literature and studies in research

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.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

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 1, 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, what is your plagiarism score.

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

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

What is a Literature Review?

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

A literature review should: 

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

From  S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

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

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

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

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

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

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

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

Meryl Brodsky : Communication and Information Studies

Hannah Chapman Tripp : Biology, Neuroscience

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

Larayne Dallas : Engineering

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

Susan Macicak : Linguistics

Imelda Vetter : Dell Medical School

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

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

• October 26, 2022 recording
• Last Updated: Jun 18, 2024 1:00 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

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

• 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

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: Aug 21, 2023 4:07 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.udel.edu/researchmethods

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

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

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

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

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

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

Correct my document today

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 24 June 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

Methodological Approaches to Literature Review

• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 09 May 2023
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Dennis Thomas 2 ,
• Elida Zairina 3 &
• Johnson George 4  

620 Accesses

1 Citations

The literature review can serve various functions in the contexts of education and research. It aids in identifying knowledge gaps, informing research methodology, and developing a theoretical framework during the planning stages of a research study or project, as well as reporting of review findings in the context of the existing literature. This chapter discusses the methodological approaches to conducting a literature review and offers an overview of different types of reviews. There are various types of reviews, including narrative reviews, scoping reviews, and systematic reviews with reporting strategies such as meta-analysis and meta-synthesis. Review authors should consider the scope of the literature review when selecting a type and method. Being focused is essential for a successful review; however, this must be balanced against the relevance of the review to a broad audience.

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

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Reviewing Literature for and as Research

Discussion and Conclusion

Systematic Reviews in Educational Research: Methodology, Perspectives and Application

Akobeng AK. Principles of evidence based medicine. Arch Dis Child. 2005;90(8):837–40.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Alharbi A, Stevenson M. Refining Boolean queries to identify relevant studies for systematic review updates. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020;27(11):1658–66.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.

Article   Google Scholar  

Aromataris E MZE. JBI manual for evidence synthesis. 2020.

Google Scholar  

Aromataris E, Pearson A. The systematic review: an overview. Am J Nurs. 2014;114(3):53–8.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Aromataris E, Riitano D. Constructing a search strategy and searching for evidence. A guide to the literature search for a systematic review. Am J Nurs. 2014;114(5):49–56.

Babineau J. Product review: covidence (systematic review software). J Canad Health Libr Assoc Canada. 2014;35(2):68–71.

Baker JD. The purpose, process, and methods of writing a literature review. AORN J. 2016;103(3):265–9.

Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med. 2010;7(9):e1000326.

Bramer WM, Rethlefsen ML, Kleijnen J, Franco OH. Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):1–12.

Brown D. A review of the PubMed PICO tool: using evidence-based practice in health education. Health Promot Pract. 2020;21(4):496–8.

Cargo M, Harris J, Pantoja T, et al. Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series – paper 4: methods for assessing evidence on intervention implementation. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:59–69.

Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126(5):376–80.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Counsell C. Formulating questions and locating primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(5):380–7.

Cummings SR, Browner WS, Hulley SB. Conceiving the research question and developing the study plan. In: Cummings SR, Browner WS, Hulley SB, editors. Designing Clinical Research: An Epidemiological Approach. 4th ed. Philadelphia (PA): P Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007. p. 14–22.

Eriksen MB, Frandsen TF. The impact of patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) as a search strategy tool on literature search quality: a systematic review. JMLA. 2018;106(4):420.

Ferrari R. Writing narrative style literature reviews. Medical Writing. 2015;24(4):230–5.

Flemming K, Booth A, Hannes K, Cargo M, Noyes J. Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series – paper 6: reporting guidelines for qualitative, implementation, and process evaluation evidence syntheses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:79–85.

Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inf Libr J. 2009;26(2):91–108.

Green BN, Johnson CD, Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. J Chiropr Med. 2006;5(3):101–17.

Gregory AT, Denniss AR. An introduction to writing narrative and systematic reviews; tasks, tips and traps for aspiring authors. Heart Lung Circ. 2018;27(7):893–8.

Harden A, Thomas J, Cargo M, et al. Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series – paper 5: methods for integrating qualitative and implementation evidence within intervention effectiveness reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:70–8.

Harris JL, Booth A, Cargo M, et al. Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series – paper 2: methods for question formulation, searching, and protocol development for qualitative evidence synthesis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:39–48.

Higgins J, Thomas J. In: Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3, updated February 2022). Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.: Cochrane; 2022.

International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO). Available from https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ .

Khan KS, Kunz R, Kleijnen J, Antes G. Five steps to conducting a systematic review. J R Soc Med. 2003;96(3):118–21.

Landhuis E. Scientific literature: information overload. Nature. 2016;535(7612):457–8.

Lockwood C, Porritt K, Munn Z, Rittenmeyer L, Salmond S, Bjerrum M, Loveday H, Carrier J, Stannard D. Chapter 2: Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI; 2020. Available from https://synthesismanual.jbi.global . https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-03 .

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Lorenzetti DL, Topfer L-A, Dennett L, Clement F. Value of databases other than medline for rapid health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30(2):173–8.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, the PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for (SR) and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;6:264–9.

Mulrow CD. Systematic reviews: rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ. 1994;309(6954):597–9.

Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):143.

Munthe-Kaas HM, Glenton C, Booth A, Noyes J, Lewin S. Systematic mapping of existing tools to appraise methodological strengths and limitations of qualitative research: first stage in the development of the CAMELOT tool. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):1–13.

Murphy CM. Writing an effective review article. J Med Toxicol. 2012;8(2):89–90.

NHMRC. Guidelines for guidelines: assessing risk of bias. Available at https://nhmrc.gov.au/guidelinesforguidelines/develop/assessing-risk-bias . Last published 29 August 2019. Accessed 29 Aug 2022.

Noyes J, Booth A, Cargo M, et al. Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series – paper 1: introduction. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018b;97:35–8.

Noyes J, Booth A, Flemming K, et al. Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series – paper 3: methods for assessing methodological limitations, data extraction and synthesis, and confidence in synthesized qualitative findings. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018a;97:49–58.

Noyes J, Booth A, Moore G, Flemming K, Tunçalp Ö, Shakibazadeh E. Synthesising quantitative and qualitative evidence to inform guidelines on complex interventions: clarifying the purposes, designs and outlining some methods. BMJ Glob Health. 2019;4(Suppl 1):e000893.

Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Healthcare. 2015;13(3):141–6.

Polanin JR, Pigott TD, Espelage DL, Grotpeter JK. Best practice guidelines for abstract screening large-evidence systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Res Synth Methods. 2019;10(3):330–42.

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7(1):1–7.

Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. Brit Med J. 2017;358

Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. Br Med J. 2016;355

Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008–12.

Tawfik GM, Dila KAS, Mohamed MYF, et al. A step by step guide for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis with simulation data. Trop Med Health. 2019;47(1):1–9.

The Critical Appraisal Program. Critical appraisal skills program. Available at https://casp-uk.net/ . 2022. Accessed 29 Aug 2022.

The University of Melbourne. Writing a literature review in Research Techniques 2022. Available at https://students.unimelb.edu.au/academic-skills/explore-our-resources/research-techniques/reviewing-the-literature . Accessed 29 Aug 2022.

The Writing Center University of Winconsin-Madison. Learn how to write a literature review in The Writer’s Handbook – Academic Professional Writing. 2022. Available at https://writing.wisc.edu/handbook/assignments/reviewofliterature/ . Accessed 29 Aug 2022.

Thompson SG, Sharp SJ. Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. Stat Med. 1999;18(20):2693–708.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16(1):15.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.

Yoneoka D, Henmi M. Clinical heterogeneity in random-effect meta-analysis: between-study boundary estimate problem. Stat Med. 2019;38(21):4131–45.

Yuan Y, Hunt RH. Systematic reviews: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104(5):1086–92.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre of Excellence in Treatable Traits, College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, University of Newcastle, Hunter Medical Research Institute Asthma and Breathing Programme, Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Dennis Thomas

Department of Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmacy, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia

Elida Zairina

Centre for Medicine Use and Safety, Monash Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Parkville, VIC, Australia

Johnson George

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johnson George .

Section Editor information

College of Pharmacy, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar

Derek Charles Stewart

Department of Pharmacy, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, United Kingdom

Zaheer-Ud-Din Babar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Thomas, D., Zairina, E., George, J. (2023). Methodological Approaches to Literature Review. In: Encyclopedia of Evidence in Pharmaceutical Public Health and Health Services Research in Pharmacy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50247-8_57-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50247-8_57-1

Received : 22 February 2023

Accepted : 22 February 2023

Published : 09 May 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-50247-8

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-50247-8

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Biomedicine and Life Sciences Reference Module Biomedical and Life Sciences

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of a Good Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

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

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

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

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

II.  Development of the Literature Review

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

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

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

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

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

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

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

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

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

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

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

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

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

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

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

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

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: Jun 18, 2024 10:45 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

What Is A Literature Review?

A plain-language explainer (with examples).

By:  Derek Jansen (MBA) & Kerryn Warren (PhD) | June 2020 (Updated May 2023)

If you’re faced with writing a dissertation or thesis, chances are you’ve encountered the term “literature review” . If you’re on this page, you’re probably not 100% what the literature review is all about. The good news is that you’ve come to the right place.

Literature Review 101

• What (exactly) is a literature review
• What’s the purpose of the literature review chapter
• How to find high-quality resources
• How to structure your literature review chapter
• Example of an actual literature review

What is a literature review?

The word “literature review” can refer to two related things that are part of the broader literature review process. The first is the task of  reviewing the literature  – i.e. sourcing and reading through the existing research relating to your research topic. The second is the  actual chapter  that you write up in your dissertation, thesis or research project. Let’s look at each of them:

Reviewing the literature

The first step of any literature review is to hunt down and  read through the existing research  that’s relevant to your research topic. To do this, you’ll use a combination of tools (we’ll discuss some of these later) to find journal articles, books, ebooks, research reports, dissertations, theses and any other credible sources of information that relate to your topic. You’ll then  summarise and catalogue these  for easy reference when you write up your literature review chapter. 

The literature review chapter

The second step of the literature review is to write the actual literature review chapter (this is usually the second chapter in a typical dissertation or thesis structure ). At the simplest level, the literature review chapter is an  overview of the key literature  that’s relevant to your research topic. This chapter should provide a smooth-flowing discussion of what research has already been done, what is known, what is unknown and what is contested in relation to your research topic. So, you can think of it as an  integrated review of the state of knowledge  around your research topic. 

What’s the purpose of a literature review?

The literature review chapter has a few important functions within your dissertation, thesis or research project. Let’s take a look at these:

Purpose #1 – Demonstrate your topic knowledge

The first function of the literature review chapter is, quite simply, to show the reader (or marker) that you  know what you’re talking about . In other words, a good literature review chapter demonstrates that you’ve read the relevant existing research and understand what’s going on – who’s said what, what’s agreed upon, disagreed upon and so on. This needs to be  more than just a summary  of who said what – it needs to integrate the existing research to  show how it all fits together  and what’s missing (which leads us to purpose #2, next). 

Purpose #2 – Reveal the research gap that you’ll fill

The second function of the literature review chapter is to  show what’s currently missing  from the existing research, to lay the foundation for your own research topic. In other words, your literature review chapter needs to show that there are currently “missing pieces” in terms of the bigger puzzle, and that  your study will fill one of those research gaps . By doing this, you are showing that your research topic is original and will help contribute to the body of knowledge. In other words, the literature review helps justify your research topic.  

Purpose #3 – Lay the foundation for your conceptual framework

The third function of the literature review is to form the  basis for a conceptual framework . Not every research topic will necessarily have a conceptual framework, but if your topic does require one, it needs to be rooted in your literature review. 

For example, let’s say your research aims to identify the drivers of a certain outcome – the factors which contribute to burnout in office workers. In this case, you’d likely develop a conceptual framework which details the potential factors (e.g. long hours, excessive stress, etc), as well as the outcome (burnout). Those factors would need to emerge from the literature review chapter – they can’t just come from your gut! 

So, in this case, the literature review chapter would uncover each of the potential factors (based on previous studies about burnout), which would then be modelled into a framework. 

Purpose #4 – To inform your methodology

The fourth function of the literature review is to  inform the choice of methodology  for your own research. As we’ve  discussed on the Grad Coach blog , your choice of methodology will be heavily influenced by your research aims, objectives and questions . Given that you’ll be reviewing studies covering a topic close to yours, it makes sense that you could learn a lot from their (well-considered) methodologies.

So, when you’re reviewing the literature, you’ll need to  pay close attention to the research design , methodology and methods used in similar studies, and use these to inform your methodology. Quite often, you’ll be able to  “borrow” from previous studies . This is especially true for quantitative studies , as you can use previously tried and tested measures and scales. 

How do I find articles for my literature review?

Finding quality journal articles is essential to crafting a rock-solid literature review. As you probably already know, not all research is created equally, and so you need to make sure that your literature review is  built on credible research . 

We could write an entire post on how to find quality literature (actually, we have ), but a good starting point is Google Scholar . Google Scholar is essentially the academic equivalent of Google, using Google’s powerful search capabilities to find relevant journal articles and reports. It certainly doesn’t cover every possible resource, but it’s a very useful way to get started on your literature review journey, as it will very quickly give you a good indication of what the  most popular pieces of research  are in your field.

One downside of Google Scholar is that it’s merely a search engine – that is, it lists the articles, but oftentimes  it doesn’t host the articles . So you’ll often hit a paywall when clicking through to journal websites. 

Thankfully, your university should provide you with access to their library, so you can find the article titles using Google Scholar and then search for them by name in your university’s online library. Your university may also provide you with access to  ResearchGate , which is another great source for existing research. 

