outline of literature review paper

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

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

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 This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission.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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the parts of a lit review?

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

Introduction:

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

Conclusion:

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

How should I organize my lit review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

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

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

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

Literature Review Outline: Examples, Approaches, & Templates

A literature review is an update on the status of current research related to the issue in question . Its purpose is to provide the reader with a guide to a particular research topic. And for the writer, a well-written literature review is the best way to show their competence in the field.

As with any other academic paper, the key to a successful literature review is its outline. Below you’ll find great tips for creating a perfect one. See where you can place your thesis statement in the introduction and when it’s time to reference sources. And you can examine an example of a literature review outline (APA format). Just keep reading this article prepared by Custom-writing experts!

• 🔭 General Information
• 📑 Main Approaches
• 🗺️ Mapping the Concepts
• ✍️ Writing Tips

🔗 References

🔭 literature review outline: general information.

Literature reviews are written mostly in sciences and social sciences, and sometimes in humanities. A literature review aims to discuss published information on the studies in a particular area. The most simple version of a literature review can be a mere summary of the sources. However, it usually features an organizational pattern and implies not only summary but also synthesis.

A literature review aims to provide a reader with a clear and understandable guide to a particular research topic. And for its writer, a solid review is an excellent opportunity to show them as an expert in a chosen field.

As MLA, Chicago, or APA style cover page generators help students with the very first part of any paper, the key to a successful literature review is a good outline . When planning a literature review, remember that no matter whether you’re dealing with a Chicago, MLA, or APA literature review outline, you’ll have to remember several important things.

📑 Literature Review Outline: Approaches to Structuring

A well-formed vision of the writing strategy before you start the main body paragraphs is half of the success. There are four approaches to arranging a literature review. Depending on the intended length of your paper, you can combine some or all of them. For instance, more than often, thematic and methodological strategies comprise a theoretical approach when it comes to details.

Chronological Approach

Tracing the reviewed works in succession, starting with the earliest available materials, is the easiest way to examine the specific topic. Be careful not to list the works in chronological order with their summaries. The purpose of such a review is to find out the key patterns, central debates, and turning points of the prevailing opinion at specific periods.

Here is a sample to make the approach clear. If the first available source dates 1995, and the most recent one was written in 2017, divide your analysis into decades: 1995 – 2000, 2001 – 2010, and 2010 – present.

The chronological approach can perfectly combine with thematic or methodological ones. In such a case, the timescale is divided not by decades but by periods characterized by a predominant methodology or preferred theme.

Thematic Approach

This method is organized around a particular issue, rather than time progression. If you have found recurring themes in the course of your reading, it is an excellent idea to focus the review on them. As a rule, the thematic approach requires an in-depth study of the available scientific literature. It also looks more substantial and time-consuming than the chronological one.

Here, the sections dwell upon different issues or various aspects of one topic. For example, an overview of psychology literature on nonverbal communication can be divided into the following parts: facial expressions, postures, eye contact, gestures, touch, etc.

Methodological Approach

Sometimes the results of findings are not as outstanding as the ways of obtaining those results. A review of research methods provides a profound scientific understanding of the subject field, notably the approaches to data collection, study, and systematization. It also provides an insight into how scientists went from isolated data to a concept, and from the concept to practical conclusions.

This form proves to be the most successful in the analysis of multidisciplinary works. You can list all the methods used and conclude on their efficiency. Alternatively, you can compare the qualitative and quantitative, empirical and theoretical, or any other incompatible methodology. The materials for analysis are the results obtained by such or another method.

Theoretical Approach

Very often, a literature review becomes the basis for a theoretical framework of a research paper. In this case, the theoretical approach is the most effective way to structure the report.

Wherever you can single out several theories on a single phenomenon, different models of a system, or diverging definitions of the same concept, the theoretical approach is the best choice. The purpose is to analyze the corpus of theory that has accumulated regarding an idea, opinion, or event. Usually, this form establishes the existing scientific knowledge gaps and finds out the outstanding research questions.

🗺️ Literature Review Outline: Mapping the Concepts

Wish to outline literature review papers correctly? First, try drawing a concept map for your outline! Create a graphic map with all the concepts and ideas you’ll want to include in the literature review outline. When you start writing, make sure that you’ve included everything you have on the map.

Well, now you’re ready to write the most fantastic outline for a literature review ever! So what are you waiting for? Go ahead and try writing your own outline using the template below – success is just around the corner!

📰 Literature Review Outline: Template

Feel free to use the literature review outline template below! Note that the template is organized thematically.

I. ISSUE #1

A. Its features

1. Positive features

a) Feature #1

b) Feature #2

2. Negative features

B. Its significance

1. Positive effects

a) Effect #1

b) Effect #2

2. Negative effects

II. ISSUE #2…

Check the literature review samples by the University of West Florida to get a clear idea on how to write this type of paper.

And now, it’s time for you to see an example of an outline for literature review writing!

👌 Literature Review Outline: Example

When creating your own review, consider the following literature review example:

Literature Review Outline: Postmodern Literature

• Introduction: postmodern literature
• Definition of the phenomenon
• The development of postmodern literature
• Research studies on postmodern themes
• Research studies on postmodern techniques
• Research studies on postmodern perspectives
• Conclusion: promising ideas for research on postmodern literature

With this literature review outline example, you’ll surely handle even the most complicated literature review structure!

✍️ Literature Review Outline: Writing Tips

When you start writing a literature review, you should keep the following issues in mind:

• Use evidence to support your interpretation of available sources.
• Be selective. Limit your literature review to sources relevant to the topic of your research. You should select only the most important points in each source.
• Compare and contrast the views of different authors. Organize the material for your reader to show trends in the literature.
• Use quotes sparingly. Apply them only when you want to emphasize the author’s point and cannot rewrite it in your own words. Always focus on giving your own summary and interpretation of the literature, showing your original thinking and analysis.
• Paraphrase in your own words to explain authors’ ideas . Give references to other sources when you are writing, but start and end the paragraphs with your own ideas.
• Summarize and synthesize your literature review sources. Identify the main points in a concise manner for your readers. Evaluate your sources , consider their strengths and weaknesses, compare and contrast the results of the studies, and discuss the strength of the evidence.
• Look for gaps in the existing research. Think about what aspects of your literature review topic have not yet been explored.
• Be creative!
• Draft and redraft. Improve the quality of your literature review by editing and proofreading.

Literature Review Essay Topics

• Literature review: aspects of nursing in the emergency department.
• Review the literature that analyzes the specifics of evidence-based nursing practice .
• Write a literature review on the role of hepcidin in the human body.  
• Analysis of challenges faced by small and medium businesses in South Africa: a literature review.
• Explore the literature that examines the interdependence between evidence and practice in healthcare .
• Review the studies examining how peritoneal dialysis influences patients’ mortality rate.
• Analyze the articles studying the connection between obesity and depression.
• Literature review the use of ecology in art .
• Discuss the academic literature examining the algorithms of speaking recognition techniques.
• Study the articles on the importance of environmental biology for preserving nature.
• Write a literature review on the role of digital signatures and cryptography.   
• Examine whether the recent studies prove the connection between peritoneal dialysis and mortality rate.
• Literature analysis on a qualitative study in healthcare.
• Explore the scientific literature researching how to adjust and regulate the effect of autism spectrum disorder .
• Analyze the articles on the causes of chronic fatigue.
• Review the academic literature discussing the effect of the token economy on the behavior of students with autism.   
• The causes and effects of pressure ulcers.   
• >Literature review on the link between COVID-19 infection and eye diseases.
• Literature review on third culture kids. 
• Study the articles reviewing the efficacy of contemporary pressure ulcer prevention methods. 
• Discuss the recent scholarly studies examining the correlation between nursing ratios and cases of hospital-acquired infections.
• Write the literature review on the benefits and side effects of corticosteroids used for asthma treatment.
• Examine the pertinent scholarly articles researching the aspects of irritable bowel syndrome diagnostics.
• Analyze the academic literature on chronic pain management.  
• Provide the synthesis of recent scholarly studies focused on ventilator-associated pneumonia.  
• Review the literature on cholecystitis symptoms and treatment.
• Importance and specifics of evidence-based nursing implementation.  
• Explore the recent studies on anemia of chronic diseases.
• Discuss the academic articles analyzing postoperative readmission rates.
• Literature review on the breakthroughs in treating Alzheimer’s disease .
• Examine the relevant literature on the benefits of Electronic Health Record systems.
• Analyze the role of pressure ulcer protocols in reducing the rates of hospital-acquired pressure ulcer cases.  
• Write a literature review on the effectiveness of the most popular ways of patient fall prevention .
• Review the relevant scholarly articles discussing the role of interprofessional collaboration in healthcare.
• Examine the recent academic literature on childhood obesity issues.  
• Review the literature on the Capstone’s PICOT question .
• Literature review of articles on cyber security of young children.  
• Discuss the latest studies examining the connection between American football and the drop in public health rates.
• Explore the relevant scholarly articles studying the challenges of single African American parents. 
• Can the implementation of special physical exercises improve the balance and stability of elderly patients? 
• Effects of traumatic brain injury: a literature review .
• Analyze the academic literature discussing the course and outcomes of operation Jawbreaker.  
• Write a literature review on the emergency room wait time and healthcare quality.  
• Review the academic articles that examine the causes of substance abuse and the efficacy of modern treatment methods.
• Examine the recent scholarly studies researching the homelessness issue.
• Discuss the academic literature analyzing the concept of biodiversity.  
• Research the archeological articles studying the ancient Roman roads.
• Analyze the literature examining the benefits and drawbacks of flipped classroom approach .
• Literature review on prevention of breast cancer .
• Review the scholarly articles studying the impact of the ZIP code on human health.

Writing a good literature review is not an easy task. It requires quite a lot of reading and researching. Check our 45 great tips on how to format and structure the literature review for more advice.

If you still have any problems in writing your literature review outline, ask for professional writing help online.

✏️ Literature Review FAQ

The way such paper should look like is best presented in the form of an outline . A simplified form would include an introduction, 3+ paragraphs (preferably with 2+ subparagraphs in each) as a review body, and a conclusion.

You should write about your interpretation of the literary piece. Include your understanding of the author’s message and the way he puts that idea across (scenes, characters, allusions, etc.). For a research paper, however, include more precise details than personal impressions.

Outlines for a paper should list concise notes about the structure of the text and its content (usually in the format of bullet points). Remember that an outline is not a research proposal or dissertation, so do not write about the goals, objectives, methods, etc.

Do you have a list of ideas you want to describe in the paper already? If so, just make those notes structured in logical consequence and format them as bullet points highlighting the gist of each part.

• Literature Review Outline
• Literature Review Outline: What You Need to Get Started
• Writing a Literature Review
• Literature Reviews
• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to LinkedIn
• Share to email

A research proposal is a document that aims to show the significance and value of a particular project. It is common to have to write research proposals to acquire funding for various research projects. But that’s not all. Perhaps the most important function of a research proposal is that it...

Are you tired of getting average grades for your term papers? Well, that’s good that you’re here! It may be true that some excellent writing and time-management skills can help you create an impressive piece, but it’s not necessary. Most of the assignments have similar outlines, whether it’s a term...

Congratulations! A dissertation is your last step before getting your doctoral degree. But, no matter how great the excitement is, the frustration and panic might be overwhelming. And it’s understandable as there is a lot of pressure on you right now. The good news is that there is nothing to...

Most of the times, there is the same research paper format for different types of research. This makes it easy to learn the correct research essay format, no matter what you are writing.

At some point, whether in school or university, you will be required to do report writing. Generally, reports are used to communicate information, which was compiled as a result of studies and analysis. For instance, academic reports are to discuss the findings of studies or surveys. The tips on report...

You are already required to write a bibliography. Why would you waste your time and effort on additional details and create an annotated one? Don’t worry. We have an excellent answer! Annotated bibliography would include such details as a brief overview of the content, usefulness, and some analysis of every...

A case study analysis is a typical assignment in business management courses. The task aims to show high school and college students how to analyze a current situation, determine what problems exist, and develop the best possible strategy to achieve the desired outcome. Many students feel anxious about writing case...

So, have you been recently assigned a research project? Or, even worse, is it already due soon? The following research paper hacks will help you do it in record time. In the article, you’ll see ten things you can do to conduct a study and compose a piece like a...

Eating a delicacy, watching a good movie, and proving a point to an audience are the three things that make life seem better. Today, you’ll deal with the last one. You’re about to become a professional at public speaking and attention grabbing. Here, you can learn how to write a...

What is a library research paper? It’s nothing more than an academic writing project that summarizes the information on a specific topic taken from primary and secondary sources. There are numerous library research examples you can find online. But to complete this assignment, you should simply follow these essential steps:...

Do you need to write a research analysis paper but have no idea how to do that? Then you’re in the right place. While completing this type of assignment, your key aim is to critically analyze a research article. An article from a serious scientific journal would be a good...

You might be wondering about how to write a conclusion paragraph for a research paper. It may seem like your readers should understand your main arguments by the end, so there is no need for it. However, there are several aspects that prove the importance of a conclusion section in...

please I was asked to write a 3000-word essay Evaluating Approaches to Literature Searching and Literature Review in Educational Research. And I don’t know how write or go about it. Can someone please help me with an outline in writing this. please someone should help

HI, how long would you suggest an undergraduate’s final year research paper should be? ( minimum in pages for both quanti and quali researches) and is 15 pages of literature review( double spacing okay?

It would probably be between 10 and 20 pages. But it all comes down to the specific topic and instructions given. Fifteen pages for a literature review sounds good, if it’s an independent type of assignment. However, if it’s part of the undergraduate’s final year research paper mentioned above, then fifteen pages is probably too much. But, again, it all depends on the instructions, topic, etc.

thankyouuuu!!!!!!! best one so far

useful blog keep going

Very well explained!

Really appreciate the great information guide on writing. It’s outstanding and brilliant how the outline process is explained herewith. Thanks.

Thank you so much. This was so helpful, especially with your examples of an outline.

I am working on a literary review on a couple of articles having to do with college football players getting paid. I have started my intro with info about the college athletic industry and how it is controversial, but how do I introduce/transition into the articles and the actually literary review?

Try to go with the facts, and stick with them. It would work kind of well, Janeth.

Thanks for stopping by. Try to write about features, positive and negative ones.

Literature review outline [Write a literature review with these structures]

Welcome to our comprehensive blog on crafting a perfect literature review for your research paper or dissertation.

The ability to write a literature review with a concise and structured outline is pivotal in academic writing.

You’ll get an overview of how to structure your review effectively, address your research question, and demonstrate your understanding of existing knowledge.

We’ll delve into different approaches to literature reviews, discuss the importance of a theoretical approach, and show you how to handle turning points in your narrative.

You’ll learn how to integrate key concepts from your research field and weave them into your paragraphs to highlight their importance.

Moreover, we’ll guide you through the nuances of APA citation style and how to compile a comprehensive bibliography. Lastly, we’ll walk you through the proofreading process to ensure your work is error-free.

As a bonus, this blog will provide useful tips for both seasoned researchers and first-time writers to produce a literature review that’s clear, informative, and engaging.

Enjoy the writing process with me!

Sentence starters and structure for each section of your literature review:

Purpose of a Literature Review

A literature review is a survey of existing literature in the field on a particular topic.

It gives researchers a good  outline of the main points and examples of literature related to their research.

By  discussing the literature , researchers can get an idea of the aspects of the topic they need to focus on.

A  literature review usually outlines your literature based on research methods and can be structured in various ways, such as a thematic literature review or methodological literature review .

If you  need help with literature review , consider using ai tools that provides a literature review outline template or examples of literature review outlines .

Structure of a Literature Review – Outline

When you write a literature review outline, you are laying the foundations of great work. Many people rush this part and struggle later on. Take your time and slowly draft the outline for a literature review.

The structure of a literature review consists of five main components:

• Introduction: Provide a brief overview of the chapter, along with the topic and research aims to set the context for the reader.
• Foundation of Theory or Theoretical Framework: Present and discuss the key theories, concepts, and models related to your research topic. Explain how they apply to your study and their significance.
• Empirical Research: Review and analyze relevant empirical related to your research question. Highlight their findings, methodologies, and any limitations they possess.
• Research Gap: Identify any gaps, inconsistencies, or ambiguities in the existing literature. This will help establish the need for your research and justify its relevance.
• Conclusion: Summarize the main findings from the literature review, emphasizing the importance of your research question and the identified research gap. Suggest potential avenues for future research in the field.

You can use ChatGPT to create a literature review outline for you – check out this article here .

Literature Review Examples and Types

Based on the typology of literature reviews from Paré et al. (2015), the following list outlines various types of literature reviews and examples of when you’d use each type:

1. Conceptual Review: Analyzes and synthesizes the theoretical and conceptual aspects of a topic. It focuses on understanding key concepts, models, and theories.

Example use: When aiming to clarify the conceptual foundations and explore existing theories in a field, such as investigating the dimensions of job satisfaction.

2. Methodological Review: Evaluates and synthesizes the research approaches, methods, and techniques used in existing literature. It aims to identify methodological strengths and weaknesses in a research area.

Example use: When assessing data collection methods for researching user experiences with a new software application.

3. Descriptive Review: This simplest approach provides a rationale for choosing sources in a literature review outline. Provides a broad overview of studies in a research area. It aims to describe the existing literature on a topic and document its evolution over time.

Example use: When investigating the history of research on employee motivation and documenting its progress over the years.

4. Integrative Review: Combines and synthesizes findings from different studies to produce a comprehensive understanding of a research topic. It may identify trends, patterns, or common themes among various studies.

Example use: When exploring the links between work-life balance and job satisfaction, aggregating evidence from multiple studies to develop a comprehensive understanding.

5. Theory-driven Review: Examines a research topic through the lens of a specific theoretical framework. It focuses on understanding how the chosen theory explains or predicts phenomena in the literature.

Example use: When studying the impact of leadership styles on team performance, specifically using the transformational leadership theory as a basis for the analysis.

6. Evidence-driven Review: Aims to determine the effectiveness of interventions or practices based on the available research evidence when reviewing literature. It can inform the decision-making process in practice or policy by providing evidence-based recommendations.

Example use: When assessing the effectiveness of telemedicine interventions for managing chronic disease outcomes, providing recommendations for healthcare providers and policymakers.

By understanding these types of literature reviews and their appropriate usage, researchers can choose the most suitable approach for their research question and contribute valuable insights to their field.

How to Write a Good Literature Review

To write a good literature review, follow these six steps to help you create relevant and actionable content for a young researcher by reviewing literature effectively.

1. Define the review’s purpose: Before starting, establish a clear understanding of your research question or hypothesis. This helps focus the review and prevents unnecessary information from being included.

2. Set inclusion and exclusion criteria: Use predefined criteria for including or excluding sources in your review. Establish these criteria based on aspects such as publication date, language, type of study, and subject relevance. This ensures your review remains focused and meets your objectives.

3. Search for relevant literature: Conduct a comprehensive search for literature relevant to your research question. Use databases, online catalogs, and search engines that focus on academic literature, such as Google Scholar, Scopus, or Web of Science. Consider using multiple search terms and synonyms to cover all related topics, particularly when conducting a search for literature related to your research question.

4. Organize and analyze information: Develop a system for organizing and analyzing the information you find. You can use spreadsheets, note-taking applications, or reference management tools like Mendeley, Zotero, or EndNote. Categorize your sources based on themes, author’s conclusions, methodology, or other relevant criteria.

5. Write a critique of the literature: Evaluate and synthesize the information from your sources. Discuss their strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in knowledge or understanding. Point out any inconsistencies in the findings and explain any varying theories or viewpoints. Provide a balanced critique that highlights the most significant contributions, trends, or patterns.

6. Structure the review: Organize your literature review into sections that present the main themes or findings. Start with an introduction that outlines your research question, the scope of the review, and any limitations you may have encountered. Write clear, concise, and coherent summaries of your literature for each section, and end with a conclusion that synthesizes the main findings, suggests areas for further research, and reinforces your research question or hypothesis.

Incorporating these steps will assist you in crafting a well-structured, focused, and informative literature review for your research project.

If you want to know how long a literature review should be, check out this article .

Here are some examples of each step in the process. 

Top Tips on How to Write Your Literature Review

Here are the top tips on how to write your literature review:

1. Develop a rough outline or framework before you start writing your literature review. This helps you avoid creating a jumbled mess and allows you to organize your thoughts coherently and effectively.

