literature review and its research

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved July 8, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

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

Libraries | Research Guides

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table of Contents

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

How to write a good literature review 

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

What is a literature review?

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

What is the purpose of literature review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature review example

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

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

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

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

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

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

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

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

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

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conducting a literature review

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

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

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

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

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

Select Databases for Searches:

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

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

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

Review the Literature:

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

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

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

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

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

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

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

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

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

Frequently asked questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 

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

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

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

Related Reads:

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

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

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, five things authors need to know when using..., 7 best referencing tools and citation management software..., maintaining academic integrity with paperpal’s generative ai writing..., research funding basics: what should a grant proposal..., how to write an abstract in research papers..., how to write dissertation acknowledgements, how to structure an essay, leveraging generative ai to enhance student understanding of..., what’s the best chatgpt alternative for academic writing, how to write a good hook for essays,....

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

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

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

What are Literature Reviews?

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

Goals of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

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

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.

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

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

What is a Literature Review?

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

A literature review should: 

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

From  S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

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

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

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

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

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

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

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

Meryl Brodsky : Communication and Information Studies

Hannah Chapman Tripp : Biology, Neuroscience

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

Larayne Dallas : Engineering

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

Susan Macicak : Linguistics

Imelda Vetter : Dell Medical School

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

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

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

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

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

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

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

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

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

Correct my document today

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 8 July 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.

Reference management. Clean and simple.

What is a literature review? [with examples]

What is a literature review?

The purpose of a literature review, how to write a literature review, the format of a literature review, general formatting rules, the length of a literature review, literature review examples, frequently asked questions about literature reviews, related articles.

A literature review is an assessment of the sources in a chosen topic of research.

In a literature review, you’re expected to report on the existing scholarly conversation, without adding new contributions.

If you are currently writing one, you've come to the right place. In the following paragraphs, we will explain:

• the objective of a literature review
• how to write a literature review
• the basic format of a literature review

Tip: It’s not always mandatory to add a literature review in a paper. Theses and dissertations often include them, whereas research papers may not. Make sure to consult with your instructor for exact requirements.

The four main objectives of a literature review are:

• Studying the references of your research area
• Summarizing the main arguments
• Identifying current gaps, stances, and issues
• Presenting all of the above in a text

Ultimately, the main goal of a literature review is to provide the researcher with sufficient knowledge about the topic in question so that they can eventually make an intervention.

The format of a literature review is fairly standard. It includes an:

• introduction that briefly introduces the main topic
• body that includes the main discussion of the key arguments
• conclusion that highlights the gaps and issues of the literature

➡️ Take a look at our guide on how to write a literature review to learn more about how to structure a literature review.

First of all, a literature review should have its own labeled section. You should indicate clearly in the table of contents where the literature can be found, and you should label this section as “Literature Review.”

➡️ For more information on writing a thesis, visit our guide on how to structure a thesis .

There is no set amount of words for a literature review, so the length depends on the research. If you are working with a large amount of sources, it will be long. If your paper does not depend entirely on references, it will be short.

Take a look at these three theses featuring great literature reviews:

• School-Based Speech-Language Pathologist's Perceptions of Sensory Food Aversions in Children [ PDF , see page 20]
• Who's Writing What We Read: Authorship in Criminological Research [ PDF , see page 4]
• A Phenomenological Study of the Lived Experience of Online Instructors of Theological Reflection at Christian Institutions Accredited by the Association of Theological Schools [ PDF , see page 56]

Literature reviews are most commonly found in theses and dissertations. However, you find them in research papers as well.

There is no set amount of words for a literature review, so the length depends on the research. If you are working with a large amount of sources, then it will be long. If your paper does not depend entirely on references, then it will be short.

No. A literature review should have its own independent section. You should indicate clearly in the table of contents where the literature review can be found, and label this section as “Literature Review.”

The main goal of a literature review is to provide the researcher with sufficient knowledge about the topic in question so that they can eventually make an intervention.

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

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

What is a literature review?

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

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

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

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

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

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

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

2. Decide on the scope of your review

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

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

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

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

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

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

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

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

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

Tips: 

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

• Library Homepage

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

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

What is a Literature Review?

So, what is a literature review .

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

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

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

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

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

What are the Goals of Creating a Literature Review?

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

When do you need to write a Literature Review?

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

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

Where I can find examples of Literature Reviews?

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

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

Where to Find Standalone Literature Reviews

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

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

Social Sciences

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

Hard science and health sciences:

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

Research Methods

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

Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

A literature review is important because it:

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

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

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

Not an essay 

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

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

A literature review serves several purposes. For example, it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Systematic review or meta-analysis?

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

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

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

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

Not all systematic reviews contain meta-analysis. 

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

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

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

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

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

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

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

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

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

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

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

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

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

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

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

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

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

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

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgments

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

Funding Statement

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

• Privacy Policy

Home » Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples

Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples

Table of Contents

Literature Review

Definition:

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

Types of Literature Review

Types of Literature Review are as follows:

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

Parts of Literature Review

Parts of a literature review are as follows:

Introduction

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

Literature Search

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

Literature Analysis

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

Critical Evaluation

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

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

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

How to write Literature Review

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

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

Examples of Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

Applications of Literature Review

some applications of literature review in different fields:

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

Role of Literature Review in Research

Here are some applications of literature review in research:

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

Purpose of Literature Review

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

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

Characteristics of Literature Review

Some Characteristics of Literature Review are as follows:

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

Advantages of Literature Review

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

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

Limitations of Literature Review

Limitations of Literature Review are as follows:

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

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Thesis – Structure, Example and Writing Guide

Research Contribution – Thesis Guide

Research Gap – Types, Examples and How to...

Data Interpretation – Process, Methods and...

Research Topics – Ideas and Examples

APA Table of Contents – Format and Example

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

What is a literature review?

A literature review is a critical analysis of the literature related to your research topic. It evaluates and critiques the literature to establish a theoretical framework for your research topic and/or identify a gap in the existing research that your research will address.

A literature review is not a summary of the literature. You need to engage deeply and critically with the literature. Your literature review should show your understanding of the literature related to your research topic and lead to presenting a rationale for your research.

A literature review focuses on:

• the context of the topic
• key concepts, ideas, theories and methodologies
• key researchers, texts and seminal works
• major issues and debates
• identifying conflicting evidence
• the main questions that have been asked around the topic
• the organisation of knowledge on the topic
• definitions, particularly those that are contested
• showing how your research will advance scholarly knowledge (generally referred to as identifying the ‘gap’).

This module will guide you through the functions of a literature review; the typical process of conducting a literature review (including searching for literature and taking notes); structuring your literature review within your thesis and organising its internal ideas; and styling the language of your literature review.

The purposes of a literature review

A literature review serves two main purposes:

1) To show awareness of the present state of knowledge in a particular field, including:

• seminal authors
• the main empirical research
• theoretical positions
• controversies
• breakthroughs as well as links to other related areas of knowledge.

2) To provide a foundation for the author’s research. To do that, the literature review needs to:

• help the researcher define a hypothesis or a research question, and how answering the question will contribute to the body of knowledge;
• provide a rationale for investigating the problem and the selected methodology;
• provide a particular theoretical lens, support the argument, or identify gaps.

Before you engage further with this module, try the quiz below to see how much you already know about literature reviews.

Research and Writing Skills for Academic and Graduate Researchers Copyright © 2022 by RMIT University is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

What is the Purpose of a Literature Review?

4-minute read

• 23rd October 2023

If you’re writing a research paper or dissertation , then you’ll most likely need to include a comprehensive literature review . In this post, we’ll review the purpose of literature reviews, why they are so significant, and the specific elements to include in one. Literature reviews can:

1. Provide a foundation for current research.

2. Define key concepts and theories.

3. Demonstrate critical evaluation.

4. Show how research and methodologies have evolved.

5. Identify gaps in existing research.

6. Support your argument.

Keep reading to enter the exciting world of literature reviews!

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review is a critical summary and evaluation of the existing research (e.g., academic journal articles and books) on a specific topic. It is typically included as a separate section or chapter of a research paper or dissertation, serving as a contextual framework for a study. Literature reviews can vary in length depending on the subject and nature of the study, with most being about equal length to other sections or chapters included in the paper. Essentially, the literature review highlights previous studies in the context of your research and summarizes your insights in a structured, organized format. Next, let’s look at the overall purpose of a literature review.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

Literature reviews are considered an integral part of research across most academic subjects and fields. The primary purpose of a literature review in your study is to:

Provide a Foundation for Current Research

Since the literature review provides a comprehensive evaluation of the existing research, it serves as a solid foundation for your current study. It’s a way to contextualize your work and show how your research fits into the broader landscape of your specific area of study.  

Define Key Concepts and Theories

The literature review highlights the central theories and concepts that have arisen from previous research on your chosen topic. It gives your readers a more thorough understanding of the background of your study and why your research is particularly significant .

Demonstrate Critical Evaluation 

A comprehensive literature review shows your ability to critically analyze and evaluate a broad range of source material. And since you’re considering and acknowledging the contribution of key scholars alongside your own, it establishes your own credibility and knowledge.

Show How Research and Methodologies Have Evolved

Another purpose of literature reviews is to provide a historical perspective and demonstrate how research and methodologies have changed over time, especially as data collection methods and technology have advanced. And studying past methodologies allows you, as the researcher, to understand what did and did not work and apply that knowledge to your own research.  

Identify Gaps in Existing Research

Besides discussing current research and methodologies, the literature review should also address areas that are lacking in the existing literature. This helps further demonstrate the relevance of your own research by explaining why your study is necessary to fill the gaps.

Support Your Argument

A good literature review should provide evidence that supports your research questions and hypothesis. For example, your study may show that your research supports existing theories or builds on them in some way. Referencing previous related studies shows your work is grounded in established research and will ultimately be a contribution to the field.  

Literature Review Editing Services 

Ensure your literature review is polished and ready for submission by having it professionally proofread and edited by our expert team. Our literature review editing services will help your research stand out and make an impact. Not convinced yet? Send in your free sample today and see for yourself! 

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

9-minute read

How to Use Infographics to Boost Your Presentation

Is your content getting noticed? Capturing and maintaining an audience’s attention is a challenge when...

8-minute read

Why Interactive PDFs Are Better for Engagement

Are you looking to enhance engagement and captivate your audience through your professional documents? Interactive...

7-minute read

Seven Key Strategies for Voice Search Optimization

Voice search optimization is rapidly shaping the digital landscape, requiring content professionals to adapt their...

Five Creative Ways to Showcase Your Digital Portfolio

Are you a creative freelancer looking to make a lasting impression on potential clients or...

How to Ace Slack Messaging for Contractors and Freelancers

Effective professional communication is an important skill for contractors and freelancers navigating remote work environments....

3-minute read

How to Insert a Text Box in a Google Doc

Google Docs is a powerful collaborative tool, and mastering its features can significantly enhance your...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

Literature Reviews

What this handout is about.

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

Introduction

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

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

What is a literature review, then?

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

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

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

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

Why do we write literature reviews?

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

Who writes these things, anyway?

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

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

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

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

Find models

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

Narrow your topic

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

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

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

Consider whether your sources are current

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

Strategies for writing the literature review

Find a focus.

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

Convey it to your reader

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

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

Consider organization

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

First, cover the basic categories

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

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

Organizing the body

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Begin composing

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

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

Use evidence

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

Be selective

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

Use quotes sparingly

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

Summarize and synthesize

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

Keep your own voice

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

Use caution when paraphrasing

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

Revise, revise, revise

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

Works consulted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Make a Gift

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

Types of Literature Review — A Guide for Researchers

Table of Contents

Researchers often face challenges when choosing the appropriate type of literature review for their study. Regardless of the type of research design and the topic of a research problem , they encounter numerous queries, including:

What is the right type of literature review my study demands?

• How do we gather the data?
• How to conduct one?
• How reliable are the review findings?
• How do we employ them in our research? And the list goes on.

If you’re also dealing with such a hefty questionnaire, this article is of help. Read through this piece of guide to get an exhaustive understanding of the different types of literature reviews and their step-by-step methodologies along with a dash of pros and cons discussed.

Heading from scratch!

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review provides a comprehensive overview of existing knowledge on a particular topic, which is quintessential to any research project. Researchers employ various literature reviews based on their research goals and methodologies. The review process involves assembling, critically evaluating, and synthesizing existing scientific publications relevant to the research question at hand. It serves multiple purposes, including identifying gaps in existing literature, providing theoretical background, and supporting the rationale for a research study.

What is the importance of a Literature review in research?

Literature review in research serves several key purposes, including:

• Background of the study: Provides proper context for the research. It helps researchers understand the historical development, theoretical perspectives, and key debates related to their research topic.
• Identification of research gaps: By reviewing existing literature, researchers can identify gaps or inconsistencies in knowledge, paving the way for new research questions and hypotheses relevant to their study.
• Theoretical framework development: Facilitates the development of theoretical frameworks by cultivating diverse perspectives and empirical findings. It helps researchers refine their conceptualizations and theoretical models.
• Methodological guidance: Offers methodological guidance by highlighting the documented research methods and techniques used in previous studies. It assists researchers in selecting appropriate research designs, data collection methods, and analytical tools.
• Quality assurance and upholding academic integrity: Conducting a thorough literature review demonstrates the rigor and scholarly integrity of the research. It ensures that researchers are aware of relevant studies and can accurately attribute ideas and findings to their original sources.

Types of Literature Review

Literature review plays a crucial role in guiding the research process , from providing the background of the study to research dissemination and contributing to the synthesis of the latest theoretical literature review findings in academia.

However, not all types of literature reviews are the same; they vary in terms of methodology, approach, and purpose. Let's have a look at the various types of literature reviews to gain a deeper understanding of their applications.

1. Narrative Literature Review

A narrative literature review, also known as a traditional literature review, involves analyzing and summarizing existing literature without adhering to a structured methodology. It typically provides a descriptive overview of key concepts, theories, and relevant findings of the research topic.

Unlike other types of literature reviews, narrative reviews reinforce a more traditional approach, emphasizing the interpretation and discussion of the research findings rather than strict adherence to methodological review criteria. It helps researchers explore diverse perspectives and insights based on the research topic and acts as preliminary work for further investigation.

Steps to Conduct a Narrative Literature Review

Source:- https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Steps-of-writing-a-narrative-review_fig1_354466408

Define the research question or topic:

The first step in conducting a narrative literature review is to clearly define the research question or topic of interest. Defining the scope and purpose of the review includes — What specific aspect of the topic do you want to explore? What are the main objectives of the research? Refine your research question based on the specific area you want to explore.

Conduct a thorough literature search

Once the research question is defined, you can conduct a comprehensive literature search. Explore and use relevant databases and search engines like SciSpace Discover to identify credible and pertinent, scholarly articles and publications.

Select relevant studies

Before choosing the right set of studies, it’s vital to determine inclusion (studies that should possess the required factors) and exclusion criteria for the literature and then carefully select papers. For example — Which studies or sources will be included based on relevance, quality, and publication date?

*Important (applies to all the reviews): Inclusion criteria are the factors a study must include (For example: Include only peer-reviewed articles published between 2022-2023, etc.). Exclusion criteria are the factors that wouldn’t be required for your search strategy (Example: exclude irrelevant papers, preprints, written in non-English, etc.)

Critically analyze the literature

Once the relevant studies are shortlisted, evaluate the methodology, findings, and limitations of each source and jot down key themes, patterns, and contradictions. You can use efficient AI tools to conduct a thorough literature review and analyze all the required information.

Synthesize and integrate the findings

Now, you can weave together the reviewed studies, underscoring significant findings such that new frameworks, contrasting viewpoints, and identifying knowledge gaps.

Discussion and conclusion

This is an important step before crafting a narrative review — summarize the main findings of the review and discuss their implications in the relevant field. For example — What are the practical implications for practitioners? What are the directions for future research for them?

Write a cohesive narrative review

Organize the review into coherent sections and structure your review logically, guiding the reader through the research landscape and offering valuable insights. Use clear and concise language to convey key points effectively.

Structure of Narrative Literature Review

A well-structured, narrative analysis or literature review typically includes the following components:

• Introduction: Provides an overview of the topic, objectives of the study, and rationale for the review.
• Background: Highlights relevant background information and establish the context for the review.
• Main Body: Indexes the literature into thematic sections or categories, discussing key findings, methodologies, and theoretical frameworks.
• Discussion: Analyze and synthesize the findings of the reviewed studies, stressing similarities, differences, and any gaps in the literature.
• Conclusion: Summarizes the main findings of the review, identifies implications for future research, and offers concluding remarks.

Pros and Cons of Narrative Literature Review

• Flexibility in methodology and doesn’t necessarily rely on structured methodologies
• Follows traditional approach and provides valuable and contextualized insights
• Suitable for exploring complex or interdisciplinary topics. For example — Climate change and human health, Cybersecurity and privacy in the digital age, and more
• Subjectivity in data selection and interpretation
• Potential for bias in the review process
• Lack of rigor compared to systematic reviews

Example of Well-Executed Narrative Literature Reviews

Paper title:  Examining Moral Injury in Clinical Practice: A Narrative Literature Review

Source: SciSpace

While narrative reviews offer flexibility, academic integrity remains paramount. So, ensure proper citation of all sources and maintain a transparent and factual approach throughout your critical narrative review, itself.

2. Systematic Review

A systematic literature review is one of the comprehensive types of literature review that follows a structured approach to assembling, analyzing, and synthesizing existing research relevant to a particular topic or question. It involves clearly defined criteria for exploring and choosing studies, as well as rigorous methods for evaluating the quality of relevant studies.

It plays a prominent role in evidence-based practice and decision-making across various domains, including healthcare, social sciences, education, health sciences, and more. By systematically investigating available literature, researchers can identify gaps in knowledge, evaluate the strength of evidence, and report future research directions.

Steps to Conduct Systematic Reviews

Source:- https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Steps-of-Systematic-Literature-Review_fig1_321422320

Here are the key steps involved in conducting a systematic literature review

Formulate a clear and focused research question

Clearly define the research question or objective of the review. It helps to centralize the literature search strategy and determine inclusion criteria for relevant studies.

Develop a thorough literature search strategy

Design a comprehensive search strategy to identify relevant studies. It involves scrutinizing scientific databases and all relevant articles in journals. Plus, seek suggestions from domain experts and review reference lists of relevant review articles.

Screening and selecting studies

Employ predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria to systematically screen the identified studies. This screening process also typically involves multiple reviewers independently assessing the eligibility of each study.

Data extraction

Extract key information from selected studies using standardized forms or protocols. It includes study characteristics, methods, results, and conclusions.

Critical appraisal

Evaluate the methodological quality and potential biases of included studies. Various tools (BMC medical research methodology) and criteria can be implemented for critical evaluation depending on the study design and research quetions .

Data synthesis

Analyze and synthesize review findings from individual studies to draw encompassing conclusions or identify overarching patterns and explore heterogeneity among studies.

Interpretation and conclusion

Interpret the findings about the research question, considering the strengths and limitations of the research evidence. Draw conclusions and implications for further research.

The final step — Report writing

Craft a detailed report of the systematic literature review adhering to the established guidelines of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). This ensures transparency and reproducibility of the review process.

By following these steps, a systematic literature review aims to provide a comprehensive and unbiased summary of existing evidence, help make informed decisions, and advance knowledge in the respective domain or field.

Structure of a systematic literature review

A well-structured systematic literature review typically consists of the following sections:

• Introduction: Provides background information on the research topic, outlines the review objectives, and enunciates the scope of the study.
• Methodology: Describes the literature search strategy, selection criteria, data extraction process, and other methods used for data synthesis, extraction, or other data analysis..
• Results: Presents the review findings, including a summary of the incorporated studies and their key findings.
• Discussion: Interprets the findings in light of the review objectives, discusses their implications, and identifies limitations or promising areas for future research.
• Conclusion: Summarizes the main review findings and provides suggestions based on the evidence presented in depth meta analysis.

*Important (applies to all the reviews): Remember, the specific structure of your literature review may vary depending on your topic, research question, and intended audience. However, adhering to a clear and logical hierarchy ensures your review effectively analyses and synthesizes knowledge and contributes valuable insights for readers.

Pros and Cons of Systematic Literature Review

• Adopts rigorous and transparent methodology
• Minimizes bias and enhances the reliability of the study
• Provides evidence-based insights
• Time and resource-intensive
• High dependency on the quality of available literature (literature research strategy should be accurate)
• Potential for publication bias

Example of Well-Executed Systematic Literature Review

Paper title: Systematic Reviews: Understanding the Best Evidence For Clinical Decision-making in Health Care: Pros and Cons.

Read this detailed article on how to use AI tools to conduct a systematic review for your research!

3. Scoping Literature Review

A scoping literature review is a methodological review type of literature review that adopts an iterative approach to systematically map the existing literature on a particular topic or research area. It involves identifying, selecting, and synthesizing relevant papers to provide an overview of the size and scope of available evidence. Scoping reviews are broader in scope and include a diverse range of study designs and methodologies especially focused on health services research.

The main purpose of a scoping literature review is to examine the extent, range, and nature of existing studies on a topic, thereby identifying gaps in research, inconsistencies, and areas for further investigation. Additionally, scoping reviews can help researchers identify suitable methodologies and formulate clinical recommendations. They also act as the frameworks for future systematic reviews or primary research studies.

Scoping reviews are primarily focused on —

• Emerging or evolving topics — where the research landscape is still growing or budding. Example — Whole Systems Approaches to Diet and Healthy Weight: A Scoping Review of Reviews .
• Broad and complex topics : With a vast amount of existing literature.
• Scenarios where a systematic review is not feasible: Due to limited resources or time constraints.

Steps to Conduct a Scoping Literature Review

While Scoping reviews are not as rigorous as systematic reviews, however, they still follow a structured approach. Here are the steps:

Identify the research question: Define the broad topic you want to explore.

Identify Relevant Studies: Conduct a comprehensive search of relevant literature using appropriate databases, keywords, and search strategies.

Select studies to be included in the review: Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, determine the appropriate studies to be included in the review.

Data extraction and charting : Extract relevant information from selected studies, such as year, author, main results, study characteristics, key findings, and methodological approaches.  However, it varies depending on the research question.

Collate, summarize, and report the results: Analyze and summarize the extracted data to identify key themes and trends. Then, present the findings of the scoping review in a clear and structured manner, following established guidelines and frameworks .

