research article review literature

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 This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission.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

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved July 22, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, get unlimited documents corrected.

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

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

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

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

What are Literature Reviews?

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

Goals of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

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

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

I’ve built a career without a big golden grant. Here’s how

Career Column 22 JUL 24

What is it like to attend a predatory conference?

Career Feature 18 JUL 24

The geneticist who uses science to free parents wrongly convicted of killing their children

Career Feature 16 JUL 24

Your reagent is past its use-by date. Should you bin it?

Technology Feature 15 JUL 24

Is your research a trade secret? South Korean data-sharing case is a wake-up call

World View 03 JUL 24

To regain lost public trust, incorporate research ethics into graduate training

Correspondence 02 JUL 24

China–US research collaborations are in decline — this is bad news for everyone

News 19 JUL 24

The ‘PhD influencers’ logging lab life on TikTok and Instagram

News Feature 17 JUL 24

2 PhD Student Positions and 1 Post-Doctoral Position

The DFG-funded Collaborative Research Center CRC 1644 “Phenotypic plasticity in plants - mechanisms, constraints and evolution”, hosted at the Un...

Potsdam, Brandenburg (DE)

Universität Potsdam

Fully-funded PhD positions on perovskite and tandem solar cell - ANU - world's top 30 university

Join a world-class photovoltaics research group, contribute to the development of the next generation of solar cells at ANU- world's top 30 university

Canberra, Australian Capital Territory (AU)

The Australian National University- School of Engineering

Assistant Professor

The Division of Immunobiology within the Department of Pathology and Immunology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis is seeking...

Saint Louis, Missouri

Washington University in Saint Louis Division of Immunobiology

Become a Harvard Radcliffe Institute Fellow

Harvard Radcliffe Institute fellows are exceptional scientists, writers, s...

Cambridge, Massachusetts

Harvard Radcliffe Institute

Associate or Senior Editor

Position: Associate or Senior Editor Location: NYC or Berlin - Hybrid working model Deadline: August 27th, 2024   JOB SUMMARY: Nature, the internat...

New York City, New York (US)

Springer Nature Ltd

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

The Sheridan Libraries

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

What Will You Do Differently?

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

Professor, this one's for you .

Introduction

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

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

Steps to Completing a Literature Review

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

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

Get science-backed answers as you write with Paperpal's Research feature

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, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide), five things authors need to know when using..., 7 best referencing tools and citation management software..., maintaining academic integrity with paperpal’s generative ai writing..., research funding basics: what should a grant proposal..., how to write an abstract in research papers..., how to write dissertation acknowledgements, how to structure an essay, leveraging generative ai to enhance student understanding of..., what’s the best chatgpt alternative for academic writing.

Research Methods

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

Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

A literature review is important because it:

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

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

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

Not an essay 

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

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

A literature review serves several purposes. For example, it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Systematic review or meta-analysis?

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

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

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

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

Not all systematic reviews contain meta-analysis. 

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: Research Design >>
• Last Updated: Jul 15, 2024 10:34 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.udel.edu/researchmethods

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

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

What is a literature review?

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

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

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

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

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

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

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

2. Decide on the scope of your review

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

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

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

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

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

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

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

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

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

Tips: 

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

• Library Homepage

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

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

What is a Literature Review?

So, what is a literature review .

"A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. In writing the literature review, your purpose is to convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As a piece of writing, the literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (e.g., your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available or a set of summaries." - Quote from Taylor, D. (n.d)."The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting it".

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

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

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

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

What are the Goals of Creating a Literature Review?

• To develop a theory or evaluate an existing theory
• To summarize the historical or existing state of a research topic
• Identify a problem in a field of research 
• Baumeister, R.F. & Leary, M.R. (1997). "Writing narrative literature reviews," Review of General Psychology , 1(3), 311-320.

When do you need to write a Literature Review?

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

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

Where I can find examples of Literature Reviews?

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

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

Where to Find Standalone Literature Reviews

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

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

Social Sciences

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

Hard science and health sciences:

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

In order to help minimize spread of the coronavirus and protect our campus community, Cowles Library is adjusting our services, hours, and building access. Read more...

• Research, Study, Learning
• Archives & Special Collections

• Cowles Library
• Find Journal Articles
• Find Articles in Related Disciplines
• Find Streaming Video
• Conducting a Literature Review
• Organizations, Associations, Societies
• For Faculty

What is a Literature Review?

Description.

A literature review, also called a review article or review of literature, surveys the existing research on a topic. The term "literature" in this context refers to published research or scholarship in a particular discipline, rather than "fiction" (like American Literature) or an individual work of literature. In general, literature reviews are most common in the sciences and social sciences.

Literature reviews may be written as standalone works, or as part of a scholarly article or research paper. In either case, the purpose of the review is to summarize and synthesize the key scholarly work that has already been done on the topic at hand. The literature review may also include some analysis and interpretation. A literature review is  not  a summary of every piece of scholarly research on a topic.

Why are literature reviews useful?

Literature reviews can be very helpful for newer researchers or those unfamiliar with a field by synthesizing the existing research on a given topic, providing the reader with connections and relationships among previous scholarship. Reviews can also be useful to veteran researchers by identifying potentials gaps in the research or steering future research questions toward unexplored areas. If a literature review is part of a scholarly article, it should include an explanation of how the current article adds to the conversation. (From: https://researchguides.drake.edu/englit/criticism)

How is a literature review different from a research article?

Research articles: "are empirical articles that describe one or several related studies on a specific, quantitative, testable research question....they are typically organized into four text sections: Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion." Source: https://psych.uw.edu/storage/writing_center/litrev.pdf)

Steps for Writing a Literature Review

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

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

2. Conduct a Literature Search

Use a range of keywords to search databases such as PsycINFO and any others that may contain relevant articles.  You should focus on peer-reviewed, scholarly articles . In SuperSearch and most databases, you may find it helpful to select the Advanced Search mode and include "literature review" or "review of the literature" in addition to your other search terms.  Published books may also be helpful, but keep in mind that peer-reviewed articles are widely considered to be the “gold standard” of scientific research.  Read through titles and abstracts, select and obtain articles (that is, download, copy, or print them out), and save your searches as needed. Most of the databases you will need are linked to from the Cowles Library Psychology Research guide .

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

Absorb as much information as you can.  Read through the articles and books that you have found, and as you do, take notes.  The notes should include anything that will be helpful in advancing your own thinking about the topic and in helping you write the literature review (such as key points, ideas, or even page numbers that index key information).  Some references may turn out to be more helpful than others; you may notice patterns or striking contrasts between different sources; and some sources may refer to yet other sources of potential interest.  This is often the most time-consuming part of the review process.  However, it is also where you get to learn about the topic in great detail. You may want to use a Citation Manager to help you keep track of the citations you have found. 

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

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

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

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

6. Incorporate the literature review into your research paper draft. (note: this step is only if you are using the literature review to write a research paper. Many times the literature review is an end unto itself).

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

These steps were taken from: https://psychology.ucsd.edu/undergraduate-program/undergraduate-resources/academic-writing-resources/writing-research-papers/writing-lit-review.html#6.-Incorporate-the-literature-r

• << Previous: Find Streaming Video
• Next: Organizations, Associations, Societies >>
• Last Updated: Jul 1, 2024 2:27 PM
• URL: https://researchguides.drake.edu/psychology

• 2507 University Avenue
• Des Moines, IA 50311
• (515) 271-2111

Trouble finding something? Try searching , or check out the Get Help page.

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
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

How to Do a Systematic Review: A Best Practice Guide for Conducting and Reporting Narrative Reviews, Meta-Analyses, and Meta-Syntheses

Affiliations.

• 1 Behavioural Science Centre, Stirling Management School, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, United Kingdom; email: [email protected].
• 2 Department of Psychological and Behavioural Science, London School of Economics and Political Science, London WC2A 2AE, United Kingdom.
• 3 Department of Statistics, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208, USA; email: [email protected].
• PMID: 30089228
• DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803

Systematic reviews are characterized by a methodical and replicable methodology and presentation. They involve a comprehensive search to locate all relevant published and unpublished work on a subject; a systematic integration of search results; and a critique of the extent, nature, and quality of evidence in relation to a particular research question. The best reviews synthesize studies to draw broad theoretical conclusions about what a literature means, linking theory to evidence and evidence to theory. This guide describes how to plan, conduct, organize, and present a systematic review of quantitative (meta-analysis) or qualitative (narrative review, meta-synthesis) information. We outline core standards and principles and describe commonly encountered problems. Although this guide targets psychological scientists, its high level of abstraction makes it potentially relevant to any subject area or discipline. We argue that systematic reviews are a key methodology for clarifying whether and how research findings replicate and for explaining possible inconsistencies, and we call for researchers to conduct systematic reviews to help elucidate whether there is a replication crisis.