2. Use previous literature reviews as a guide to understand the norms and expectations in your field. Look for recently published literature reviews in academic journals or online databases, such as Google Scholar, EBSCO, or ProQuest.

3. Write first and edit later. Avoid perfectionism and don’t be afraid to create messy drafts. This helps you overcome writer’s block and ensures progress in your work.

4. Insert citations as you write to avoid losing track of references. Make sure to follow the appropriate formatting style (e.g. APA or MLA) and use reference management tools like Mendeley to easily keep track of your sources.

5. Organize your literature review logically, whether it’s chronologically, thematically, or methodologically. Identify gaps in the literature and explain how your study addresses them. Keep in mind that the structure isn’t set in stone and can change as you read and write, especially during a lit review.

Remember that writing your literature review is an iterative process, so give yourself room to improve and make changes as needed. Keep these actionable tips in mind, and you’ll be well on your way to creating a compelling and well-organized literature review.

Wrapping up – Your literature review outline

As we conclude this extensive guide, we hope that you now feel equipped to craft a stellar literature review.

We’ve navigated the intricacies of an effective literature review outline, given you examples of each section, provided sentence starters to ignite your writing process, and explored the diverse types of literature reviews.

This guide has also illustrated how to structure a literature review and organize the research process, which should help you tackle any topic over time.

Emphasizing key themes, we’ve shown you how to identify gaps in existing research and underscore the relevance of your work.

Remember, writing a literature review isn’t just about summarizing existing studies; it’s about adding your own interpretations, arguing for the relevance of specific theoretical concepts, and demonstrating your grasp of the academic field.

Keep the key debates that have shaped your research area in mind, and use the strategies we’ve outlined to add depth to your paper.

So, start writing, and remember, the journey of writing is iterative and a pivotal part of your larger research process.

Dr Andrew Stapleton has a Masters and PhD in Chemistry from the UK and Australia. He has many years of research experience and has worked as a Postdoctoral Fellow and Associate at a number of Universities. Although having secured funding for his own research, he left academia to help others with his YouTube channel all about the inner workings of academia and how to make it work for you.

Thank you for visiting Academia Insider.

We are here to help you navigate Academia as painlessly as possible. We are supported by our readers and by visiting you are helping us earn a small amount through ads and affiliate revenue - Thank you!

2024 © Academia Insider

Writing a Literature Review: General Guidelines

Table of contents

• 1 What Is a Literature Review?
• 2 What Is the Purpose of a Literature Review?
• 3 Steps in the Literature Review Process
• 4.1 Chronological
• 4.2 Thematic
• 4.3 Methodological
• 4.4 Theoretical
• 5 Literature Review Outline
• 6 Literature Review: Writing Tips

Writing a literature review for a research paper is an important stage in the academic research process. It entails doing a critical review of existing literature to provide a comprehensive overview of current knowledge on a certain issue. In this article, we will walk you through the important processes for writing an excellent literature review. We’ll discuss how to discover relevant literature, combine findings, and arrange your review to provide clear insights. Whether you’re a seasoned researcher or a first-time writer, this guide will give you essential advice and tactics for improving the quality and impact of your literature reviews.

What Is a Literature Review?

A literature review is a survey of key scholarly sources to do with a particular topic. It lists a number of important and relevant pieces of writing and, in doing so, gives the reader a summary of the topic’s current knowledge and debates. When writing a literature review, a student should do more than just summarise each individual source. They should analyze them closely and compare them with one another.

A key part of academic writing involves understanding what has been said and debated about the chosen topic. Once a student has done their research, they’re in a better place to write their research paper and put their point across. A good literature review should let the reader know what the salient points from the student’s research are.

What Is the Purpose of a Literature Review?

The purpose of a literature review is to show the reader what research has been carried out on the chosen topic in the past. When writing one, you’re aiming to bring the reader up to speed with other people’s research before sharing your own findings. You should summarise where the topic’s at right now before building on it with your research.

Another important purpose is to give more weight to a student’s key arguments. By listing and comparing some of the key sources, a student can give context to the main points in their research paper; they can even fill any gaps in certain areas that others haven’t yet managed to fill.

If you want to know how to write a literature review in a research paper, carry on reading. We’ll run you through the process of putting one together, and we’ll talk about some of the different approaches you can take in writing one.

Steps in the Literature Review Process

A literature review can make a Ph.D. dissertation, or any other kind of  research paper more convincing. For a review to be effective, it should be detailed and have substance but without overdoing it; in other words, it should be concise.

If you’re not sure how to write a literature review for a research paper, we’ll show you how in this section. Here are the main steps to take:

• Decide on your topic Your topic is the base on which you build your research. It also determines what research you carry out.
• Search for sources to include The sources you look at for your research paper should be authoritative and relevant. They should be scholarly in nature, though not all of them will be.
• Determine which ones are the most useful Look through your sources and think about how much each one adds to both the topic you’re exploring and the research you’re carrying out. Including all sources isn’t practical, so only choose the most appropriate and fitting ones.
• Identify where the research is currently at By reading other people’s research, you can get an idea of what the current thoughts and debates relating to your chosen topic area.
• Come up with a structure Literature reviews have quite simple structures. More information on these is given below. Think about how you want to present yours and how you’re going to arrange your findings.
• Write your literature review A well-written literature review gives the reader all the necessary information about each of the sources. It clearly explains how the sources are connected and what they contribute to the chosen topic.

It’s a good idea to come up with headings and subheadings and go from there. These are both important, and we’ll talk about them in more detail later on. During the planning process, they can help you come up with a definitive structure for your literature review and consolidate your thoughts.

You may want to pay someone to write a literature review for you. Many people who are struggling with literature reviews do this. They don’t hand in the work that someone else has done for them. Instead, they read through the other person’s work to get ideas and inspiration. Doing this can help people write their own literature review much more effectively.

• Free unlimited checks
• All common file formats
• Accurate results
• Intuitive interface

How to Structure a Literature Review

For this section, we’ll look at how to write a literature review. We’ll focus on the different approaches you can take according to the type of research you’re doing and how you wish to present it.

Chronological

Listing your sources in chronological order is perhaps the simplest approach to take. However, make sure you don’t just list the sources and summarise them. You should still try to establish some sort of connection between them. Highlight movements, patterns, and new ideas. Show the reader how scholarship on the topic has changed over time. You could even organize your sources into broad historical periods and have these as subheadings in the literature review, for example.

When writing a thematic literature review , you should organize your sources by theme. You should consider this approach if you’ve found multiple themes during your research. Create literature review subheadings for each theme that stands out to you. If you go for a thematic style, think about what your RRL subtopics are and what themes you would use to organize them.

Methodological

A methodological literature review is one whose sources involve the use of different research methods . You could have one source that’s numerical and involves graphs and statistics, for example, and another that’s entirely made up of written text. The subheadings in a literature review that’s methodological could focus on different types of research, focusing not so much on what has been researched but how it’s been researched. As a literature review subheadings example, you could therefore have one subheading for literary sources, another for numerical/graph-based data, and so on.

Theoretical

With a theoretical approach, the focus is on the body of theories relating to the topic that’s being discussed. The aim is to determine what theories there currently are, how they relate to one another, and how much they’ve been looked into.

These are just some of the different ways you can go about writing a literature review. The approach you take will depend on the nature of your review and the topic you’re looking at.

Writing a literature review can be an intimidating task to tackle, especially if you are not familiar with the literature in the field. Fortunately, there is a  paper writing service online that can help you create an outstanding literature review in no time. Our service is helpful for students, researchers, and others who need to compile a comprehensive and informative literature review.

Literature Review Outline

Writing a good outline for a literature review is important for your research paper. It helps you organize your thoughts and ideas and gives you a clear direction for the writing process.

An outline is not a formal document but rather an informal guide to assist you in organizing the information you want to include in your paper. The outline should be written in paragraph form, with each paragraph representing one major idea that will be expanded upon in subsequent paragraphs of the paper.

The main purpose of writing an outline is so that you can organize all of your sources in a way that will help you write a clear, concise essay. You just want to throw together quotes and facts without any order or reason. This will make it hard for the reader to follow along with what you are saying and make it appear that you have no idea what you’re talking about. This can result in a low grade for your paper and make it difficult for them to understand what is happening within the text.

• Introduction The introduction should include a brief summary of the literature that is being reviewed, including the general topic and your specific focus. You should also provide some background information on the topic to help the reader understand why it is important. You should not include any citations in this section, because you will do that later in the paper.
• Body The body is where you provide an overview of all the sources or literature, you have used for your paper. You should include an introduction to each source and a brief summary of what was found in each source. In addition to providing summaries, you should also describe how each source relates to your research question or hypothesis and then relate them back to each other if they are similar enough to be compared. Finally, you should explain how each source relates to one another in addition to explaining how they relate to your research question or hypothesis.
• Conclusion The conclusion should summarize your arguments throughout the paper and then tie all of these things together into one coherent argument that proves or disproves your hypothesis or research question in relation to other sources discussed throughout this paper (and/or).

Writing a literature review is an integral part of a successful research article or dissertation, as it helps to synthesize and connect the existing body of knowledge. To write your lit review relevantly, it is important to ensure that you include new information when constructing your review and connect existing ideas and themes. A useful literature review outline can provide a structure for expressing your views, allowing you to connect and organize your ideas consistently and effectively.

Literature Review: Writing Tips

When writing a literature review, it’s important to include all of the information your assignment requires. Sometimes, instructors will give you specific guidelines for how long your literature review should be and how many sources it needs to include. If they don’t, however, you’ll need to decide what works best for your situation.

A literature review outline will be the foundation of your paper. It will tell you what information is important and how to write it cohesively and logically. When writing, it’s important to only include facts backed up by evidence. This means that if you are writing about any research topic, there must be at least one piece of published work that backs up each claim or opinion you present.

If there isn’t a source supporting your writing, don’t put it in because it makes your paper seem like speculation or opinion rather than fact-based knowledge about the issue at hand. Another tip for writers is to write clearly and concisely so that readers can understand what they are reading quickly without having any difficulty following along from one point to another throughout the entire essay (or book).

Readers may get bored very quickly if they feel like they have to struggle through something too much before getting into where things go next. Therefore, proper grammar usage should also be kept while doing this type as well, so there are no mistakes left behind after editing later down the line during the publishing stage itself.

The following are the most important tips for writing a literature review:

• Make sure that each paragraph covers a single subject or idea.
• Start with a thesis statement, which should sum up the paper’s main idea in one sentence.
• Write each paragraph in a way that flows from one point to another logically and coherently.
• Include quotes and paraphrases from sources you have read in order to support your arguments and conclusions.
• Make sure that you use credible sources as evidence for your claims and arguments in your paper.

As well as learning how to write a literature review for a research paper, you’ll learn to be more productive and use your time more wisely. Writing services help you put together literature reviews more efficiently. They give you the opportunity to work with an experienced writer who can offer tips in writing RRL, help you with literature review formatting, and more. For example, you can even get things like literature review headings and subheadings so you can see how best to write your headings.

Remember that while the literature review isn’t the main part of a research assignment, it’s still significant. It’s important that you write it as best you can so that your research has more backing and will be taken more seriously.

Readers also enjoyed

WHY WAIT? PLACE AN ORDER RIGHT NOW!

Just fill out the form, press the button, and have no worries!

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy.

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

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

Table of Contents

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

How to write a good literature review 

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

What is a literature review?

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

What is the purpose of literature review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature review example

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

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

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

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

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

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

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

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

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

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conducting a literature review

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

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

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

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

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

Select Databases for Searches:

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

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

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

Review the Literature:

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

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

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

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

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

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

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

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

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

Frequently asked questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 

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

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

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

Related Reads:

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

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

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, how to write a research proposal: (with examples..., apa format: basic guide for researchers, how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write a phd research proposal, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide), five things authors need to know when using..., 7 best referencing tools and citation management software..., maintaining academic integrity with paperpal’s generative ai writing..., research funding basics: what should a grant proposal..., how to write an abstract in research papers....

• Search This Site All UCSD Sites Faculty/Staff Search Term
• Contact & Directions
• Climate Statement
• Cognitive Behavioral Neuroscience
• Cognitive Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Adjunct Faculty
• Non-Senate Instructors
• Researchers
• Psychology Grads
• Affiliated Grads
• New and Prospective Students
• Honors Program
• Experiential Learning
• Programs & Events
• Psi Chi / Psychology Club
• Prospective PhD Students
• Current PhD Students
• Area Brown Bags
• Colloquium Series
• Anderson Distinguished Lecture Series
• Speaker Videos
• Undergraduate Program
• Academic and Writing Resources

Writing Research Papers

• Writing a Literature Review

When writing a research paper on a specific topic, you will often need to include an overview of any prior research that has been conducted on that topic.  For example, if your research paper is describing an experiment on fear conditioning, then you will probably need to provide an overview of prior research on fear conditioning.  That overview is typically known as a literature review.  

Please note that a full-length literature review article may be suitable for fulfilling the requirements for the Psychology B.S. Degree Research Paper .  For further details, please check with your faculty advisor.

Different Types of Literature Reviews

Literature reviews come in many forms.  They can be part of a research paper, for example as part of the Introduction section.  They can be one chapter of a doctoral dissertation.  Literature reviews can also “stand alone” as separate articles by themselves.  For instance, some journals such as Annual Review of Psychology , Psychological Bulletin , and others typically publish full-length review articles.  Similarly, in courses at UCSD, you may be asked to write a research paper that is itself a literature review (such as, with an instructor’s permission, in fulfillment of the B.S. Degree Research Paper requirement). Alternatively, you may be expected to include a literature review as part of a larger research paper (such as part of an Honors Thesis). 

Literature reviews can be written using a variety of different styles.  These may differ in the way prior research is reviewed as well as the way in which the literature review is organized.  Examples of stylistic variations in literature reviews include: 

• Summarization of prior work vs. critical evaluation. In some cases, prior research is simply described and summarized; in other cases, the writer compares, contrasts, and may even critique prior research (for example, discusses their strengths and weaknesses).
• Chronological vs. categorical and other types of organization. In some cases, the literature review begins with the oldest research and advances until it concludes with the latest research.  In other cases, research is discussed by category (such as in groupings of closely related studies) without regard for chronological order.  In yet other cases, research is discussed in terms of opposing views (such as when different research studies or researchers disagree with one another).

Overall, all literature reviews, whether they are written as a part of a larger work or as separate articles unto themselves, have a common feature: they do not present new research; rather, they provide an overview of prior research on a specific topic . 

How to Write a Literature Review

When writing a literature review, it can be helpful to rely on the following steps.  Please note that these procedures are not necessarily only for writing a literature review that becomes part of a larger article; they can also be used for writing a full-length article that is itself a literature review (although such reviews are typically more detailed and exhaustive; for more information please refer to the Further Resources section of this page).

Steps for Writing a Literature Review

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

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

2. Conduct a literature search.

Use a range of keywords to search databases such as PsycINFO and any others that may contain relevant articles.  You should focus on peer-reviewed, scholarly articles.  Published books may also be helpful, but keep in mind that peer-reviewed articles are widely considered to be the “gold standard” of scientific research.  Read through titles and abstracts, select and obtain articles (that is, download, copy, or print them out), and save your searches as needed.  For more information about this step, please see the Using Databases and Finding Scholarly References section of this website.

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

Absorb as much information as you can.  Read through the articles and books that you have found, and as you do, take notes.  The notes should include anything that will be helpful in advancing your own thinking about the topic and in helping you write the literature review (such as key points, ideas, or even page numbers that index key information).  Some references may turn out to be more helpful than others; you may notice patterns or striking contrasts between different sources ; and some sources may refer to yet other sources of potential interest.  This is often the most time-consuming part of the review process.  However, it is also where you get to learn about the topic in great detail.  For more details about taking notes, please see the “Reading Sources and Taking Notes” section of the Finding Scholarly References page of this website.

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

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

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

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

6. Incorporate the literature review into your research paper draft.

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

Further Tips for Writing a Literature Review

Full-length literature reviews

• Many full-length literature review articles use a three-part structure: Introduction (where the topic is identified and any trends or major problems in the literature are introduced), Body (where the studies that comprise the literature on that topic are discussed), and Discussion or Conclusion (where major patterns and points are discussed and the general state of what is known about the topic is summarized)

Literature reviews as part of a larger paper

• An “express method” of writing a literature review for a research paper is as follows: first, write a one paragraph description of each article that you read. Second, choose how you will order all the paragraphs and combine them in one document.  Third, add transitions between the paragraphs, as well as an introductory and concluding paragraph. 1
• A literature review that is part of a larger research paper typically does not have to be exhaustive. Rather, it should contain most or all of the significant studies about a research topic but not tangential or loosely related ones. 2   Generally, literature reviews should be sufficient for the reader to understand the major issues and key findings about a research topic.  You may however need to confer with your instructor or editor to determine how comprehensive you need to be.

Benefits of Literature Reviews

By summarizing prior research on a topic, literature reviews have multiple benefits.  These include:

• Literature reviews help readers understand what is known about a topic without having to find and read through multiple sources.
• Literature reviews help “set the stage” for later reading about new research on a given topic (such as if they are placed in the Introduction of a larger research paper). In other words, they provide helpful background and context.
• Literature reviews can also help the writer learn about a given topic while in the process of preparing the review itself. In the act of research and writing the literature review, the writer gains expertise on the topic .

Downloadable Resources

• How to Write APA Style Research Papers (a comprehensive guide) [ PDF ]
• Tips for Writing APA Style Research Papers (a brief summary) [ PDF ]
• Example APA Style Research Paper (for B.S. Degree – literature review) [ PDF ]

Further Resources

How-To Videos     

• Writing Research Paper Videos
• UCSD Library Psychology Research Guide: Literature Reviews

External Resources

• Developing and Writing a Literature Review from N Carolina A&T State University
• Example of a Short Literature Review from York College CUNY
• How to Write a Review of Literature from UW-Madison
• Writing a Literature Review from UC Santa Cruz  
• Pautasso, M. (2013). Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review. PLoS Computational Biology, 9 (7), e1003149. doi : 1371/journal.pcbi.1003149

1 Ashton, W. Writing a short literature review . [PDF]     

2 carver, l. (2014).  writing the research paper [workshop]. , prepared by s. c. pan for ucsd psychology.

Back to top

• Research Paper Structure
• Formatting Research Papers
• Using Databases and Finding References
• What Types of References Are Appropriate?
• Evaluating References and Taking Notes
• Citing References
• Writing Process and Revising
• Improving Scientific Writing
• Academic Integrity and Avoiding Plagiarism
• Writing Research Papers Videos

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

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

How to write a superb literature review

Andy Tay is a freelance writer based in Singapore.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Credit: Getty

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

WENTING ZHAO: Be focused and avoid jargon

Assistant professor of chemical and biomedical engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

When I was a research student, review writing improved my understanding of the history of my field. I also learnt about unmet challenges in the field that triggered ideas.

For example, while writing my first review 1 as a PhD student, I was frustrated by how poorly we understood how cells actively sense, interact with and adapt to nanoparticles used in drug delivery. This experience motivated me to study how the surface properties of nanoparticles can be modified to enhance biological sensing. When I transitioned to my postdoctoral research, this question led me to discover the role of cell-membrane curvature, which led to publications and my current research focus. I wouldn’t have started in this area without writing that review.

Collection: Careers toolkit

A common problem for students writing their first reviews is being overly ambitious. When I wrote mine, I imagined producing a comprehensive summary of every single type of nanomaterial used in biological applications. It ended up becoming a colossal piece of work, with too many papers discussed and without a clear way to categorize them. We published the work in the end, but decided to limit the discussion strictly to nanoparticles for biological sensing, rather than covering how different nanomaterials are used in biology.

My advice to students is to accept that a review is unlike a textbook: it should offer a more focused discussion, and it’s OK to skip some topics so that you do not distract your readers. Students should also consider editorial deadlines, especially for invited reviews: make sure that the review’s scope is not so extensive that it delays the writing.

A good review should also avoid jargon and explain the basic concepts for someone who is new to the field. Although I trained as an engineer, I’m interested in biology, and my research is about developing nanomaterials to manipulate proteins at the cell membrane and how this can affect ageing and cancer. As an ‘outsider’, the reviews that I find most useful for these biological topics are those that speak to me in accessible scientific language.

Bozhi Tian likes to get a variety of perspectives into a review. Credit: Aleksander Prominski

BOZHI TIAN: Have a process and develop your style

Associate professor of chemistry, University of Chicago, Illinois.