Structure of a Scoping Literature Review

A scoping literature review typically follows a structured format similar to a systematic review. It includes the following sections:

• Introduction: Introduce the research topic and objectives of the review, providing the historical context, and rationale for the study.
• Methods : Describe the methods used to conduct the review, including search strategies, study selection criteria, and data extraction procedures.
• Results: Present the findings of the review, including key themes, concepts, and patterns identified in the literature review.
• Discussion: Examine the implications of the findings, including strengths, limitations, and areas for further examination.
• Conclusion: Recapitulate the main findings of the review and their implications for future research, policy, or practice.

Pros and Cons of Scoping Literature Review

• Provides a comprehensive overview of existing literature
• Helps to identify gaps and areas for further research
• Suitable for exploring broad or complex research questions
• Doesn’t provide the depth of analysis offered by systematic reviews
• Subject to researcher bias in study selection and data extraction
• Requires careful consideration of literature search strategies and inclusion criteria to ensure comprehensiveness and validity.

In short, a scoping review helps map the literature on developing or emerging topics and identifying gaps. It might be considered as a step before conducting another type of review, such as a systematic review. Basically, acts as a precursor for other literature reviews.

Example of a Well-Executed Scoping Literature Review

Paper title: Health Chatbots in Africa Literature: A Scoping Review

Check out the key differences between Systematic and Scoping reviews — Evaluating literature review: systematic vs. scoping reviews

4. Integrative Literature Review

Integrative Literature Review (ILR) is a type of literature review that proposes a distinctive way to analyze and synthesize existing literature on a specific topic, providing a thorough understanding of research and identifying potential gaps for future research.

Unlike a systematic review, which emphasizes quantitative studies and follows strict inclusion criteria, an ILR embraces a more pliable approach. It works beyond simply summarizing findings — it critically analyzes, integrates, and interprets research from various methodologies (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods) to provide a deeper understanding of the research landscape. ILRs provide a holistic and systematic overview of existing research, integrating findings from various methodologies. ILRs are ideal for exploring intricate research issues, examining manifold perspectives, and developing new research questions.

Steps to Conduct an Integrative Literature Review

• Identify the research question: Clearly define the research question or topic of interest as formulating a clear and focused research question is critical to leading the entire review process.
• Literature search strategy: Employ systematic search techniques to locate relevant literature across various databases and sources.
• Evaluate the quality of the included studies : Critically assess the methodology, rigor, and validity of each study by applying inclusion and exclusion criteria to filter and select studies aligned with the research objectives.
• Data Extraction: Extract relevant data from selected studies using a structured approach.
• Synthesize the findings : Thoroughly analyze the selected literature, identify key themes, and synthesize findings to derive noteworthy insights.
• Critical appraisal: Critically evaluate the quality and validity of qualitative research and included studies by using BMC medical research methodology.
• Interpret and present your findings: Discuss the purpose and implications of your analysis, spotlighting key insights and limitations. Organize and present the findings coherently and systematically.

Structure of an Integrative Literature Review

• Introduction : Provide an overview of the research topic and the purpose of the integrative review.
• Methods: Describe the opted literature search strategy, selection criteria, and data extraction process.
• Results: Present the synthesized findings, including key themes, patterns, and contradictions.
• Discussion: Interpret the findings about the research question, emphasizing implications for theory, practice, and prospective research.
• Conclusion: Summarize the main findings, limitations, and contributions of the integrative review.

Pros and Cons of Integrative Literature Review

• Informs evidence-based practice and policy to the relevant stakeholders of the research.
• Contributes to theory development and methodological advancement, especially in the healthcare arena.
• Integrates diverse perspectives and findings
• Time-consuming process due to the extensive literature search and synthesis
• Requires advanced analytical and critical thinking skills
• Potential for bias in study selection and interpretation
• The quality of included studies may vary, affecting the validity of the review

Example of Integrative Literature Reviews

Paper Title: An Integrative Literature Review: The Dual Impact of Technological Tools on Health and Technostress Among Older Workers

5. Rapid Literature Review

A Rapid Literature Review (RLR) is the fastest type of literature review which makes use of a streamlined approach for synthesizing literature summaries, offering a quicker and more focused alternative to traditional systematic reviews. Despite employing identical research methods, it often simplifies or omits specific steps to expedite the process. It allows researchers to gain valuable insights into current research trends and identify key findings within a shorter timeframe, often ranging from a few days to a few weeks — unlike traditional literature reviews, which may take months or even years to complete.

When to Consider a Rapid Literature Review?

• When time impediments demand a swift summary of existing research
• For emerging topics where the latest literature requires quick evaluation
• To report pilot studies or preliminary research before embarking on a comprehensive systematic review

Steps to Conduct a Rapid Literature Review

• Define the research question or topic of interest. A well-defined question guides the search process and helps researchers focus on relevant studies.
• Determine key databases and sources of relevant literature to ensure comprehensive coverage.
• Develop literature search strategies using appropriate keywords and filters to fetch a pool of potential scientific articles.
• Screen search results based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria.
• Extract and summarize relevant information from the above-preferred studies.
• Synthesize findings to identify key themes, patterns, or gaps in the literature.
• Prepare a concise report or a summary of the RLR findings.

Structure of a Rapid Literature Review

An effective structure of an RLR typically includes the following sections:

• Introduction: Briefly introduce the research topic and objectives of the RLR.
• Methodology: Describe the search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and data extraction process.
• Results: Present a summary of the findings, including key themes or patterns identified.
• Discussion: Interpret the findings, discuss implications, and highlight any limitations or areas for further research
• Conclusion: Summarize the key findings and their implications for practice or future research

Pros and Cons of Rapid Literature Review

• RLRs can be completed quickly, authorizing timely decision-making
• RLRs are a cost-effective approach since they require fewer resources compared to traditional literature reviews
• Offers great accessibility as RLRs provide prompt access to synthesized evidence for stakeholders
• RLRs are flexible as they can be easily adapted for various research contexts and objectives
• RLR reports are limited and restricted, not as in-depth as systematic reviews, and do not provide comprehensive coverage of the literature compared to traditional reviews.
• Susceptible to bias because of the expedited nature of RLRs. It would increase the chance of overlooking relevant studies or biases in the selection process.
• Due to time constraints, RLR findings might not be robust enough as compared to systematic reviews.

Example of a Well-Executed Rapid Literature Review

Paper Title: What Is the Impact of ChatGPT on Education? A Rapid Review of the Literature

A Summary of Literature Review Types

Tools and Resources for Conducting Different Types of Literature Reviews

Online scientific databases.

Platforms such as SciSpace , PubMed , Scopus , Elsevier , and Web of Science provide access to a vast array of scholarly literature, facilitating the search and data retrieval process.

Reference management software

Tools like SciSpace Citation Generator , EndNote, Zotero , and Mendeley assist researchers in organizing, annotating, and citing relevant literature, streamlining the review process altogether.

Automate Literature Review with AI tools

Automate the literature review process by using tools like SciSpace literature review which helps you compare and contrast multiple papers all on one screen in an easy-to-read matrix format. You can effortlessly analyze and interpret the review findings tailored to your study. It also supports the review in 75+ languages, making it more manageable even for non-English speakers.

Goes without saying — literature review plays a pivotal role in academic research to identify the current trends and provide insights to pave the way for future research endeavors. Different types of literature review has their own strengths and limitations, making them suitable for different research designs and contexts. Whether conducting a narrative review, systematic review, scoping review, integrative review, or rapid literature review, researchers must cautiously consider the objectives, resources, and the nature of the research topic.

If you’re currently working on a literature review and still adopting a manual and traditional approach, switch to the automated AI literature review workspace and transform your traditional literature review into a rapid one by extracting all the latest and relevant data for your research!

There you go!

Frequently Asked Questions

Narrative reviews give a general overview of a topic based on the author's knowledge. They may lack clear criteria and can be biased. On the other hand, systematic reviews aim to answer specific research questions by following strict methods. They're thorough but time-consuming.

A systematic review collects and analyzes existing research to provide an overview of a topic, while a meta-analysis statistically combines data from multiple studies to draw conclusions about the overall effect of an intervention or relationship between variables.

A systematic review thoroughly analyzes existing research on a specific topic using strict methods. In contrast, a scoping review offers a broader overview of the literature without evaluating individual studies in depth.

A systematic review thoroughly examines existing research using a rigorous process, while a rapid review provides a quicker summary of evidence, often by simplifying some of the systematic review steps to meet shorter timelines.

A systematic review carefully examines many studies on a single topic using specific guidelines. Conversely, an integrative review blends various types of research to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.

You might also like

Boosting Citations: A Comparative Analysis of Graphical Abstract vs. Video Abstract

The Impact of Visual Abstracts on Boosting Citations

Introducing SciSpace’s Citation Booster To Increase Research Visibility

OPINION article

Enhancing the quality and efficiency of regulatory science literature reviews through innovation and collaboration with library and information science experts.

• 1 Department of Population Health, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States
• 2 Health Sciences Library, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States

Introduction

The importance of literature reviews as part of regulatory science is widely understood. From large trials to follow-up case studies, capturing existing research is key to creating safe and effective regulatory policies. With a shift toward incorporating additional evidence-types—beyond randomized controlled trials (RCTs)—into regulatory decisions and the potential for literature reviews themselves to generate new data ( 1 – 7 ), the importance of high-quality literature reviews is increasing. However, rigorous and comprehensive literature reviews—that ensure important data are not missed ( 8 )—take substantial effort and can be difficult to do well. To encourage both comprehensiveness and efficiency in regulatory science literature reviews, additional focus is needed to integrate rigorous information science methodologies into regulatory science search strategies, as well as to develop innovative tools and strategies that can augment traditional search methods.

Meta-research (research on research) provides a way to examine the efficiency, quality, and potential bias in the overall research ecosystem ( 9 ). By applying a meta-research lens to literature reviews in regulatory science, we seek to elaborate on the challenges to performing high quality literature review data retrieval in regulatory science and identify potential strategies that may be explored to improve literature review quality and efficiency. Specifically, we hope to highlight the value of engaging library and information science expertise in the data retrieval process, including the strategic development of new controlled vocabulary and enhancement of conventional search techniques with novel digital technologies.

Challenges facing literature review in regulatory science

Due to the scope of potentially relevant materials, regulatory expectations, and an increasingly large body of research ( 10 ), regulatory science researchers face particular challenges to successfully identifying and retrieving the data they need. Identifying the potential obstacles to effective and high-quality literature review, both unique to regulatory research, as well as those experienced by other disciplines, is important for determining potential solutions to these barriers. The challenges identified fall into two main categories: diversity of potential data sources and breadth of potential search terms ( 11 ). These challenges are then overlain by the various stipulations put forth by regulatory bodies, such as post-marketing safety reports ( 12 ), thus, contributing to the importance of rapid turn around and the need for repeated searches ( 13 ).

Data relevant to a specific regulatory science research question may be found throughout a multitude of databases and repositories that house peer-reviewed research studies and/or gray literature ( 14 ). Some databases have a broad topical and geographic focus, whereas others may be more specialized or include language-specific resources. While there is often significant overlap among database contents, some materials will only be found in select databases; this necessitates a detailed knowledge of database characteristics to identify relevant search locations, as well as a search strategy that spans multiple databases ( 15 ).

Gray literature can require an additional level of awareness and expertise to identify, as these non-peer-reviewed data sources are often not indexed in the same manner as peer-reviewed literature. Conference proceedings, institutional reports, interim results, and other types of gray literature may be the first data sources to publish important adverse reaction outcomes and therefore may be necessary to identify. These materials, however, are found in a diverse set of platforms that are not always well-known or easily searchable ( 16 ). Similarly, relevant data may be found as secondary analyses within published clinical studies. Thus, additional expertise may be required to search beyond a title or abstract to identify potentially relevant literature. Furthermore, not all published materials are of equivalent quality, and in the age of paper mills, predatory journals ( 17 ), fraudulent citations ( 18 ), and paper retractions ( 19 ), having the expertise to discern which sources are reliable is needed to produce a high quality regulatory literature review ( 20 , 21 ).

In addition to the diverse locations in which it can be found, identifying relevant regulatory data can require an extensive list of search terms, as there can be inconsistency across geography, disciplines, and historically in how similar topics are described. To capture literature relevant for answering a research question, identifying an appropriate set of search terms is a critical step ( 22 , 23 ). Additionally, databases often employ a controlled vocabulary for indexing articles (such as PubMed's Medical Subject Headings, MeSH). A search strategy encompassing multiple databases will often require translating the search into the controlled vocabulary of each database ( 24 ). Defining search terms, can also pose a particular challenge depending on whether a topic has differing terminology in multiple disciplines, terminology that has changed over time, or a limited maturity of the research field leading to less well-characterized key terms ( 25 , 26 ).

Regulatory bodies often have requirements for the collection of data published in other countries, all drug or device formulations, and across the development spectrum. This can contribute to the need to identify appropriate vocabulary that accounts for foreign languages, spans all stages of development from pre-clinical to clinical studies, includes synonyms and older terms that have been replaced by more current terms, and captures all ways in which related products may be labeled. Furthermore, as the field of regulatory science has sought to include non-RCT evidence ( 1 – 7 ), additional vocabulary is needed to identify alternate study designs and data sources.

A role for library and information science experts

While in the age of rapid online literature searching the role of a librarian or other information science experts in literature reviews may feel unnecessary, the role of these experts has become even more vital to the production of high quality, thorough, and expedient regulatory science literature reviews. Finding all of the existing relevant research is a key component in performing effective regulatory research. However, with a multitude of databases and variations in search terms, understanding how and where to identify relevant data is not a simple task and requires strategy and knowledge of data systems. Therefore, studies that choose to include those with library and information science expertise on their teams are at a significant advantage for producing high quality literature reviews with less overall effort ( 27 – 29 ).

Indeed, a whole field of library and information science has evolved to develop methods for the management and discoverability of research data for research synthesis, whether in the published literature or in data repositories ( 30 ). Those skilled in information science can provide invaluable insights into the best approaches to identify potentially relevant literature ( 27 – 29 ). Information science experts can improve how controlled vocabulary can be used or improved for a specific research topic, as well as generate high quality search strategies.

Potential solutions to reduce the burden of information retrieval and maximize the quality of regulatory science literature reviews may be found in the expanded use of existing controlled vocabulary and strategic development of new controlled vocabulary. The use of controlled vocabulary, or indexing terms, can facilitate and improve the accuracy of literature searches being performed ( 31 , 32 ), and are a powerful tool that can overcome some of the limitations seen in a basic keyword search. Without the use of controlled vocabulary, search results would be limited to specific keywords or phrases used in the text, which could lead to irrelevant or incomplete results due to inconsistences in terminology used or alternate spellings. Thus, the standardization provided by controlled vocabulary helps ensure research is discoverable and accessible to a wider audience. Therefore, having knowledge of the controlled vocabulary for each database is a valuable skillset that can improve the comprehensiveness of a literature review. However, controlled vocabulary does have its limitations and not all important areas of research have an existing controlled vocabulary available ( 33 , 34 ). Furthermore, gray literature sources are typically not indexed with controlled vocabulary. Librarians or those with an information science expertise can assist in search strategies to overcome the shortcomings of controlled vocabulary, as well as help advance the strategic development of new controlled vocabulary specific to regulatory research ( 35 , 36 ).

A role for technological innovation

Even with a meticulously designed search strategy, the sheer amount of research findings in existence creates an important challenge to successfully and efficiently identifying all relevant research. Technological innovations, such as natural language processing (NLP) and generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), have the potential to provide alternative or supplementary approaches for identifying relevant research studies to address gaps and inefficiencies in information retrieval. Automation may help address the high volume of items in need of screening due to search term limitations by increasing search specificity and reducing the workload burden associated with manually screening all potentially appropriate items identified during literature search ( 37 ). However, there is significant work to be done before automation tools are viewed as successfully replacing traditional search methods ( 38 , 39 ).

During the literature search process, a balance must be struck between achieving the sensitivity necessary to identify all relevant documents while maintaining specificity to reduce the amount of irrelevant data collected. When using classic systematic search strategies aimed to maximize sensitivity, this can result in a large number of irrelevant documents that must be screened manually. Despite the importance of comprehensive information retrieval for high quality literature reviews, much of the effort placed into automating regulatory science data retrieval has been focused on enhancing the efficiency of article screening and data extraction ( 40 ), rather than improving the comprehensiveness and quality of data being collected in the literature search itself. Efforts for automating the review need to not just decrease workload but also improve the quality of the data being identified ( 41 ).

For topics and data sources that do not have an extensive controlled vocabulary, NLP tools can potentially assist researchers by providing an alternate method for identifying relevant literature. NLP combines computational linguistics, machine learning, and deep learning models to process human language to allow a computer program to understand human language as it is spoken and written, rather than relying on predefined vocabulary or the presence of specific phrases or terms within the text. This type of automation can equip a researcher to increase the specificity of their search strategy while maintaining sensitivity, as NLP can capture a broader range of vocabulary combinations, while providing phrase interpretation to eliminate data sources that use similar vocabulary, but in irrelevant contexts.

During the regulatory research literature review process, additional sources of information may be gleamed from within the reference lists of identified documents ( 42 ). But identifying and evaluating these citations can be time consuming and existing technology approaches have demonstrated suboptimal performance ( 38 , 43 , 44 ). GenAI tools can be developed to scan through research documents to identify and extract potentially relevant citations from a document's reference section for further review ( 43 ). Furthermore, the summarization capabilities of GenAI can reduce the burden of the screening process. Relevant data in a document may be contained within secondary analyses or sub-studies that are not reported in the document title or abstract, making the identification of these data sources time consuming, as they require a full-text review. GenAI tools can be developed to analyze the full text and provide a summary of the data to minimize the effort required to screen these sources. While some screening and summarization tools are available, many have not been validated for the literature review data extraction and screening process ( 39 , 45 – 49 ). Collaboration with an information science expert may improve the process of developing tools with improved validity.

To truly make these technologies work for regulatory science research, however, concerted investment is needed to develop and adapt these tools to meet the needs of the regulatory science researcher and meet systematic review standards ( 39 ). A collaboration between regulatory scientists and information science experts can serve to facilitate the development of effective and relevant review tools. To ensure reliability, GenAI and NLP approaches need to be validated on search use cases. However, the creation of datasets for training and validation can be time intensive and requires existing literature search expertise ( 50 ). In additional to collaborating on tool development, librarians and data science experts can be an important resource to evaluate the validity and utility of tools being developed within industry. Furthermore, attention must be given to the current limitations of using even “well-trained” GenAI. While adept at information generation and summarization, GenAI cannot discern the quality of the data sources it pulls from ( 51 ). Therefore, additional training will likely be necessary for a GenAI model to distinguish high- and low-quality data sources from an information science perspective (e.g., predatory journals) as well as discern what is a high-quality data source as per standards set forth by regulatory bodies.

Finding all existing relevant research is a key component to performing effective regulatory science research. However, regulatory science researchers face particular challenges to identifying and retrieving relevant data in an increasingly large body of research findings. With a high burden associated with sifting through irrelevant sources and a growing number of resources that may not be identified when using traditional or less sophisticated search strategies, performing high quality and efficient regulatory science reviews is a challenge. To address these barriers, further efforts are needed to increase the integration of rigorous information science expertise into regulatory science search strategies, as well as to develop innovative tools and strategies that can augment traditional search methods.

Author contributions

ES: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft. GL: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing.

The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This work was funded by NIA 1K01AG075169-01A1 (ES). The study sponsor was not involved in the conception or preparation of this manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

1. Barbui C, Addis A, Amato L, Traversa G, Garattini S. Can systematic reviews contribute to regulatory decisions? Eur J Clin Pharmacol. (2017) 73:507–9. doi: 10.1007/s00228-016-2194-y

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 21st Century Cures Act . (2020). Available online at: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/selected-amendments-fdc-act/21st-century-cures-act (accessed June 17, 2024).

Google Scholar

3. European Food Safety Authority EFS. Dealing With Evidence . (2024). Available online at: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/methodology/evidence (accessed June 17, 2024).

4. . Regulatory Science Research Needs 1.0 . (2022). Available online at: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/other/regulatory-science-research-needs_en.pdf (accessed June 17, 2024).

5. Burns L, Roux NL, Kalesnik-Orszulak R, Christian J, Hukkelhoven M, Rockhold F, et al. Real-world evidence for regulatory decision-making: guidance from around the world. Clin Ther. (2022) 44:420–37. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2022.01.012

6. Beaulieu-Jones BK, Finlayson SG, Yuan W, Altman RB, Kohane IS, Prasad V, et al. Examining the use of real-world evidence in the regulatory process. Clin Pharmacol Ther. (2020) 107:843–52. doi: 10.1002/cpt.1658

7. Barbui C, Patten SB. Safety of psychotropic medicines: looking beyond randomised evidence. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. (2018) 27:529–30. doi: 10.1017/S2045796018000306

8. Ewald H, Klerings I, Wagner G, Heise TL, Stratil JM, Lhachimi SK, et al. Searching two or more databases decreased the risk of missing relevant studies: a metaresearch study. J Clin Epidemiol. (2022) 149:154–64. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.05.022

9. Harpe SE. Meta-research in pharmacy: time for a look in the mirror. Res Social Adm Pharm . (2021) 17:2028–35. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2021.04.006

10. National Science Board NSF. Publications Output: U.S. Trends and International Comparisons . Science and Engineering Indicators (2024). NSB-2023-33; Alexandria, VA. Available online at: https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb202333/ (accessed June 17, 2024).

11. MacFarlane A, Russell-Rose T, Shokraneh F. Search strategy formulation for systematic reviews: Issues, challenges and opportunities. Intell Syst Appl. (2022) 15:200091. doi: 10.1016/j.iswa.2022.200091

12. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Postmarketing Safety Reporting for Human Drug and Biological Products Including Vaccines . (2020). Available online at: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/postmarketing-safety-reporting-human-drug-and-biological-products-including-vaccines (accessed June 17, 2024).

