Bavel, G.; Lindstrom, J.L. Domingo. Levels of perfluorochemicals in water samples from Catalonia, Spain: Is drinking water a significant contribution to human exposure? Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2008 , 15 , 614–619. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Banzhaf, S.; Filipovic, M.; Lewis, J.; Sparrenbom, C.J.; Barthel, R. A review of contamination of surface-, ground-, and drinking water in Sweden by perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). Ambio 2017 , 46 , 335–346. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Domingo, J.L.; Nadal, M. Human exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) through drinking water: A review of the recent scientific literature. Environ. Res. 2019 , 177 , 108648. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Cousins, I.T.; DeWitt, J.C.; Glüge, J.; Goldenman, G.; Herzke, D.; Lohmann, R.; Ng, C.A.; Scheringer, M.; Wang, Z. The high persistence of PFAS is sufficient for their management as a chemical class. Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts 2020 , 22 , 2307–2312. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cui, Q.; Pan, Y.; Wang, J.; Liu, H.; Yao, B.; Dai, J. Exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in serum versus semen and their association with male reproductive hormones. Environ. Pollut. 2020 , 266 Pt 2 , 115330. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Gardener, H.; Sun, Q.; Grandjean, P. PFAS concentration during pregnancy in relation to cardiometabolic health and birth outcomes. Environ. Res. 2021 , 192 , 110287. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Stein, C.R.; McGovern, K.J.; Pajak, A.M.; Maglione, P.J.; Wolff, M.S. Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances and indicators of immune function in children aged 12–19 y: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Pediatr. Res. 2016 , 79 , 348–357. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Papadopoulou, E.; Stratakis, N.; Basagaña, X.; Brantsæter, A.L.; Casas, M.; Fossati, S.; Gražulevičienė, R.; Haug, L.S.; Heude, B.; Maitre, L.; et al. Prenatal and postnatal exposure to PFAS and cardiometabolic factors and inflammation status in children from six European cohorts. Environ. Int. 2021 , 157 , 106853. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Alderete, T.L.; Jin, R.; Walker, D.I.; Valvi, D.; Chen, Z.; Jones, D.P.; Peng, C.; Gilliland, F.D.; Berhane, K.; Conti, D.V.; et al. Perfluoroalkyl substances, metabolomic profiling, and alterations in glucose homeostasis among overweight and obese Hispanic children: A proof-of-concept analysis. Environ. Int. 2019 , 126 , 445–453. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Chen, Z.; Yang, T.; Walker, D.I.; Thomas, D.C.; Qiu, C.; Chatzi, L.; Alderete, T.L.; Kim, J.S.; Conti, D.V.; Breton, C.V.; et al. Dysregulated lipid and fatty acid metabolism link perfluoroalkyl substances exposure and impaired glucose metabolism in young adults. Environ. Int. 2020 , 145 , 106091. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fan, Y.; Li, X.; Xu, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, X.; Han, X.; Du, G.; Xia, Y.; Wang, X.; Lu, C. Serum albumin mediates the effect of multiple per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances on serum lipid levels. Environ. Pollut. 2020 , 266 Pt 2 , 115138. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Blomberg, A.J.; Shih, Y.-H.; Messerlian, C.; Jørgensen, L.H.; Weihe, P.; Grandjean, P. Early-life associations between per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances and serum lipids in a longitudinal birth cohort. Environ. Res. 2021 , 200 , 111400. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ojo, A.F.; Xia, Q.; Peng, C.; Ng, J.C. Evaluation of the individual and combined toxicity of perfluoroalkyl substances to human liver cells using biomarkers of oxidative stress. Chemosphere 2021 , 281 , 130808. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Lind, P.M.; Salihovic, S.; van Bavel, B.; Lind, L. Circulating levels of perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) and carotid artery atherosclerosis. Environ. Res. 2017 , 152 , 157–164. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bjorke-Monsen, A.-L.; Varsi, K.; Averina, M.; Brox, J.; Huber, S. Perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) and mercury in never-pregnant women of fertile age: Association with fish consumption and unfavorable lipid profile. BMJ Nutr. Prev. Health 2020 , 3 , 277–284. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Carstens, K.E.; Freudenrich, T.; Wallace, K.; Choo, S.; Carpenter, A.; Smeltz, M.; Clifton, M.S.; Henderson, W.M.; Richard, A.M.; Patlewicz, G.; et al. Evaluation of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) In Vitro Toxicity Testing for Developmental Neurotoxicity. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2023 , 36 , 402–419. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, N.; Li, J.; Li, D.; Yang, Y.; He, D. Chronic exposure to perfluorooctane sulfonate induces behavior defects and neurotoxicity through oxidative damages, in vivo and in vitro. PLoS ONE 2014 , 9 , 113453. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Oh, J.; Shin, H.-M.; Kannan, K.; Busgang, S.A.; Schmidt, R.J.; Schweitzer, J.B.; Hertz-Picciotto, I.; Bennett, D.H. Childhood exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances and neurodevelopment in the CHARGE case-control study. Environ. Res. 2022 , 215 Pt 2 , 114322. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yao, H.; Fu, Y.; Weng, X.; Zeng, Z.; Tan, Y.; Wu, X.; Zeng, H.; Yang, Z.; Li, Y.; Liang, H.; et al. The Association between Prenatal Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Exposure and Neurobehavioral Problems in Offspring: A Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023 , 20 , 1668. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rock, K.D.; Patisaul, H.B. Environmental Mechanisms of Neurodevelopmental Toxicity. Curr. Environ. Health Rep. 2018 , 5 , 145–157. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Costa, L.G.; Cole, T.B.; Dao, K.; Chang, Y.-C.; Garrick, J.M. Developmental impact of air pollution on brain function. Neurochem. Int. 2019 , 131 , 104580. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hamm, M.P.; Cherry, N.M.; Chan, E.; Martin, J.W.; Burstyn, I. Maternal exposure to perfluorinated acids and fetal growth. J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 2010 , 20 , 589–597. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Szilagyi, J.T.; Avula, V.; Fry, R.C. Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) and Their Effects on the Placenta, Pregnancy, and Child Development: A Potential Mechanistic Role for Placental Peroxisome Proliferator-Activated Receptors (PPARs). Curr. Environ. Health Rep. 2020 , 7 , 222–230. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Erinc, A.; Davis, M.B.; Padmanabhan, V.; Langen, E.; Goodrich, J.M. Considering environmental exposures to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as risk factors for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Environ. Res. 2021 , 197 , 111113. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Blake, B.E.; Fenton, S.E. Early life exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and latent health outcomes: A review including the placenta as a target tissue and possible driver of peri- and postnatal effects. Toxicology 2020 , 443 , 152565. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, D.; Yan, S.; Liu, Y.; Chen, Q.; Ren, S. Association of prenatal exposure to perfluorinated and polyfluoroalkyl substances with childhood neurodevelopment: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2024 , 271 , 115939. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• McAdam, J.; Bell, E.M. Determinants of maternal and neonatal PFAS concentrations: A review. Environ. Health 2023 , 22 , 41. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cai, D.; Li, Q.-Q.; Chu, C.; Wang, S.-Z.; Tang, Y.-T.; Appleton, A.A.; Qiu, R.-L.; Yang, B.-Y.; Hu, L.-W.; Dong, G.-H.; et al. High trans-placental transfer of perfluoroalkyl substances alternatives in the matched maternal-cord blood serum: Evidence from a birth cohort study. Sci. Total Environ. 2020 , 705 , 135885. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gützkow, K.B.; Haug, L.S.; Thomsen, C.; Sabaredzovic, A.; Becher, G.; Brunborg, G. Placental transfer of perfluorinated compounds is selective—A Norwegian Mother and Child sub-cohort study. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2012 , 215 , 216–219. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Bloom, M.S.; Varde, M.; Newman, R.B. Environmental toxicants and placental function. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2022 , 85 Pt B , 105–120. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, Y.; Li, A.; Buchanan, S.; Liu, W. Exposure characteristics for congeners, isomers, and enantiomers of perfluoroalkyl substances in mothers and infants. Environ. Int. 2020 , 144 , 106012. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brantsæter, A.; Whitworth, K.; Ydersbond, T.; Haug, L.; Haugen, M.; Knutsen, H.; Thomsen, C.; Meltzer, H.; Becher, G.; Sabaredzovic, A.; et al. Determinants of plasma concentrations of perfluoroalkyl substances in pregnant Norwegian women. Environ. Int. 2013 , 54 , 74–84. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Liew, Z.; Goudarzi, H.; Oulhote, Y. Developmental Exposures to Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs): An Update of Associated Health Outcomes. Curr. Environ. Health Rep. 2018 , 5 , 1–19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Gao, X.-X.; Zuo, Q.-L.; Fu, X.-H.; Song, L.-L.; Cen, M.-Q.; Wu, J. Association between prenatal exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances and neurodevelopment in children: Evidence based on birth cohort. Environ. Res. 2023 , 236 Pt 2 , 116812. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Mullin, A.P.; Gokhale, A.; Moreno-De-Luca, A.; Sanyal, S.; Waddington, J.L.; Faundez, V. Neurodevelopmental disorders: Mechanisms and boundary definitions from genomes, interactomes and proteomes. Transl. Psychiatry 2013 , 3 , 329. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lewis, R.C.; Johns, L.E.; Meeker, J.D. Serum Biomarkers of Exposure to Perfluoroalkyl Substances in Relation to Serum Testosterone and Measures of Thyroid Function among Adults and Adolescents from NHANES 2011–2012. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015 , 12 , 6098–6114. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Da Silva, B.F.; Ahmadireskety, A.; Aristizabal-Henao, J.J.; Bowden, J.A. A rapid and simple method to quantify per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in plasma and serum using 96-well plates. MethodsX 2020 , 7 , 101111. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Marra, V.; Abballe, A.; Dellatte, E.; Iacovella, N.; Ingelido, A.M.; De Felip, E. A Simple and Rapid Method for Quantitative HPLC MS/MS Determination of Selected Perfluorocarboxylic Acids and Perfluorosulfonates in Human Serum. Int. J. Anal. Chem. 2020 , 2020 , 8878618. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Henn, B.C.; Bellinger, D.C.; Hopkins, M.R.; Coull, B.A.; Ettinger, A.S.; Jim, R.; Hatley, E.; Christiani, D.C.; Wright, R.O. Maternal and Cord Blood Manganese Concentrations and Early Childhood Neurodevelopment among Residents near a Mining-Impacted Superfund Site. Environ. Health Perspect. 2017 , 125 , 067020. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Gansler, D.A.; Varvaris, M.; Schretlen, D.J. The use of neuropsychological tests to assess intelligence. Clin. Neuropsychol. 2017 , 31 , 1073–1086. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Smelror, R.E.; Ueland, T. Cognitive functioning in early-onset psychosis. In Adolescent Psychosis ; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2023; Volume 13, pp. 127–152. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chatham, C.H.; Taylor, K.I.; Charman, T.; D’Ardhuy, X.L.; Eule, E.; Fedele, A.; Hardan, A.Y.; Loth, E.; Murtagh, L.; Rubido, M.d.V.; et al. Adaptive behavior in autism: Minimal clinically important differences on the Vineland-II. Autism Res. 2018 , 11 , 270–283. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Burns, T.G.; King, T.Z.; Spencer, K.S. Mullen scales of early learning: The utility in assessing children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders, cerebral palsy, and epilepsy. Appl. Neuropsychol. Child 2013 , 2 , 33–42. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tsujii, N.; Usami, M.; Naya, N.; Tsuji, T.; Mishima, H.; Horie, J.; Fujiwara, M.; Iida, J. Efficacy and Safety of Medication for Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in Children and Adolescents with Common Comorbidities: A Systematic Review. Neurol. Ther. 2021 , 10 , 499–522. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Biederman, J.; DiSalvo, M.; Vaudreuil, C.; Wozniak, J.; Uchida, M.; Woodworth, K.Y.; Green, A.; Farrell, A.; Faraone, S.V. The child behavior checklist can aid in characterizing suspected comorbid psychopathology in clinically referred youth with ADHD. J. Psychiatr. Res. 2021 , 138 , 477–484. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Goodman, C.V.; Till, C.; Green, R.; El-Sabbagh, J.; Arbuckle, T.E.; Hornung, R.; Lanphear, B.; Seguin, J.R.; Booij, L.; Fisher, M.; et al. Prenatal exposure to legacy PFAS and neurodevelopment in preschool-aged Canadian children: The MIREC cohort. Neurotoxicol. Teratol. 2023 , 98 , 107181. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Beck, I.H.; Bilenberg, N.; Möller, S.; Nielsen, F.; Grandjean, P.; Højsager, F.D.; Halldorsson, T.I.; Nielsen, C.; Jensen, T.K. Association Between Prenatal and Early Postnatal Exposure to Perfluoroalkyl Substances and IQ Score in 7-Year-Old Children From the Odense Child Cohort. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2023 , 192 , 1522–1535. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Vuong, A.M.; Webster, G.M.; Yolton, K.; Calafat, A.M.; Muckle, G.; Lanphear, B.P.; Chen, A. Prenatal exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and neurobehavior in US children through 8 years of age: The HOME study. Environ. Res. 2021 , 195 , 110825. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, H.; Luo, F.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, X.; Zhang, S.; Zhang, J.; Tian, Y.; Zheng, L. Prenatal exposure to perfluoroalkyl substances and child intelligence quotient: Evidence from the Shanghai birth cohort. Environ. Int. 2023 , 174 , 107912. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liew, Z.; Ritz, B.; Bach, C.C.; Asarnow, R.F.; Bech, B.H.; Nohr, E.A.; Bossi, R.; Henriksen, T.B.; Bonefeld-Jørgensen, E.C.; Olsen, J. Prenatal Exposure to Perfluoroalkyl Substances and IQ Scores at Age 5; a Study in the Danish National Birth Cohort. Environ. Health Perspect. 