Keywords: evidence; guide; meta-analysis; meta-synthesis; narrative; systematic review; theory.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• The future of Cochrane Neonatal. Soll RF, Ovelman C, McGuire W. Soll RF, et al. Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12. Early Hum Dev. 2020. PMID: 33036834
• Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. Aromataris E, Fernandez R, Godfrey CM, Holly C, Khalil H, Tungpunkom P. Aromataris E, et al. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015 Sep;13(3):132-40. doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000055. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015. PMID: 26360830
• RAMESES publication standards: meta-narrative reviews. Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Buckingham J, Pawson R. Wong G, et al. BMC Med. 2013 Jan 29;11:20. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-11-20. BMC Med. 2013. PMID: 23360661 Free PMC article.
• Development of methodological guidance, publication standards and training materials for realist and meta-narrative reviews: the RAMESES (Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses – Evolving Standards) project. Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Pawson R. Wong G, et al. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2014 Sep. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2014 Sep. PMID: 25642521 Free Books & Documents. Review.
• The application of knowledge synthesis methods in agri-food public health: recent advancements, challenges and opportunities. Young I, Waddell L, Sanchez J, Wilhelm B, McEwen SA, Rajić A. Young I, et al. Prev Vet Med. 2014 Mar 1;113(4):339-55. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.11.009. Epub 2013 Nov 24. Prev Vet Med. 2014. PMID: 24485274 Review.
• Surveillance of Occupational Exposure to Volatile Organic Compounds at Gas Stations: A Scoping Review Protocol. Mendes TMC, Soares JP, Salvador PTCO, Castro JL. Mendes TMC, et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2024 Apr 23;21(5):518. doi: 10.3390/ijerph21050518. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2024. PMID: 38791733 Free PMC article. Review.
• Association between poor sleep and mental health issues in Indigenous communities across the globe: a systematic review. Fernandez DR, Lee R, Tran N, Jabran DS, King S, McDaid L. Fernandez DR, et al. Sleep Adv. 2024 May 2;5(1):zpae028. doi: 10.1093/sleepadvances/zpae028. eCollection 2024. Sleep Adv. 2024. PMID: 38721053 Free PMC article.
• Barriers to ethical treatment of patients in clinical environments: A systematic narrative review. Dehkordi FG, Torabizadeh C, Rakhshan M, Vizeshfar F. Dehkordi FG, et al. Health Sci Rep. 2024 May 1;7(5):e2008. doi: 10.1002/hsr2.2008. eCollection 2024 May. Health Sci Rep. 2024. PMID: 38698790 Free PMC article.
• Studying Adherence to Reporting Standards in Kinesiology: A Post-publication Peer Review Brief Report. Watson NM, Thomas JD. Watson NM, et al. Int J Exerc Sci. 2024 Jan 1;17(7):25-37. eCollection 2024. Int J Exerc Sci. 2024. PMID: 38666001 Free PMC article.
• Evidence for Infant-directed Speech Preference Is Consistent Across Large-scale, Multi-site Replication and Meta-analysis. Zettersten M, Cox C, Bergmann C, Tsui ASM, Soderstrom M, Mayor J, Lundwall RA, Lewis M, Kosie JE, Kartushina N, Fusaroli R, Frank MC, Byers-Heinlein K, Black AK, Mathur MB. Zettersten M, et al. Open Mind (Camb). 2024 Apr 3;8:439-461. doi: 10.1162/opmi_a_00134. eCollection 2024. Open Mind (Camb). 2024. PMID: 38665547 Free PMC article.
• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Ingenta plc
• Ovid Technologies, Inc.

Other Literature Sources

• scite Smart Citations

Miscellaneous

• NCI CPTAC Assay Portal
• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

• Interlibrary Loan and Scan & Deliver
• Course Reserves
• Purchase Request
• Collection Development & Maintenance
• Current Negotiations
• Ask a Librarian
• Instructor Support
• Library How-To
• Research Guides
• Research Support
• Study Rooms
• Research Rooms
• Partner Spaces
• Loanable Equipment
• Print, Scan, Copy
• 3D Printers
• Poster Printing
• OSULP Leadership
• Strategic Plan

Scholarly Articles: How can I tell?

• Journal Information

Literature Review

• Author and affiliation
• Introduction
• Specialized Vocabulary
• Methodology
• Research sponsors
• Peer-review

The literature review section of an article is a summary or analysis of all the research the author read before doing his/her own research. This section may be part of the introduction or in a section called Background. It provides the background on who has done related research, what that research has or has not uncovered and how the current research contributes to the conversation on the topic. When you read the lit review ask:

• Does the review of the literature logically lead up to the research questions?
• Do the authors review articles relevant to their research study?
• Do the authors show where there are gaps in the literature?

The lit review is also a good place to find other sources you may want to read on this topic to help you get the bigger picture.

• << Previous: Journal Information
• Next: Author and affiliation >>
• Last Updated: Apr 15, 2024 3:26 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.oregonstate.edu/ScholarlyArticle

Contact Info

121 The Valley Library Corvallis OR 97331–4501

Phone: 541-737-3331

Services for Persons with Disabilities

In the Valley Library

• Oregon State University Press
• Special Collections and Archives Research Center
• Undergrad Research & Writing Studio
• Graduate Student Commons
• Tutoring Services
• Northwest Art Collection

Digital Projects

• Oregon Explorer
• Oregon Digital
• ScholarsArchive@OSU
• Digital Publishing Initiatives
• Atlas of the Pacific Northwest
• Marilyn Potts Guin Library  
• Cascades Campus Library
• McDowell Library of Vet Medicine

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• Write for Us
• BMJ Journals

You are here

• Volume 24, Issue 2
• Five tips for developing useful literature summary tables for writing review articles
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0157-5319 Ahtisham Younas 1 , 2 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7839-8130 Parveen Ali 3 , 4
• 1 Memorial University of Newfoundland , St John's , Newfoundland , Canada
• 2 Swat College of Nursing , Pakistan
• 3 School of Nursing and Midwifery , University of Sheffield , Sheffield , South Yorkshire , UK
• 4 Sheffield University Interpersonal Violence Research Group , Sheffield University , Sheffield , UK
• Correspondence to Ahtisham Younas, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St John's, NL A1C 5C4, Canada; ay6133{at}mun.ca

https://doi.org/10.1136/ebnurs-2021-103417

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

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

Introduction

Literature reviews offer a critical synthesis of empirical and theoretical literature to assess the strength of evidence, develop guidelines for practice and policymaking, and identify areas for future research. 1 It is often essential and usually the first task in any research endeavour, particularly in masters or doctoral level education. For effective data extraction and rigorous synthesis in reviews, the use of literature summary tables is of utmost importance. A literature summary table provides a synopsis of an included article. It succinctly presents its purpose, methods, findings and other relevant information pertinent to the review. The aim of developing these literature summary tables is to provide the reader with the information at one glance. Since there are multiple types of reviews (eg, systematic, integrative, scoping, critical and mixed methods) with distinct purposes and techniques, 2 there could be various approaches for developing literature summary tables making it a complex task specialty for the novice researchers or reviewers. Here, we offer five tips for authors of the review articles, relevant to all types of reviews, for creating useful and relevant literature summary tables. We also provide examples from our published reviews to illustrate how useful literature summary tables can be developed and what sort of information should be provided.

Tip 1: provide detailed information about frameworks and methods

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Tabular literature summaries from a scoping review. Source: Rasheed et al . 3

The provision of information about conceptual and theoretical frameworks and methods is useful for several reasons. First, in quantitative (reviews synthesising the results of quantitative studies) and mixed reviews (reviews synthesising the results of both qualitative and quantitative studies to address a mixed review question), it allows the readers to assess the congruence of the core findings and methods with the adapted framework and tested assumptions. In qualitative reviews (reviews synthesising results of qualitative studies), this information is beneficial for readers to recognise the underlying philosophical and paradigmatic stance of the authors of the included articles. For example, imagine the authors of an article, included in a review, used phenomenological inquiry for their research. In that case, the review authors and the readers of the review need to know what kind of (transcendental or hermeneutic) philosophical stance guided the inquiry. Review authors should, therefore, include the philosophical stance in their literature summary for the particular article. Second, information about frameworks and methods enables review authors and readers to judge the quality of the research, which allows for discerning the strengths and limitations of the article. For example, if authors of an included article intended to develop a new scale and test its psychometric properties. To achieve this aim, they used a convenience sample of 150 participants and performed exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the same sample. Such an approach would indicate a flawed methodology because EFA and CFA should not be conducted on the same sample. The review authors must include this information in their summary table. Omitting this information from a summary could lead to the inclusion of a flawed article in the review, thereby jeopardising the review’s rigour.

Tip 2: include strengths and limitations for each article

Critical appraisal of individual articles included in a review is crucial for increasing the rigour of the review. Despite using various templates for critical appraisal, authors often do not provide detailed information about each reviewed article’s strengths and limitations. Merely noting the quality score based on standardised critical appraisal templates is not adequate because the readers should be able to identify the reasons for assigning a weak or moderate rating. Many recent critical appraisal checklists (eg, Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool) discourage review authors from assigning a quality score and recommend noting the main strengths and limitations of included studies. It is also vital that methodological and conceptual limitations and strengths of the articles included in the review are provided because not all review articles include empirical research papers. Rather some review synthesises the theoretical aspects of articles. Providing information about conceptual limitations is also important for readers to judge the quality of foundations of the research. For example, if you included a mixed-methods study in the review, reporting the methodological and conceptual limitations about ‘integration’ is critical for evaluating the study’s strength. Suppose the authors only collected qualitative and quantitative data and did not state the intent and timing of integration. In that case, the strength of the study is weak. Integration only occurred at the levels of data collection. However, integration may not have occurred at the analysis, interpretation and reporting levels.

