literature review proposal

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

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

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 This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission.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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the parts of a lit review?

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

Introduction:

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

Conclusion:

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

How should I organize my lit review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, 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.

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.

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 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 12 August 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.

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

Knowledge Base
Starting the research process
How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

Published on October 12, 2022 by Shona McCombes and Tegan George. Revised on November 21, 2023.

A research proposal describes what you will investigate, why it’s important, and how you will conduct your research.

The format of a research proposal varies between fields, but most proposals will contain at least these elements:

Introduction

Literature review.

Research design

Reference list

While the sections may vary, the overall objective is always the same. A research proposal serves as a blueprint and guide for your research plan, helping you get organized and feel confident in the path forward you choose to take.

Research proposal purpose, research proposal examples, research design and methods, contribution to knowledge, research schedule, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about research proposals.

Academics often have to write research proposals to get funding for their projects. As a student, you might have to write a research proposal as part of a grad school application , or prior to starting your thesis or dissertation .

In addition to helping you figure out what your research can look like, a proposal can also serve to demonstrate why your project is worth pursuing to a funder, educational institution, or supervisor.

Research proposal aims
	Show your reader why your project is interesting, original, and important.
	Demonstrate your comfort and familiarity with your field. Show that you understand the current state of research on your topic.
	Make a case for your . Demonstrate that you have carefully thought about the data, tools, and procedures necessary to conduct your research.
	Confirm that your project is feasible within the timeline of your program or funding deadline.

Research proposal length

The length of a research proposal can vary quite a bit. A bachelor’s or master’s thesis proposal can be just a few pages, while proposals for PhD dissertations or research funding are usually much longer and more detailed. Your supervisor can help you determine the best length for your work.

One trick to get started is to think of your proposal’s structure as a shorter version of your thesis or dissertation , only without the results , conclusion and discussion sections.

Download our research proposal template

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

Academic style
Vague sentences
Style consistency

See an example

Writing a research proposal can be quite challenging, but a good starting point could be to look at some examples. We’ve included a few for you below.

Example research proposal #1: “A Conceptual Framework for Scheduling Constraint Management”
Example research proposal #2: “Medical Students as Mediators of Change in Tobacco Use”

Like your dissertation or thesis, the proposal will usually have a title page that includes:

The proposed title of your project
Your supervisor’s name
Your institution and department

The first part of your proposal is the initial pitch for your project. Make sure it succinctly explains what you want to do and why.

Your introduction should:

Introduce your topic
Give necessary background and context
Outline your problem statement and research questions

To guide your introduction , include information about:

Who could have an interest in the topic (e.g., scientists, policymakers)
How much is already known about the topic
What is missing from this current knowledge
What new insights your research will contribute
Why you believe this research is worth doing

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

As you get started, it’s important to demonstrate that you’re familiar with the most important research on your topic. A strong literature review shows your reader that your project has a solid foundation in existing knowledge or theory. It also shows that you’re not simply repeating what other people have already done or said, but rather using existing research as a jumping-off point for your own.

In this section, share exactly how your project will contribute to ongoing conversations in the field by:

Comparing and contrasting the main theories, methods, and debates
Examining the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches
Explaining how will you build on, challenge, or synthesize prior scholarship

Following the literature review, restate your main objectives . This brings the focus back to your own project. Next, your research design or methodology section will describe your overall approach, and the practical steps you will take to answer your research questions.

Building a research proposal methodology
	? or ? , , or research design?
	, )? ?
	, , , )?
	?

To finish your proposal on a strong note, explore the potential implications of your research for your field. Emphasize again what you aim to contribute and why it matters.

For example, your results might have implications for:

Improving best practices
Informing policymaking decisions
Strengthening a theory or model
Challenging popular or scientific beliefs
Creating a basis for future research

Last but not least, your research proposal must include correct citations for every source you have used, compiled in a reference list . To create citations quickly and easily, you can use our free APA citation generator .

Some institutions or funders require a detailed timeline of the project, asking you to forecast what you will do at each stage and how long it may take. While not always required, be sure to check the requirements of your project.

Here’s an example schedule to help you get started. You can also download a template at the button below.

Download our research schedule template

Example research schedule
Research phase	Objectives	Deadline
1. Background research and literature review		20th January
2. Research design planning	and data analysis methods	13th February
3. Data collection and preparation	with selected participants and code interviews	24th March
4. Data analysis	of interview transcripts	22nd April
5. Writing		17th June
6. Revision	final work	28th July

If you are applying for research funding, chances are you will have to include a detailed budget. This shows your estimates of how much each part of your project will cost.

Make sure to check what type of costs the funding body will agree to cover. For each item, include:

Cost : exactly how much money do you need?
Justification : why is this cost necessary to complete the research?
Source : how did you calculate the amount?

To determine your budget, think about:

Travel costs : do you need to go somewhere to collect your data? How will you get there, and how much time will you need? What will you do there (e.g., interviews, archival research)?
Materials : do you need access to any tools or technologies?
Help : do you need to hire any research assistants for the project? What will they do, and how much will you pay them?

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.

Methodology

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

Once you’ve decided on your research objectives , you need to explain them in your paper, at the end of your problem statement .

Keep your research objectives clear and concise, and use appropriate verbs to accurately convey the work that you will carry out for each one.

I will compare …

A research aim is a broad statement indicating the general purpose of your research project. It should appear in your introduction at the end of your problem statement , before your research objectives.

Research objectives are more specific than your research aim. They indicate the specific ways you’ll address the overarching aim.

A PhD, which is short for philosophiae doctor (doctor of philosophy in Latin), is the highest university degree that can be obtained. In a PhD, students spend 3–5 years writing a dissertation , which aims to make a significant, original contribution to current knowledge.

A PhD is intended to prepare students for a career as a researcher, whether that be in academia, the public sector, or the private sector.

A master’s is a 1- or 2-year graduate degree that can prepare you for a variety of careers.

All master’s involve graduate-level coursework. Some are research-intensive and intend to prepare students for further study in a PhD; these usually require their students to write a master’s thesis . Others focus on professional training for a specific career.

Critical thinking refers to the ability to evaluate information and to be aware of biases or assumptions, including your own.

Like information literacy , it involves evaluating arguments, identifying and solving problems in an objective and systematic way, and clearly communicating your ideas.

The best way to remember the difference between a research plan and a research proposal is that they have fundamentally different audiences. A research plan helps you, the researcher, organize your thoughts. On the other hand, a dissertation proposal or research proposal aims to convince others (e.g., a supervisor, a funding body, or a dissertation committee) that your research topic is relevant and worthy of being conducted.

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. & George, T. (2023, November 21). How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved August 12, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/research-process/research-proposal/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a problem statement | guide & examples, writing strong research questions | criteria & examples, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

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

How to Write a Literature Review

What is a literature review.

What Is the Literature
Writing the Review

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

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

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

Examples of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

This article has a standard breakdown of sections:

Introduction
Literature Review
Some discussion sections

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

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

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

15 Literature Review Examples

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

Learn about our Editorial Process

literature review examples, types, and definition, explained below

Literature reviews are a necessary step in a research process and often required when writing your research proposal . They involve gathering, analyzing, and evaluating existing knowledge about a topic in order to find gaps in the literature where future studies will be needed.

Ideally, once you have completed your literature review, you will be able to identify how your research project can build upon and extend existing knowledge in your area of study.

Generally, for my undergraduate research students, I recommend a narrative review, where themes can be generated in order for the students to develop sufficient understanding of the topic so they can build upon the themes using unique methods or novel research questions.

If you’re in the process of writing a literature review, I have developed a literature review template for you to use – it’s a huge time-saver and walks you through how to write a literature review step-by-step:

Get your time-saving templates here to write your own literature review.

Literature Review Examples

For the following types of literature review, I present an explanation and overview of the type, followed by links to some real-life literature reviews on the topics.

1. Narrative Review Examples

Also known as a traditional literature review, the narrative review provides a broad overview of the studies done on a particular topic.

It often includes both qualitative and quantitative studies and may cover a wide range of years.

The narrative review’s purpose is to identify commonalities, gaps, and contradictions in the literature .

I recommend to my students that they should gather their studies together, take notes on each study, then try to group them by themes that form the basis for the review (see my step-by-step instructions at the end of the article).

Example Study

Title: Communication in healthcare: a narrative review of the literature and practical recommendations

Citation: Vermeir, P., Vandijck, D., Degroote, S., Peleman, R., Verhaeghe, R., Mortier, E., … & Vogelaers, D. (2015). Communication in healthcare: a narrative review of the literature and practical recommendations. International journal of clinical practice , 69 (11), 1257-1267.

Source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/ijcp.12686

Overview: This narrative review analyzed themes emerging from 69 articles about communication in healthcare contexts. Five key themes were found in the literature: poor communication can lead to various negative outcomes, discontinuity of care, compromise of patient safety, patient dissatisfaction, and inefficient use of resources. After presenting the key themes, the authors recommend that practitioners need to approach healthcare communication in a more structured way, such as by ensuring there is a clear understanding of who is in charge of ensuring effective communication in clinical settings.

Other Examples

Burnout in United States Healthcare Professionals: A Narrative Review (Reith, 2018) – read here
Examining the Presence, Consequences, and Reduction of Implicit Bias in Health Care: A Narrative Review (Zestcott, Blair & Stone, 2016) – read here
A Narrative Review of School-Based Physical Activity for Enhancing Cognition and Learning (Mavilidi et al., 2018) – read here
A narrative review on burnout experienced by medical students and residents (Dyrbye & Shanafelt, 2015) – read here

2. Systematic Review Examples

This type of literature review is more structured and rigorous than a narrative review. It involves a detailed and comprehensive plan and search strategy derived from a set of specified research questions.

The key way you’d know a systematic review compared to a narrative review is in the methodology: the systematic review will likely have a very clear criteria for how the studies were collected, and clear explanations of exclusion/inclusion criteria.

The goal is to gather the maximum amount of valid literature on the topic, filter out invalid or low-quality reviews, and minimize bias. Ideally, this will provide more reliable findings, leading to higher-quality conclusions and recommendations for further research.

You may note from the examples below that the ‘method’ sections in systematic reviews tend to be much more explicit, often noting rigid inclusion/exclusion criteria and exact keywords used in searches.

Title: The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review

Citation: Roman, S., Sánchez-Siles, L. M., & Siegrist, M. (2017). The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review. Trends in food science & technology , 67 , 44-57.

Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092422441730122X

Overview: This systematic review included 72 studies of food naturalness to explore trends in the literature about its importance for consumers. Keywords used in the data search included: food, naturalness, natural content, and natural ingredients. Studies were included if they examined consumers’ preference for food naturalness and contained empirical data. The authors found that the literature lacks clarity about how naturalness is defined and measured, but also found that food consumption is significantly influenced by perceived naturalness of goods.

A systematic review of research on online teaching and learning from 2009 to 2018 (Martin, Sun & Westine, 2020) – read here
Where Is Current Research on Blockchain Technology? (Yli-Huumo et al., 2016) – read here
Universities—industry collaboration: A systematic review (Ankrah & Al-Tabbaa, 2015) – read here
Internet of Things Applications: A Systematic Review (Asghari, Rahmani & Javadi, 2019) – read here

3. Meta-analysis

This is a type of systematic review that uses statistical methods to combine and summarize the results of several studies.

Due to its robust methodology, a meta-analysis is often considered the ‘gold standard’ of secondary research , as it provides a more precise estimate of a treatment effect than any individual study contributing to the pooled analysis.

Furthermore, by aggregating data from a range of studies, a meta-analysis can identify patterns, disagreements, or other interesting relationships that may have been hidden in individual studies.

This helps to enhance the generalizability of findings, making the conclusions drawn from a meta-analysis particularly powerful and informative for policy and practice.

Title: Cholesterol and Alzheimer’s Disease Risk: A Meta-Meta-Analysis

Citation: Sáiz-Vazquez, O., Puente-Martínez, A., Ubillos-Landa, S., Pacheco-Bonrostro, J., & Santabárbara, J. (2020). Cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease risk: a meta-meta-analysis. Brain sciences, 10(6), 386.

Source: https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10060386

O verview: This study examines the relationship between cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Researchers conducted a systematic search of meta-analyses and reviewed several databases, collecting 100 primary studies and five meta-analyses to analyze the connection between cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease. They find that the literature compellingly demonstrates that low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels significantly influence the development of Alzheimer’s disease.

The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research (Wisniewski, Zierer & Hattie, 2020) – read here
How Much Does Education Improve Intelligence? A Meta-Analysis (Ritchie & Tucker-Drob, 2018) – read here
A meta-analysis of factors related to recycling (Geiger et al., 2019) – read here
Stress management interventions for police officers and recruits (Patterson, Chung & Swan, 2014) – read here

Other Types of Reviews

Scoping Review: This type of review is used to map the key concepts underpinning a research area and the main sources and types of evidence available. It can be undertaken as stand-alone projects in their own right, or as a precursor to a systematic review.
Rapid Review: This type of review accelerates the systematic review process in order to produce information in a timely manner. This is achieved by simplifying or omitting stages of the systematic review process.
Integrative Review: This review method is more inclusive than others, allowing for the simultaneous inclusion of experimental and non-experimental research. The goal is to more comprehensively understand a particular phenomenon.
Critical Review: This is similar to a narrative review but requires a robust understanding of both the subject and the existing literature. In a critical review, the reviewer not only summarizes the existing literature, but also evaluates its strengths and weaknesses. This is common in the social sciences and humanities .
State-of-the-Art Review: This considers the current level of advancement in a field or topic and makes recommendations for future research directions. This type of review is common in technological and scientific fields but can be applied to any discipline.

How to Write a Narrative Review (Tips for Undergrad Students)

Most undergraduate students conducting a capstone research project will be writing narrative reviews. Below is a five-step process for conducting a simple review of the literature for your project.

Search for Relevant Literature: Use scholarly databases related to your field of study, provided by your university library, along with appropriate search terms to identify key scholarly articles that have been published on your topic.
Evaluate and Select Sources: Filter the source list by selecting studies that are directly relevant and of sufficient quality, considering factors like credibility , objectivity, accuracy, and validity.
Analyze and Synthesize: Review each source and summarize the main arguments in one paragraph (or more, for postgrad). Keep these summaries in a table.
Identify Themes: With all studies summarized, group studies that share common themes, such as studies that have similar findings or methodologies.
Write the Review: Write your review based upon the themes or subtopics you have identified. Give a thorough overview of each theme, integrating source data, and conclude with a summary of the current state of knowledge then suggestions for future research based upon your evaluation of what is lacking in the literature.

Literature reviews don’t have to be as scary as they seem. Yes, they are difficult and require a strong degree of comprehension of academic studies. But it can be feasibly done through following a structured approach to data collection and analysis. With my undergraduate research students (who tend to conduct small-scale qualitative studies ), I encourage them to conduct a narrative literature review whereby they can identify key themes in the literature. Within each theme, students can critique key studies and their strengths and limitations , in order to get a lay of the land and come to a point where they can identify ways to contribute new insights to the existing academic conversation on their topic.

Ankrah, S., & Omar, A. T. (2015). Universities–industry collaboration: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(3), 387-408.