2018 , 126 , 067004. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Wang, Y.; Rogan, W.J.; Chen, H.-Y.; Chen, P.-C.; Su, P.-H.; Chen, H.-Y.; Wang, S.-L. Prenatal exposure to perfluroalkyl substances and children’‘s’ IQ: The Taiwan maternal and infant cohort study. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2015 , 218 , 639–644. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Harris, M.H.; Oken, E.; Rifas-Shiman, S.L.; Calafat, A.M.; Ye, X.; Bellinger, D.C.; Webster, T.F.; White, R.F.; Sagiv, S.K. Prenatal and childhood exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) and child cognition. Environ. Int. 2018 , 115 , 358–369. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Skogheim, T.S.; Villanger, G.D.; Weyde, K.V.F.; Engel, S.M.; Surén, P.; Øie, M.G.; Skogan, A.H.; Biele, G.; Zeiner, P.; Øvergaard, K.R.; et al. Prenatal exposure to perfluoroalkyl substances and associations with symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and cognitive functions in preschool children. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2020 , 223 , 80–92. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, B.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, J.; Dai, Y.; Ding, J.; Guo, J.; Qi, X.; Wu, C.; Zhou, Z. Prenatal exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, fetal thyroid function, and intelligence quotient at 7 years of age: Findings from the Sheyang Mini Birth Cohort Study. Environ. Int. 2024 , 187 , 108720. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Bünger, A.; Grieder, S.; Schweizer, F.; Grob, A. The comparability of intelligence test results: Group- and individual-level comparisons of seven intelligence tests. J. Sch. Psychol. 2021 , 88 , 101–117. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Vuong, A.M.; Yolton, K.; Xie, C.; Dietrich, K.N.; Braun, J.M.; Webster, G.M.; Calafat, A.M.; Lanphear, B.P.; Chen, A. Prenatal and childhood exposure to poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and cognitive development in children at age 8 years. Environ. Res. 2019 , 172 , 242–248. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Forns, J.; Verner, M.-A.; Iszatt, N.; Nowack, N.; Bach, C.C.; Vrijheid, M.; Costa, O.; Andiarena, A.; Sovcikova, E.; Høyer, B.B.; et al. Early Life Exposure to Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) and ADHD: A Meta-Analysis of Nine European Population-Based Studies. Environ. Health Perspect. 2020 , 128 , 57002. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dalsager, L.; Jensen, T.K.; Nielsen, F.; Grandjean, P.; Bilenberg, N.; Andersen, H.R. No association between maternal and child PFAS concentrations and repeated measures of ADHD symptoms at age 2(1/2) and 5 years in children from the Odense Child Cohort. Neurotoxicol. Teratol. 2021 , 88 , 107031. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kim, J.I.; Kim, B.-N.; Lee, Y.A.; Shin, C.H.; Hong, Y.-C.; Døssing, L.D.; Hildebrandt, G.; Lim, Y.-H. Association between early-childhood exposure to perfluoroalkyl substances and ADHD symptoms: A prospective cohort study. Sci. Total Environ. 2023 , 879 , 163081. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Liew, Z.; Ritz, B.; von Ehrenstein, O.S.; Bech, B.H.; Nohr, E.A.; Fei, C.; Bossi, R.; Henriksen, T.B.; Bonefeld-Jørgensen, E.C.; Olsen, J. Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and childhood autism in association with prenatal exposure to perfluoroalkyl substances: A nested case-control study in the Danish National Birth Cohort. Environ. Health Perspect. 2015 , 123 , 367–373. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Skogheim, T.S.; Weyde, K.V.F.; Aase, H.; Engel, S.M.; Surén, P.; Øie, M.G.; Biele, G.; Reichborn-Kjennerud, T.; Brantsæter, A.L.; Haug, L.S.; et al. Prenatal exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and associations with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder in children. Environ. Res. 2021 , 202 , 111692. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Itoh, S.; Yamazaki, K.; Suyama, S.; Ikeda-Araki, A.; Miyashita, C.; Bamai, Y.A.; Kobayashi, S.; Masuda, H.; Yamaguchi, T.; Goudarzi, H.; et al. The association between prenatal perfluoroalkyl substance exposure and symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in 8-year-old children and the mediating role of thyroid hormones in the Hokkaido study. Environ. Int. 2022 , 159 , 107026. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Quaak, I.; De Cock, M.; De Boer, M.; Lamoree, P.; Leonards, P.; Van de Bor, M. Prenatal Exposure to Perfluoroalkyl Substances and Behavioral Development in Children. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2016 , 13 , 511. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Oh, J.; Bennett, D.H.; Calafat, A.M.; Tancredi, D.; Roa, D.L.; Schmidt, R.J.; Hertz-Picciotto, I.; Shin, H.-M. Prenatal exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in association with autism spectrum disorder in the MARBLES study. Environ. Int. 2021 , 147 , 106328. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Choi, J.W.; Oh, J.; Bennett, D.H.; Calafat, A.M.; Schmidt, R.J.; Shin, H.-M. Prenatal exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances and child behavioral problems. Environ. Res. 2024 , 251 Pt 1 , 118511. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shin, H.-M.; Bennett, D.H.; Calafat, A.M.; Tancredi, D.; Hertz-Picciotto, I. Modeled prenatal exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in association with child autism spectrum disorder: A case-control study. Environ. Res. 2020 , 186 , 109514. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lyall, K.; Yau, V.M.; Hansen, R.; Kharrazi, M.; Yoshida, C.K.; Calafat, A.M.; Windham, G.; Croen, L.A. Prenatal Maternal Serum Concentrations of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Association with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Intellectual Disability. Environ. Health Perspect. 2018 , 126 , 017001. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hoadley, L.; Watters, M.; Rogers, R.; Werner, L.S.; Markiewicz, K.V.; Forrester, T.; McLanahan, E.D. Public health evaluation of PFAS exposures and breastfeeding: A systematic literature review. Toxicol. Sci. 2023 , 194 , 121–137. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mamsen, L.S.; Björvang, R.D.; Mucs, D.; Vinnars, M.-T.; Papadogiannakis, N.; Lindh, C.H.; Andersen, C.Y.; Damdimopoulou, P. Concentrations of perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in human embryonic and fetal organs from first, second, and third trimester pregnancies. Environ. Int. 2019 , 124 , 482–492. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hanssen, L.; Dudarev, A.A.; Huber, S.; Odland, J.; Nieboer, E.; Sandanger, T.M. Partition of perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in whole blood and plasma, assessed in maternal and umbilical cord samples from inhabitants of arctic Russia and Uzbekistan. Sci. Total Environ. 2013 , 447 , 430–437. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, F.; Yin, S.; Kelly, B.C.; Liu, W. Isomer-Specific Transplacental Transfer of Perfluoroalkyl Acids: Results from a Survey of Paired Maternal, Cord Sera, and Placentas. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017 , 51 , 5756–5763. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Macheka-Tendenguwo, L.R.; Olowoyo, J.O.; Mugivhisa, L.L.; Abafe, O.A. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in human breast milk and current analytical methods. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2018 , 25 , 36064–36086. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Timmermann, A.; Avenbuan, O.N.; Romano, M.E.; Braun, J.M.; Tolstrup, J.S.; Vandenberg, L.N.; Fenton, S.E. Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances and Breastfeeding as a Vulnerable Function: A Systematic Review of Epidemiological Studies. Toxics 2023 , 11 , 325. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Jian, J.-M.; Chen, D.; Han, F.-J.; Guo, Y.; Zeng, L.; Lu, X.; Wang, F. A short review on human exposure to and tissue distribution of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). Sci. Total Environ. 2018 , 636 , 1058–1069. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ragnarsdottir, O.; Abdallah, M.A.; Harrad, S. Dermal uptake: An important pathway of human exposure to perfluoroalkyl substances? Environ. Pollut. 2022 , 307 , 119478. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Lin, C.-Y.; Lin, L.-Y.; Wen, T.-W.; Lien, G.-W.; Chien, K.-L.; Hsu, S.H.; Liao, C.-C.; Sung, F.-C.; Chen, P.-C.; Su, T.-C. Association between levels of serum perfluorooctane sulfate and carotid artery intima-media thickness in adolescents and young adults. Int. J. Cardiol. 2013 , 168 , 3309–3316. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Grandjean, P.; Andersen, E.W.; Budtz-Jørgensen, E.; Nielsen, F.; Mølbak, K.; Weihe, P.; Heilmann, C. Serum vaccine antibody concentrations in children exposed to perfluorinated compounds. JAMA 2012 , 307 , 391–397. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Granum, B.; Haug, L.S.; Namork, E.; Stølevik, S.B.; Thomsen, C.; Aaberge, I.S.; van Loveren, H.; Løvik, M.; Nygaard, U.C. Pre-natal exposure to perfluoroalkyl substances may be associated with altered vaccine antibody levels and immune-related health outcomes in early childhood. J. Immunotoxicol. 2013 , 10 , 373–379. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• White, S.S.; Stanko, J.P.; Kato, K.; Calafat, A.M.; Hines, E.P.; Fenton, S.E. Gestational and chronic low-dose PFOA exposures and mammary gland growth and differentiation in three generations of CD-1 mice. Environ. Health Perspect. 2011 , 119 , 1070–1076. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Yang, C.; Tan, Y.S.; Harkema, J.R.; Haslam, S.Z. Differential effects of peripubertal exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid on mammary gland development in C57Bl/6 and Balb/c mouse strains. Reprod. Toxicol. 