Tip 3: write conceptual contribution of each reviewed article

While reading and evaluating review papers, we have observed that many review authors only provide core results of the article included in a review and do not explain the conceptual contribution offered by the included article. We refer to conceptual contribution as a description of how the article’s key results contribute towards the development of potential codes, themes or subthemes, or emerging patterns that are reported as the review findings. For example, the authors of a review article noted that one of the research articles included in their review demonstrated the usefulness of case studies and reflective logs as strategies for fostering compassion in nursing students. The conceptual contribution of this research article could be that experiential learning is one way to teach compassion to nursing students, as supported by case studies and reflective logs. This conceptual contribution of the article should be mentioned in the literature summary table. Delineating each reviewed article’s conceptual contribution is particularly beneficial in qualitative reviews, mixed-methods reviews, and critical reviews that often focus on developing models and describing or explaining various phenomena. Figure 2 offers an example of a literature summary table. 4

Tabular literature summaries from a critical review. Source: Younas and Maddigan. 4

Tip 4: compose potential themes from each article during summary writing

While developing literature summary tables, many authors use themes or subthemes reported in the given articles as the key results of their own review. Such an approach prevents the review authors from understanding the article’s conceptual contribution, developing rigorous synthesis and drawing reasonable interpretations of results from an individual article. Ultimately, it affects the generation of novel review findings. For example, one of the articles about women’s healthcare-seeking behaviours in developing countries reported a theme ‘social-cultural determinants of health as precursors of delays’. Instead of using this theme as one of the review findings, the reviewers should read and interpret beyond the given description in an article, compare and contrast themes, findings from one article with findings and themes from another article to find similarities and differences and to understand and explain bigger picture for their readers. Therefore, while developing literature summary tables, think twice before using the predeveloped themes. Including your themes in the summary tables (see figure 1 ) demonstrates to the readers that a robust method of data extraction and synthesis has been followed.

Tip 5: create your personalised template for literature summaries

Often templates are available for data extraction and development of literature summary tables. The available templates may be in the form of a table, chart or a structured framework that extracts some essential information about every article. The commonly used information may include authors, purpose, methods, key results and quality scores. While extracting all relevant information is important, such templates should be tailored to meet the needs of the individuals’ review. For example, for a review about the effectiveness of healthcare interventions, a literature summary table must include information about the intervention, its type, content timing, duration, setting, effectiveness, negative consequences, and receivers and implementers’ experiences of its usage. Similarly, literature summary tables for articles included in a meta-synthesis must include information about the participants’ characteristics, research context and conceptual contribution of each reviewed article so as to help the reader make an informed decision about the usefulness or lack of usefulness of the individual article in the review and the whole review.

In conclusion, narrative or systematic reviews are almost always conducted as a part of any educational project (thesis or dissertation) or academic or clinical research. Literature reviews are the foundation of research on a given topic. Robust and high-quality reviews play an instrumental role in guiding research, practice and policymaking. However, the quality of reviews is also contingent on rigorous data extraction and synthesis, which require developing literature summaries. We have outlined five tips that could enhance the quality of the data extraction and synthesis process by developing useful literature summaries.

• Aromataris E ,
• Rasheed SP ,

Twitter @Ahtisham04, @parveenazamali

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

Competing interests None declared.

Patient consent for publication Not required.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

• Open access
• Published: 16 July 2024

Interprofessional education in cancer care – a scoping review

• Virpi Sulosaari   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0898-3297 1 ,
• Nikolina Dodlek   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0534-721X 2 ,
• Andreas Brandl   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1990-2584 3 ,
• Johan De Munter 4 ,
• Jesper Grau Eriksen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1145-6033 5 ,
• Wendy McInally   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9900-4612 6 ,
• Niall O’Higgins 7 ,
• Kim Benstead   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5106-7438 8 &
• Celia Díez de los Ríos de la Serna   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2630-2106 9  

BMC Medical Education volume  24 , Article number:  767 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

280 Accesses

7 Altmetric

Metrics details

Comprehensive cancer care requires effective collaboration by interprofessional healthcare teams. The need to develop educational initiatives to improve interprofessional collaboration is increasingly recognised. However, there is no agreement regarding the interprofessional competencies required for effective cancer care leading to much variation on the focus of research, planning and managing change. A scoping review was conducted to identify the current status of IPE in cancer care and to summarise the results of previous research in order to guide the development of interprofessional education in cancer care.

The JBI Scoping Review guidelines were used to guide the process of the review. A search of the available literature was conducted in CINAHL, MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, PsycInfo, Scopus databases from January 2012 to March 2023 to investigate IPE for health professional clinicians working in cancer care.

Of the 825 initial references and 153 studies imported for screening, a total of 28 studies were included in the final review. From those studies, seven focused on the need for IPE and interprofessional competence for oncology healthcare professionals, four reviewed existing IPE programs and 17 described the development and evaluation of interprofessional education. Findings show variation and lack of concept definitions underpinning research in IPE in cancer care settings. Variation also exists in the range of research activities in IPE, most notably related to communication, teamwork and the development of interprofessional practice. The evaluation of impact of IPE is mainly focused on health care professionals’ self-evaluation and general feedback. Impact on patient care was only evaluated in one study.

Conclusions

Based on the results, interprofessional education research in the field of cancer care is limited in Europe. Thus, there is a significant increase in publications in the last five years. A more systematic focus on the theoretical framework and definition of concepts would be of value. Research and programme development should be based on a shared understanding on what constitutes the interprofessional competences and IPE. Programmes to develop interprofessional practice should be developed and implemented systematically with inclusion of validated assessment methods, and evaluated and improved regularly.

Peer Review reports

Over the last decade, there has been increased interest in developing educational initiatives to improve interprofessional collaboration and practice in the cancer care setting [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 ]. Non-communicable and life-style related diseases, including cancer, are among the biggest challenges facing EU health systems and countries, causing illness, premature death and associated social and economic costs. The number of cancer cases is expected to increase in Europe by 24% by the year 2035 [ 8 ]. As the demand in cancer care continues to increase, health systems require a workforce of educated oncology specialists and professions to provide continuity and sustainability of care. Current educational systems have yet to match all the requirements needed in cancer care [ 9 ]. Furthermore, quality cancer care requires effective collaboration by an interprofessional healthcare team [ 10 , 11 ]. People with cancer benefit when the health care professionals caring for them, not only collaborate, but strive to learn from each other [ 12 ].

Interprofessional collaboration can be defined as collaborative interaction among experts with different professional backgrounds involved in care of people with cancer and who share common goals [ 13 ]. Models vary across cancer units [ 14 ] and can involve professionals from different oncology specialties (radiation, medical and surgical oncologists) and disciplines (such as pathology), professionals from nursing and social affairs and allied health professions such as physiotherapists, psychologists, nutritionists and speech therapists [ 15 ]. Professionals from varying disciplines and professions have different knowledge bases, premises and competences for cancer care and interprofessional collaboration [ 10 , 11 ]. Interprofessional healthcare teams need to understand how to optimize the skills of their members, share case management and provide better health services to patients and the community. Such collaboration results in a strengthened health system and leads to improved health outcomes [ 12 ]. Furthermore, effective communication is important not only for patients but for the well-being of all healthcare professionals (HCPs) [ 16 ]. Thus, interprofessional practice requires effective leadership,administrative support [ 17 , 18 ] and continuous evaluation [ 18 ].

According to The Centre for the Advancement of Interprofessional Education (CAIPE) interprofessional education (IPE) concept can be defined as occasions when two or more professionals learn with, from and about each other to improve collaboration and the quality of care [ 19 ]. The primary goal of IPE is to improve patient care by better interprofessional collaboration [ 6 ]. This concept should be reflected in the training of cancer care workforce. In oncology, the concept of multidisciplinary care is an established part of the clinical practice [ 20 ]. Training of oncology specialists and professions needs to recognise the value of interprofessional care. Interprofessional collaboration has been seen as necessary for example in precision oncology [ 21 ] and radiation oncology [ 22 ], but IPE programmes vary substantially across countries [ 23 ]. In Europe, many professional societies provide opportunities for post graduate training for medical professions. The existing training curricula of ESTRO (European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology), ESSO (European Society of Surgical Oncology and ESMO (European Society for Medical Oncology), all recognise the importance of interdisciplinary knowledge and understanding among specialists in radiation oncology, cancer surgery and medical oncology. Yet, gaps exist in mutual understanding among the three disciplines on interprofessional practice [ 24 ]. Very few training programmes in the European curricula for oncology specialists involve formal interdisciplinary attachments or integrated interprofessional approach on cancer care. These deficits limit both the scope and the value of interdisciplinary collaboration and the drive for better care. Interdisciplinary dialogue also drives standards and improves communication [ 24 ].

In 2010, the World Health Organization issued a report Framework for Action on Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Practice stipulating that teamwork is the first among interprofessional learning domains in a clinical setting, the others being roles and responsibilities, communication, learning and critical reflection, understanding of the needs of the patient, and ethical practice [ 12 ]. Interprofessional learning (IPL) has become a more prominent feature of health professional education at both pre-qualification and post-qualification levels. While the terms interprofessional learning (IPL) and interprofessional education (IPE) may relate to differing processes, with IPL focusing more on micro learning processes and IPE being more strongly reflective of an overarching educational framework, they tend to be used interchangeably in the existing literature [ 25 ].