Asghari, P., Rahmani, A. M., & Javadi, H. H. S. (2019). Internet of Things applications: A systematic review. Computer Networks , 148 , 241-261.

Dyrbye, L., & Shanafelt, T. (2016). A narrative review on burnout experienced by medical students and residents. Medical education , 50 (1), 132-149.

Geiger, J. L., Steg, L., Van Der Werff, E., & Ünal, A. B. (2019). A meta-analysis of factors related to recycling. Journal of environmental psychology , 64 , 78-97.

Martin, F., Sun, T., & Westine, C. D. (2020). A systematic review of research on online teaching and learning from 2009 to 2018. Computers & education , 159 , 104009.

Mavilidi, M. F., Ruiter, M., Schmidt, M., Okely, A. D., Loyens, S., Chandler, P., & Paas, F. (2018). A narrative review of school-based physical activity for enhancing cognition and learning: The importance of relevancy and integration. Frontiers in psychology , 2079.

Patterson, G. T., Chung, I. W., & Swan, P. W. (2014). Stress management interventions for police officers and recruits: A meta-analysis. Journal of experimental criminology , 10 , 487-513.

Reith, T. P. (2018). Burnout in United States healthcare professionals: a narrative review. Cureus , 10 (12).

Ritchie, S. J., & Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2018). How much does education improve intelligence? A meta-analysis. Psychological science , 29 (8), 1358-1369.

Roman, S., Sánchez-Siles, L. M., & Siegrist, M. (2017). The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review. Trends in food science & technology , 67 , 44-57.

Sáiz-Vazquez, O., Puente-Martínez, A., Ubillos-Landa, S., Pacheco-Bonrostro, J., & Santabárbara, J. (2020). Cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease risk: a meta-meta-analysis. Brain sciences, 10(6), 386.

Vermeir, P., Vandijck, D., Degroote, S., Peleman, R., Verhaeghe, R., Mortier, E., … & Vogelaers, D. (2015). Communication in healthcare: a narrative review of the literature and practical recommendations. International journal of clinical practice , 69 (11), 1257-1267.

Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K., & Hattie, J. (2020). The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research. Frontiers in Psychology , 10 , 3087.

Yli-Huumo, J., Ko, D., Choi, S., Park, S., & Smolander, K. (2016). Where is current research on blockchain technology?—a systematic review. PloS one , 11 (10), e0163477.

Zestcott, C. A., Blair, I. V., & Stone, J. (2016). Examining the presence, consequences, and reduction of implicit bias in health care: a narrative review. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations , 19 (4), 528-542

Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 25 Number Games for Kids (Free and Easy)
Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 25 Word Games for Kids (Free and Easy)
Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 25 Outdoor Games for Kids
Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 50 Incentives to Give to Students

How To Write A Literature Review - A Complete Guide

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

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

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

Perform Literature reviews using SciSpace Copilot

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

What is a literature review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the purpose of a literature review?

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

What is the importance of a literature review?

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

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

How long should a literature review be?

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

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

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

What are the different types of literature reviews?

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

Here are the different types of literature reviews:

Argumentative review

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

Integrative review

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

Methodological review

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

Systematic review

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

Meta-analysis review

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

Historical review

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

Theoretical Review

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

Scoping Review

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

State-of-the-Art Review

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

Can you use the first person in a literature review?

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

Do you need an abstract for a literature review?

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

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

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

Is a literature review written in the past tense?

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

How many sources for a literature review?

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

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

Quick tips on how to write a literature review

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

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

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

1. Outline and identify the purpose of a literature review

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

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

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

2. Search relevant literature

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

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

Google Scholar
Microsoft Academic
Science.gov

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

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

3. Examine and assess the sources

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

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

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

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

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

4. Discover connections

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

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

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

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

5. Structure planning to write a good literature review

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

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

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

Literature review samples

1. Standalone

2. As a section of a research paper

Literature-review-as-a-section-of-a-research-paper

How SciSpace Discover makes literature review a breeze?

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

Find the right information

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

Assess credibility of papers quickly

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

Get the complete picture in no time

SciSpace's-personalized-informtion-engine

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

Make referring sources super easy

Make-referring-pages-super-easy-with-SciSpace

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

Final tips on how to write a literature review

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

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

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

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. how to start a literature review.

• What questions do you want to answer?

• What sources do you need to answer these questions?

• What information do these sources contain?

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

2. What to include in a literature review?

• A brief background of the problem or issue

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

• A description of what you will do in your project

• How this study will contribute to research on the subject

3. Why literature review is important?

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

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

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

5. What are the components of a literature review?

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

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

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

6. What are common errors in writing literature review?

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

• Totally relying on secondary data while ignoring primary data.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. How many sources should a literature review have?

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

9. Can literature review have diagrams?

• To represent an abstract idea or concept

• To explain the steps of a process or procedure

• To help readers understand the relationships between different concepts

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

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

11. What are the types of literature review?

• Argumentative review

• Integrative review

• Methodological review

• Systematic review

• Meta-analysis review

• Historical review

• Theoretical review

• Scoping review

• State-of-the-Art review

12. Is a literature review mandatory?

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

But before you go,

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

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

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

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

Literature Reviews

What is a Literature Review?
Concept Mapping
Writing a Proposal
For Faculty

Need help? Ask a librarian

Tools for All Writers

Reading, Writing, Speaking
Citing Sources
Library Searching

Templates for Proposal Writing

Template 1 from Drew University
Template 2 from Rutgers University (Saracevic)

Content of a proposal for a thesis or any research project

Full Pdf from Rutgers University

What do you call this investigation?
What problem or area will you investigate in general?
Why is this problem important to investigate?
What was previously done in relation to this problem? What were some of the significant studies? (Literature review)
What theory or model is going to guide your research?
What will you specifically investigate or do in the framework of that problem? What are your specific research questions or hypotheses?
How will each research question be addressed ? What methods will you use for each research question?
How will the results be analyzed?
What are the deliverables? What can or will be gained by investigation of this problem?

Avoid Patchwriting

<< Previous: Concept Mapping
Next: For Faculty >>
Last Updated: Aug 9, 2024 9:46 AM
URL: https://researchguides.njit.edu/literaturereview

| | |

How to Write a Successful Literature Review

One type of a proposal focus is a literature review/trend analysis . This type of a proposal is somewhat different from the other proposal foci. A sample literature/trend analysis is posted at the bottom of this guide.

A literature review surveys scholarly articles, books and other sources (e.g. dissertations, conference proceedings) relevant to a particular issue, area of research or theory, and provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works.The goal of this form of a proposal is to provide an overview of the significant trends in the literature that is published on this topic.

The topics and references you include in your proposal should be purposeful and represent the key authors and arguments in that particular area of study. This necessitates that the review be consistently up to date and include the newest findings/discussions in that particular area of study or debate.

Definition and use/purpose

In a literature review you may highlight a critical area of a thesis, or it may be a focused, selected review of writings on a subject with the following purposes. Each work should:

Relate to the context of its contribution to the understanding of the subject under review
Describe / compare each work in relationship to the others in your proposal
Identify new ways to interpret, and shed light on any gaps in, previous research
Resolve conflicts among what is deemed as contradictory previous studies
Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort
Illustrate how this work can be a starting point for further research
Highlight the relevancy of the work in the context of existing literature

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

What to include

An overview of the subject, issue or theory under consideration, along with the objectives of the literature review
Division of works under review into categories (e.g. those supporting a particular position, those who have the opposite view, and those who give alternative theses entirely)
An explanation of how each work is similar to and how it varies from the others
A conclusion . Determine which aspects are key in the debates on the topic, are most convincing, and make the greatest contribution to the understanding and development of this particular research area.

Evaluating the data

Authority — What are the author's credentials? Is there evidence to support the author's arguments (e.g., primary historical material, case studies, narratives, statistics, recent scientific findings)?
Objectivity — Does the author have a bias in the writing, or is the perspective even-handed? Does the author consider contrasting or opposing data or does he or she ignore other pertinent information in order to prove the author's point?
Persuasiveness — Which of the author's theses are most/least convincing?
Value — Does the author provide enough context to make the case that this is a relevant discussion in the current state of the field? Does this work make a significant contribution to create a stronger understanding of the subject?

A sample of a well-written literature review/trend analysis is available below. If you have questions, please email Cindy Winter or call her at 612-759-8580. You may also contact one of the section chairs .

Family Science is a vibrant and growing discipline. Visit Family.Science to learn more and see how Family Scientists make a difference.

NCFR is a nonpartisan, 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization whose members support all families through research, teaching, practice, and advocacy.

Get the latest updates on NCFR & Family Science in our weekly email newsletter:

Connect with Us

National Council on Family Relations 661 LaSalle Street, Suite 200 Saint Paul, MN 55114 Phone: (888) 781-9331 [email protected] Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy

UWF Libraries

Literature Review: Conducting & Writing

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

Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts

Have an exemplary literature review.

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

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

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

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

<< Previous: MLA Style
Next: Get Help! >>
Last Updated: Aug 8, 2024 11:00 AM
URL: https://libguides.uwf.edu/litreview

Writing Resources
Free Report
Get a Quote

Tuesday 11 July 2017

Literature review for a research proposal: a quick guide, writing a literature review in a research proposal.

How to Write a Research Proposal: (with Examples & Templates)

Table of Contents

Before conducting a study, a research proposal should be created that outlines researchers’ plans and methodology and is submitted to the concerned evaluating organization or person. Creating a research proposal is an important step to ensure that researchers are on track and are moving forward as intended. A research proposal can be defined as a detailed plan or blueprint for the proposed research that you intend to undertake. It provides readers with a snapshot of your project by describing what you will investigate, why it is needed, and how you will conduct the research.

Your research proposal should aim to explain to the readers why your research is relevant and original, that you understand the context and current scenario in the field, have the appropriate resources to conduct the research, and that the research is feasible given the usual constraints.

This article will describe in detail the purpose and typical structure of a research proposal , along with examples and templates to help you ace this step in your research journey.

What is a Research Proposal ?

A research proposal¹ ,² can be defined as a formal report that describes your proposed research, its objectives, methodology, implications, and other important details. Research proposals are the framework of your research and are used to obtain approvals or grants to conduct the study from various committees or organizations. Consequently, research proposals should convince readers of your study’s credibility, accuracy, achievability, practicality, and reproducibility.

With research proposals , researchers usually aim to persuade the readers, funding agencies, educational institutions, and supervisors to approve the proposal. To achieve this, the report should be well structured with the objectives written in clear, understandable language devoid of jargon. A well-organized research proposal conveys to the readers or evaluators that the writer has thought out the research plan meticulously and has the resources to ensure timely completion.

Purpose of Research Proposals

A research proposal is a sales pitch and therefore should be detailed enough to convince your readers, who could be supervisors, ethics committees, universities, etc., that what you’re proposing has merit and is feasible . Research proposals can help students discuss their dissertation with their faculty or fulfill course requirements and also help researchers obtain funding. A well-structured proposal instills confidence among readers about your ability to conduct and complete the study as proposed.

Research proposals can be written for several reasons:³

To describe the importance of research in the specific topic
Address any potential challenges you may encounter
Showcase knowledge in the field and your ability to conduct a study
Apply for a role at a research institute
Convince a research supervisor or university that your research can satisfy the requirements of a degree program
Highlight the importance of your research to organizations that may sponsor your project
Identify implications of your project and how it can benefit the audience

What Goes in a Research Proposal?

Research proposals should aim to answer the three basic questions—what, why, and how.

The What question should be answered by describing the specific subject being researched. It should typically include the objectives, the cohort details, and the location or setting.

The Why question should be answered by describing the existing scenario of the subject, listing unanswered questions, identifying gaps in the existing research, and describing how your study can address these gaps, along with the implications and significance.

The How question should be answered by describing the proposed research methodology, data analysis tools expected to be used, and other details to describe your proposed methodology.

Research Proposal Example

Here is a research proposal sample template (with examples) from the University of Rochester Medical Center. 4 The sections in all research proposals are essentially the same although different terminology and other specific sections may be used depending on the subject.

Structure of a Research Proposal

If you want to know how to make a research proposal impactful, include the following components:¹

1. Introduction

This section provides a background of the study, including the research topic, what is already known about it and the gaps, and the significance of the proposed research.

2. Literature review

This section contains descriptions of all the previous relevant studies pertaining to the research topic. Every study cited should be described in a few sentences, starting with the general studies to the more specific ones. This section builds on the understanding gained by readers in the Introduction section and supports it by citing relevant prior literature, indicating to readers that you have thoroughly researched your subject.

3. Objectives

Once the background and gaps in the research topic have been established, authors must now state the aims of the research clearly. Hypotheses should be mentioned here. This section further helps readers understand what your study’s specific goals are.

4. Research design and methodology

Here, authors should clearly describe the methods they intend to use to achieve their proposed objectives. Important components of this section include the population and sample size, data collection and analysis methods and duration, statistical analysis software, measures to avoid bias (randomization, blinding), etc.

5. Ethical considerations

This refers to the protection of participants’ rights, such as the right to privacy, right to confidentiality, etc. Researchers need to obtain informed consent and institutional review approval by the required authorities and mention this clearly for transparency.

6. Budget/funding

Researchers should prepare their budget and include all expected expenditures. An additional allowance for contingencies such as delays should also be factored in.

7. Appendices

This section typically includes information that supports the research proposal and may include informed consent forms, questionnaires, participant information, measurement tools, etc.

8. Citations

Important Tips for Writing a Research Proposal

Writing a research proposal begins much before the actual task of writing. Planning the research proposal structure and content is an important stage, which if done efficiently, can help you seamlessly transition into the writing stage. 3,5

The Planning Stage

Manage your time efficiently. Plan to have the draft version ready at least two weeks before your deadline and the final version at least two to three days before the deadline.
What is the primary objective of your research?
Will your research address any existing gap?
What is the impact of your proposed research?
Do people outside your field find your research applicable in other areas?
If your research is unsuccessful, would there still be other useful research outcomes?

The Writing Stage

Create an outline with main section headings that are typically used.
Focus only on writing and getting your points across without worrying about the format of the research proposal , grammar, punctuation, etc. These can be fixed during the subsequent passes. Add details to each section heading you created in the beginning.
Ensure your sentences are concise and use plain language. A research proposal usually contains about 2,000 to 4,000 words or four to seven pages.
Don’t use too many technical terms and abbreviations assuming that the readers would know them. Define the abbreviations and technical terms.
Ensure that the entire content is readable. Avoid using long paragraphs because they affect the continuity in reading. Break them into shorter paragraphs and introduce some white space for readability.
Focus on only the major research issues and cite sources accordingly. Don’t include generic information or their sources in the literature review.
Proofread your final document to ensure there are no grammatical errors so readers can enjoy a seamless, uninterrupted read.
Use academic, scholarly language because it brings formality into a document.
Ensure that your title is created using the keywords in the document and is neither too long and specific nor too short and general.
Cite all sources appropriately to avoid plagiarism.
Make sure that you follow guidelines, if provided. This includes rules as simple as using a specific font or a hyphen or en dash between numerical ranges.
Ensure that you’ve answered all questions requested by the evaluating authority.