Remember, the correct search keywords will be super important to get the right information from the start. So, pay close attention to the keywords used in the journal articles you read and use those keywords to search for more articles. If you can’t find a spoon in the kitchen, you haven’t looked in the right drawer. 

Need a helping hand?

How should I structure my literature review?

Unfortunately, there’s no generic universal answer for this one. The structure of your literature review will depend largely on your topic area and your research aims and objectives.

You could potentially structure your literature review chapter according to theme, group, variables , chronologically or per concepts in your field of research. We explain the main approaches to structuring your literature review here . You can also download a copy of our free literature review template to help you establish an initial structure.

In general, it’s also a good idea to start wide (i.e. the big-picture-level) and then narrow down, ending your literature review close to your research questions . However, there’s no universal one “right way” to structure your literature review. The most important thing is not to discuss your sources one after the other like a list – as we touched on earlier, your literature review needs to synthesise the research , not summarise it .

Ultimately, you need to craft your literature review so that it conveys the most important information effectively – it needs to tell a logical story in a digestible way. It’s no use starting off with highly technical terms and then only explaining what these terms mean later. Always assume your reader is not a subject matter expert and hold their hand through a journe y of the literature while keeping the functions of the literature review chapter (which we discussed earlier) front of mind.

Example of a literature review

In the video below, we walk you through a high-quality literature review from a dissertation that earned full distinction. This will give you a clearer view of what a strong literature review looks like in practice and hopefully provide some inspiration for your own. 

Wrapping Up

In this post, we’ve (hopefully) answered the question, “ what is a literature review? “. We’ve also considered the purpose and functions of the literature review, as well as how to find literature and how to structure the literature review chapter. If you’re keen to learn more, check out the literature review section of the Grad Coach blog , as well as our detailed video post covering how to write a literature review . 

Psst… there’s more!

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

You Might Also Like:

16 Comments

Thanks for this review. It narrates what’s not been taught as tutors are always in a early to finish their classes.

Thanks for the kind words, Becky. Good luck with your literature review 🙂

This website is amazing, it really helps break everything down. Thank you, I would have been lost without it.

This is review is amazing. I benefited from it a lot and hope others visiting this website will benefit too.

Timothy T. Chol [email protected]

Thank you very much for the guiding in literature review I learn and benefited a lot this make my journey smooth I’ll recommend this site to my friends

This was so useful. Thank you so much.

Hi, Concept was explained nicely by both of you. Thanks a lot for sharing it. It will surely help research scholars to start their Research Journey.

The review is really helpful to me especially during this period of covid-19 pandemic when most universities in my country only offer online classes. Great stuff

Great Brief Explanation, thanks

So helpful to me as a student

GradCoach is a fantastic site with brilliant and modern minds behind it.. I spent weeks decoding the substantial academic Jargon and grounding my initial steps on the research process, which could be shortened to a couple of days through the Gradcoach. Thanks again!

This is an amazing talk. I paved way for myself as a researcher. Thank you GradCoach!

Well-presented overview of the literature!

This was brilliant. So clear. Thank you

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

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 structure an essay, leveraging generative ai to enhance student understanding of..., what’s the best chatgpt alternative for academic writing, how to write a good hook for essays,..., addressing peer review feedback and mastering manuscript revisions..., how paperpal can boost comprehension and foster interdisciplinary..., what is the importance of a concept paper..., how to write the first draft of a..., mla works cited page: format, template & examples, how to ace grant writing for research funding....

Research Methods and Design

• Action Research
• Case Study Design

Literature Review

• Quantitative Research Methods
• Qualitative Research Methods
• Mixed Methods Study
• Indigenous Research and Ethics This link opens in a new window
• Identifying Empirical Research Articles This link opens in a new window
• Research Ethics and Quality
• Data Literacy
• Get Help with Writing Assignments

A literature review is a discussion of the literature (aka. the "research" or "scholarship") surrounding a certain topic. A good literature review doesn't simply summarize the existing material, but provides thoughtful synthesis and analysis. The purpose of a literature review is to orient your own work within an existing body of knowledge. A literature review may be written as a standalone piece or be included in a larger body of work.

You can read more about literature reviews, what they entail, and how to write one, using the resources below. 

Am I the only one struggling to write a literature review?

Dr. Zina O'Leary explains the misconceptions and struggles students often have with writing a literature review. She also provides step-by-step guidance on writing a persuasive literature review.

An Introduction to Literature Reviews

Dr. Eric Jensen, Professor of Sociology at the University of Warwick, and Dr. Charles Laurie, Director of Research at Verisk Maplecroft, explain how to write a literature review, and why researchers need to do so. Literature reviews can be stand-alone research or part of a larger project. They communicate the state of academic knowledge on a given topic, specifically detailing what is still unknown.

This is the first video in a whole series about literature reviews. You can find the rest of the series in our SAGE database, Research Methods:

Videos covering research methods and statistics

Identify Themes and Gaps in Literature (with real examples) | Scribbr

Finding connections between sources is key to organizing the arguments and structure of a good literature review. In this video, you'll learn how to identify themes, debates, and gaps between sources, using examples from real papers.

4 Tips for Writing a Literature Review's Intro, Body, and Conclusion | Scribbr

While each review will be unique in its structure--based on both the existing body of both literature and the overall goals of your own paper, dissertation, or research--this video from Scribbr does a good job simplifying the goals of writing a literature review for those who are new to the process. In this video, you’ll learn what to include in each section, as well as 4 tips for the main body illustrated with an example.

• Literature Review This chapter in SAGE's Encyclopedia of Research Design describes the types of literature reviews and scientific standards for conducting literature reviews.
• UNC Writing Center: Literature Reviews This handout from the Writing Center at UNC will explain what literature reviews are and offer insights into the form and construction of literature reviews in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences.
• Purdue OWL: Writing a Literature Review The overview of literature reviews comes from Purdue's Online Writing Lab. It explains the basic why, what, and how of writing a literature review.

Organizational Tools for Literature Reviews

One of the most daunting aspects of writing a literature review is organizing your research. There are a variety of strategies that you can use to help you in this task. We've highlighted just a few ways writers keep track of all that information! You can use a combination of these tools or come up with your own organizational process. The key is choosing something that works with your own learning style.

Citation Managers

Citation managers are great tools, in general, for organizing research, but can be especially helpful when writing a literature review. You can keep all of your research in one place, take notes, and organize your materials into different folders or categories. Read more about citations managers here:

• Manage Citations & Sources

Concept Mapping

Some writers use concept mapping (sometimes called flow or bubble charts or "mind maps") to help them visualize the ways in which the research they found connects.

There is no right or wrong way to make a concept map. There are a variety of online tools that can help you create a concept map or you can simply put pen to paper. To read more about concept mapping, take a look at the following help guides:

• Using Concept Maps From Williams College's guide, Literature Review: A Self-guided Tutorial

Synthesis Matrix

A synthesis matrix is is a chart you can use to help you organize your research into thematic categories. By organizing your research into a matrix, like the examples below, can help you visualize the ways in which your sources connect. 

• Walden University Writing Center: Literature Review Matrix Find a variety of literature review matrix examples and templates from Walden University.
• Writing A Literature Review and Using a Synthesis Matrix An example synthesis matrix created by NC State University Writing and Speaking Tutorial Service Tutors. If you would like a copy of this synthesis matrix in a different format, like a Word document, please ask a librarian. CC-BY-SA 3.0
• << Previous: Case Study Design
• Next: Quantitative Research Methods >>
• Last Updated: May 7, 2024 9:51 AM

CityU Home - CityU Catalog

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

How to Write Review of Related Literature (RRL) in Research

A review of related literature (a.k.a RRL in research) is a comprehensive review of the existing literature pertaining to a specific topic or research question. An effective review provides the reader with an organized analysis and synthesis of the existing knowledge about a subject. With the increasing amount of new information being disseminated every day, conducting a review of related literature is becoming more difficult and the purpose of review of related literature is clearer than ever.  

All new knowledge is necessarily based on previously known information, and every new scientific study must be conducted and reported in the context of previous studies. This makes a review of related literature essential for research, and although it may be tedious work at times , most researchers will complete many such reviews of varying depths during their career. So, why exactly is a review of related literature important?    

Table of Contents

Why a review of related literature in research is important  

Before thinking how to do reviews of related literature , it is necessary to understand its importance. Although the purpose of a review of related literature varies depending on the discipline and how it will be used, its importance is never in question. Here are some ways in which a review can be crucial.  

• Identify gaps in the knowledge – This is the primary purpose of a review of related literature (often called RRL in research ). To create new knowledge, you must first determine what knowledge may be missing. This also helps to identify the scope of your study.  
• Avoid duplication of research efforts – Not only will a review of related literature indicate gaps in the existing research, but it will also lead you away from duplicating research that has already been done and thus save precious resources.  
• Provide an overview of disparate and interdisciplinary research areas – Researchers cannot possibly know everything related to their disciplines. Therefore, it is very helpful to have access to a review of related literature already written and published.  
• Highlight researcher’s familiarity with their topic 1  – A strong review of related literature in a study strengthens readers’ confidence in that study and that researcher.

Tips on how to write a review of related literature in research

Given that you will probably need to produce a number of these at some point, here are a few general tips on how to write an effective review of related literature 2 .

• Define your topic, audience, and purpose: You will be spending a lot of time with this review, so choose a topic that is interesting to you. While deciding what to write in a review of related literature , think about who you expect to read the review – researchers in your discipline, other scientists, the general public – and tailor the language to the audience. Also, think about the purpose of your review of related literature .  
• Conduct a comprehensive literature search: While writing your review of related literature , emphasize more recent works but don’t forget to include some older publications as well. Cast a wide net, as you may find some interesting and relevant literature in unexpected databases or library corners. Don’t forget to search for recent conference papers.
• Review the identified articles and take notes: It is a good idea to take notes in a way such that individual items in your notes can be moved around when you organize them. For example, index cards are great tools for this. Write each individual idea on a separate card along with the source. The cards can then be easily grouped and organized.  
• Determine how to organize your review: A review of related literature should not be merely a listing of descriptions. It should be organized by some criterion, such as chronologically or thematically.  
• Be critical and objective: Don’t just report the findings of other studies in your review of related literature . Challenge the methodology, find errors in the analysis, question the conclusions. Use what you find to improve your research. However, do not insert your opinions into the review of related literature. Remain objective and open-minded.  
• Structure your review logically: Guide the reader through the information. The structure will depend on the function of the review of related literature. Creating an outline prior to writing the RRL in research is a good way to ensure the presented information flows well.  

As you read more extensively in your discipline, you will notice that the review of related literature appears in various forms in different places. For example, when you read an article about an experimental study, you will typically see a literature review or a RRL in research , in the introduction that includes brief descriptions of similar studies. In longer research studies and dissertations, especially in the social sciences, the review of related literature will typically be a separate chapter and include more information on methodologies and theory building. In addition, stand-alone review articles will be published that are extremely useful to researchers.  

The review of relevant literature or often abbreviated as, RRL in research , is an important communication tool that can be used in many forms for many purposes. It is a tool that all researchers should befriend.  

• University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Writing Center. Literature Reviews.  https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/literature-reviews/  [Accessed September 8, 2022]
• Pautasso M. Ten simple rules for writing a literature review. PLoS Comput Biol. 2013, 9. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149.

Q:  Is research complete without a review of related literature?

A research project is usually considered incomplete without a proper review of related literature. The review of related literature is a crucial component of any research project as it provides context for the research question, identifies gaps in existing literature, and ensures novelty by avoiding duplication. It also helps inform research design and supports arguments, highlights the significance of a study, and demonstrates your knowledge an expertise.

Q: What is difference between RRL and RRS?

The key difference between an RRL and an RRS lies in their focus and scope. An RRL or review of related literature examines a broad range of literature, including theoretical frameworks, concepts, and empirical studies, to establish the context and significance of the research topic. On the other hand, an RRS or review of research studies specifically focuses on analyzing and summarizing previous research studies within a specific research domain to gain insights into methodologies, findings, and gaps in the existing body of knowledge. While there may be some overlap between the two, they serve distinct purposes and cover different aspects of the research process.

Q: Does review of related literature improve accuracy and validity of research?

Yes, a comprehensive review of related literature (RRL) plays a vital role in improving the accuracy and validity of research. It helps authors gain a deeper understanding and offers different perspectives on the research topic. RRL can help you identify research gaps, dictate the selection of appropriate research methodologies, enhance theoretical frameworks, avoid biases and errors, and even provide support for research design and interpretation. By building upon and critically engaging with existing related literature, researchers can ensure their work is rigorous, reliable, and contributes meaningfully to their field of study.

R Discovery is a literature search and research reading platform that accelerates your research discovery journey by keeping you updated on the latest, most relevant scholarly content. With 250M+ research articles sourced from trusted aggregators like CrossRef, Unpaywall, PubMed, PubMed Central, Open Alex and top publishing houses like Springer Nature, JAMA, IOP, Taylor & Francis, NEJM, BMJ, Karger, SAGE, Emerald Publishing and more, R Discovery puts a world of research at your fingertips.  

Try R Discovery Prime FREE for 1 week or upgrade at just US$72 a year to access premium features that let you listen to research on the go, read in your language, collaborate with peers, auto sync with reference managers, and much more. Choose a simpler, smarter way to find and read research – Download the app and start your free 7-day trial today !  