Recent research relates to collaborative practice skills within clinical oncology [ 2 ] and radiation oncology [ 6 ] in determination of the impact and value of interprofessional learning [ 26 ] and interprofessional communication [ 27 ]. Among the barriers to successful implementation on interprofessional education, are the variations, both in definition and in concept, underlying research on IPE. Commonly used concepts are ‘interprofessional learning’ and ‘interprofessional education’. However, recently, the European Commission has launched the concept of ‘inter-specialty training’ to combine education and training of medical, nursing and allied health professionals in the cancer care setting [ 28 ]. The concept was defined later by McInally et al. (2023): “Inter-specialty training in oncology occurs when two or more specialties within professions collaborate by learning and interacting with each other during training in order to provide high quality cancer care” [ 29 ]. However, in order to understand the context of previous studies and to inform both training programmes and future research it was considered that a scoping review was required.

The objective of this scoping review was to describe the extent and type of evidence regarding interprofessional education (IPE) in oncology. The aim was to identify how IPE has been defined, how methodology underlying the research and implementation of the IPE has been utilised, describe the state of IPE in oncology. This review is part of a European collaborative project on inter-specialty training with the intention of providing useful training programmes across Europe and beyond (INTERACT-EUROPE).

Methodology

The current review followed the scoping review methodology. This type of evidence synthesis aims to systematically identify and map the breadth of evidence available on a particular topic, field, concept or issue. Scoping reviews can clarify key concept definitions in the literature and identify key characteristics or factors related to this concept [ 30 ]. The scoping review involved five stages: 1), Development of a scoping review protocol including research questions, and the purpose of the study; 2) Literature search on CINAHL, MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, PsycInfo, Scopus data bases [ 3 ], Selection of studies, 4) Data extraction, 5) qualitative analysis and presentation of results.

The questions guiding the scoping review were:

How has IPE been defined in previous research in cancer care?

What competences have been used to guide the curriculum development of IPE in cancer care?

What teaching, learning and assessment methods have been used in previous studies?

The PRISMA checklist extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) was used to guide the process of the review. A detailed scoping review protocol was produced including databases and subject headings [ 31 ]. MESH terms, when applicable, were used to capture all the relevant literature. In consultation with a librarian, initial search titles and abstracts ( N  = 825) were reviewed by one researcher. All 153 items identified in this way were then downloaded into Covidence Systematic Review software (r) for further screening by three researchers. This process was followed by full text screening by the same researchers to identify articles that met the specified inclusion criteria.

Data retrieval protocol

Databases: CINAHL, MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, PsycInfo, Scopus

The PCC that featured the search: P(articipants) = oncology medical professionals (medical oncologist, radiation oncologist, oncology surgeon) and nurses, C(oncept) = inter-specialty or interprofessional education or interprofessional learning, C(ontext) = Cancer care setting

Inclusion: Quantitative, qualitative studies and systematic reviews; papers with focus on IPE/IPL, development of interprofessional collaboration and teamwork through IPE; teaching, learning and assessment methods of IPE in the context of oncology.

Exclusion: Editorials, discussion papers, focus on other healthcare professionals outside oncology setting, non-oncological professionals, only on pre-registration students, conference abstracts and proceedings.

Limits: English language, 2012–2022 original search, updated search – to April 2023.

The main search terms: clinical oncology [MESH], medical oncology [MESH], radiation oncology [MESH], surgical oncology [MESH], oncology nursing [MESH], interprofessional training, interprofessional education, interdisciplinary education, interprofessional learning, interspecialty training, inter-specialty training.

Any conflicting screening results were discussed and decisions were made collaboratively. Full-text articles were filtered and reviewed. A data extraction sheet was pre-planned to extract the key information of the studies and reviews including authors, year, country, purpose of the study or review, study or review type and method, concept used, definition of concepts, interprofessional learning or education focus and/or competences, programme characteristics, teaching, assessment, and evaluation methods used and the main results.The data were extracted by three researchers and analysed with narrative content analysis. The process, analysis and summary of results were further discussed with the full research group including all the authors.

Characteristics of the studies

A total of 28 studies were identified through database searching, of which one study was identified by reviewing reference lists (Fig.  1 ). There were fourteen quantitative studies, four reviews, six mixed methods studies and four qualitative studies (Table  1 ). The articles reported interprofessional educational programmes in United States ( n  = 15), Canada ( n  = 7), United Kingdom ( n  = 3), Denmark ( n  = 1), Germany ( n  = 1) and Switzerland ( n  = 1). Articles were published between 2012 and 2022. Nineteen of the articles were published in the last five years. From the included papers eight focused on describing the need and competences of oncology healthcare professionals [ 3 , 4 , 6 , 9 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 ], three reviewed existing IPE [ 1 , 36 , 37 ] or the development and evaluation ( n  = 17) of oncology interprofessional training [ 2 , 5 , 16 , 22 , 26 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 ]. The target groups of the IPE included nurses, pharmacists, physicians (medical oncology, surgical oncology, radiation oncology and palliative care), radiographers, technicians and staff with healthcare backgrounds such as psychology, occupational therapy and other support workers (such as social workers, chaplaincy, or administration staff in contact with oncology patients).

Data retrieval

Collaborative care in cancer

In oncology, medical, nursing and allied health professionals provide complex care in an interprofessional context [ 33 , 37 , 41 , 45 ]. To provide the best treatment and care for people with cancer, healthcare professionals are required to collaborate [ 1 , 37 ]. According to Head et al. (2022) interprofessional collaborative practice is an essential component of quality healthcare in oncology [ 42 ]. Effective interprofessional care was seen as necessary to provide optimal care for patients [ 16 ], improve the safety of care delivery [ 38 ] and better outcomes of patient care [ 16 , 32 , 38 ].

Terminology

Eight of the papers [ 3 , 6 , 26 , 32 , 34 , 35 , 37 , 44 ] reported using the concept of IPE or IPL with reference to existing definition in literature. One study used the concept of “Interprofessional clinical training “ [ 38 ], one “Interdisciplinary education and training”, and one “Multidisciplinary education and training” [ 49 ], however no definition of these concepts were provided [ 36 ]. None used the concept of ‘inter-specialty or interspecialty education or training’. Nine of the included papers had some concepts described but did not include clear definitions and eleven had no mention or definition of IPE or IPL. (Appendix Table).

The concept of interprofessional education (IPE) can be seen as a means to improve health system function and delivery of care [ 34 ]. In order to achieve positive transformations in healthcare delivery, healthcare professionals (HCPs) must develop skills in interprofessional collaborative practice [ 42 ]. The principles of IPE should be embedded into every aspect of programs [ 36 ]. IPE would ideally result in greater understanding and improved communication between disciplines and professions [ 22 , 32 , 36 ], improved coordination [ 32 , 36 , 39 ], enhance team-based care management [ 32 ] and optimize more culturally affirming care [ 46 ]. Desired outcomes from IPE include also articulating one’s professional role as well as those of other professions, mutual respect, trust and willingness to collaborate [ 5 ].

Competency domains

In the field of oncology, increasing and building on a set of foundational knowledge, skills, and attitudes within physical, psychological, social/cultural, and spiritual domains, and collaborating with other HCPs, an early learner/novice practitioner will move towards an identity as an expert interprofessional practitioner. A competence framework on the shared set of competencies can bring professionals together, while recognizing the individuality of each profession as possessing distinct and complementary skills [ 9 ].

Of the papers describing competence framework development for interprofessional education, one focused on finding consensus on shared interprofessional competences in oncology [ 9 ], one on teamwork competences [ 32 ], one on integrative oncology [ 35 ], one on communication skills [ 36 ], one on cultural competence [ 46 ], two on paediatric oncology [ 1 , 37 ], one on palliative care in oncology [ 42 ], two on psychosocial training needs in oncology [ 4 , 33 ] and three papers described the specific needs of radiation oncology professionals [ 3 , 6 , 34 ]. Development of frameworks considered the challenges to effective coordination and the impact on patient and clinical outcomes as essential to optimal, high-quality care [ 32 ].

Four of the papers reported development competences for IPE. The development process was informed by guidance from an expert advisory panel with a Delphi study based on a literature review in two of the studies [ 9 , 35 ]. Both Esplen and colleagues [ 9 ] and Wells-Di Gregorio and colleagues [ 33 ] started from domains proposed by an expert subgroup, Esplen and colleagues [ 9 ] incorporating also focus group interviews. In the Warsi et al. (2022) study the focus group was used to determine intervention objectives [ 49 ]. The expert panels all involved oncology professionals, and one [ 35 ] included patient and public representatives. All included shared competences divided into the domains of knowledge, skills and attitudes.

Participants

Target groups included in six of ten studies multidisciplinary professionals working in general oncology [ 16 , 38 , 39 , 45 , 46 , 47 ], four in radiation oncology [ 2 , 22 , 26 , 44 ], one in gynaecology-oncology [ 43 ], one in paediatrics [ 48 ] and four in different departments within the hospital or in primary care [ 5 , 40 , 41 , 49 ]. Focus on the programmes varied. Thus, interprofessional collaboration and practice in general was included in the learning goals of the IPE in six papers [ 3 , 6 , 9 , 25 , 35 ], communication in five papers [ 9 , 16 , 26 , 35 , 39 ] and teamwork in [ 2 , 3 , 22 , 26 , 39 , 46 ] representing the main areas of interest of IPE in the cancer care setting.

Five studies described existing IPE education [ 6 , 36 , 37 , 42 , 46 ], while two focused on paediatric oncology [ 1 , 37 ] and one on interdisciplinary education [ 36 ]. Three of the studies used literature reviews to identify IPE [ 1 , 37 , 49 ] and one [ 36 ] got the information from a survey carried out by oncology physicians from different specialties.