Key Takeaways

Here’s a summary of the main points about research proposals discussed in the previous sections:

A research proposal is a document that outlines the details of a proposed study and is created by researchers to submit to evaluators who could be research institutions, universities, faculty, etc.
Research proposals are usually about 2,000-4,000 words long, but this depends on the evaluating authority’s guidelines.
A good research proposal ensures that you’ve done your background research and assessed the feasibility of the research.
Research proposals have the following main sections—introduction, literature review, objectives, methodology, ethical considerations, and budget.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1. How is a research proposal evaluated?

A1. In general, most evaluators, including universities, broadly use the following criteria to evaluate research proposals . 6

Significance —Does the research address any important subject or issue, which may or may not be specific to the evaluator or university?
Content and design —Is the proposed methodology appropriate to answer the research question? Are the objectives clear and well aligned with the proposed methodology?
Sample size and selection —Is the target population or cohort size clearly mentioned? Is the sampling process used to select participants randomized, appropriate, and free of bias?
Timing —Are the proposed data collection dates mentioned clearly? Is the project feasible given the specified resources and timeline?
Data management and dissemination —Who will have access to the data? What is the plan for data analysis?

Q2. What is the difference between the Introduction and Literature Review sections in a research proposal ?

A2. The Introduction or Background section in a research proposal sets the context of the study by describing the current scenario of the subject and identifying the gaps and need for the research. A Literature Review, on the other hand, provides references to all prior relevant literature to help corroborate the gaps identified and the research need.

Q3. How long should a research proposal be?

A3. Research proposal lengths vary with the evaluating authority like universities or committees and also the subject. Here’s a table that lists the typical research proposal lengths for a few universities.


	Arts programs	1,000-1,500
University of Birmingham	Law School programs	2,500
	PhD	2,500
		2,000
	Research degrees	2,000-3,500

Q4. What are the common mistakes to avoid in a research proposal ?

A4. Here are a few common mistakes that you must avoid while writing a research proposal . 7

No clear objectives: Objectives should be clear, specific, and measurable for the easy understanding among readers.
Incomplete or unconvincing background research: Background research usually includes a review of the current scenario of the particular industry and also a review of the previous literature on the subject. This helps readers understand your reasons for undertaking this research because you identified gaps in the existing research.
Overlooking project feasibility: The project scope and estimates should be realistic considering the resources and time available.
Neglecting the impact and significance of the study: In a research proposal , readers and evaluators look for the implications or significance of your research and how it contributes to the existing research. This information should always be included.
Unstructured format of a research proposal : A well-structured document gives confidence to evaluators that you have read the guidelines carefully and are well organized in your approach, consequently affirming that you will be able to undertake the research as mentioned in your proposal.
Ineffective writing style: The language used should be formal and grammatically correct. If required, editors could be consulted, including AI-based tools such as Paperpal , to refine the research proposal structure and language.

Thus, a research proposal is an essential document that can help you promote your research and secure funds and grants for conducting your research. Consequently, it should be well written in clear language and include all essential details to convince the evaluators of your ability to conduct the research as proposed.

This article has described all the important components of a research proposal and has also provided tips to improve your writing style. We hope all these tips will help you write a well-structured research proposal to ensure receipt of grants or any other purpose.

References

Sudheesh K, Duggappa DR, Nethra SS. How to write a research proposal? Indian J Anaesth. 2016;60(9):631-634. Accessed July 15, 2024. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5037942/
Writing research proposals. Harvard College Office of Undergraduate Research and Fellowships. Harvard University. Accessed July 14, 2024. https://uraf.harvard.edu/apply-opportunities/app-components/essays/research-proposals
What is a research proposal? Plus how to write one. Indeed website. Accessed July 17, 2024. https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/research-proposal
Research proposal template. University of Rochester Medical Center. Accessed July 16, 2024. https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/MediaLibraries/URMCMedia/pediatrics/research/documents/Research-proposal-Template.pdf
Tips for successful proposal writing. Johns Hopkins University. Accessed July 17, 2024. https://research.jhu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Tips-for-Successful-Proposal-Writing.pdf
Formal review of research proposals. Cornell University. Accessed July 18, 2024. https://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/surveys/survey-assessment-review-group/research-proposals
7 Mistakes you must avoid in your research proposal. Aveksana (via LinkedIn). Accessed July 17, 2024. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/7-mistakes-you-must-avoid-your-research-proposal-aveksana-cmtwf/

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 21+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.

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

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

How to Write Your Research Paper in APA Format

The future of academia: how ai tools are changing the way we do research, you may also like, how to write your research paper in apa..., how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide), maintaining academic integrity with paperpal’s generative ai writing..., research funding basics: what should a grant proposal..., how to write an abstract in research papers..., how to write dissertation acknowledgements, how to structure an essay, leveraging generative ai to enhance student understanding of....

How to Write a Literature Review for a Research Proposal

Hannah richardson.

The purpose of a literature review is to highlight a void in the research that your study will fill. The literature review answers why you should conduct your research. To answer the why behind your study, find and analyze other studies that address similar research questions, or studies that address your research question on a different level. Discuss and present your research question and how the answer you discover will fill in another piece of the puzzle in your field.

Explore this article

Search: Cast a Wide Net
Introduction: Define Your Research Question
Body: Summarize Published Studies
Conclusion: Present Your Why
References: Provide Thorough Citations

1 Search: Cast a Wide Net

Whether you have clearly defined your research question or not, begin your search using academic databases such as JSTOR, EBSCOhost, or ERIC. Your university library system should provide you with a login that may give you free access to articles you would normally have to pay for through these databases. Use the search feature in the academic database to search only for studies published in peer-reviewed journals. Peer-reviewed journals ensure that these studies underwent extensive scrutiny and were combed for best practices. Skim article abstracts to find studies that relate to your topic before downloading and organizing your findings.

2 Introduction: Define Your Research Question

Once you have combed through studies related to your topic and found a question that has yet to be answered, clearly define it in your introduction. Lead your review with this question and explain to your readers that you will demonstrate how the studies you summarize and analyze in the review do not address your specific question. Your question should address a specific population in a specific academic focus using a specific research method. For example, you could look at the effects of a reading intervention on eighth-grade students using quantitative research methods. Clearly defining your question helps define the focus of your review.

3 Body: Summarize Published Studies

The body of your review should be organized methodically to summarize and present the findings of other studies in the field you are addressing. You could organize your findings by date, addressing older studies first and ending with the most recent. You could organize the review by topic, highlighting studies in your specific population, then academic focus, then research method. You could also move from broad studies to more specific, smaller studies, or vice versa. The findings of your search guide how you organize the literature based on the focus and volume of the studies in your chosen field.

4 Conclusion: Present Your Why

In the conclusion of your review, restate your research question and point to how other studies addressed similar or related questions but did not answer your question for your chosen population, topic and research method. For example, point to studies that addressed the effects of your reading intervention on elementary school students but not on eighth-grade students. Or point out that a qualitative study was conducted using one subject, but your focus is a quantitative study using a much larger population sample. Convince your reader that your study will fill a void in the research that already exists.

5 References: Provide Thorough Citations

Once you have composed the body of your review, ensure all of your citations are correctly formatted and write your references pages. APA style has clearly defined guidelines for formatting in-text citations and references. Use your APA manual for all referencing questions. However, allot extensive time to organizing all articles and building your reference pages. Ensure you have listed all authors, know the journal source for each article, and have accurate page numbers for each article.

1 University of Wisconsin at Madison Writing Center: Learn How to Write a Review of Literature
2 California State University, Dominguez Hills: Sample Literature Review
3 Sam Houston State University: Writing a Literature Review and Proposal

About the Author

Hannah Richardson has a Master's degree in Special Education from Vanderbilt University and a Bacheor of Arts in English. She has been a writer since 2004 and wrote regularly for the sports and features sections of "The Technician" newspaper, as well as "Coastwach" magazine. Richardson also served as the co-editor-in-chief of "Windhover," an award-winning literary and arts magazine. She is currently teaching at a middle school.

How to Write the Abstract for a Sociology Paper

Definition of a Background Literature Search

How to Organize a Literature Review

How to Write the Introduction and Literature Review...

How to Write a Topic Report

How to Write Limitations in a Report

How to Write a Review Report

How to Write a Rationale for Your Dissertation

How to Write a Research Methodology

How to Come Up With a Dissertation Title

How to Write Academic Literature Reviews

What is a Dissertation?

How to Write a Policy Analysis

How to Write an Evidence-Based Practice Article Review...

How to Write a Critical Response Essay

Characteristics of a Comparative Research Design

How to Form a Theoretical Study of a Dissertation

How to Write a Bible Study Outline

How to Write a Case Study Essay

How to Do a Thesis Proposal Presentation

Regardless of how old we are, we never stop learning. Classroom is the educational resource for people of all ages. Whether you’re studying times tables or applying to college, Classroom has the answers.

Accessibility
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Copyright Policy
Manage Preferences

Free Download

Literature Review Template

The fastest (and smartest) way to craft a strong literature review that lays a solid theoretical foundation and earns marks.

Available in Google Doc, Word & PDF format 4.9 star rating, 5000 + downloads

Step-by-step instructions

Tried & tested academic format

Fill-in-the-blanks simplicity

Pro tips, tricks and resources

What It Covers

This literature review template is based on the tried and trusted best-practice format and structure for formal academic research projects. It includes the following sections:

Before you start – essential groundwork to ensure you’re ready
The introduction section
The core/body section
The conclusion /summary
Extra free resources

Each section is explained in plain, straightforward language , followed by an overview of the key elements. We’ve also included practical examples and links to free videos to help you understand what’s required in each section.

The template can be copied to your Google Drive 0r downloaded as a fully editable MS Word Document (DOCX format), adaptable to LaTeX.

download your copy now

100% Free to use. Instant access.

I agree to receive the free template and other useful resources.

Download Now (Instant Access)

FAQs: Literature Review Template

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

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

What types of literature reviews can this template be used for?

The template follows the standard format for academic literature reviews, which means it will be suitable for the vast majority of academic research projects (especially those within the sciences), whether they are qualitative or quantitative in terms of design.

Keep in mind that the exact requirements for the literature review chapter will vary between universities and degree programs. These are typically minor, but it’s always a good idea to double-check your university’s requirements before you finalize your structure.

Is this template for an undergrad, Master or PhD-level thesis?

This template can be used for a literature review at any level of study. Doctoral-level projects typically require the literature review to be more extensive/comprehensive, but the structure will typically remain the same.

Can I modify the template to suit my topic/area?

Absolutely. While the template provides a general structure, you should adapt it to fit the specific requirements and focus of your literature review.

What structural style does this literature review template use?

The template assumes a thematic structure (as opposed to a chronological or methodological structure), as this is the most common approach. However, this is only one dimension of the template, so it will still be useful if you are adopting a different structure.

Does this template include the Excel literature catalog?

No, that is a separate template, which you can download for free here . This template is for the write-up of the actual literature review chapter, whereas the catalog is for use during the literature sourcing and sorting phase.

How long should the literature review chapter be?

This depends on your university’s specific requirements, so it’s best to check with them. As a general ballpark, literature reviews for Masters-level projects are usually 2,000 – 3,000 words in length, while Doctoral-level projects can reach multiples of this.

Can I include literature that contradicts my hypothesis?

Yes, it’s important to acknowledge and discuss literature that presents different viewpoints or contradicts your hypothesis. So, don’t shy away from existing research that takes an opposing view to yours.

How do I avoid plagiarism in my literature review?

Always cite your sources correctly and paraphrase ideas in your own words while maintaining the original meaning. You can always check our plagiarism score before submitting your work to help ease your mind.

Do you have an example of a populated template?

We provide a walkthrough of the template and review an example of a high-quality literature research chapter here .

Can I share this literature review template with my friends/colleagues?

Yes, you’re welcome to share this template in its original format (no editing allowed). If you want to post about it on your blog or social media, all we ask is that you reference this page as your source.

Do you have templates for the other dissertation/thesis chapters?

Yes, we do. You can find our full collection of templates here .

Can Grad Coach help me with my literature review?

Yes, you’re welcome to get in touch with us to discuss our private coaching services , where we can help you work through the literature review chapter (and any other chapters).

Additional Resources

If you’re working on a literature review, you’ll also want to check these out…

Literature Review Bootcamp

1-On-1 Private Coaching

The Grad Coach YouTube Channel

The Grad Coach Podcast

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
Author Biographies
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

Markers of futile resuscitation in traumatic hemorrhage: a review of the evidence and a proposal for futility time-outs during massive transfusion.

1. Introduction

1.1. blood product shortages heighten the need for reliable markers of futile resuscitation of severely injured patients, 1.2. the search for reliable markers of futility is confounded by varying transfusion practices and measurements, 1.3. defining fr and a “futility index” based on criteria for trauma-induced coagulopathy and massive transfusion with laboratory and clinical markers, 1.4. clinical and laboratory measurements for predicting fr.

Category of Common Markers	Proposed Marker of Futility	Statistically Significant	Not Statistically Significant
		Aichholz [ ], Barbosa [ ], Farrell [ ], Dorken-Gallastegi [ ], Hamidi [ ], Huber-Wagner [ ], Mitra [ ], Mitra [ ], Moore [ ], Morris [ ], Mostafa [ ], Sharpe [ ], Torres [ ], Velmahos [ ], L’Huillier [ ]	Barbosa [ ], Cinat [ ], Criddle [ ], Cripps [ ], Hanna [ ], Heidary [ ], Katirai [ ], Loudon [ ], Matthay [ ], Meyer [ ], Mitra [ ], Muldowney [ ], Murray [ ], Shea [ ], Van Gent [ ], Vaslef [ ], Yang [ ], Yu [ ]
		Cinat [ ], Dorken-Gallastegi [ ], Hamidi [ ], Sharpe [ ], Torres [ ], Yu [ ]	Barbosa [ ], Barbosa [ ], Criddle [ ], Cripps [ ], Farrell [ ], Hanna [ ], Heidary [ ], Huber-Wagner [ ], Katirai [ ], Loudon [ ], Matthay [ ], Meyer [ ], Mitra [ ], Mitra [ ], Moore [ ], Mostafa [ ], Muldowney [ ], Van Gent [ ], Vaslef [ ], Velmahos [ ], Yang [ ]
			Meyer [ ], Mostafa [ ], Van Gent [ ], Velmahos [ ]
		Dorken-Gallastegi [ ], Hanna [ ], Heidary [ ], Mitra [ ], Meyer [ ], Muldowney [ ], Sharpe [ ], Torres [ ]	Barbosa [ ], Barbosa [ ], Cinat [ ], Cripps [ ], Criddle [ ], Farrell [ ], Hamidi [ ], Huber-Wagner [ ], Loudon [ ], Matthay [ ], Moore [ ], Mostafa [ ], Vaslef [ ], Van Gent [ ], Velmahos [ ], Yu [ ]
		Barbosa [ ], Borgman [ ], Dorken-Gallastegi [ ], Matthay [ ], Mitra [ ], Mitra [ ], Muldowney [ ]	Cripps [ ], Hamidi [ ]
		Aichholz [ ]	Van Gent [ ]
		Barbosa [ ], Cripps [ ], Dorken-Gallastegi [ ], Hamidi [ ], Hanna [ ], Huber-Wagner [ ], Loudon [ ], Matthay [ ], Mitra [ ], Mitra [ ], Morris [ ], Mostafa [ ], Shea [ ], Torres [ ], Van Gent [ ], Vaslef [ ], Velmahos [ ], Yu [ ], Schneider [ ], L’Huillier [ ]	Barbosa [ ]
		Dorken-Gallastegi [ ], Hamidi [ ], Matthay [ ], Mitra [ ], Torres [ ]	Barbosa [ ], Barbosa [ ], Borgman [ ], Cripps [ ], Deep [ ] Loudon [ ], Mitra [ ], Mitra [ ], Moore [ ], Morris [ ], Velmahos [ ], Yu [ ]
		Borgman [ ], Cosgriff [ ], Cripps [ ], Deep [ ], Dorken-Gallastegi [ ], Hamidi [ ], Hanna [ ], Heidary [ ], Huber-Wagner [ ], Loudon [ ], Mitra [ ], Mitra [ ], Moore [ ], Sharpe [ ], Torres [ ], Van Gent [ ], Tzeng [ ]	Barbosa [ ], Barbosa [ ], Cinat [ ], Matthay [ ], Mitra [ ], Morris [ ], Velmahos [ ], Yu [ ]
			Barbosa [ ], Dorken-Gallastegi [ ], Mitra [ ], Mitra [ ], Mitra [ ]
		Dudaryk [ ], Bryant [ ], Stone [ ]
		Dorken-Gallastegi [ ], Moore [ ]	Velmahos [ ]
		Borgman [ ], Cinat [ ], Cosgriff [ ], Mitra [ ], Mitra [ ], Velmahos [ ]	Barbosa [ ], Barbosa [ ], Cripps [ ], Hamidi [ ], Mitra [ ], Moore [ ]
		Arslan [ ], Hosseinpour [ ]	Aichholz [ ], Loudon [ ], Matthay [ ]
		Matthay [ ], Velmahos [ ]
		Dorken-Gallastegi [ ], Loudon [ ], Matthay [ ], Muldowney [ ], Yu [ ]	Huber-Wagner [ ], Van Gent [ ], Velmahos [ ]
			Dorken-Gallastegi [ ], Hamidi [ ], Huber-Wagner [ ]
			Mitra 2007 [ ], Velmahos [ ]
		Israr [ ]
		Anand [ ]	Matthay [ ]
		Velmahos [ ]
		Mitra [ ]	Matthay [ ], Mitra [ ], Yu [ ]
		Velmahos [ ]
		Barbosa [ ], Borgman [ ], Cinat [ ], Criddle [ ], Cripps [ ], Heidary [ ], Huber-Wagner [ ], Matthay [ ], Shea [ ], Van Gent [ ], Vaslef [ ]	Barbosa [ ], Farrell [ ], Moore [ ]
		Barbosa [ ], Cinat [ ], Cosgriff [ ], Cripps [ ], Katirai [ ], Mitra [ ], Mitra [ ], Moore [ ], Muldowney [ ], Vaslef [ ], Velmahos [ ]	Barbosa [ ], Farrell [ ], Van Gent [ ]
		Arslan [ ], Matthay [ ], Mitra [ ], Sharpe [ ], Shea [ ], Van Gent [ ]	Barbosa [ ], Mitra [ ], Vaslef [ ]
		Barbosa [ ], Borgman [ ], Cripps [ ], Matthay [ ], Mitra [ ], Moore [ ]	Barbosa [ ], Cinat [ ], Huber-Wagner [ ], Mitra [ ], Mitra [ ], Muldowney [ ], Heidary [ ], Shea [ ], Vaslef [ ], Velmahos [ ]
		Barbosa [ ], Borgman [ ], Cripps [ ], Heidary [ ], Huber-Wagner [ ], Matthay [ ], Mitra [ ], Mitra [ ], Moore [ ], Muldowney [ ], Shea [ ]	Barbosa [ ], Mitra [ ], Van Gent [ ]
		Aichholz [ ], Barbosa [ ], Borgman [ ], Cinat [ ], Cripps [ ], Heidary [ ], Matthay [ ], Mitra [ ], Mitra [ ], Muldowney [ ], Shea [ ]	Barbosa [ ], Moore [ ]
		Cinat [ ], Mitra [ ], Mitra [ ], Muldowney [ ]	Barbosa [ ], Barbosa [ ]
		Mitra [ ], Mitra [ ]	Mitra [ ]
		Velmahos [ ]
		Velmahos [ ]
		Chapman [ ], Van Gent [ ], Farrell [ ], Shea [ ]	Matthay [ ]
		Mitra [ ], Quintana [ ]	Cinat [ ], Clements [ ], Muldowney [ ], Van Gent [ ], Vaslef [ ], Velmahos [ ]
		Arslan [ ], Barbosa [ ], Cripps [ ], Deep [ ], Dorken-Gallastegi [ ], Hamidi [ ], Huber-Wagner [ ], Liu [ ], Loudon [ ], Mitra [ ], Morris [ ], Mostafa [ ], Quintana [ ], Vaslef [ ], Yang [ ]	Criddle [ ], Como [ ], Farrell [ ], Matthay [ ], Mitra [ ], Yu [ ]
		Cripps [ ], Hamidi [ ], Loudon [ ], Mitra [ ], Morris [ ]	Cinat [ ], Criddle [ ], Deep [ ], Farrell [ ], Matthay [ ], Mitra [ ], Vaslef [ ], Yang [ ]
		Loudon [ ], Morris [ ], Quintana [ ]	Cinat [ ], Criddle [ ], Cripps [ ], Farrell [ ], Vaslef [ ], Velmahos [ ]
		Farrell [ ], Matthay [ ]	Cinat [ ], Criddle [ ], Vaslef [ ]
		Clements [ ]	Cinat [ ], Muldowney [ ]
		Cripps [ ], Deep [ ], Heidary [ ]
			Borgman [ ], Matthay [ ]
		Hu [ ], Meyer [ ], Stone [ ]
		Hu [ ], Meyer [ ], Rahbar [ ]
		Van Gent [ ], Eitel [ ], Doughty [ ]

4. Discussion

4.1. heterogeneity of the definition of unit of blood per hour as a predictor of fr, 4.2. bedside algorithms specifically for defining fr in sbtps, 4.3. defining early futility markers during ftos: bedside transfusion cut-points, serial vets, and resolving heterogenous definitions of transfusion cut-points, 4.4. the proposal for defining a futility check list of all bleeding trauma patients who are candidates for fr with and without associated tbi, 5. conclusions and ethical considerations, author contributions, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest, abbreviations.

ABC	Assessment of Blood Consumption
ACS	American College of Surgeons
AIS	Abbreviated Injury Scale
BD	Base Deficit
BFDP	Bilateral Fixed and Dilated Pupils
CAT	Critical Administration Threshold
CCT	Common Coagulation Test
COVID-19	Coronavirus Disease 2019
CT	Computed Axial Tomography
cTBI	Coagulopathy of Traumatic Brain Injury
DD	Death Diamond
DDD	Double Death Diamond
ED	Emergency Department
ERAS	Edinburgh Ruptured Aneurysm Score
ETCO	End-Tidal Carbon Dioxide
FAST	Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma
FFP	Fresh Frozen Plasma
FR	Futile Resuscitation
FTO	Futility Time Out
GAS	Glasgow Aneurysm Score
GCS	Glasgow Coma Scale
GTOS	Geriatric Trauma Outcome Score
hMTP	Historic Massive Transfusion Protocol
INR	International Normalized Ratio
ISS	Injury Severity Score
LD50	Median Lethal Dose
LY30	Lysis at 30 min
MA	Maximum Amplitude
MCF	Maximum Clot Firmness
MELD	Model for End-Stage Liver Disease
MeSH	Medical Subject Headings
MT	Massive Transfusion
MTP	Massive Transfusion Protocol
NBTC	National Blood Transfusion Committee
OR	Operating Room
PBM	Precision-Based Medicine
P-FAST	Pericardial Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma
PLTs	Platelets
POC	Point of Care
POCUS	Point of Care Ultrasonography
PPV	Positive Predictive Value
PRBCs	Packed Red Blood Cells
PROPPR	Pragmatic Randomized Optimal Plasma and Platelet Ratio Trial
PT	Prothrombin Time
PTT	Partial Thromboplastin Time
rBAUX	Revised Baux Score
RCT	Randomized Controlled Trial
REBOA	Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta
RI	Resuscitation Intensity
ROSC	Return of Spontaneous Circulation
ROTEM	Rotational Thromboelastometry
rTEG	Rapid Thromboelastography
RTO	Resuscitation Time-Outs
SBP	Systolic Blood Pressure
SHINE	SHock-INduced Endotheliopathy
SOFA	Sequential Organ Failure Assessment
SOL	Signs of Life
STOP	Suspension of Transfusions and Other Procedures
TACTIC	Trans-Agency Consortium for Trauma-Induced Coagulopathy
TBI	Traumatic Brain Injury
TEG	Thromboelastography
TEG LY 30	Thromboelastography Lysis at 30 Minutes
TEMPT	Trauma Early Mortality Prediction Tool
TFT	Transfusion Futility Threshold
TIC	Trauma-Induced Coagulopathy
tPA	Tissue Plasminogen Activator
TRISS	Trauma Revised Injury Severity Score
TTMTP	Triage Tool for Massively Transfused Patients
TTO	Transfusion Time-Out
TTV	Total Transfusion Volume
TQIP	Trauma Quality Improvement Program
U	Unit
UMT	Ultramassive Transfusion
VET	Viscoelastic Testing
VSS	Vancouver Scoring System
w/o	Without
WB	Whole Blood