13. Honig P, Zhang L. Regulation and innovation: role of regulatory science in facilitating pharmaceutical innovation. Clin Pharmacol Ther. (2019) 105:778–81. doi: 10.1002/cpt.1367

14. Gusenbauer M. The age of abundant scholarly information and its synthesis– A time when ‘just google it' is no longer enough. Res Synth Methods. (2021) 12:684–91. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1520

15. Wanyama SB, McQuaid RW, Kittler M. Where you search determines what you find: the effects of bibliographic databases on systematic reviews. Int J Soc Res Methodol. (2022) 25:409–22. doi: 10.1080/13645579.2021.1892378

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

16. Saleh AA, Ratajeski MA, Bertolet M. Grey literature searching for health sciences systematic reviews: a prospective study of time spent and resources utilized. Evid Based Libr Inf Pract. (2014) 9:28–50. doi: 10.18438/B8DW3K

17. Richtig G, Berger M, Lange-Asschenfeldt B, Aberer W, Richtig E. Problems and challenges of predatory journals. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. (2018) 32:1441–9. doi: 10.1111/jdv.15039

18. Májovský M, Cerný M, Kasal M, Komarc M, Netuka D. Artificial intelligence can generate fraudulent but authentic-looking scientific medical articles: pandora's box has been opened. J Med Int Res. (2023) 25:e46924. doi: 10.2196/46924

19. Van Noorden R. More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023—a new record. Nature. (2023) 624:479–81. doi: 10.1038/d41586-023-03974-8

20. Gerberi D, Taylor JM, Beeler CJ. Educating authors and users of the literature to increase vigilance of predatory publishing. J Hosp Librariansh. (2021) 21:207–16. doi: 10.1080/15323269.2021.1942691

21. Ross-White A, Godfrey CM, Sears KA, Wilson R. Predatory publications in evidence syntheses. J Med Libr Assoc. (2019) 107:57–61. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2019.491

22. Bramer WM, de Jonge GB, Rethlefsen ML, Mast F, Kleijnen J. A systematic approach to searching: an efficient and complete method to develop literature searches. J Med Libr Assoc. (2018) 106:531–41. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2018.283

23. Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions . Chichester: John Wiley & Sons (2019).

24. Parker RMN, Neilson MJ. Lost in Translation: supporting learners to search comprehensively across databases. J Can Health Librar. (2015) 36:54–8. doi: 10.5596/c15-014

25. Paul J, Barari M. Meta-analysis and traditional systematic literature reviews—What, why, when, where, and how? Psychol Market. (2022) 39:1099–115. doi: 10.1002/mar.21657

26. Card NA. Applied Meta-Analysis for Social Science Research . New York, NY: Guilford Publications (2015).

27. Rethlefsen ML, Farrell AM, Osterhaus Trzasko LC, Brigham TJ. Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. (2015) 68:617–26. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.025

28. Aamodt M, Huurdeman HC, Strømme H. Librarian co-authored systematic reviews are associated with lower risk of bias compared to systematic reviews with acknowledgement of librarians or no participation by librarians. Evid Based Libr Inf Pract . (2019) 14, 103–127. doi: 10.18438/eblip29601

29. Ibragimova I, Fulbright H. Librarians and information specialists as methodological peer-reviewers: a case-study of the International Journal of Health Governance. Res Integr Peer Rev. (2024) 9:1. doi: 10.1186/s41073-023-00142-4

30. Smith LC. Reviews and reviewing: approaches to research synthesis. An Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST) paper. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. (2024) 75:245–67. doi: 10.1002/asi.24851

31. Lindberg DA, Humphreys BL, McCray AT. The unified medical language system. Methods Inf Med. (1993) 32:281–91. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1634945

32. Doig GS, Simpson F. Efficient literature searching: a core skill for the practice of evidence-based medicine. Intens Care Med. (2003) 29:2119–27. doi: 10.1007/s00134-003-1942-5

33. Bass MB, Molina RL, Reardon EE, Porcello L, Goldberg J, Nickum A, et al. Trends in…controlled vocabulary and health equity. Med Ref Serv Q. (2022) 41:185–201. doi: 10.1080/02763869.2022.2060638

34. McTavish JR, Rasmussen Neal D, Wathen CN. Is what you see what you get? Medical subject headings and their organizing work in the violence against women research literature article. Knowl Org. (2011) 38:381–97. doi: 10.5771/0943-7444-2011-5-381

35. Stevens EL. Recognizing the value of meta-research and making it easier to find. J Med Libr Assoc . (2023) 111:1758. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2023.1758

36. Logan J. Why do researchers co-author evidence syntheses with librarians? A mixed-methods study. Res Synth Methods. (2023) 14:489–503. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1629

37. Tang F-SK-B, Bukowski M, Schmitz-Rode T, Farkas R. Guidance for Clinical evaluation under the medical device regulation through automated scoping searches. Appl Sci. (2023) 13:7639. doi: 10.3390/app13137639

38. O'Connor AM, Tsafnat G, Thomas J, Glasziou P, Gilbert SB, Hutton B, et al. Question of trust: can we build an evidence base to gain trust in systematic review automation technologies? Syst Rev. (2019) 8:143. doi: 10.1186/s13643-019-1062-0

39. O'Connor AM, Glasziou P, Taylor M, Thomas J, Spijker R, Wolfe MS, et al. Focus on cross-purpose tools, automated recognition of study design in multiple disciplines, and evaluation of automation tools: a summary of significant discussions at the fourth meeting of the International Collaboration for Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR). Syst Rev. (2020) 9:100. doi: 10.1186/s13643-020-01351-4

40. Halamoda-Kenzaoui B, Rolland E, Piovesan J, Puertas Gallardo A, Bremer-Hoffmann S. Toxic effects of nanomaterials for health applications: how automation can support a systematic review of the literature? J Appl Toxicol. (2022) 42:41–51. doi: 10.1002/jat.4204

41. Laynor G. Can systematic reviews be automated? J Electron Resour Med Libr. (2022) 19:101–6. doi: 10.1080/15424065.2022.2113350

42. Wohlin C, Kalinowski M, Romero Felizardo K, Mendes E. Successful combination of database search and snowballing for identification of primary studies in systematic literature studies. Inf Softw Technol. (2022) 147:106908. doi: 10.1016/j.infsof.2022.106908

43. Bakker C, Theis-Mahon N, Brown SJ. Evaluating the accuracy of scite, a smart citation index. Hypothesis . (2023) 35:26528. doi: 10.18060/26528

44. Allot A, Lee K, Chen Q, Luo L, Lu Z. LitSuggest: a web-based system for literature recommendation and curation using machine learning. Nucleic Acids Res. (2021) 49:W352–8. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkab326

45. Goodwin Burri K. Intelligent use of artificial intelligence for systematic reviews of medical devices. Article Med Writing. (2019) 28:22–6.

46. Gramoun A. Digital tools for the clinical evaluation of medical devices: a guide to empower regulatory writers. Med Writing. (2023) 32:16–21. doi: 10.56012/hmts9332

47. Perlman-Arrow S, Loo N, Bobrovitz N, Yan T, Arora RK. A real-world evaluation of the implementation of NLP technology in abstract screening of a systematic review. Res Synth Methods. (2023) 14:608–21. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1636

48. Yao X, Kumar MV, Su E, Flores Miranda A, Saha A, Sussman J. Evaluating the efficacy of artificial intelligence tools for the automation of systematic reviews in cancer research: a systematic review. Cancer Epidemiol. (2024) 88:102511. doi: 10.1016/j.canep.2023.102511

49. Marshall IJ, Trikalinos TA, Soboczenski F, Yun HS, Kell G, Marshall R, et al. In a pilot study, automated real-time systematic review updates were feasible, accurate, and work-saving. J Clin Epidemiol. (2023) 153:26–33. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.08.013

50. Wu L, Chen S, Guo L, Shpyleva S, Harris K, Fahmi T, et al. Development of benchmark datasets for text mining and sentiment analysis to accelerate regulatory literature review. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. (2023) 137:105287. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2022.105287

51. Hersh W. Search still matters: information retrieval in the era of generative AI. J Am Med Inform Assoc. (2024) ocae014. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocae014

Keywords: meta-research, literature review methods, information retrieval, regulatory science, collaboration

Citation: Stevens ER and Laynor G (2024) Enhancing the quality and efficiency of regulatory science literature reviews through innovation and collaboration with library and information science experts. Front. Med. 11:1434427. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1434427

Received: 17 May 2024; Accepted: 24 June 2024; Published: 03 July 2024.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2024 Stevens and Laynor. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Elizabeth R. Stevens, elizabeth.stevens@nyulangone.org

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• Open access
• Published: 03 July 2024

The impact of evidence-based nursing leadership in healthcare settings: a mixed methods systematic review

• Maritta Välimäki 1 , 2 ,
• Shuang Hu 3 ,
• Tella Lantta 1 ,
• Kirsi Hipp 1 , 4 ,
• Jaakko Varpula 1 ,
• Jiarui Chen 3 ,
• Gaoming Liu 5 ,
• Yao Tang 3 ,
• Wenjun Chen 3 &
• Xianhong Li 3  

BMC Nursing volume  23 , Article number:  452 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

362 Accesses

Metrics details

The central component in impactful healthcare decisions is evidence. Understanding how nurse leaders use evidence in their own managerial decision making is still limited. This mixed methods systematic review aimed to examine how evidence is used to solve leadership problems and to describe the measured and perceived effects of evidence-based leadership on nurse leaders and their performance, organizational, and clinical outcomes.

We included articles using any type of research design. We referred nurses, nurse managers or other nursing staff working in a healthcare context when they attempt to influence the behavior of individuals or a group in an organization using an evidence-based approach. Seven databases were searched until 11 November 2021. JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Quasi-experimental studies, JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Series, Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool were used to evaluate the Risk of bias in quasi-experimental studies, case series, mixed methods studies, respectively. The JBI approach to mixed methods systematic reviews was followed, and a parallel-results convergent approach to synthesis and integration was adopted.

Thirty-one publications were eligible for the analysis: case series ( n  = 27), mixed methods studies ( n  = 3) and quasi-experimental studies ( n  = 1). All studies were included regardless of methodological quality. Leadership problems were related to the implementation of knowledge into practice, the quality of nursing care and the resource availability. Organizational data was used in 27 studies to understand leadership problems, scientific evidence from literature was sought in 26 studies, and stakeholders’ views were explored in 24 studies. Perceived and measured effects of evidence-based leadership focused on nurses’ performance, organizational outcomes, and clinical outcomes. Economic data were not available.

Conclusions

This is the first systematic review to examine how evidence is used to solve leadership problems and to describe its measured and perceived effects from different sites. Although a variety of perceptions and effects were identified on nurses’ performance as well as on organizational and clinical outcomes, available knowledge concerning evidence-based leadership is currently insufficient. Therefore, more high-quality research and clinical trial designs are still needed.

Trail registration

The study was registered (PROSPERO CRD42021259624).

Peer Review reports

Global health demands have set new roles for nurse leaders [ 1 ].Nurse leaders are referred to as nurses, nurse managers, or other nursing staff working in a healthcare context who attempt to influence the behavior of individuals or a group based on goals that are congruent with organizational goals [ 2 ]. They are seen as professionals “armed with data and evidence, and a commitment to mentorship and education”, and as a group in which “leaders innovate, transform, and achieve quality outcomes for patients, health care professionals, organizations, and communities” [ 3 ]. Effective leadership occurs when team members critically follow leaders and are motivated by a leader’s decisions based on the organization’s requests and targets [ 4 ]. On the other hand, problems caused by poor leadership may also occur, regarding staff relations, stress, sickness, or retention [ 5 ]. Therefore, leadership requires an understanding of different problems to be solved using synthesizing evidence from research, clinical expertise, and stakeholders’ preferences [ 6 , 7 ]. If based on evidence, leadership decisions, also referred as leadership decision making [ 8 ], could ensure adequate staffing [ 7 , 9 ] and to produce sufficient and cost-effective care [ 10 ]. However, nurse leaders still rely on their decision making on their personal [ 11 ] and professional experience [ 10 ] over research evidence, which can lead to deficiencies in the quality and safety of care delivery [ 12 , 13 , 14 ]. As all nurses should demonstrate leadership in their profession, their leadership competencies should be strengthened [ 15 ].

Evidence-informed decision-making, referred to as evidence appraisal and application, and evaluation of decisions [ 16 ], has been recognized as one of the core competencies for leaders [ 17 , 18 ]. The role of evidence in nurse leaders’ managerial decision making has been promoted by public authorities [ 19 , 20 , 21 ]. Evidence-based management, another concept related to evidence-based leadership, has been used as the potential to improve healthcare services [ 22 ]. It can guide nursing leaders, in developing working conditions, staff retention, implementation practices, strategic planning, patient care, and success of leadership [ 13 ]. Collins and Holton [ 23 ] in their systematic review and meta-analysis examined 83 studies regarding leadership development interventions. They found that leadership training can result in significant improvement in participants’ skills, especially in knowledge level, although the training effects varied across studies. Cummings et al. [ 24 ] reviewed 100 papers (93 studies) and concluded that participation in leadership interventions had a positive impact on the development of a variety of leadership styles. Clavijo-Chamorro et al. [ 25 ] in their review of 11 studies focused on leadership-related factors that facilitate evidence implementation: teamwork, organizational structures, and transformational leadership. The role of nurse managers was to facilitate evidence-based practices by transforming contexts to motivate the staff and move toward a shared vision of change.

As far as we are aware, however, only a few systematic reviews have focused on evidence-based leadership or related concepts in the healthcare context aiming to analyse how nurse leaders themselves uses evidence in the decision-making process. Young [ 26 ] targeted definitions and acceptance of evidence-based management (EBMgt) in healthcare while Hasanpoor et al. [ 22 ] identified facilitators and barriers, sources of evidence used, and the role of evidence in the process of decision making. Both these reviews concluded that EBMgt was of great importance but used limitedly in healthcare settings due to a lack of time, a lack of research management activities, and policy constraints. A review by Williams [ 27 ] showed that the usage of evidence to support management in decision making is marginal due to a shortage of relevant evidence. Fraser [ 28 ] in their review further indicated that the potential evidence-based knowledge is not used in decision making by leaders as effectively as it could be. Non-use of evidence occurs and leaders base their decisions mainly on single studies, real-world evidence, and experts’ opinions [ 29 ]. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses rarely provide evidence of management-related interventions [ 30 ]. Tate et al. [ 31 ] concluded based on their systematic review and meta-analysis that the ability of nurse leaders to use and critically appraise research evidence may influence the way policy is enacted and how resources and staff are used to meet certain objectives set by policy. This can further influence staff and workforce outcomes. It is therefore important that nurse leaders have the capacity and motivation to use the strongest evidence available to effect change and guide their decision making [ 27 ].

Despite of a growing body of evidence, we found only one review focusing on the impact of evidence-based knowledge. Geert et al. [ 32 ] reviewed literature from 2007 to 2016 to understand the elements of design, delivery, and evaluation of leadership development interventions that are the most reliably linked to outcomes at the level of the individual and the organization, and that are of most benefit to patients. The authors concluded that it is possible to improve individual-level outcomes among leaders, such as knowledge, motivation, skills, and behavior change using evidence-based approaches. Some of the most effective interventions included, for example, interactive workshops, coaching, action learning, and mentoring. However, these authors found limited research evidence describing how nurse leaders themselves use evidence to support their managerial decisions in nursing and what the outcomes are.

To fill the knowledge gap and compliment to existing knowledgebase, in this mixed methods review we aimed to (1) examine what leadership problems nurse leaders solve using an evidence-based approach and (2) how they use evidence to solve these problems. We also explored (3) the measured and (4) perceived effects of the evidence-based leadership approach in healthcare settings. Both qualitative and quantitative components of the effects of evidence-based leadership were examined to provide greater insights into the available literature [ 33 ]. Together with the evidence-based leadership approach, and its impact on nursing [ 34 , 35 ], this knowledge gained in this review can be used to inform clinical policy or organizational decisions [ 33 ]. The study is registered (PROSPERO CRD42021259624). The methods used in this review were specified in advance and documented in a priori in a published protocol [ 36 ]. Key terms of the review and the search terms are defined in Table  1 (population, intervention, comparison, outcomes, context, other).

In this review, we used a mixed methods approach [ 37 ]. A mixed methods systematic review was selected as this approach has the potential to produce direct relevance to policy makers and practitioners [ 38 ]. Johnson and Onwuegbuzie [ 39 ] have defined mixed methods research as “the class of research in which the researcher mixes or combines quantitative and qualitative research techniques, methods, approaches, concepts or language into a single study.” Therefore, we combined quantitative and narrative analysis to appraise and synthesize empirical evidence, and we held them as equally important in informing clinical policy or organizational decisions [ 34 ]. In this review, a comprehensive synthesis of quantitative and qualitative data was performed first and then discussed in discussion part (parallel-results convergent design) [ 40 ]. We hoped that different type of analysis approaches could complement each other and deeper picture of the topic in line with our research questions could be gained [ 34 ].

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Inclusion and exclusion criteria of the study are described in Table  1 .

Search strategy

A three-step search strategy was utilized. First, an initial limited search with #MEDLINE was undertaken, followed by analysis of the words used in the title, abstract, and the article’s key index terms. Second, the search strategy, including identified keywords and index terms, was adapted for each included data base and a second search was undertaken on 11 November 2021. The full search strategy for each database is described in Additional file 1 . Third, the reference list of all studies included in the review were screened for additional studies. No year limits or language restrictions were used.

Information sources

The database search included the following: CINAHL (EBSCO), Cochrane Library (academic database for medicine and health science and nursing), Embase (Elsevier), PsycINFO (EBSCO), PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus (Elsevier) and Web of Science (academic database across all scientific and technical disciplines, ranging from medicine and social sciences to arts and humanities). These databases were selected as they represent typical databases in health care context. Subject headings from each of the databases were included in the search strategies. Boolean operators ‘AND’ and ‘OR’ were used to combine the search terms. An information specialist from the University of Turku Library was consulted in the formation of the search strategies.

Study selection

All identified citations were collated and uploaded into Covidence software (Covidence systematic review software, Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia www.covidence.org ), and duplicates were removed by the software. Titles and abstracts were screened and assessed against the inclusion criteria independently by two reviewers out of four, and any discrepancies were resolved by the third reviewer (MV, KH, TL, WC). Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were retrieved in full and archived in Covidence. Access to one full-text article was lacking: the authors for one study were contacted about the missing full text, but no full text was received. All remaining hits of the included studies were retrieved and assessed independently against the inclusion criteria by two independent reviewers of four (MV, KH, TL, WC). Studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria were excluded, and the reasons for exclusion were recorded in Covidence. Any disagreements that arose between the reviewers were resolved through discussions with XL.

Assessment of methodological quality

Eligible studies were critically appraised by two independent reviewers (YT, SH). Standardized critical appraisal instruments based on the study design were used. First, quasi-experimental studies were assessed using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Quasi-experimental studies [ 44 ]. Second, case series were assessed using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Series [ 45 ]. Third, mixed methods studies were appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool [ 46 ].

To increase inter-reviewer reliability, the review agreement was calculated (SH) [ 47 ]. A kappa greater than 0.8 was considered to represent a high level of agreement (0–0.1). In our data, the agreement was 0.75. Discrepancies raised between two reviewers were resolved through discussion and modifications and confirmed by XL. As an outcome, studies that met the inclusion criteria were proceeded to critical appraisal and assessed as suitable for inclusion in the review. The scores for each item and overall critical appraisal scores were presented.

Data extraction

For data extraction, specific tables were created. First, study characteristics (author(s), year, country, design, number of participants, setting) were extracted by two authors independently (JC, MV) and reviewed by TL. Second, descriptions of the interventions were extracted by two reviewers (JV, JC) using the structure of the TIDIeR (Template for Intervention Description and Replication) checklist (brief name, the goal of the intervention, material and procedure, models of delivery and location, dose, modification, adherence and fidelity) [ 48 ]. The extractions were confirmed (MV).

Third, due to a lack of effectiveness data and a wide heterogeneity between study designs and presentation of outcomes, no attempt was made to pool the quantitative data statistically; the findings of the quantitative data were presented in narrative form only [ 44 ]. The separate data extraction tables for each research question were designed specifically for this study. For both qualitative (and a qualitative component of mixed-method studies) and quantitative studies, the data were extracted and tabulated into text format according to preplanned research questions [ 36 ]. To test the quality of the tables and the data extraction process, three authors independently extracted the data from the first five studies (in alphabetical order). After that, the authors came together to share and determine whether their approaches of the data extraction were consistent with each other’s output and whether the content of each table was in line with research question. No reason was found to modify the data extraction tables or planned process. After a consensus of the data extraction process was reached, the data were extracted in pairs by independent reviewers (WC, TY, SH, GL). Any disagreements that arose between the reviewers were resolved through discussion and with a third reviewer (MV).

Data analysis

We were not able to conduct a meta-analysis due to a lack of effectiveness data based on clinical trials. Instead, we used inductive thematic analysis with constant comparison to answer the research question [ 46 , 49 ] using tabulated primary data from qualitative and quantitative studies as reported by the original authors in narrative form only [ 47 ]. In addition, the qualitizing process was used to transform quantitative data to qualitative data; this helped us to convert the whole data into themes and categories. After that we used the thematic analysis for the narrative data as follows. First, the text was carefully read, line by line, to reveal topics answering each specific review question (MV). Second, the data coding was conducted, and the themes in the data were formed by data categorization. The process of deriving the themes was inductive based on constant comparison [ 49 ]. The results of thematic analysis and data categorization was first described in narrative format and then the total number of studies was calculated where the specific category was identified (%).

Stakeholder involvement

The method of reporting stakeholders’ involvement follows the key components by [ 50 ]: (1) people involved, (2) geographical location, (3) how people were recruited, (4) format of involvement, (5) amount of involvement, (6) ethical approval, (7) financial compensation, and (8) methods for reporting involvement.

In our review, stakeholder involvement targeted nurses and nurse leader in China. Nurse Directors of two hospitals recommended potential participants who received a personal invitation letter from researchers to participate in a discussion meeting. Stakeholders’ participation was based on their own free will. Due to COVID-19, one online meeting (1 h) was organized (25 May 2022). Eleven participants joined the meeting. Ethical approval was not applied and no financial compensation was offered. At the end of the meeting, experiences of stakeholders’ involvement were explored.

The meeting started with an introductory presentation with power points. The rationale, methods, and preliminary review results were shared with the participants [ 51 ].The meeting continued with general questions for the participants: (1) Are you aware of the concepts of evidence-based practice or evidence-based leadership?; (2) How important is it to use evidence to support decisions among nurse leaders?; (3) How is the evidence-based approach used in hospital settings?; and (4) What type of evidence is currently used to support nurse leaders’ decision making (e.g. scientific literature, organizational data, stakeholder views)?