Teaching methods

Teaching methods varied in methods and usefulness and included face-to-face and web-based didactic content such as lectures, workshops, educational sessions, role play and reflections. Three papers concluded that there is a lack of interdisciplinary education in oncology and also highlighted the value of IPE to professionals. (Table  2 ). Teaching varied in time from a one hour-long discussion group session accompanied by online modules [ 48 ] to a year-long course [ 44 ]. The mode of delivery also varied including simulated cases and scenarios ( n  = 5) [ 2 , 16 , 22 , 26 , 40 ] some specified having standardized patients [ 2 , 16 ] and others were cases discussed and developed in teams [ 22 , 26 , 40 ] and/or by use of self-reflection [ 16 ]. Five of the studies included e-learning modules [ 5 , 16 , 38 , 41 , 48 ] alone [ 38 , 41 ] or in combination with face-to-face training [ 5 , 16 , 48 ]; in the case of the other nine, all the training was face-to-face [ 2 , 22 , 26 , 38 , 40 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 47 ] All but one of the studies were focused on learners. One exception was based on a train-the-trainer model [ 39 ].

Of the 18 papers which described the evaluation of IPE programme (Table  3 ), 11 described also the development process [ 5 , 22 , 26 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 44 , 46 , 48 , 49 ].

In the evaluation of education programmes, ten used pre- and post-programme evaluation methods [ 5 , 16 , 22 , 26 , 38 , 40 , 41 , 45 , 47 , 48 ], two had mixed methods with observation and surveys [ 2 , 39 ], one used qualitative evaluation with semi-structured interviews [ 45 ] and one compared the professionals participating with participants from other education activities [ 44 ]. General feedback surveys with participant satisfaction were the most common programme evaluation surveys developed for the studies.

Studies included samples of between four [ 44 ] and 1,138 participants [ 41 ]. Three of the studies included three-month follow-ups [ 38 , 43 , 48 ] and three studies, six-month evaluation follow-ups [ 43 , 48 , 49 ] indicating that gained intervention outcomes were sustained in the long term.

The following instruments were used to evaluate the impact of the IPE: (i) Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale [ 3 , 22 , 26 ], (ii) UWE Entry Level Interprofessional Questionnaire [ 22 ], (iii) Trainee Test of Team Dynamics and Collaborative Behaviours Scale (CBS) [ 22 ], (iv) Assessment of Cultural Competence using the Intercultural Development Inventory [ 40 ], (v) Frommelt Attitudes Toward Caring of the Dying [ 40 ], (vi) Attitudes Toward Health-Care Teams Scale [ 3 ], (vii) Attitudes Toward Interdisciplinary Learning Scale [ 3 ], (viii) Self-Efficacy for Interprofessional Experiential Learning Scale and End-of-Life Professional Caregiver Survey [ 1 ], (ix) Cultural Competency Assessment (CCA), Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Development of Clinical Skills Scale (LGBT-DOCSS), (x) Interprofessional Socialization and Valuing Scale (ISVS) [ 46 ].

Other studies included in the review describe Delphi methods [ 9 ] and focus group interviews [ 4 , 6 , 9 , 33 , 39 , 45 ] and instruments developed for the purpose of the study [ 5 , 38 , 39 , 43 ].

Participants had positive reactions to the programmes indicating them as a promising strategy in improving cancer care [ 38 ]. They reported high levels of satisfaction [ 26 ], including improved relations within the team [ 22 ], the acquisition of new skills [ 41 ] as well as cross-cultural competence [ 40 ]. Confidence among the participants also increased [ 41 ]. Participants reported that they would highly recommend these programmes to their colleagues [ 2 ].

Participants considered that these educational events were valuable. They helped in areas such as consolidating communication, improving dialogue [ 5 ], valuing leadership [ 42 , 44 ] and better understanding of spiritual needs [ 48 ]. These programmes also improved understanding of specific issues such as the effects of therapy on patients, the place of palliative care, management of pain and other symptoms and quality of life [ 47 ] and also a comprehension of the legal issues surrounding cancer [ 43 ].

There was s tatistically significant improvement in knowledge of teamwork principles [ 39 ] developing shared mental models, cross-monitoring situational awareness and effective conflict resolution, agreements about roles and responsibilities [ 22 ], and behaviours. Participants valued the opportunity to gain the perspective of other professions, connecting with colleagues from other disciplines practising crisis response in a simulated environment [ 2 ], and demonstrating lower levels of concern and anxiety when communicating with other professionals [ 44 ]. Some participants incorporated meditation into their daily routine by involving other family members and making it part of a “family routine” [ 45 ].

Significant improvement was also noted in increased comfort when discussing survivorship issues with patients. Significant increase in knowledge of survivorship care for five types of cancer, more confidence in ability to explain a Survivorship Care Plan (SCP), and increased comfort in discussing late effects of cancer treatment [ 47 ] were all reported. The main challenges were “breaking down the walls and being more comfortable with vulnerability” [ 45 ], and in being more open-minded after training [ 43 ]. Training increased IPE recognition of participants’ home institutions [ 42 ].

To the best of our knowledge, this work is the first scoping review summarising the existing research on interprofessional education and learning in the cancer care setting. We identified 28 articles published between January 2012 and March 2023 with a significant increase in publication in the last five years. The results indicate growing interest of interprofessional education in this setting. Interestingly, most of the studies and reviews identified were from US and Canada, showing the need for further research and collaboration in Europe.

This highlights and strengthens the need for collaborative initiatives and projects such as INTERACT-EUROPE, launched in 2022. The project is based on the EU Beating Cancer Plan 2021 in which the concept of “inter-specialty training” was launched to combine education and training of medical, nursing and allied health professionals in the cancer care setting [ 27 ]. This extends the use of specialty to also include different professionals, not only specialties among one profession [ 29 ]. The EU Beating Cancer Plan is a key strategy document for cancer care development across Europe, including the training of cancer care workforce. The concept will be used in the European training programmes. Therefore, it was important to understand its similarities and differences with most used concepts, especially, interprofessional education (IPE). One important aim of the review was to identify the concepts used in research and IPE development in the field. We found that interprofessional education [ 3 , 4 , 6 , 9 , 16 , 22 , 26 , 33 , 36 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 45 ] is the most common term used. However, it seems that, in the oncology setting, there is need for improving the theoretical underpinnings of education research on interprofessional education. Inter-specialty training and interprofessional education are very similar. Thus, inter-specialty as a concept could refer to education including only specialities of one profession. To enhance the interprofessional practice it is, however, important to be inclusive for all professionals of the multidisciplinary teams. From 11 studies and reviews using the IPE or IPL, only eight studies defined or described the concept. In the McInally et al., (2023) study, medical doctors and nurses from the oncology field, expressed lack of understanding of the inter-specialty training as a concept [ 29 ]. IPE may have been more familiar to participants; however, the results of the study and our review indicate that conceptual clarity is needed in future studies and development of inter-specialty training.

The illustrates the multidisciplinary context of cancer care settings and the need for professionals to work together for people with cancer to achieve optimal care outcomes [ 10 , 11 , 50 ]. Interprofessional education, bringing the professionals together, can improve interprofessional practice and collaboration. According to our results, participants evaluate IPE positively and improving the collaboration. To support the development of interprofessional practice in oncology, as described in the WHO Interprofessional Collaborative Practice framework, describing and defining the common competences for inter-specialty training programme is important [ 12 ].

The shared set of competences in oncology practice included interprofessional collaboration, recognition and understanding or needs and experiences of a person affected by cancer, person-centred care and service approach, communication skills, use of technology in care delivery and understanding of one’s own limits and ability for self-care. James et al., (2016) also highlighted the values and ethics, roles and responsibilities [ 2 ] and Koo et al., (2014) attitudes towards interprofessional collaboration, in addition to communication competences and teamwork capabilities [ 3 ]. The above-mentioned are also key elements of interprofessional education. The aim is not for learners to master all the disciplines and professional expertise, but more about understanding the expertise of different professions and what they need to know about the specialty or the profession to work efficiently together [ 2 ]. Thus, our review provides information also on the common foci of the programmes in addition to more general interprofessional practice and team work focus; care and symptom management [ 2 , 22 ], paediatric oncology (1, 36, 47 ), safety [ 38 , 39 ], psycho-social oncology and psycho-oncology [ 4 , 5 , 33 , 43 ], palliative and end-of-life care [ 1 , 40 , 43 ], spiritual care [ 48 ], integrative oncology [ 35 ], survivorship [ 41 , 47 ] and well-being at work of healthcare professionals [ 45 ]. Although, our review focused on oncology, findings on theoretical underpinnings of the studies and programmes, teaching methods and evaluation of IPE could be used on other specialties also.

A variety of methods was used on the IPE. The content and focus and learning goals of IPE, and what constitutes interprofessional education varied between the studies and reviews. This has been highlighted also as common to IPE by the Committee on Measuring the Impact of Interprofessional Education on Collaborative Practice and Patient Outcomes (2015) [ 51 ]. Programme evaluation was mostly limited on participant satisfaction and feedback on delivery of the education. The evaluation methods mostly used in evaluation of the impact of education interventions were knowledge tests, behaviour change, confidence, comfort, intention to change practice and self-assessment of preparedness, Previously validated instruments were used in five studies [ 3 , 22 , 26 , 40 , 46 ], but it was common to use survey instruments developed for the study. Impact on patient care was not often measured. In one study patient incidence reports were included [ 14 ]. This result demonstrates a need for more systematic use of previously developed evaluation and assessment methods when appropriate, but also extent the evaluation of impact on care.