2009 , 27 , 299–306. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Lopez-Espinosa, M.-J.; Mondal, D.; Armstrong, B.; Bloom, M.S.; Fletcher, T. Thyroid function and perfluoroalkyl acids in children living near a chemical plant. Environ. Health Perspect. 2012 , 120 , 1036–1041. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tsai, M.-S.; Lin, C.-C.; Chen, M.-H.; Hsieh, W.-S.; Chen, P.-C. Perfluoroalkyl substances and thyroid hormones in cord blood. Environ. Pollut. 2017 , 222 , 543–548. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lin, C.-Y.; Wen, L.-L.; Lin, L.-Y.; Wen, T.-W.; Lien, G.-W.; Hsu, S.H.; Chien, K.-L.; Liao, C.-C.; Sung, F.-C.; Chen, P.-C.; et al. The associations between serum perfluorinated chemicals and thyroid function in adolescents and young adults. J. Hazard. Mater. 2013 , 244–245 , 637–644. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kataria, A.; Trachtman, H.; Malaga-Dieguez, L.; Trasande, L. Association between perfluoroalkyl acids and kidney function in a cross-sectional study of adolescents. Environ. Health 2015 , 14 , 89. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Qin, X.-D.; Qian, Z.; Vaughn, M.G.; Huang, J.; Ward, P.; Zeng, X.-W.; Zhou, Y.; Zhu, Y.; Yuan, P.; Li, M.; et al. Positive associations of serum perfluoroalkyl substances with uric acid and hyperuricemia in children from Taiwan. Environ. Pollut. 2016 , 212 , 519–524. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Fei, C.; McLaughlin, J.K.; Lipworth, L.; Olsen, J. Prenatal exposure to perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS) and maternally reported developmental milestones in infancy. Environ. Health Perspect. 2008 , 116 , 1391–1395. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Goudarzi, H.; Nakajima, S.; Ikeno, T.; Sasaki, S.; Kobayashi, S.; Miyashita, C.; Ito, S.; Araki, A.; Nakazawa, H.; Kishi, R. Prenatal exposure to perfluorinated chemicals and neurodevelopment in early infancy: The Hokkaido Study. Sci. Total Environ. 2016 , 541 , 1002–1010. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Stein, C.R.; Savitz, D.A.; Bellinger, D.C. Perfluorooctanoate and neuropsychological outcomes in children. Epidemiology 2013 , 24 , 590–599. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Parenti, I.; Rabaneda, L.G.; Schoen, H.; Novarino, G. Neurodevelopmental Disorders: From Genetics to Functional Pathways. Trends Neurosci. 2020 , 43 , 608–621. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Antolini, G.; Colizzi, M. Where Do Neurodevelopmental Disorders Go? Casting the Eye Away from Childhood towards Adulthood. Healthcare 2023 , 11 , 1015. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bragg, M.; Chavarro, J.E.; Hamra, G.B.; Hart, J.E.; Tabb, L.P.; Weisskopf, M.G.; Volk, H.E.; Lyall, K. Prenatal Diet as a Modifier of Environmental Risk Factors for Autism and Related Neurodevelopmental Outcomes. Curr. Environ. Health Rep. 2022 , 9 , 324–338. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Brabhukumr, A.; Malhi, P.; Ravindra, K.; Lakshmi, P. Exposure to household air pollution during first 3 years of life and IQ level among 6–8-year-old children in India- A cross-sectional study. Sci. Total Environ. 2020 , 709 , 135110. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Carroll, J.B. Psychometrics, intelligence, and public perception. Intelligence 1997 , 24 , 25–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Iqubal, A.; Ahmed, M.; Ahmad, S.; Sahoo, C.R.; Iqubal, M.K.; Haque, S.E. Environmental neurotoxic pollutants: Review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020 , 27 , 41175–41198. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thapar, A.; Cooper, M. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Lancet 2016 , 387 , 1240–1250. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Koutsoklenis, A.; Honkasilta, J. ADHD in the DSM-5-TR: What has changed and what has not. Front. Psychiatry 2022 , 13 , 1064141. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Association, A.P. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ; American Psychiatric Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang, L.; Wang, B.; Wu, C.; Wang, J.; Sun, M. Autism Spectrum Disorder: Neurodevelopmental Risk Factors, Biological Mechanism, and Precision Therapy. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023 , 24 , 1819. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hirota, T.; King, B.H. Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Review. JAMA 2023 , 329 , 157–168. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rosen, T.E.; Mazefsky, C.A.; Vasa, R.A.; Lerner, M.D. Co-occurring psychiatric conditions in autism spectrum disorder. Int. Rev. Psychiatry 2018 , 30 , 40–61. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Currie, S.D.; Wang, J.-S.; Tang, L. Impacts of PFAS Exposure on Neurodevelopment: A Comprehensive Literature Review. Environments 2024 , 11 , 188. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments11090188

Currie SD, Wang J-S, Tang L. Impacts of PFAS Exposure on Neurodevelopment: A Comprehensive Literature Review. Environments . 2024; 11(9):188. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments11090188

Currie, Seth D., Jia-Sheng Wang, and Lili Tang. 2024. "Impacts of PFAS Exposure on Neurodevelopment: A Comprehensive Literature Review" Environments 11, no. 9: 188. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments11090188

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

• ADMIN AREA MY BOOKSHELF MY DASHBOARD MY PROFILE SIGN OUT SIGN IN

Finalists for the 2024 Kirkus Prize Are Revealed

BY Michael Schaub • Aug. 28, 2024

The finalists for the 2024 Kirkus Prize have been revealed, with 18 books contending for one of the richest annual literary awards in the world.

The fiction shortlist is composed of Jennine Capó Crucet’s Say Hello to My Little Friend , Louise Erdrich’s The Mighty Red , Percival Everett’s James , Paul Lynch’s Prophet Song , Richard Powers’ Playground , and Rufi Thorpe’s Margo’s Got Money Troubles .

The jurors for the fiction prize are Christine Bollow, the co-owner and director of programs for Loyalty Bookstores in Washington, D.C., and Silver Spring, Maryland; Jeffrey Burke, a Kirkus reviewer and former editor at Harper’s magazine, the Wall Street Journal , Vanity Fair , and Bloomberg News ; and Kirkus fiction editor Laurie Muchnick.

The finalists for the nonfiction prize are Steve Coll’s The Achilles Trap: Saddam Hussein, the CIA, and the Origins of America's Invasion of Iraq ; Adam Higginbogtham’s Challenger: A True Story of Heroism And Disaster on the Edge of Space ; Tessa Hulls’ Feeding Ghosts: A Graphic Memoir ; Olivia Laing’s The Garden Against Time: In Search of a Common Paradise ; Shefali Luthra’s Undue Burden: Life and Death Decisions in Post-Roe America ; and Carvell Wallace’s Another Word for Love: A Memoir .   

Judging the nonfiction award are Hannah Bae, journalist, author, and illustrator whose work has appeared in the Asian American Writers’ Workshop’s the Margins , Catapult , the Washington Post , the San Francisco Chronicle , and the anthologies Our Red Book and (Don’t) Call Me Crazy ; Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist Mary Ann Gwinn, whose reviews have appeared in publications including Kirkus Reviews , the Los Angeles Times , the Minnesota Star Tribune , and the Seattle Times ; and Kirkus editor-in-chief Tom Beer.

The young readers’ literature category is divided into three subcategories featuring two books each. In picture books, the finalists are We Who Produce Pearls , written by Joanna Ho and illustrated by Amanda Phingbodhipakkiya, and There Was a Party for Langston , written by Jason Reynolds and illustrated by Jerome Pumphrey and Jarrett Pumphrey.

Making the middle-grade list are Safiyyah’s War by Hiba Noor Khan and Shark Teeth by Sherri Winston, while the young adult finalists are Gather by Kenneth M. Cadow and Bright Red Fruit by Safia Elhillo.

The young readers’ literature prize is judged by Christopher A. Biss-Brown, curator of the Children’s Literature Research Collection at the Free Library of Philadelphia and Kirkus reviewer; Michelle H. Martin, the Beverly Cleary Endowed Professor in Children and Youth Services in the Information School at the University of Washington; and Kirkus young readers’ editors Mahnaz Dar and Laura Simeon.

“The finalists for the 2024 Kirkus Prize represent the very best of an outstanding crop of fiction, nonfiction, and young readers’ titles published in the U.S. this year,” Kirkus Reviews editor-in-chief Tom Beer said in a statement. “They’re all books that speak to our time, and we know they’ll be read for years to come.”

Each award comes with a $50,000 cash prize. Books become eligible for the prizes by receiving a starred review from Kirkus, a distinction achieved by only about 10% of the books reviewed in the magazine.

The Kirkus Prize was first awarded in 2014. Previous winners have included James McBride for The Heaven & Earth Grocery Store , Jack E. Davis for The Gulf: The Making of an American Sea , and Harmony Becker for Himawari House .

The winners of this year’s awards will be announced at an in-person ceremony at the Tribeca Rooftop in New York on Oct. 16, 2024, which will be livestreamed on Kirkus’ YouTube channel at 7:30 p.m. Eastern.

Michael Schaub is a contributing writer.

• Profiles Writing a Different Kind of Crime Novel

• In the News Author Steve Silberman Dies at 66

• Book to Screen Sissy Spacek Joins Cast of ‘Die, My Love’

• In the News Authors Sue Florida Officials Over Book Bans

BY MICHAEL CRICHTON & JAMES PATTERSON

BY IVY FAIRBANKS

BY FRANCES MAYES

BY CHRIS WHITAKER

Recent Book Lists

• The 2024 Kirkus Prize Finalists
• 20 Best Books To Read in September
• 21 Best September Books for Young Readers
• 150 Most Anticipated Books of the Fall

Our Take On This Week's Bestsellers

Our Verdict

More Awards

Featured Interviews

• podcast Episode 387: Gayle Forman

• podcast Episode 386: Chris La Tray

• podcast Episode 385: Caro De Robertis

• podcast Episode 384: Best August Books With Abi Daré

• podcast Episode 383: Kyle Lukoff

The Magazine: Kirkus Reviews

Featuring 341 industry-first reviews of fiction, nonfiction, children’s, and YA books; also in this special mysteries & thrillers issue: Attica Locke, Ron Stallworth, Sara Varon, Maureen Johnson; and much more

The Kirkus Star

One of the most coveted designations in the book industry, the Kirkus Star marks books of exceptional merit.