In my lab, we start by asking: what is the purpose of this review? My reasons for writing one can include the chance to contribute insights to the scientific community and identify opportunities for my research. I also see review writing as a way to train early-career researchers in soft skills such as project management and leadership. This is especially true for lead authors, because they will learn to work with their co-authors to integrate the various sections into a piece with smooth transitions and no overlaps.

After we have identified the need and purpose of a review article, I will form a team from the researchers in my lab. I try to include students with different areas of expertise, because it is useful to get a variety of perspectives. For example, in the review ‘An atlas of nano-enabled neural interfaces’ 2 , we had authors with backgrounds in biophysics, neuroengineering, neurobiology and materials sciences focusing on different sections of the review.

After this, I will discuss an outline with my team. We go through multiple iterations to make sure that we have scanned the literature sufficiently and do not repeat discussions that have appeared in other reviews. It is also important that the outline is not decided by me alone: students often have fresh ideas that they can bring to the table. Once this is done, we proceed with the writing.

I often remind my students to imagine themselves as ‘artists of science’ and encourage them to develop how they write and present information. Adding more words isn’t always the best way: for example, I enjoy using tables to summarize research progress and suggest future research trajectories. I’ve also considered including short videos in our review papers to highlight key aspects of the work. I think this can increase readership and accessibility because these videos can be easily shared on social-media platforms.

ANKITA ANIRBAN: Timeliness and figures make a huge difference

Editor, Nature Reviews Physics .

One of my roles as a journal editor is to evaluate proposals for reviews. The best proposals are timely and clearly explain why readers should pay attention to the proposed topic.

It is not enough for a review to be a summary of the latest growth in the literature: the most interesting reviews instead provide a discussion about disagreements in the field.

Careers Collection: Publishing

Scientists often centre the story of their primary research papers around their figures — but when it comes to reviews, figures often take a secondary role. In my opinion, review figures are more important than most people think. One of my favourite review-style articles 3 presents a plot bringing together data from multiple research papers (many of which directly contradict each other). This is then used to identify broad trends and suggest underlying mechanisms that could explain all of the different conclusions.

An important role of a review article is to introduce researchers to a field. For this, schematic figures can be useful to illustrate the science being discussed, in much the same way as the first slide of a talk should. That is why, at Nature Reviews, we have in-house illustrators to assist authors. However, simplicity is key, and even without support from professional illustrators, researchers can still make use of many free drawing tools to enhance the value of their review figures.

Yoojin Choi recommends that researchers be open to critiques when writing reviews. Credit: Yoojin Choi

YOOJIN CHOI: Stay updated and be open to suggestions

Research assistant professor, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Daejeon.

I started writing the review ‘Biosynthesis of inorganic nanomaterials using microbial cells and bacteriophages’ 4 as a PhD student in 2018. It took me one year to write the first draft because I was working on the review alongside my PhD research and mostly on my own, with support from my adviser. It took a further year to complete the processes of peer review, revision and publication. During this time, many new papers and even competing reviews were published. To provide the most up-to-date and original review, I had to stay abreast of the literature. In my case, I made use of Google Scholar, which I set to send me daily updates of relevant literature based on key words.

Through my review-writing process, I also learnt to be more open to critiques to enhance the value and increase the readership of my work. Initially, my review was focused only on using microbial cells such as bacteria to produce nanomaterials, which was the subject of my PhD research. Bacteria such as these are known as biofactories: that is, organisms that produce biological material which can be modified to produce useful materials, such as magnetic nanoparticles for drug-delivery purposes.

Synchronized editing: the future of collaborative writing

However, when the first peer-review report came back, all three reviewers suggested expanding the review to cover another type of biofactory: bacteriophages. These are essentially viruses that infect bacteria, and they can also produce nanomaterials.

The feedback eventually led me to include a discussion of the differences between the various biofactories (bacteriophages, bacteria, fungi and microalgae) and their advantages and disadvantages. This turned out to be a great addition because it made the review more comprehensive.

Writing the review also led me to an idea about using nanomaterial-modified microorganisms to produce chemicals, which I’m still researching now.

PAULA MARTIN-GONZALEZ: Make good use of technology

PhD student, University of Cambridge, UK.

Just before the coronavirus lockdown, my PhD adviser and I decided to write a literature review discussing the integration of medical imaging with genomics to improve ovarian cancer management.

As I was researching the review, I noticed a trend in which some papers were consistently being cited by many other papers in the field. It was clear to me that those papers must be important, but as a new member of the field of integrated cancer biology, it was difficult to immediately find and read all of these ‘seminal papers’.

That was when I decided to code a small application to make my literature research more efficient. Using my code, users can enter a query, such as ‘ovarian cancer, computer tomography, radiomics’, and the application searches for all relevant literature archived in databases such as PubMed that feature these key words.

The code then identifies the relevant papers and creates a citation graph of all the references cited in the results of the search. The software highlights papers that have many citation relationships with other papers in the search, and could therefore be called seminal papers.

My code has substantially improved how I organize papers and has informed me of key publications and discoveries in my research field: something that would have taken more time and experience in the field otherwise. After I shared my code on GitHub, I received feedback that it can be daunting for researchers who are not used to coding. Consequently, I am hoping to build a more user-friendly interface in a form of a web page, akin to PubMed or Google Scholar, where users can simply input their queries to generate citation graphs.

Tools and techniques

Most reference managers on the market offer similar capabilities when it comes to providing a Microsoft Word plug-in and producing different citation styles. But depending on your working preferences, some might be more suitable than others.

Reference managers

Here is a comparison of the more popular collaborative writing tools, but there are other options, including Fidus Writer, Manuscript.io, Authorea and Stencila.

Collaborative writing tools

*Markdown and LaTex are code-based formatting languages favoured by physicists, mathematicians and computer scientists who code on a regular basis, and less popular in other disciplines such as biology and chemistry.

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

Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Updates & Corrections

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

Download references

Related Articles

• Research management

We are junior scientists from emerging economies — the world needs more researchers like us solving global problems

Career Column 26 JUL 24

Why you should perform a premortem on your research

Career Column 24 JUL 24

Science must protect thinking time in a world of instant communication

Editorial 24 JUL 24

So you got a null result. Will anyone publish it?

News Feature 24 JUL 24

Retraction notices are getting clearer — but progress is slow

News 26 JUL 24

Hijacked journals are still a threat — here’s what publishers can do about them

Nature Index 23 JUL 24

Stadtman Investigator Search 2024-2025

Stadtman Investigator Search 2024-2025 Deadline: September 30, 2024 The National Institutes of Health, the U.S. government’s premier biomedical and...

Bethesda, Maryland

National Institute of Health- Office of Intramural Research

Research Manager, Open Access

The Research Manager is a great opportunity for someone with experience of policy and open access to join Springer Nature.

London, Berlin or New York (Hybrid Working)

Springer Nature Ltd

Postdoctoral Research Scientist

Computational Postdoctoral Research Scientist in Neurodegenerative Disease

New York City, New York (US)

Columbia University Department of Pathology

Associate or Senior Editor (Chemical Engineering), Nature Sustainability

Associate or Senior Editor (Chemical engineering), Nature Sustainability Locations: New York, Philadelphia, Berlin, or Heidelberg Closing date: Aug...

Postdoctoral Research Scientist - Mouse Model

The Stavros Niarchos Foundation Center for Precision Psychiatry & Mental Health is seeking a Postdoctoral Research Scientist for the Mouse Model.

Columbia University Irving Medical Center / Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons

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

Quick links

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

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

How To Write A Literature Review - A Complete Guide

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

What is a literature review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the purpose of a literature review?

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

What is the importance of a literature review?

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

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

How long should a literature review be?

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

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

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

What are the different types of literature reviews?

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

Here are the different types of literature reviews:

Argumentative review

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

Integrative review

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

Methodological review

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

Systematic review

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

Meta-analysis review

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

Historical review

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

Theoretical Review

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

Scoping Review

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

State-of-the-Art Review

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

Can you use the first person in a literature review?

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

Do you need an abstract for a literature review?

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

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

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

Is a literature review written in the past tense?

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

How many sources for a literature review?

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

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

Quick tips on how to write a literature review

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

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

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

1. Outline and identify the purpose of  a literature review

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

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

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

2. Search relevant literature

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

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

• Google Scholar
• Microsoft Academic
• Science.gov

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

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

3. Examine and assess the sources

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

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

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

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

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

4. Discover connections

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

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

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

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

5. Structure planning to write a good literature review

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

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

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

Literature review samples

1. Standalone

2. As a section of a research paper

How SciSpace Discover makes literature review a breeze?

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

Find the right information

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

Assess credibility of papers quickly

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

Get the complete picture in no time

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

Make referring sources super easy

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

Final tips on how to write a literature review

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

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

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

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. how to start a literature review.

• What questions do you want to answer?

• What sources do you need to answer these questions?

• What information do these sources contain?

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

2. What to include in a literature review?

• A brief background of the problem or issue

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

• A description of what you will do in your project

• How this study will contribute to research on the subject

3. Why literature review is important?

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

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

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

5. What are the components of a literature review?

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

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

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

6. What are common errors in writing literature review?

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

• Totally relying on secondary data while ignoring primary data.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. How many sources should a literature review have?

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

9. Can literature review have diagrams?

• To represent an abstract idea or concept

• To explain the steps of a process or procedure

• To help readers understand the relationships between different concepts

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

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

11. What are the types of literature review?

• Argumentative review

• Integrative review

• Methodological review

• Systematic review

• Meta-analysis review

• Historical review

• Theoretical review

• Scoping review

• State-of-the-Art review

12. Is a literature review mandatory?

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

But before you go,

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

You might also like

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

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

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

• Dissertation & Thesis Guides
• Basics of Dissertation & Thesis Writing
• Literature Review Outline: Structure, Format & Examples
• Speech Topics
• Basics of Essay Writing
• Essay Topics
• Other Essays
• Main Academic Essays
• Research Paper Topics
• Basics of Research Paper Writing
• Miscellaneous
• Chicago/ Turabian
• Data & Statistics
• Methodology
• Admission Writing Tips
• Admission Advice
• Other Guides
• Student Life
• Studying Tips
• Understanding Plagiarism
• Academic Writing Tips

• Essay Guides
• Research Paper Guides
• Formatting Guides
• Basics of Research Process
• Admission Guides

Literature Review Outline: Structure, Format & Examples

Table of contents

Use our free Readability checker

A literature review outline is a structured plan of the key elements that should be included in your overview of existing literature. The outline helps to organize the literature review and ensure that all relevant information is covered.

Creating an outline for a literature review is a skill that every student or researcher should possess. If you are new to preparing research outlines, do not know their main parts, or are wondering about ways of organizing information in them, read this article and learn about how to write a literature review outline. The guide also discusses the definition, structure, approaches, and tips relevant to composing a literature review outline. Additionally, you will reinforce your understanding of key concepts through various examples of literature review outlines that are offered. Don’t have time for reading, but the deadline is around the corner? Rely on our literature review services and have no worries.

What Is a Literature Review Outline?

A literature review outline is a sketch highlighting how you will convey information about your findings after evaluating and interpreting studies. In other words, it offers a rough overview of the sources you have analyzed in the paper.  Think of a literature outline as a general skeleton of what your full review should look like including the specifics of each part. Its purpose is to assist you in developing ideas, performing research and presenting your findings logically. Specifically, a literary review outline helps you sum up the arguments that you want to emphasize or what you will talk about in your study.

Elements of Literature Review Outline

Now that you know what a literature review outline means, you need to understand the major parts that must be incorporated. In general, it is organized in a similar way to a standard academic essay outline template with three key elements including an introduction, body, and conclusion. You may include subheadings within each part to divide them up into meaningful segments. An outline of a literature review has:

• Introduction Hooks the reader and offers an overview of your topic.
• Body Comprises headings, subheadings, and paragraphs for mapping out your argument.
• Conclusion Summarizes your key points.

Introduction  To create an effective introduction for a literature review, attract readers with a hook . This can be a quotation, example, or question. Introduce the research topic by briefly mentioning key concepts and describing your perspective. Discuss the literature you will review and provide hints about your fundamental concept. Overall, the introduction should bring interest to your research topic and provide readers with an understanding of what to expect in the text. In addition to outlining the key components of your literature review, it's important to address any debates or concerns related to your topic. This provides context and helps readers understand the significance of your exploration. Be sure to mention the importance of your research in your literature review outline and articulate your problem statement or research question .  Keep in mind that references should be included in the subsequent sections of your review.

Body The body of your review is where you analyze and interpret results to support your argument. This section should be well-organized and provide a clear and thorough analysis of the gathered studies.  Structure the information consistently and synthesize the main points while also evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of your sources.  You can use one of the approaches described in the next section to structure your information in body paragraphs . Ensure your work flows systematically and is easier to understand by using transitions words , headings, and subheadings. In your literature review outline, introduce each article you have used for the project and provide a brief description. Briefly explain the relationship between the texts and your dissertation topic , and highlight how the papers are interrelated.

The conclusion is where you present your final evaluation. Begin by identifying the main themes you have discovered and their line of research. Then, mention any strengths and weaknesses you have found in the literature and highlight your work’s significance to existing knowledge. In general, the conclusion of your outline for a literature review should briefly:

• Identify major agreements and disagreements in the studies reviewed.
• Provide an in-depth explanation of your findings.
• Describe any gaps or areas that require further research.
• Offer recommendations for future study.
• Provide your overall perspective on the issue.
• Clarify the importance of the topic within the current academic discourse.

Once you build an outline, your next step is to create a literature review itself. Check out our helpful blog with step-by-step guidance on how to write a literature review . 

Literary Review Outline: Main Approaches

Before composing the outline of a literary review, you should think about the various ways of arranging your points. Generally, there are 4 major options for organizing information when writing a literature review outline. The format you choose depends on your specific inquiry, aims, and other requirements. These approaches include:

• Theoretical
• Chronological
• Methodological.

Putting together your work well simplifies the entire process. Also remember to follow one structure consistently to avoid confusions with your flow. For example, if you decide to organize your work chronologically, make sure that you use this layout across your paper.

Theoretical Approach

A theoretical approach to literature review involves examining existing literature through a specific theoretical framework . Here, you need to view the literature through the lens of a particular theory or theories to gain a deeper understanding of your research question.  Theoretical approach can help identify patterns and inconsistencies not apparent through other methods. It’s especially useful if you are dealing with multiple theories or perspectives.  Divide your discussion into headings or subheadings following a particular order as shown below in the example:

• Brief description.
• Brief description, etc.

This is accompanied with brief discussions of each framework and their relevance to your paper. Look at this diagram for better understanding:

Chronological Approach

Chronological approach (linear approach) is the simplest way of structuring your body section. Start with older studies and work towards more recent ones. This streamlines the analysis of debates about your topic over time as you write your literature review outline. Additionally, the linear organization enables you to identify those texts that have had a profound impact on your field. Arrange your sources in a chronological order to understand how your theme has changed over time. Using this approach, you focus on important turning points rather than all events.  Here is a pictorial illustration of this model.

Thematic Approach

Thematic approach to an outline for a literature review involves grouping your works by themes. Here, researchers determine specific patterns or subjects to arrange sources thematically.  Use the themes you have identified as headings or subheadings in your body paragraphs.Then, summarize the relevant information under each theme to keep your discussion organized and easy-to-follow. This allows you to place all sources focusing on a similar topic together which makes it easier to ascertain where differences in opinions or perspectives arise. It is a commonly used structure across diverse fields. Consider the following diagram for further explanation.

Methodological Approach

With the methodological approach, your literature review outline is organized based on specific research methodologies applied in the studies. This model is useful when you need to investigate research questions related to particular methods, such as qualitative or quantitative study .  This approach allows researchers to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of various methods, and identify any gaps or areas where further investigation is needed. You will later use your revelations when designing a research study and writing a methodology .  Have a look at the diagram below to organize your review methodologically:

Literature Review Outline Template

If creating an outline is still challenging for you at this point, don’t worry because you can use a ready-made literature review outline template. Most institutions usually provide completed models. This makes your work easier because you will just fill in the details for each section.  The format can be APA, MLA, Chicago, or Harvard, which is generally specified in the task instructions. Thus, you should not face any difficulties finding a particular layout that may be applied to literature review when writing a dissertation .  Still, you can use the following outline for literature review template example and include relevant information according to your work.

• Identify your topic and its importance in the field
• Describe your reasons for conducting the review
• Explain how your appraisal is organized
• Highlight your work’s objective i.e., what you will cover
• You can use the same studies whenever they are needed to explain a specific subject
• Repeat the major themes and their underlying topics until you have fully described each one of them
• Explain what your review contributes to the field
• Identify the strengths and weaknesses of studies
• Describe the gaps you have located
• State the next steps for research to solve the identified issues

How to Write a Literature Review Outline

It is not easy to write an outline for a literature review, particularly if this is your first time. However, don’t be discouraged because like all other formal tasks you have done up to now, preparing an outline successfully necessitates following a correct procedure and organization.  With that in mind, we offer a step-by-step guideline on how to outline a literature review. Follow the process below to create an excellent piece.

• Select a topic. The initial step entails picking a topic of interest or a theme you are knowledgeable about. Choosing something you know helps in identifying relevant studies, which makes the writing process easier and more exciting. Focus on current and well-researched subjects as this makes finding sources less stressful. Also, be certain that you narrow down your issue to ensure it is specific and can be reviewed meaningfully.
• Search the body of literature. When you have a theme, the next step is identifying relevant studies related to your topic as you continue preparing your literature review outline. Limit your exploration to reliable databases such as JSTOR , NCBI , EBSCO , or Elsevier among others to find trusted sources. Your school library is also a very good place for searching manuscripts. If you are unsure about this process, ask a librarian or your professor for assistance. Remember to focus on useful and recent manuscripts not older than 5 years unless the instructions state otherwise or your topic requires earlier articles. The number of documents depends on your task guidelines. After selecting documents for your outline, evaluate them to see if they are applicable to your subject.
• Create a structure. To write a literature review outline effectively, you need to develop a well-organized and proper structure. Use one of the approaches discussed previously to organize your information. However, before starting, ensure that you understand how to begin your outline by using the created sketch to identify the main arguments to be included in it.
• Identify key concepts and themes. You also need to understand the arguments presented in your sources. Achieving this requires that you read all the texts you found repeatedly to digest and grasp their arguments. Be selective at first by looking at important sections such as abstracts , summaries, discussions , and conclusions to get an idea of point of views. Take notes of the main facts you find as this will assist in incorporating relevant texts into your work. After gaining insights into the major points of a study, you can now engage in deeper reading by covering all sections in detail.
• Compose an outline for a literature review. At this point, you can fill in your details to the sketch you created earlier by figuring out the arguments that are applicable to various sections. Your work now is simply to follow and maintain the structure you developed and draft your outline. Remember to proofread your plan and eliminate grammatical or other errors. Note that the aforementioned stages are described in a linear fashion. In reality, you may need to reformulate, reorganize, or recheck information and make several adjustments to your lit review outline. Thus, it may be necessary to revise specific parts of your paper regularly before delivering the best piece.

Literature Review Outline Examples

Reading a literature review outline sample to grasp the key ideas about this type of work is also important. Carefully examining these examples helps you gain insights into how well-structured pieces are prepared. Remember to check samples concerning your field of study to avoid confusion when developing your own. Additionally, your institution may have specific requirements for what you should cover. Thus, use the following samples of literature review outlines to augment your knowledge. Literature review outline example 1

Literature review outline sample 2

Example of literature review outline 3

Literature Review Outline Writing Tips

Now that you have a good idea about developing an outline for a literature review, it is important to provide you with additional useful information. Remember that you must cover everything stated in your instructions and clarify things you are not sure of. Here are the essential tips to keep in mind:

• Structure Develop a cohesive and logical structure as this allows you and others to easily understand which points are covered.
• Topic Highlight your topic first to demonstrate what your work is about.
• Format Ensure that you use an appropriate listing format to highlight major sections and their subheadings when writing a literature review outline. You can use different number layouts for the main sections and different listing designs for their subheadings. Regardless of your choice, be consistent throughout the paper.
• Ideas Each bullet list or paragraph should deal with one idea.
• Sections Ensure that all sections are linked to each other logically or your paper flows coherently.
• Citations Include in-text citations of information borrowed from outside studies to support your points.
• Sources Use only peer-reviewed articles as evidence for your arguments.