Limitations

A limitation of this study is that only publications in English were included. Neglecting the potential data of studies from non-English speaking countries can have an impact on the results. Furthermore, we used broad subject headings with Boolean operators in search of literature, but it is possible that we did not find all the papers published. To decrease this risk, a professional librarian was consulted in the literature search process. We did not include studies focusing only on one specific cancer type, and this also needs to be seen as a limitation. As is common in scoping reviews, the quality of publications was not assessed, and we included papers with a variety of methods in the review. This needs to be recognised in interpreting the results. Thus, this review approach produced more rich data for describing the current state of IPE in cancer care.

Based on the review, research on interprofessional education in the field of cancer care is limited. The need for interprofessional education is well recognised, yet provision and research in this field needs to be increased to enhance quality, person-centred care for people affected by cancer and efficient delivery of cancer care. In the future research would benefit from a more systematic approach to underpinning the theoretical framework on IPE. The evaluation of impact of IPE is currently mainly focused on HCPs perspective. Further research is needed to evaluate the impact on patient care. It is also evident that research and IPE programme development is very limited in the European context and therefore research is needed to strengthen the IPE development in Europe.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article. Clinical Trial Number: N/A.

Abbreviations

Interprofessional Education

Interprofessional Learning

Healthcare Professional

Green SB, Markaki A. Interprofessional palliative care education for pediatric oncology clinicians: an evidence-based practice review. BMC Res Notes. 2018;11(1):797.

Article   Google Scholar  

James TA, Page JS, Sprague J. Promoting interprofessional collaboration in oncology through a teamwork skills simulation programme. J Interprof Care. 2016;30(4):539–41.

Koo K, et al. Exploring attitudes of Canadian radiation oncologists, radiation therapists, physicists, and oncology nurses regarding interprofessional teaching and learning. J Cancer Educ. 2014;29(2):350–7.

Laffan AJ, Daniels J, Osborn M. Profiling the psychological training and support needs of Oncology Staff, and evaluating the effectiveness of a level 2 psychological support training program workshop. J Psychosoc Oncol. 2015;33(6):686–702.

McLeod D, et al. The Interprofessional Psychosocial Oncology Distance Education (IPODE) project: perceived outcomes of an approach to healthcare professional education. J Interprof Care. 2014;28(3):254–9.

Schultz OA, et al. Qualitative study of Interprofessional Collaboration in Radiation Oncology Clinics: is there a need for further education? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2021;109(3):661–9.

Yeh PH, et al. Implementing web-based ping-pong-type e-communication to enhance staff satisfaction, multidisciplinary cooperation, and clinical effectiveness: a SQUIRE-compliant quality-improving study. Med (Baltim). 2016;95(44):e5236.

Mission EU. Cancer. European Commission 2020. https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-open-calls/horizon-europe/eu-missions-horizon-europe/eu-mission-cancer_en .

Esplen MJ, Hunter J, Maheu C, et al. De Souza interprofessional practice cancer competency framework. Support Care Cancer. 2020;28(2):797–808.

Chiew KL, et al. A narrative synthesis of the quality of cancer care and development of an integrated conceptual framework. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2018;27(6):e12881.

Denton E, Conron M. Improving outcomes in lung cancer: the value of the multidisciplinary health care team. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2016;9:137–44.

Google Scholar  

World Health Organisation [WHO]. Framework for Action on Interprofessional Education & Collaborative Practice. 2010. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/70185/1/WHO_HRH_HPN_10.3_eng.pdf .

Siekkinen M, et al. Work empowerment among cancer care professionals: a cross-sectional study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(1):502.

Bunnell CA, et al. Models of multidisciplinary cancer care: physician and patient perceptions in a comprehensive cancer center. J Oncol Pract. 2010;6(6):283–8.

Prades J, et al. Is it worth reorganising cancer services on the basis of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs)? A systematic review of the objectives and organisation of MDTs and their impact on patient outcomes. Health Policy. 2015;119(4):464–74.

Papadakos CT, et al. Effectiveness of a Multiprofessional, Online and Simulation-based difficult conversations training program on self-perceived competence of Oncology Healthcare Provider trainees. J Cancer Educ. 2021;36(5):1030–8.

Moilanen T et al. Leadership and administrative support for interprofessional collaboration in a cancer center. J Health Organ Manag. 2020;ahead-of-print.

Moilanen T, et al. Healthcare professionals’ perceptions of the pre-requisites and realisation of interprofessional collaboration in cancer care. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2020;29(1):e13197.

The Centre for the Advancement of Interprofessional Education [CAIPE]. INTERPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION. Today, Yesterday and Tomorrow – a review. 2002 https://www.caipe.org/resources/publications/caipe-publications/caipe-2002-interprofessional-education-today-yesterday-tomorrow-barr-h .

Benstead K, et al. Multidisciplinary training of cancer specialists in Europe. Eur J Cancer. 2017;83:1–8.

Chamala S, et al. Building a precision oncology workforce by multidisciplinary and case-based learning. BMC Med Educ. 2021;21(1):75.

Gillan C et al. (2015). Team-based clinical simulation in radiation medicine: value to attitudes and perceptions of interprofessional collaboration. J Radiother Pract. 2015; 14, 114–25.

Herath C, et al. A comparative study of interprofessional education in global health care: a systematic review. Med (Baltim). 2017;96(38):e7336.

O’Higgins N, et al. Interdisciplinary training for cancer specialists: the time has come. Radiother Oncol. 2018;129(3):415–6.

Thistlethwaite J, et al. Learning outcomes for interprofessional education (IPE): literature review and synthesis. J Interprof Care. 2010;24(5):503–13.

Ball B, et al. Radiotherapy-specific interprofessional learning through simulation. Radiography (Lond). 2021;27(1):187–92.

Buller H, et al. Advancing interprofessional education in communication. Palliat Support Care. 2021;19(6):727–32.

EU Beating Cancer Plan. Eur Comm 2021. https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-02/eu_cancer-plan_en_0.pdf .

McInally W, et al. Like frying multiple Eggs in one Pan: a qualitative study exploring the understanding of inter-speciality training in Cancer Care. J Cancer Educ. 2023;38(3):1098.

Munn Z, et al. What are scoping reviews? Providing a formal definition of scoping reviews as a type of evidence synthesis. JBI Evid Synth. 2022;20(4):950–2.

Peters MDJ, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Implement. 2021;19(1):3–10.

Chollette V, et al. Teamwork competencies for interprofessional cancer care in multiteam systems: a narrative synthesis. J Interprof Care. 2022;36(4):617–25.

Wells-Di Gregorio S, et al. Development of a psychosocial oncology core curriculum for multidisciplinary education and training: initial content validation using the modified Delphi Method. Psychooncology. 2022;31(1):130–8.

Winter IP, Ingledew PA, Golden DW. Interprofessional Education in Radiation Oncology. J Am Coll Radiol. 2019;16(7):964–71.

Witt CM, et al. Education Competencies for Integrative Oncology-Results of a systematic review and an International and Interprofessional Consensus Procedure. J Cancer Educ. 2022;37(3):499–507.

Akthar AS, et al. Interdisciplinary Oncology Education: a National Survey of trainees and Program directors in the United States. J Cancer Educ. 2018;33(3):622–6.

Topperzer MK, et al. Unmet need for interprofessional education in paediatric cancer: a scoping review. Support Care Cancer. 2019;27(10):3627–37.

Aebersold ML, et al. Evaluation of an Interprofessional Training Program to Improve Cancer Drug Therapy Safety. JCO Oncol Pract. 2021;17(10):e1551–8.

Bunnell CA, et al. High performance teamwork training and systems redesign in outpatient oncology. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013;22(5):405–13.

Halm MA, et al. Broadening cultural sensitivity at the end of life: an interprofessional education program incorporating critical reflection. Holist Nurs Pract. 2012;26(6):335–49.

Harvey A, et al. Addressing the care of Cancer survivors: evaluation of an online training for Interprofessional Learners. J Oncol Navig Surviv. 2020;11(5):144–7.

Head B, et al. Opening eyes to real interprofessional education: results of a national faculty development initiative focused on interprofessional education in oncology palliative care. J Interprof Care. 2022;36(5):698–705.

Kolben T, et al. Evaluation of an interdisciplinary palliative care inhouse training for professionals in gynecological oncology. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2018;297(3):767–73.

Lavender C, et al. Fostering a culture of interprofessional education for radiation therapy and medical dosimetry students. Med Dosim. 2014;39(1):50–3.

Nissim R, et al. A qualitative study of a Compassion, Presence, and Resilience Training for Oncology Interprofessional Teams. J Holist Nurs. 2019;37(1):30–44.

Pratt-Chapman ML. Learning outcomes of Diverse Oncology professionals after the TEAM Cultural Competency Training. J Cancer Educ. 2022;37(3):662–7.

Shayne M, et al. The integration of cancer survivorship training in the curriculum of hematology/oncology fellows and radiation oncology residents. J Cancer Surviv. 2014;8(2):167–72.

Szilagyi C, et al. Interprofessional spiritual care education in pediatric hematology-oncology: a pilot study. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2022;69(3):e29515.

Warsi A, et al. Leadership, leading, and influencing change in Cancer Education: Development and Assessment of a pilot Leadership Workshop in Cancer Education for Interdisciplinary Healthcare Staff. J Cancer Educ. 2023;38(2):697–712.