Morton, A.P.; Moore, E.E.; Wohlauer, M.V.; Lo, K.; Silliman, C.C.; Burlew, C.C.; Banerjee, A. Revisiting Early Postinjury Mortality: Are They Bleeding Because They Are Dying or Dying Because They Are Bleeding? J. Surg. Res. 2013 , 179 , 5–9. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Hornor, M.; Khan, U.; Cripps, M.W.; Cook Chapman, A.; Knight-Davis, J.; Puzio, T.J.; Joseph, B. Futility in Acute Care Surgery: First do no Harm. Trauma Surg. Acute Care Open 2023 , 8 , e001167. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Meyer, C.H.; Nguyen, J.; ElHabr, A.; Venkatayogi, N.; Steed, T.; Gichoya, J.; Sciarretta, J.D.; Sikora, J.; Dente, C.; Lyons, J.; et al. TiME OUT: Time-Specific Machine-Learning Evaluation to Optimize Ultramassive Transfusion. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2024 , 96 , 443–454. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Follette, C.; Halimeh, B.; Chaparro, A.; Shi, A.; Winfield, R. Futile Trauma Transfers: An Infrequent but Costly Component of Regionalized Trauma Care. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2021 , 91 , 72–76. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Amato, S.; Vogt, A.; Sarathy, A.; Lahey, T.; Osler, T.; Hosmer, D.; Bliss, S.; Bruzzese, C.; An, G.; Erb, A.L.; et al. Frequency and Predictors of Trauma Transfer Futility to a Rural Level I Trauma Center. J. Surg. Res. 2022 , 279 , 1–7. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Sharpe, J.P.; Weinberg, J.A.; Magnotti, L.J.; Croce, M.A.; Fabian, T.C. Toward a Better Definition of Massive Transfusion: Focus on the Interval of Hemorrhage Control. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012 , 73 , 1553–1557. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Doughty, H.; Green, L.; Callum, J.; Murphy, M.F. Triage Tool for the Rationing of Blood for Massively Bleeding Patients during a Severe National Blood Shortage: Guidance from the National Blood Transfusion Committee. Br. J. Haematol. 2020 , 191 , 340–346. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Emanuel, E.J.; Persad, G.; Upshur, R.; Thome, B.; Parker, M.; Glickman, A.; Zhang, C.; Boyle, C.; Smith, M.; Phillips, J.P. Fair Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources in the Time of COVID-19. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020 , 382 , 2049–2055. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Kim, J.S.; Casem, C.F.; Baral, E.; Inaba, K.; Kuza, C.M. Narrative Review: Is There a Transfusion Cutoff Value After Which Nonsurvivability Is Inevitable in Trauma Patients Receiving Ultramassive Transfusion? Anesth. Analg. 2023 , 137 , 354–364. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Mladinov, D.; Frank, S.M. Massive Transfusion and Severe Blood Shortages: Establishing and Implementing Predictors of Futility. Br. J. Anaesth. 2022 , 128 , e71–e74. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Nakashima, B.; Schellenberg, M.; Gold, A.I.; Matsushima, K.; Martin, M.J.; Inaba, K. Resuscitative Thoracotomy for Traumatic Cardiac Arrest: Potential Impact of Resource Constraint on Outcomes and Blood Product Utilization. J. Surg. Res. 2024 , 295 , 683–689. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Ngo, A.; Masel, D.; Cahill, C.; Blumberg, N.; Refaai, M.A. Blood Banking and Transfusion Medicine Challenges during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Clin. Lab. Med. 2020 , 40 , 587–601. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Saillant, N.N.; Kornblith, L.Z.; Moore, H.; Barrett, C.; Schreiber, M.A.; Cotton, B.A.; Neal, M.D.; Makar, R.; Cap, A.P. The National Blood Shortage-An Impetus for Change. Ann. Surg. 2022 , 275 , 641–643. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Gammon, R.R.; Rosenbaum, L.; Cooke, R.; Friedman, M.; Rockwood, L.; Nichols, T.; Vossoughi, S. Maintaining Adequate Donations and a Sustainable Blood Supply: Lessons Learned. Transfusion 2021 , 61 , 294–302. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Arslan, A.; Flax, L.; Fraser, R.; Kanter, M.; Simon, R.; Caputo, N.D. Twenty-Four-Hour Packed Red Blood Cell Requirement Is the Strongest Independent Prognostic Marker of Mortality in ED Trauma Patients. Am. J. Emerg. Med. 2016 , 34 , 1121–1124. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Jacobs, J.W.; Adkins, B.D.; Booth, G.S. Massive Transfusion Protocols during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Vox Sang. 2022 , 117 , 869. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Pohlman, T.H.; Walsh, M.; Aversa, J.; Hutchison, E.M.; Olsen, K.P.; Lawrence Reed, R. Damage Control Resuscitation. Blood Rev. 2015 , 29 , 251–262. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Pommerening, M.J.; Goodman, M.D.; Holcomb, J.B.; Wade, C.E.; Fox, E.E.; Del Junco, D.J.; Brasel, K.J.; Bulger, E.M.; Cohen, M.J.; Alarcon, L.H.; et al. Clinical Gestalt and the Prediction of Massive Transfusion after Trauma. Injury 2015 , 46 , 807–813. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Stanworth, S.J.; New, H.V.; Apelseth, T.O.; Brunskill, S.; Cardigan, R.; Doree, C.; Germain, M.; Goldman, M.; Massey, E.; Prati, D.; et al. Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Supply and Use of Blood for Transfusion. Lancet Haematol. 2020 , 7 , e756–e764. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Stone, M.E., Jr.; Kalata, S.; Liveris, A.; Adorno, Z.; Yellin, S.; Chao, E.; Reddy, S.H.; Jones, M.; Vargas, C.; Teperman, S. End-Tidal CO(2) on Admission is Associated with Hemorrhagic Shock and Predicts the Need for Massive Transfusion as Defined by the Critical Administration Threshold: A Pilot Study. Injury 2017 , 48 , 51–57. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Braverman, M.A.; Smith, A.; Pokorny, D.; Axtman, B.; Shahan, C.P.; Barry, L.; Corral, H.; Jonas, R.B.; Shiels, M.; Schaefer, R.; et al. Prehospital Whole Blood Reduces Early Mortality in Patients with Hemorrhagic Shock. Transfusion 2021 , 61 (Suppl. S1), S15–S21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Gaines, B.A.; Yazer, M.H.; Triulzi, D.J.; Sperry, J.L.; Neal, M.D.; Billiar, T.R.; Leeper, C.M. Low Titer Group O Whole Blood in Injured Children Requiring Massive Transfusion. Ann. Surg. 2023 , 277 , e919–e924. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Guyette, F.X.; Zenati, M.; Triulzi, D.J.; Yazer, M.H.; Skroczky, H.; Early, B.J.; Adams, P.W.; Brown, J.B.; Alarcon, L.; Neal, M.D.; et al. Prehospital Low Titer Group O Whole Blood Is Feasible and Safe: Results of a Prospective Randomized Pilot Trial. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2022 , 92 , 839–847. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Walsh, M.; Moore, E.E.; Moore, H.B.; Thomas, S.; Kwaan, H.C.; Speybroeck, J.; Marsee, M.; Bunch, C.M.; Stillson, J.; Thomas, A.V.; et al. Whole Blood, Fixed Ratio, or Goal-Directed Blood Component Therapy for the Initial Resuscitation of Severely Hemorrhaging Trauma Patients: A Narrative Review. J. Clin. Med. 2021 , 10 , 320. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Bieler, D.; Franke, A.F.; Hentsch, S.; Paffrath, T.; Willms, A.; Lefering, R.; Kollig, E.W.; TraumaRegister, D.G.U. Gunshot and Stab Wounds in Germany--Epidemiology and Outcome: Analysis from the TraumaRegister DGU(R). Unfallchirurg 2014 , 117 , 995–1004. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Dijkink, S.; Krijnen, P.; Hage, A.; Van der Wilden, G.M.; Kasotakis, G.; Hartog, D.D.; Salim, A.; Goslings, J.C.; Bloemers, F.W.; Rhemrev, S.J.; et al. Differences in Characteristics and Outcome of Patients with Penetrating Injuries in the USA and the Netherlands: A Multi-Institutional Comparison. World J. Surg. 2018 , 42 , 3608–3615. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Holcomb, J.B.; Minei, K.M.; Scerbo, M.L.; Radwan, Z.A.; Wade, C.E.; Kozar, R.A.; Gill, B.S.; Albarado, R.; McNutt, M.K.; Khan, S.; et al. Admission Rapid Thrombelastography Can Replace Conventional Coagulation Tests in the Emergency Department: Experience with 1974 Consecutive Trauma Patients. Ann. Surg. 2012 , 256 , 476–486. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Holcomb, J.B.; Tilley, B.C.; Baraniuk, S.; Fox, E.E.; Wade, C.E.; Podbielski, J.M.; del Junco, D.J.; Brasel, K.J.; Bulger, E.M.; Callcut, R.A.; et al. Transfusion of Plasma, Platelets, and Red Blood Cells in a 1:1:1 vs a 1:1:2 Ratio and Mortality in Patients with Severe Trauma: The PROPPR Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2015 , 313 , 471–482. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Kalkwarf, K.J.; Drake, S.A.; Yang, Y.; Thetford, C.; Myers, L.; Brock, M.; Wolf, D.A.; Persse, D.; Wade, C.E.; Holcomb, J.B. Bleeding to Death in a Big City: An Analysis of All Trauma Deaths from Hemorrhage in a Metropolitan Area during 1 Year. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2020 , 89 , 716–722. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Clements, T.W.; Van Gent, J.M.; Lubkin, D.E.; Wandling, M.W.; Meyer, D.E.; Moore, L.J.; Cotton, B.A. The Reports of my Death are Greatly Exaggerated: An Evaluation of Futility Cut-Points in Massive Transfusion. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2023 , 95 , 685–690. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Loudon, A.M.; Rushing, A.P.; Hue, J.J.; Ziemak, A.; Sarode, A.L.; Moorman, M.L. When Is Enough Enough? Odds of Survival by Unit Transfused. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2023 , 94 , 205–211. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Quintana, M.T.; Zebley, J.A.; Vincent, A.; Chang, P.; Estroff, J.; Sarani, B.; Forssten, M.P.; Cao, Y.; Chen, M.; Corrado, C.; et al. Cresting Mortality: Defining a Plateau in Ongoing Massive Transfusion. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2022 , 93 , 43–51. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Barnhard, S.; Klapper, E.; Kopko, P.; Tran, M.H.; Ziman, A. Too Lean: Time to Build Back True Resiliency in the National Blood Supply. Transfusion 2021 , 61 , 2768–2771. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Kornblith, L.Z.; Moore, H.B.; Cohen, M.J. Trauma-Induced Coagulopathy: The Past, Present, and Future. J. Thromb. Haemost. 2019 , 17 , 852–862. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Ngatuvai, M.; Zagales, I.; Sauder, M.; Andrade, R.; Santos, R.G.; Bilski, T.; Kornblith, L.; Elkbuli, A. Outcomes of Transfusion With Whole Blood, Component Therapy, or Both in Adult Civilian Trauma Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Surg. Res. 2023 , 287 , 193–201. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Ruby, K.N.; Dzik, W.H.; Collins, J.J.; Eliason, K.; Makar, R.S. Emergency Transfusion with Whole Blood Versus Packed Red Blood Cells: A Study of 1400 Patients. Transfusion 2023 , 63 , 745–754. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Red Cross Declares First-Ever Blood Crisis Amid Omicron Surge. Available online: https://www.redcross.org/about-us/news-and-events/press-release/2022/blood-donors-needed-now-as-omicron-intensifies.html (accessed on 20 December 2023).
Meyer, D.E.; Cotton, B.A.; Fox, E.E.; Stein, D.; Holcomb, J.B.; Cohen, M.; Inaba, K.; Rahbar, E. A Comparison of Resuscitation Intensity and Critical Administration Threshold in Predicting Early Mortality among Bleeding Patients: A Multicenter Validation in 680 Major Transfusion Patients. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2018 , 85 , 691–696. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Nunns, G.R.; Moore, E.E.; Stettler, G.R.; Moore, H.B.; Ghasabyan, A.; Cohen, M.; Huebner, B.R.; Silliman, C.C.; Banerjee, A.; Sauaia, A. Empiric Transfusion Strategies during Life-Threatening Hemorrhage. Surgery 2018 , 164 , 306–311. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Moore, E.E.; Moore, H.B.; Thomas, S.G.; Farrell, M.S.; Sixta, S.; Coleman, J.R.; Miller, J.B.; Bunch, C.M.; Waxman, D.; Walsh, M.M. Serial “death diamond” TEGs are a Bedside Indicator of Futile Resuscitation during Massive Transfusion. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2023 , 95 , e19–e21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Van Gent, J.M.; Clements, T.W.; Lubkin, D.T.; Wade, C.E.; Cardenas, J.C.; Kao, L.S.; Cotton, B.A. Predicting Futility in Severely Injured Patients: Using Arrival Lab Values and Physiology to Support Evidence-Based Resource Stewardship. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2023 , 236 , 874–880. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Cook, C. Is Clinical Gestalt Good Enough? J. Man. Manip. Ther. 2009 , 17 , 6–7. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Ranola, P.A.; Merchant, R.M.; Perman, S.M.; Khan, A.M.; Gaieski, D.; Caplan, A.L.; Kirkpatrick, J.N. How Long is Long Enough, and Have We Done Everything We Should?--Ethics of Calling Codes. J. Med. Ethics 2015 , 41 , 663–666. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Belaunzaran, M.; Raslan, S.; Ali, A.; Newsome, K.; McKenney, M.; Elkbuli, A. Utilization and Efficacy of Resuscitation Endpoints in Trauma and Burn Patients: A Review Article. Am. Surg. 2022 , 88 , 10–19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Dzik, W.S.; Ziman, A.; Cohn, C.; Pai, M.; Lozano, M.; Kaufman, R.M.; Delaney, M.; Selleng, K.; Murphy, M.F.; Hervig, T.; et al. Survival after Ultramassive Transfusion: A Review of 1360 Cases. Transfusion 2016 , 56 , 558–563. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
L’Huillier, J.C.; Hua, S.; Logghe, H.J.; Yu, J.; Myneni, A.A.; Noyes, K.; Guo, W.A. Transfusion Futility Thresholds and Mortality in Geriatric Trauma: Does Frailty Matter? Am. J. Surg. 2024 , 228 , 113–121. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Matthay, Z.A.; Hellmann, Z.J.; Callcut, R.A.; Matthay, E.C.; Nunez-Garcia, B.; Duong, W.; Nahmias, J.; LaRiccia, A.K.; Spalding, M.C.; Dalavayi, S.S.; et al. Outcomes after Ultramassive Transfusion in the Modern Era: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma Multicenter Study. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2021 , 91 , 24–33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
McQuilten, Z.K.; Flint, A.W.; Green, L.; Sanderson, B.; Winearls, J.; Wood, E.M. Epidemiology of Massive Transfusion—A Common Intervention in Need of a Definition. Transfus. Med. Rev. 2021 , 35 , 73–79. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Rangarajan, K.; Subramanian, A.; Pandey, R.M. Determinants of Mortality in Trauma Patients Following Massive Blood Transfusion. J. Emerg. Trauma Shock 2011 , 4 , 58–63. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Reppucci, M.L.; Cooper, E.; Nolan, M.M.; Lyttle, B.D.; Gallagher, L.T.; Jujare, S.; Stevens, J.; Moulton, S.L.; Bensard, D.D.; Acker, S.N. Use of Prehospital Reverse Shock Index Times Glasgow Coma Scale to Identify Children Who Require the Most Immediate Trauma Care. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2023 , 95 , 347–353. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Schneider, A.B.; Adams, U.; Gallaher, J.; Purcell, L.N.; Raff, L.; Eckert, M.; Charles, A. Blood Utilization and Thresholds for Mortality Following Major Trauma. J. Surg. Res. 2023 , 281 , 82–88. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Tisherman, S.A.; Barie, P.; Bokhari, F.; Bonadies, J.; Daley, B.; Diebel, L.; Eachempati, S.R.; Kurek, S.; Luchette, F.; Carlos Puyana, J.; et al. Clinical Practice Guideline: Endpoints of Resuscitation. J. Trauma 2004 , 57 , 898–912. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Yu, A.J.; Inaba, K.; Biswas, S.; de Leon, L.A.; Wong, M.; Benjamin, E.; Lam, L.; Demetriades, D. Supermassive Transfusion: A 15-Year Single Center Experience and Outcomes. Am. Surg. 2018 , 84 , 1617–1621. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Clements, T.; McCoy, C.; Assen, S.; Cardenas, J.; Wade, C.; Meyer, D.; Cotton, B.A. The Prehospital Use of Younger Age Whole Blood Is Associated with an Improved Arrival Coagulation Profile. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2021 , 90 , 607–614. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Hanna, K.; Bible, L.; Chehab, M.; Asmar, S.; Douglas, M.; Ditillo, M.; Castanon, L.; Tang, A.; Joseph, B. Nationwide Analysis of Whole Blood Hemostatic Resuscitation in Civilian Trauma. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2020 , 89 , 329–335. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Lo, B.D.; Merkel, K.R.; Dougherty, J.L.; Kajstura, T.J.; Cruz, N.C.; Sikorski, R.A.; Frank, S.M. Assessing Predictors of Futility in Patients Receiving Massive Transfusions. Transfusion 2021 , 61 , 2082–2089. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Wong, H.S.; Curry, N.S.; Davenport, R.A.; Yu, L.M.; Stanworth, S.J. A Delphi Study to Establish Consensus on a Definition of Major Bleeding in Adult Trauma. Transfusion 2020 , 60 , 3028–3038. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Vernon, T.E.; April, M.D.; Fisher, A.D.; Rizzo, J.A.; Long, B.J.; Schauer, S.G. An Assessment of Clinical Accuracy of Vital Sign-based Triage Tools among U.S. and Coalition Forces. Mil. Med. 2024 , 189 , usad500. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Vaslef, S.N.; Knudsen, N.W.; Neligan, P.J.; Sebastian, M.W. Massive Transfusion Exceeding 50 Units of Blood Products in Trauma Patients. J. Trauma 2002 , 53 , 291–295; discussion 295–296. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Hakala, P.; Hiippala, S.; Syrjala, M.; Randell, T. Massive Blood Transfusion Exceeding 50 Units of Plasma Poor Red Cells or Whole Blood: The Survival Rate and the Occurrence of Leukopenia and Acidosis. Injury 1999 , 30 , 619–622. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Eckstein, M. Termination of Resuscitative Efforts: Medical Futility for the Trauma Patient. Curr. Opin. Crit. Care 2001 , 7 , 450–454. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Trenga-Schein, N.; Zonies, D.; Cook, M. Goals of Care Are Rarely Discussed Prior to Potentially Futile Trauma Transfer: Is It Okay to Say “No”? J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2024 , 96 , 583–588. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Ang, D.; Fakhry, S.M.; Watts, D.D.; Liu, H.; Morse, J.L.; Armstrong, J.; Ziglar, M.; Restivo, J.; Plurad, D.; Kurek, S.; et al. Data-Driven Blood Transfusion Thresholds for Severely Injured Patients During Blood Shortages. J. Surg. Res. 2023 , 291 , 17–24. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Braverman, M.A.; Schauer, S.G.; Ciaraglia, A.; Brigmon, E.; Smith, A.A.; Barry, L.; Bynum, J.; Cap, A.D.; Corral, H.; Fisher, A.D.; et al. The Impact of Prehospital Whole Blood on Hemorrhaging Trauma Patients: A Multi-Center Retrospective Study. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2023 , 95 , 191–196. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Brill, J.B.; Tang, B.; Hatton, G.; Mueck, K.M.; McCoy, C.C.; Kao, L.S.; Cotton, B.A. Impact of Incorporating Whole Blood into Hemorrhagic Shock Resuscitation: Analysis of 1377 Consecutive Trauma Patients Receiving Emergency-Release Uncrossmatched Blood Products. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2022 , 234 , 408–418. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Ciaraglia, A.; Brigmon, E.; Braverman, M.; Kidd, E.; Winckler, C.J.; Epley, E.; Flores, J.; Barry, J.; DeLeon, D.; Waltman, E.; et al. Use of Whole Blood Deployment Programs for Mass Casualty Incidents: South Texas Experience in Regional Response and Preparedness. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2022 , 93 , e182–e184. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Ciaraglia, A.; Myers, J.C.; Braverman, M.; Barry, J.; Eastridge, B.; Stewart, R.; Nicholson, S.; Jenkins, D. Transfusion-Related Cost Comparison of Trauma Patients Receiving Whole Blood Versus Component Therapy. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2023 , 95 , 62–68. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Gaessler, H.; Helm, M.; Kulla, M.; Hossfeld, B.; Riedel, J.; Kerschowski, J.; Bretschneider, I. Prehospital Predictors of the Need for Transfusion in Patients with Major Trauma. Eur. J. Trauma Emerg. Surg. 2023 , 49 , 803–812. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Hazelton, J.P.; Ssentongo, A.E.; Oh, J.S.; Ssentongo, P.; Seamon, M.J.; Byrne, J.P.; Armento, I.G.; Jenkins, D.H.; Braverman, M.A.; Mentzer, C.; et al. Use of Cold-Stored Whole Blood is Associated with Improved Mortality in Hemostatic Resuscitation of Major Bleeding: A Multicenter Study. Ann. Surg. 2022 , 276 , 579–588. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Sperry, J.L.; Cotton, B.A.; Luther, J.F.; Cannon, J.W.; Schreiber, M.A.; Moore, E.E.; Namias, N.; Minei, J.P.; Wisniewski, S.R.; Guyette, F.X. Whole Blood Resuscitation and Association with Survival in Injured Patients with an Elevated Probability of Mortality. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2023 , 237 , 206–219. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Yazer, M.H.; Cap, A.P.; Glassberg, E.; Green, L.; Holcomb, J.B.; Khan, M.A.; Moore, E.E.; Neal, M.D.; Perkins, G.D.; Sperry, J.L.; et al. Toward a More Complete Understanding of Who Will Benefit from Prehospital Transfusion. Transfusion 2022 , 62 , 1671–1679. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Hu, P.; Uhlich, R.; Black, J.; Jansen, J.O.; Kerby, J.; Holcomb, J.B. A New Definition for Massive Transfusion in the Modern Era of Whole Blood Resuscitation. Transfusion 2021 , 61 (Suppl. S1), S252–S263. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Ross, S.W.; Thomas, B.W.; Christmas, A.B.; Cunningham, K.W.; Sing, R.F. Discussion of: “Returning from the Acidotic Abyss: Mortality in Trauma Patients with a pH < 7.0”. Am. J. Surg. 2017 , 214 , 1073–1074. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Samanta, S.; Singh, R.K.; Baronia, A.K.; Mishra, P.; Poddar, B.; Azim, A.; Gurjar, M. Early pH Change Predicts Intensive Care Unit Mortality. Indian J. Crit. Care Med. 2018 , 22 , 697–705. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
van Beest, P.A.; Brander, L.; Jansen, S.P.; Rommes, J.H.; Kuiper, M.A.; Spronk, P.E. Cumulative Lactate and Hospital Mortality in ICU Patients. Ann. Intensive Care 2013 , 3 , 6. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Ross, S.W.; Thomas, B.W.; Christmas, A.B.; Cunningham, K.W.; Sing, R.F. Returning from the Acidotic Abyss: Mortality in Trauma Patients with a pH < 7.0. Am. J. Surg. 2017 , 214 , 1067–1072. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Moore, E.E.; Moore, H.B.; Kornblith, L.Z.; Neal, M.D.; Hoffman, M.; Mutch, N.J.; Schochl, H.; Hunt, B.J.; Sauaia, A. Trauma-Induced Coagulopathy. Nat. Rev. Dis. Primers 2021 , 7 , 30. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Hartmann, J.; Walsh, M.; Grisoli, A.; Thomas, A.V.; Shariff, F.; McCauley, R.; Vande Lune, S.; Zackariya, N.; Patel, S.; Farrell, M.S.; et al. Diagnosis and Treatment of Trauma-Induced Coagulopathy by Viscoelastography. Semin. Thromb. Hemost. 2020 , 46 , 134–146. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
White, N.J.; Ward, K.R.; Pati, S.; Strandenes, G.; Cap, A.P. Hemorrhagic Blood Failure: Oxygen Debt, Coagulopathy, and Endothelial Damage. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2017 , 82 , S41–S49. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Chapman, M.P.; Moore, E.E.; Moore, H.B.; Gonzalez, E.; Morton, A.P.; Chandler, J.; Fleming, C.D.; Ghasabyan, A.; Silliman, C.C.; Banerjee, A.; et al. The “Death Diamond”: Rapid Thrombelastography Identifies Lethal Hyperfibrinolysis. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2015 , 79 , 925–929. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Farrell, M.S.; Moore, E.E.; Thomas, A.V.; Coleman, J.R.; Thomas, S.; Vande Lune, S.; Marconi, T., Jr.; Cohen, M.J.; Chapman, M.P.; Moore, H.B.; et al. "Death Diamond" Tracing on Thromboelastography as a Marker of Poor Survival After Trauma. Am. Surg. 2022 , 88 , 1689–1693. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Farrell, M.; Marconi, T.; Getchell, J.; Green, R.; Cipolle, M.; Sixta, S. The “Death Diamond”: Death beyond Trauma. Am. Surg. 2019 , 85 , 757–760. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Neal, M.D.; Moore, H.B.; Moore, E.E.; Freeman, K.; Cohen, M.J.; Sperry, J.L.; Zuckerbraun, B.S.; Park, M.S. Clinical Assessment of Trauma-Induced Coagulopathy and Its Contribution to Postinjury Mortality: A TACTIC Proposal. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2015 , 79 , 490–492. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Baik, D.; Yeom, S.R.; Park, S.W.; Cho, Y.; Yang, W.T.; Kwon, H.; Lee, J.I.; Ko, J.K.; Choi, H.J.; Huh, U.; et al. The Addition of Rotem Parameter Did Not Significantly Improve the Massive Transfusion Prediction in Severe Trauma Patients. Emerg. Med. Int. 2022 , 2022 , 7219812. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Muldowney, M.; Liu, Z.; Stansbury, L.G.; Vavilala, M.S.; Hess, J.R. Ultramassive Transfusion for Trauma in the Age of Hemostatic Resuscitation: A Retrospective Single-Center Cohort From a Large US Level-1 Trauma Center, 2011–2021. Anesth. Analg. 2023 , 136 , 927–933. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Nunez, T.C.; Dutton, W.D.; May, A.K.; Holcomb, J.B.; Young, P.P.; Cotton, B.A. Emergency Department Blood Transfusion Predicts Early Massive Transfusion and Early Blood Component Requirement. Transfusion 2010 , 50 , 1914–1920. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Yücel, N.; Lefering, R.; Maegele, M.; Vorweg, M.; Tjardes, T.; Ruchholtz, S.; Neugebauer, E.A.; Wappler, F.; Bouillon, B.; Rixen, D. Trauma Associated Severe Hemorrhage (Tash)-Score: Probability of Mass Transfusion as Surrogate for Life Threatening Hemorrhage after Multiple Trauma. J. Trauma 2006 , 60 , 1228–1236; discussion 1236–1227. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Van Gent, J.M.e.a. Discussion. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2023 , 236 , 881–883. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Tzeng, W.J.; Tseng, H.Y.; Hou, T.Y.; Chou, S.E.; Su, W.T.; Hsu, S.Y.; Hsieh, C.H. From Death Triad to Death Tetrad-The Addition of a Hypotension Component to the Death Triad Improves Mortality Risk Stratification in Trauma Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Diagnostics 2022 , 12 , 2885. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Volod, O.; Bunch, C.M.; Zackariya, N.; Moore, E.E.; Moore, H.B.; Kwaan, H.C.; Neal, M.D.; Al-Fadhl, M.D.; Patel, S.S.; Wiarda, G.; et al. Viscoelastic Hemostatic Assays: A Primer on Legacy and New Generation Devices. J. Clin. Med. 2022 , 11 , 860. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Winearls, J.; Reade, M.; Miles, H.; Bulmer, A.; Campbell, D.; Gorlinger, K.; Fraser, J.F. Targeted Coagulation Management in Severe Trauma: The Controversies and the Evidence. Anesth. Analg. 2016 , 123 , 910–924. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Kronstedt, S.; Roberts, N.; Ditzel, R.; Elder, J.; Steen, A.; Thompson, K.; Anderson, J.; Siegler, J. Hypocalcemia as a Predictor of Mortality and Transfusion. A Scoping Review of Hypocalcemia in Trauma and Hemostatic Resuscitation. Transfusion 2022 , 62 (Suppl. S1), S158–S166. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Vasudeva, M.; Mathew, J.K.; Groombridge, C.; Tee, J.W.; Johnny, C.S.; Maini, A.; Fitzgerald, M.C. Hypocalcemia in Trauma Patients: A Systematic Review. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2021 , 90 , 396–402. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Wray, J.P.; Bridwell, R.E.; Schauer, S.G.; Shackelford, S.A.; Bebarta, V.S.; Wright, F.L.; Bynum, J.; Long, B. The Diamond of Death: Hypocalcemia in Trauma and Resuscitation. Am. J. Emerg. Med. 2021 , 41 , 104–109. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Bunch, C.M.; Berquist, M.; Ansari, A.; McCoy, M.L.; Langford, J.H.; Brenner, T.J.; Aboukhaled, M.; Thomas, S.J.; Peck, E.; Patel, S.; et al. The Choice between Plasma-Based Common Coagulation Tests and Cell-Based Viscoelastic Tests in Monitoring Hemostatic Competence: Not an Either-Or Proposition. Semin. Thromb. Hemost. 2022 , 48 , 769–784. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Walsh, M.; Fries, D.; Moore, E.; Moore, H.; Thomas, S.; Kwaan, H.C.; Marsee, M.K.; Grisoli, A.; McCauley, R.; Lune, S.V. Whole Blood for Civilian Urban Trauma Resuscitation: Historical, Present, and Future Considerations. Semin. Thromb. Hemost. 2020 , 46 , 221–234. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Stettler, G.R.; Moore, E.E.; Moore, H.B.; Nunns, G.R.; Silliman, C.C.; Banerjee, A.; Sauaia, A. Redefining Postinjury Fibrinolysis Phenotypes Using Two Viscoelastic Assays. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2019 , 86 , 679–685. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Stettler, G.R.; Moore, E.E.; Nunns, G.R.; Chandler, J.; Peltz, E.; Silliman, C.C.; Banerjee, A.; Sauaia, A. Rotational Thromboelastometry Thresholds for Patients at Risk for Massive Transfusion. J. Surg. Res. 2018 , 228 , 154–159. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Stettler, G.R.; Sumislawski, J.J.; Moore, E.E.; Nunns, G.R.; Kornblith, L.Z.; Conroy, A.S.; Callcut, R.A.; Silliman, C.C.; Banerjee, A.; Cohen, M.J.; et al. Citrated Kaolin Thrombelastography (TEG) Thresholds for Goal-Directed Therapy in Injured Patients Receiving Massive Transfusion. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2018 , 85 , 734–740. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Chinn, M.; Colella, M.R. Trauma Resuscitation: An Evidence-Based Review of Prehospital Traumatic Cardiac Arrest. JEMS 2017 , 42 , 26–32. [ Google Scholar ] [ PubMed ]
Millin, M.G.; Galvagno, S.M.; Khandker, S.R.; Malki, A.; Bulger, E.M. Withholding and Termination of Resuscitation of Adult Cardiopulmonary Arrest Secondary to Trauma: Resource Document to the Joint NAEMSP-ACSCOT Position Statements. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2013 , 75 , 459–467. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Rethlefsen, M.L.; Kirtley, S.; Waffenschmidt, S.; Ayala, A.P.; Moher, D.; Page, M.J.; Koffel, J.B. PRISMA-S: An Extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews. Syst. Rev. 2021 , 10 , 39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Aichholz, P.K.; Lee, S.A.; Farr, C.K.; Tsang, H.C.; Vavilala, M.S.; Stansbury, L.G.; Hess, J.R. Platelet Transfusion and Outcomes After Massive Transfusion Protocol Activation for Major Trauma: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Anesth. Analg. 2022 , 135 , 385–393. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Barbosa, R.R.; Rowell, S.E.; Diggs, B.S.; Schreiber, M.A.; Group, T.O. Profoundly Abnormal Initial Physiologic and Biochemical Data Cannot Be Used to Determine Futility in Massively Transfused Trauma Patients. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2011 , 71 , S364–S369. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Dorken Gallastegi, A.; Secor, J.D.; Maurer, L.R.; Dzik, W.S.; Saillant, N.N.; Hwabejire, J.O.; Fawley, J.; Parks, J.; Kaafarani, H.M.; Velmahos, G.C. Role of Transfusion Volume and Transfusion Rate as Markers of Futility During Ultramassive Blood Transfusion in Trauma. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2022 , 235 , 468–480. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Hamidi, M.; Zeeshan, M.; Kulvatunyou, N.; Adun, E.; O’Keeffe, T.; Zakaria, E.R.; Gries, L.; Joseph, B. Outcomes After Massive Transfusion in Trauma Patients: Variability among Trauma Centers. J. Surg. Res. 2019 , 234 , 110–115. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Huber-Wagner, S.; Qvick, M.; Mussack, T.; Euler, E.; Kay, M.V.; Mutschler, W.; Kanz, K.G. Massive Blood Transfusion and Outcome in 1062 Polytrauma Patients: A Prospective Study Based on the Trauma Registry of the German Trauma Society. Vox Sang. 2007 , 92 , 69–78. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Mitra, B.; Mori, A.; Cameron, P.A.; Fitzgerald, M.; Paul, E.; Street, A. Fresh Frozen Plasma (FFP) Use during Massive Blood Transfusion in Trauma Resuscitation. Injury 2010 , 41 , 35–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Mitra, B.; Olaussen, A.; Cameron, P.A.; O’Donohoe, T.; Fitzgerald, M. Massive Blood Transfusions Post Trauma in the Elderly Compared to Younger Patients. Injury 2014 , 45 , 1296–1300. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Moore, F.A.; Nelson, T.; McKinley, B.A.; Moore, E.E.; Nathens, A.B.; Rhee, P.; Puyana, J.C.; Beilman, G.J.; Cohn, S.M. Massive Transfusion in Trauma Patients: Tissue Hemoglobin Oxygen Saturation Predicts Poor Outcome. J. Trauma 2008 , 64 , 1010–1023. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Morris, M.C.; Niziolek, G.M.; Baker, J.E.; Huebner, B.R.; Hanseman, D.; Makley, A.T.; Pritts, T.A.; Goodman, M.D. Death by Decade: Establishing a Transfusion Ceiling for Futility in Massive Transfusion. J. Surg. Res. 2020 , 252 , 139–146. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Mostafa, G.; Gunter, O.L.; Norton, H.J.; McElhiney, B.M.; Bailey, D.F.; Jacobs, D.G. Age, Blood Transfusion, and Survival after Trauma. Am. Surg. 2004 , 70 , 357–363. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Torres, C.M.; Kent, A.; Scantling, D.; Joseph, B.; Haut, E.R.; Sakran, J.V. Association of Whole Blood With Survival among Patients Presenting With Severe Hemorrhage in US and Canadian Adult Civilian Trauma Centers. JAMA Surg. 2023 , 158 , 532–540. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Velmahos, G.C.; Chan, L.; Chan, M.; Tatevossian, R.; Cornwell III, E.E.; Asensio, J.A.; Berne, T.V.; Demetriades, D. Is There a Limit to Massive Blood Transfusion after Severe Trauma? Arch. Surg. 1998 , 133 , 947–952. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Barbosa, R.R.; Rowell, S.E.; Sambasivan, C.N.; Diggs, B.S.; Spinella, P.C.; Schreiber, M.A.; Holcomb, J.B.; Wade, C.E.; Brasel, K.J.; Vercruysse, G.; et al. A Predictive Model for Mortality in Massively Transfused Trauma Patients. J. Trauma 2011 , 71 , S370–S374. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Cinat, M.E.; Wallace, W.C.; Nastanski, F.; West, J.; Sloan, S.; Ocariz, J.; Wilson, S.E. Improved Survival Following Massive Transfusion in Patients Who Have Undergone Trauma. Arch. Surg. 1999 , 134 , 964–968; discussion 968–970. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Criddle, L.M.; Eldredge, D.H.; Walker, J. Variables Predicting Trauma Patient Survival Following Massive Transfusion. J. Emerg. Nurs. 2005 , 31 , 236–242; quiz 320. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Cripps, M.W.; Kutcher, M.E.; Daley, A.; McCreery, R.C.; Greenberg, M.D.; Cachola, L.M.; Redick, B.J.; Nelson, M.F.; Cohen, M.J. Cause and Timing of Death in Massively Transfused Trauma Patients. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2013 , 75 , S255–S262. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Heidary, B.; Bell, N.; Ngai, J.T.; Simons, R.K.; Chipperfield, K.; Hameed, S.M. Temporal Trends in the Treatment of Severe Traumatic Hemorrhage. Am. J. Surg. 2012 , 203 , 568–573. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Katirai, A.; Landau, M.J.; Berger, J.M. The Utility of Abnormal Initial Arterial Blood Gas Values in Determining Clinical Futility of Trauma Cases with Severe Hemorrhage. Am. J. Emerg. Med. 2018 , 36 , 1253–1256. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Mitra, B.; Mori, A.; Cameron, P.A.; Fitzgerald, M.; Street, A.; Bailey, M. Massive Blood Transfusion and Trauma Resuscitation. Injury 2007 , 38 , 1023–1029. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Murray, C.J.; Barber, R.M.; Foreman, K.J.; Abbasoglu Ozgoren, A.; Abd-Allah, F.; Abera, S.F.; Aboyans, V.; Abraham, J.P.; Abubakar, I.; Abu-Raddad, L.J.; et al. Global, Regional, and National Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) for 306 Diseases and Injuries and Healthy Life Expectancy (HALE) for 188 Countries, 1990–2013: Quantifying the Epidemiological Transition. Lancet 2015 , 386 , 2145–2191. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Shea, S.M.; Staudt, A.M.; Thomas, K.A.; Schuerer, D.; Mielke, J.E.; Folkerts, D.; Lowder, E.; Martin, C.; Bochicchio, G.V.; Spinella, P.C. The Use of Low-Titer Group O Whole Blood is Independently Associated with Improved Survival Compared to Component Therapy in Adults with Severe Traumatic Hemorrhage. Transfusion 2020 , 60 (Suppl. S3), S2–S9. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Yang, J.C.; Sun, Y.; Xu, C.X.; Dang, Q.L.; Li, L.; Xu, Y.G.; Song, Y.J.; Yan, H. Correlation between Red Blood Cell Transfusion Volume and Mortality in Patients with Massive Blood Transfusion: A Large Multicenter Retrospective Study. Exp. Ther. Med. 2015 , 9 , 137–142. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Borgman, M.A.; Spinella, P.C.; Perkins, J.G.; Grathwohl, K.W.; Repine, T.; Beekley, A.C.; Sebesta, J.; Jenkins, D.; Wade, C.E.; Holcomb, J.B. The Ratio of Blood Products Transfused Affects Mortality in Patients Receiving Massive Transfusions at a Combat support Hospital. J. Trauma 2007 , 63 , 805–813. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Deeb, A.P.; Guyette, F.X.; Daley, B.J.; Miller, R.S.; Harbrecht, B.G.; Claridge, J.A.; Phelan, H.A.; Eastridge, B.J.; Joseph, B.; Nirula, R.; et al. Time to Early Resuscitative Intervention Association with Mortality in Trauma Patients at Risk for Hemorrhage. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2023 , 94 , 504–512. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Cosgriff, N.; Moore, E.E.; Sauaia, A.; Kenny-Moynihan, M.; Burch, J.M.; Galloway, B. Predicting Life-Threatening Coagulopathy in the Massively Transfused Trauma Patient: Hypothermia and Acidoses Revisited. J. Trauma 1997 , 42 , 857–861; discussion 861–852. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Dudaryk, R.; Bodzin, D.K.; Ray, J.J.; Jabaley, C.S.; McNeer, R.R.; Epstein, R.H. Low End-Tidal Carbon Dioxide at the Onset of Emergent Trauma Surgery Is Associated with Nonsurvival: A Case Series. Anesth. Analg. 2017 , 125 , 1261–1266. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Bryant, M.K.; Portelli Tremont, J.N.; Patel, Z.; Cook, N.; Udekwu, P.; Reid, T.; Maine, R.G.; Moore, S.M. Low Initial Pre-Hospital End-Tidal Carbon Dioxide Predicts Inferior Clinical Outcomes in Trauma Patients. Injury 2021 , 52 , 2502–2507. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Hosseinpour, H.; Magnotti, L.J.; Bhogadi, S.K.; Anand, T.; El-Qawaqzeh, K.; Ditillo, M.; Colosimo, C.; Spencer, A.; Nelson, A.; Joseph, B. Time to Whole Blood Transfusion in Hemorrhaging Civilian Trauma Patients: There Is Always Room for Improvement. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2023 , 237 , 24–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Israr, S.; Cook, A.D.; Chapple, K.M.; Jacobs, J.V.; McGeever, K.P.; Tiffany, B.R.; Schultz, S.P.; Petersen, S.R.; Weinberg, J.A. Pulseless Electrical Activity Following Traumatic Cardiac Arrest: Sign of Life or Death? Injury 2019 , 50 , 1507–1510. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Anand, T.; El-Qawaqzeh, K.; Nelson, A.; Hosseinpour, H.; Ditillo, M.; Gries, L.; Castanon, L.; Joseph, B. Association Between Hemorrhage Control Interventions and Mortality in US Trauma Patients With Hemodynamically Unstable Pelvic Fractures. JAMA Surg. 2023 , 158 , 63–71. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Liu, S.; Fujii, Q.; Serio, F.; McCague, A. Massive Blood Transfusions and Outcomes in Trauma Patients; An Intention to Treat Analysis. Bull. Emerg. Trauma 2018 , 6 , 217–220. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Como, J.J.; Dutton, R.P.; Scalea, T.M.; Edelman, B.B.; Hess, J.R. Blood Transfusion Rates in the Care of Acute Trauma. Transfusion 2004 , 44 , 809–813. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Rahbar, E.; Fox, E.E.; del Junco, D.J.; Harvin, J.A.; Holcomb, J.B.; Wade, C.E.; Schreiber, M.A.; Rahbar, M.H.; Bulger, E.M.; Phelan, H.A.; et al. Early Resuscitation Intensity as a Surrogate for Bleeding Severity and Early Mortality in the PROMMTT Study. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2013 , 75 , S16–S23. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Eitel, A.P.; Moore, E.E.; Sauaia, A.; Kelher, M.R.; Vigneshwar, N.G.; Bartley, M.G.; Hadley, J.B.; Burlew, C.C.; Campion, E.M.; Fox, C.J.; et al. A Proposed Clinical Coagulation Score for Research in Trauma-Induced Coagulopathy. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2023 , 94 , 798–802. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Johnson, D.J.; Scott, A.V.; Barodka, V.M.; Park, S.; Wasey, J.O.; Ness, P.M.; Gniadek, T.; Frank, S.M. Morbidity and Mortality after High-Dose Transfusion. Anesthesiology 2016 , 124 , 387–395. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Patel, E.U.; Ness, P.M.; Marshall, C.E.; Gniadek, T.; Efron, D.T.; Miller, P.M.; Zeitouni, J.A.; King, K.E.; Bloch, E.M.; Tobian, A.A.R. Blood Product Utilization Among Trauma and Nontrauma Massive Transfusion Protocols at an Urban Academic Medical Center. Anesth. Analg. 2017 , 125 , 967–974. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Gurney, J.M.; Staudt, A.M.; Holcomb, J.B.; Martin, M.; Spinella, P.; Corley, J.B.; Rohrer, A.J.; Trevino, J.D.; Del Junco, D.J.; Cap, A.; et al. Finding the Bleeding Edge: 24-Hour Mortality by Unit of Blood Product Transfused in Combat Casualties from 2002–2020. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2023 , 95 , 635–641. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Savage, S.A.; Sumislawski, J.J.; Zarzaur, B.L.; Dutton, W.P.; Croce, M.A.; Fabian, T.C. The New Metric to Define Large-Volume Hemorrhage: Results of a Prospective Study of the Critical Administration Threshold. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2015 , 78 , 224–229; discussion 229–230. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Savage, S.A.; Zarzaur, B.L.; Croce, M.A.; Fabian, T.C. Redefining Massive Transfusion When Every Second Counts. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2013 , 74 , 396–400; discussion 400–392. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Sihler, K.C.; Napolitano, L.M. Massive Transfusion: New Insights. Chest 2009 , 136 , 1654–1667. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Zatta, A.J.; McQuilten, Z.K.; Mitra, B.; Roxby, D.J.; Sinha, R.; Whitehead, S.; Dunkley, S.; Kelleher, S.; Hurn, C.; Cameron, P.A.; et al. Elucidating the Clinical Characteristics of Patients Captured Using Different Definitions of Massive Transfusion. Vox Sang. 2014 , 107 , 60–70. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Beckermann, J.; Swartz, H.; Albright, J.; Street, W.; Martin, S.; Hagen, C.; Linnaus, M.; Ciresi, D. Achieving Optimal Massive Transfusion Ratios: The Trauma White Board, Whole Blood, and Liquid Plasma. Real World Low-Tech Solutions for a High Stakes Issue. Injury 2022 , 53 , 2974–2978. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Morris, R.S.; Karam, B.S.; Murphy, P.B.; Jenkins, P.; Milia, D.J.; Hemmila, M.R.; Haines, K.L.; Puzio, T.J.; de Moya, M.A.; Tignanelli, C.J. Field-Triage, Hospital-Triage and Triage-Assessment: A Literature Review of the Current Phases of Adult Trauma Triage. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2021 , 90 , e138–e145. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Kunitake, R.C.; Kornblith, L.Z.; Cohen, M.J.; Callcut, R.A. Trauma Early Mortality Prediction Tool (TEMPT) for Assessing 28-Day Mortality. Trauma Surg. Acute Care Open 2018 , 3 , e000131. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Fu, C.Y.; Bajani, F.; Bokhari, M.; Starr, F.; Messer, T.; Kaminsky, M.; Dennis, A.; Schlanser, V.; Mis, J.; Poulakidas, S.; et al. Age Itself or Age-Associated Comorbidities? A Nationwide Analysis of Outcomes of Geriatric Trauma. Eur. J. Trauma Emerg Surg. 2022 , 48 , 2873–2880. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Joseph, B.; Pandit, V.; Zangbar, B.; Kulvatunyou, N.; Tang, A.; O’Keeffe, T.; Green, D.J.; Vercruysse, G.; Fain, M.J.; Friese, R.S.; et al. Validating Trauma-Specific Frailty Index for Geriatric Trauma Patients: A Prospective Analysis. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2014 , 219 , 10-17e11. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Edgar, M.C.; Bond, S.M.; Jiang, S.H.; Scharf, I.M.; Bejarano, G.; Vrouwe, S.Q. The Revised Baux Score as a Predictor of Burn Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Burn. Care Res. 2023 , 44 , 1278–1288. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Roberts, G.; Lloyd, M.; Parker, M.; Martin, R.; Philp, B.; Shelley, O.; Dziewulski, P. The Baux Score Is Dead. Long Live the Baux Score: A 27-Year Retrospective Cohort Study of Mortality at a Regional Burns Service. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012 , 72 , 251–256. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Zhao, F.Z.; Wolf, S.E.; Nakonezny, P.A.; Minhajuddin, A.; Rhodes, R.L.; Paulk, M.E.; Phelan, H.A. Estimating Geriatric Mortality after Injury Using Age, Injury Severity, and Performance of a Transfusion: The Geriatric Trauma Outcome Score. J. Palliat. Med. 2015 , 18 , 677–681. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Chow, J.; Kuza, C.M. Predicting Mortality in Elderly Trauma Patients: A Review of the Current Literature. Curr. Opin. Anesthesiol. 2022 , 35 , 160–165. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Cook, A.C.; Joseph, B.; Inaba, K.; Nakonezny, P.A.; Bruns, B.R.; Kerby, J.D.; Brasel, K.J.; Wolf, S.E.; Cuschieri, J.; Paulk, M.E.; et al. Multicenter External Validation of the Geriatric Trauma Outcome Score: A Study by the Prognostic Assessment of Life and Limitations after Trauma in the Elderly (Palliate) Consortium. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2016 , 80 , 204–209. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Zhuang, Y.; Feng, Q.; Tang, H.; Wang, Y.; Li, Z.; Bai, X. Predictive Value of the Geriatric Trauma Outcome Score in Older Patients after Trauma: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Int. J. Gen. Med. 2022 , 15 , 4379–4390. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Copes, W.S.; Champion, H.R.; Sacco, W.J.; Lawnick, M.M.; Keast, S.L.; Bain, L.W. The Injury Severity Score Revisited. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 1988 , 28 , 69–77. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Mann, K.G.; Freeman, K. TACTIC: Trans-Agency Consortium for Trauma-Induced Coagulopathy. J. Thromb Haemost. 2015 , 13 (Suppl. S1), S63–S71. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Meizoso, J.P.; Moore, E.E.; Pieracci, F.M.; Saberi, R.A.; Ghasabyan, A.; Chandler, J.; Namias, N.; Sauaia, A. Role of Fibrinogen in Trauma-Induced Coagulopathy. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2022 , 234 , 465–473. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Samuels, J.M.; Moore, E.E.; Silliman, C.C.; Banerjee, A.; Cohen, M.J.; Ghasabyan, A.; Chandler, J.; Coleman, J.R.; Sauaia, A. Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Is Associated with a Unique Coagulopathy Phenotype. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2019 , 86 , 686. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Majdan, M.; Steyerberg, E.W.; Nieboer, D.; Mauritz, W.; Rusnak, M.; Lingsma, H.F. Glasgow Coma Scale Motor Score and Pupillary Reaction to Predict Six-Month Mortality in Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury: Comparison of Field and Admission Assessment. J. Neurotrauma 2015 , 32 , 101–108. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Zhao, Z.; Liang, J.J.; Wang, Z.; Winans, N.J.; Morris, M.; Doyle, S.; Fry, A.; Fiore, S.M.; Mofakham, S.; Mikell, C.B. Cardiac Arrest after Severe Traumatic Brain Injury can Be Survivable with Good Outcomes. Trauma Surg. Acute Care Open 2021 , 6 , e000638. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Yeh, C.H.; Wu, S.C.; Chou, S.E.; Su, W.T.; Tsai, C.H.; Li, C.; Hsu, S.Y.; Hsieh, C.H. Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index as a Tool to Evaluate Impact of Malnutrition Risk on Mortality in Adult Patients with Polytrauma. Int. J. Env. Res. Public Health 2020 , 17 , 9233. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Kalkwarf, K.J.; Jensen, S.D.; Allukian III, M.; Harting, M.T.; Cox, C.S.; Fox, E.E.; Wade, C.E.; Cotton, B.A. Can We Identify Futility in Kids? An Evaluation of Admission Parameters Predicting 100% Mortality in 1292 Severely Injured Children. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2018 , 226 , 662–667. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Al-Fadhl, M.D.; Karam, M.N.; Chen, J.; Zackariya, S.K.; Lain, M.C.; Bales, J.R.; Higgins, A.B.; Laing, J.T.; Wang, H.S.; Andrews, M.G.; et al. Traumatic Brain Injury as an Independent Predictor of Futility in the Early Resuscitation of Patients in Hemorrhagic Shock. J. Clin. Med. 2024 , 13 , 3915. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Morris, R.S.; Milia, D.; Glover, J.; Napolitano, L.M.; Chen, B.; Lindemann, E.; Hemmila, M.R.; Stein, D.; Kummerfeld, E.; Chipman, J.; et al. Predictors of Elderly Mortality after Trauma: A Novel Outcome Score. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2019 , 88 , 416–424. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Robertson, R.; Eidt, J.; Bitzer, L.; Wallace, B.; Collins, T.; Parks-Miller, C.; Cone, J. Severe Acidosis Alone Does not Predict Mortality in the Trauma Patient. Am. J. Surg. 1995 , 170 , 691–694; discussion 694–695. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Mitterecker, A.; Hofmann, A.; Trentino, K.M.; Lloyd, A.; Leahy, M.F.; Schwarzbauer, K.; Tschoellitsch, T.; Böck, C.; Hochreiter, S.; Meier, J. Machine Learning-Based Prediction of Transfusion. Transfusion 2020 , 60 , 1977–1986. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Peng, H.T.; Siddiqui, M.M.; Rhind, S.G.; Zhang, J.; da Luz, L.T.; Beckett, A. Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning for Hemorrhagic Trauma Care. Mil. Med. Res. 2023 , 10 , 6. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Wears, R.L. Standardisation and Its Discontents. Cogn. Technol. Work 2015 , 17 , 89–94. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Anderson, E.; Kryzanski, J. Prognosis and Futility in Neurosurgical Emergencies: A Review. Clin. Neurol. Neurosurg. 2020 , 195 , 105851. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Neal, C.J.; Bell, R.S.; Carmichael, J.J.; DuBose, J.J.; Grabo, D.J.; Oh, J.S.; Remick, K.N.; Bailey, J.A.; Stockinger, Z.T. Catastrophic Non-Survivable Brain Injury Care-Role 2/3. Mil. Med. 2018 , 183 , 73–77. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Zakrison, T.L.; Essig, R.; Polcari, A.; McKinley, W.; Arnold, D.; Beyene, R.; Wilson, K.; Rogers, S., Jr.; Matthews, J.B.; Millis, J.M.; et al. Review Paper on Penetrating Brain Injury: Ethical Quandaries in the Trauma Bay and Beyond. Ann. Surg. 2023 , 277 , 66–72. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Johansson, P.I.; Stensballe, J.; Oliveri, R.; Wade, C.E.; Ostrowski, S.R.; Holcomb, J.B. How I Treat Patients with Massive Hemorrhage. Blood 2014 , 124 , 3052–3058. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Walsh, M.; Fritz, S.; Hake, D.; Son, M.; Greve, S.; Jbara, M.; Chitta, S.; Fritz, B.; Miller, A.; Bader, M.K.; et al. Targeted Thromboelastographic (Teg) Blood Component and Pharmacologic Hemostatic Therapy in Traumatic and Acquired Coagulopathy. Curr. Drug Targets 2016 , 17 , 954–970. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Smith, J.E.; Rickard, A.; Wise, D. Traumatic Cardiac Arrest. J. R. Soc. Med. 2015 , 108 , 11–16. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Rubin, M. Should We Offer Blood Transfusions as a Palliative Therapy? Am. J. Bioeth. 2016 , 16 , 62–64. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Bhogadi, S.K.; Ditillo, M.; Khurshid, M.H.; Stewart, C.; Hejazi, O.; Spencer, A.L.; Anand, T.; Nelson, A.; Magnotti, L.J.; Joseph, B. Development and Validation of Futility of Resuscitation Measure in Older Adult Trauma Patients. J. Surg. Res. 2024 , 301 , 591–598. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Study	Scoring Criteria
Suspension of Transfusion and Other Procedures (STOP) [ ]	The proposed STOP criteria include any one of the combined clinical and lab markers below, each combination having a 100% PPV and specificity for death:
Trans-Agency Consortium for Trauma-Induced Coagulopathy (TACTIC) TIC Score [ ]
National Blood Transfusion Committee Triage Tool for Massively Transfused Patients (NBTC TTMTP) [ ]	Patients with a SOFA score > 11, who have a continued need for large amounts of blood components, and where there is no foreseeable ability to control blood loss should be triaged to palliative care.