Related Posts

Simple Random Sampling: Definition, Methods, and Examples

What is a Case Study in Research? Definition, Methods, and Examples

Communicative Sciences and Disorders

• Online Learners: Quick Links
• ASHA Journals
• Research Tip 1: Define the Research Question
• Reference Resources
• Evidence Summaries & Clinical Guidelines
• Drug Information
• Health Data & Statistics
• Patient/Consumer Facing Materials
• Images/Streaming Video
• Database Tutorials
• Crafting a Search
• Cited Reference Searching
• Research Tip 4: Find Grey Literature
• Research Tip 5: Save Your Work
• Cite and Manage Your Sources
• Critical Appraisal
• What are Literature Reviews?
• Conducting & Reporting Systematic Reviews
• Finding Systematic Reviews
• Tutorials & Tools for Literature Reviews
• Point of Care Tools (Mobile Apps)

Choosing a Review Type

For guidance related to choosing a review type, see:

• "What Type of Review is Right for You?" - Decision Tree (PDF) This decision tree, from Cornell University Library, highlights key difference between narrative, systematic, umbrella, scoping and rapid reviews.
• Reviewing the literature: choosing a review design Noble, H., & Smith, J. (2018). Reviewing the literature: Choosing a review design. Evidence Based Nursing, 21(2), 39–41. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2018-102895
• What synthesis methodology should I use? A review and analysis of approaches to research synthesis Schick-Makaroff, K., MacDonald, M., Plummer, M., Burgess, J., & Neander, W. (2016). What synthesis methodology should I use? A review and analysis of approaches to research synthesis. AIMS Public Health, 3 (1), 172-215. doi:10.3934/publichealth.2016.1.172 More information less... ABSTRACT: Our purpose is to present a comprehensive overview and assessment of the main approaches to research synthesis. We use "research synthesis" as a broad overarching term to describe various approaches to combining, integrating, and synthesizing research findings.
• Right Review - Decision Support Tool Not sure of the most suitable review method? Answer a few questions and be guided to suitable knowledge synthesis methods. Updated in 2022 and featured in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.03.004

Types of Evidence Synthesis / Literature Reviews

Literature reviews are comprehensive summaries and syntheses of the previous research on a given topic.  While narrative reviews are common across all academic disciplines, reviews that focus on appraising and synthesizing research evidence are increasingly important in the health and social sciences.  

Most evidence synthesis methods use formal and explicit methods to identify, select and combine results from multiple studies, making evidence synthesis a form of meta-research.  

The review purpose, methods used and the results produced vary among different kinds of literature reviews; some of the common types of literature review are detailed below.

Common Types of Literature Reviews 1

Narrative (literature) review.

• A broad term referring to reviews with a wide scope and non-standardized methodology
• Search strategies, comprehensiveness of literature search, time range covered and method of synthesis will vary and do not follow an established protocol

Integrative Review

• A type of literature review based on a systematic, structured literature search
• Often has a broadly defined purpose or review question
• Seeks to generate or refine and theory or hypothesis and/or develop a holistic understanding of a topic of interest
• Relies on diverse sources of data (e.g. empirical, theoretical or methodological literature; qualitative or quantitative studies)

Systematic Review

• Systematically and transparently collects and categorize existing evidence on a question of scientific, policy or management importance
• Follows a research protocol that is established a priori
• Some sub-types of systematic reviews include: SRs of intervention effectiveness, diagnosis, prognosis, etiology, qualitative evidence, economic evidence, and more.
• Time-intensive and often takes months to a year or more to complete 
• The most commonly referred to type of evidence synthesis; sometimes confused as a blanket term for other types of reviews

Meta-Analysis

• Statistical technique for combining the findings from disparate quantitative studies
• Uses statistical methods to objectively evaluate, synthesize, and summarize results
• Often conducted as part of a systematic review

Scoping Review

• Systematically and transparently collects and categorizes existing evidence on a broad question of scientific, policy or management importance
• Seeks to identify research gaps, identify key concepts and characteristics of the literature and/or examine how research is conducted on a topic of interest
• Useful when the complexity or heterogeneity of the body of literature does not lend itself to a precise systematic review
• Useful if authors do not have a single, precise review question
• May critically evaluate existing evidence, but does not attempt to synthesize the results in the way a systematic review would 
• May take longer than a systematic review

Rapid Review

• Applies a systematic review methodology within a time-constrained setting
• Employs methodological "shortcuts" (e.g., limiting search terms and the scope of the literature search), at the risk of introducing bias
• Useful for addressing issues requiring quick decisions, such as developing policy recommendations

Umbrella Review

• Reviews other systematic reviews on a topic
• Often defines a broader question than is typical of a traditional systematic review
• Most useful when there are competing interventions to consider

1. Adapted from:

Eldermire, E. (2021, November 15). A guide to evidence synthesis: Types of evidence synthesis. Cornell University LibGuides. https://guides.library.cornell.edu/evidence-synthesis/types

Nolfi, D. (2021, October 6). Integrative Review: Systematic vs. Scoping vs. Integrative. Duquesne University LibGuides. https://guides.library.duq.edu/c.php?g=1055475&p=7725920

Delaney, L. (2021, November 24). Systematic reviews: Other review types. UniSA LibGuides. https://guides.library.unisa.edu.au/SystematicReviews/OtherReviewTypes

Further Reading: Exploring Different Types of Literature Reviews

• A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26 (2), 91-108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x More information less... ABSTRACT: The expansion of evidence-based practice across sectors has lead to an increasing variety of review types. However, the diversity of terminology used means that the full potential of these review types may be lost amongst a confusion of indistinct and misapplied terms. The objective of this study is to provide descriptive insight into the most common types of reviews, with illustrative examples from health and health information domains.
• Clarifying differences between review designs and methods Gough, D., Thomas, J., & Oliver, S. (2012). Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Systematic Reviews, 1 , 28. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-28 More information less... ABSTRACT: This paper argues that the current proliferation of types of systematic reviews creates challenges for the terminology for describing such reviews....It is therefore proposed that the most useful strategy for the field is to develop terminology for the main dimensions of variation.
• Are we talking the same paradigm? Considering methodological choices in health education systematic review Gordon, M. (2016). Are we talking the same paradigm? Considering methodological choices in health education systematic review. Medical Teacher, 38 (7), 746-750. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2016.1147536 More information less... ABSTRACT: Key items discussed are the positivist synthesis methods meta-analysis and content analysis to address questions in the form of "whether and what" education is effective. These can be juxtaposed with the constructivist aligned thematic analysis and meta-ethnography to address questions in the form of "why." The concept of the realist review is also considered. It is proposed that authors of such work should describe their research alignment and the link between question, alignment and evidence synthesis method selected.
• Meeting the review family: Exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements Sutton, A., Clowes, M., Preston, L., & Booth, A. (2019). Meeting the review family: Exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 36(3), 202–222. doi: 10.1111/hir.12276

Integrative Reviews

"The integrative review method is an approach that allows for the inclusion of diverse methodologies (i.e. experimental and non-experimental research)." (Whittemore & Knafl, 2005, p. 547).

• The integrative review: Updated methodology Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52 (5), 546–553. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x More information less... ABSTRACT: The aim of this paper is to distinguish the integrative review method from other review methods and to propose methodological strategies specific to the integrative review method to enhance the rigour of the process....An integrative review is a specific review method that summarizes past empirical or theoretical literature to provide a more comprehensive understanding of a particular phenomenon or healthcare problem....Well-done integrative reviews present the state of the science, contribute to theory development, and have direct applicability to practice and policy.

• Conducting integrative reviews: A guide for novice nursing researchers Dhollande, S., Taylor, A., Meyer, S., & Scott, M. (2021). Conducting integrative reviews: A guide for novice nursing researchers. Journal of Research in Nursing, 26(5), 427–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987121997907
• Rigour in integrative reviews Whittemore, R. (2007). Rigour in integrative reviews. In C. Webb & B. Roe (Eds.), Reviewing Research Evidence for Nursing Practice (pp. 149–156). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470692127.ch11

Scoping Reviews

Scoping reviews are evidence syntheses that are conducted systematically, but begin with a broader scope of question than traditional systematic reviews, allowing the research to 'map' the relevant literature on a given topic.

• Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8 (1), 19-32. doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616 More information less... ABSTRACT: We distinguish between different types of scoping studies and indicate where these stand in relation to full systematic reviews. We outline a framework for conducting a scoping study based on our recent experiences of reviewing the literature on services for carers for people with mental health problems.
• Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O'Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5 (1), 69. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 More information less... ABSTRACT: We build upon our experiences conducting three scoping studies using the Arksey and O'Malley methodology to propose recommendations that clarify and enhance each stage of the framework.
• Methodology for JBI scoping reviews Peters, M. D. J., Godfrey, C. M., McInerney, P., Baldini Soares, C., Khalil, H., & Parker, D. (2015). The Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers’ manual: Methodology for JBI scoping reviews [PDF]. Retrieved from The Joanna Briggs Institute website: http://joannabriggs.org/assets/docs/sumari/Reviewers-Manual_Methodology-for-JBI-Scoping-Reviews_2015_v2.pdf More information less... ABSTRACT: Unlike other reviews that address relatively precise questions, such as a systematic review of the effectiveness of a particular intervention based on a precise set of outcomes, scoping reviews can be used to map the key concepts underpinning a research area as well as to clarify working definitions, and/or the conceptual boundaries of a topic. A scoping review may focus on one of these aims or all of them as a set.

Systematic vs. Scoping Reviews: What's the Difference? 

YouTube Video 4 minutes, 45 seconds

Rapid Reviews

Rapid reviews are systematic reviews that are undertaken under a tighter timeframe than traditional systematic reviews. 

• Evidence summaries: The evolution of a rapid review approach Khangura, S., Konnyu, K., Cushman, R., Grimshaw, J., & Moher, D. (2012). Evidence summaries: The evolution of a rapid review approach. Systematic Reviews, 1 (1), 10. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-10 More information less... ABSTRACT: Rapid reviews have emerged as a streamlined approach to synthesizing evidence - typically for informing emergent decisions faced by decision makers in health care settings. Although there is growing use of rapid review "methods," and proliferation of rapid review products, there is a dearth of published literature on rapid review methodology. This paper outlines our experience with rapidly producing, publishing and disseminating evidence summaries in the context of our Knowledge to Action (KTA) research program.
• What is a rapid review? A methodological exploration of rapid reviews in Health Technology Assessments Harker, J., & Kleijnen, J. (2012). What is a rapid review? A methodological exploration of rapid reviews in Health Technology Assessments. International Journal of Evidence‐Based Healthcare, 10 (4), 397-410. doi:10.1111/j.1744-1609.2012.00290.x More information less... ABSTRACT: In recent years, there has been an emergence of "rapid reviews" within Health Technology Assessments; however, there is no known published guidance or agreed methodology within recognised systematic review or Health Technology Assessment guidelines. In order to answer the research question "What is a rapid review and is methodology consistent in rapid reviews of Health Technology Assessments?", a study was undertaken in a sample of rapid review Health Technology Assessments from the Health Technology Assessment database within the Cochrane Library and other specialised Health Technology Assessment databases to investigate similarities and/or differences in rapid review methodology utilised.
• Rapid Review Guidebook Dobbins, M. (2017). Rapid review guidebook. Hamilton, ON: National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools.
• NCCMT Summary and Tool for Dobbins' Rapid Review Guidebook National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. (2017). Rapid review guidebook. Hamilton, ON: McMaster University. Retrieved from http://www.nccmt.ca/knowledge-repositories/search/308
• << Previous: Literature Reviews
• Next: Conducting & Reporting Systematic Reviews >>
• Last Updated: Jun 26, 2024 3:00 PM
• URL: https://guides.nyu.edu/speech

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

Related Papers

Ana Liza Sigue

Motoky Hayakawa

Rene E Ofreneo

... Rene E. Ofreneo University of the Philippines School of Labor and Industrial Relations ... Erickson, Christopher L.; Kuruvilla, Sarosh ; Ofreneo, Rene E.; and Ortiz, Maria Asuncion , &amp;quot;Recent Developments in Employment Relations in the Philippines&amp;quot; (2001). ...

Lucita Lazo

This book begins by looking at the status of women in Filipino society and their place in the general socio-economic situation. It continues with sections on education and training in the Philippines and work and training. The next section reviews the constraints to women’s participation in training. In the summary the author gives a general overview of the situation of women and opportunities for work and training in the Philippines and offers some practical suggestions for the enhancement of women’s training and development.

EducationInvestor Global

Tony Mitchener

Rosalyn Eder

In this article, I examine the role of CHED and the Technical Panels (TPs) in the “production” of the globally competitive Filipina/o worker. For this paper, I draw on relevant literature on the topic and take nurse education, which is rooted in the colonial system established during the US-American occupation, as an example of how CHED and the TPs could be more linked to labor migration. I use the colonial difference - a space that offers critical insights and interpretation - to illustrate how coloniality remains hidden under the cloak of modernity. Link to the article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2016.1214913

Asia Pacific Journal of Management and Sustainable Development ISSN 2782-8557(Print)

Ryan O Tayco , Pio Supat

This study aims to determine the employability of the Negros Oriental State University graduates from 2016 to 2020. Employability is measured using different dimensions-from the graduates' side including the perspectives of the employers. A total of 1, 056 NORSU graduates and 68 employers locally and abroad answered the questionnaire through online and offline survey methods. Basic statistics were used and simple linear regression was also used to estimate the relationship between manifestations of respondents in NORSU VMGOs and the job performance as perceived by the employers. Most of the respondents in the study are presently employed and work locally. Many of them stay and accept the job because of the salaries and benefits they received, a career challenge, and related to the course they have taken in college. The study shows that the curriculum used and competencies learned by the NORSU graduates are relevant to their job. Competencies such as communication skills, human relations skills, critical thinking skills, and problem-solving skills are found to be useful by the respondents. It is found that the manifestation of the respondents is very high and homogenous. The same can be said with job performance as perceived by employers in terms of attitudes and values, skills and competencies, and knowledge. Furthermore, job performance and the manifestation of NORSU VMGOs have a significant relationship. That is, those respondents who have higher job performance in terms of attitude and values, skills and competencies, and knowledge have higher manifestations of NORSU VMGOs.