Bottom Line on Literature Review Outline

This guide has shared various tips and steps on how to do a literature review outline. Generally, these kinds of scholarly papers offer a clear logical structure of your work’s main sections. They help you to establish an effective blueprint by demonstrating the relevant parts and points to be covered later when creating an actual project. Use the information provided to write an outline for a literature review based on your case and objectives. If you face any challenges while completing your piece, remember to read the examples offered here for further insights or go back to specific sections for clarifications.

Get high-quality and affordable academic writing services tailored to meet your needs. Achieve academic success with our professional team of writers ready to process your ‘ write my literature review ’ request. Contact us today!

FAQ About Literature Review Outline

1. how long is a literature review outline.

The length of a literature review outline depends on your work’s scope, type, and needed details. Comprehensive works such as thesis and dissertations may necessitate lengthier plans than class assignments. Generally, an outline takes a single page. However, there is no formula for how long this section should be. Use your judgment and consult your instructor regarding what is expected.

2. How to write a good literature review outline?

An outline for a literature review should not just summarize essential information. Rather, it should develop an argument by identifying ideas about your topic and their evolution in the academic discourse of relevant studies. A good outline should also mention any theoretical conflicts and methodological weaknesses found in sources.

3. What is a literature review outline purpose?

A literature review outline offers an overview of readings on a specific topic to help you establish a stand in your study field. Another purpose of this writing is to provide a reader with a view of past research. This shows your audience which direction the scholarly debate about a particular theme is heading in the context of current studies.

Joe Eckel is an expert on Dissertations writing. He makes sure that each student gets precious insights on composing A-grade academic writing.

You may also like

How to write a literature review introduction (+ examples)

The introduction to a literature review serves as your reader’s guide through your academic work and thought process. Explore the significance of literature review introductions in review papers, academic papers, essays, theses, and dissertations. We delve into the purpose and necessity of these introductions, explore the essential components of literature review introductions, and provide step-by-step guidance on how to craft your own, along with examples.

Why you need an introduction for a literature review

In academic writing , the introduction for a literature review is an indispensable component. Effective academic writing requires proper paragraph structuring to guide your reader through your argumentation. This includes providing an introduction to your literature review.

It is imperative to remember that you should never start sharing your findings abruptly. Even if there isn’t a dedicated introduction section .

When you need an introduction for a literature review

There are three main scenarios in which you need an introduction for a literature review:

What to include in a literature review introduction

It is crucial to customize the content and depth of your literature review introduction according to the specific format of your academic work.

In practical terms, this implies, for instance, that the introduction in an academic literature review paper, especially one derived from a systematic literature review , is quite comprehensive. Particularly compared to the rather brief one or two introductory sentences that are often found at the beginning of a literature review section in a standard academic paper. The introduction to the literature review chapter in a thesis or dissertation again adheres to different standards.

Academic literature review paper

The introduction of an academic literature review paper, which does not rely on empirical data, often necessitates a more extensive introduction than the brief literature review introductions typically found in empirical papers. It should encompass:

Regular literature review section in an academic article or essay

In a standard 8000-word journal article, the literature review section typically spans between 750 and 1250 words. The first few sentences or the first paragraph within this section often serve as an introduction. It should encompass:

In some cases, you might include:

Introduction to a literature review chapter in thesis or dissertation

Some students choose to incorporate a brief introductory section at the beginning of each chapter, including the literature review chapter. Alternatively, others opt to seamlessly integrate the introduction into the initial sentences of the literature review itself. Both approaches are acceptable, provided that you incorporate the following elements:

Examples of literature review introductions

Example 1: an effective introduction for an academic literature review paper.

To begin, let’s delve into the introduction of an academic literature review paper. We will examine the paper “How does culture influence innovation? A systematic literature review”, which was published in 2018 in the journal Management Decision.

Example 2: An effective introduction to a literature review section in an academic paper

The second example represents a typical academic paper, encompassing not only a literature review section but also empirical data, a case study, and other elements. We will closely examine the introduction to the literature review section in the paper “The environmentalism of the subalterns: a case study of environmental activism in Eastern Kurdistan/Rojhelat”, which was published in 2021 in the journal Local Environment.

Thus, the author successfully introduces the literature review, from which point onward it dives into the main concept (‘subalternity’) of the research, and reviews the literature on socio-economic justice and environmental degradation.

Examples 3-5: Effective introductions to literature review chapters

Numerous universities offer online repositories where you can access theses and dissertations from previous years, serving as valuable sources of reference. Many of these repositories, however, may require you to log in through your university account. Nevertheless, a few open-access repositories are accessible to anyone, such as the one by the University of Manchester . It’s important to note though that copyright restrictions apply to these resources, just as they would with published papers.

Master’s thesis literature review introduction

Phd thesis literature review chapter introduction, phd thesis literature review introduction.

The last example is the doctoral thesis Metacognitive strategies and beliefs: Child correlates and early experiences Chan, K. Y. M. (Author). 31 Dec 2020 . The author clearly conducted a systematic literature review, commencing the review section with a discussion of the methodology and approach employed in locating and analyzing the selected records.

Steps to write your own literature review introduction

Master academia, get new content delivered directly to your inbox, the best answers to "what are your plans for the future", 10 tips for engaging your audience in academic writing, related articles, minor revisions: sample peer review comments and examples, sample emails to your thesis supervisor, co-authorship guidelines to successfully co-author a scientific paper, how to select a journal for publication as a phd student.

• Customer Reviews
• Extended Essays
• IB Internal Assessment
• Theory of Knowledge
• Literature Review
• Dissertations
• Essay Writing
• Research Writing
• Assignment Help
• Capstone Projects
• College Application
• Online Class

How to Outline A Literature Review (Plus Examples You Can Use)

by  Antony W

September 11, 2022

In this guide, you'll learn exactly how to outline a literature review.

So if you are currently in the academic year in which you have to write a literature review for a research proposal, a dissertation, or a research paper, this guide is for you.

Key Takeaways

• You can structure your literature review in Chicago, APA, or MLA format.
• The outline of a literature review should include an introduction, a body, and a conclusion paragraph.
• You can structure the body section of the literature review thematically, chronologically, thematically, or theoretically.

Literature Review Writing Help

Identifying a research issue, developing a research question, conducting research, structuring, and writing your literature review can be time consuming.

It gets even more challenging if you have to juggle between urgent assignments and your social life.

Our academic writing team is here to help you. Whether you haven’t started the project or you feel stuck in the introduction, you can  click here to get literature review writing help   and get the task completed fast.

The objective of a literature review is to give an overview of existing knowledge without adding your personal opinions or ideas.

It’s through a literature review that you identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the already existing research.

What is a Literature Review Outline? 

To  write a comprehensive literature review ,  you first have to create an outline, which you’ll use to present your studies in a way that shows what you’ve found by analyzing and summarizing the ideas and concepts of other authors.

An online for a literature review features an introduction, body, and conclusion. Start the review with a hook and then structure the body paragraphs thematically, theoretically, chronologically, or methodologically. The conclusion of your review show the strength and weaknesses gathered from the study.

In the following section, we’ll look at the main elements of a literature review’s outline and give you some tips you can use to make your outline stand out.

How Literature Review Compares With Other Assignments

Before we look at the elements of a comprehensive literature review outline, it might help to learn how literature review compares with other assignments. 

We've included links to our researched guides to help you with these. All you have to do is read them now or bookmark this page for future reading. 

• Literature Review vs Research Paper
• Literature Review vs Systematic Paper
• Annotated Bibliography vs Literature Review

With that out of the way, let's look at the elements that make a good literature review outline. 

The Elements of a Literature Review Outline

Introduction

Your literature review should start with a strong introduction to grab the attention of a reader form the get go.

A good introduction is the one that starts with a hook and then provide an overview of the question you wish to explore in your research.

Your description of the literature should be relevant to the topic and naturally present your interest in the research.

The body of the literature review should give a clear picture of the already existing knowledge on the research question you’re trying to explore.

Since you’re looking into already existing work, you shouldn’t have a hard time analyzing and interpreting information.

It’s best to have an easy time working on this section than struggling to put words together. So try to use subheadings and transition words to make your work easier.

To make the body section easier to write, consider structuring your work chronologically, methodically, theoretical, or thematically.

Theoretical Structure

Credit: Science Direct

Given that a literature review is the core of a theoretical framework , you’re free to write about different theories and models. 

Even better, you can argue for a certain theoretical approach or give definitions of key concepts if your topic demands.

Chronological Structure

Credit: E-reading Worksheet

With the chronological structure , you write the literature review based on a sequence. In such a case, the focus is on the timeline, starting from the very beginning to the end.

You don’t necessarily have to list all the event in the order of their occurrence, as doing so may make your literature review unnecessarily longer.

Instead, look at themes and turning points and then focus only on those that are more significant.

Thematic Structure

In a thematic review structure, you have to find link between your  sources  and the literary text you wish to summarize. You’ll have to organize central issues into subsections and address each.

Keep in mind that your professor will be looking closely into the details you provide in the thematic structure.

So make sure you analyze each central issue in details. Doing so might take time, but the results will be worth it.

Methodological Structure

If you choose to write your literature review methodically, your focus will be on analyzing concepts by presenting methods based on their impact.

Also, you may need to focus on quantitative and qualitative nature, ethical nature, sociological, and cultural impact of your literature.

The concluding section of your literature review doesn’t have to be too long.

You’re wrapping up your work, so it’s best to summarize your most valuable points and then show the strengths as well as the weaknesses of the existing knowledge.

Depending on the research question you wish to explore, you may also give an emphasis on the significance of the literature review.

Format for a Literature Review

You can format your literature review in APA, MLA, and Chicago. Your instructor will indicate the citation style they want you to use.

In the case that they don’t suggest a format to use, feel free to use either APA, MLA, or Chicago – or consult them for further assistance.

The following is how to structure your literature review in the MLA format:

• 1-inch page margins
• You should double-space the whole text
• Each new paragraph should have a half an inch indent
• Use Times New Roman with 12-point font size
• Doesn’t require a title page, but you’re may include one
• There must be a running head in the top corner of each page

The following are the rules for structuring your literature review paper in the APA format:

• Double-space the whole text – unless stated otherwise
• Page numbers should appear in the upper right corner of every page
• For fonts, use Times New Roman with 12-point font size
• There should be a header at the top of every page. It should be not more than 50 characters and in capital
• Include a title page

Chicago Format

Credit: Essay Pro

You should observe the following rules if your instructor ask you to use the Chicago style to write your literature review.

• No spaces between paragraphs
• Times New Roman or Courier font with font size between 10 and 12 points
• Double-space for texts, except for references, figure captions, table titles notes, and block quotes
• Page numbers must appear at the top right corner of every page
• Include a cover page, which should show your full name, class details, and the date

Frequently Asked Questions

1. what is an outline in literature.

An outline in a literature is the formal structure used to present information to demonstrate a comprehensive and clear analysis of a research issue.

With an outline, you can organize your topic and subtopics in a logical order, from the declaration sentence , through the supporting evidence, all the way to the conclusion.

2. Is It Necessary to Outline the Structure of a Literature Review?

It’s necessary to outline the structure of a literature review so that you can have a logical flow of ideas from the introduction to the conclusion.

Notably, you’ll find the outline extremely useful when drawing your research from a variety of subjects or if you’re analyzing varying methodologies.

3. How Do You Structure a Literature Review Paragraph?

The best way to structure a literature review paragraph is to state the main idea in the beginning.

Following the topic sentence should be evidence relevant to the topic, analysis of the evidence clearly explained within the paragraph, and a conclusion written in your own words.

4. What Makes a Good Literature Review?

For your literature review to be comprehensive or good enough, you have to demonstrate clear synthesis and understanding of the topic under investigation.

Don’t hold back on going the extra mile to present a strong evidence of analytical creativity that connect between the literatures under review.  

About the author 

Antony W is a professional writer and coach at Help for Assessment. He spends countless hours every day researching and writing great content filled with expert advice on how to write engaging essays, research papers, and assignments.

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.

• UWF Libraries

Literature Review: Conducting & Writing

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

Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts

Have an exemplary literature review.

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: MLA Style
• Next: Get Help! >>
• Last Updated: Mar 22, 2024 9:37 AM
• URL: https://libguides.uwf.edu/litreview

What’s Included: Literature Review Template

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

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

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

The cleanly-formatted Google Doc can be downloaded as a fully editable MS Word Document (DOCX format), so you can use it as-is or convert it to LaTeX.

PS – if you’d like a high-level template for the entire thesis, you can we’ve got that too .

FAQs: Literature Review Template

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What structural style does this literature review template use?

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

Does this template include the Excel literature catalog?

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

How long should the literature review chapter be?

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

Can I include literature that contradicts my hypothesis?

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

How do I avoid plagiarism in my literature review?

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

Do you have an example of a populated template?

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

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

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

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

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

Can Grad Coach help me with my literature review?

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

How to Write a Literature Review

As every student knows, writing informative essay and research papers is an integral part of the educational program. You create a thesis, support it using valid sources, and formulate systematic ideas surrounding it. However, not all students know that they will also have to face another type of paper known as a Literature Review in college. Let's take a closer look at this with our custom essay writer .

Literature Review Definition

As this is a less common academic writing type, students often ask: "What is a literature review?" According to the definition, a literature review is a body of work that explores various publications within a specific subject area and sometimes within a set timeframe.

This type of writing requires you to read and analyze various sources that relate to the main subject and present each unique comprehension of the publications. Lastly, a literature review should combine a summary with a synthesis of the documents used. A summary is a brief overview of the important information in the publication; a synthesis is a re-organization of the information that gives the writing a new and unique meaning.

Typically, a literature review is a part of a larger paper, such as a thesis or dissertation. However, you may also be given it as a stand-alone assignment.

The Purpose

The main purpose of a literature review is to summarize and synthesize the ideas created by previous authors without implementing personal opinions or other additional information.

However, a literature review objective is not just to list summaries of sources; rather, it is to notice a central trend or principle in all of the publications. Just like a research paper has a thesis that guides it on rails, a literature review has the main organizing principle (MOP). The goal of this type of academic writing is to identify the MOP and show how it exists in all of your supporting documents.

Why is a literature review important? The value of such work is explained by the following goals it pursues:

• Highlights the significance of the main topic within a specific subject area.
• Demonstrates and explains the background of research for a particular subject matter.
• Helps to find out the key themes, principles, concepts, and researchers that exist within a topic.
• Helps to reveal relationships between existing ideas/studies on a topic.
• Reveals the main points of controversy and gaps within a topic.
• Suggests questions to drive primary research based on previous studies.

Here are some example topics for writing literature reviews:

• Exploring racism in "To Kill a Mockingbird," "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn," and "Uncle Tom's Cabin."
• Isolationism in "The Catcher in the Rye," "Frankenstein," and "1984"
• Understanding Moral Dilemmas in "Crime and Punishment," "The Scarlet Letter," and "The Lifeboat"
• Corruption of Power in "Macbeth," "All the King's Men," and "Animal Farm"
• Emotional and Physical survival in "Lord of the Flies," "Hatchet," and "Congo."

How Long Is a Literature Review?

When facing the need to write a literature review, students tend to wonder, "how long should a literature review be?" In some cases, the length of your paper's body may be determined by your instructor. Be sure to read the guidelines carefully to learn what is expected from you.

Keeping your literature review around 15-30% of your entire paper is recommended if you haven't been provided with specific guidelines. To give you a rough idea, that is about 2-3 pages for a 15-page paper. In case you are writing a literature review as a stand-alone assignment, its length should be specified in the instructions provided.

Literature Review Format: APA, MLA, and Chicago

The essay format you use should adhere to the citation style preferred by your instructor. Seek clarification from your instructor for several other components as well to establish a desired literature review format:

• How many sources should you review, and what kind of sources should they be (published materials, journal articles, or websites)?
• What format should you use to cite the sources?
• How long should the review be?
• Should your review consist of a summary, synthesis, or a personal critique?
• Should your review include subheadings or background information for your sources?

If you want to format your paper in APA style, then follow these rules:

• Use 1-inch page margins.
• Unless provided with other instructions, use double-spacing throughout the whole text.
• Make sure you choose a readable font. The preferred font for APA papers is Times New Roman set to 12-point size.
• Include a header at the top of every page (in capital letters). The page header must be a shortened version of your essay title and limited to 50 characters, including spacing and punctuation.
• Put page numbers in the upper right corner of every page.
• When shaping your literature review outline in APA, don't forget to include a title page. This page should include the paper's name, the author's name, and the institutional affiliation. Your title must be typed with upper and lowercase letters and centered in the upper part of the page; use no more than 12 words, and avoid using abbreviations and useless words.

For MLA style text, apply the following guidelines:

• Double your spacing across the entire paper.
• Set ½-inch indents for each new paragraph.
• The preferred font for MLA papers is Times New Roman set to 12-point size.
• Include a header at the top of your paper's first page or on the title page (note that MLA style does not require you to have a title page, but you are allowed to decide to include one). A header in this format should include your full name; the name of your instructor; the name of the class, course, or section number; and the due date of the assignment.
• Include a running head in the top right corner of each page in your paper. Place it one inch from the page's right margin and half an inch from the top margin. Only include your last name and the page number separated by a space in the running head. Do not put the abbreviation p. before page numbers.

Finally, if you are required to write a literature review in Chicago style, here are the key rules to follow:

• Set page margins to no less than 1 inch.
• Use double spacing across the entire text, except when it comes to table titles, figure captions, notes, blockquotes, and entries within the bibliography or References.
• Do not put spaces between paragraphs.
• Make sure you choose a clear and easily-readable font. The preferred fonts for Chicago papers are Times New Roman and Courier, set to no less than 10-point size, but preferably to 12-point size.
• A cover (title) page should include your full name, class information, and the date. Center the cover page and place it one-third below the top of the page.
• Place page numbers in the upper right corner of each page, including the cover page.

Read also about harvard format - popular style used in papers.

Structure of a Literature Review

How to structure a literature review: Like many other types of academic writing, a literature review follows a typical intro-body-conclusion style with 5 paragraphs overall. Now, let’s look at each component of the basic literature review structure in detail:

• Introduction

You should direct your reader(s) towards the MOP (main organizing principle). This means that your information must start from a broad perspective and gradually narrow down until it reaches your focal point.

Start by presenting your general concept (Corruption, for example). After the initial presentation, narrow your introduction's focus towards the MOP by mentioning the criteria you used to select the literature sources you have chosen (Macbeth, All the King's Men, and Animal Farm). Finally, the introduction will end with the presentation of your MOP that should directly link it to all three literature sources.

Body Paragraphs

Generally, each body paragraph will focus on a specific source of literature laid out in the essay's introduction. As each source has its own frame of reference for the MOP, it is crucial to structure the review in the most logically consistent way possible. This means the writing should be structured chronologically, thematically or methodologically.

Chronologically

Breaking down your sources based on their publication date is a solid way to keep a correct historical timeline. If applied properly, it can present the development of a certain concept over time and provide examples in the form of literature. However, sometimes there are better alternatives we can use to structure the body.

Thematically

Instead of taking the "timeline approach," another option can be looking at the link between your MOP and your sources. Sometimes, the main idea will just glare from a piece of literature. Other times, the author may have to seek examples to prove their point. An experienced writer will usually present their sources by order of strength. For example, in "To Kill A Mockingbird," the entire novel was centralized around racism; in "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn," racism was one of many themes.

Methodologically

As made obvious by the terminology, this type of structuring focuses on the methods used to present the central concept. For example, in "1984", George Orwell uses the law-and-order approach and shows the dangers of a dystopia for a social species.

In "Frankenstein," Mary Shelley exposes the character's physical traits as repulsive and horrifying, forcing him to suffer in an isolated environment. By showcasing the various methods used to portray the MOP, the writer can compare them based on things like severity, ethicality, and overall impact.

After presenting your key findings in the body paragraphs, there are 3 final objectives to complete in the essay's conclusion. First, the author should summarize the findings they have made or found, in other words, and briefly answer the question: "What have you learned?"

After discussing that information, the next step is to present the significance of the information about our current world today. In other words, how can the reader take the information and apply it to today's society? From that point, we finish off with a breadcrumb trail.

As the author, you want to leave the readers' trail of thought within the actual essay topic. This provides them with a means of further investigation—meaning that the reader may consider where the discussion will go next.