Variable	PPV, %	NPV, %	Sn, %	Sp, %
Arrival SBP ≤ 50 and LY30 ≥ 30%	100	78	33	100
Arrival SBP ≤ 50 and lactate ≥ 15	100	77	31	100
Arrival SBP ≤ 70, LY30 ≥ 30%, and lactate ≥ 15	100	77	30	100
ROSC and LY30 ≥ 30%	100	78	33	100
ROSC and lactate ≥ 12	100	76	29	100
ROSC and GCS 3	100	77	27	100

The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

Walsh, M.M.; Fox, M.D.; Moore, E.E.; Johnson, J.L.; Bunch, C.M.; Miller, J.B.; Lopez-Plaza, I.; Brancamp, R.L.; Waxman, D.A.; Thomas, S.G.; et al. Markers of Futile Resuscitation in Traumatic Hemorrhage: A Review of the Evidence and a Proposal for Futility Time-Outs during Massive Transfusion. J. Clin. Med. 2024 , 13 , 4684. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13164684

Walsh MM, Fox MD, Moore EE, Johnson JL, Bunch CM, Miller JB, Lopez-Plaza I, Brancamp RL, Waxman DA, Thomas SG, et al. Markers of Futile Resuscitation in Traumatic Hemorrhage: A Review of the Evidence and a Proposal for Futility Time-Outs during Massive Transfusion. Journal of Clinical Medicine . 2024; 13(16):4684. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13164684

Walsh, Mark M., Mark D. Fox, Ernest E. Moore, Jeffrey L. Johnson, Connor M. Bunch, Joseph B. Miller, Ileana Lopez-Plaza, Rachel L. Brancamp, Dan A. Waxman, Scott G. Thomas, and et al. 2024. "Markers of Futile Resuscitation in Traumatic Hemorrhage: A Review of the Evidence and a Proposal for Futility Time-Outs during Massive Transfusion" Journal of Clinical Medicine 13, no. 16: 4684. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13164684

Article Metrics

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

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

IMAGES

(PDF) HOW TO WRITE A LITERATURE REVIEW IN A PROPOSAL/THESIS: A
Literature Review For Research Project Proposal Ppt Powerpoint
Research Proposal Literature Review Sample
Literature Review For Thesis Research Paper Proposal Study Ppt Outline
5 Literature Review Templates Download for Free
Example Literature Review Research Proposal by

COMMENTS

How to 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.
PDF How to Write a Review of the Literature for Your Proposal
the difference between a literature review and a review of the literature as an introduction for a research study. A literature review of a specific subject (as often published in journals) has to be a comprehensive review of that subject. But when you are doing a review of the literature for your study, you start by doing a comprehensive ...
PDF Writing an Effective Literature Review
ew the literature and write about it. You will be asked to do this as a student when you. ite essays, dissertations and theses. Later, whenever you write an academic paper, there will usually be some element of. literature review in the introduction. And if you have to write a grant application, you will be expected to review the work t.
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 ...
Writing a Literature Review
A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays).
(Pdf) How to Write a Literature Review in A Proposal/Thesis: a
This presentation is to help students address problems of presentation of their literature review sections in their proposals and thesis. Content may be subject to copyright. 1. Introduction ...
How To Write A Literature Review (+ Free Template)
Step 1: Find the relevant literature. Naturally, the first step in the literature review journey is to hunt down the existing research that's relevant to your topic. While you probably already have a decent base of this from your research proposal, you need to expand on this substantially in the dissertation or thesis itself.. Essentially, you need to be looking for any existing literature ...
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.
How To Structure A Literature Review (Free Template)
Demonstrate your knowledge of the research topic. Identify the gaps in the literature and show how your research links to these. Provide the foundation for your conceptual framework (if you have one) Inform your own methodology and research design. To achieve this, your literature review needs a well-thought-out structure.
How to Write a Research Proposal
A research proposal describes what you will investigate, why it's important, and how you will conduct your research. The format of a research proposal varies between fields, but most proposals will contain at least these elements: Title page; Introduction; Literature review; Research design; Reference list
How to Write a Literature Review
Your report, in addition to detailing the methods, results, etc. of your research, should show how your work relates to others' work. A literature review for a research report is often a revision of the review for a research proposal, which can be a revision of a stand-alone review. Each revision should be a fairly extensive revision.
15 Literature Review Examples (2024)
15 Literature Review Examples. Literature reviews are a necessary step in a research process and often required when writing your research proposal. They involve gathering, analyzing, and evaluating existing knowledge about a topic in order to find gaps in the literature where future studies will be needed. Ideally, once you have completed your ...
A Complete Guide on How to Write Good a Literature Review
1. Outline and identify the purpose of a literature review. As a first step on how to write a literature review, you must know what the research question or topic is and what shape you want your literature review to take. Ensure you understand the research topic inside out, or else seek clarifications.
PDF LITERATURE REVIEWS
2. MOTIVATE YOUR RESEARCH in addition to providing useful information about your topic, your literature review must tell a story about how your project relates to existing literature. popular literature review narratives include: ¡ plugging a gap / filling a hole within an incomplete literature ¡ building a bridge between two "siloed" literatures, putting literatures "in conversation"
Research Guides: Literature Reviews: Writing a Proposal
Templates for Proposal Writing. Template 1. from Drew University. Template 2. from Rutgers University (Saracevic)
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 ...
How to Write a Successful Literature Review
A literature review surveys scholarly articles, books and other sources (e.g. dissertations, conference proceedings) relevant to a particular issue, area of research or theory, and provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works.The goal of this form of a proposal is to provide an overview of the significant trends in ...
Literature Review: Conducting & Writing
Steps for Conducting a Lit Review; Finding "The Literature" Organizing/Writing; APA Style This link opens in a new window; Chicago: Notes Bibliography This link opens in a new window; MLA Style This link opens in a new window; Sample Literature Reviews. Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts; Have an exemplary literature review? Get Help!
Literature Review for a Research Proposal: A Quick Guide
Writing a Literature Review in a Research Proposal. The longest section in your research proposal will be your literature review. Your literature review should be about 3-5 pages of the most relevant literature in your field. It should cover some basic ideas linked to your topic, and touch on the keywords you've provided on your cover page.
Literature Review Example (PDF + Template)
If you're working on a dissertation or thesis and are looking for an example of a strong literature review chapter, you've come to the right place.. In this video, we walk you through an A-grade literature review from a dissertation that earned full distinction.We start off by discussing the five core sections of a literature review chapter by unpacking our free literature review template.
Literature Review Example & Sample: Full Walkthrough + Free Proposal
We walk you through a literature review chapter from a dissertation that earned full distinction. We also discuss each of the core components that need to go...
How to Write a Research Proposal: (with Examples & Templates)
Structure of a Research Proposal If you want to know how to make a research proposal impactful, include the following components:¹ 1. Introduction This section provides a background of the study, including the research topic, what is already known about it and the gaps, and the significance of the proposed research. 2. Literature review
How to Write a Literature Review for a Research Proposal
The purpose of a literature review is to highlight a void in the research that your study will fill. The literature review answers why you should conduct your research. To answer the *why* behind your study, find and analyze other studies that address similar research questions, or studies that address your research ...
Free Literature Review Template (Word Doc & PDF)
This literature review template is based on the tried and trusted best-practice format and structure for formal academic research projects. It includes the following sections: Each section is explained in plain, straightforward language, followed by an overview of the key elements. We've also included practical examples and links to free ...
Key Components of a Successful Nursing Research Proposal
Prepare for success in nursing research with a clear question, thorough literature review, robust design, ethical practices, strategic recruitment, and detailed analysis plan.
Markers of Futile Resuscitation in Traumatic Hemorrhage: A Review of
Before presenting a systematic review of the literature regarding the definition of futile resuscitation (FR) for patients with trauma-induced hemorrhagic shock, it is necessary to describe the background upon which this attempt to define, with well-defined metrics, what constitutes futility in the care of trauma patients. ... This proposal is ...

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

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

What are the parts of a lit review?

How should I organize my lit review?

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

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Table of contents

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Make a list of keywords

Search for relevant sources

Take notes and cite your sources

Chronological

Methodological

Theoretical

Cite this Scribbr article

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Have a language expert improve your writing

How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

Introduction

Reference list

Table of contents

Research proposal length

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Cite this Scribbr article

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

How to Write a Literature Review

15 Literature Review Examples

Literature Review Examples

1. Narrative Review Examples

2. Systematic Review Examples

3. Meta-analysis

Other Types of Reviews

How to Write a Narrative Review (Tips for Undergrad Students)

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

How To Write A Literature Review - A Complete Guide

Table of Contents

What is a literature review?

What is the purpose of a literature review?

What is the importance of a literature review?

How long should a literature review be?

What are the different types of literature reviews?

Can you use the first person in a literature review?

Do you need an abstract for a literature review?

Is a literature review written in the past tense?

How many sources for a literature review?

Quick tips on how to write a literature review

1. Outline and identify the purpose of a literature review

2. Search relevant literature

3. Examine and assess the sources

4. Discover connections

5. Structure planning to write a good literature review

Literature review samples

How SciSpace Discover makes literature review a breeze?

Final tips on how to write a literature review

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

2. What to include in a literature review?

3. Why literature review is important?

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

5. What are the components of a literature review?

6. What are common errors in writing literature review?

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

8. How many sources should a literature review have?

9. Can literature review have diagrams?

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

11. What are the types of literature review?

12. Is a literature review mandatory?

You might also like

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

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

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

Literature Reviews

Need help? Ask a librarian

Tools for All Writers

Templates for Proposal Writing