Annals of Tropical Research

Pedro Armenia

Ezekiel Succor

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

The Miseducation of the Filipino

Micabalo, Sheila Marie G.

Evan carlo deblois

Jesse Orlina

Bradernantz Geronag

Junie Leonard Herrera

Asian and Pacific Migration Journal

boscovolunteeraction.co.uk

James Trewby

Asia Proceedings of Social Sciences

Marlon Raquel

Kiran Budhrani , Lloyd Espiritu

Leonardo Lanzona

MaryNathanael Flores OSB

Philippine Journal of …

Nandy Aldaba

South African Journal of Higher Education

Kolawole Samuel Adeyemo

International Journal of Intelligent Computing and Technology

Glenn Velmonte

Rosini Grageda

Randel D Estacio

Reydenn Taccad

International Research in Education

Diane Mae Ulanday

Miseducation of Filipino

John Victor H . Dajac

Douglas Meade

Rebecca Gaddi

Jayvann Carlo Olaguer

Lorena Club

Trisha Bernadette Ecleo

Sara Villorente

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

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
• Indian J Sex Transm Dis AIDS
• v.35(2); Jul-Dec 2014

Reviewing literature for research: Doing it the right way

Shital amin poojary.

Department of Dermatology, K J Somaiya Medical College, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Jimish Deepak Bagadia

In an era of information overload, it is important to know how to obtain the required information and also to ensure that it is reliable information. Hence, it is essential to understand how to perform a systematic literature search. This article focuses on reliable literature sources and how to make optimum use of these in dermatology and venereology.

INTRODUCTION

A thorough review of literature is not only essential for selecting research topics, but also enables the right applicability of a research project. Most importantly, a good literature search is the cornerstone of practice of evidence based medicine. Today, everything is available at the click of a mouse or at the tip of the fingertips (or the stylus). Google is often the Go-To search website, the supposed answer to all questions in the universe. However, the deluge of information available comes with its own set of problems; how much of it is actually reliable information? How much are the search results that the search string threw up actually relevant? Did we actually find what we were looking for? Lack of a systematic approach can lead to a literature review ending up as a time-consuming and at times frustrating process. Hence, whether it is for research projects, theses/dissertations, case studies/reports or mere wish to obtain information; knowing where to look, and more importantly, how to look, is of prime importance today.

Literature search

Fink has defined research literature review as a “systematic, explicit and reproducible method for identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing the existing body of completed and recorded work produced by researchers, scholars and practitioners.”[ 1 ]

Review of research literature can be summarized into a seven step process: (i) Selecting research questions/purpose of the literature review (ii) Selecting your sources (iii) Choosing search terms (iv) Running your search (v) Applying practical screening criteria (vi) Applying methodological screening criteria/quality appraisal (vii) Synthesizing the results.[ 1 ]

This article will primarily concentrate on refining techniques of literature search.

Sources for literature search are enumerated in Table 1 .

Sources for literature search

PubMed is currently the most widely used among these as it contains over 23 million citations for biomedical literature and has been made available free by National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), U.S. National Library of Medicine. However, the availability of free full text articles depends on the sources. Use of options such as advanced search, medical subject headings (MeSH) terms, free full text, PubMed tutorials, and single citation matcher makes the database extremely user-friendly [ Figure 1 ]. It can also be accessed on the go through mobiles using “PubMed Mobile.” One can also create own account in NCBI to save searches and to use certain PubMed tools.

PubMed home page showing location of different tools which can be used for an efficient literature search

Tips for efficient use of PubMed search:[ 2 , 3 , 4 ]

Use of field and Boolean operators

When one searches using key words, all articles containing the words show up, many of which may not be related to the topic. Hence, the use of operators while searching makes the search more specific and less cumbersome. Operators are of two types: Field operators and Boolean operators, the latter enabling us to combine more than one concept, thereby making the search highly accurate. A few key operators that can be used in PubMed are shown in Tables ​ Tables2 2 and ​ and3 3 and illustrated in Figures ​ Figures2 2 and ​ and3 3 .

Field operators used in PubMed search

Boolean operators used in PubMed search

PubMed search results page showing articles on donovanosis using the field operator [TIAB]; it shows all articles which have the keyword “donovanosis” in either title or abstract of the article

PubMed search using Boolean operators ‘AND’, ‘NOT’; To search for articles on treatment of lepra reaction other than steroids, after clicking the option ‘Advanced search’ on the home page, one can build the search using ‘AND’ option for treatment and ‘NOT’ option for steroids to omit articles on steroid treatment in lepra reaction

Use of medical subject headings terms

These are very specific and standardized terms used by indexers to describe every article in PubMed and are added to the record of every article. A search using MeSH will show all articles about the topic (or keywords), but will not show articles only containing these keywords (these articles may be about an entirely different topic, but still may contain your keywords in another context in any part of the article). This will make your search more specific. Within the topic, specific subheadings can be added to the search builder to refine your search [ Figure 4 ]. For example, MeSH terms for treatment are therapy and therapeutics.

PubMed search using medical subject headings (MeSH) terms for management of gonorrhea. Click on MeSH database ( Figure 1 ) →In the MeSH search box type gonorrhea and click search. Under the MeSH term gonorrhea, there will be a list of subheadings; therapy, prevention and control, click the relevant check boxes and add to search builder →Click on search →All articles on therapy, prevention and control of gonorrhea will be displayed. Below the subheadings, there are two options: (1) Restrict to medical subject headings (MeSH) major topic and (2) do not include MeSH terms found below this term in the MeSH hierarchy. These can be used to further refine the search results so that only articles which are majorly about treatment of gonorrhea will be displayed

Two additional options can be used to further refine MeSH searches. These are located below the subheadings for a MeSH term: (1) Restrict to MeSH major topic; checking this box will retrieve articles which are majorly about the search term and are therefore, more focused and (2) Do not include MeSH terms found below this term in the MeSH hierarchy. This option will again give you more focused articles as it excludes the lower specific terms [ Figure 4 ].

Similar feature is available with Cochrane library (also called MeSH), EMBASE (known as EMTREE) and PsycINFO (Thesaurus of Psychological Index Terms).

Saving your searches

Any search that one has performed can be saved by using the ‘Send to’ option and can be saved as a simple word file [ Figure 5 ]. Alternatively, the ‘Save Search’ button (just below the search box) can be used. However, it is essential to set up an NCBI account and log in to NCBI for this. One can even choose to have E-mail updates of new articles in the topic of interest.

Saving PubMed searches. A simple option is to click on the dropdown box next to ‘Send to’ option and then choose among the options. It can be saved as a text or word file by choosing ‘File’ option. Another option is the “Save search” option below the search box but this will require logging into your National Center for Biotechnology Information account. This however allows you to set up alerts for E-mail updates for new articles

Single citation matcher

This is another important tool that helps to find the genuine original source of a particular research work (when few details are known about the title/author/publication date/place/journal) and cite the reference in the most correct manner [ Figure 6 ].

Single citation matcher: Click on “Single citation matcher” on PubMed Home page. Type available details of the required reference in the boxes to get the required citation

Full text articles

In any search clicking on the link “free full text” (if present) gives you free access to the article. In some instances, though the published article may not be available free, the author manuscript may be available free of charge. Furthermore, PubMed Central articles are available free of charge.

Managing filters

Filters can be used to refine a search according to type of article required or subjects of research. One can specify the type of article required such as clinical trial, reviews, free full text; these options are available on a typical search results page. Further specialized filters are available under “manage filters:” e.g., articles confined to certain age groups (properties option), “Links” to other databases, article specific to particular journals, etc. However, one needs to have an NCBI account and log in to access this option [ Figure 7 ].

Managing filters. Simple filters are available on the ‘search results’ page. One can choose type of article, e.g., clinical trial, reviews etc. Further options are available in the “Manage filters” option, but this requires logging into National Center for Biotechnology Information account

The Cochrane library

Although reviews are available in PubMed, for systematic reviews and meta-analysis, Cochrane library is a much better resource. The Cochrane library is a collection of full length systematic reviews, which can be accessed for free in India, thanks to Indian Council of Medical Research renewing the license up to 2016, benefitting users all over India. It is immensely helpful in finding detailed high quality research work done in a particular field/topic [ Figure 8 ].

Cochrane library is a useful resource for reliable, systematic reviews. One can choose the type of reviews required, including trials

An important tool that must be used while searching for research work is screening. Screening helps to improve the accuracy of search results. It is of two types: (1) Practical: To identify a broad range of potentially useful studies. Examples: Date of publication (last 5 years only; gives you most recent updates), participants or subjects (humans above 18 years), publication language (English only) (2) methodological: To identify best available studies (for example, excluding studies not involving control group or studies with only randomized control trials).

Selecting the right quality of literature is the key to successful research literature review. The quality can be estimated by what is known as “The Evidence Pyramid.” The level of evidence of references obtained from the aforementioned search tools are depicted in Figure 9 . Systematic reviews obtained from Cochrane library constitute level 1 evidence.

Evidence pyramid: Depicting the level of evidence of references obtained from the aforementioned search tools

Thus, a systematic literature review can help not only in setting up the basis of a good research with optimal use of available information, but also in practice of evidence-based medicine.

Source of Support: Nil.

Conflict of Interest: None declared.

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

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

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

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

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

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

Original Submission Date Received: .

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

Article Menu

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

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

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

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Advancements, dynamics, and future directions in rural environmental governance research in china.

1. Introduction

2. literature review, 3. data sources and research methodology, 3.1. data collection, 3.2. research methodologies, 3.3. research processes.

• What are the distinctive attributes characterizing publication trends, disciplinary distribution, citation patterns, and prominence in high-impact journals within the realm of Chinese Resource and Environmental Management research?
• In what manner does Chinese REM research manifest specific traits in terms of keyword co-occurrence, clustering, and emerging focal points?
• What distinctive features arise concerning authorship and institutional collaborations in the realm of Chinese REM research?

4. Analysis of Overall Research Trends

4.1. number of publications and trend analysis, 4.2. distribution of disciplines, 4.3. high-yield journal information, 5. research hot frontier analysis, 5.1. hot topic analysis, 5.2. hot trend analysis, 5.3. analysis of author collaboration, 5.4. analysis of cooperation of issuing bodies, 6. conclusions and recommendations, 6.1. conclusions and recommendations of the study.

• An analysis of publication trends reveals a progressive increase in the volume of Chinese publications pertaining to REM. This escalation can be segmented into four distinct phases: the slow growth phase (2002–2009), the accelerated growth phase (2009–2014), the stable yet rapid growth phase (2014–2021), and the phase of fluctuating decline (2021–2022);
• In the realm of research discipline distribution, investigations related to REM in China exhibit a discernible trend toward diversification. This phenomenon has garnered the attention of scholars hailing from diverse fields within China. Consequently, research has undergone an evolutionary progression, transitioning from its initial solitary disciplinary focus to the embrace of interdisciplinary domains. In its inception, REM research predominantly adhered to qualitative research methodologies. Nevertheless, in recent years, as environmental governance has become increasingly intricate and transboundary in nature, scholars have progressively gravitated towards a synthesis of qualitative and quantitative research approaches. Consequently, the future landscape of rural environmental governance research in China necessitates a fusion of qualitative and quantitative methodologies, accompanied by the assimilation of a multitude of research methodologies. This strategic orientation is aimed at cultivating interdisciplinary and multifaceted investigations, with an active incorporation of a diverse array of knowledge systems to fortify collaborative cross-disciplinary research;
• From the perspective of research trends, the ecological environment, rural settings, and environmental pollution have consistently held researchers’ focus. Concurrently, topics including collaborative governance, the development of new rural areas, the establishment of ecological civilization, and rural revitalization have garnered attention in alignment with national policies and rural development initiatives. Analyzing the evolutionary trajectory of these research areas, the study of rural environmental governance in China has shifted from a macroscopic viewpoint to a micro-level emphasis. Research methodologies have progressively transitioned from qualitative to quantitative approaches, accompanied by a shift in research emphasis from objects to individuals. Notably, subjects like the rural living environment, waste management, ecological governance, and sustainable development have gained prominence. Present-day research predominantly centers on reactive emergency management following environmental challenges, potentially neglecting proactive rural environmental problem prevention. Furthermore, the diverse characteristics of China’s rural regions, including ecological contexts and developmental stages, pose a challenge for the application of a single model to Chinese REM [ 8 ]. Future research endeavors should consider adapting to the distinctive circumstances of rural society, accounting for local natural resources, social and cultural attributes, and comprehensive efforts to enhance rural environmental quality;
• Viewed from the standpoint of publication authors, the REM field in China has indeed cultivated a cohort of core contributors. However, authors with high productivity are comparatively limited in number, and the establishment of cohesive research collaboration teams remains a challenge. Furthermore, within the broader landscape of this field, the prevalence of co-authored articles is relatively modest, underscoring the necessity for bolstering interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary collaboration among authors. Additionally, it is noteworthy that numerous REM research institutions in China are affiliated with universities, and they tend to engage in collaborative efforts predominantly within their respective domains. Therefore, there is an imperative to foster more robust cooperation that transcends interdisciplinary boundaries;
• From the perspective of research institution productivity, Guangxi University, Nanchang University, and Lanzhou University emerge as the leading institutions in this field. Additionally, institutions like Zhengzhou University, Yangzhou University, Lanzhou University, and Anhui Agricultural University have actively participated in extensive collaborative research efforts, facilitating in-depth exploration within the domain of Chinese REM. It is worth noting that overall economic development across various regions of China displays disparities, with the central and western regions generally trailing behind their eastern counterparts. Furthermore, rural development continues to lag behind urban progress, and disparities in funding allocation and management practices are evident within the REM field. In order to effectively address the issues of uneven and inadequate rural development, along with the challenges impeding sustainable economic and social progress in rural areas, innovative strategies for rural environmental governance should be carefully examined. These strategies should be oriented towards addressing the key concerns and complexities within the realm of REM. Moreover, it is imperative to direct increased attention to the economically disadvantaged central and western regions, which generally find themselves in a relatively underdeveloped state. These regions constitute a pivotal focus area for future initiatives in rural environmental governance.