Two people took notes on the course and content of the conversation. The notes were later transcripted in verbatim, and the key points of the discussions were summarised. Although answers offered by the stakeholders were very short, the information was useful to validate the preliminary content of the results, add the rigorousness of the review, and obtain additional perspectives. A recommendation of the stakeholders was combined in the Discussion part of this review increasing the applicability of the review in the real world [ 50 ]. At the end of the discussion, the value of stakeholders’ involvement was asked. Participants shared that the experience of participating was unique and the topic of discussion was challenging. Two authors of the review group further represented stakeholders by working together with the research team throughout the review study.

Search results

From seven different electronic databases, 6053 citations were identified as being potentially relevant to the review. Then, 3133 duplicates were removed by an automation tool (Covidence: www.covidence.org ), and one was removed manually. The titles and abstracts of 3040 of citations were reviewed, and a total of 110 full texts were included (one extra citation was found on the reference list but later excluded). Based on the eligibility criteria, 31 studies (32 hits) were critically appraised and deemed suitable for inclusion in the review. The search results and selection process are presented in the PRISMA [ 52 ] flow diagram Fig.  1 . The full list of references for included studies can be find in Additional file 2 . To avoid confusion between articles of the reference list and studies included in the analysis, the studies included in the review are referred inside the article using the reference number of each study (e.g. ref 1, ref 2).

Search results and study selection and inclusion process [ 52 ]

Characteristics of included studies

The studies had multiple purposes, aiming to develop practice, implement a new approach, improve quality, or to develop a model. The 31 studies (across 32 hits) were case series studies ( n  = 27), mixed methods studies ( n  = 3) and a quasi-experimental study ( n  = 1). All studies were published between the years 2004 and 2021. The highest number of papers was published in year 2020.

Table  2 describes the characteristics of included studies and Additional file 3 offers a narrative description of the studies.

Methodological quality assessment

Quasi-experimental studies.

We had one quasi-experimental study (ref 31). All questions in the critical appraisal tool were applicable. The total score of the study was 8 (out of a possible 9). Only one response of the tool was ‘no’ because no control group was used in the study (see Additional file 4 for the critical appraisal of included studies).

Case series studies . A case series study is typically defined as a collection of subjects with common characteristics. The studies do not include a comparison group and are often based on prevalent cases and on a sample of convenience [ 53 ]. Munn et al. [ 45 ] further claim that case series are best described as observational studies, lacking experimental and randomized characteristics, being descriptive studies, without a control or comparator group. Out of 27 case series studies included in our review, the critical appraisal scores varied from 1 to 9. Five references were conference abstracts with empirical study results, which were scored from 1 to 3. Full reports of these studies were searched in electronic databases but not found. Critical appraisal scores for the remaining 22 studies ranged from 1 to 9 out of a possible score of 10. One question (Q3) was not applicable to 13 studies: “Were valid methods used for identification of the condition for all participants included in the case series?” Only two studies had clearly reported the demographic of the participants in the study (Q6). Twenty studies met Criteria 8 (“Were the outcomes or follow-up results of cases clearly reported?”) and 18 studies met Criteria 7 (“Q7: Was there clear reporting of clinical information of the participants?”) (see Additional file 4 for the critical appraisal of included studies).

Mixed-methods studies

Mixed-methods studies involve a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. This is a common design and includes convergent design, sequential explanatory design, and sequential exploratory design [ 46 ]. There were three mixed-methods studies. The critical appraisal scores for the three studies ranged from 60 to 100% out of a possible 100%. Two studies met all the criteria, while one study fulfilled 60% of the scored criteria due to a lack of information to understand the relevance of the sampling strategy well enough to address the research question (Q4.1) or to determine whether the risk of nonresponse bias was low (Q4.4) (see Additional file 4 for the critical appraisal of included studies).

Intervention or program components

The intervention of program components were categorized and described using the TiDier checklist: name and goal, theory or background, material, procedure, provider, models of delivery, location, dose, modification, and adherence and fidelity [ 48 ]. A description of intervention in each study is described in Additional file 5 and a narrative description in Additional file 6 .

Leadership problems

In line with the inclusion criteria, data for the leadership problems were categorized in all 31 included studies (see Additional file 7 for leadership problems). Three types of leadership problems were identified: implementation of knowledge into practice, the quality of clinical care, and resources in nursing care. A narrative summary of the results is reported below.

Implementing knowledge into practice

Eleven studies (35%) aimed to solve leadership problems related to implementation of knowledge into practice. Studies showed how to support nurses in evidence-based implementation (EBP) (ref 3, ref 5), how to engage nurses in using evidence in practice (ref 4), how to convey the importance of EBP (ref 22) or how to change practice (ref 4). Other problems were how to facilitate nurses to use guideline recommendations (ref 7) and how nurses can make evidence-informed decisions (ref 8). General concerns also included the linkage between theory and practice (ref 1) as well as how to implement the EBP model in practice (ref 6). In addition, studies were motivated by the need for revisions or updates of protocols to improve clinical practice (ref 10) as well as the need to standardize nursing activities (ref 11, ref 14).

The quality of the care

Thirteen (42%) focused on solving problems related to the quality of clinical care. In these studies, a high number of catheter infections led a lack of achievement of organizational goals (ref 2, ref 9). A need to reduce patient symptoms in stem cell transplant patients undergoing high-dose chemotherapy (ref 24) was also one of the problems to be solved. In addition, the projects focused on how to prevent pressure ulcers (ref 26, ref 29), how to enhance the quality of cancer treatment (ref 25) and how to reduce the need for invasive constipation treatment (ref 30). Concerns about patient safety (ref 15), high fall rates (ref 16, ref 19), dissatisfaction of patients (ref 16, ref 18) and nurses (ref 16, ref 30) were also problems that had initiated the projects. Studies addressed concerns about how to promote good contingency care in residential aged care homes (ref 20) and about how to increase recognition of human trafficking problems in healthcare (ref 21).

Resources in nursing care

Nurse leaders identified problems in their resources, especially in staffing problems. These problems were identified in seven studies (23%), which involved concerns about how to prevent nurses from leaving the job (ref 31), how to ensure appropriate recruitment, staffing and retaining of nurses (ref 13) and how to decrease nurses’ burden and time spent on nursing activities (ref 12). Leadership turnover was also reported as a source of dissatisfaction (ref 17); studies addressed a lack of structured transition and training programs, which led to turnover (ref 23), as well as how to improve intershift handoff among nurses (ref 28). Optimal design for new hospitals was also examined (ref 27).

Main features of evidence-based leadership

Out of 31 studies, 17 (55%) included all four domains of an evidence-based leadership approach, and four studies (13%) included evidence of critical appraisal of the results (see Additional file 8 for the main features of evidence-based Leadership) (ref 11, ref 14, ref 23, ref 27).

Organizational evidence

Twenty-seven studies (87%) reported how organizational evidence was collected and used to solve leadership problems (ref 2). Retrospective chart reviews (ref 5), a review of the extent of specific incidents (ref 19), and chart auditing (ref 7, ref 25) were conducted. A gap between guideline recommendations and actual care was identified using organizational data (ref 7) while the percentage of nurses’ working time spent on patient care was analyzed using an electronic charting system (ref 12). Internal data (ref 22), institutional data, and programming metrics were also analyzed to understand the development of the nurse workforce (ref 13).

Surveys (ref 3, ref 25), interviews (ref 3, ref 25) and group reviews (ref 18) were used to better understand the leadership problem to be solved. Employee opinion surveys on leadership (ref 17), a nurse satisfaction survey (ref 30) and a variety of reporting templates were used for the data collection (ref 28) reported. Sometimes, leadership problems were identified by evidence facilitators or a PI’s team who worked with staff members (ref 15, ref 17). Problems in clinical practice were also identified by the Nursing Professional Council (ref 14), managers (ref 26) or nurses themselves (ref 24). Current practices were reviewed (ref 29) and a gap analysis was conducted (ref 4, ref 16, ref 23) together with SWOT analysis (ref 16). In addition, hospital mission and vision statements, research culture established and the proportion of nursing alumni with formal EBP training were analyzed (ref 5). On the other hand, it was stated that no systematic hospital-specific sources of data regarding job satisfaction or organizational commitment were used (ref 31). In addition, statements of organizational analysis were used on a general level only (ref 1).

Scientific evidence identified

Twenty-six studies (84%) reported the use of scientific evidence in their evidence-based leadership processes. A literature search was conducted (ref 21) and questions, PICO, and keywords were identified (ref 4) in collaboration with a librarian. Electronic databases, including PubMed (ref 14, ref 31), Cochrane, and EMBASE (ref 31) were searched. Galiano (ref 6) used Wiley Online Library, Elsevier, CINAHL, Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library while Hoke (ref 11) conducted an electronic search using CINAHL and PubMed to retrieve articles.

Identified journals were reviewed manually (ref 31). The findings were summarized using ‘elevator speech’ (ref 4). In a study by Gifford et al. (ref 9) evidence facilitators worked with participants to access, appraise, and adapt the research evidence to the organizational context. Ostaszkiewicz (ref 20) conducted a scoping review of literature and identified and reviewed frameworks and policy documents about the topic and the quality standards. Further, a team of nursing administrators, directors, staff nurses, and a patient representative reviewed the literature and made recommendations for practice changes.

Clinical practice guidelines were also used to offer scientific evidence (ref 7, ref 19). Evidence was further retrieved from a combination of nursing policies, guidelines, journal articles, and textbooks (ref 12) as well as from published guidelines and literature (ref 13). Internal evidence, professional practice knowledge, relevant theories and models were synthesized (ref 24) while other study (ref 25) reviewed individual studies, synthesized with systematic reviews or clinical practice guidelines. The team reviewed the research evidence (ref 3, ref 15) or conducted a literature review (ref 22, ref 28, ref 29), a literature search (ref 27), a systematic review (ref 23), a review of the literature (ref 30) or ‘the scholarly literature was reviewed’ (ref 18). In addition, ‘an extensive literature review of evidence-based best practices was carried out’ (ref 10). However, detailed description how the review was conducted was lacking.

Views of stakeholders

A total of 24 studies (77%) reported methods for how the views of stakeholders, i.e., professionals or experts, were considered. Support to run this study was received from nursing leadership and multidisciplinary teams (ref 29). Experts and stakeholders joined the study team in some cases (ref 25, ref 30), and in other studies, their opinions were sought to facilitate project success (ref 3). Sometimes a steering committee was formed by a Chief Nursing Officer and Clinical Practice Specialists (ref 2). More specifically, stakeholders’ views were considered using interviews, workshops and follow-up teleconferences (ref 7). The literature review was discussed with colleagues (ref 11), and feedback and support from physicians as well as the consensus of staff were sought (ref 16).

A summary of the project findings and suggestions for the studies were discussed at 90-minute weekly meetings by 11 charge nurses. Nurse executive directors were consulted over a 10-week period (ref 31). An implementation team (nurse, dietician, physiotherapist, occupational therapist) was formed to support the implementation of evidence-based prevention measures (ref 26). Stakeholders volunteered to join in the pilot implementation (ref 28) or a stakeholder team met to determine the best strategy for change management, shortcomings in evidence-based criteria were discussed, and strategies to address those areas were planned (ref 5). Nursing leaders, staff members (ref 22), ‘process owners (ref 18) and program team members (ref 18, ref 19, ref 24) met regularly to discuss the problems. Critical input was sought from clinical educators, physicians, nutritionists, pharmacists, and nurse managers (ref 24). The unit director and senior nursing staff reviewed the contents of the product, and the final version of clinical pathways were reviewed and approved by the Quality Control Commission of the Nursing Department (ref 12). In addition, two co-design workshops with 18 residential aged care stakeholders were organized to explore their perspectives about factors to include in a model prototype (ref 20). Further, an agreement of stakeholders in implementing continuous quality services within an open relationship was conducted (ref 1).

Critical appraisal

In five studies (16%), a critical appraisal targeting the literature search was carried out. The appraisals were conducted by interns and teams who critiqued the evidence (ref 4). In Hoke’s study, four areas that had emerged in the literature were critically reviewed (ref 11). Other methods were to ‘critically appraise the search results’ (ref 14). Journal club team meetings (ref 23) were organized to grade the level and quality of evidence and the team ‘critically appraised relevant evidence’ (ref 27). On the other hand, the studies lacked details of how the appraisals were done in each study.

The perceived effects of evidence-based leadership

Perceived effects of evidence-based leadership on nurses’ performance.

Eleven studies (35%) described perceived effects of evidence-based leadership on nurses’ performance (see Additional file 9 for perceived effects of evidence-based leadership), which were categorized in four groups: awareness and knowledge, competence, ability to understand patients’ needs, and engagement. First, regarding ‘awareness and knowledge’, different projects provided nurses with new learning opportunities (ref 3). Staff’s knowledge (ref 20, ref 28), skills, and education levels improved (ref 20), as did nurses’ knowledge comprehension (ref 21). Second, interventions and approaches focusing on management and leadership positively influenced participants’ competence level to improve the quality of services. Their confidence level (ref 1) and motivation to change practice increased, self-esteem improved, and they were more positive and enthusiastic in their work (ref 22). Third, some nurses were relieved that they had learned to better handle patients’ needs (ref 25). For example, a systematic work approach increased nurses’ awareness of the patients who were at risk of developing health problems (ref 26). And last, nurse leaders were more engaged with staff, encouraging them to adopt the new practices and recognizing their efforts to change (ref 8).

Perceived effects on organizational outcomes

Nine studies (29%) described the perceived effects of evidence-based leadership on organizational outcomes (see Additional file 9 for perceived effects of evidence-based leadership). These were categorized into three groups: use of resources, staff commitment, and team effort. First, more appropriate use of resources was reported (ref 15, ref 20), and working time was more efficiently used (ref 16). In generally, a structured approach made implementing change more manageable (ref 1). On the other hand, in the beginning of the change process, the feedback from nurses was unfavorable, and they experienced discomfort in the new work style (ref 29). New approaches were also perceived as time consuming (ref 3). Second, nurse leaders believed that fewer nursing staff than expected left the organization over the course of the study (ref 31). Third, the project helped staff in their efforts to make changes, and it validated the importance of working as a team (ref 7). Collaboration and support between the nurses increased (ref 26). On the other hand, new work style caused challenges in teamwork (ref 3).

Perceived effects on clinical outcomes

Five studies (16%) reported the perceived effects of evidence-based leadership on clinical outcomes (see Additional file 9 for perceived effects of evidence-based leadership), which were categorized in two groups: general patient outcomes and specific clinical outcomes. First, in general, the project assisted in connecting the guideline recommendations and patient outcomes (ref 7). The project was good for the patients in general, and especially to improve patient safety (ref 16). On the other hand, some nurses thought that the new working style did not work at all for patients (ref 28). Second, the new approach used assisted in optimizing patients’ clinical problems and person-centered care (ref 20). Bowel management, for example, received very good feedback (ref 30).

The measured effects of evidence-based leadership

The measured effects on nurses’ performance.

Data were obtained from 20 studies (65%) (see Additional file 10 for measured effects of evidence-based leadership) and categorized nurse performance outcomes for three groups: awareness and knowledge, engagement, and satisfaction. First, six studies (19%) measured the awareness and knowledge levels of participants. Internship for staff nurses was beneficial to help participants to understand the process for using evidence-based practice and to grow professionally, to stimulate for innovative thinking, to give knowledge needed to use evidence-based practice to answer clinical questions, and to make possible to complete an evidence-based practice project (ref 3). Regarding implementation program of evidence-based practice, those with formal EBP training showed an improvement in knowledge, attitude, confidence, awareness and application after intervention (ref 3, ref 11, ref 20, ref 23, ref 25). On the contrary, in other study, attitude towards EBP remained stable ( p  = 0.543). and those who applied EBP decreased although no significant differences over the years ( p  = 0.879) (ref 6).

Second, 10 studies (35%) described nurses’ engagement to new practices (ref 5, ref 6, ref 7, ref 10, ref 16, ref 17, ref 18, ref 21, ref 25, ref 27). 9 studies (29%) studies reported that there was an improvement of compliance level of participants (ref 6, ref 7, ref 10, ref 16, ref 17, ref 18, ref 21, ref 25, ref 27). On the contrary, in DeLeskey’s (ref 5) study, although improvement was found in post-operative nausea and vomiting’s (PONV) risk factors documented’ (2.5–63%), and ’risk factors communicated among anaesthesia and surgical staff’ (0–62%), the improvement did not achieve the goal. The reason was a limited improvement was analysed. It was noted that only those patients who had been seen by the pre-admission testing nurse had risk assessments completed. Appropriate treatment/prophylaxis increased from 69 to 77%, and from 30 to 49%; routine assessment for PONV/rescue treatment 97% and 100% was both at 100% following the project. The results were discussed with staff but further reasons for a lack of engagement in nursing care was not reported.

And third, six studies (19%) reported nurses’ satisfaction with project outcomes. The study results showed that using evidence in managerial decisions improved nurses’ satisfaction and attitudes toward their organization ( P  < 0.05) (ref 31). Nurses’ overall job satisfaction improved as well (ref 17). Nurses’ satisfaction with usability of the electronic charting system significantly improved after introduction of the intervention (ref 12). In handoff project in seven hospitals, improvement was reported in all satisfaction indicators used in the study although improvement level varied in different units (ref 28). In addition, positive changes were reported in nurses’ ability to autonomously perform their job (“How satisfied are you with the tools and resources available for you treat and prevent patient constipation?” (54%, n  = 17 vs. 92%, n  = 35, p  < 0.001) (ref 30).

The measured effects on organizational outcomes

Thirteen studies (42%) described the effects of a project on organizational outcomes (see Additional file 10 for measured effects of evidence-based leadership), which were categorized in two groups: staff compliance, and changes in practices. First, studies reported improved organizational outcomes due to staff better compliance in care (ref 4, ref 13, ref 17, ref 23, ref 27, ref 31). Second, changes in organization practices were also described (ref 11) like changes in patient documentation (ref 12, ref 21). Van Orne (ref 30) found a statistically significant reduction in the average rate of invasive medication administration between pre-intervention and post-intervention ( p  = 0.01). Salvador (ref 24) also reported an improvement in a proactive approach to mucositis prevention with an evidence-based oral care guide. On the contrary, concerns were also raised such as not enough time for new bedside report (ref 16) or a lack of improvement of assessment of diabetic ulcer (ref 8).

The measured effects on clinical outcomes

A variety of improvements in clinical outcomes were reported (see Additional file 10 for measured effects of evidence-based leadership): improvement in patient clinical status and satisfaction level. First, a variety of improvement in patient clinical status was reported. improvement in Incidence of CAUTI decreased 27.8% between 2015 and 2019 (ref 2) while a patient-centered quality improvement project reduced CAUTI rates to 0 (ref 10). A significant decrease in transmission rate of MRSA transmission was also reported (ref 27) and in other study incidences of CLABSIs dropped following of CHG bathing (ref 14). Further, it was possible to decrease patient nausea from 18 to 5% and vomiting to 0% (ref 5) while the percentage of patients who left the hospital without being seen was below 2% after the project (ref 17). In addition, a significant reduction in the prevalence of pressure ulcers was found (ref 26, ref 29) and a significant reduction of mucositis severity/distress was achieved (ref 24). Patient falls rate decreased (ref 15, ref 16, ref 19, ref 27).

Second, patient satisfaction level after project implementation improved (ref 28). The scale assessing healthcare providers by consumers showed improvement, but the changes were not statistically significant. Improvement in an emergency department leadership model and in methods of communication with patients improved patient satisfaction scores by 600% (ref 17). In addition, new evidence-based unit improved patient experiences about the unit although not all items improved significantly (ref 18).

Stakeholder involvement in the mixed-method review

To ensure stakeholders’ involvement in the review, the real-world relevance of our research [ 53 ], achieve a higher level of meaning in our review results, and gain new perspectives on our preliminary findings [ 50 ], a meeting with 11 stakeholders was organized. First, we asked if participants were aware of the concepts of evidence-based practice or evidence-based leadership. Responses revealed that participants were familiar with the concept of evidence-based practice, but the topic of evidence-based leadership was totally new. Examples of nurses and nurse leaders’ responses are as follows: “I have heard a concept of evidence-based practice but never a concept of evidence-based leadership.” Another participant described: “I have heard it [evidence-based leadership] but I do not understand what it means.”

Second, as stakeholder involvement is beneficial to the relevance and impact of health research [ 54 ], we asked how important evidence is to them in supporting decisions in health care services. One participant described as follows: “Using evidence in decisions is crucial to the wards and also to the entire hospital.” Third, we asked how the evidence-based approach is used in hospital settings. Participants expressed that literature is commonly used to solve clinical problems in patient care but not to solve leadership problems. “In [patient] medication and care, clinical guidelines are regularly used. However, I am aware only a few cases where evidence has been sought to solve leadership problems.”

And last, we asked what type of evidence is currently used to support nurse leaders’ decision making (e.g. scientific literature, organizational data, stakeholder views)? The participants were aware that different types of information were collected in their organization on a daily basis (e.g. patient satisfaction surveys). However, the information was seldom used to support decision making because nurse leaders did not know how to access this information. Even so, the participants agreed that the use of evidence from different sources was important in approaching any leadership or managerial problems in the organization. Participants also suggested that all nurse leaders should receive systematic training related to the topic; this could support the daily use of the evidence-based approach.

To our knowledge, this article represents the first mixed-methods systematic review to examine leadership problems, how evidence is used to solve these problems and what the perceived and measured effects of evidence-based leadership are on nurse leaders and their performance, organizational, and clinical outcomes. This review has two key findings. First, the available research data suggests that evidence-based leadership has potential in the healthcare context, not only to improve knowledge and skills among nurses, but also to improve organizational outcomes and the quality of patient care. Second, remarkably little published research was found to explore the effects of evidence-based leadership with an efficient trial design. We validated the preliminary results with nurse stakeholders, and confirmed that nursing staff, especially nurse leaders, were not familiar with the concept of evidence-based leadership, nor were they used to implementing evidence into their leadership decisions. Our data was based on many databases, and we screened a large number of studies. We also checked existing registers and databases and found no registered or ongoing similar reviews being conducted. Therefore, our results may not change in the near future.