Writing an Outline for a Literature Review

Students often underestimate the importance of planning the structure of their papers in advance. However, this is not a wise approach. Having a rough APA literature review outline (or other style outlines) will not only help you follow the right format and structure but will also make the writing process simpler and help ensure that you include all of the important information without missing anything.

How to write a literature review outline: As you already know from the Structure section of this guide, every part of your literature review performs its own important role. Therefore, you should create your outline while keeping the general introduction-body-conclusion structure in mind and ensuring that each section meets its own objectives. However, it is important to remember that a literature review outline is slightly different from outlines of other types of essays because it does not provide new information. Instead, it focuses on existing studies relevant to the main topic. ‍

Here is a literature review outline example on the subject of the Ebola virus to help you get it right:

• Introduce the general topic. Provide background information on the Ebola virus: genome, pathogenesis, transmission, epidemiology, treatment, etc.
• Shape the main research question: What is the potential role of arthropods (mechanical or biological vectors) in the distribution of the Ebola virus?
• Methodology: For example, the information was searched through X databases to find relevant research articles about the Ebola virus and arthropods' role in its spreading. The data was extracted using a standardized form.
• Expected outcomes
• Overall trends in the literature on this topic: While the natural reservoir of the virus is still not known with certainty, many researchers believe that arthropods (and fruit bats, in particular) pay a significant role in the distribution of the virus.
• Subject 1: A brief overview of the particular piece of literature in general terms; an analysis of the key aspects of the study; a review of the research questions, methods, procedures, and outcomes; and an overview of the strong and weak points, gaps, and contradictions.
• Subject 2: A brief overview of the particular piece of literature in general terms; an analysis of the key aspects of the study; a review of the research questions, methods, procedures, and outcomes; and an overview of the strong and weak points, gaps, and contradictions.
• Subject 3:  A brief overview of the particular piece of literature in general terms; an analysis of the key aspects of the study; a review of the research questions, methods, procedures, and outcomes; and an overview of the strong and weak points, gaps, and contradictions.
• Indicate the relationships between the pieces of literature discussed. Emphasize key themes, common patterns, and trends. Talk about the pros and cons of the different approaches taken by the authors/researchers.
• State which studies seem to be the most influential.
• Emphasize the major contradictions and points of disagreement. Define the gaps still to be covered (if any).
• If applicable: define how your own study will contribute to further disclosure of the topic.

Hopefully, this sample outline will help you to structure your own paper. However, if you feel like you need some more advice on how to organize your review, don’t hesitate to search for more literature review outline examples in APA or other styles on the Web, or simply ask our writers to get a dissertation help .

Need Help With LITERATURE REVIEW?

Count on our literature review writing service to get it done! We will make your literature essay, we only need your paper requirements to save your precious time and nerves from writing it on your own!

How to Write a Good Literature Review

Whether you are writing a literature review within the framework of a large research project (e.g. thesis, dissertation, or other) or as a stand-alone assignment, the approach you should take to writing generally remains the same.

Whether you are writing a literature review within the framework of a large research project (e.g., thesis, dissertation, or other) or as a stand-alone assignment, the approach you should take to writing generally remains the same.

Now, as you know about the general rules and have a basic literature review outline template, let's define the steps to take to handle this task right with our service:

Step 1: Identifying the Topic

This is probably the only matter you may approach differently depending on whether your literature review comes within a research paper or a separate assignment altogether. If you are creating a literature review as a part of another work, you need to search for literature related to your main research questions and problems. Respectively, if you are writing it as a stand-alone task, you will have to pick a relevant topic and central question upon which you will collect the literature. Earlier in this guide, we suggested some engaging topics to guide your search.

Step 2: Conducting Research

When you have a clearly defined topic, it is time to start collecting literature for your review. We recommend starting by compiling a list of relevant keywords related to your central question—to make the entire research process much simpler and help you find relevant publications faster.

When you have a list of keywords, use them to search for valid and relevant sources. At this point, be sure to use only trusted sources, such as ones from university libraries, online scientific databases, etc.

Once you have found some sources, be sure to define whether or not they are actually relevant to your topic and research question. To save time, you can read abstracts to get general ideas of what the papers are about instead of the whole thing.

Pro Tip: When you finally find a few valid publications, take a look at their bibliographies to discover other relevant sources as well.

Step 3: Assess and Prioritize Sources

Throughout your research, you will likely find plenty of relevant literature to include in your literature review. At this point, students often make the mistake of trying to fit all the collected sources into their reviews. Instead, we suggest looking at what you've collected once more, evaluating the available sources, and selecting the most relevant ones. You most likely won't be able to read everything you find on a given topic and then be able to synthesize all of the sources into a single literature review. That's why prioritizing them is important.

To evaluate which sources are worth including in your review, keep in mind the following criteria:

• Credibility;
• Innovation;
• Key insights;

Furthermore, as you read the sources, don’t forget to take notes on everything you can incorporate into the review later. And be sure to get your citations in place early on. If you cite the selected sources at the initial stage, you will find it easier to create your annotated bibliography later on.

Step 4: Identify Relationships, Key Ideas, and Gaps

Before you can move on to outlining and writing your literature review, the final step is determining the relationships between the studies that already exist. Identifying the relationships will help you organize the existing knowledge, build a solid literature outline, and (if necessary) indicate your own research contribution to a specific field.

Some of the key points to keep an eye out for are:

• Main themes;
• Contradictions and debates;
• Influential studies or theories;
• Trends and patterns;

Here are a few examples: Common trends may include a focus on specific groups of people across different studies. Most researchers may have increased interest in certain aspects of the topic regarding key themes. Contradictions may include some disagreement concerning the theories and outcomes of a study. And finally, gaps most often refer to a lack of research on certain aspects of a topic.

Step 5: Make an Outline

Although students tend to neglect this stage, outlining is one of the most important steps in writing every academic paper. This is the easiest way to organize the body of your text and ensure that you haven't missed anything important. Besides, having a rough idea of what you will write about in the paper will help you get it right faster and more easily. Earlier in this guide, we already discussed the basic structure of a literature review and gave you an example of a good outline. At this workflow stage, you can use all of the knowledge you've gained from us to build your own outline.

Step 6: Move on to Writing

Having found and created all of your sources, notes, citations, and a detailed outline, you can finally get to the writing part of the process. At this stage, all you need to do is follow the plan you've created and keep in mind the overall structure and format defined in your professor's instructions.

Step 7: Adding the Final Touches

Most students make a common mistake and skip the final stage of the process, which includes proofreading and editing. We recommend taking enough time for these steps to ensure that your work will be worth the highest score. Do not underestimate the importance of proofreading and editing, and allocate enough time for these steps.

Pro Tip: Before moving on to proofreading and editing, be sure to set your literature review aside for a day or two. This will give you a chance to take your mind off it and then get back to proofreading with a fresh perspective. This tip will ensure that you won't miss out on any gaps or errors that might be present in your text.

These steps will help you create a top-notch literature review with ease! Want to get more advice on how to handle this body of work? Here are the top 3 tips you need to keep in mind when writing a literature review:

1. Good Sources

When working on a literature review, the most important thing any writer should remember is to find the best possible sources for their MOP. This means that you should select and filter through about 5-10 different options while doing initial research.

The stronger a piece of literature showcases the central point, the better the quality of the entire review.

2. Synthesize The Literature

Make sure to structure the review in the most effective way possible, whether it be chronologically, thematically, or methodologically. Understand what exactly you would like to say, and structure the source comparison accordingly.

3. Avoid Generalizations

Remember that each piece of literature will approach the MOP from a different angle. As the author, make sure to present the contrasts in approaches clearly and don't include general statements that offer no value.

Literature Review Examples

You can find two well-written literature reviews by the EssayPro writing team below. They will help you understand what the final product of a literature review should ideally look like.

The first literature review compares monolingual and bilingual language acquisition skills and uses various sources to prove its point:

The second literature review compares the impact of fear and pain on a protagonist’s overall development in various settings:

Both reviews will help you sharpen your skills and provide good guidelines for writing high-quality papers.

Get Help from an Essay Writer

Still aren’t sure whether you can handle literature review writing on your own? No worries because you can pay for essay writing and our service has got you covered! Boost your grades is to place an order in a few quick clicks and we will satisfy your write my paper request.

is an expert in nursing and healthcare, with a strong background in history, law, and literature. Holding advanced degrees in nursing and public health, his analytical approach and comprehensive knowledge help students navigate complex topics. On EssayPro blog, Adam provides insightful articles on everything from historical analysis to the intricacies of healthcare policies. In his downtime, he enjoys historical documentaries and volunteering at local clinics.

University Libraries      University of Nevada, Reno

• Skill Guides
• Subject Guides

Literature Reviews

• Searching for Literature
• Organizing Literature and Taking Notes
• Writing and Editing the Paper
• Help and Resources

Organizing Sources and Taking Notes

After you find your sources, the next step is to organize your sources, read your sources, and take notes on your sources. Depending upon the size and scope of your review, you may have many sources to organize and read, so you will need to develop a strategy for how you will tackle this part of the project. Some possible methods include:

• Creating different folders on your computer for different sections of your review, saving sources to each folder, and reading the article for each section together
• Printing out articles, highlighting them, and taking notes by hand
• Saving PDFs to folders and using PDF note-taking tools
• Creating a topic outline of your research topic and listing sources under each subtopic

Three other strategies are described below.

Using a Citation Manager

Another strategy that you can use for organizing and note-taking is to use a citation manager.  Citation managers  are software programs that allow you to save and organize your sources, take notes in PDFs, and instantly format bibliographies in a citation style of your choice. Some citation managers require a paid license, while others have free options. 

One excellent free citation manager is Zotero . To get more information about using Zotero, see the links below:

• Zotero Quick Start Guide
• Video: Zotero Tutorial (9:57)
• Using Zotero with Google Docs
• UNR Zotero Library Guide

Creating a Topic Matrix

As you collect your sources, you can create a basic outline of the topics and subtopics that you plan to address.

Once you have created a basic topic outline, you can use a  topic matrix , which is a table that allows you to match the sources you find to the topics and subtopics that you've identified. As shown in the example below, some articles may be associated with several topics and/or subtopics.

As you begin reading your articles and taking notes on them in detail, consider reading them according to the topic groups that you've established, which will help you better understand the information. 

Creating a Notes Table

One strategy that you can use to take notes on your sources is to create a notes table  that contains detailed information about each of your sources. In your table, you can include information such as the publication information, participants, setting, methods used, main results, and implications, but you should tailor your categories to the information you need for your review.

A notes table can be a valuable tool for evaluating and comparing your sources. You can use a notes table to help you better understand similarities and differences among sources, as well as methodological strengths and weaknesses across a set of studies.

Some tools can also help with note-taking, such as Elicit , an AI research tool that allows you to search for research sources and extract information from those sources into a table format. See Using Elicit for Systematic Reviews or Literature Reviews for more information.

• << Previous: Searching for Literature
• Next: Writing and Editing the Paper >>

• Systematic review
• Open access
• Published: 17 July 2024

Adaptability, Scalability and Sustainability (ASaS) of complex health interventions: a systematic review of theories, models and frameworks

• Lixin Sun   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0004-8328-5845 1 ,
• Andrew Booth 1 &
• Katie Sworn 1  

Implementation Science volume  19 , Article number:  52 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

1241 Accesses

13 Altmetric

Metrics details

Complex health interventions (CHIs) are increasingly used in public health, clinical research and education to reduce the burden of disease worldwide. Numerous theories, models and frameworks (TMFs) have been developed to support implementation of CHIs.

This systematic review aims to identify and critique theoretical frameworks concerned with three features of implementation; adaptability, scalability and sustainability (ASaS). By dismantling the constituent theories, analysing their component concepts and then exploring factors that influence each theory the review team hopes to offer an enhanced understanding of considerations when implementing CHIs.

This review searched PubMed MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for research investigating the TMFs of complex health interventions. Narrative synthesis was employed to examine factors that may influence the adaptability, scalability and sustainability of complex health interventions.

A total of 9763 studies were retrieved from the five databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar). Following removal of duplicates and application of the eligibility criteria, 35 papers were eligible for inclusion. Influencing factors can be grouped within outer context (socio-political context; leadership funding, inter-organisational networks), inner context; (client advocacy; organisational characteristics), intervention characteristics (supervision, monitoring and evaluation), and bridging factors (individual adopter or provider characteristics).

This review confirms that identified TMFS do not typically include the three components of adaptability, scalability, and sustainability. Current approaches focus on high income countries or generic “whole world” approaches with few frameworks specific to low- and middle-income countries. The review offers a starting point for further exploration of adaptability, scalability and sustainability, within a low- and middle-income context.

Trial registration

Not registered.

Peer Review reports

Contributions to the literature

This study identified that current existing theories, models and frameworks (TMFs) focus on high income countries or generic “whole world” approaches with few frameworks specific to low- and middle-income countries.

This study explored the factors influencing the adaptability, scalability and sustainability of complex health interventions within current TMFs.

This study evaluated the applicability and feasibility of current TMF in low- and middle-income countries.

Introduction

This systematic review examines the adaptability, scalability, and sustainability (ASaS) of complex health interventions (CHIs), which are increasingly used in public health, clinical research, and education to alleviate global disease burdens [ 1 ]. The effectiveness of CHIs depends on various factors, including health resources, education levels, and economic status [ 2 , 3 ].

CHIs are interventions with multiple interacting components, posing unique evaluation challenges beyond the usual practical and methodological difficulties [ 4 ].

Adaptability, scalability, and sustainability are crucial concepts in implementing CHIs, addressed through stages of evidence efficacy, scaling-up, and long-term sustainability [ 5 ]. Initial research phases focus on adapting interventions to local contexts and needs [ 6 ]. Once effectiveness is proven, the goal shifts to broader implementation, aiming for sustainability in real-world settings [ 5 ].The definitions of the ASaS is shown in the Table 1 .

Theories, models and frameworks are used extensively to advance implementation science [ 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 ], to guide the design and implementation of complex interventions, and to help in assessing their quality. The resultant models can also be used to elucidate causal mechanisms between influencing factors and to identify contextual factors associated with changes in outcomes [ 10 , 11 , 14 ]. In turn, TMFs offer a lens for the exploration of the complex fields of public health, health policy and social care [ 10 , 13 ].

Generally, a theory is:

“a set of inter‐related concepts, definitions and propositions that present a systematic view of events or situations by specifying relations among variables, to explain and predict the events or situations [ 15 , 16 ].

Simply put, theories, are closely related to models. Specially, theories are characterized as combining the explanatory alongside the descriptive, and models are defined as theories with a narrowly defined scope of explanation [ 16 ]. A framework is:

“a structure, overview, outline, system or plan consisting of various descriptive categories including concepts, constructs or variables, and the relations between them that are presumed to account for a phenomenon” [ 16 , 17 ].

Compared with theories and models, frameworks do not seek to be explanatory; rather than describe the internal relationships of concepts, they simply present the concepts [ 16 ]. However, despite some diverse characteristics, the terms “theory”, “model” and “framework” (TMF) are often used interchangeably.

However, most existing frameworks and measures for determining implementation factors and outcomes have originated in high-income nations [ 18 ]. A study indicated that although the number of frameworks related to program sustainability is increasing, these frameworks are rarely applied and evaluated in low- and middle-income countries or vulnerable communities within high-income countries. The primary reason for this phenomenon is the unique challenges faced by these countries and regions in terms of community and workplace capacities [ 19 ]. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that current TMFs are suitable for resource-limited settings [ 20 ].

Consequently, the aim of this review is to conduct a systematic review of theoretical frameworks concerned with at least one of the three ASaS concepts, to deconstruct the constituent theories, and to analyze the influencing factors within these frameworks. Another aim of this study is to assess the applicability and feasibility of these TMFs in diverse settings.

Specifically, the objectives of this review are:

To explore definitions of scalability, adaptability, and sustainability.

To identify published theoretical studies concerned with at least one of the concepts of sustainability, scalability and adaptability of complex health intervention-related frameworks and to assemble and explore relevant models and frameworks;

To explore inter-relationships between factors influencing scalability, adaptability, and sustainability of the complex health interventions;

To analyse the applicability and feasibility of these TMFs;

To appraise the methodological quality and reporting quality of the included literature.

Search strategy

Systematic review methods were employed to identify and select TMFs. Specifically, the BeHEMoTh procedure was used as a systematic approach by which to collect theoretical frameworks [ 10 ]. The BeHEMoTh procedure offers auditability and transparency when identifying published TMFs [ 21 ]. Specific features of the BeHEMoTh search process are outlined in Additional file 1. The search begins with a structured BeHEMoTh question. First, the researcher reviewed TMFs identified from a scoping review in order to construct a systematic search procedure for retrieving ASaS related TMFs via Google Scholar [Step 1a]. PubMed MEDLINE, CINAHL and Web of Science, were systematically searched using the same search strategy, in a process similar to a conventional systematic review search [step 1b]. Titles and abstracts were screened for TMFs using a spreadsheet with each additional instance being added to the list of TMFs previously identified via step 1 [step 2]. Named models retrieved from step 2, together with models found from scoping via Google Scholar, were then searched to retrieve additional related reports [step 3]. Searching of source references for these TMFs was used to reveal cited studies [step 4a and step 4b].

Search terms

Search terms across all sources were organized within five search term groups including the three ASaS concepts (See Additional file 1). By searching for the three ASaS concepts individually rather than for their intersect, the search strategy recognises that few models involve all three factors of ASaS with many involving one or two factors.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Identified publications were imported to Endnote 9 software and duplicates were deleted. Specific inclusion criteria for factors that influence ASaS of CHIs are shown in Table 2 .

Data extraction and appraisal

The titles and abstracts were screened, and the full papers of potentially relevant studies were obtained. Two authors independently assessed 10% of all titles and abstracts with a single reviewer then selecting full text papers for eligibility. An initial data extraction form was modified and adopted after revision. A single researcher independently extracted: (1) Study identification: year of publication, authors, name of study and name of the theories, models and frameworks; (2) Methods: study design, and study context; (3) any TMFs used; (4) Purpose of the theories, models, and framework; (5) Theories, models, and frameworks: definition, conceptual model, framework; (6) factors influencing ASaS of CHIs and inter-relationships between these concepts. These tables are shown in Additional file 3.

Quality assessment

Quality assessment criteria for assessing reports of TMFs are not common. Three papers were identified that either develop or utilize criteria for assessing theories [ 22 , 23 , 24 ] and these papers were used to compile the following quality assessment criteria:

Is the methodology identified and justified?

Was a theoretical lens or perspective used to guide the study, with a reference provided?

Is the theoretical framework described?

Is the theoretical framework easily linked with the problem?

If a conceptual framework is used, are the concepts adequately defined?

Are the relationships among concepts clearly identified?

Are the influencing factors of concepts clearly identified?

Are the relationships among influencing factors clearly described?

Quality assessments were undertaken by a single reviewer, quality assessment judgements are reported in Additional file 4.

Given that the literature relating to TMFs derives from multiple disciplines, the researcher decided to use a narrative synthesis approach, which allows for synthesis of diverse types, designs and contexts for studies [ 25 , 26 , 27 ].

First, collected TMFs were categorized against a pre-existing classification: (1) Process models; (2) Determinant frameworks; (3) Classic theories; (4) Implementation theories; (5) Evaluation frameworks [ 16 ] (Table 3 ).

To effectively analyze the factors influencing the adaptability, scalability, and sustainability (ASaS) of complex health interventions (CHIs), this review integrates insights from multiple frameworks. Initially, the EPIS (Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment) model was utilized, categorizing influencing factors into four key dimensions: Outer Context, Inner Context, Intervention Characteristics, and Bridging Factors. However, a more comprehensive understanding was needed, as the EPIS model alone did not fully capture the complexity of these factors.

To address this, features from the CFIR (Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research) and insights from the NASSS (Non-adoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability) framework and the Dynamic Sustainability Framework (DSF) were integrated. This meta-model enhancement involves expanding the descriptions within each EPIS dimension to cover additional critical elements found in these other frameworks.

Specifically, within the Inner Context, the organizational characteristics were elaborated to reflect deeper organizational dynamics affecting CHIs. In the Outer Context, the Sociopolitical Context was added, acknowledging its crucial influence on intervention outcomes. Further, the Intervention Characteristics were detailed more extensively to capture the nuanced nature of the interventions themselves.

This enriched model aims to provide a robust analytical framework that better reflects the complex interplay of factors influencing the ASaS of CHIs. By adopting this meta-model, the study offers a comprehensive theoretical foundation that underpins the examination of these complex interventions, paving the way for more targeted and effective implementation strategies in diverse settings.