6.2. Discussion

6.3. research challenges and prospects, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• Sands, P. Environmental Protection in the Twenty-first Century: Sustainable Development and International Law. In The Global Environment ; Routledge: London, UK, 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Driessen, P.P.J.; Dieperink, C.; Laerhoven, F.; Runhaar, H.A.C.; Vermeulen, W.J.V. Towards a Conceptual Framework for The Study of Shifts in Modes of Environmental Governance—Experiences from The Netherlands: Shifts in Environmental Governance. Env. Pol. Gov. 2012 , 22 , 143–160. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rodrigues, E.A.M.; Coutinho, A.P.; de Souza, J.D.S.; Costa, I.R.d.A.; Neto, S.M.d.S.; Antonino, A.C.D. Rural Sanitation: Scenarios and Public Policies for the Brazilian Semi-Arid Region. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 7157. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tajima, H.; Sato, T.; Takemura, S.; Hori, J.; Makino, M.; Rampisela, D.A.; Shimagami, M.; Matewere, J.B.; Ndawala, B. Autonomous Innovations in the Rural Communities of Developing Countries I—A Narrative Analysis of Innovations and Synergies for Integrated Natural Resource Management. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 11659. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xue, L.; Weng, L.; Yu, H. Addressing policy challenges in implementing Sustainable Development Goals through an adaptive governance approach: A view from transitional China. Sustain. Dev. 2018 , 26 , 150–158. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xie, H.; Zhang, Y.; Choi, Y. Measuring the Cultivated Land Use Efficiency of the Main Grain-Producing Areas in China under the Constraints of Carbon Emissions and Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution. Sustainability 2018 , 10 , 1932. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xi, B.; Li, X.; Gao, J.; Zhao, Y.; Liu, H.; Xia, X.; Yang, T.; Zhang, L.; Jia, X. Review of challenges and strategies for balanced urban-rural environmental protection in China. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2015 , 9 , 371–384. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, K.; Wen, Z. Review and challenges of policies of environmental protection and sustainable development in China. J. Environ. Manag. 2008 , 88 , 1249–1261. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Constance, D.H. Sustainable Agriculture in the United States: A Critical Examination of a Contested Process. Sustainability 2010 , 2 , 48–72. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Maddaus, L.A.; Maddaus, M.L.; Maddaus, W.O.; Matyas, C.A. Pursuing more efficient water use: The history and future of water conservation in the United States. J. Am. Water Work. Assoc. 2014 , 106 , 150–163. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Amblard, L. Collective action as a tool for agri-environmental policy implementation. The case of diffuse pollution control in European rural areas. J. Environ. Manag. 2021 , 280 , 111845. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Doukas, Y.E.; Salvati, L.; Vardopoulos, I. Unraveling the European Agricultural Policy Sustainable Development Trajectory. Land 2023 , 12 , 1749. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Smith, L.M.; Haukos, D.A.; McMurry, S.T.; LaGrange, T.; Willis, D. Ecosystem services provided by playas in the High Plains: Potential influences of USDA conservation programs. Ecol. Appl. 2011 , 21 , S82–S92. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bo, Y.; Wen, W. Treatment and technology of domestic sewage for improvement of rural environment in China. J. King Saud. Univ. Sci. 2022 , 34 , 102181. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wei, J.; Liang, G.; Alex, J.; Zhang, T.; Ma, C. Research Progress of Energy Utilization of Agricultural Waste in China: Bibliometric Analysis by Citespace. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 812. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Badu, E.; Owusu-Manu, D.; Edwards, D.J.; Adesi, M.; Lichtenstein, S. Rural infrastructure development in the Volta region of Ghana: Barriers and interventions. J. Financ. Manag. Prop. Constr. 2013 , 18 , 142–159. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Armitage, D.; de Loë, R.; Plummer, R. Environmental governance and its implications for conservation practice. Conserv. Lett. 2012 , 5 , 245–255. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Islam, M.Z.; Wang, S. Exploring the unique characteristics of environmental sustainability in China: Navigating future challenges. Chin. J. Popul. Resour. Environ. 2023 , 21 , 37–42. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ouyang, J.; Zhang, K.; Wen, B.; Lu, Y. Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches to Environmental Governance in China: Evidence from the River Chief System (RCS). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020 , 17 , 7058. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Castro-Arce, K.; Vanclay, F. Transformative social innovation for sustainable rural development: An analytical framework to assist community-based initiatives. J. Rural Stud. 2020 , 74 , 45–54. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Peng, Y.; Peng, X.; Li, X.; Lu, M.; Yin, M. Effectiveness in Rural Governance: Influencing Factors and Driving Pathways—Based on 20 Typical Cases of Rural Governance in China. Land 2023 , 12 , 1452. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, Y.; Guo, X. The Dilemma and Path of Rural Environmental Governance in China: From the Perspective of a Community with a Shared Future. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023 , 20 , 1446. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Koopmans, M.E.; Rogge, E.; Mettepenningen, E.; Knickel, K.; Šūmane, S. The role of multi-actor governance in aligning farm modernization and sustainable rural development. J. Rural Stud. 2018 , 59 , 252–262. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Long, H.; Tu, S.; Ge, D.; Li, T.; Liu, Y. The allocation and management of critical resources in rural China under restructuring: Problems and prospects. J. Rural Stud. 2016 , 47 , 392–412. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tang, S.-Y. Rethinking local and regional governance in China: An institutional design and development perspective. Urban Gov. 2021 , 1 , 51–58. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Frank, H.; Hatak, I. Doing a research literature review. In How to Get Published in the Best Entrepreneurship Journals: A Guide to Steer Your Academic Career ; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2014; pp. 94–117. [ Google Scholar ]
• Xue, Y.; Zhu, C. Review of research on knowledge domains in university governance: Mapping literature in English and Chinese. Eur. J. Educ. 2022 , 57 , 49–64. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Citation-based clustering of publications using CitNetExplorer and VOSviewer. Scientometrics 2017 , 111 , 1053–1107. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Aria, M.; Cuccurullo, C. Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J. Informetr. 2017 , 11 , 959–975. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhu, X. GIS for Environmental Applications: A Practical Approach ; Routledge: London, UK, 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R. Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2015 , 66 , 2215–2222. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Qu, F.; Kuyvenhoven, A.; Shi, X.; Heerink, N. Sustainable natural resource use in rural China: Recent trends and policies. China Econ. Rev. 2011 , 22 , 444–460. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhou, X. Ecological Civilization in China: Challenges and Strategies. Capital. Nat. Social. 2021 , 32 , 84–99. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sun, X.; Gao, L.; Ren, H.; Ye, Y.; Li, A.; Stafford-Smith, M.; Connor, J.D.; Wu, J.; Bryan, A. China’s progress towards sustainable land development and ecological civilization. Landsc. Ecol. 2018 , 33 , 1647–1653. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lin, W.; Wu, X.; Wang, Z.; Wan, X.; Li, H. Topic Network Analysis Based on Co-Occurrence Time Series Clustering. Mathematics 2022 , 10 , 2846. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huang, A.; Liu, B.; Zhang, A.; Zhan, J. Coordinated development of rural habitat in China: A study of measurement, spatio-temporal evolution and convergence. J. Clean. Prod. 2023 , 398 , 136651. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Clegg, J. Rural cooperatives in China: Policy and practice. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 2006 , 13 , 219–223. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Looney, K.E. China’s Campaign to Build a New Socialist Countryside: Village Modernization, Peasant Councils, and the Ganzhou Model of Rural Development*. China Q. 2015 , 224 , 909–932. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Du, W.; Yan, H.; Feng, Z.; Yang, Y.; Liu, F. The supply-consumption relationship of ecological resources under ecological civilization construction in China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021 , 172 , 105679. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, Y.; Zang, Y.; Yang, Y. China’s rural revitalization and development: Theory, technology and management. J. Geogr. Sci. 2020 , 30 , 1923–1942. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cheng, G.; Dou, H.; Xu, S.; Dai, R.; Liang, X.; Huang, Y.; Wu, X.; Zhang, J.; Wang, C. Rural human settlement environment improvement: Process, status and China’s sample. Env. Dev. Sustain. 2024 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Qian, M.; Cheng, Z.; Wang, Z.; Qi, D. What Affects Rural Ecological Environment Governance Efficiency? Evidence from China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 5925. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tilt, B. Industrial Pollution and Environmental Health in Rural China: Risk, Uncertainty and Individualization. China Q. 2013 , 214 , 283–301. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tang, S.-Y.; Lo, C.W.-H.; Fryxell, G.E. Governance reform, external support, and environmental regulation enforcement in rural China: The case of Guangdong province. J. Environ. Manag. 2010 , 91 , 2008–2018. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yu, F. Resource and Environmental Situations and Policy Options of Rural Ecological Governance in China. In Global Ecological Governance and Ecological Economy ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; pp. 91–110. [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu, K. Challenges, Opportunities and Future Paths: Environmental Governance of Big Data Initiatives in China. Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 9975. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xie, L. Environmental governance and public participation in rural China. China Inf. 2016 , 30 , 188–208. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yu, H.H.; Edmunds, M.; Lora-Wainwright, A.; Thomas, D. Governance of the irrigation commons under integrated water resources management—A comparative study in contemporary rural China. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016 , 55 , 65–74. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yu, X.; Geng, Y.; Heck, P.; Xue, B. A Review of China’s Rural Water Management. Sustainability 2015 , 7 , 5773–5792. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, R.; Eisenack, K.; Tan, R. Sustainable rural renewal in China: Archetypical patterns. Ecol. Soc. 2019 , 24 , 32. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xie, L.; Flynn, A.; Tan-Mullins, M.; Cheshmehzangi, A. Water and land: Environmental governance and Chinese eco-development. J. Clean. Prod. 2019 , 221 , 839–853. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, Y.; Huang, S.; Liu, J. Research on the Rural Environmental Governance and Interaction Effects of Farmers under the Perspective of Circular Economy—Evidence from Three Provinces of China. Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 13233. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, X. A framework for promoting sustainable development in rural ecological governance using deep convolutional neural networks. Soft Comput. 2024 , 28 , 3683–3702. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, Y.; Yang, C.; Tan, S.; Zhou, H.; Zeng, W. An approach to assess spatio-temporal heterogeneity of rural ecosystem health: A case study in Chongqing mountainous area, China. Ecol. Indic. 2022 , 136 , 108644. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hu, S.; He, J. The willingness to household waste disposal practices of residents in rural China. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2022 , 24 , 1124–1133. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wu, B.; Mu, D.; Luo, Y.; Xiao, Z.; Zhao, J.; Cui, D. Rural Ecological Problems in China from 2013 to 2022: A Review of Research Hotspots, Geographical Distribution, and Countermeasures. Land 2022 , 11 , 1326. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, C.; Guo, J.; Liu, C.; Peng, Y.; Tang, Y. Research Status, Hotspots, and Trend Analysis of the Rural Living Environment Upgrade in China from 1992 to 2022: A Bibliometric and Narrative Review Analysis. Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 10508. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhou, Y.; Li, X.; Liu, Y. Rural land system reforms in China: History, issues, measures and prospects. Land Use Policy 2020 , 91 , 104330. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pan, X. The Theoretical Innovation and Practical Significance of The Theory about “Two Mountains” by Xi Jinping. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2018 , 199 , 022047. [ Google Scholar ]
• Han, Z.; Fei, Y.; Liu, D.; Dan, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Shi, G.; Wang, J.; Xie, Y. Yield and physical characteristics analysis of domestic waste in rural areas of China and its disposal proposal. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2017 , 33 , 1–14. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zeng, D.; Chen, G.; Zhou, P.; Xu, H.; Qiong, A.; Duo, B.; Lu, X.; Wang, Z.; Han, Z. Factors influencing groundwater contamination near municipal solid waste landfill sites in the Qinghai-Tibetan plateau. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2021 , 211 , 111913. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Wei, W.; Chen, L.; Fu, B.; Huang, Z.; Wu, D.; Gui, L. The effect of land uses and rainfall regimes on runoff and soil erosion in the semi-arid loess hilly area, China. J. Hydrol. 2007 , 335 , 247–258. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xiong, M.; Sun, R.; Chen, L. Effects of soil conservation techniques on water erosion control: A global analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 2018 , 645 , 753–760. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen, L.; Gong, J.; Fu, B.; Huang, Z.; Huang, Y.; Gui, L. Effect of land use conversion on soil organic carbon sequestration in the loess hilly area, loess plateau of China. Ecol. Res. 2007 , 22 , 641–648. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xiong, M.; Sun, R.; Chen, L. Global analysis of support practices in USLE-based soil erosion modeling. Prog. Phys. Geogr. Earth Environ. 2019 , 43 , 391–409. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lu, Y.; de Vries, W.T. A Discourse Analysis of 40 Years Rural Development in China. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 5206. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, Z.; Luo, Y.; Zhang, M.; Xia, J. Quantitative Evaluation of Sustainable Development and Eco-Environmental Carrying Capacity in Water-Deficient Regions: A Case Study in the Haihe River Basin, China. J. Integr. Agric. 2014 , 13 , 195–206. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Grano, S.A. China’s changing environmental governance: Enforcement, compliance and conflict resolution mechanisms for public participation. China Inf. 2016 , 30 , 129–142. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Marchese, D.; Reynolds, E.; Bates, M.E.; Morgan, H.; Clark, S.S.; Linkov, I. Resilience and sustainability: Similarities and differences in environmental management applications. Sci. Total Environ. 2018 , 613–614 , 1275–1283. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Zou, Q.; Sun, J.; Luo, J.; Cui, J.; Kong, X. Spatial Patterns of Key Villages and Towns of Rural Tourism in China and Their Influencing Factors. Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 13330. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Tang, H.; Liu, X.; Li, J. Advancements, Dynamics, and Future Directions in Rural Environmental Governance Research in China. Appl. Sci. 2024 , 14 , 5654. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14135654