Prades J, Borras JM. Shifting sands: adapting the multidisciplinary team model to technological and organizational innovations in cancer care. Future Oncol. 2014;10(13):1995–98.

Committee on Measuring the Impact of Interprofessional Education on Collaborative Practice and patient outcomes; Board on Global Health; Institute of Medicine. Measuring the Impact of Interprofessional Education on Collaborative Practice and patient outcomes. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); December 15, 2015. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK338356/ .

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the European Commission for funding this study conducted in the context of the INTERACTEUROPE Project (Grant Agreement No. 101056995). This review was conducted in collaboration with European Oncology Nursing Society, European Society of Surgical Oncology and European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology.

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union, EU4Health Programme 2021–2027 as part of Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan under Grant Agreement no. 101056995. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or HaDEA. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Turku University of Applied Sciences, Joukahaisenkatu 3, 20520, Turku, Finland

Virpi Sulosaari

Cyprus University of Technology, Archiepiskopou Kyprianou 30, Limassol, Cyprus

Nikolina Dodlek

Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 672, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany

Andreas Brandl

Cancer Centre University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium

Johan De Munter

Dept of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark

Jesper Grau Eriksen

The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK

Wendy McInally

School of Medicine, University College, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland

Niall O’Higgins

Dept of Oncology, Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, College Rd, GL53 7AN, Cheltenham, RN, UK

Kim Benstead

School of Nursing, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

Celia Díez de los Ríos de la Serna

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

VS conceived the review and led the preparation of the review plan, design, data collection, analysis and drafting of the manuscript. All authors participated in planning the review protocol. VS, CDRS, ND conducted the data retrieval, data extraction and analysis. All participated in result synthesis and manuscript preparation. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Virpi Sulosaari .

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.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Sulosaari, V., Dodlek, N., Brandl, A. et al. Interprofessional education in cancer care – a scoping review. BMC Med Educ 24 , 767 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05669-8

Download citation

Received : 09 July 2023

Accepted : 18 June 2024

Published : 16 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05669-8

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Interprofessional education
• Interprofessional collaboration
• Interdisciplinary education
• Interspecialty training
• Inter-specialty training
• Cancer care

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

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

Advancing Kawasaki Disease Research in the Arab World: Scoping Literature Review Analysis with Emphasis on Giant Coronary Aneurysms

• Published: 22 July 2024

Cite this article

• Mariam Mohamed   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0004-1660-8667 1 ,
• Ashraf Harahsheh   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2622-573X 2 ,
• Nadine Choueiter 3 ,
• Hala M. Agha 4 ,
• Hanifa Alrabte 5 ,
• Sima Y. Abu Al-Saoud 6 ,
• Hesham Al-Saloos 7 ,
• Khalfan Al Senaidi 8 ,
• Raed Alzyoud 9 ,
• Zainab Al Awadhi 10 ,
• Reda Belbouab 11 ,
• Kenza Bouayed 12 ,
• Asma Bouaziz 13 ,
• Mona El Ganzoury 14 ,
• Zohra Fitouri 15 ,
• Alyaa Kotby 16 ,
• Mohamed S. Ladj 17 ,
• Mohammed Mokhtar Bekkar 18 ,
• Najat Rugige 19 ,
• Aso Faeq Salih 20 ,
• Mohamed Sulaiman 21 &
• Nagib Dahdah   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7715-3169 22  

To evaluate giant aneurysms (GiAn) prevalence in Arab countries and examine contributing factors; and to review Kawasaki disease (KD) publication trends and collaborations among Arab nations. A scoping literature review was conducted to analyze the publications across the Arab world, spanning 16 countries from 1978 to 2023. The collected articles were a combination of database search with a call on Kawasaki Disease Arab Initiative ( Kawarabi ) members to share non-PubMed publications. Over 45 years, 50 articles originated from the Arab Countries with a 30% average annual growth rate in KD research output. Publications were evenly split between case reports (42%) and institutional series (52%). Research productivity lagged in developing nations with UAE, KSA and Egypt, contributed to 64% of total publications. Among 26 institutional series, 256 coronary artery aneurysms (CAA) from a total of 1264 KD cases were reported. Of those, 25 CAA were GiAn (prevalence 1.43% [range 0–12.5%]). The initial KD misdiagnosis rate was 4%, and incomplete KD (iKD) averaged 10.6%. Series (38.5%) that did not report iKD correlated with a higher prevalence of CAA, but not of GiAn. Longer fever duration emerged as a pivotal factor for GiAn (OR 5.06, 95%CI 1.51–17). This review unveils the research landscape of KD in the Arab world over 45 years. Initial misdiagnosis, untreated cases, delayed diagnosis and underreporting of iKD are contributing factors for an underestimated epidemiology, explaining the higher GiAn prevalence. This calls for strategic interventions to enhance KD research in these countries, aligning with Kawarabi ’s mission.

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

Data Availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Abbreviations

Coronary artery aneurysm

Kawasaki disease

Giant aneurysms

Incomplete KD

Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children

Intravenous immunoglobulins

Singh S, Jindal AK, Pilania RK (2018) Diagnosis of Kawasaki disease. Int J Rheum Dis 21(1):36–44

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Uehara R, Belay ED (2012) Epidemiology of Kawasaki disease in Asia, Europe, and the United States. J Epidemiol 22(2):79–85

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Bayers S, Shulman ST, Paller AS (2013) Kawasaki disease: part II. complications and treatment. J Am Acad Dermatol 69(4):513–521

Article   Google Scholar  

Pham V et al (2020) Giant coronary aneurysms, from diagnosis to treatment: a literature review. Arch Cardiovasc Dis 113(1):59–69

Mossberg M et al (2018) Epidemiology of primary systemic vasculitis in children: a population-based study from southern Sweden. Scand J Rheumatol 47(4):295–302

Manlhiot C et al (2018) Epidemiology of Kawasaki disease in Canada 2004 to 2014: comparison of surveillance using administrative data vs periodic medical record review. Can J Cardiol 34(3):303–309

McCrindle BW et al (2017) Diagnosis, treatment, and long-term management of kawasaki disease: a scientific statement for health professionals from the american heart association. Circulation 135(17):e927–e999

Holman RC et al (2010) Racial/ethnic differences in the incidence of Kawasaki syndrome among children in Hawaii. Hawaii Med J 69(8):194–197

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Hall GC, Tulloh LE, Tulloh RM (2016) Kawasaki disease incidence in children and adolescents: an observational study in primary care. Br J Gen Pract 66(645):e271–e276

Daniels LB, Gordon JB, Burns JC (2012) Kawasaki disease: late cardiovascular sequelae. Curr Opin Cardiol 27(6):572–577

McCrindle BW et al (2007) Coronary artery involvement in children with Kawasaki disease: risk factors from analysis of serial normalized measurements. Circulation 116(2):174–179

Núñez-Gil IJ et al (2018) Coronary aneurysms in the acute patient: Incidence, characterization and long-term management results. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 19(5 Pt B):589–596

McCrindle BW et al (2020) Medium-term complications associated with coronary artery aneurysms after Kawasaki disease: a study from the international Kawasaki disease registry. J Am Heart Assoc 9(15):e016440

Rizk SR et al (2015) Acute myocardial ischemia in adults secondary to missed Kawasaki disease in childhood. Am J Cardiol 115(4):423–427

Elias MD et al (2020) Management of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children associated With COVID-19: a survey from the international Kawasaki disease registry. CJC Open 2(6):632–640

Information for Healthcare Providers about Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C) . 2023 03/01/2023 [cited 2023 june 3rd]: https://www.cdc.gov/mis/mis-c/hcp_cstecdc/index.html .

Arab Y et al (2022) Kawasaki disease Arab Initiative [Kawarabi]: establishment and results of a multicenter survey. Pediatr Cardiol 43(6):1239–1246

Arab Y et al (2023) Kawarabi: administrative structuring of a multicenter research collaborative to study Kawasaki disease in the Arab Countries. World J Pediatr Congenit Heart Surg. https://doi.org/10.1177/21501351231205570

Alzyoud R et al (2023) Access to care and therapy for Kawasaki Disease in the Arab Countries: a Kawasaki disease arab initiative (Kawarabi) multicenter survey. Pediatr Cardiol 44(6):1277–1284

Liberati A et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 339:b2700

League of Arab States (LAS) and the EU . 2021; https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/league-arab-states-las-and-eu_en#:~:text=Currently%20it%20gathers%2022%20Arab,United%20Arab%20Emirates%2C%20and%20Yemen .