Finally, the Theoretical Quality Tool, adapted from Hean et al. [ 31 ], was employed to rigorously assess the applicability of the collected (TMFs) in the context of Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs).

Characteristics of included studies

The flowchart of the search results (Fig. 1 ) shows that the search identified 9763 studies. Following removal of duplicates and application of eligibility criteria, 37 studies remained for inclusion in the review. 25 studies provide macroscopic TMFs for CHIs [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 30 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 ] worldwide. A further seven included TMFs [ 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 ] that were developed in high-income countries and only five studies [ 21 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 ] targeted LMICs.

PRIMA diagram of article selection

Types of TMF

Overall, 28 [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 21 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 55 , 57 , 58 , 61 ] of the 37 studies describe macroscopic TMFs and nine studies [ 30 , 47 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 56 , 59 , 60 ] describe TMFs for specific relevant interventions. Categorising these according to the five categories of Per Nilsen's schema (Table 3 ) reveals that 14 of the 37 TMFs are process models, 14 are determinant frameworks, one is classic theory, one is implementation theory, and seven are evaluation frameworks (See Additional file 5). One classic theory and one implementation theory are included. The Detailed classification for collected TMFs is described in Table 4 .

Adaptability, scalability and sustainability definitions

All 37 included studies reported at least two out of the three concepts of ASaS, and the specific concepts involved in each study. (See Table 5 ). Definitions of ASaS found in the included studies are shown in the Additional file 2.

The process of implementation and relationships of adaptability, scalability and sustainability

Diverse TMFs support a strong correlation between the three ASaS concepts and the implementation process. Twenty-five of the TMFs explicitly mentioned implementation of CHIs; while the remaining ten did not [ 6 , 8 , 21 , 39 , 40 , 44 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 62 ].

This review confirms the interconnectedness of adaptability, scalability, and sustainability in the implementation of complex health interventions (CHIs). The findings suggest that adaptability is crucial during the initial stages of CHI deployment, determining the potential for effective and cost-efficient implementation. As the intervention progresses, scalability becomes critical, ensuring that strategies effective on a smaller scale can be expanded to broader populations and regions. Ultimately, sustainability is achieved in the final stages, focusing on maintaining the benefits of the intervention over time and making necessary adjustments based on ongoing feedback and changing conditions.

In essence, the successful scaling and long-term sustainability of CHIs fundamentally depend on their initial adaptability. This streamlined approach highlights the critical progression from adaptability through scalability to sustainability, without delving into the specifics of various models and frameworks.

Influencing factors of adaptability, scalability and sustainability of complex interventions

This study collected and analyzed factors affecting the adaptability, scalability, and sustainability (ASaS) of complex health interventions (CHIs), systematically categorizing them into four distinct categories: outer context, inner context, intervention characteristics, and bridging factors. This classification helps clarify the various factors that influence the implementation of health interventions.

While all these factors impact the three concepts of ASaS, some have particularly close relationships with specific ASaS concepts. Subsequent sections will explore these factors in detail, emphasizing those closely linked to individual ASaS concepts. This approach highlights the multidimensionality of these factors and their varying impacts on the adaptability, scalability, and sustainability of CHIs. The overview of the factors influencing the ASaS is shown in the Table 6 .

Outer context

Name of influencing factors, suggested definition, frequency of influencing factors of Outer context is shown in Table 7 .

Sociopolitical context

This study has identified multiple studies highlighting how sociopolitical factors deeply influence the adaptability, scalability, and sustainability (ASaS) of complex health interventions (CHIs) [ 8 , 30 , 35 , 37 , 39 , 42 , 44 , 47 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 64 ]. These factors, including religion [ 58 ], ethics [ 39 , 56 ], legislation [ 30 , 35 , 39 , 44 , 54 , 58 , 59 , 64 ], norms or regulations [ 7 , 21 , 35 , 38 , 49 , 54 , 56 , 58 ], and policies [ 6 , 7 , 9 , 21 , 35 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 44 , 50 , 51 , 54 , 56 , 57 , 59 ], play a critical role in shaping health outcomes and addressing healthcare disparities. The influence of sociocultural factors such as common traditions, habits, patterns, and beliefs was also evident across different populations [ 35 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 44 , 50 , 52 , 54 , 57 , 58 , 62 ].

Interorganizational networks

Interorganizational networks bridge full-scale relationships across organizations [ 65 ], and it was found to significantly enhance the implementation of CHIs, enabling better adaptation to local contexts and sustainability at lower costs through effective resource sharing and communication.

Also, the role of funding was another major factor discussed, highlighting its critical importance for providing necessary resources such as training, materials, and health services [ 66 ]. Nineteen of the identified models or frameworks emphasize fiscal support prioritized in implementation [ 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 21 , 30 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 38 , 39 , 44 , 45 , 50 , 54 , 55 , 58 , 59 , 64 ].

Client advocacy

Three of the 37 studies identify client advocacy as an important influencing factor [ 9 , 45 , 50 ]. During implementation client advocacy assists healthcare workers, participants and their families in navigating the healthcare system [ 67 ].

Finally, 16 of the 37 studies emphasize leadership [ 6 , 21 , 30 , 35 , 36 , 40 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 50 , 51 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 ]. Specific subgroups may offer either approval or conflict. Strong leadership can promote effective use of resources while encouraging personnel to work towards a common goal.

Inner context

Name of influencing factors, suggested definition, frequency of influencing factors of Outer context is shown in the Table 8 .

Organizational characteristics

Organizational characteristics influence the process of implementing complex health interventions (CHIs) through structures and processes within organizations. These characteristics encompass ten influencing factors including absorptive capacity [ 6 , 8 , 9 , 21 , 36 , 37 , 40 , 44 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 56 , 57 , 59 , 64 ], organizational readiness [ 8 , 30 , 50 , 51 , 52 ], structure [ 6 , 7 , 35 , 38 , 40 , 44 , 49 , 51 , 52 , 59 , 64 ], values or visions [ 35 , 37 , 40 , 43 , 44 , 51 , 59 ], working environment [ 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 41 , 45 , 50 , 51 , 54 , 56 ], tension for change [ 6 , 49 , 51 , 53 ], organization culture [ 6 , 35 , 40 , 43 , 50 , 58 ], leadership [ 6 , 21 , 35 , 36 , 40 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 50 , 51 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 ], credibility and reputation [ 43 ]. The adaptability, scalability, and sustainability (ASaS) of CHIs are significantly dependent on these organizational elements.

Organisations with strong organisational power may be likely to implement CHIs because they have stronger leadership and more frequent communication than those with weak or decentralised organisational structures [ 68 ].

Readiness for change

In addition, strong organisations are prepared and aware of possible encountered changes and can adjust their strategies and approaches of working in time to enable CHIs to be carried out well. Readiness for change is related to other factors including organisational culture, and individual attitudes [ 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 ].

Absorptive capacity

During the exploration and preparation phases of a CHI, an organisation's absorptive capacity (the ability to identify, assimilate, transform, and use external knowledge, research and practice [ 73 ]), readiness for change and receptive environment exert a significant impact on the adaptability of CHIs.

Individual adopter or provider characteristics

Individual adopter or provider characteristics include participants’ personal characteristics, age, race/ethnicity, education, training, foundation subjects, professional experience, adaptability, personal values and goals, and personal character creative ability.

Fourteen included studies emphasise how the CHI is accepted and scaled-up by participants and health care workers [ 6 , 7 , 8 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 41 , 45 , 47 , 51 , 53 , 54 , 56 , 58 ]. In parallel to the organisational level, individual ability or capacity [ 6 , 35 , 44 , 51 , 53 , 56 , 57 , 64 ], training or education [ 7 , 8 , 35 , 36 , 40 , 51 , 52 , 56 ], and tenacity for change [ 6 , 51 , 53 ] constitute important factors. CHIs are more easily adapted and diffused when led by experienced and leaders [ 6 , 21 , 35 , 36 , 40 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 50 , 51 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 ] with common visions or views [ 6 , 35 , 51 , 53 , 56 , 60 , 64 ]. In addition, race [ 35 , 50 ], spoken language [ 35 , 50 , 52 ] and individual culture [ 35 , 53 , 56 , 59 ] are considered to be vital influencing factors. Specifically, when there is a high degree of fit between the norms and values of the individual, organisation and CHIs, individuals may find that they achieve higher efficacy when implementing CHIs [ 64 ].

As mentioned above, 16 of the 37 included studies emphasize leadership [ 6 , 21 , 30 , 35 , 36 , 40 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 48 , 50 , 51 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 ].

CHIs require sufficient, well-trained healthcare workers. Fourteen of the 37 studies list staffing as an important factor in their TMFs [ 7 , 30 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 56 , 64 ]. Job candidates may be selected so that their knowledge, skills, competencies, and attitudes [ 74 ] match the requirements of the CHI.

Supervision, monitoring and evaluation

Supervision, monitoring and evaluation refers to the collection, storage, analysis and use of data to assess whether complex interventions are achieving their intended objectives, and further influences improvement, policy development and advocacy of complex intervention [ 75 ]. Nine of the 35 studies argue for the vital role of monitoring and evaluation in providing an effective approach by which to assess the effectiveness of complex interventions [ 21 , 30 , 40 , 43 , 44 , 50 , 51 , 58 , 64 ].

Intervention characteristics

The characteristics of the intervention itself is also an important factor. Specifically, the physical and community environment, the cost of the intervention and access to resources (8 studies) [ 6 , 21 , 30 , 34 , 38 , 51 , 52 , 56 ] and the source of funding all exert a direct impact. Project champions are committed to supporting and promoting the implementation of CHI, along with a strong belief in the value of carrying out CHIs [ 76 ]. The factors within intervention characteristics is shown in the Table 9 .

The included frameworks attest to how the characteristics of the CHI decide whether an intervention can be adapted, scaled-up and sustained [ 6 , 8 , 33 , 36 , 47 , 51 , 53 ]. Although researchers hope that CHIs can be adapted and conducted as quickly as possible, it takes time for both healthcare providers and participants to adapt to new interventions [ 77 ]. Also, when interventions change significantly within a short period of time, the lack of sufficient time to adapt to the intervention and adjust to relevant cultural factors prevent staff and participants from adopting a new CHI [ 78 ].

Bridging factors

Factors influencing the inter-relationship of outer and inner context are described as “bridging factors” in the EPIS framework. Bridging factors include community engagement and Purveyors/Intermediaries.

Twelve studies stress the importance of the community. Development of complex interventions within a community may be facilitated when they utilise existing community resources, available structures and staff, reducing dependence on external funding [ 21 ]. For example, community members were proud to participate in a project to improve malaria prevention through insecticide-treated mosquito nets and thereby contribute to disease control within their community. Consequently, the project was speedily adapted, replicated and scaled-up locally [ 79 ]. The community function is also affected by socio-political factors [ 80 ]. If the visions and beliefs of the policy are inconsistent with community objectives, the policy hinders spread and sustainability even where the community possesses powerful leadership, project champions and sufficient resources [ 80 , 81 ].

Purveyors/Intermediaries take on a critical bridging role for key processes in the implementation of CHIs [ 45 ]. Purveyors, who may be individuals, groups or communities, aim to facilitate the effective and sustainable implementation of CHIs [ 82 ]. Intermediaries provide consultancy and training services to governments, organisations, etc., and also develop and implement different health-services and projects for them [ 82 ]. They also provide monitoring, support, quality improvement and evaluation services at the end of the project [ 82 ]. The factors within bridging factors is shown in the Table 10 .

Applicability and feasibility of the collected TMFs

This study employs the Theoretical Quality Tool, adapted from Hean et al. [ 31 ], to rigorously assess the applicability of various Theoretical Models and Frameworks (TMFs) in the context of Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs). The detailed outcomes of this assessment are presented in the Additional file 6. The summary table highlights the applicability and feasibility of TMFs in LMICs.

Of the 37 TMFs reviewed (two studies identify EPIS), seven demonstrate high applicability and feasibility, readily integrating into LMIC healthcare environments without necessitating significant overhauls. For example, models like the AIDED and NPT are readily implementable in LMICs due to their practicality and context-sensitive design. They integrate seamlessly into existing healthcare systems, offering solutions without the need for extensive system overhauls, crucial in resource-limited environments. Twenty-five TMFs require adaptations to align with the local conditions of LMICs, entailing modifications to fit cultural, economic, and healthcare infrastructure nuances. For example, the EPIS framework, CFIR framework, PRISM Model and Chronic Care Model, though broadly applicable, need customization to fit the unique cultural, economic, and healthcare infrastructures of LMICs.

For the remaining five TMFs, their inherent theoretical complexity and the fact that some were specifically designed for High-Income Countries (HICs) pose significant barriers to adoption in in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs). This finding highlights an important disconnect between their foundational assumptions and the practical realities of healthcare systems in LMICs. The evaluation outcomes of the applicability and feasibility of the collected 37 TMFs are shown in the Table 11 .

This theoretical systematic review identified common features and differences across 37 TMFs associated with ASaS.

Similarities and differences between the TMFs

All identified TMFs emphasize the importance of one or more of the three ASaS concepts. These frameworks aim to enable CHIs to adapt to new contexts and populations, scale up interventions, and ensure long-term effectiveness. The components of different TMFs share broadly similar descriptions, even if the terminology varies. For example, the EPIS framework divides the implementation process into four phases: exploration, preparation, implementation, and sustainment whereas Sarma’s framework [ 5 ] describes three domains: i: evidence – efficacy to effectiveness; ii: Scaling-up; and iii: sustainability. A further study [ 36 ] describes four stages 1. Training (dissemination); 2. adoption (planning); 3. implementation; 4. practical improvement and two key points (preparation and maintenance).

In the EPIS framework, during exploration and preparation, adaptability is considered to determine whether the complex intervention can be conducted effectively with affordable cost. Domain I of Sarma’s framework [ 5 ] includes the four vital components of intervention sources, evidence strength and quality, relative advantages, adaptability and complexity. The Framework - oral health [ 36 ] emphasizes adoption within the second stage. Hence, these three stages have the similar key components. The EPIS framework describes how a pilot study is further implemented across diverse participants and areas, which is similar to Domain ii: Scaling-up in Sarma’s framework [ 5 ] and the implementation stage in Framework - oral health [ 36 ]. Finally, the sustainment stage in EPIS framework, Domain iii: sustainability in Sarma’s framework [ 5 ] and the maintenance point in Framework - oral health [ 36 ] all convey a shared understanding of sustainability.

Similar stages may be presented in a different order within various models, reflecting the inherently multi-stage and non-linear nature of CHI implementation. Significant differences across different TMFs primarily relate to influences on ASaS. Furthermore, even when different TMFs use the same terminology to describe influencing factors, the meanings may differ due to the inherent complexity and dynamics of these factors.

The complexity of influencing factors of adaptability, scalability and sustainability

The TMFs reflect how CHIs and associated influencing factors do not operate in isolation, but are non-linear, interacting and interdependent. Some influencing factors appear across multiple studies. For example, researchers share a consensus about the importance of funding [ 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 21 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 38 , 39 , 44 , 45 , 50 , 54 , 55 , 58 , 64 ]. Some studies emphasise adequate and sustained financial support from governments and foundations as prerequisite to the sustainability and spread [ 5 , 44 , 50 , 61 ], while Sarma [ 5 ] recognizes the need to sustain interventions in the absence of adequate funding [ 21 ]. In addition, the sociopolitical context, leadership and organizational characteristics are repeatedly mentioned as essential components for implementation. Furthermore, all the factors mentioned in the literature are bi-directional; the same influencing factor may act differently under diverse conditions, either as a facilitator or as a hindrance.

To be specific, first, in terms of the outer context, strong leadership can facilitate effective use of resources while encouraging personnel to work towards a common goal. Also, sociopolitical factors covers ethical considerations [ 39 , 56 ], legislation [ 35 , 39 , 44 , 54 , 58 , 64 ], norms or regulations [ 7 , 21 , 35 , 38 , 54 , 56 , 58 ], policies [ 6 , 7 , 9 , 21 , 35 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 44 , 50 , 51 , 54 , 56 , 57 ], and religion [ 58 ]. Legislation and policies not only guide, and often guarantee, complex interventions at the macro level, but also, at the empirical level, provide a basis for adapting CHIs to the local environment thereby making interventions suitable for scale up and long term sustainment [ 35 , 39 , 44 , 54 , 58 , 64 ]. High quality interorganizational communication contributes to the implementation and sustainability of CHIs [ 83 ]. Additionally, weak leadership exerts a negative impact on the management of the organisation, funding applications and the recruitment of staff.

Leadership remains an important factor in relation to the inner context. Given that complex interventions are often run by the state, an organisation or a group, strong leadership can facilitate complex interventions. Also, the organisational culture, the vision/belief and the structure of the organisation interact with each factor and are influenced by funding, leadership and staffing.

Strong leadership needs to be accompanied by a structured organisation with a common vision in order to achieve the objectives of complex interventions. People as the carriers of culture, organisation, professional and personal attitudes, norms, interests and affiliations [ 84 ] also fulfil an important role. Individual adopter or provider characteristics are important influencing factors. When people within the organisation are aligned with the organisation's philosophy and culture, along with sufficient financial support, strong leadership and effective supervision, adaptation, scale up and long-term sustainment become possible for CHIs. Finally, intervention factors are influenced by both the outer context and the inner context, and bridging factors serve to unite the outer context, the inner context, and the intervention factors.

The dynamics of influencing factors of adaptability, scalability and sustainability

Factors that influence complex interventions are dynamic in both temporal and geographical terms. The role of these factors may change over time [ 85 ]; anticipated barriers may become facilitators [ 85 ]. For example, in the early stages of an intervention, individual adopters may exhibit skepticism and distrust, presenting a barrier to CHI delivery. However, in later stages, if the intervention proves effective, participant attitudes may shift, motivating them to cooperate and thus becoming facilitators. Similarly, in the early stages, newly recruited or local staff may be unfamiliar with the intervention, posing a hindrance. Conversely, as staff become familiar with the intervention, they are better equipped to implement it, thereby becoming facilitators.

Identical influencing factors may have different effects in various geographical and national contexts. For example, women are generally considered a vulnerable group worldwide, particularly in LMICs, where they tend to have lower income and social status compared to men, making it difficult for them to access better health care resources [ 86 ]. However, in the matrilineal community in Indonesia, women occupy similar or even higher social status than men, with a cultural tradition of controlling family finances [ 87 ]. Therefore, in this context, gender and culture may facilitate interventions, especially maternal and child health related interventions. In relation to funding, reliable sources of funding help to sustain interventions [ 5 ], and one of the challenges to sustainability is the lack of long-term available funding [ 21 ]. In summary, this systematic review offers a comprehensive understanding of factors influencing ASaS and provides a theoretical framework for effective CHIs in the future.

Have gaps in knowledge been addressed?

This is the first systematic review of ASaS related TMFs of CHIs. By focusing on the three factors of adaptability, sustainability and spread the review has been able to explore complex interactions of each with each other and with other important factors.

How have authors defined scalability, adaptability, and sustainability?

Additional file 2 consolidates definitions of scalability, adaptability and sustainability as identified across the included studies. It is noticeable that “sustainability has evolved from being considered as the endgame of a translational research process to a suggested 'adaptation phase’ that integrates and institutionalizes interventions within local organizational and cultural contexts.” [ 7 ]

This literature argues that sustainability is, in fact, a manifestation of adaptability, and that the two concepts are closely related.

Which theoretical studies explore at least one of the concepts of scalability, adaptability and sustainability of complex health intervention within a relevant model/frameworks;?

This review reveals the scarcity of theoretical models for LMICs. The review identified four main categories of theoretical models, (i) the generic TMFs (e.g. RE-AIM and CFIR), with no obvious geographical target (26/37); (ii) tailored TMFs developed by some high-income countries (e,g. [ 52 , 53 , 56 ]. for local needs (6/37); (iii) adapted TMFs (e.g. EPIS and Framework of Dissemination in Health Services Intervention Research), originally designed for high-income countries but now adapted to CHIs worldwide; (iv) TMFs specific to low and middle income countries (5/37) (e.g. [ 21 , 57 ]). 85.7% of the included theories are either generic or specific to high-income countries, with a lack of TMFs specifically targeted at LMICs. As a result of this literature review the team have proceeded to develop a framework for Adaptability, Scalability and Sustainability that is suited for a low- and middle-income country context.