Tang H, Liu X, Li J. Advancements, Dynamics, and Future Directions in Rural Environmental Governance Research in China. Applied Sciences . 2024; 14(13):5654. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14135654

Tang, Huanchen, Xiaodong Liu, and Junjie Li. 2024. "Advancements, Dynamics, and Future Directions in Rural Environmental Governance Research in China" Applied Sciences 14, no. 13: 5654. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14135654

Article Metrics

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

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

• Introduction
• Conclusions
• Article Information

In some articles, the number of cases and/or sample sizes might not coincide with those provided in the original study owing to the R package, which recalculates the percentage. We were interested in keeping the estimate provided; therefore, we modified numbers accordingly. A1 indicates the question “Have you experienced tinnitus?”; A2, “Have you experienced tinnitus for more than 5 minutes?”; A3, “Have you experienced tinnitus during the last months”?; A4, “During the last months, have you experienced tinnitus which lasts for more than 5 minutes?”; A5, assessment of tinnitus through a specific scale; A6, assessment of tinnitus via other tinnitus definitions; BG, Bulgaria; DE, Germany; ES, Spain; FR, France; GR, Greece; IE, Ireland; IT, Italy; LV, Latvia; PL, Polonia; PT, Portugal; RO, Romania; THI, Tinnitus Handicap Inventory; TQ, Tinnitus Questionnaire; and TSCHQ, Tinnitus Sample Case History Questionnaire.

a This study had 2 populations; the second population is indicated by “b.”

In some articles, the number of cases and/or sample sizes might not coincide with those provided in the original study owing to the R package, which recalculates the percentage. We were interested in keeping the estimate provided; therefore, we modified numbers accordingly. BG indicates Bulgaria; DE, Germany; ES, Spain; FR, France; GR, Greece; IE, Ireland; IT, Italy; LV, Latvia; PL, Polonia; PT, Portugal; RO, Romania; S1, “Are you bothered by your tinnitus?”; S2, “How much are you bothered by your tinnitus?”; S3, “Does your tinnitus interfere with sleep and concentration?”; S4, assessment of tinnitus severity through a specific scale; S5, assessment of tinnitus severity via other definitions of tinnitus severity; THI, Tinnitus Handicap Inventory; and TQ, Tinnitus Questionnaire.

eFigure 1. Flow Chart of the Present Systematic Review

eFigure 2. Forest Plot of Tinnitus Prevalence in Children and Adolescents, by Different Definition Classes of Any Tinnitus

eFigure 3. Forest Plot of Any Tinnitus Prevalence, by Age Group

eFigure 4. Funnel Plot for Publication Bias

eFigure 5. Forest Plot of Incidence Rate per 100,000 Person-Years of Any Tinnitus in Adults (Both Sexes)

eTable 1. Search String Used for the Umbrella and the Traditional Reviews

eTable 2. List of Articles Excluded and Reasons of Exclusion

eTable 3. List of and Reason for Exclusion of the 24 Eligible Studies Excluded From the Meta-analysis

eTable 4. Definitions of Any, Severe, Chronic, and Diagnosed Tinnitus Used in the Systematic Review

eTable 5. Characteristics of the 89 Studies Included in the Meta-analysis

eTable 6. Prevalence of Any Tinnitus and Severe Tinnitus per Continent and Globally

eReferences.

• Error in Open Access Status JAMA Neurology Correction February 1, 2023

See More About

Select your interests.

Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.

• Academic Medicine
• Acid Base, Electrolytes, Fluids
• Allergy and Clinical Immunology
• American Indian or Alaska Natives
• Anesthesiology
• Anticoagulation
• Art and Images in Psychiatry
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assisted Reproduction
• Bleeding and Transfusion
• Caring for the Critically Ill Patient
• Challenges in Clinical Electrocardiography
• Climate and Health
• Climate Change
• Clinical Challenge
• Clinical Decision Support
• Clinical Implications of Basic Neuroscience
• Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Consensus Statements
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Critical Care Medicine
• Cultural Competency
• Dental Medicine
• Dermatology
• Diabetes and Endocrinology
• Diagnostic Test Interpretation
• Drug Development
• Electronic Health Records
• Emergency Medicine
• End of Life, Hospice, Palliative Care
• Environmental Health
• Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
• Facial Plastic Surgery
• Gastroenterology and Hepatology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Genomics and Precision Health
• Global Health
• Guide to Statistics and Methods
• Hair Disorders
• Health Care Delivery Models
• Health Care Economics, Insurance, Payment
• Health Care Quality
• Health Care Reform
• Health Care Safety
• Health Care Workforce
• Health Disparities
• Health Inequities
• Health Policy
• Health Systems Science
• History of Medicine
• Hypertension
• Images in Neurology
• Implementation Science
• Infectious Diseases
• Innovations in Health Care Delivery
• JAMA Infographic
• Law and Medicine
• Leading Change
• Less is More
• LGBTQIA Medicine
• Lifestyle Behaviors
• Medical Coding
• Medical Devices and Equipment
• Medical Education
• Medical Education and Training
• Medical Journals and Publishing
• Mobile Health and Telemedicine
• Narrative Medicine
• Neuroscience and Psychiatry
• Notable Notes
• Nutrition, Obesity, Exercise
• Obstetrics and Gynecology
• Occupational Health
• Ophthalmology
• Orthopedics
• Otolaryngology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Care
• Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
• Patient Care
• Patient Information
• Performance Improvement
• Performance Measures
• Perioperative Care and Consultation
• Pharmacoeconomics
• Pharmacoepidemiology
• Pharmacogenetics
• Pharmacy and Clinical Pharmacology
• Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
• Physical Therapy
• Physician Leadership
• Population Health
• Primary Care
• Professional Well-being
• Professionalism
• Psychiatry and Behavioral Health
• Public Health
• Pulmonary Medicine
• Regulatory Agencies
• Reproductive Health
• Research, Methods, Statistics
• Resuscitation
• Rheumatology
• Risk Management
• Scientific Discovery and the Future of Medicine
• Shared Decision Making and Communication
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports Medicine
• Stem Cell Transplantation
• Substance Use and Addiction Medicine
• Surgical Innovation
• Surgical Pearls
• Teachable Moment
• Technology and Finance
• The Art of JAMA
• The Arts and Medicine
• The Rational Clinical Examination
• Tobacco and e-Cigarettes
• Translational Medicine
• Trauma and Injury
• Treatment Adherence
• Ultrasonography
• Users' Guide to the Medical Literature
• Vaccination
• Venous Thromboembolism
• Veterans Health
• Women's Health
• Workflow and Process
• Wound Care, Infection, Healing

Others Also Liked

• Download PDF
• X Facebook More LinkedIn

Jarach CM , Lugo A , Scala M, et al. Global Prevalence and Incidence of Tinnitus : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis . JAMA Neurol. 2022;79(9):888–900. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2022.2189

Manage citations:

© 2024

• Permissions

Global Prevalence and Incidence of Tinnitus : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

• 1 Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri IRCCS, Milan, Italy
• 2 GROW–School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Department of Epidemiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands
• 3 Care and Public Health Research Institute–School for Public Health and Primary Care, Department of Epidemiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands
• 4 Laboratory of Experimental Audiology, Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
• 5 National Institute for Health Research Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals National Health Service Trust, Nottingham, United Kingdom
• 6 Division of Clinical Neuroscience, Hearing Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom
• 7 School of Medicine, University Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
• 8 Department of Public Health, Experimental and Forensic Medicine, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy
• 9 School of Medicine and Surgery, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University of Milan–Bicocca, Milan, Italy
• 10 Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany
• Correction Error in Open Access Status JAMA Neurology

Question   What is the global prevalence and incidence of tinnitus?

Findings   This systematic review and meta-analysis estimated that the annual incidence of tinnitus is approximately 1%, with 14% of adults experiencing any tinnitus and 2% experiencing a severe form of it. The prevalence of tinnitus did not differ by sex, but increased prevalence was associated with increasing age, with any tinnitus being present in 10% of young adults, 14% of middle-aged adults, and 24% of older adults.

Meaning   This study suggests that the global burden of tinnitus is large, similar to migraine and pain, and the lack of effective treatment options justifies a major investment in research in this area.

Importance   To date, no systematic review has taken a meta-analytic approach to estimating the prevalence and incidence of tinnitus in the general population.

Objective   To provide frequency estimates of tinnitus worldwide.

Data Sources   An umbrella review followed by a traditional systematic review was performed by searching PubMed-MEDLINE and Embase from inception through November 19, 2021.

Study Selection   Research data from the general population were selected, and studies based on patients or on subgroups of the population with selected lifestyle habits were excluded. No restrictions were applied according to date, age, sex, and country.

Data Extraction and Synthesis   Relevant extracted information included type of study, time and location, end point, population characteristics, and tinnitus definition. The study followed the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology ( MOOSE ) reporting guideline.

Main Outcomes and Measures   Pooled prevalence estimates of any tinnitus, severe tinnitus, chronic tinnitus, and diagnosed tinnitus as well as incidence of tinnitus were obtained using random-effects meta-analytic models; heterogeneity between studies was controlled using the χ 2 test, and inconsistency was measured using the I 2 statistic.

Results   Among 767 publications, 113 eligible articles published between 1972 and 2021 were identified, and prevalence estimates from 83 articles and incidence estimates from 12 articles were extracted. The pooled prevalence of any tinnitus among adults was 14.4% (95% CI, 12.6%-16.5%) and ranged from 4.1% (95% CI, 3.7%-4.4%) to 37.2% (95% CI, 34.6%-39.9%). Prevalence estimates did not significantly differ by sex (14.1% [95% CI, 11.6%-17.0%] among male individuals; 13.1% [95% CI, 10.5%-16.2%] among female individuals), but increased prevalence was associated with age (9.7% [95% CI, 7.4%-12.5%] among adults aged 18-44 years; 13.7% [95% CI, 11.0%-17.0%] among those aged 45-64 years; and 23.6% [95% CI, 19.4%-28.5%] among those aged ≥65 years; P  < .001 among age groups). The pooled prevalence of severe tinnitus was 2.3% (95% CI, 1.7%-3.1%), ranging from 0.5% (95% CI, 0.3%-0.7%) to 12.6% (95% CI, 11.1%-14.1%). The pooled prevalence of chronic tinnitus was 9.8% (95% CI, 4.7%-19.3%) and the pooled prevalence of diagnosed tinnitus was 3.4% (95% CI, 2.1%-5.5%). The pooled incidence rate of any tinnitus was 1164 per 100 000 person-years (95% CI, 479-2828 per 100 000 person-years).

Conclusions and Relevance   Despite the substantial heterogeneity among studies, this comprehensive systematic review on the prevalence and incidence of tinnitus suggests that tinnitus affects more than 740 million adults globally and is perceived as a major problem by more than 120 million people, mostly aged 65 years or older. Health policy makers should consider the global burden of tinnitus, and greater effort should be devoted to boost research on tinnitus.

The term tinnitus comes from the Latin word tinnire , which means “to ring.” Individuals experiencing tinnitus report an unspecified acoustic sound like ringing, but also buzzing, clicking, pulsations, and other noises. 1 Tinnitus is considered a symptom of an underlying condition, rather than a disease, and it refers to the perception of sounds in the head or ears when no corresponding external sounds are present. 2 , 3 A severe form of tinnitus is associated with hearing loss, thus impairing quality of life. 4 , 5

Today there is no globally accepted categorization of tinnitus, although different attempts have been made. 6 Moreover, evidence on the frequency (ie, prevalence and incidence) of tinnitus among the general population is still scant. The difficulties in obtaining adequate data are due to the multifactorial etiology of tinnitus, its associated disorders, the various characteristics of the symptoms, and the subjective nature of any assessment of tinnitus. 7

The very few longitudinal studies on tinnitus hamper any accurate estimate of its incidence. Moreover, the prevalence of tinnitus, which is estimated as either point prevalence, period prevalence, or lifetime prevalence, 8 ranges widely, partly because of the lack of standardization in its assessment, illustrated in a systematic review in which McCormack et al 3 attempted to identify and collect data on the global prevalence of tinnitus.

Since that last review on the prevalence of tinnitus, the literature on tinnitus has increased by at least 30%. An update of the evidence, which also includes pediatric tinnitus, is now necessary. We conducted a systematic review to identify the relevant publications in the scientific literature on the frequency of tinnitus at a global level, using an original search method. 9

This systematic review and meta-analysis is based on 2 subsequent literature searches on the prevalence and incidence of tinnitus. The first search was an umbrella review: a systematic review to identify published meta-analyses, pooled analyses, and systematic reviews providing data on the prevalence or incidence of tinnitus. The second search was a traditional review of original publications: a systematic review of all original articles on the prevalence or incidence of tinnitus to update the results identified in the umbrella review. A review protocol was registered in advance on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42021283684). The study followed the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology ( MOOSE ) reporting guideline.

We conducted an umbrella review to systematically collect existing evidence on the prevalence and incidence of tinnitus. We searched in PubMed-MEDLINE and Embase for all systematic reviews or meta-analyses published from inception through November 19, 2021, that had the word tinnitus in the title (eTable 1 in the Supplement ). We retrieved 310 reviews from PubMed and 346 from Embase. After checking for duplicates using EndNote, version X7 (Clarivate), we excluded protocols, scoping reviews, case studies or animal model studies, and articles that were not in English. After applying our inclusion criteria (ie, reporting data on the prevalence or incidence of tinnitus), we excluded 369 reviews as not relevant, ending up with 15 publications. We added 1 study that we were aware of that followed our eligibility criteria but was not identified by our search string because it was not classified as a review. From each of these 16 relevant systematic reviews, we extracted the citations of all the original articles providing data on the prevalence and incidence of tinnitus, collecting 284 original studies in total.

We included only articles in English, based on samples representative of the general population, and with estimates specifically of tinnitus. Reports, letters to the editor, book chapters, conference proceedings, dissertations, and theses were not considered. We excluded studies based on patients or on subgroups of the population with selected lifestyle habits or other characteristics (eg, musicians or people regularly exposed to noise). No restrictions were applied regarding the date of publication, age, sex, and country. Two researchers (C.M.J. and M.S.) independently checked for eligibility. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion; in case of disagreement, a third reviewer (A.L.) helped to reach consensus. The umbrella review yielded 93 eligible original articles.

We then conducted a traditional review to check any relevant articles in the literature that might not have been identified through the umbrella review. We searched articles in PubMed-MEDLINE and Embase published from inception through November 19, 2021, using a string that included a combination of the words tinnitus , prevalence , and incidence in the title. From 245 publications, we checked for duplicates and retrieved 154 unique references. After excluding articles identified in the umbrella review (n = 45), other duplicates (n = 15), and noneligible articles (n = 78), we obtained 16 new records. To these, we added 2 other references retrieved from other sources that we knew followed our eligibility criteria. All the articles excluded from both the umbrella and the traditional review, as well as the reasons for exclusion, are listed in eTable 2 in the Supplement .

We used a standardized form in Excel 2016 (Microsoft Corp) to extract data from each article identified. Relevant information included first author, year of publication, journal, type of study, time and location, end point (prevalence and/or incidence), other information (country and sample size), population characteristics (sex and age group), and tinnitus definition. Data were blindly extracted by 2 independent reviewers (C.M.J. and M.S.). Any disagreement was resolved by discussion, or with the help of a third reviewer (A.L.). Each prevalence estimate was extracted and classified by age group: children (≥17 years), young adults (18-44 years), middle-aged adults (45-64 years), older adults (≥65 years), and all adults (≥18 years).

If, while extracting, we came across summary tables that gave additional relevant citations, these were evaluated using the same inclusion and exclusion criteria. This evaluation led to 2 additional eligible articles, yielding a final total of 113 eligible articles. Among these, 24 articles were not included in the extraction for meta-analysis because their results were already included in other more complete or more recent articles (eTable 3 in the Supplement ). We extracted prevalence or incidence estimates from 89 articles.

The pooled prevalence and incidence of any tinnitus and severe tinnitus were calculated overall for children, adolescents, and adults and separately by tinnitus definition (eTable 4 in the Supplement ). For any tinnitus in adults, we identified 6 possible classes of definitions (A1-A6), and for severe tinnitus, we identified 5 possible classes (S1-S5). For children and adolescents, classes either had the word tinnitus in the question asked (any tinnitus or severe tinnitus) or had a phrase, such as “noises in your ears” (any noises or severe noises). Other possible definitions were chronic tinnitus or diagnosed tinnitus.

Pooled estimates were obtained using random-effects meta-analytic models to take account of the heterogeneity of the estimates. Heterogeneity among studies was controlled using the χ 2 test, and inconsistency was measured using the I 2 statistic, which represents the proportion of total variation associated with between-study variance, with higher values denoting a greater degree of heterogeneity. Stratified analyses by selected individual-level characteristics (eg, sex and age) and country-specific characteristics (eg, continent, gross domestic product [GDP], and latitude of the main city) were performed to detect possible sources of heterogeneity. The quality of the studies was not assessed because it was beyond the scope of meta-analyses on disease frequency. Because most prevalence and incidence estimates were provided without 95% CIs, we recalculated all the 95% CIs from the raw data given in the original articles. All P values were from 2-sided tests and results were deemed statistically significant at P  < .05.

All statistical analyses were performed using the R Studio software, version 1.4.1717 (R Group for Statistical Computing), particularly the “meta” and “metaphor” packages. To assess publication bias, we examined the funnel plots visually and applied the Egger test for funnel plot asymmetry.

Among 767 publications (384 reviews, 284 identified original publications, 94 articles from the traditional review, and 5 articles known by the authors), 113 eligible articles published between 1972 and 2021 were identified. We extracted prevalence estimates from 83 articles and incidence estimates from 12 articles. eFigure 1 in the Supplement shows the flowchart of study selection. Details on country, age group, and tinnitus definition in the 89 eligible articles included in meta-analyses are summarized in eTable 5 in the Supplement .

The pooled prevalence estimate of any tinnitus among adults ( Figure 1 ) 4 , 7 , 10 - 49 was 14.4% (95% CI, 12.6%-16.5%; 55 studies; I 2  = 100%). Among all studies, the estimates ranged from 4.1% (95% CI, 3.7%-4.4%) to 37.2% (95% CI, 34.6%-39.9%). The prevalence of any tinnitus did not differ according to the definitions (test for subgroup differences, χ 2 5  = 8.60; P  = .13 among strata): the prevalence of those who were asked “Have you experienced tinnitus?” (A1) was 17.5% (95% CI, 14.0%-21.8%; 12 studies; I 2  = 100%); for those who were asked if they had experienced tinnitus “for more than 5 minutes?” (A2), it was 13.7% (95% CI, 10.7%-17.4%; 9 studies; I 2  = 100%); for those who were asked “Have you experienced tinnitus during the last months?” (A3), it was 14.2% (95% CI, 10.0%-19.8%; 7 studies; I 2  = 100%); for those who were asked “During the last months, have you experienced tinnitus which lasts for more than 5 minutes?” (A4), it was 16.0% (95% CI, 13.1%-19.4%; 18 studies; I 2  = 99%); for those assessing tinnitus through a specific scale (A5), it was 9.3% (95% CI, 3.2%-24.1%; 3 studies; I 2  = 100%); and for those who were asked about other tinnitus definitions (A6), it was 9.6% (95% CI, 6.3%-14.3%; 6 studies; I 2  = 100%).

The pooled prevalence of any tinnitus among children and adolescents (eFigure 2 in the Supplement ) was 13.6% (95% CI, 8.5%-21.0%; 27 studies; I 2  = 100%). Among all studies, this prevalence ranged from 0.7% (95% CI, 0.6%-0.8%) to 66.9% (95% CI, 62.6%-71.0%). The prevalence of any tinnitus among children and adolescents was heterogeneous in strata of tinnitus definition classes ( P  = .01 among strata); for those who were in a study in which the word “tinnitus” was not present in the question (any noises), the prevalence was 20.4% (95% CI, 14.4%-28.0%; 18 studies; I 2  = 99%), and for those who were in a study in which it was present (any tinnitus), it was 5.6% (95% CI, 2.0%-14.8%; 9 studies; I 2  = 100%).

The pooled prevalence of any tinnitus was 9.7% (95% CI, 7.4%-12.5%; 22 studies; I 2  = 100%) among young adults, 13.7% (95% CI, 11.0%-17.0%; 30 studies; I 2  = 100%) among middle-aged adults, and 23.6% (95% CI, 19.4%-28.5%; 31 studies; I 2  = 99%) among older adults (eFigure 3 in the Supplement ). For adults, the pooled prevalence for any tinnitus was 14.1% (95% CI, 11.6%-17.0%; 32 studies; I 2  = 100%) among male individuals and 13.1% (95% CI, 10.5%-16.2%; 30 studies; I 2  = 100%) among female individuals ( P  = .62 between strata; Table 1 ).

Any tinnitus in adults significantly differed by continents, ranging from 5.2% (95% CI, 4.7%-5.7%; 1 study) in Africa to 21.9% (95% CI, 20.2%-23.8%; 1 study) in South America ( P  < .001 among strata; Table 1 ). The presence of tinnitus did not differ among per-capita GDP tertiles (<$4100, 14.3% [95% CI, 11.2%-18.0%]; $4100-$5200, 13.8% [95% CI, 11.0%-17.1%]; and >$5200, 15.6% [95% CI, 12.3%-19.5%]; P  = .74 among strata), but it differed according to latitude of the main city (<40°, 15.0% [95% CI, 11.5%-19.4%]; 40°-51°, 11.7% [95% CI, 9.4%-14.5%]; and ≥52°, 17.0% [95% CI, 14.4%-19.9%]; P  = .03 among strata).

The pooled prevalence of severe tinnitus among adults was 2.3% (95% CI, 1.7%-3.1%; 34 studies; I 2  = 99%) ( Figure 2 ). 4 , 7 , 10 - 13 , 16 , 17 , 21 , 25 , 28 - 30 , 32 , 33 , 36 , 37 , 40 , 43 , 44 , 46 , 49 Among all studies, the pooled prevelance ranged from 0.5% (95% CI, 0.3%-0.7%) to 12.6% (95% CI, 11.1%-14.1%). Severity of tinnitus among adults differed with the tinnitus definition classes ( P  < .001 among strata). For those who were asked “Are you bothered by your tinnitus?” (S1), the pooled prevalence of severe tinnitus was 6.4% (95% CI, 4.2%-9.6%; 7 studies; I 2  = 100%); for those who were asked “How much are you bothered by your tinnitus?” (S2), it was 1.3% (95% CI, 1.1%-1.7%; 21 studies; I 2  = 93%); for those who were asked “Does your tinnitus interfere with sleep and concentration?” (S3), the only study identified a prevalence of 3.0% (95% CI, 2.5%-3.6%); for those asked about tinnitus severity assessed on a validated scale (S4), the pooled prevalence was 2.9% (95% CI, 0.9%-9.2%; 3 studies; I 2  = 99%); and for those asked about other tinnitus severity definitions (S5), it was 7.3% (95% CI, 5.4%-9.9%; 2 studies; I 2  = 100%).

The pooled prevalence of severe tinnitus among children and adolescents was 2.7% (95% CI, 0.8%-8.4%; 10 studies; I 2  = 99%) ( Table 2 ). The pooled prevalence of severe tinnitus was 0.4% (95% CI, 0.3%-0.7%; 2 studies; I 2  = 0%) for young adults, 2.7% (95% CI, 1.6%-4.7%; 3 studies; I 2  = 97%) for middle-aged adults, and 6.9% (95% CI, 2.6%-17.4%; 4 studies; I 2  = 99%) for the older adults. The pooled prevalence of severe tinnitus was 2.3% (95% CI, 1.1%-4.6%; 8 studies; I 2  = 100%) for male individuals and 2.7% (95% CI, 1.7%-4.3%; 7 studies; I 2  = 99%) for female individuals ( P  = .66 among strata).

Severity among adults significantly differed by continent, ranging from 0.8% (95% CI, 0.6%-1.0%; 1 study) in Africa to 3.3% (95% CI, 1.2%-8.8%; 4 studies; I 2  = 99%) in North America ( P  < .001 among strata) ( Table 2 ). The prevalence of severe tinnitus did not differ significantly by per capita GDP tertile (1.7% [95% CI, 1.1%-2.7%] for <$4100; 2.7% [95% CI, 1.6%-4.3%] for $4100-$5200; and 3.0% [95% CI, 1.5%-5.9%] for >$5200; P  = .29 among strata) or by latitude (2.6% [95% CI, 1.5%-4.6%] for <40°; 1.9% [95% CI, 1.1%-3.1%] for 40°-51°; and 2.4% [95% CI, 1.4%-4.0%] for ≥52°; P  = .65 among strata). Pooled prevalence estimates of any tinnitus and severe tinnitus per continent are listed in eTable 6 in the Supplement .

Converting our pooled prevalence estimates to absolute numbers, we found that there were 749 million adults (95% CI, 655-858 million adults) worldwide with any tinnitus and 120 million adults (95% CI, 88-177 million adults) with severe tinnitus. Using continent-specific estimates, we found that the resulting numbers would not change substantially (any tinnitus: 746 million people [95% CI, 537-1039 million people]; severe tinnitus: 140 million people [95% CI, 92-237 million people]).

A possible publication bias emerged for the prevalence of any tinnitus and for the prevalence of severe tinnitus ( P  < .001 for the Egger test; eFigure 4 in the Supplement ). For adults, the pooled prevalence of diagnosed tinnitus was 3.4% (95% CI, 2.1%-5.5%; 3 studies; I 2  = 99%), and the pooled prevalence of chronic tinnitus, defined as tinnitus occurring most or all of the time or persisting for months, was 9.8% (95% CI, 4.7%-19.3%; 3 studies; I 2  = 99%).