Eltohami EA et al (2007) 2007 Epidemiology of Kawasaki disease in Qatar (An Arabian Gulf Country). Qatar Medical Journal. 2:17

Google Scholar  

Saguil A, Fargo M, Grogan S (2015) Diagnosis and management of kawasaki disease. Am Fam Physician 91(6):365–371

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Lin YT et al (2010) Repeated systematic surveillance of Kawasaki disease in ontario from 1995 to 2006. Pediatr Int 52(5):699–706

Salgado AP et al (2017) High risk of coronary artery aneurysms in infants younger than 6 months of age with kawasaki disease. J Pediatr 185:112-116.e1

Minich LL et al (2007) Delayed diagnosis of Kawasaki disease: what are the risk factors? Pediatrics 120(6):e1434–e1440

Heuclin T et al (2009) Increased detection rate of Kawasaki disease using new diagnostic algorithm, including early use of echocardiography. J Pediatr 155(5):695–9.e1

Dionne A et al (2017) N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide diagnostic algorithm versus American heart association algorithm for Kawasaki disease. Pediatr Int 59(3):265–270

Yellen ES et al (2010) Performance of 2004 American heart association recommendations for treatment of Kawasaki disease. Pediatrics 125(2):e234–e241

van Stijn D et al (2022) Treatment and coronary artery aneurysm formation in Kawasaki disease: a per-day risk analysis. J Pediatr 243:167-172.e1

Crispin-Ortuzar M et al (2023) Integrated radiogenomics models predict response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in high grade serous ovarian cancer. Nat Commun 14(1):6756

Masuda H et al (2021) Epidemiology and risk factors for giant coronary artery aneurysms identified after acute Kawasaki disease. Pediatr Cardiol 42(4):969–977

Li Z et al (2023) The therapeutic window of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) and its correlation with clinical outcomes in Kawasaki disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ital J Pediatr 49(1):45

Jiang S et al (2024) Predictive factors of medium-giant coronary artery aneurysms in Kawasaki disease. Pediatr Res 95(1):267–274

Tan W et al (2022) A global bibliometric analysis on Kawasaki disease research over the last 5 years (2017–2021). Front Public Health 10:1075659

Download references

Acknowledgements

Maysam Y. Abed. Congenital interventional cardiology, Ibn Albitar tertiary center of cardiology Baghdad, Iraq. [email protected], Sulafa Ali. Sudan Heart Center, University of Kharthoum, Kharthoum, Sudan. [email protected], Najat Awidat. Tripoli University Hospital, Tripoli, Libya. [email protected], Hala M. Elmarsafawy. Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Children’s Hospital, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt. [email protected]; [email protected], Pierre Mouawad. Department of Pediatrics, Hôtel-Dieu de France, Beirut, Lebanon, [email protected], Ahmed Saleh, Albyda Hospital, Omar Almukhtar University, Bayda, Libya. [email protected], Fahad Alahmadi, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research center, Taibah University, Madinah, Saudi Arabia. [email protected], Nermeen El-Kholy, Mirdif Private Hospital, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. [email protected]

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Medicine, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada

Mariam Mohamed

Division of Cardiology Department of PediatricsSchool of Medicine & Health Sciences, Children’s National Hospital, The George Washington University, Washington, USA

Ashraf Harahsheh

Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, USA

Nadine Choueiter

Pediatric Cardiology Division, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt

Hala M. Agha

Pediatric Cardiology Department, Tripoli Children Hospital, Tripoli, Libya

Hanifa Alrabte

Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Makassed Hospital, Al-Quds University, Jerusalem, Palestine

Sima Y. Abu Al-Saoud

Division of Cardiology, Sidra Medicine, Clinical Pediatrics, Weill Cornell Medicine, Ar-Rayyan, Qatar

Hesham Al-Saloos

Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Sultan Qaboos University Hospital, Muscat, Oman

Khalfan Al Senaidi

Pediatric Immunology, Allergy, and Rheumatology Division, Queen Rania Children’s Hospital, Amman, Jordan

Raed Alzyoud

Al Jalila Children’s Speciality Hospital, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

Zainab Al Awadhi

Faculty of Medicine, Pediatric Department University Hospital, Mustapha Bacha Algiers, Algiers University, Algiers, Algeria

Reda Belbouab

Abderrahim Harouchi Mother-Child Hospital, CHU Ibn Rochd, Casablanca, Morocco

Kenza Bouayed

Headmaster of Children and Neonatal Department, Hôpital Régional Ben Arous, Ben Arous, Tunisia

Asma Bouaziz

Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt

Mona El Ganzoury

Division of Rheumatology, Emergency Department of Béchir Hamza Pediatric Hospital of Tunis, Tunis, Tunisia

Zohra Fitouri

Pediatric Cardiology Division, Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt

Alyaa Kotby

Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Djillali Belkhenchir University Hospital, Algiers University, Algiers, Algeria

Mohamed S. Ladj

Pediatric Cardiology Unit, Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, CHU Oran, Oran University, Oran, Algeria

Mohammed Mokhtar Bekkar

Pediatric Cardiology Department, Benghazi Children Hospital, Benghazi University, Benghazi, Libya

Najat Rugige

Pediatric Cardiology Department/Children’s Heart Hospital, Sulaimani College of Medicine-Sulaimani University, Al-Sulaimaniyah, Iraq

Aso Faeq Salih

KidsHeart Medical Center, Abu-Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

Mohamed Sulaiman

Division of Pediatric Cardiology, CHU Sainte-Justine, Montreal, Canada

Nagib Dahdah

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

-Mariam Mohamed (First Author) Data Collection, Literature review search, Analysis under supervision of senior author, Writing initial version of manuscript, Review and Editing -Ashraf S. Harahsheh, MD: First draft critical revision and Editing -Nadine Choueiter, MD: First draft critical revision and Editing -Author Block: Reviewing, Editing, providing non-PubMed publications -Nagib Dahdah, MD, MBA (Senior Author): Conceptualization, Methodology, Data Collection, Analysis, Writing, Review, supervision, and Editing

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nagib Dahdah .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 105 kb)

Rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Mohamed, M., Harahsheh, A., Choueiter, N. et al. Advancing Kawasaki Disease Research in the Arab World: Scoping Literature Review Analysis with Emphasis on Giant Coronary Aneurysms. Pediatr Cardiol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00246-024-03589-4

Download citation

Received : 04 May 2024

Accepted : 11 July 2024

Published : 22 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s00246-024-03589-4

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

• Giant coronary aneurysm
• Middle East
• North-Africa
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

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.

• School of Health Professions
• School of Medicine
• School of Nursing
• University of Kansas
• The University of Kansas Health System
• The University of Kansas Cancer Center
• News Archive
• Our Campuses
• Diversity and Inclusion
• KU Medical Center Fast Facts
• Events Calendar
• Maps & Contact Information
• Make a Gift
• Current Students
• Prospective Students
• Prospective Employees
• Faculty & Staff
• Residents & Fellows
• Researchers

Study shows artificial intelligence can help physicians stay up to date on medical research by summarizing journal articles

Research led by KU Medical Center found that ChatGPT produced accurate short summaries of journal abstracts that could help busy doctors quickly review academic literature.

A physician’s knowledge starts in medical school, but it hardly ends there. Throughout their careers, doctors need to stay abreast of new research and practice guidelines to make the most accurate diagnoses and recommend the most effective, up-to-date treatments for patients.

But with the explosive rate of new medical knowledge, keeping up can be overwhelming for physicians. It is estimated that worldwide medical knowledge now doubles every 73 days.

“There are about a million new articles added to PubMed every year,” noted Daniel Parente, M.D., Ph.D., assistant professor of family medicine and community health at the University of Kansas Medical Center. PubMed is an online database maintained by the National Center for Biotechnology Information that contains abstracts for millions of biomedical and life sciences articles. “Even if you’re a physician restricting your focus to your field, it can still be many thousands of articles you might think about reading.”

How can clinicians be expected to keep up with so much new information — or even just sift through the mountains of literature to identify what new research is most pertinent to their field and practice? Even reviewing 300-word abstracts, rather than whole articles, takes time.

ChatGPT (Chat Generative Pretrained Transformer), the artificial intelligence chatbot designed to simulate conversation and help perform language-based tasks, can help, according to a study led by Parente and his colleagues in the Department of Family Medicine and Community Health . ChatGPT is a type of artificial intelligence known as a “large language model,” which means it uses deep learning and large datasets to generate and process language.

The researchers evaluated the ability of ChatGPT, version 3.5, to summarize 10 peer-reviewed abstracts from each of 14 different journals published in 2022. The journals were chosen by the researchers and covered a range of topics across medicine. Actual physicians read the articles and compared them with the summaries produced by ChatGPT, rating the quality, accuracy and level of bias of those summaries.

The result? ChatGPT produced summaries that were 70% shorter than the abstracts, and overall, these summaries were found to be high in quality and accuracy and low in bias. In the 140 summaries, there were just four instances in which the ChatGPT “hallucinated,” which is the term used to describe when large language models such as ChatGPT produce text that is not fact-based. There were also 20 instances of minor inaccuracies found, though those did not change the abstract’s overall meaning.

Where ChatGPT proved more lacking was in rating the relevance of the article abstracts to a particular field. “We asked the human (physician) raters to say, is this relevant to primary care or internal medicine or surgery? And then we compared to ChatGPT’s relevance ratings, and we found that at least the ChatGPT 3.5 model is not quite ready to do that yet. It works well at identifying if a journal is relevant to primary care, but it's not great for identifying if an article is relevant to primary care.”

The researchers also noted that while the study indicates that ChatGPT may serve as a useful screening tool for physicians, “critical medical decisions should — for obvious reasons — remain based on a full evaluation of the full text of articles in context with available evidence from meta-analyses and professional guidelines.”

Parente noted that future versions of ChatGPT are likely to improve and, he hopes, get better in their ability to determine the relevance of specific articles. This ability is important not only to practicing physicians, but also to students and residents learning how to keep up with advances in their fields.

“This study shows us that these tools already have some ability to help us review the literature a little bit faster, as well as figure out where we need to focus our attention,” said Parente. “And it seems very likely that future versions of these technologies that are smarter and more capable will only enhance that.”

Media Inquiries

913-617-8698 [email protected]

News and Media Relations

We use cookies to analyze our traffic & provide social media features. Visit the KU Medical Center Privacy Statement for more information. By closing this window & browsing this site, you agree to our use of cookies.