We found that after identifying the leadership problems, 26 (84%) studies out of 31 used organizational data, 25 (81%) studies used scientific evidence from the literature, and 21 (68%) studies considered the views of stakeholders in attempting to understand specific leadership problems more deeply. However, only four studies critically appraised any of these findings. Considering previous critical statements of nurse leaders’ use of evidence in their decision making [ 14 , 30 , 31 , 34 , 55 ], our results are still quite promising.

Our results support a previous systematic review by Geert et al. [ 32 ], which concluded that it is possible to improve leaders’ individual-level outcomes, such as knowledge, motivation, skills, and behavior change using evidence-based approaches. Collins and Holton [ 23 ] particularly found that leadership training resulted in significant knowledge and skill improvements, although the effects varied widely across studies. In our study, evidence-based leadership was seen to enable changes in clinical practice, especially in patient care. On the other hand, we understand that not all efforts to changes were successful [ 56 , 57 , 58 ]. An evidence-based approach causes negative attitudes and feelings. Negative emotions in participants have also been reported due to changes, such as discomfort with a new working style [ 59 ]. Another study reported inconvenience in using a new intervention and its potential risks for patient confidentiality. Sometimes making changes is more time consuming than continuing with current practice [ 60 ]. These findings may partially explain why new interventions or program do not always fully achieve their goals. On the other hand, Dubose et al. [ 61 ] state that, if prepared with knowledge of resistance, nurse leaders could minimize the potential negative consequences and capitalize on a powerful impact of change adaptation.

We found that only six studies used a specific model or theory to understand the mechanism of change that could guide leadership practices. Participants’ reactions to new approaches may be an important factor in predicting how a new intervention will be implemented into clinical practice. Therefore, stronger effort should be put to better understanding the use of evidence, how participants’ reactions and emotions or practice changes could be predicted or supported using appropriate models or theories, and how using these models are linked with leadership outcomes. In this task, nurse leaders have an important role. At the same time, more responsibilities in developing health services have been put on the shoulders of nurse leaders who may already be suffering under pressure and increased burden at work. Working in a leadership position may also lead to role conflict. A study by Lalleman et al. [ 62 ] found that nurses were used to helping other people, often in ad hoc situations. The helping attitude of nurses combined with structured managerial role may cause dilemmas, which may lead to stress. Many nurse leaders opt to leave their positions less than 5 years [ 63 ].To better fulfill the requirements of health services in the future, the role of nurse leaders in evidence-based leadership needs to be developed further to avoid ethical and practical dilemmas in their leadership practices.

It is worth noting that the perceived and measured effects did not offer strong support to each other but rather opened a new venue to understand the evidence-based leadership. Specifically, the perceived effects did not support to measured effects (competence, ability to understand patients’ needs, use of resources, team effort, and specific clinical outcomes) while the measured effects could not support to perceived effects (nurse’s performance satisfaction, changes in practices, and clinical outcomes satisfaction). These findings may indicate that different outcomes appear if the effects of evidence-based leadership are looked at using different methodological approach. Future study is encouraged using well-designed study method including mixed-method study to examine the consistency between perceived and measured effects of evidence-based leadership in health care.

There is a potential in nursing to support change by demonstrating conceptual and operational commitment to research-based practices [ 64 ]. Nurse leaders are well positioned to influence and lead professional governance, quality improvement, service transformation, change and shared governance [ 65 ]. In this task, evidence-based leadership could be a key in solving deficiencies in the quality, safety of care [ 14 ] and inefficiencies in healthcare delivery [ 12 , 13 ]. As WHO has revealed, there are about 28 million nurses worldwide, and the demand of nurses will put nurse resources into the specific spotlight [ 1 ]. Indeed, evidence could be used to find solutions for how to solve economic deficits or other problems using leadership skills. This is important as, when nurses are able to show leadership and control in their own work, they are less likely to leave their jobs [ 66 ]. On the other hand, based on our discussions with stakeholders, nurse leaders are not used to using evidence in their own work. Further, evidence-based leadership is not possible if nurse leaders do not have access to a relevant, robust body of evidence, adequate funding, resources, and organizational support, and evidence-informed decision making may only offer short-term solutions [ 55 ]. We still believe that implementing evidence-based strategies into the work of nurse leaders may create opportunities to protect this critical workforce from burnout or leaving the field [ 67 ]. However, the role of the evidence-based approach for nurse leaders in solving these problems is still a key question.

Limitations

This study aimed to use a broad search strategy to ensure a comprehensive review but, nevertheless, limitations exist: we may have missed studies not included in the major international databases. To keep search results manageable, we did not use specific databases to systematically search grey literature although it is a rich source of evidence used in systematic reviews and meta-analysis [ 68 ]. We still included published conference abstract/proceedings, which appeared in our scientific databases. It has been stated that conference abstracts and proceedings with empirical study results make up a great part of studies cited in systematic reviews [ 69 ]. At the same time, a limited space reserved for published conference publications can lead to methodological issues reducing the validity of the review results [ 68 ]. We also found that the great number of studies were carried out in western countries, restricting the generalizability of the results outside of English language countries. The study interventions and outcomes were too different across studies to be meaningfully pooled using statistical methods. Thus, our narrative synthesis could hypothetically be biased. To increase transparency of the data and all decisions made, the data, its categorization and conclusions are based on original studies and presented in separate tables and can be found in Additional files. Regarding a methodological approach [ 34 ], we used a mixed methods systematic review, with the core intention of combining quantitative and qualitative data from primary studies. The aim was to create a breadth and depth of understanding that could confirm to or dispute evidence and ultimately answer the review question posed [ 34 , 70 ]. Although the method is gaining traction due to its usefulness and practicality, guidance in combining quantitative and qualitative data in mixed methods systematic reviews is still limited at the theoretical stage [ 40 ]. As an outcome, it could be argued that other methodologies, for example, an integrative review, could have been used in our review to combine diverse methodologies [ 71 ]. We still believe that the results of this mixed method review may have an added value when compared with previous systematic reviews concerning leadership and an evidence-based approach.

Our mixed methods review fills the gap regarding how nurse leaders themselves use evidence to guide their leadership role and what the measured and perceived impact of evidence-based leadership is in nursing. Although the scarcity of controlled studies on this topic is concerning, the available research data suggest that evidence-based leadership intervention can improve nurse performance, organizational outcomes, and patient outcomes. Leadership problems are also well recognized in healthcare settings. More knowledge and a deeper understanding of the role of nurse leaders, and how they can use evidence in their own managerial leadership decisions, is still needed. Despite the limited number of studies, we assume that this narrative synthesis can provide a good foundation for how to develop evidence-based leadership in the future.

Implications

Based on our review results, several implications can be recommended. First, the future of nursing success depends on knowledgeable, capable, and strong leaders. Therefore, nurse leaders worldwide need to be educated about the best ways to manage challenging situations in healthcare contexts using an evidence-based approach in their decisions. This recommendation was also proposed by nurses and nurse leaders during our discussion meeting with stakeholders.

Second, curriculums in educational organizations and on-the-job training for nurse leaders should be updated to support general understanding how to use evidence in leadership decisions. And third, patients and family members should be more involved in the evidence-based approach. It is therefore important that nurse leaders learn how patients’ and family members’ views as stakeholders are better considered as part of the evidence-based leadership approach.

Future studies should be prioritized as follows: establishment of clear parameters for what constitutes and measures evidence-based leadership; use of theories or models in research to inform mechanisms how to effectively change the practice; conducting robust effectiveness studies using trial designs to evaluate the impact of evidence-based leadership; studying the role of patient and family members in improving the quality of clinical care; and investigating the financial impact of the use of evidence-based leadership approach within respective healthcare systems.

Data availability

The authors obtained all data for this review from published manuscripts.

World Health Organization. State of the world’s nursing 2020: investing in education, jobs and leadership. 2020. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240003279 . Accessed 29 June 2024.

Hersey P, Campbell R. Leadership: a behavioral science approach. The Center for; 2004.

Cline D, Crenshaw JT, Woods S. Nurse leader: a definition for the 21st century. Nurse Lead. 2022;20(4):381–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mnl.2021.12.017 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Chen SS. Leadership styles and organization structural configurations. J Hum Resource Adult Learn. 2006;2(2):39–46.

Google Scholar  

McKibben L. Conflict management: importance and implications. Br J Nurs. 2017;26(2):100–3.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Haghgoshayie E, Hasanpoor E. Evidence-based nursing management: basing Organizational practices on the best available evidence. Creat Nurs. 2021;27(2):94–7. https://doi.org/10.1891/CRNR-D-19-00080 .

Majers JS, Warshawsky N. Evidence-based decision-making for nurse leaders. Nurse Lead. 2020;18(5):471–5.

Tichy NM, Bennis WG. Making judgment calls. Harvard Business Rev. 2007;85(10):94.

Sousa MJ, Pesqueira AM, Lemos C, Sousa M, Rocha Á. Decision-making based on big data analytics for people management in healthcare organizations. J Med Syst. 2019;43(9):1–10.

Guo R, Berkshire SD, Fulton LV, Hermanson PM. %J L in HS. Use of evidence-based management in healthcare administration decision-making. 2017;30(3): 330–42.

Liang Z, Howard P, Rasa J. Evidence-informed managerial decision-making: what evidence counts?(part one). Asia Pac J Health Manage. 2011;6(1):23–9.

Hasanpoor E, Janati A, Arab-Zozani M, Haghgoshayie E. Using the evidence-based medicine and evidence-based management to minimise overuse and maximise quality in healthcare: a hybrid perspective. BMJ evidence-based Med. 2020;25(1):3–5.

Shingler NA, Gonzalez JZ. Ebm: a pathway to evidence-based nursing management. Nurs 2022. 2017;47(2):43–6.

Farokhzadian J, Nayeri ND, Borhani F, Zare MR. Nurse leaders’ attitudes, self-efficacy and training needs for implementing evidence-based practice: is it time for a change toward safe care? Br J Med Med Res. 2015;7(8):662.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

American Nurses Association. ANA leadership competency model. Silver Spring, MD; 2018.

Royal College of Nursing. Leadership skills. 2022. https://www.rcn.org.uk/professional-development/your-career/nurse/leadership-skills . Accessed 29 June 2024.

Kakemam E, Liang Z, Janati A, Arab-Zozani M, Mohaghegh B, Gholizadeh M. Leadership and management competencies for hospital managers: a systematic review and best-fit framework synthesis. J Healthc Leadersh. 2020;12:59.

Liang Z, Howard PF, Leggat S, Bartram T. Development and validation of health service management competencies. J Health Organ Manag. 2018;32(2):157–75.

World Health Organization. Global Strategic Directions for Nursing and Midwifery. 2021. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/344562/9789240033863-eng.pdf . Accessed 29 June 2024.

NHS Leadership Academy. The nine leadership dimensions. 2022. https://www.leadershipacademy.nhs.uk/resources/healthcare-leadership-model/nine-leadership-dimensions/ . Accessed 29 June 2024.

Canadian Nurses Association. Evidence-informed decision-making and nursing practice: Position statement. 2018. https://hl-prod-ca-oc-download.s3-ca-central-1.amazonaws.com/CNA/2f975e7e-4a40-45ca-863c-5ebf0a138d5e/UploadedImages/documents/Evidence_informed_Decision_making_and_Nursing_Practice_position_statement_Dec_2018.pdf . Accessed 29 June 2024.

Hasanpoor E, Hajebrahimi S, Janati A, Abedini Z, Haghgoshayie E. Barriers, facilitators, process and sources of evidence for evidence-based management among health care managers: a qualitative systematic review. Ethiop J Health Sci. 2018;28(5):665–80.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Collins DB, Holton EF III. The effectiveness of managerial leadership development programs: a meta-analysis of studies from 1982 to 2001. Hum Res Dev Q. 2004;15(2):217–48.

Cummings GG, Lee S, Tate K, Penconek T, Micaroni SP, Paananen T, et al. The essentials of nursing leadership: a systematic review of factors and educational interventions influencing nursing leadership. Int J Nurs Stud. 2021;115:103842.

Clavijo-Chamorro MZ, Romero-Zarallo G, Gómez-Luque A, López-Espuela F, Sanz-Martos S, López-Medina IM. Leadership as a facilitator of evidence implementation by nurse managers: a metasynthesis. West J Nurs Res. 2022;44(6):567–81.

Young SK. Evidence-based management: a literature review. J Nurs Adm Manag. 2002;10(3):145–51.

Williams LL. What goes around comes around: evidence-based management. Nurs Adm Q. 2006;30(3):243–51.

Fraser I. Organizational research with impact: working backwards. Worldviews Evidence-Based Nurs. 2004;1:S52–9.

Roshanghalb A, Lettieri E, Aloini D, Cannavacciuolo L, Gitto S, Visintin F. What evidence on evidence-based management in healthcare? Manag Decis. 2018;56(10):2069–84.

Jaana M, Vartak S, Ward MM. Evidence-based health care management: what is the research evidence available for health care managers? Eval Health Prof. 2014;37(3):314–34.

Tate K, Hewko S, McLane P, Baxter P, Perry K, Armijo-Olivo S, et al. Learning to lead: a review and synthesis of literature examining health care managers’ use of knowledge. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2019;24(1):57–70.

Geerts JM, Goodall AH, Agius S, %J SS. Medicine. Evidence-based leadership development for physicians: a systematic literature review. 2020;246: 112709.

Barends E, Rousseau DM, Briner RB. Evidence-based management: The basic principles. Amsterdam; 2014. https://research.vu.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/42141986/complete+dissertation.pdf#page=203 . Accessed 29 June 2024.

Stern C, Lizarondo L, Carrier J, Godfrey C, Rieger K, Salmond S, et al. Methodological guidance for the conduct of mixed methods systematic reviews. JBI Evid Synthesis. 2020;18(10):2108–18. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBISRIR-D-19-00169 .

Lancet T. 2020: unleashing the full potential of nursing. Lancet (London, England). 2019. p. 1879.

Välimäki MA, Lantta T, Hipp K, Varpula J, Liu G, Tang Y, et al. Measured and perceived impacts of evidence-based leadership in nursing: a mixed-methods systematic review protocol. BMJ Open. 2021;11(10):e055356. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-055356 .

The Joanna Briggs Institute. Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers’ manual: 2014 edition. Joanna Briggs Inst. 2014; 88–91.

Pearson A, White H, Bath-Hextall F, Salmond S, Apostolo J, Kirkpatrick P. A mixed-methods approach to systematic reviews. JBI Evid Implement. 2015;13(3):121–31.

Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie AJ. Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher. 2004;33(7):14–26.

Hong, Pluye P, Bujold M, Wassef M. Convergent and sequential synthesis designs: implications for conducting and reporting systematic reviews of qualitative and quantitative evidence. Syst Reviews. 2017;6(1):61. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0454-2 .

Ramis MA, Chang A, Conway A, Lim D, Munday J, Nissen L. Theory-based strategies for teaching evidence-based practice to undergraduate health students: a systematic review. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19(1):1–13.

Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JM, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. Bmj. British Medical Journal Publishing Group; 1996. pp. 71–2.

Goodman JS, Gary MS, Wood RE. Bibliographic search training for evidence-based management education: a review of relevant literatures. Acad Manage Learn Educ. 2014;13(3):322–53.

Aromataris E, Munn Z. Chapter 3: Systematic reviews of effectiveness. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. 2020; https://synthesismanual.jbi.global .

Munn Z, Barker TH, Moola S, Tufanaru C, Stern C, McArthur A et al. Methodological quality of case series studies: an introduction to the JBI critical appraisal tool. 2020;18(10): 2127–33.

Hong Q, Pluye P, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, et al. Mixed methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) Version 2018: user guide. Montreal: McGill University; 2018.

McKenna J, Jeske D. Ethical leadership and decision authority effects on nurses’ engagement, exhaustion, and turnover intention. J Adv Nurs. 2021;77(1):198–206.

Maxwell M, Hibberd C, Aitchison P, Calveley E, Pratt R, Dougall N, et al. The TIDieR (template for intervention description and replication) checklist. The patient Centred Assessment Method for improving nurse-led biopsychosocial assessment of patients with long-term conditions: a feasibility RCT. NIHR Journals Library; 2018.

Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.

Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, Synnot A, Nunn J, Hill S, et al. Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review. Syst Reviews. 2018;7:1–26.

Braye S, Preston-Shoot M. Emerging from out of the shadows? Service user and carer involvement in systematic reviews. Evid Policy. 2005;1(2):173–93.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst Reviews. 2021;10(1):1–11.

Porta M. Pilot investigation, study. A dictionary of epidemiology. Oxford University Press Oxford; 2014. p. 215.

Kreis J, Puhan MA, Schünemann HJ, Dickersin K. Consumer involvement in systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research. Health Expect. 2013;16(4):323–37.

Joseph ML, Nelson-Brantley HV, Caramanica L, Lyman B, Frank B, Hand MW, et al. Building the science to guide nursing administration and leadership decision making. JONA: J Nurs Adm. 2022;52(1):19–26.

Gifford W, Davies BL, Graham ID, Tourangeau A, Woodend AK, Lefebre N. Developing Leadership Capacity for Guideline Use: a pilot cluster Randomized Control Trial: Leadership Pilot Study. Worldviews Evidence-Based Nurs. 2013;10(1):51–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6787.2012.00254.x .

Hsieh HY, Henker R, Ren D, Chien WY, Chang JP, Chen L, et al. Improving effectiveness and satisfaction of an electronic charting system in Taiwan. Clin Nurse Specialist. 2016;30(6):E1–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/NUR.0000000000000250 .

McAllen E, Stephens K, Swanson-Biearman B, Kerr K, Whiteman K. Moving Shift Report to the Bedside: an evidence-based Quality Improvement Project. OJIN: Online J Issues Nurs. 2018;23(2). https://doi.org/10.3912/OJIN.Vol23No02PPT22 .

Thomas M, Autencio K, Cesario K. Positive outcomes of an evidence-based pressure injury prevention program. J Wound Ostomy Cont Nurs. 2020;47:S24.

Cullen L, Titler MG. Promoting evidence-based practice: an internship for Staff nurses. Worldviews Evidence-Based Nurs. 2004;1(4):215–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-475X.2004.04027.x .

DuBose BM, Mayo AM. Resistance to change: a concept analysis. Nursing forum. Wiley Online Library; 2020. pp. 631–6.

Lalleman PCB, Smid GAC, Lagerwey MD, Shortridge-Baggett LM, Schuurmans MJ. Curbing the urge to care: a bourdieusian analysis of the effect of the caring disposition on nurse middle managers’ clinical leadership in patient safety practices. Int J Nurs Stud. 2016;63:179–88.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Martin E, Warshawsky N. Guiding principles for creating value and meaning for the next generation of nurse leaders. JONA: J Nurs Adm. 2017;47(9):418–20.

Griffiths P, Recio-Saucedo A, Dall’Ora C, Briggs J, Maruotti A, Meredith P, et al. The association between nurse staffing and omissions in nursing care: a systematic review. J Adv Nurs. 2018;74(7):1474–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13564 .

Lúanaigh PÓ, Hughes F. The nurse executive role in quality and high performing health services. J Nurs Adm Manag. 2016;24(1):132–6.

de Kok E, Weggelaar-Jansen AM, Schoonhoven L, Lalleman P. A scoping review of rebel nurse leadership: descriptions, competences and stimulating/hindering factors. J Clin Nurs. 2021;30(17–18):2563–83.

Warshawsky NE. Building nurse manager well-being by reducing healthcare system demands. JONA: J Nurs Adm. 2022;52(4):189–91.

Paez A. Gray literature: an important resource in systematic reviews. J Evidence-Based Med. 2017;10(3):233–40.

McAuley L, Tugwell P, Moher D. Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses? Lancet. 2000;356(9237):1228–31.

Sarah S. Introduction to mixed methods systematic reviews. https://jbi-global-wiki.refined.site/space/MANUAL/4689215/8.1+Introduction+to+mixed+methods+systematic+reviews . Accessed 29 June 2024.

Whittemore R, Knafl K. The integrative review: updated methodology. J Adv Nurs. 2005;52(5):546–53.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We want to thank the funding bodies, the Finnish National Agency of Education, Asia Programme, the Department of Nursing Science at the University of Turku, and Xiangya School of Nursing at the Central South University. We also would like to thank the nurses and nurse leaders for their valuable opinions on the topic.

The work was supported by the Finnish National Agency of Education, Asia Programme (grant number 26/270/2020) and the University of Turku (internal fund 26003424). The funders had no role in the study design and will not have any role during its execution, analysis, interpretation of the data, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Nursing Science, University of Turku, Turku, FI-20014, Finland

Maritta Välimäki, Tella Lantta, Kirsi Hipp & Jaakko Varpula

School of Public Health, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, FI-00014, Finland

Maritta Välimäki

Xiangya Nursing, School of Central South University, Changsha, 410013, China

Shuang Hu, Jiarui Chen, Yao Tang, Wenjun Chen & Xianhong Li

School of Health and Social Services, Häme University of Applied Sciences, Hämeenlinna, Finland

Hunan Cancer Hospital, Changsha, 410008, China

Gaoming Liu

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Study design: MV, XL. Literature search and study selection: MV, KH, TL, WC, XL. Quality assessment: YT, SH, XL. Data extraction: JC, MV, JV, WC, YT, SH, GL. Analysis and interpretation: MV, SH. Manuscript writing: MV. Critical revisions for important intellectual content: MV, XL. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xianhong Li .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

No ethical approval was required for this study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Differences between the original protocol

We modified criteria for the included studies: we included published conference abstracts/proceedings, which form a relatively broad knowledge base in scientific knowledge. We originally planned to conduct a survey with open-ended questions followed by a face-to-face meeting to discuss the preliminary results of the review. However, to avoid extra burden in nurses due to COVID-19, we decided to limit the validation process to the online discussion only.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary material 2, supplementary material 3, supplementary material 4, supplementary material 5, supplementary material 6, supplementary material 7, supplementary material 8, supplementary material 9, supplementary material 10, rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Välimäki, M., Hu, S., Lantta, T. et al. The impact of evidence-based nursing leadership in healthcare settings: a mixed methods systematic review. BMC Nurs 23 , 452 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-02096-4

Download citation

Received : 28 April 2023

Accepted : 13 June 2024

Published : 03 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-02096-4

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Evidence-based leadership
• Health services administration
• Organizational development
• Quality in healthcare

BMC Nursing

ISSN: 1472-6955

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Smart city and sustainability indicators: a bibliometric literature review

• Open access
• Published: 08 July 2024
• Volume 5 , article number  143 , ( 2024 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Leonardo da Silva Tomadon   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0332-7896 1 ,
• Edivando Vitor do Couto   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4264-8449 2 ,
• Walter Timo de Vries   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1942-4714 2 &
• Yara Moretto   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1201-8502 1  

This study delves into the pivotal role that indicators play in designing, assessing, and guiding policies for sustainable urban development. Indicators, encompassing both quantitative and qualitative measures, serve as essential tools in evaluating efforts toward sustainable development, providing a practical and objective means of understanding the complex urban environment. The lack of a robust database is identified as a hindrance to monitoring sustainable development progress, underscoring the importance of comprehensive indicators. The study employs a bibliometric literature review methodology, focusing on smart city and sustainability indicators (SSCI) from 2015 to 2022. A total of 818 articles were narrowed down to 191 through rigorous criteria. The study showcases a growing interest in this field, with the number of articles published experiencing a remarkable 288% increase from 2015 to 2022. China emerges as a focal point, leading in both article production and citations, emphasizing its commitment to sustainable development and smart city initiatives. The keywords "sustainable development", "sustainability" and “urban development” had the most occurrences in text analysis. We found three different clusters with k-means analysis, and the circular economy indicators were the most representative category. In conclusion, the study underscores the holistic vision of SSCI in the current scenario, balancing technology and sustainability to improve urban quality of life while safeguarding the planet. Encouraging further research into integrating resilience-focused indicators and innovative solutions is crucial for enhancing sustainable urban development and informing policy decisions.

Similar content being viewed by others

Sustainable development of smart cities: a systematic review of the literature.

Urban sustainability and resilience: What the literature tells us about “lock-ins”?

Neighborhood Sustainability Assessment (NSA) Tools

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Amidst the rapid urbanization, challenges posed by climate change, and escalating urban population growth, the pursuit of sustainable urban development has emerged as a global imperative. As cities undergo unprecedented expansion, meeting inhabitants' needs while minimizing environmental impact and promoting social equity becomes paramount [ 1 ]. This rapid growth raises urgent issues affecting people's quality of life, the environment, and the future of urban communities [ 2 , 3 ].

In response to this dynamic urban landscape, the concept of 'smart cities' has emerged as an innovative solution to urban challenges. Smart cities leverage advanced technologies, data, and innovative strategies to enhance urban efficiency, quality of life, and sustainability [ 4 , 5 ]. However, the definition of a truly 'smart' city extends beyond technology, with sustainability serving as its foundational principle [ 6 , 7 ]. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, introduced in 2015, encompasses 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with SDG #11 specifically focusing on 'Sustainable Cities and Communities' [ 8 ]. This goal aims to enhance urban sustainability, resilience, safety, and inclusiveness [ 8 ]. Aligned with the broader objectives of sustainable urban development, smart cities prioritize efficiency through intelligent information and communication technology (ICT) management [ 9 ].

The success of SDG 11 hinges on diverse stakeholders, encompassing citizens, organizations, and the environment [ 10 , 11 ]. Recognizing and addressing their varied needs is vital for urban development [ 11 , 12 ]. Integrating stakeholder value creation with urban sustainability prioritizes long-term goals over short-term gains, encouraging policies that promote engagement and align with the SDGs [ 10 ]. Despite obstacles such as limited resources and political willingness, these challenges present openings for creative solutions and cooperation. By adopting sustainable approaches, cities can advance towards their sustainability aims, bolstering economic robustness and societal unity [ 10 , 11 , 12 ].

The integration of smart cities and sustainability aims to establish technologically advanced, environmentally conscious, socially inclusive, and economically robust urban environments [ 9 , 13 ]. This holistic vision underscores the importance of balancing technology and sustainable living, with the overarching goal of improving the quality of life for urban residents while safeguarding the planet for future generations [ 14 , 15 , 16 ]. Assessing sustainability becomes crucial, with the identification and application of appropriate indicators playing a pivotal role in measuring progress towards smarter and more sustainable cities [ 17 , 18 ].

Indicators, representing generic variables derived from observations or estimates, are essential tools in the context of urban development. They make it possible to evaluate efforts toward sustainable development in a way that is both practical and objective. In urban development, indicators include both quantitative and qualitative measures that show how sustainable the environment is, how strong the economy is, how welcoming society is, and how resilient the city is [ 19 , 20 ]. Cities can figure out what their current state is, set goals for sustainability, and plan a way to make their cities more livable, fair, and environmentally friendly by using indicators in a planned way [ 18 , 21 ].

While previous studies have extensively explored the concepts of smart cities and sustainability independently, there is a notable gap in the literature concerning the integration of these two domains, particularly in terms of practical implementation and measurable outcomes [ 22 , 23 ]. Current research often lacks comprehensive frameworks that effectively combine technological advancements with sustainability indicators to guide urban development [ 24 ]. This study aims to bridge this gap by a bibliometric literature review to address the intersection between smart city and sustainability (SSCI), emphasizing the fundamental role of indicators in the design, assessment, and guidance of policies for sustainable urban development. Through a systematic review of articles from 2015 to 2022, this study aims to identify the principal authors, articles, journals, countries, keywords, and networks, thus describing the current scenario of publications in SSCI topics.

SSCI are essential for systematically evaluating and guiding the progress of cities towards sustainability goals. These indicators provide measurable data that help cities understand their current sustainability status and identify areas for improvement [ 25 , 26 ]. By incorporating SSCI, cities can track their performance in key areas such as energy efficiency, resource management, and social inclusiveness. This not only aids in effective urban planning and policy-making but also ensures that technological advancements contribute to long-term ecological balance, economic resilience, and social equity [ 25 , 26 ]. Ultimately, SSCI bridge the gap between smart technologies and sustainable development, fostering urban environments that are not only intelligent and efficient but also sustainable and livable for future generations.

The study encompassed a bibliometric literature review, aiming to comprehensively understand the role of SSCI. Initiated by a foundational set of keywords, a text mining approach optimized the search for relevant articles in Web of Science and Scopus databases. Eligibility criteria refined the dataset to 191 articles, subsequently analyzed using the bibliometrix R package in Rstudio, provided insights into scholarly contributions and research trends within SSCI. Additionally, K-means cluster analysis categorized indicators into sustainability dimensions, enhancing understanding of their distribution and relationships. This methodology integrated various techniques to examine the scholarly landscape, contributing to a comprehensive understanding of SSCI research.

2 Methodology

2.1 bibliometric literature review.

This study employed a systematic literature review methodology, leveraging the PECO approach to define the specific domain under investigation [ 27 ]. The domain of interest pertains to both direct and indirect indicators providing informative insights into the central research question. The deliberate application of the PECO approach facilitated the standardization of our systematic review protocol. The primary objective of this study is to comprehensively comprehend the functional role of sustainability and smart city indicators (SSCI). In the initiation phase of the literature gathering protocol, we engaged with a foundational set of seminal knowledge to guide our approach. To initiate the naïve step of data collection, a set of pertinent keywords was meticulously selected to aptly encapsulate the essential information. This preliminary step involves assembling an initial dataset of research studies aligned with the researcher’s domain expertise. The initial dataset of keywords was: (((“sustainable development” OR “sustainability”) AND (“smart cit*” OR “smart sustainable cit*”)) AND (econom* OR social OR environment* OR ecolog* OR govern* OR technolog* OR transport* OR energ*) AND (indicator* OR variable*)).

In sequence, we used a text mining approach to analyze the textual content available in the title and abstract sections of the research articles obtained in the naïve step (hereafter enhanced step). This procedure was used to quantitatively obtain the most relevant words based on the co-occurrence network of words to assemble a new set of relevant terms that optimized the research for articles [ 28 ]. Then, we used the new keywords to search for research articles in the Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus databases that occurred between 2015 and August 2022. We did this using the Litsearchr package [ 28 ], implemented in the R software [ 29 ]. The databases were systematically searched using the keywords extracted in the text mining. These keywords were sought within the titles, abstracts, and keywords of the materials. The boolean operators "AND" and “OR” were incorporated into the query to ensure the presence of all specified keywords within the documents. Adopting a replicable process performed according to standards set by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [ 30 ].

2.2 Data collection

The process of data collecting involved searching for articles in databases. The WoS and Scopus databases were selected to ensure a thorough research approach, as they include thousands of peer-reviewed journals covering various subject fields.

The naive search using the initial keywords was performed in the WoS and Scopus databases, and the result was 262 files for WoS and 354 for Scopus, with 455 unique files shared between the databases. From this, the script in the R software was used by the litsearch package. Thus, based on the terms generated by the script in R, a new search was made in the databases, with the keywords after the text mining, and for this result, two criteria of eligibility were applied: peer-reviewed articles only and language, only English, Spanish, and Portuguese, being accepted (Table  1 ).

The enhanced research result was 885 articles for WoS and 1077 articles for Scopus; with the exclusion of the duplicated studies, we got a total of 960 unique articles. Then other criteria were applied to the date of publication, being selected articles from the year 2015 to August 2022, as it was the year in which the SDGs were proposed [ 8 ], thus the total number of articles was 818. Then, two criteria were applied to the 818 articles. We read the title and abstract of the articles in order to select those that have affinity with the topic addressed, sustainability and smart cities, for a total of 450 articles. For the last criteria, we selected the articles that presented indicators with a unit or description, and a total of 191 articles were selected (Fig.  1 ).

The process of data collection for article selection in the bibliometric review, using the eligibility criteria and PRISMA guidelines

From the initial search, a total of 191 articles were generated. These articles underwent a thorough examination to assess their relevance and content concerning the research topic of SSCI. Subsequently, the bibliographic data of these 191 publications was exported as a plain text file and then downloaded for further bibliometric analysis. The data was exported, including information such as authors, titles, author affiliations, publication years, citation counts, author-provided keywords, additional keywords, countries of publication, affiliated institutions, journals, and citations.

2.3 Data analysis

The collected data was imported into RStudio with the bibliometrix R package, which was employed for processing and analyzing bibliographic data. Subsequently, the biblioshiny app was utilized to create conceptual maps and network analyses. Finally, a presentation was developed to outline research trends and suggest directions for future investigations in the field of SSCI.

The research delved into various aspects, including authors, articles, journals, countries, and some factors such as contributions, keywords, H-indexes, and citations. The analysis examined the collaborative and co-citation networks among authors. Finally, we analyzed the keywords with the co-occurrence and word cloud.

2.4 Network analysis

By employing co-citation, co-authorship, and co-occurrence keyword networks, we sought to delve deeper into the scholarly contributions within the realm of the SSCI topic. These discoveries significantly enrich our comprehension of the subject matter, providing valuable insights into the dynamics of scholarly collaboration and knowledge dissemination. By integrating multiple network analysis techniques, we were able to construct a comprehensive picture of the scholarly landscape within the SSCI topic. This holistic approach not only deepened our understanding of the collaborative relationships among researchers but also provided valuable insights into the key themes and trends driving research in this area.

2.4.1 Co-citation network

A co-citation network was generated. It is important to note that the nodes within a co-citation network represent cited articles, and while their connections indicate the frequency of co-citations, they can be used to measure whether the author is influential in the literature [ 31 , 32 ]. Thus, the bibliometrix-biblioshiny tool was able to identify which of all the authors were the most cited and, from the lines connecting them, perceive those with the highest frequency of co-citation [ 33 ].

The distribution of authors in a network occurs through the application of the Louvain clustering algorithm. This method, known for its accuracy, particularly excels in handling extensive co-citation networks. It utilizes the concept of modularity, a measure that assesses the significance of partitioning the network into communities [ 34 ]. The map reveals two key elements defining the intellectual structure of the research field. Firstly, the node size signifies the extent of co-citation an author has garnered from peers [ 33 ]. Secondly, the distances between authors and subgroups indicate the level of intellectual affinity among them [ 33 ].

2.4.2 Co-authorship network

The global scientific collaboration among authors was generated by the bibliometrix-biblioshiny tool, and the research hotspots could be unraveled through the visualization of the co-authorship network. The size of the circles depicts the number of occurrences of documents, and the strength of research collaboration is revealed by the distance between circles in individual pairs [ 35 , 36 ]. The thicker and shorter the line between two circles representing different authors, the more collaboration exists [ 35 , 36 ].

2.4.3 Co-occurrence keywords network

To visualize the research hotspots in the SSCI scientific field, the co-occurrence keyword network was generated using the bibliometrix-biblioshiny tool. The size of the circles corresponded to the number of occurrences of the represented keywords, and the larger the circle, the more the keyword had been co-selected in the SSCI topic [ 32 , 36 ]. The topical similarity and its relative strength were demonstrated by the distance between the elements of individual pairs [ 32 , 36 ].

2.5 Indicators dataset

During the literature review, articles that presented indicators were selected, and the indicators were gathered. These indicators were organized in spreadsheets, containing information such as description, unit of measurement, and polarity (positive or negative effect). The indicators were categorized into sustainability dimensions, namely: environmental, economic, social, governance, performance, transportation, and technology and innovation.

We used the k-means cluster analysis to find cluster structures in our indicator dataset characterized by the greatest similarity within the same cluster and the greatest dissimilarity between different clusters [ 37 ]. Basically, k-means is a clustering algorithm that explores the data distribution and classifies the objects into different groups, partitions a dataset into subsets (clusters), and establishes rules for grouping data with similar characteristics [ 38 , 39 ].

This results in the partitioning of a specific dataset according to clustering criteria without any prior knowledge of the dataset. In an ideal clustering scenario, each cluster comprises similar data instances that are significantly different from instances in other clusters [ 40 ]. The k-means algorithm assigned each point to the cluster whose center (also called the centroid) is nearest [ 38 ]. The center of a cluster is the average of all points in the cluster; that is, its coordinates are the arithmetic mean for each dimension separately over all the points in the center [ 38 ].

After selecting our indicator dataset, we performed our script program based on the R software package factoextra. We determined the optimal number of clusters using the function fviz_nb_clust () in the R package factoextra, and the method used was the silhouette. Principally, k-means clustering involved calculating distance measures for all values and creating a new center-based point that represented the means of values for each cluster [ 41 ]. This new center-based point was called a centroid professionally [ 41 ].

The search was in SSCI, and the retrieval time was from 2015 up to 2022. A total of 191 articles were generated in 87 different journals for 592 authors, and these articles were verified and examined based on their content or contribution to the research topic SSCI. Table 2 presents the summary information of our dataset, with some information about the documents, keywords, authors, and collaborations.

3.1 Authors

We identified a total of 592 different authors in this study. We are emphasizing those who had the most number of articles published (Table  3 ). In the top 10 authors, all of them are Chinese, and Wang C has the highest number of publications with six articles, followed by the other six authors that have four publications. While some authors have published as primary authors, most have published as co-authors. With regards to research citations on the SSCI topic, the author Li J has the highest number of citations with 121, followed by Wang J with 90 citations and Shen L with 87 citations. The author with the highest H-index is Shen L. with four; this metric measures both productivity and citation impact.

3.2 Articles

A survey was conducted on the number of articles published per year between 2015 and August 2022. In 2015, when the SDGs were implemented, nine articles were published on the SSCI topic. In 2022, considering only the first 8 months of the year, there were 35 articles published. This represents a remarkable increase of 288% in eight years in the number of articles published (Fig.  2 ). It's worth noting that a significant surge in article publications occurred between 2017 and 2018, with a 100% increase in the number of articles published. The highest peak of publications about SSCI topics occurred in 2021 (37 articles), followed by 2020 and 2022 (35 articles). A quantity of articles published over the 8 years of analysis reveals a trend of growth over the years. Between 2015 and 2019, 84 articles (44%) related to the SSCI topic were published, while from 2020 to 2022, 107 articles (56%) related to the SSCI topic were published.

The growth in SSCI article publications from 2015 to August 2022. The implementation of the SDGs in 2015 marked the beginning, with 9 articles, reaching a remarkable 288% increase in 2022 (35 articles). The analysis reveals a consistent growth trend, with 56% of articles published from 2020 to 2022 compared to 44% from 2015 to 2019

Table 4 presents the top 10 most cited articles on the SSCI topic. The most cited articles primarily focus on sustainability in urban areas as their main research axis, with variations leaning towards smart sustainable cities, environmental sustainability, and nature-based solutions. Out of the total articles on the survey, only 5 of them had more than 100 citations, and it is noteworthy that the publication years among the top 10 most cited articles varied between 2015 and 2019. Regarding the journals of the top 10 most cited articles, the most cited journals were Ecology and Society, Sustainability, and Journal of Cleaner Production, with two articles published.

The most cited article was published in 2016, with a total of 433 citations [ 42 ]. The article talked about how nature-based solutions (NbS) can provide benefits in terms of mitigating and adapting to climate change and therewith supporting human well-being in cities, and how they need to be recognized and developed as proactive investments, supported as such in planning procedures, and fostered in joint dialogues between policy, society, and science [ 42 ]. It was followed by the article published in 2018, with a total of 116 citations [ 43 ]. The article talked about how eco-efficiency can be achieved in cities. The government must realize the importance of environmental protection with the prioritization of ecology over economy in governmental thinking, with the continuous encouragement of technical innovation in every aspect of economic activities and human life, and, finally, with the relative balancing of resource supply [ 43 ].

Closing the top 3 most cited articles were two articles published in 2016 and 2019, with a total of 111 citations [ 44 , 45 ]. In the first one, the article talked about the development of an urban carrying capacity evaluation model and its strategic importance in sustainable development through the promotion of urban sustainability as a priority policy objective. In the second one, they talked about how cities can be viewed as the source of and solution to many of today’s economic, social, and environmental challenges, and it is necessary to promote initiatives to enhance sustainability, resource efficiency, and inclusiveness in cities. Regarding the total citations per year, [ 42 ] is the highest article with 54,13 citations per year, followed by [ 45 ] with 22,2 citations per year and [ 43 ] with 19,33 citations per year (Table  4 ).

3.3 Journals

In the survey, a total of 87 journals were founded, showing the global distribution of publications in SSCI literature. Table 5 presents the list of the top 10 journals in which results from SSCI were mostly published. A total of 103 articles are presented in Table  5 , representing 54% of the total 191 publications during 2015–2022. The journal with the most articles published on the topic under consideration was Sustainability, with 39 articles, followed by Sustainable Cities and Society with 17 articles, and Journal of Cleaner Production with 16 articles. In total, the sum of articles from these top three journals represents a total of 72 articles out of the 191 analyzed, which accounts for 37.5% of the total.

With regards to journal citations, Sustainability was the most cited journal with 614, followed by Journal of Cleaner Production with 468 citations and Ecology and Society with 435 citations. In general, journals with high citations usually have a high H-index and tend to have a more important academic effect in SSCI, except for the journal Ecology and Society, which registered a lot of citations in just one article but had a lower H-index than other journals that had fewer citations.

3.4 Country

The total of 191 articles selected for the SSCI literature were produced in 44 different countries, with a range of 1 to 64 articles published per country. As a result, the country with the highest number of articles published was China, with 64 studies. It was followed by articles that are not specific to any location and are represented as "No Data." Accounting for 17 articles, these studies are theoretical and are not applied to a specific locality; therefore, they were considered in this manner. Additionally, there are 12 articles conducted on Spain (Fig.  3 ).

Global distribution of SSCI literature—China stands out with 64 articles, leading in Asia, while Spain, Italy, Germany, and Portugal contribute significantly in Europe. Brazil emerges as the focal point in South America

It is immediately evident how the theme has developed in countries located on different continents, highlighting a growing interest in the SSCI topic. In Asia, China has the highest number of articles published in SCCI literature, with Iran and Turkey closing the top 10 countries. Spain, Italy, Germany, and Portugal published the maximum number of articles on the topic in Europe, while in South America, Brazil is the most representative country.

The following graphs relate to the citations recorded for the countries. Figure  4 presents the total number of citations recorded for each country, with China leading with 1176 citations, followed by Germany and Italy with 457 and 247 citations, respectively. In Asia, China is the most cited country, with Turkey and Iran in the top 10 countries. Germany, Italy, Spain, Greece, and Portugal are the most cited countries in Europe. Followed by the USA in North America and Australia in Oceania.

Total citations by country, with China leading at 1176 citations, followed by Germany and Italy

Meanwhile, Fig.  5 shows the average number of citations per article per country, with Germany leading at an average of 91.4 citations per article, followed by the United Kingdom and Greece with averages of 42 and 39.2 citations per article, respectively. In Europe, Germany is the most cited country per article, followed by the United Kingdom, Greece, Finland, Italy, Switzerland, Portugal, and Slovenia. Closing the top 10 countries. Australia is in Oceania, and Chile is in South America.

Average citations per article per country, showcasing Germany with the highest average at 91.4, followed by the United Kingdom and Greece

China held a leading position in terms of publication and citation quantity; however, Germany came in first in terms of citations per article, meaning that research works from China are more consulted and referenced as compared to the other countries, and Germany has the most referenced average among the countries. China doesn't appear in the top 10 countries in citations per article, which is attributed to the large number of papers published on the topic, ultimately reducing the average number of citations per article.

3.5 Network analysis

This section aims to present the results of networks involving authors and keywords, highlighting both co-citation and collaboration among researchers, and the principal keywords. This analysis provides a comprehensive view of the interactions and connections occurring within the academic environment, revealing patterns of collaboration and influences among members of the scientific community and the principal keywords identified in the analysis.

3.5.1 Author co-citation network

The results in Fig.  6 show five subgroups of cited authors that help represent the intellectual structure of publications in SSCI. The largest network (blue) consists mainly of authors Wang, Liu, Zhang, Wu, Li, and Huang. These authors compose a cluster of 41 occurrences and have the highest values of citation frequency. The second-largest network (green and red) is distinguished by its high closeness to the main network (blue); the distance of the blue subgroup from both the green and red subgroups indicates less frequent co-citation among its authors and consequently less intellectual affinity. The third subgroup (orange and purple) is represented by Cabral in the orange group, which emphasizes sustainability in urban areas, and Fertner in the purple group, which emphasizes smart cities.

Utilizing the bibliometrix-biblioshiny tool, a co-citation network was generated to identify influential authors in SSCI literature. The key cluster is represented by Chinese authors, including Wang, Liu, Zhang, Wu, Li and Huang

3.5.2 Colaboration network

With regards to collaboration between authors, the analysis formed 10 clusters: Zhang Y, Wang J, and Shen L have the highest co-authorship (green), followed by Wang C, Wang X, and Chen N, who have the second highest co-authorship (red), and then Wang W, Xue B, and Sun X, who have the third highest co-authorship (purple) (Fig.  7 ). The aforementioned information about the authors and sources with the highest number of publications and citations could assist future researchers on the SSCI topic.

Global scientific collaboration among authors. The analysis formed 10 clusters, highlighting leading co-authorships, particularly in the Chinese author community (green) in the SSCI field

It is possible to observe a relationship between authors and their respective countries, with the Chinese author community having a large network of collaboration, while authors from other countries have smaller collaboration networks among themselves. Partnership among authors from different countries could contribute to increasing knowledge production on the SCCI topic.

3.5.3 Co-occurrence keyword network

The co-occurrence keyword network in Fig.  8 illustrates seven distinct clusters, representing individual subfields of the research areas in the SSCI topic. The highest cluster (blue) had the words “sustainable development", “sustainability”, and “urban development” as the circles with the most occurrences and linkages. The second-highest cluster (green) had the word “urban growth” as the most occurrences. The third-highest cluster (red) had some words “city” and “cities" as the most linkages. The other three clusters were identified with just one occurrence: the orange one with “system", the brown one with “management”, and the purple one with “methodology”.

The co-occurrence keywords network delineates 7 clusters, showcasing subfields in the SSCI research

3.6 Clustering indicator categories

We found 4896 indicators, dividing them into 7 dimensions: social (1804 indicators), environmental (1382 indicators), economic (593 indicators), transport (370 indicators), governance (294 indicators), performance (249 indicators), and technology and innovation (204 indicators, see Supplementary Material 1 and 2). The total indicators were categorized into 269 categories, with a range of 1 to 159 indicators per category. We found that 37 categories registered only 1 indicator, and 159 indicators were registered in 1 category (circular economy).

In the k-means analysis, we found that dimension 1 had 28.4% in total explanation and dimension 2 had 14.9%. The analysis indicated that the ideal number of clusters was 3, classified into A, B, and C. In the A cluster, we found economic, governance, and transport indicators representing the cluster. In the B cluster, we found technology and innovation indicators representing the cluster. Finally, in the C cluster, we found environmental and social indicators representing the cluster. Performance indicators were represented in the three clusters (Fig.  9 ).

The k-means analysis reveals 3 clusters ( A , B , C ) with distinctive indicator compositions, illustrating their roles in economic, governance, and transport ( A ), technology and innovation ( B ), and environmental and social aspects ( C ), with performance indicators distributed across all clusters

4 Discussion

The bibliometric analysis conducted in this study provides a comprehensive overview of the state of research in the field of SSCI from 2015 to 2022. A total of 191 documents from 87 different sources were analyzed. The findings revealed several key insights. The principal authors in terms of publications, citations, and H-index are Chinese. China led in terms of the number of articles published and the number of citations, and six of the 10 most cited articles in SSCI literature were developed by Chinese authors. Furthermore, China had a large network of collaboration, while authors from other countries had smaller networks, showing the importance of the country in the development of indicators for sustainability and smart cities.

China plays a crucial role in formulating SSCI, reflecting its prominent position on the global stage and its commitment to sustainable development. The magnitude and complexity of challenges faced by Chinese cities make the implementation of effective measurement systems essential to assess and guide progress [ 46 , 47 ]. In a bibliometric analysis of scientific publications on SDGs with an emphasis on good health and well-being, it was reported that China is among the top-five most productive countries in SDGs research [ 48 ]. Similarly, another bibliometric analysis covering sustainable development literature from 1993 to 2019 found that China is among the top-five most productive countries in this field [ 49 ]. However, in a bibliometric analysis for urban sustainability assessment, China was reported as the most productive country [ 50 ]. Additionally, a bibliometric analysis of the scientific landscape of smart and sustainable city literature indicated that China is the most productive country in smart city research [ 36 ]. Furthermore, another bibliometric diagnosis and analysis of smart cities also confirmed that China leads in productivity in this domain [ 51 ].

China emerges as a central player in formulating SSCI, offering valuable lessons and innovative solutions that resonate on an international scale. The country's impact in these fields underscores the need for global collaboration to address common challenges related to sustainability and intelligent urban development. In a total of 191 papers analyzed, 134 of them were related to China. Its commitment to reducing emissions and transitioning to clean energy sets an example for other nations and contributes to global efforts to combat climate change [ 52 , 53 ]. China's policy decisions, such as urbanization strategies and environmental regulations, have global significance, and successful policies can serve as models for other countries facing similar challenges [ 54 , 55 ].

The analysis showed a significant growth in the number of articles published on SSCI over the years. In 2015, nine articles were published, while in 2022, 35 articles were published, marking a substantial increase of 288% over eight years. The highest number of publications occurred between 2020 and 2022. The rapid growth in recent years can be attributed, in part, to the emergence of the coronavirus disease in 2019 (COVID-19). The swift and widespread outbreak of the novel COVID-19 had devastating effects on countries worldwide, introducing new challenges to ensure the sustainability of cities [ 56 , 57 ].

In the wake of COVID-19, cities are prioritizing resilient and sustainable urban development, with a strong emphasis on integrating smart technologies and data-driven solutions [ 58 , 59 ]. Efforts are directed towards ensuring equitable access to essential services, green spaces, and digital infrastructure [ 60 , 61 ]. Recovery strategies are centered on sustainable transportation, including pedestrian-friendly infrastructure and enhanced public transit networks [ 62 , 63 ]. Collaborative partnerships with academic and private sector stakeholders are driving innovation to address urban challenges such as climate change adaptation and public health resilience [ 64 , 65 ]. Inclusive governance frameworks empower local communities in decision-making processes, fostering a sense of ownership and collective responsibility [ 66 , 67 ]. This post-pandemic era presents a pivotal moment for cities to build more resilient and livable urban environments, prioritizing the well-being of all residents in preparation for future challenges [ 68 , 69 ].

The SSCI has taken significant steps in the post-COVID-19 pandemic era. The global crisis caused by the pandemic has brought forth new priorities and challenges that have directly impacted the development of smart cities and how we measure their sustainability [ 59 , 70 ]. One of the most notable changes has been the emphasis on resilience. Out of 191 papers, 13 talked about resilience in different scenarios: urban resilience (7), climate change resilience (3), community resilience (1), environmental resilience (1), and disaster resilience (1).

In [ 71 ], they developed an urban resilience index using indicators of urban sustainability for environmental, economic, infrastructure, and social dimensions. They found that the primary factors influencing urban resilience in Chinese cities were the proportion of actual use of foreign capital in the GDP and carbon emissions per 10,000 CNY of GDP, both having negative impacts [ 71 ]. On the other hand, GDP per square kilometer, the proportion of urban pension insurance coverage, the proportion of the population with higher education, and expenditures on city maintenance and construction had positive impacts [ 71 ]. Futhermore, [ 72 ] developed a tool for assessing low-carbon and disaster-resilient housing for communities, with the aim of encouraging the implementation of climate mitigation and adaptation strategies at the community level with vulnerable groups.

The pandemic has highlighted the importance of cities being able to adapt quickly to shocks and stresses, such as pandemics, natural disasters, and economic crises [ 73 , 74 ]. Therefore, indicators now consider resilience as a key element in assessing urban sustainability [ 75 , 76 ]. Resilience is a critical aspect of sustainability in smart cities, acknowledging the challenges posed by climate change and other uncertainties. The integration of resilient infrastructure, disaster preparedness measures, and adaptive urban planning enhances the city's ability to withstand shocks and disruptions while ensuring the well-being of its inhabitants [ 74 , 77 ].

“Sustainable development", “sustainability” and “urban development” were the principal keywords in the analysis; they had the most occurrences among the keywords, with more than 47 occurrences each. They are crucial elements when considering the transformation of urban spaces into smart cities. These concepts hold immense importance across various dimensions.

Sustainable development in smart cities represents a paradigm shift in urban planning and governance. It involves the harmonious integration of technology, social equity, economic viability, and environmental responsibility [ 78 , 79 ]. The transition to smart cities requires a holistic approach that not only leverages cutting-edge technologies but also prioritizes long-term ecological balance and community well-being [ 78 , 80 ]. In the context of smart cities, sustainable development extends beyond the conventional focus on economic growth. It encompasses the efficient use of resources, reduction of environmental impact, and enhancement of the overall quality of life for urban residents [ 9 , 81 ].

Sustainability is an essential pillar that underpins the very essence of smart cities. It is an interwoven principle that guides urban planners, policymakers, and city dwellers towards creating urban environments that are not only technologically advanced but also environmentally responsible, socially inclusive, and resilient [ 82 , 83 ]. Establishing sustainability in smart cities relies heavily on the integration of robust environmental systems. These systems play a pivotal role in ensuring that urban centers can effectively balance growth and development with environmental conservation and resilience [ 83 , 84 , 85 ].

Urban development is a dynamic and complex process that responds to the evolving needs of a growing urban population. As more people migrate to urban areas in search of better opportunities, cities must adapt and expand to accommodate this influx [ 86 ]. Proper land use planning is fundamental to ensuring efficient utilization of space, preventing urban sprawl, and promoting compact, well-designed urban environments [ 87 , 88 ]. Holistic urban planning that integrates environmental responsibility, social inclusivity, and technological advancements is essential for creating cities that are not only sustainable but also smart and resilient [ 83 , 89 ]. The choices made today in urban development will shape the cities of tomorrow, influencing the quality of life for urban residents and the overall well-being of the planet [ 90 , 91 ].

For the key themes, stakeholders wield indicators as potent instruments to propel smart, sustainable cities forward and achieve the SDGs [ 92 , 93 ]. Citizens serve as agents of change, embracing eco-conscious behaviors and advocating for policies conducive to sustainability [ 94 , 95 ]. Businesses emerge as engines of innovation, embedding sustainable practices within their operations and aligning with global sustainability imperatives [ 96 , 97 ]. Government agencies play pivotal roles in monitoring progress and enacting evidence-based policies to foster sustainable urban development [ 98 , 99 ]. Simultaneously, civil society organizations champion equity and environmental justice, amplifying the voices of marginalized communities and spearheading grassroots initiatives [ 100 , 101 ]. Through collaborative efforts fueled by indicators, stakeholders synergize their actions, unlocking new pathways for progress towards a more sustainable future [ 102 , 103 ].

According to [ 104 ], in a 35-year bibliometric analysis of urban sustainability concepts, "sustainability" and "sustainable development" emerged as the most frequently used terms. In bibliometric analyses involving the terms "sustainable development", "sustainability", and "urban development", the most frequently used term for urban development was "sustainable urban development". This indicates a spatial planning approach to cities that incorporates sustainability as a guiding principle [ 104 , 105 , 106 ]. Futhermore, in a bibliometric analysis of the Sustainable Development journal spanning twenty-seven years from 1993 to 2019 revealed that the most commonly used keywords in publications during this period were "sustainable development" and "sustainability" [ 49 ]. This suggests that between 2010 and 2019, there was a focus on environmental sustainability and its role in global economies [ 49 ].

Clustering analysis with k-means for our indicator dataset revealed three different clusters: A, B, and C. In Cluster A, the interaction between economics, governance, and transportation within the SSCI framework creates a synergistic environment that drives smart city success [ 107 , 108 , 109 ]. A robust economy generates employment, attracts investment, and fosters innovation [ 109 ]. Effective governance ensures fair resource distribution and transparent decision-making, benefiting businesses and communities [ 110 ]. The integration of these pillars with transportation enhances urban mobility, supports economic activities, and reduces environmental impact [ 111 , 112 ]. Accessible public transportation promotes inclusive economic participation and helps in urban planning, sustainability, and social inclusivity [ 113 ]. This interdependence forms a virtuous cycle, fostering sustainability and prosperity in smart cities [ 114 ].

In Cluster B, technology and innovation indicators stand out, playing a crucial role in SSCI. The integration of cutting-edge technologies is a driving force behind improved efficiency, reduced environmental impact, and overall sustainability enhancement [ 115 ]. These interventions aim not only to optimize resource utilization but also to create a more responsive and sustainable urban environment [ 116 ]. The innovation ecosystem, fostering collaborations between technology firms, research institutions, and local governance, propels continuous technological advancements, offering solutions to intricate sustainability challenges and shaping the evolution of smart urban landscapes [ 117 , 118 ]. Despite challenges, such as potential exclusions, the ongoing evolution of technology holds promise for effectively addressing future sustainability challenges.

In Cluster C, the central theme revolves around the intersection of social and environmental factors within the context of SSCI. The symbiotic connection between social and environmental dimensions takes precedence, emphasizing that community well-being is closely tied to environmental health and sustainability [ 119 , 120 , 121 ]. This dynamic interaction underscores the need to consider social aspects alongside environmental initiatives for comprehensive smart city development [ 13 , 122 ]. Social initiatives contribute to positive environmental outcomes, and vice-versa. This may include community engagement in environmental initiatives, awareness campaigns, and participatory approaches that involve residents in sustainable practices [ 123 , 124 ]. Conversely, environmental conditions influence social aspects, such as the positive effects of a cleaner environment on residents' health and overall quality of life [ 125 , 126 ]. This recognition reinforces the importance of integrated strategies that embrace both social and environmental considerations, steering us towards a future of resilient, inclusive, and sustainable smart cities.

The interconnectedness of these clusters ensures that advancements in one area support and enhance outcomes in others, creating a synergistic effect across urban development. For instance, smart governance practices enable efficient resource allocation and policy implementation, which directly supports technological innovations like smart transportation and energy-efficient infrastructure. These advancements not only drive economic growth by attracting investment and improving operational efficiency but also promote social inclusivity by making urban services more accessible and equitable. At the same time, technological innovations contribute to environmental conservation by reducing carbon emissions and improving waste management systems. Social initiatives, such as community engagement and the development of green spaces, further reinforce these benefits by fostering a sense of community and enhancing the quality of urban life. This holistic approach ensures that cities can achieve the SDGs, where economic vitality, social equity, and environmental health are not pursued in isolation but as interconnected objectives. By leveraging the strengths of each cluster, cities can create resilient, livable environments that are prepared to meet the challenges of the future.

Circular economy was the category with the highest number of indicators and demonstrated its importance in cultivating a harmonious relationship between social and environmental factors in the SSCI topic. Initiatives such as community engagement in recycling programs, job creation through repair and refurbishment, and the promotion of sustainable consumption contribute to both social and environmental well-being [ 127 , 128 , 129 ]. Circular economy principles empower communities, reduce waste, and enhance overall quality of life, serving as a unifying force in the pursuit of comprehensive and sustainable urban development within the SSCI.

The symbiotic relationship between these elements is essential to creating resilient, resource-efficient, and environmentally conscious urban environments. Within the realm of smart cities, a focus on circular economy indicators introduces a holistic approach to resource management [ 130 ]. By emphasizing the reduction, reuse, and recycling of materials, smart cities can optimize resource utilization, minimize waste generation, and contribute to the establishment of closed-loop systems [ 131 , 132 ]. On sustainability, the circular economy indicators present metrics such as material efficiency, waste diversion rates, and product life extension as integral components of a comprehensive sustainability framework within the smart city paradigm [ 133 , 134 ].

As smart cities continue to evolve, the integration of indicators of the indicators of the circular economy stands out as a transformative force. The key lies in recognizing that circularity is not merely a component but a fundamental ethos that underpins the smart and sustainable cities of the future [ 128 , 129 , 130 ]. This interplay between the circular economy, smart cities, and sustainability indicators represents a forward-looking approach where technological innovation converges with environmental stewardship to create urban environments that are not only smart but also enduring and regenerative.

5 Conclusion

In conclusion, our study highlights the imperative for specific planning and policy recommendations aimed at optimizing the use and better integration of smart city and sustainability indicators. The synthesis of data and analysis underscores the critical role that these indicators play in shaping urban development strategies for a more sustainable future. Moving forward, policymakers and urban planners should prioritize the integration of these indicators into decision-making processes to ensure that cities are effectively moving towards sustainability goals. Specific recommendations could include the development of comprehensive urban planning frameworks that incorporate both smart city technologies and sustainability principles. Additionally, there is a need for greater collaboration between government agencies, academic institutions, and industry stakeholders to foster innovation and knowledge exchange in this field. By leveraging smart city technologies and sustainability indicators in tandem, cities can achieve more efficient resource management, enhance quality of life for residents, and build resilient urban environments capable of addressing future challenges. Ultimately, the adoption of targeted planning and policy measures will be instrumental in guiding cities towards a more sustainable and prosperous future.

In addition to providing specific planning and policy recommendations, it's essential for conclusions to explicitly address the limitations of the study. One limitation is the scope of our data collection, which may not encompass all relevant studies or indicators in the field. Additionally, the analysis may be subject to biases inherent in the selection and interpretation of data. Furthermore, the generalizability of our findings may be limited by the geographical and temporal scope of the studies included in our review. Finally, the dynamic nature of urban development and technological innovation means that our conclusions may not fully capture the most recent advancements or trends in the field. By acknowledging these limitations, we can provide a more nuanced and balanced interpretation of our findings, as well as guide future research efforts in addressing these gaps.

Encouraging further research to delve into emerging challenges and opportunities in sustainable urban development, particularly by integrating resilience-focused indicators and innovative solutions, is paramount. By examining how cities adapt and thrive amidst evolving challenges like climate change, resource scarcity, and population growth, researchers can identify strategies to enhance urban resilience. This entails exploring the role of technology, community engagement, and governance frameworks in fostering resilience and sustainability. Additionally, investigating the socio-economic and environmental impacts of these strategies can provide valuable insights into their efficacy and potential trade-offs. Ultimately, such research can inform policy decisions and urban planning efforts geared towards crafting more resilient and sustainable cities for future generations.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Riffat S, Powell R, Aydin D. Future cities and environmental sustainability. Future Cities Environ. 2016;2:1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40984-016-0014-2 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Chaudhuri S. Urban poor, economic opportunities and sustainable development through traditional knowledge and practices. Global Bioethics. 2015;26(2):86–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/11287462.2015.1037141 .

Colenbrander S, Barau A. Planning and financing urban development in the context of the climate crisis. Int J Urban Sustain Dev. 2019;11(3):237–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463138.2019.1673529 .

Calvillo CF, Sánchez-Miralles A, Villar J. Energy management and planning in smart cities. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2016;55:273–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.133 .

Ghazal TM, Hasan MK, Alshurideh MT, et al. IoT for smart cities: machine learning approaches in smart healthcare—a review. Future Internet. 2021;13(8):218. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi13080218 .

Abu-Rayash A, Dincer I. Development of integrated sustainability performance indicators for better management of smart cities. Sustain Cities Soc. 2021;67: 102704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102704 .

Liu J, Chen N, Chen Z, et al. Towards sustainable smart cities: maturity assessment and development pattern recognition in China. J Clean Prod. 2022;370: 133248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133248 .

United Nations (UN). Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. United Nations, New York; 2015.

Angelidou M, Psaltoglou A, Komninos N, et al. Enhancing sustainable urban development through smart city applications. J Sci Technol Policy Manag. 2017;9(2):146–69. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTPM-05-2017-0016 .

Beck D, Ferasso M, Storopoli J, Vidoga-Gadot E. Achieving the sustainable development goals through stakeholder value creation: building up smart sustainable cities and communities. J Clean Prod. 2023;399: 136501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136501 .

Jain A, Gue IH, Jain P. Research trends, themes, and insights on artificial neural networks for smart cities towards SDG-11. J Clean Prod. 2023;412: 137300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137300 .

Agboola OP, Bashir FM, Dodo YA, Mohamed MA, Alsadun ISR. The influence of information and communication technology (ICT) on stakeholders’ involvement and smart urban sustainability. Environ Adv. 2023;13: 100431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envadv.2023.100431 .

Yigitcanlar T, Kamruzzaman M, Buys L, et al. Understanding ‘smart cities’: intertwining development drivers with desired outcomes in a multidimensional framework. Cities. 2018;81:145–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.04.003 .

Trivellato B. How can “smart” also be socially sustainable? Insights from the case of Milan. Eur UrbanReg Stud. 2016;24(4):337–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776416661016 .

Chen Z. Application of environmental ecological strategy in smart city space architecture planning. Environ Technol Innov. 2021;23: 101684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2021.101684 .

Carneiro D, Amaral A, Carvalho M, Barreto L. An anthropocentric and enhanced predictive approach to smart city management. Smart Cities. 2021;4(4):1366–90. https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities4040072 .

Munier N. Methodology to select a set of urban sustainability indicators to measure the state of the city, and performance assessment. Ecol Ind. 2011;11(5):1020–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.01.006 .

Huovila A, Bosch P, Airaksinen M. Comparative analysis of standardized indicators for smart sustainable cities: what indicators and standards to use and when? Cities. 2019;89:141–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.01.029 .

Bec A, Moyle CJ, Moyle BD. Community resilience to change: development of an index. Soc Indic Res. 2019;142:1103–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-018-1960-x .

Pimm SL, Donohue I, Montoya JM, Loreau M. Measuring resilience is essential to understand it. Nat Sustain. 2019;2(10):895–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0399-7 .

Wendling LA, Huovila A, Castell-Rudenhausen M, et al. Benchmarking nature-based solution and smart city assessment schemes against the sustainable development goal indicator framework. Front Environ Sci. 2018;6:69. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2018.00069 .

Ahvenniemi H, Huovila A, Pinto-Seppa I, Airaksinen M. What are the differences between sustainable and smart cities? Cities. 2017;60:234–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.09.009 .

Sharifi A, Allam Z. On the taxonomy of smart city indicators and their alignment with sustainability and resilience. Environ Plan B Urban Anal City Sci. 2021;49(5):1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/23998083211058798 .

Sharifi A. A critical review of selected smart city assessment tools and indicator sets. J Clean Prod. 2019;233:1269–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.172 .

Bhattacharya TR, Bhattacharya A, Mclellan B, Tezuka T. Sustainable smart city development framework for developing countries. Urban Res Pract. 2018;13(2):180–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2018.1537003 .

Sharifi A. A typology of smart city assessment tools and indicator sets. Sustain Cities Soc. 2020;53: 101936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101936 .

Haddaway NR, Hedlund K, Jackson LE, et al. How does tillage intensity affect soil organic carbon? A systematic review. Environ Evid. 2016;6:30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-017-0108-9 .

Grames EM, Stillman AN, Tingley MW, Elphick CS. An automated approach to identifying search terms for systematic reviews using keyword co-occurrence networks. Methods Ecol Evol. 2019;10:1645–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13268 .

R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. 2023. https://www.R-project.org .

Page MJ, Moher D, McKenzie JE. Introduction to PRISMA 2020 and implications for research synthesis methodologists. Res Synth Methods. 2021;13(2):156–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1535 .

Ye N, Kueh T, Hou L, Liu Y, et al. A bibliometric analysis of corporate social responsibility in sustainable development. J Clean Prod. 2020;272: 122679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122679 .

Srinivasan K, Yadav VK. An integrated literature review on Urban and peri-urban farming: exploring research themes and future directions. Sustain Cities Soc. 2023;99: 104878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2023.104878 .

Oliveira VT, Teixeira D, Rocchi L, Boggia A. Trends in sustainability assessment supported by geographic information systems: a bibliometric approach. Environ Sci Policy. 2023;141:117–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2023.01.003 .

Zupic I, Čater T. Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Org Res Methods. 2015;18(3):429–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629 .

Aldieri L, Kotsemir M, Vinci CP. The impact of research collaboration on academic performance: an empirical analysis for some European countries. Socioecon Plann Sci. 2018;62:13–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2017.05.003 .

Janik A, Ryszko A, Szafraniec M. Scientific landscape of smart and sustainable cities literature: a bibliometric analysis. Sustainability. 2020;12(3):779. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030779 .

Govender P, Sivakumar V. Application of k-means and hierarchical clustering techniques for analysis of air pollution: a review (1980–2019). Atmos Pollut Res. 2020;11(1):40–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apr.2019.09.009 .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Fernando WSP, Udawatta L, Pathirana P. Identification of moving obstacles with Pyramidal Lucas Kanade optical flow and k means clustering. 2007 Third International Conference on Information and Automation for Sustainability, Melbourne, Australia, 111–117. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIAFS.2007.4544789 .

Yu S, Chu S, Wang C, Chan Y, et al. Two improved k-means algorithms. Appl Soft Comput. 2018;68:747–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2017.08.032 .

Ahmed M, Seraj R, Islam SMS. The k-means algorithm: a comprehensive survey and performance evaluation. Electronics. 2020;9(8):1295. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics9081295 .

Li L, Song Q, Yang X. K-means clustering of overweight and obese population using quantile-transformed metabolic data. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes. 2019;12:1573–82. https://doi.org/10.2147/DMSO.S206640 .

Kabisch N, Frantzeskaki N, Pauleit S, et al. Nature-based solutions to climate change mitigation and adaptation in urban areas: perspectives on indicators, knowledge gaps, barriers, and opportunities for action. Ecol Soc. 2016;21(2):39. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08373-2102391 .

Zhou C, Shi C, Wang S, Zhang G. Estimation of eco-efficiency and its influencing factors in Guangdong province based on super-SBM and panel regression models. Ecol Ind. 2018;86:67–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.12.011 .

Wei Y, Huang C, Li J, Xie L. An evaluation model for urban carrying capacity: a case study of China’s mega-cities. Habitat Int. 2016;53:87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.10.025 .

Akande A, Cabral P, Gomes P, Casteleyn S. The Lisbon ranking for smart sustainable cities in Europe. Sustain Cities Soc. 2019;44:475–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.10.009 .

Wu Y, Zhang W, Shen J, Mo Z, et al. Smart city with Chinese characteristics against the background of big data: Idea, action and risk. J Clean Prod. 2018;173:60–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.047 .

Ruan F, Yan L, Wang D. The complexity for the resource-based cities in China on creating sustainable development. Cities. 2020;97: 102571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102571 .

Sweileh WM. Bibliometric analysis of scientific publications on “sustainable development goals” with emphasis on “good health and well-being” goal (2015–2019). Glob Health. 2020;16:68. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-020-00602-2 .

Farrukh M, Meng F, Raza A, Tahir MS. Twenty-seven years of sustainable development journal: a bibliometric analysis. Sustain Dev. 2020;28(6):1725–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2120 .

Sharifi A. Urban sustainability assessment: an overview and bibliometric analysis. Ecol Ind. 2021;121: 107102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.107102 .

Pérez LM, Oltra-Badenes R, Gutiérrez JVO, Gil-Gomza H. A bibliometric diagnosis and analysis about smart cities. Sustainability. 2020;12(16):6357. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166357 .

Ren Y, Li H, Shen L, Zhang Y, et al. What Is the efficiency of fast urbanization? A China study. Sustainability. 2018;10(9):3180. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093180 .

Li L, Xia XH, Chen B, Sun L. Public participation in achieving sustainable development goals in China: evidence from the practice of air pollution control. J Clean Prod. 2018;201:499–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.046 .

Su S, Liu Z, Xu Y, et al. China’s megaregion policy: performance evaluation framework, empirical findings and implications for spatial polycentric governance. Land Use Policy. 2017;63:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.01.014 .

Wang C, Quan Y, Li X, et al. Characterizing and analyzing the sustainability and potential of China’s cities over the past three decades. Ecol Ind. 2022;136: 108635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.108635 .

Fu X, Zhai W. Examining the spatial and temporal relationship between social vulnerability and stay-at-home behaviors in New York City during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sustain Cities Soc. 2021;67: 102757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.102757 .

Ye F, Chen Y, Li L, Yin Y. Multi-criteria decision-making models for smart city ranking: evidence from the Pearl River Delta region, China. Cities. 2022;128: 103793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103793 .

Moreno C, Allam Z, Chabaud D, Gali C, Pratlong F. Introducing the “15-Minute City”: sustainability, resilience and place identity in future post-pandemic cities. Smart Cities. 2021;4(1):93–111.

Sharifi A, Khavarian-Garmsir AR, Kummitha RKR. Contributions of smart city solutions and technologies to resilience against the COVID-19 pandemic: a literature review. Sustainability. 2021;13(14):8018. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13148018 .

Zhang S, Yu P, Chen Y, Jing Y, Zeng F. Accessibility of Park Green Space in Wuhan, China: implications for spatial equity in the post-COVID-19 era. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(9):5440. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19095440 .

Perwenis P, Szewranski S. Spatial planning for reducing the epidemic risk—the state of knowledge and practice from the perspective of the COVID-19 pandemic. J Water Land Dev. 2022;1:56–69.

Rhoads D, Solé-Ribalta A, González MC, Borge-Holthoefer J. A sustainable strategy for open streets in (post)pandemic cities. Commun Phys. 2021;4:183. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42005-021-00688-z .

Zhang R, Zhang J. Long-term pathways to deep decarbonization of the transport sector in the post-COVID world. Transp Policy. 2021;110:28–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2021.05.018 .

Vermicelli S, Cricelli L, Grimaldi M. How can crowdsourcing help tackle the COVID-19 pandemic? An explorative overview of innovative collaborative practices. R&D Management. 2020;51(2):183–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12443 .

Habiyaremye A. Co-operative learning and resilience to COVID-19 in a small-sized south African enterprise. Sustainability. 2021;13(4):1976. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041976 .

Bulder C, Todd I, McCauleym D, Burns MK. The influence of COVID-19 on modes of governance for climate change—expert views from the Netherlands and the UK. Environ Policy Gov. 2022;33(4):351–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.2042 .

Bolívar R, Pedro M. Learning from the COVID-19 pandemic in governing smart cities. Journal of Smart Cities and Society. 2022;1(2):119–33.

Bojović M, Rajković I, Perović SK. Towards resilient residential buildings and neighborhoods in light of COVID-19 pandemic—the scenario of Podgorica, Montenegro. Sustainability. 2022;14(3):1302. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031302 .

Strielkowski W, Zenchenko S, Tarasova A, Radyukova Y. Management of smart and sustainable cities in the post-COVID-19 era: lessons and implications. Sustainability. 2022;14(12):7267. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127267 .

Hoang AT, Nizetic S, Olcer AI, et al. Impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on the global energy system and the shift progress to renewable energy: opportunities, challenges, and policy implications. Energy Policy. 2021;154: 112322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112322 .

Zhang M, Chen W, Cai K, et al. Analysis of the spatial distribution characteristics of urban resilience and its influencing factors: a case study of 56 cities in China. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(22):4442. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16224442 .

Charoenkit S, Kumar S. Building low-carbon and disaster-resilient communities: integrating climate mitigation and adaptation into the assessment of self-help housing design. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change. 2017;22:695–728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-015-9694-4 .

Bereitschaft B, Scheller D. How might the COVID-19 pandemic affect 21st century urban design, planning, and development? Urban Sci. 2020;4(4):56. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci4040056 .

Moraci F, Errigo MF, Fazia C, Burgio G, Foresta S. Making less vulnerable cities: resilience as a new paradigm of smart planning. Sustainability. 2018;10(3):755. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030755 .

Linkov I, Trump BD, Golan M, Keisler JM. Enhancing resilience in post-COVID societies: by design or by intervention? Environ Sci Technol. 2021;55(8):4202–4. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c00444 .

Zeng X, Yu Y, Yang S, et al. urban resilience for urban sustainability: concepts, dimensions, and perspectives. Sustainability. 2022;14(5):2481. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052481 .

Obringer R, Nateghi R. What makes a city ‘smart’ in the Anthropocene? A critical review of smart cities under climate change. Sustain Cities Soc. 2021;75: 103278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103278 .

Trencher G, Karvonen A. Stretching, “smart”: advancing health and well-being through the smart city agenda. Local Environ Int J Justice Sustain. 2017;24(7):610–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2017.1360264 .

Allam Z, Dhunny ZA. On big data, artificial intelligence and smart cities. Cities. 2019;89:80–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.01.032 .

Ramaswami A, Russell AG, Culligan PJ, Sharma KR, Kumar E. Meta-principles for developing smart, sustainable, and healthy cities. Science. 2016;352(6288):940–3. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf7160 .

Zawieska J, Pieriegud J. Smart city as a tool for sustainable mobility and transport decarbonisation. Transp Policy. 2018;63:39–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2017.11.004 .

Bibri SE, Krogstie J. Smart sustainable cities of the future: an extensive interdisciplinary literature review. Sustain Cities Soc. 2017;31:183–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.02.016 .

Lopez LJR, Castro AIG. Sustainability and resilience in smart city planning: a review. Sustainability. 2021;13(1):181. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010181 .

Nitoslawski SA, Galle NJ, Bosch CKVD, Steenberg JWN. Smarter ecosystems for smarter cities? A review of trends, technologies, and turning points for smart urban forestry. Sustain Cities Soc. 2019;51: 101770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101770 .

Tomadon LS, Dettke GA, Caxambu MG, Ferreira IJM, Couto EV. Significance of forest fragments for conservation of endangered vascular plant species in southern Brazil hotsposts. Écoscience. 2019;26(3):221–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/11956860.2019.1598644 .

Mahtta R, Mahendra A, Seto KC. Building up or spreading out? Typologies of urban growth across 478 cities of 1 million+. Environ Res. 2019;14: 124077. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab59bf .

Anguelovski I, Shi L, Chu E, et al. Equity impacts of urban land use planning for climate adaptation: critical perspectives from the global north and south. J Plan Educ Res. 2016;36(3):333–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X16645166 .

Gavrilidis AA, Nita MR, Onose DA, Badiu DL, et al. Methodological framework for urban sprawl control through sustainable planning of urban green infrastructure. Ecol Ind. 2019;96:67–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.10.054 .

Mattoni B, Nardecchia F, Bisegna F. Towards the development of a smart district: the application of an holistic planning approach. Sustain Cities Soc. 2019;48: 101570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101570 .

Marans RW. Quality of urban life and environmental sustainability studies: future linkage opportunities. Habitat Int. 2015;45:47–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.06.019 .

Mouratidis K. How COVID-19 reshaped quality of life in cities: a synthesis and implications for urban planning. Land Use Policy. 2021;111: 105772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105772 .

Hák T, Ianousková S, Moldan B. Sustainable development goals: a need for relevant indicators. Ecol Ind. 2016;60:565–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.08.003 .

Giuliodori A, Berrone P, Ricart JE. Where smart meets sustainability: the role of smart governance in achieving the sustainable development goals in cities. Bus Res Q. 2022;26(1):27–44.

Google Scholar  

Bujis AE, Mattijssen TJM, Jagt APNV, Ambrose-Oji B, Andersson E, Elands BHM, Maller MS. Active citizenship for urban green infrastructure: fostering the diversity and dynamics of citizen contributions through mosaic governance. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2016;22:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.01.002 .

Sarid A, Goldman D. A value-based framework connecting environmental citizenship and change agents for sustainability—implications for education for environmental citizenship. Sustainability. 2021;13(8):4338. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084338 .

Sullivan K, Thomas S, Rosano M. Using industrial ecology and strategic management concepts to pursue the sustainable development goals. J Clean Prod. 2018;174:237–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.201 .

Virakul B, Russ-Eft DF. A model for business responses to global challenges and sustainable development. Soc Responsib J. 2020;16(2):199–224. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-09-2018-0223 .

Kronsell A, Mukhtar-Landgren D. Experimental governance: the role of municipalities in urban living labs. Eur Plan Stud. 2018;26(5):988–1007. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2018.1435631 .

Rasoolimanesh SM, Badaruizaman N, Abdullah A, Behrang M. How governance influences the components of sustainable urban development? J Clean Prod. 2019;238: 117983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117983 .

Gernet M, Bilali HE, Strassner C. Grassroots initiatives as sustainability transition pioneers: implications and lessons for urban food systems. Urban Sci. 2018;2(1):23. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci2010023 .

Kohon J. Social inclusion in the sustainable neighborhood? Idealism of urban social sustainability theory complicated by realities of community planning practice. City Cult Soc. 2018;15:14–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccs.2018.08.005 .

Ramos TB. Sustainability assessment: exploring the frontiers and paradigms of indicator approaches. Sustainability. 2019;11(3):824. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030824 .

Moallemi EA, Malekpour S, Hadjikakou M, Raven R, Szetey K, Ningrum D, Dhiaulhaq A, Dyan BA. Achieving the sustainable development goals requires transdisciplinary innovation at the local scale. One Earth. 2020;3(3):300–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.08.006 .

FuZhang YX. Trajectory of urban sustainability concepts: a 35-year bibliometric analysis. Cities. 2017;60:113–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.08.003 .

Olawumi TO, Chan DWM. A scientometric review of global research on sustainability and sustainable development. J Clean Prod. 2018;183:231–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.162 .

Kwilinski A. The relationship between sustainable development and digital transformation: bibliometric analysis. Virtual Econ. 2023;6(3):56–69. https://doi.org/10.34021/ve.2023.06.03(4) .

Shen F, Liu B, Luo F, et al. The effect of economic growth target constraints on green technology innovation. J Environ Manage. 2021;292: 112765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112765 .

Armitage DR, Okamoto DK, Silver JJ, et al. Integrating governance and quantitative evaluation of resource management strategies to improve social and ecological outcomes. Bioscience. 2019;69(7):523–32. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz059 .

Lao X, Zhang X, Shen T, Skitmore M. Comparing China’s city transportation and economic networks. Cities. 2016;53:43–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.01.006 .

Skuzinski T, Weinreich DP, Hernandez CV. How can we better study the links between regional governance and public service outcomes? Governance topologies in metropolitan public transportation systems. J Plan Educ Res. 2022;2: 739456. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X221074061 .

Allen J, Farber S. Planning transport for social inclusion: an accessibility-activity participation approach. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ. 2020;78: 102212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.102212 .

Cho S, Choi K. Transport accessibility and economic growth: implications for sustainable transport infrastructure investments. Int J Sustain Transp. 2019;15(8):641–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2020.1774946 .

Guzman LA, Oviedo D. Accessibility, affordability and equity: assessing ‘pro-poor’ public transport subsidies in Bogotá. Transp Policy. 2018;68:37–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.04.012 .

Nieuwenhuijsen MJ. Urban and transport planning pathways to carbon neutral, liveable and healthy cities; a review of the current evidence. Environ Int. 2020;140: 105661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.105661 .

Nižetić S, Djilali N, Papadopoulos A, Rodrigues JJPC. Smart technologies for promotion of energy efficiency, utilization of sustainable resources and waste management. J Clean Prod. 2019;231:565–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.397 .

Sun J, Wu S, Yang K. An ecosystemic framework for business sustainability. Bus Horiz. 2018;61(1):59–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2017.09.006 .

Costa J, Matias JCO. Open innovation 4.0 as an enhancer of sustainable innovation ecosystems. Sustainability. 2020;12(19):8112. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12198112 .

Palumbo R, Manesh MF, Pellegrini MM, Caputo A, Flamini G. Organizing a sustainable smart urban ecosystem: perspectives and insights from a bibliometric analysis and literature review. J Clean Prod. 2021;297: 126622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126622 .

Fischer J, Gardner TA, Bennett EM, et al. Advancing sustainability through mainstreaming a social–ecological systems perspective. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2015;14:144–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.06.002 .

Hicks CC, Levine A, Agrawal A, et al. Engage key social concepts for sustainability. Science. 2016;352(6281):38–40. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad4977 .

Jones DN. Promoting community and environmental sustainability. Int Soc Work. 2018;61(4):471–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872818770562 .

Lim Y, Edelenbos J, Gianoli A. Identifying the results of smart city development: findings from systematic literature review. Cities. 2019;95: 102397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102397 .

Dururu J, Anderson C, Bates M, Montasser W, et al. Enhancing engagement with community sector organizations working in sustainable waste management: a case study. Waste Manag Res. 2015;33(3):284–90.

Pesch U, Spekkink W, Quist J. Local sustainability initiatives: innovation and civic engagement in societal experiments. Eur Plan Stud. 2019;27(2):300–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2018.1464549 .

Wong FY, Yang L, Yuen JWM, et al. Assessing quality of life using WHOQOL-BREF: a cross-sectional study on the association between quality of life and neighborhood environmental satisfaction, and the mediating effect of health-related behaviors. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):1113. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5942-3 .

Chang KKP, Wong FKY, Chan KL, et al. The impact of the environment on the quality of life and the mediating effects of sleep and stress. Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(22):8529. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17228529 .

Zink T, Geyer R. Circular economy rebound. J Ind Ecol. 2017;21(3):593–602. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12545 .

Harris S, Martin M, Diener D. Circularity for circularity’s sake? Scoping review of assessment methods for environmental performance in the circular economy. Sustain Prod Consump. 2021;26:172–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.09.018 .

Mies A, Gold S. Mapping the social dimension of the circular economy. J Clean Prod. 2021;321: 128960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128960 .

Williams J. Circular cities. Urban Stud. 2019;56(13):2746–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098018806133 .

Smol M, Kulczycka J, Avdiushchenko A. Circular economy indicators in relation to eco-inoovation in European regions. Clean Technol Environ Policy. 2017;19:669–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-016-1323-8 .

Norouzi M, Chàfer M, Cabeza L, et al. Circular economy in the building and construction sector: a scientific evolution analysis. J Build Eng. 2021;44: 102704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102704 .

Moraga G, Huysveld S, Mathieux F, et al. Circular economy indicators: what do they measure? Resour Conserv Recycl. 2019;146:452–61.

Pascale AD, Arbolino R, Szopik-Depczynska K, et al. A systematic review for measuring circular economy: the 61 indicators. J Clean Prod. 2021;281: 124942. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124942 .

Download references

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. This study was funded by Fundação Araucária Superior (PD&I 151/2021).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Federal University of Paraná, Pioneiro, 2153-Dallas, Palotina, Paraná, Brazil

Leonardo da Silva Tomadon & Yara Moretto

Technical University of Munich, Chair of Land Management, Arcisstraße 21, 80333, Munich, Germany

Edivando Vitor do Couto & Walter Timo de Vries

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

LST Conceptualisation, Methodology, Investigation, Software, Formal analysis, Writing—Original Draft, Writing—Review & Editing. EVC Methodology, Investigation, Software, Formal analysis, Writing—Original Draft, Writing—Review & Editing, Supervision. WTM Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing—Review & Editing YM Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing—Original Draft, Writing—Review & Editing, Supervision. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Leonardo da Silva Tomadon or Walter Timo de Vries .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Supplementary Information

Supplementary material 1., supplementary material 2., rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

da Silva Tomadon, L., do Couto, E.V., de Vries, W.T. et al. Smart city and sustainability indicators: a bibliometric literature review. Discov Sustain 5 , 143 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-024-00328-w

Download citation

Received : 10 April 2024

Accepted : 12 June 2024

Published : 08 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-024-00328-w

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Circular economy
• COVID-19 pandemic
• Sistematic literature review
• Sustainable urban development
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Advanced Search

UX Research practices related to Long-Term UX: : A Systematic Literature Review

New citation alert added.

This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:

You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.

To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.

New Citation Alert!

Please log in to your account

Information & Contributors

Bibliometrics & citations, view options, conclusion:, recommendations, ux research in the software industry: an investigation of long-term ux practices.

Software industry has sought to apply practices that provide a more meaningful User eXperience (UX) and help maintain a sustainable business. UX Research practices allows conducting research and evaluations with users from the application of methods and ...

Design-inclusive UX research: design as a part of doing user experience research

Since the third wave in human–computer interaction HCI, research on user experience UX has gained momentum within the HCI community. The focus has shifted from systematic usability requirements and measures towards guidance on designing for experiences. ...

Foundational UX Research—Process Best Practices

The need to create a set of Process Best Practices specifically for Foundational User Experience (UX) Research becomes essential in driving an increase in the success of this type of research, and the continued positioning of UX Research as a ...

Information

Published in.

Butterworth-Heinemann

United States

Publication History

Author tags.

• Systematic Literature Review
• User eXperience
• UX Research
• Long-Term UX
• Established company
• Software startup
• Review-article

Contributors

Other metrics, bibliometrics, article metrics.

• 0 Total Citations
• 0 Total Downloads
• Downloads (Last 12 months) 0
• Downloads (Last 6 weeks) 0

View options

Login options.

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Share this publication link.

Copying failed.

Share on social media

Affiliations, export citations.

• Please download or close your previous search result export first before starting a new bulk export. Preview is not available. By clicking download, a status dialog will open to start the export process. The process may take a few minutes but once it finishes a file will be downloadable from your browser. You may continue to browse the DL while the export process is in progress. Download
• Download citation
• Copy citation

We are preparing your search results for download ...

We will inform you here when the file is ready.

Your file of search results citations is now ready.

Your search export query has expired. Please try again.