Of 89 studies, 12 provided information on incidence estimates ( Table 3 ). 14 , 15 , 23 , 46 , 50 - 57 These longitudinal studies came from 7 countries (ie, Australia, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, UK, and US) and were published from 2002 to 2019. Annual incidence rates ranged substantially from 54 to 3914 per 100 000 person-years. The pooled annual incidence rate of any tinnitus, based on the crude estimate of the 6 studies among adults (with both sexes combined), is 1164 per 100 000 person-years (95% CI, 479-2828 per 100 000 person-years) (eFigure 5 in the Supplement ).

To our knowledge, this systematic review provides the most comprehensive and up-to-date evidence on the prevalence and incidence of tinnitus worldwide among adults and children or adolescents, summarizing estimates from 89 original studies. For the first time, we provide pooled estimates of tinnitus; based on our data, approximately 14% of the world population have experienced tinnitus, and more than 2% have severe tinnitus. The prevalence of tinnitus is similar for both sexes, and increases in prevalence are associated with increasing age. Heterogeneous estimates have been reported by the few studies that provide data on the incidence of tinnitus. The pooled annual incidence rate approaches 1%.

The various cross-sectional studies providing data on the frequency of tinnitus used a wide variety of assessment methods. 3 , 58 , 59 We therefore classified the questions about any tinnitus into 6 groups and about severe tinnitus into 5 groups. Despite the substantial heterogeneity of estimates in the classes of any tinnitus, we did not find statistically significant differences in its prevalence across classes. This finding suggests that, at least for any tinnitus, not all the variability is explained by different definitions, and other factors might explain the prevalence of any tinnitus better at the population level.

Concomitantly, our findings suggest that data on tinnitus among children or adolescents are more prone to different interpretations of the question used to assess tinnitus. One possible reason could be that children are more frequently asked about tinnitus without specifically mentioning the name of the symptom. Other researchers have suggested that children might report the presence of noise to please the interviewers. 60 Despite the increasing number of studies on the subject, tinnitus remains an unrecognized problem that is inadequately assessed in the pediatric population. 61

We found differences in terms of any tinnitus and severe tinnitus in association with age, confirming the increasing prevalence of the symptom with age. 7 , 10 , 11 In particular, whereas the prevalence of any tinnitus among older adults was close to 2.5 times higher than among young adults, the prevalence of severe tinnitus among older adults was almost 20 times higher than among young adults. This finding suggests that tinnitus is a particular disorder of older people. 8

The literature is not unanimous about whether there is any association between sex and tinnitus. McCormack and colleagues 3 generally reported a higher prevalence of any tinnitus among men than women, whereas Biswas and colleagues 12 found a higher prevalence of bothersome tinnitus among women than men. The latter is consistent with previous findings of an association between severe tinnitus and suicidal attempts among women but not among men. 4 In our comprehensive review, pooling findings from a vast scientific literature, we did not find any significant difference according to sex for either any tinnitus or severe tinnitus.

As previously noted, 8 information is scant on the differences in tinnitus prevalence among countries, and we were only partially able to fill the gap. In fact, Africa, Oceania, and South America are not well represented. We found only 2 studies on the prevalence of any tinnitus and 2 studies on the prevalence of severe tinnitus from Africa and South America combined, covering more than 1.7 billion people. This finding may, to some extent, be due to the fact that, by protocol, we did not include articles that were not in English. Pooled estimates for any tinnitus from the other continents were somehow similar—between 13% and 15%—whereas differences were larger for pooled estimates for severe tinnitus—between 1.8% and 3.3%.

In addition to country-specific population characteristics, including lifestyle and dietary habits, 7 mental health conditions, 1 or ethnicity, 13 variations in the prevalence of tinnitus between countries and continents could be explained by different exposures and etiologies. Recently, it has been evidenced by means of genetic epidemiology studies 50 , 62 - 64 and genomic studies 65 , 66 that tinnitus is hereditary. Although common variants have been associated with broad tinnitus definitions, such as “any” tinnitus, it appears that rare variants are more associated with severe tinnitus. 65 , 66 Thus, differences in population genetics could be associated with the large discrepancies in the prevalence of severe tinnitus, as for instance in South America. However, more efforts are needed to investigate the association of genetics with any tinnitus or severe tinnitus across different countries and continents. In a European survey, Biswas et al 12 found that the prevalence of tinnitus was greater in countries from the eastern European region than in western Europe, with Bulgaria reaching a prevalence for any tinnitus of 28.3% and Romania with a prevalence for severe tinnitus peaking at 4.2%. This finding is consistent with a greater prevalence of hearing loss among individuals in these countries, according to the Global Burden of Disease study. 67 It is possible that less active work-related preventive measures against occupational noise exposure or limited access to rehabilitation for hearing loss by means of hearing aids may cause such disparities across Europe. In contrast, the low frequency of acoustic neuromas and head injuries and traumas among individuals with tinnitus is unlikely to explain such variety across countries and continents. 68 - 70 Other risk factors could also underlie such differences in prevalence. However, only a handful of case-control and longitudinal studies have investigated the potential causal relationship to tinnitus, most of which focus on hearing-related conditions. 14 , 15 Thus, a comprehensive picture of the association of nonauditory etiologies with any tinnitus or severe tinnitus is required.

Our results do indicate that differences arise when using multiple definitions to assess tinnitus. For future research, therefore, we recommend using a standardized questionnaire for assessing the prevalence of tinnitus, to make better comparisons between different surveys, identifying more solid estimates of tinnitus in various countries worldwide. We acknowledge, however, that no single question can address the multidimensional properties of tinnitus that are critical for its assessment (duration [acute or chronic], temporality [intermittent or constant], and severity [negligible or impactful]). Thus, our suggestion is to systematically use the questions given by a consortium of experts available in multiple languages. 58

For children specifically, a large difference was clear between questionnaires that mentioned the term tinnitus and those that did not; we conclude that future surveys addressing children and adolescents must state clearly the name of the disorder in their questions—with an explanation—as the high prevalence of tinnitus might be a result of the participants not recognizing the extraordinary nature of the symptom being investigated.

An association has been hypothesized between socioeconomic status and tinnitus. 16 , 54 Although with all the limitations of an ecological analysis, 71 , 72 we found no association between per-capita GDP and tinnitus prevalence.

Tinnitus has been reported to have a seasonal pattern, where it is worse in the winter than in the summer. 73 Thus, the hours of sunlight per day or certain temperatures might be associated with the onset or severity of tinnitus. Countries with their main city at an intermediate latitude (40°-51°) had the lowest prevalence and the lowest severity of tinnitus. Future analytical studies should investigate this issue in more detail.

In this meta-analysis, we defined as eligible only studies based on samples representative of the general population, excluding subgroups of the population exposed to selected risk factors, such as veterans and musicians. In these 2 particular populations, the prevalence of tinnitus was reported with a point estimate of 31% among veterans 74 and 26% among musicians, 75 much higher than among the general adult population. These 2 subpopulations might therefore be targeted for specific interventions to prevent or limit exposure to noise and, consequently, to reduce tinnitus and other hearing conditions.

There is a paucity of articles on the incidence of tinnitus: of 113 eligible articles, only 12 provided data on the incidence of tinnitus, although many cohorts were available with tinnitus assessed at follow-up. The incidence rates differed by up to 2 orders of magnitude in various studies. Although estimates stratified by sex are frequently provided, information is limited on incident cases by age group.

This study has some limitations, including the classification of tinnitus into 6 groups of questions for any tinnitus (A1-A6) and 5 groups for severe tinnitus (S1-S5). Although inspired by the 8 different categories for tinnitus identified by McCormack et al, 3 our classification has not been validated and is therefore subject to the interpretation of the researchers who used it. Moreover, we cannot exclude a possible publication bias regarding the prevalence of both any tinnitus and severe tinnitus.

The strengths of the study include the original method used to identify relevant articles, which involves an umbrella review as well as a traditional review. 9 This method has already been shown to be both effective and efficient in the identification of relevant articles in other recent systematic reviews. 76 - 78 Thus, we were able to include almost twice the number of articles included in the most comprehensive review of the literature published before the present one, 3 including, in our opinion, at least 11 articles that could have been retrieved by McCormack and colleagues 3 but were not in that review. Thus, to our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive review conducted to date because it considers a larger publication period (between 1972 and 2021) and is not limited to adults but also includes children and adolescents.

To our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis on the frequency of tinnitus. Generalizing our estimates to the whole global population, one can infer that more than 740 million people experience tinnitus and more than 120 million people worldwide have a severe form of tinnitus. Such estimates place tinnitus at an order of magnitude similar to the leading causes of years lived with disability, namely, hearing loss, followed by migraine, low back pain, and neck pain. 67 Health authorities and research institutions, such as the Global Burden of Disease, should consider this prevalence and play a leading role in funding, ultimately to boost research on tinnitus and improve the care and the lives of patients with tinnitus.

Accepted for Publication: June 13, 2022.

Published Online: August 8, 2022. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2022.2189

Correction: This article was corrected on November 7, 2022, to update to CC-BY open access status.

Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License . © 2022 Jarach CM et al. JAMA Neurology .

Corresponding Author: Silvano Gallus, PhD, Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri IRCCS, Via Mario Negri 2, 20156 Milan, Italy ( [email protected] ).

Author Contributions: Ms Jarach and Dr Galllus had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: Jarach, Lugo, Cederroth, Odone, Garavello, Schlee, Gallus.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Jarach, Scala, van den Brandt, Odone, Schlee, Langguth, Gallus.

Drafting of the manuscript: Jarach, Scala, Schlee, Gallus.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Jarach, Lugo, van den Brandt, Cederroth, Odone, Garavello, Schlee, Langguth, Gallus.

Statistical analysis: Jarach, Scala.

Obtained funding: Cederroth, Schlee, Gallus.

Supervision: van den Brandt, Odone, Garavello, Schlee, Gallus.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Cederroth reported being a member of the British Tinnitus Association’s Professional Advisers’ Committee and the American Tinnitus Association’s Scientific Advisory Board. Dr Schlee reported receiving grants from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme grant agreement during the conduct of the study. Dr Langguth reported receiving grants from European Union Unification of Treatments and Interventions for Tinnitus Patients during the conduct of the study; receiving personal fees from Neuromod and Schwabe outside the submitted work; and serving as chair of the Tinnitus Research Initiative, a nonprofit organization. No other disclosures were reported.

Funding/Support: The work of Drs Lugo, Langguth, and Gallus and Mr Scala, is partially supported by Unification of Treatments and Interventions for Tinnitus Patients–UNITI project, which has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme (grant agreement 848261). The work of Ms Jarach and Drs Cederroth and Gallus is partially supported by Tinnitus Genetic and Environmental Risks–TIGER project, which has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme (grant agreement GNP-182). The study is also supported by AIT ONLUS Associazione Italiana Tinnitus.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Additional Information: Data and R scripts that support the findings of this study and materials are available from the corresponding author on request.

• Register for email alerts with links to free full-text articles
• Access PDFs of free articles
• Manage your interests
• Save searches and receive search alerts

College of Arts and Sciences

Behind the scenes at the Department of Communicative Disorders and Sciences: A glimpse into the world of research and interactions, where grad students hone their skills, dedicated to becoming the next generation of speech pathologists. Photo: Douglas Levere

Find Your Degree Program

Meet the Departments

Undergraduate Degrees

Graduate Degrees

Combined Degree Programs

Featured News

“Historically in the U.S., a widely reported episode of public intoxication has served as cultural shorthand for A-listers fallen on hard times. There is no general rule to how the media, and the public, reacts to this kind of fall."

USA Today   quoted  David Herzberg,  professor of history, in an article about the shocking response to Justin Timberlake’s DWI arrest.

College Stories

Event Highlights

Ryan Dewan , Biological Sciences

Chloe Cordes , Psychology

Jessica Fisher, bachelor’s degrees in biological sciences and media study

Noah Jenkins , Economics and Political Science

Hannah Quaintance , Anthropology

Rosa Vu , Music

Festus Adegbola , Geography

Explore More

Experiential Learning

Fund Your Degree

Chemistry Education Research and Practice

Why do we assess students investigating general chemistry instructors’ conceptions of assessment purposes and their relationships to assessment practices.

Assessment plays a critical role in instruction and curriculum. Existing literature on instructors’ assessment practices and related factors has been intensively focused on primary and secondary education. This study extended the contexts of previous literature to post-secondary chemistry education by exploring general chemistry instructors’ conceptions of assessment purposes and their assessment practices. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 19 general chemistry instructors from 14 institutions across the East Coast region of the United States of America. The results demonstrate that instructors predominately perceive the purpose of Assessment of Learning (i.e., evaluation of student performance) with only few of them mentioning purposes of Assessment for Learning (i.e., assessment provides actionable feedback for both the instructors and the students) and Assessment as Learning (i.e., assessment promotes self-regulation). The use of various assessment practices is related to the number of assessment purposes instructors recognize. In addition, the study demonstrates that instructors perceive their assessment practices to be influenced by academic culture and departmental norms. This nuanced understanding can guide practical and research efforts to improve chemistry instructors’ engagement in assessment reforms.

Article information

Download citation, permissions.

L. Shi, Y. Wang, J. K. Mitchell-Jones and M. Stains, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. , 2024, Accepted Manuscript , DOI: 10.1039/D4RP00147H

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

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

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

Read more about how to correctly acknowledge RSC content .

Social activity

Search articles by author.

This article has not yet been cited.

Advertisements