Thirty seven studies explore at least one of the concepts of sustainability, scalability and adaptability. However, no previous studies have explored all three ASaS concepts within a single TMF. Although some studies invoke the need to explore influencing factors and correlation among ASaS, no studies have actually conducted this research.

What inter-relationships have been demonstrated between factors influencing scalability, adaptability, and sustainability of the complex health interventions?

The meta-framework provides a comprehensive structure to explore the complexities of CHI implementation, emphasizing the interplay among four critical domains: outer context, inner context, intervention characteristics, and bridging factors.

In the outer context, the interplay between strong leadership, sociopolitical factors, and interorganizational networks is crucial. Strong leadership promotes resource optimization and strategic alignment toward CHI goals, essential for ASaS [ 35 , 39 , 44 , 54 , 58 , 64 ]. Sociopolitical factors, including legislation, policies, and norms, provide a regulatory framework that guides the adaptation of CHIs to local settings, enhancing their feasibility and long-term integration [ 83 ]. Additionally, robust interorganizational communication facilitates effective adaptation of CHIs to local contexts, potentially lowering costs and enhancing sustainability.

Within the inner context, organizational culture, structure, and leadership significantly interact, affecting CHI outcomes. Strong, visionary leadership is crucial for fostering an organizational culture that supports CHIs and aligns with broader intervention goals [ 84 ]. The organization's structure further influences the implementation of these interventions, with well-structured organizations likely to achieve better scalability and sustainability. Additionally, the characteristics of individual providers and adopters play a critical role, impacting their ability to effectively implement and sustain CHIs.

The characteristics of the intervention itself directly impact its implementation. Factors such as the intervention's complexity, cost, resource requirements, and specific design elements determine the ASaS especially for the stages of adaptability and scalability [ 6 , 21 , 30 , 34 , 38 , 51 , 52 , 56 , 59 ]. Support from project champions and stakeholder involvement are crucial in facilitating the implementation process, ensuring that the interventions are well-supported and aligned with stakeholder expectations [ 8 , 21 , 34 , 36 , 37 , 40 , 44 , 49 , 50 , 56 , 60 ].

Bridging factors like community engagement and the role of purveyors/intermediaries are vital for linking the outer and inner contexts of CHIs. Community engagement leverages local resources and capacities, which is essential for the localized adaptation and sustainability of interventions [ 8 , 9 , 21 , 30 , 34 , 38 , 42 , 44 , 45 , 54 , 56 , 58 ]. Purveyors and intermediaries facilitate the transfer of knowledge and best practices, enhancing the overall effectiveness and reach of CHIs [ 45 ]. These bridging roles ensure that interventions are not only well-integrated within communities but also maintain fidelity to their objectives and outcomes over time.

Lack of TMFs designed for LMICs

The lack of specifically designed TMFs for LMICs presents significant challenges in effectively implementing complex health interventions (CHIs) in these settings. Evaluating existing TMFs reveals a gap in their suitability and feasibility for application within the unique healthcare environments of LMICs.

Of the 37 TMFs assessed, many were found to require adaptations to align with the local conditions of LMICs, necessitating modifications to fit cultural, economic, and healthcare infrastructure nuances. For instance, frameworks such as EPIS, CFIR, PRISM Model, and Chronic Care Model, though broadly applicable, need customization to fit the unique contexts of LMICs.

Five of the TMFs reviewed were identified as inherently complex and primarily designed for high-income settings, posing substantial barriers to their adoption in LMICs. This highlights a critical disconnect between the foundational assumptions of these models and the practical realities of healthcare systems in LMICs, which face challenges such as limited resources, differing disease burdens, and varied healthcare delivery systems.

Despite these challenges, some models demonstrate higher applicability and feasibility. For example, the Dynamic Sustainability Framework (DSF) and the AIDED model are noted for their practicality and context-sensitive design, aligning with the continuous adaptation and learning required in LMICs. These models integrate seamlessly into existing healthcare systems, offering solutions without the need for extensive system overhauls, which is crucial in resource-limited environments.

The findings underscore the need to develop or adapt existing TMFs specifically tailored to the conditions of LMICs. This involves considering local healthcare practices, resource limitations, and cultural factors to ensure that the frameworks are both applicable and feasible in supporting the effective implementation and sustainability of CHIs in these settings.

Strengths and limitations

This systematic review retrieved relevant literature through a comprehensive search across four databases. Only studies published in English were included, potentially missing those from the grey literature. Identifying relevant implementation TMFs proved challenging due to the complex and diffuse terminologies used in this field. Exhaustive lists of synonyms would have been prohibitive, resulting in lack of specificity and numerous false positives. The authors sought an optimal balance between sensitivity and workload. Although the included studies were evaluated using a quality assessment tool, the risk of bias remains, particularly since only one author was responsible for data extraction.

Furthermore, although this review has identified how influencing factors interact, no clear theoretical model charts the specific TMFs, routes, and pathways from the influencing factors to the ASaS of CHIs. Finally, concepts such as acceptability, fidelity, and feasibility, are recognized as important features of CHIs [ 88 ] but fell outside the remit of this review.

Only one classic theory and one implementation theory are included. There are two possible reasons. Classical theories are borrowed from such disciplines as psychology, sociology and organisational development (e.g. the Diffusion of Innovation theory [ 89 ]. Similarly. the Health Belief Model was published in 1950 [ 90 ] and the Theory of Planned Behavior in the late 1980s [ 91 ]. Given that inclusion requires publication after 2000, many classic theories predate the study period. On the other hand, other theories, such as the implementation climate theory [ 92 ], may not be conceptually related to ASaS, resulting in their exclusion. The Detailed classification for collected TMFs is described in Table 4 .

This review synthesizes 37 TMFs that document factors influencing the ASaS of CHIs. It confirms the wide variety of definitions used for adaptability, scalability, and sustainability within current TMFs, which typically do not include all three components. Current approaches focus on high-income countries or generic “whole world” approaches, with few frameworks specific to low- and middle-income countries. Numerous attempts have been made to describe and explore the interrelationships between implementation components. Of these, the EPIS and CFIR frameworks seem to possess the greatest inherent value, particularly within a model consisting of outer context, inner context, intervention characteristics, and bridging factors. This review offers a starting point for further exploration of adaptability, scalability, and sustainability, particularly within a low- and middle-income context.

Availability of data and materials

All data cited in this review derives from published papers and therefore already available.

Abbreviations

Adaptability, scalability and sustainability

Capability, Opportunity, Motivation and Behaviour

• Complex health interventions

Evidence-based practice

Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework

Low- and middle- income countries

Medical Research Council

Theory, model and framework

Reference List

Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M et al. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance BMJ. BMJ: 2008;337:a1655. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a1655 . 

Waters E, et al. Essential components of public health evidence reviews: capturing intervention complexity, implementation, economics and equity. J Public Health. 2011;33(3):462–5.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Wells M, et al. Intervention description is not enough: evidence from an in-depth multiple case study on the untold role and impact of context in randomised controlled trials of seven complex interventions. Trials. 2012;13(1):1–17.

Article   Google Scholar  

Anderson R. New MRC guidance on evaluating complex interventions BMJ. BMJ: 2008;337:a1937. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a1937 .

Sarma H, et al. Developing a conceptual framework for implementation science to evaluate a nutrition intervention scaled-up in a real-world setting. Public Health Nutr. 2021;24(S1):s7–22.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Damschroder LJ, et al. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4(1):1–15.

Chambers DA, Glasgow RE, Stange KC. The dynamic sustainability framework: addressing the paradox of sustainment amid ongoing change. Implement Sci. 2013;8(1):1–11.

Organization, W.H., Practical guidance for scaling up health service innovations. World Health Organization. World Health Organization: 2009.  https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/44180/9789241598521_eng.pdf?sequence=1 .

Scheirer MA, Dearing JW. An agenda for research on the sustainability of public health programs. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(11):2059–67.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Booth A, Carroll C. Systematic searching for theory to inform systematic reviews: is it feasible? Is it desirable? Health Inform Libr J. 2015;32(3):220–35.

Noyes J, et al. Current use was established and Cochrane guidance on selection of social theories for systematic reviews of complex interventions was developed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:78–92.

Oliver SR, et al. A multidimensional conceptual framework for analysing public involvement in health services research. Health Expect. 2008;11(1):72–84.

Ridde V, Pérez D, Robert E. Using implementation science theories and frameworks in global health. BMJ Global Health. 2020;5(4):e002269.

Milat AJ, Li B. Narrative review of frameworks for translating research evidence into policy and practice. Public Health Res Pract. 2017;27(1):e2711704.

Rimer, B.K. and K. Glanz, Theory at a glance: a guide for health promotion practice. US Department of Health and Human Services National Institutes of Health: 2005.  https://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/theory.pdf .

Nilsen, P. Making Sense of Implementation Theories, Models, and Frameworks. In: Albers B, Shlonsky A, Mildon R. (eds) Implementation Science 3.0. Springer: Springer, Cham. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03874-8_3 .

Sabatier PA, Weible CM. eds., Theories of the policy process. Westview press: 2014. https://books.google.com.hk/books? .

Kemp CG, et al. Implementation science and stigma reduction interventions in low-and middle-income countries: a systematic review. BMC Med. 2019;17:1–18.

Hodge LM, Turner KM. Sustained implementation of evidence-based programs in disadvantaged communities: A conceptual framework of supporting factors. Am J Commun Psychol. 2016;58(1–2):192–210.

Frech S, et al. C/Can city Engagement process: an implementation framework for strengthening cancer care in cities in low-and middle-income countries. JCO Glob Oncol. 2021;7:901–16.

Iwelunmor J, et al. Toward the sustainability of health interventions implemented in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and conceptual framework. Implement Sci. 2015;11(1):1–27.

Google Scholar  

Caldwell K, Henshaw L, Taylor G. Developing a framework for critiquing health research: an early evaluation. Nurse Educ Today. 2011;31(8):e1–7.

Creswell JW, Creswell JD. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications: 2017. http://www.ceil-conicet.gov.ar/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Creswell-Cap-10.pdf .

Bergeron K, et al. Theories, models and frameworks used in capacity building interventions relevant to public health: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):1–12.

Lucas PJ, et al. Worked examples of alternative methods for the synthesis of qualitative and quantitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7(1):1–7.

Barnett-Page E, Thomas J. Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9(1):1–11.

Wong G, et al. RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses. BMC Med. 2013;11(1):1–14.

Jacobson N, Butterill D, Goering P. Development of a framework for knowledge translation: understanding user context. J Health Serv Res Pol. 2003;8(2):94–9.

Atkins L, et al. A guide to using the theoretical domains framework of behaviour change to investigate implementation problems. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):1–18.

Birken SA, et al. Organizational theory for dissemination and implementation research. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):1–15.

Hean S, et al. The contribution of theory to the design, delivery, and evaluation of interprofessional curricula: BEME Guide No 49. Med Teach. 2018;40(6):542–58.

Movsisyan A, et al. Adapting evidence-informed complex population health interventions for new contexts: a systematic review of guidance. Implement Sci. 2019;14(1):1–20.

Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. 1999;89(9):1322–7.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Davy C, et al. Factors influencing the implementation of chronic care models: a systematic literature review. BMC Fam Pract. 2015;16(1):1–12.

Stirman SW, Baumann AA, Miller CJ. The FRAME: an expanded framework for reporting adaptations and modifications to evidence-based interventions. Implement Sci. 2019;14(1):1–10.

Simpson DD. A framework for implementing sustainable oral health promotion interventions. J Public Health Dentistry. 2011;71:S84–94.

Khalil H, Kynoch K. Implementation of sustainable complex interventions in health care services: the triple C model. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(1):1–10.

Mendel P, et al. Interventions in organizational and community context: a framework for building evidence on dissemination and implementation in health services research. Admin Pol Mental Health Mental Health Serv Res. 2008;35(1–2):21–37.

Pfadenhauer LM, et al. Making sense of complexity in context and implementation: the Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions (CICI) framework. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):1–17.

Scott KA, Pringle J. The power of the frame: systems transformation framework for health care leaders. Nurs Adm Q. 2018;42(1):4–14.

Feldstein AC, Glasgow RE. A practical, robust implementation and sustainability model (PRISM) for integrating research findings into practice. Joint Commission J Qual Patient Safety. 2008;34(4):228–43.

Yamey G. Scaling up global health interventions: a proposed framework for success. Plos Med. 2011;8(6): e1001049.

Cooley L, Kohl R, Ved R. Scaling up—from vision to large-scale change: a management framework for practitioners. Washington, DC: Management Systems International; 2006.

Shelton RC, Cooper BR, Stirman SW. The sustainability of evidence-based interventions and practices in public health and health care. Ann Rev Public Health. 2018;39:55–76.

Moullin JC, et al. Systematic review of the exploration, preparation, implementation, sustainment (EPIS) framework. Implement Sci. 2019;14(1):1–16.

De Silva MJ, et al. Theory of change: a theory-driven approach to enhance the Medical Research Council’s framework for complex interventions. Trials. 2014;15(1):1–13.

Stratil JM, Voss M, Arnold L. WICID framework version 1.0: criteria and considerations to guide evidence-informed decision-making on non-pharmacological interventions targeting COVID-19. BMJ Glob Health. 2020;5(11):e003699.

Gaglio B, Shoup JA, Glasgow RE. The RE-AIM framework: a systematic review of use over time. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(6):e38–46.

Murray E, et al. Normalisation process theory: a framework for developing, evaluating and implementing complex interventions. BMC Med. 2010;8(1):1–11.

Aarons GA, Hurlburt M, Horwitz SM. Advancing a conceptual model of evidence-based practice implementation in public service sectors. Admin Pol Mental Health Mental Health Serv Res. 2011;38(1):4–23.

McMullen H, et al. Explaining high and low performers in complex intervention trials: a new model based on diffusion of innovations theory. Trials. 2015;16(1):1–16.

Hockley J, et al. A framework for cross-cultural development and implementation of complex interventions to improve palliative care in nursing homes: the PACE steps to success programme. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):1–11.

Artieta-Pinedo I, et al. Framework for the establishment of a feasible, tailored and effective perinatal education programme. BMC Pregn Childb. 2017;17(1):1–10.

Apostolopoulos Y, et al. Moving alcohol prevention research forward—part i: introducing a complex systems paradigm. Addiction. 2018;113(2):353–62.

Greene RA, et al. A person-focused model of care for the twenty-first century: a system-of-systems perspective. Popul Health Manage. 2014;17(3):166–71.

Beets MW, et al. Translating policies into practice: a framework to prevent childhood obesity in afterschool programs. Health Promot Pract. 2013;14(2):228–37.

Barker PM, Reid A, Schall MW. A framework for scaling up health interventions: lessons from large-scale improvement initiatives in Africa. Implement Sci. 2015;11(1):1–11.

Bradley EH, et al. A model for scale up of family health innovations in low-income and middle-income settings: a mixed methods study. BMJ Open. 2012;2(4): e000987.

Hirschhorn LR, et al. Development and application of a hybrid implementation research framework to understand success in reducing under-5 mortality in Rwanda. Gates Open Res. 2021;5:72.

Singh NS, et al. A tale of ‘politics and stars aligning’: analysing the sustainability of scaled up digital tools for front-line health workers in India. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(Suppl 5):e005041.

Greenhalgh T, et al. Beyond adoption: a new framework for theorizing and evaluating nonadoption, abandonment, and challenges to the scale-up, spread, and sustainability of health and care technologies. J Med Int Res. 2017;19(11): e367.

James HM, et al. Spread, scale-up, and sustainability of video consulting in health care: systematic review and synthesis guided by the NASSS framework. J Med Int Res. 2021;23(1):e23775.

Kristensen FB, et al. European network for Health Technology Assessment, EUnetHTA: Planning, development, and implementation of a sustainable European network for Health Technology Assessment. Int J Technol Asses Health Care. 2009;25(S2):107–16.

Greenhalgh T, et al. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Quart. 2004;82(4):581–629.

Raab J. Interorganizational Networks. In: Alhajj R, Rokne J. (eds) Encyclopedia of Social Network Analysis and Mining. Springer: New York; 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-7131-2_369 .

Simpson DD. A conceptual framework for transferring research to practice. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2002;22(4):171–82.

University; T. Why Healthcare Advocacy Is Important. 2021. https://publichealth.tulane.edu/blog/healthcare-advocacy/ .

Yano EM. The role of organizational research in implementing evidence-based practice: QUERI Series. Implement Sci. 2008;3(1):1–15.

Aarons GA. Transformational and transactional leadership: Association with attitudes toward evidence-based practice. Psychiatric Services. 2006;57(8):1162–9.

Aarons GA, et al. Expanding the domains of attitudes towards evidence-based practice: the evidence based practice attitude scale-50. Admin Pol Mental Health Mental Health Serv Res. 2012;39(5):331–40.

Armenakis AA, et al. Organizational change recipients’ beliefs scale: development of an assessment instrument. J Appl Behav Sci. 2007;43(4):481–505.

Glisson C, et al. Assessing the organizational social context (OSC) of mental health services: Implications for research and practice. Admin Pol Mental Health Mental Health Serv Res. 2008;35(1–2):98.

Cohen, Levinthal. "Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation", Administrative Science Quarterly. 1990;35(1):128–52.

Patterson F, Ferguson E, Thomas S. Using job analysis to identify core and specific competencies: implications for selection and recruitment. Med Educ. 2008;42(12):1195–204.

Prennushi G, Rubio G, Subbarao K. Monitoring and evaluation. A sourcebook for poverty reduction strategies. 2002;107–30.

Maidique MA. Entrepreneurs, champions, and technological innovation. Sloan Manage Rev. 1980;21(2):59–76.

Sunaert P, et al. Implementation of a program for type 2 diabetes based on the chronic care model in a hospital-centered health care system:" the Belgian experience". BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9(1):1–14.

Hroscikoski MC, et al. Challenges of change: a qualitative study of chronic care model implementation. Ann Fam Med. 2006;4(4):317–26.

Rashed S, et al. Sustaining malaria prevention in Benin: local production of bednets. Health Pol Plann. 1997;12(1):67–76.

Osawa E, Kodama T, Kundishora E. Motivation and sustainability of care facilitators engaged in a community home-based HIV/AIDS program in Masvingo Province Zimbabwe. AIDS Care. 2010;22(7):895–902.

Humphries D, Gomez L, Hartwig K. Sustainability of NGO capacity building in southern Africa: successes and opportunities. Int J Health Plann Manage. 2011;26(2):e85–101.

Proctor E, et al. Intermediary/purveyor organizations for evidence-based interventions in the US child mental health: characteristics and implementation strategies. Implement Sci. 2019;14(1):1–14.

Simpson DD, Dansereau DF. Assessing organizational functioning as a step toward innovation. Sci Pract Perspect. 2007;3(2):20.

Shi J, Jiang C, Tan D, Yu D, Lu Y, Sun P, et al. Advancing Implementation of Evidence‐Based Public Health in China: An Assessment of the Current Situation and Suggestions for Developing Regions. BioMed Research International. 2016(1):2694030.

Lau WKR. Implementation of Complex Interventions in UK General Practice (Doctoral dissertation, UCL (University College London). UCL (University College London): 2018. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10047560/1/Lau_10047560_thesis_volume%201_revised.pdf .

Mariani G, et al. Improving women’s health in low-income and middle-income countries. Part I: challenges and priorities. Nuclear Med Commun. 2017;38(12):1019.

Bhanbhro S, et al. Factors affecting maternal nutrition and health: a qualitative study in a matrilineal community in Indonesia. Plos one. 2020;15(6):e0234545.

Klaic M, et al. Implementability of healthcare interventions: an overview of reviews and development of a conceptual framework. Implement Sci. 2022;17(1):1–20.

Rogers EM, Singhal A, Quinlan MM. Diffusion of innovations. In An integrated approach to communication theory and research. Routledge: 2014;432–48. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780203887011-36/diffusion-innovations-everett-rogers-arvind-singhal-margaret-quinlan .

Sheeran P, Abraham C. The health belief model. Predict Health Behav. 1996;2:29–80.

Ajzen I. From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In: Action control. Springer; 1985. p. 11–39.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Weiner BJ, et al. The meaning and measurement of implementation climate. Implement Sci. 2011;6(1):1–12.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge Prof. Andrew Booth and Dr. Katie Sworn their review of the manuscript and guidance on the systematic review process.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. 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.