The Kirkus Prize

The Kirkus Prize is among the richest literary awards in America, awarding $50,000 in three categories annually.

Great Books & News Curated For You

Be the first to read books news and see reviews, news and features in Kirkus Reviews . Get awesome content delivered to your inbox every week.

• Discover Books Fiction Thriller & Suspense Mystery & Detective Romance Science Fiction & Fantasy Nonfiction Biography & Memoir Teens & Young Adult Children's
• News & Features Bestsellers Book Lists Profiles Perspectives Awards Seen & Heard Book to Screen Kirkus TV videos In the News
• Kirkus Prize Winners & Finalists About the Kirkus Prize Kirkus Prize Judges
• Magazine Current Issue All Issues Manage My Subscription Subscribe
• Writers’ Center Hire a Professional Book Editor Get Your Book Reviewed Advertise Your Book Launch a Pro Connect Author Page Learn About The Book Industry
• More Kirkus Diversity Collections Kirkus Pro Connect My Account/Login
• About Kirkus History Our Team Contest FAQ Press Center Info For Publishers
• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• Reprints, Permission & Excerpting Policy

© Copyright 2024 Kirkus Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Popular in this Genre

Hey there, book lover.

We’re glad you found a book that interests you!

Please select an existing bookshelf

Create a new bookshelf.

We can’t wait for you to join Kirkus!

Please sign up to continue.

It’s free and takes less than 10 seconds!

Already have an account? Log in.

Trouble signing in? Retrieve credentials.

Almost there!

• Industry Professional

Welcome Back!

Sign in using your Kirkus account

Contact us: 1-800-316-9361 or email [email protected].

Don’t fret. We’ll find you.

Magazine Subscribers ( How to Find Your Reader Number )

If You’ve Purchased Author Services

Don’t have an account yet? Sign Up.

Maintenance work is planned from 22:00 BST on Monday 16th September 2024 to 22:00 BST on Tuesday 17th September 2024.

During this time the performance of our website may be affected - searches may run slowly, some pages may be temporarily unavailable, and you may be unable to access content. If this happens, please try refreshing your web browser or try waiting two to three minutes before trying again.

We apologise for any inconvenience this might cause and thank you for your patience.

Journal of Materials Chemistry A

Single-crystalline sb 2 s 3 microtubes for high-performance broadband visible photodetection †.

* Corresponding authors

a College of Physics and Electronic Information, Yunnan Normal University, 650500 Kunming, China E-mail: [email protected] , [email protected]

b Yunnan Key Laboratory of Optoelectronic Information Technology, Yunnan Normal University, 650500 Kunming, China E-mail: [email protected]

Antimony sulfide (Sb 2 S 3 ) holds great promise for optoelectronic and photovoltaic applications, attributed to its optimal bandgap (1.5–2.2 eV) and unique physicochemical properties. Notably, one-dimensional single-crystalline Sb 2 S 3 demonstrates exceptional charge transport capabilities due to its directional transport properties and significantly reduced grain boundaries. In this work, we present the controlled synthesis of Sb 2 S 3 microtubes through a hydrothermal reaction process utilizing ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid as a structure-directing agent. These microtubes, characterized by lengths of up to 230 μm and diameters of approximately 8 μm, exhibit excellent crystal quality and smooth surfaces, facilitating their integration into device fabrication processes. The resulting single Sb 2 S 3 microtube-based photodetector device demonstrates broadband visible photodetection capabilities, featuring a high responsivity (82 A/W), an external quantum efficiency of 1.3 × 10 4 %, short rise/decay times during switching (9.8 ms/9.2 ms), and a high detectivity of 7.6 × 10 10 Jones. Furthermore, the device exhibits responsiveness across the monochromatic light spectrum ranging from 350 to 800 nm, with a particularly notable switching ratio of 82.2 observed at 722 nm.

• This article is part of the themed collection: Journal of Materials Chemistry A HOT Papers

Supplementary files

• Supplementary information PDF (1394K)

Article information

Download citation, permissions.

Single-crystalline Sb 2 S 3 microtubes for high-performance broadband visible photodetection

S. Fu, X. Liu, H. Dou, R. Ali, A. Zeng, J. Man, X. Zheng and H. Wang, J. Mater. Chem. A , 2024, Advance Article , DOI: 10.1039/D4TA04573D

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

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

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

Read more about how to correctly acknowledge RSC content .

Social activity

Search articles by author.

This article has not yet been cited.

Advertisements