There was no funding source for this work.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Sheffield Centre for Health and Related Research (SCHARR), University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK

Lixin Sun, Andrew Booth & Katie Sworn

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

LS conceived the research questions and prepared the research protocol in conjunction with AB and KS. LS designed the study, conducted the literature searches, and analyses. AB and KS refined the research question, contributed to the study design, participated in the literature review, helped prepare the first draft and revisions. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript for submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lixin Sun .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

I declare that i have 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., supplementary material 3., supplementary material 4., supplementary material 5., supplementary material 6., supplementary material 7..

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.

Sun, L., Booth, A. & Sworn, K. Adaptability, Scalability and Sustainability (ASaS) of complex health interventions: a systematic review of theories, models and frameworks. Implementation Sci 19 , 52 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01375-7

Download citation

Received : 18 January 2024

Accepted : 23 June 2024

Published : 17 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01375-7

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

• Adaptability
• Scalability
• Sustainability
• Influencing factors

Implementation Science

ISSN: 1748-5908

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Writing a Literature Review

• What is a Literature Review
• Research Topic | Research Questions
• Outline (Example)
• What Types of Literature Should I Use in My Review?
• Project Planner: Literature Review
• Writing a Literature Review in Psychology
• Literature Review tips (video)

Creating an Outline

The creation of an outline is an invaluable tool in the process of writing a research paper. It will give structure to the fledgling paper and allow you to better imagine what you will need to write. Breaking the paper down into small sections also makes the process of writing far less overwhelming.

After choosing an appropriate topic and writing a thesis statement, you will need to brainstorm to get ideas on how to best support your thesis. The length of your paper will determine the level of detail you should pursue in your supporting content. When you have honed the results of your brainstorming down to a suitable number of subtopics, you can arrange them in the order you feel would be most effective in arguing your thesis statement.

Below is a diagram that can be used for outlining your paper.

In the first box, you add your Broad Topic. Then in the second box, you add your Related Topics. In the third box, you should include at least 3 papers that support your Related Topics.

Download Graph 

You can download the image above here .

Alphanumeric Outline

Outline recipe.

1.  Introduction

      A. Introductory Statement

      B. Thesis Statement

2.  Body

      A. First Subtopic

        a.  supporting evidence

      B. Second Subtopic

      C. Third Subtopic

3.  Conclusion

      A Restatement of Thesis

      B. Compelling Conclusion

Alphanumeric research paper outline example

• Michael Jordan
• Career Highlights
• Six NBA Championships
• Six NBA Finals MVP
• US Olympics Basketball Team
• 1984 Gold Medalist
• 1992 Gold Medalist
• Fourteen NBA All-Star Game selections
• Three NBA All-Star Game MVP Awards
• Achievements
• Record-holder scoring average
• Regular season (30.12 points per game)
• Playoffs (33.45 points per game)
• Other accolades
• 1996 Space Jam
• Owner of Charlotte Hornets
• LeBron James
• Four NBA Championships
• Four NBA Finals MVP
• 2008 Gold Medalist
• 2012 Gold Medalist
• Eighteen NBA All-Star Game selections
• Philanthropy
• LeBron James Family Foundation
• Social activism
• 2021 Space Jam
• First player to accumulate $1 billion as an active player
• Analysis and Discussion
• Of course, Michael Jordan is better
• << Previous: Research Topic | Research Questions
• Next: What Types of Literature Should I Use in My Review? >>
• Last Updated: Apr 4, 2024 1:35 PM
• URL: https://gbc.libguides.com/literature_review

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

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

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

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

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

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

Original Submission Date Received: .

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

Article Menu

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

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

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

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Rate of free flap failure and return to the operating room in lower limb reconstruction: a systematic review.

1. Introduction

4. discussion, 5. limitations, 6. conclusions, author contributions, conflicts of interest.

• Hazari, A.; Walton, P. The UK National Flap Registry (UKNFR): A National Database for all pedicled and free flaps in the UK. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthetic Surg. 2015 , 68 , 1633–1636. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ozkan, O.; Coşkunfirat, O.K.; Ozgentaş, H.E. Reliability of free-flap coverage in diabetic foot ulcers. Microsurgery 2005 , 25 , 107–112. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Moucharafieh, R.S.; Musharrafieh, R.; Saghieh, S.; Macari, G.; Atiyeh, B. Diabetic foot salvage with microsurgical free-tissue transfer. Microsurgery 2003 , 23 , 257–261. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kuran, I.; Turgut, G.; Bas, L.; Ozkan, T.; Bayri, O.; Gulgonen, A. Comparison between sensitive and nonsensitive free flaps in reconstruction of the heel and plantar area. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2000 , 105 , 574–580. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Spector, J.A.; Levine, S.; Levine, J.P. Free tissue transfer to the lower extremity distal to the zone of injury: Indications and outcomes over a 25-year experience. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2007 , 120 , 952–959. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Culliford, A.T.; Spector, J.; Blank, A.; Karp, N.S.; Kasabian, A.; Levine, J.P. The fate of lower extremities with failed free flaps: A single institution’s experience over 25 years. Ann. Plast. Surg. 2007 , 59 , 18–21; discussion 21–22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Godina, M. Early microsurgical reconstruction of complex trauma of the extremities. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 1986 , 78 , 285–292. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Haddock, N.T.; Weichman, K.E.; Reformat, D.D.; Kligman, B.E.; Levine, J.P.; Saadeh, P.B. Lower extremity arterial injury patterns and reconstructive outcomes in patients with severe lower extremity trauma: A 26-year review. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2010 , 210 , 66–72. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Trignano, E.; Serra, P.L.; Grieco, F.; Rodio, M.; Rampazzo, S.; Pili, N.; Trignano, C.; Rubino, C. Heel reconstruction with ALT free flap in a 4-year-old patient after a severe lawnmower injury. A case report. Case Rep. Plast. Surg. Hand Surg. 2023 , 10 , 2157280. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gustilo, R.B.; Anderson, J.T. Prevention of infection in the treatment of one thousand and twenty-five open fractures of long bones: Retrospective and prospective analyses. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 1976 , 58 , 453–458. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Duymaz, A.; Karabekmez, F.E.; Vrtiska, T.J.; Mardini, S.; Moran, S.L. Free tissue transfer for lower extremity reconstruction: A study of the role of computed angiography in the planning of free tissue transfer in the posttraumatic setting. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2009 , 124 , 523–529. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gustilo, R.B.; Mendoza, R.M.; Williams, D.N. Problems in the management of type III (severe) open fractures: A new classification of type III open fractures. J. Trauma 1984 , 24 , 742–746. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Power, H.A.; Cho, J.; Kwon, J.G.; Abdelfattah, U.; Pak, C.J.; Suh, H.P.; Hong, J.P. Are Perforators Reliable as Recipient Arteries in Lower Extremity Reconstruction? Analysis of 423 Free Perforator Flaps. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2022 , 149 , 750–760. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Calderon, W.; Chang, N.; Mathes, S.J. Comparison of the effect of bacterial inoculation in musculocutaneous and fasciocutaneous flaps. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 1986 , 77 , 785–794. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Harry, L.E.; Sandison, A.; Pearse, M.F.; Paleolog, E.M.; Nanchahal, J. Comparison of the vascularity of fasciocutaneous tissue and muscle for coverage of open tibial fractures. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2009 , 124 , 1211–1219. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lee, Z.-H.; Abdou, S.A.; Daar, D.A.; Anzai, L.; Stranix, J.T.; Thanik, V.; Levine, J.P.; Saadeh, P.B. Comparing Outcomes for Fasciocutaneous versus Muscle Flaps in Foot and Ankle Free Flap Reconstruction. J. Reconstr. Microsurg. 2019 , 35 , 646–651. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Gosain, A.; Chang, N.; Mathes, S.; Hunt, T.K.; Vasconez, L. A study of the relationship between blood flow and bacterial inoculation in musculocutaneous and fasciocutaneous flaps. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 1990 , 86 , 1152–1162; discussion 1163. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Parrett, B.M.; Matros, E.; Pribaz, J.J.; Orgill, D.P. Lower extremity trauma: Trends in the management of soft-tissue reconstruction of open tibia-fibula fractures. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2006 , 117 , 1315–1322; discussion 1323–1324. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chan, J.K.-K.; Harry, L.; Williams, G.; Nanchahal, J. Soft-tissue reconstruction of open fractures of the lower limb: Muscle versus fasciocutaneous flaps. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2012 , 130 , 284e–295e. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rodriguez, E.D.; Bluebond-Langner, R.; Copeland, C.; Grim, T.N.; Singh, N.K.; Scalea, T. Functional outcomes of posttraumatic lower limb salvage: A pilot study of anterolateral thigh perforator flaps versus muscle flaps. J. Trauma 2009 , 66 , 1311–1314. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yazar, S.; Lin, C.-H.; Lin, Y.-T.; Ulusal, A.E.; Wei, F.-C. Outcome comparison between free muscle and free fasciocutaneous flaps for reconstruction of distal third and ankle traumatic open tibial fractures. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2006 , 117 , 2468–2475; discussion 2476–2477. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Cho, E.H.; Shammas, R.L.; Carney, M.J.; Weissler, J.M.; Bauder, A.R.; Glener, A.D.; Kovach, S.J.; Hollenbeck, S.T.; Levin, L.S. Muscle versus Fasciocutaneous Free Flaps in Lower Extremity Traumatic Reconstruction: A Multicenter Outcomes Analysis. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2018 , 141 , 191–199. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Mehta, D.; Abdou, S.; Stranix, J.T.; Levine, J.P.; McLaurin, T.; Tejwani, N.; Thanik, V.; Leucht, P. Comparing Radiographic Progression of Bone Healing in Gustilo IIIB Open Tibia Fractures Treated With Muscle Versus Fasciocutaneous Flaps. J. Orthop. Trauma 2018 , 32 , 381–385. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Yücel, A.; Senyuva, C.; Aydin, Y.; Cinar, C.; Güzel, Z. Soft-tissue reconstruction of sole and heel defects with free tissue transfers. Ann. Plast. Surg. 2000 , 44 , 259–268; discussion 268–269. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Koshima, I.; Soeda, S. Inferior epigastric artery skin flaps without rectus abdominis muscle. Br. J. Plast. Surg. 1989 , 42 , 645–648. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Bibbo, C.; Nelson, J.; Fischer, J.P.; Wu, L.C.; Low, D.W.; Mehta, S.; Kovach, S.J.; Levin, L.S. Lower Extremity Limb Salvage After Trauma: Versatility of the Anterolateral Thigh Free Flap. J. Orthop. Trauma 2015 , 29 , 563–568. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hong, J.P.; Shin, H.W.; Kim, J.J.; Wei, F.-C.; Chung, Y.K. The use of anterolateral thigh perforator flaps in chronic osteomyelitis of the lower extremity. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2005 , 115 , 142–147. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Nazerali, R.S.; Pu, L.L.Q. Free tissue transfer to the lower extremity: A paradigm shift in flap selection for soft tissue reconstruction. Ann. Plast. Surg. 2013 , 70 , 419–422. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Gottlieb, L.J.; Krieger, L.M. From the reconstructive ladder to the reconstructive elevator. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 1994 , 93 , 1503–1504. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Stranix, J.T.; Lee, Z.-H.; Jacoby, A.; Anzai, L.; Mirrer, J.; Avraham, T.; Thanik, V.; Levine, J.P.; Saadeh, P.B. Forty Years of Lower Extremity Take-Backs: Flap Type Influences Salvage Outcomes. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2018 , 141 , 1282–1287. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int. J. Surg. 2021 , 88 , 105906. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Theile, H.; Wiper, J.; Noblet, T.; Watson, L.; Wagels, M. Microsurgical anastomosis using anterior versus posterior tibial artery in lower limb free tissue transfer. ANZ J. Surg. 2022 , 92 , 1190–1195. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Moellhoff, N.; Broer, P.N.; Heidekrueger, P.I.; Ninkovic, M.; Ehrl, D. Impact of patients’ gender on microvascular lower extremity reconstruction. J. Plast. Surg. Hand Surg. 2022 , 56 , 47–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Naga, H.I.; Azoury, S.C.; Othman, S.; Couto, J.A.; Mehta, S.; Levin, L.S.; Butler, P.D.; Kovach, S.J. Short- and Long-Term Outcomes following Severe Traumatic Lower Extremity Reconstruction: The Value of an Orthoplastic Limb Salvage Center to Racially Underserved Communities. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2021 , 148 , 646–654. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Lee, Z.-H.; Abdou, S.A.; Ramly, E.P.; Daar, D.A.; Stranix, J.T.; Anzai, L.; Saadeh, P.B.; Levine, J.P.; Thanik, V.D. Larger free flap size is associated with increased complications in lower extremity trauma reconstruction. Microsurgery 2020 , 40 , 473–478. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Black, C.; Fan, K.L.; Defazio, M.V.; Luvisa, K.; Reynolds, K.; Kotha, V.S.; Attinger, C.E.; Evans, K.K. Limb Salvage Rates and Functional Outcomes Using a Longitudinal Slit Arteriotomy End-to-Side Anastomosis for Limb-Threatening Defects in a High-Risk Patient Population. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2020 , 145 , 1302–1312. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Carney, M.J.; Samra, F.; Momeni, A.; Bauder, A.R.; Weissler, J.M.; Kovach, S.J. Anastomotic Technique and Preoperative Imaging in Microsurgical Lower-Extremity Reconstruction: A Single-Surgeon Experience. Ann. Plast. Surg. 2020 , 84 , 425–430. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Stranix, J.T.; Azoury, S.C.; Lee, Z.-H.; Kozak, G.; Plana, N.; Thanik, V.D.; Saadeh, P.B.; Levine, J.P.; Levin, L.S.; Kovach, S.J. Matched Comparison of Microsurgical Anastomoses Performed with Loupe Magnification versus Operating Microscope in Traumatic Lower Extremity Reconstruction. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2020 , 145 , 235–240. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lee, Z.-H.; Alfonso, A.R.; Stranix, J.T.; Anzai, L.; Daar, D.A.; Ceradini, D.J.; Levine, J.P.; Saadeh, P.B.; Thanik, V. Vein Size Mismatch Increases Flap Failure in Lower Extremity Trauma Free Flap Reconstruction. J. Reconstr. Microsurg. 2019 , 35 , 587–593. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Heidekrueger, P.I.; Ehrl, D.; Prantl, L.; Thiha, A.; Weinschenk, F.; Forte, A.J.; Ninkovic, M.; Broer, P.N. Microsurgical Reconstruction of the Plantar Foot: Long-Term Functional Outcomes and Quality of Life. J. Reconstr. Microsurg. 2019 , 35 , 379–388. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Stranix, J.T.; Rifkin, W.J.; Lee, Z.-H.; Anzai, L.; Jacoby, A.; Ceradini, D.J.; Thanik, V.; Saadeh, P.B.; Levine, J.P. Comparison of Hand-Sewn versus Coupled Venous Anastomoses in Traumatic Lower Extremity Reconstruction. J. Reconstr. Microsurg. 2019 , 35 , 31–36. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Stranix, J.T.; Lee, Z.-H.; Anzai, L.; Jacoby, A.; Avraham, T.; Saadeh, P.B.; Levine, J.P.; Thanik, V.D. Optimizing venous outflow in reconstruction of Gustilo IIIB lower extremity traumas with soft tissue free flap coverage: Are two veins better than one? Microsurgery 2018 , 38 , 745–751. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Stranix, J.T.; Jacoby, A.; Lee, Z.-H.; Anzai, L.; Saadeh, P.B.; Thanik, V.; Levine, J.P. Skin Paddles Improve Muscle Flap Salvage Rates After Microvascular Compromise in Lower Extremity Reconstruction. Ann. Plast. Surg. 2018 , 81 , 68–70. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Christensen, J.M.; Ahn, L.; Meulendijks, M.Z.; Iskhakov, D.; Wong, F.; Winograd, J.; Valerio, I.L.; Cetrulo, C.L.; Helliwell, L.A.; Eberlin, K.R. Technical Variables in Lower Extremity Free Flap Reconstruction. J. Reconstr. Microsurg. 2024 , 40 , 78–86. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Liu, H.; Liu, J.; Wu, Y.; Ma, Y.; Zhou, M.; Xue, Y.; Rui, Y. Analysis of the Risk Factors for Free Flap Necrosis in Soft Tissue Reconstruction of the Lower Limbs. Orthop. Surg. 2023 , 15 , 1534–1540. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Thakkar, M.; Bednarz, B. Systematic Review of Free Tissue Transfer Used in Pediatric Lower Extremity Injuries. Eplasty 2021 , 21 , e2. [ Google Scholar ] [ PubMed ]
• Park, S.; Han, S.H.; Lee, T.J. Algorithm for recipient vessel selection in free tissue transfer to the lower extremity. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 1999 , 103 , 1937–1948. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Stranix, J.T.; Anzai, L.; Mirrer, J.; Hambley, W.; Avraham, T.; Saadeh, P.B.; Thanik, V.; Levine, J.P. Dual venous outflow improves lower extremity trauma free flap reconstructions. J. Surg. Res. 2016 , 202 , 235–238. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xiong, L.; Gazyakan, E.; Kremer, T.; Hernekamp, F.J.; Harhaus, L.; Saint-Cyr, M.; Kneser, U.; Hirche, C. Free flaps for reconstruction of soft tissue defects in lower extremity: A meta-analysis on microsurgical outcome and safety. Microsurgery 2016 , 36 , 511–524. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Song, C.T.; Koh, K.; Tan, B.-K.; Goh, T. Free-Flap Lower Extremity Reconstruction: A Cohort Study and Meta-Analysis of Flap Anastomotic Outcomes between Perforator and Nonperforator Flaps. J. Reconstr. Microsurg. 2018 , 34 , 455–464. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ricci, J.A.; Stranix, J.T.; Lee, Z.-H.; Jacoby, A.; Anzai, L.; Thanik, V.D.; Saadeh, P.B.; Levine, J.P. Comparing Reconstructive Outcomes in Patients with Gustilo Type IIIB Fractures and Concomitant Arterial Injuries. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2019 , 143 , 1522–1529. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Cho, E.H.; Garcia, R.M.; Blau, J.; Levinson, H.; Erdmann, D.; Levin, L.S.; Hollenbeck, S.T. Microvascular Anastomoses Using End-to-End versus End-to-Side Technique in Lower Extremity Free Tissue Transfer. J. Reconstr. Microsurg. 2016 , 32 , 114–120. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Schaser, K.-D.; Melcher, I.; Settmacher, U.; Haas, N.P. The multidisciplinary approach to reconstructive surgery of the extremities-considerations for trauma and orthopedic surgery. Der Chirurg 2004 , 75 , 399–410. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Claes, K.E.; Roche, N.A.; Opsomer, D.; De Wolf, E.J.; Sommeling, C.E.; Van Landuyt, K. Free flaps for lower limb soft tissue reconstruction in children: Systematic review. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthetic Surg. 2019 , 72 , 711–728. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Koster, I.T.S.; Borgdorff, M.P.; Jamaludin, F.S.; de Jong, T.; Botman, M.; Driessen, C. Strategies Following Free Flap Failure in Lower Extremity Trauma: A Systematic Review. JPRAS Open 2023 , 36 , 94–104. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Momoh, A.O.; Ahmed, R.; Kelley, B.P.; Aliu, O.; Kidwell, K.M.; Kozlow, J.H.; Chung, K.C. A systematic review of complications of implant-based breast reconstruction with prereconstruction and postreconstruction radiotherapy. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2014 , 21 , 118–124. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Serra, P.L.; Boriani, F.; Khan, U.; Atzeni, M.; Figus, A. Rate of Free Flap Failure and Return to the Operating Room in Lower Limb Reconstruction: A Systematic Review. J. Clin. Med. 2024 , 13 , 4295. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13154295

Serra PL, Boriani F, Khan U, Atzeni M, Figus A. Rate of Free Flap Failure and Return to the Operating Room in Lower Limb Reconstruction: A Systematic Review. Journal of Clinical Medicine . 2024; 13(15):4295. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13154295

Serra, Pietro Luciano, Filippo Boriani, Umraz Khan, Matteo Atzeni, and Andrea Figus. 2024. "Rate of Free Flap Failure and Return to the Operating Room in Lower Limb Reconstruction: A Systematic Review" Journal of Clinical Medicine 13, no. 15: 4295. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13154295

Article Metrics

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

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals