objective in literature review

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

The objective of a literature review

Questions to Consider

B. In some fields or contexts, a literature review is referred to as the introduction or the background; why is this true, and does it matter?

The elements of a literature review • The first step in scholarly research is determining the “state of the art” on a topic. This is accomplished by gathering academic research and making sense of it. • The academic literature can be found in scholarly books and journals; the goal is to discover recurring themes, find the latest data, and identify any missing pieces. • The resulting literature review organizes the research in such a way that tells a story about the topic or issue.

The literature review tells a story in which one well-paraphrased summary from a relevant source contributes to and connects with the next in a logical manner, developing and fulfilling the message of the author. It includes analysis of the arguments from the literature, as well as revealing consistent and inconsistent findings. How do varying author insights differ from or conform to previous arguments?

Language in Action

A. How are the terms “critique” and “review” used in everyday life? How are they used in an academic context?

In terms of content, a literature review is intended to:

• Set up a theoretical framework for further research • Show a clear understanding of the key concepts/studies/models related to the topic • Demonstrate knowledge about the history of the research area and any related controversies • Clarify significant definitions and terminology • Develop a space in the existing work for new research

The literature consists of the published works that document a scholarly conversation or progression on a problem or topic in a field of study. Among these are documents that explain the background and show the loose ends in the established research on which a proposed project is based. Although a literature review focuses on primary, peer -reviewed resources, it may begin with background subject information generally found in secondary and tertiary sources such as books and encyclopedias. Following that essential overview, the seminal literature of the field is explored. As a result, while a literature review may consist of research articles tightly focused on a topic with secondary and tertiary sources used more sparingly, all three types of information (primary, secondary, tertiary) are critical.

The literature review, often referred to as the Background or Introduction to a research paper that presents methods, materials, results and discussion, exists in every field and serves many functions in research writing.

Adapted from Frederiksen, L., & Phelps, S. F. (2017). Literature Reviews for Education and Nursing Graduate Students. Open Textbook Library

Review and Reinforce

Two common approaches are simply outlined here. Which seems more common? Which more productive? Why? A. Forward exploration 1. Sources on a topic or problem are gathered. 2. Salient themes are discovered. 3. Research gaps are considered for future research. B. Backward exploration 1. Sources pertaining to an existing research project are gathered. 2. The justification of the research project’s methods or materials are explained and supported based on previously documented research.

Media Attributions

• 2589960988_3eeca91ba4_o © Untitled blue is licensed under a CC BY (Attribution) license

Sourcing, summarizing, and synthesizing:  Skills for effective research writing  Copyright © 2023 by Wendy L. McBride is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Reference management. Clean and simple.

What is a literature review? [with examples]

What is a literature review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The four main objectives of a literature review are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

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

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

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

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

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

Correct my document today

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 27 May 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

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

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

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

What are Literature Reviews?

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

Goals of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

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

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

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

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

Table of Contents

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

How to write a good literature review 

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

What is a literature review?

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

What is the purpose of literature review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature review example

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

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

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

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

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

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

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

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

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

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conducting a literature review

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

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

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

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

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

Select Databases for Searches:

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

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

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

Review the Literature:

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

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

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

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

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

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

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

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

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

Frequently asked questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 

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

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

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

Related Reads:

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

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

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, mla works cited page: format, template & examples, how to ace grant writing for research funding..., powerful academic phrases to improve your essay writing , how to write a high-quality conference paper, how paperpal’s research feature helps you develop and..., how paperpal is enhancing academic productivity and accelerating..., how to write a successful book chapter for..., academic editing: how to self-edit academic text with..., 4 ways paperpal encourages responsible writing with ai, what are scholarly sources and where can you....

• Library Homepage

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

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

What is a Literature Review?

So, what is a literature review .

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

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

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

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

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

What are the Goals of Creating a Literature Review?

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

When do you need to write a Literature Review?

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

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

Where I can find examples of Literature Reviews?

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

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

Where to Find Standalone Literature Reviews

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

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

Social Sciences

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

Hard science and health sciences:

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

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

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

What is a Literature Review?

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

A literature review should: 

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

From  S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

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

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

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

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

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

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

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

Meryl Brodsky : Communication and Information Studies

Hannah Chapman Tripp : Biology, Neuroscience

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

Larayne Dallas : Engineering

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

Susan Macicak : Linguistics

Imelda Vetter : Dell Medical School

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

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

• October 26, 2022 recording
• Last Updated: Oct 26, 2022 2:49 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of a Good Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

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

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

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

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

II.  Development of the Literature Review

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

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

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

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

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

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

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

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

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

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

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

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

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

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

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

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

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: May 25, 2024 4:09 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Research Methods

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

Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

A literature review is important because it:

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

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

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

Not an essay 

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

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

A literature review serves several purposes. For example, it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Systematic review or meta-analysis?

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

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

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

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

Not all systematic reviews contain meta-analysis. 

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

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

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

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

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

Organizing and Creating Information

• Citation and Attribution

What Is a Literature Review?

Review the literature, write the literature review, further reading, learning objectives, attribution.

This guide is designed to:

• Identify the sections and purpose of a literature review in academic writing
• Review practical strategies and organizational methods for preparing a literature review

A literature review is a summary and synthesis of scholarly research on a specific topic. It should answer questions such as:

• What research has been done on the topic?
• Who are the key researchers and experts in the field?
• What are the common theories and methodologies?
• Are there challenges, controversies, and contradictions?
• Are there gaps in the research that your approach addresses?

The process of reviewing existing research allows you to fine-tune your research question and contextualize your own work. Preparing a literature review is a cyclical process. You may find that the research question you begin with evolves as you learn more about the topic.

Once you have defined your research question , focus on learning what other scholars have written on the topic.

In order to  do a thorough search of the literature  on the topic, define the basic criteria:

• Databases and journals: Look at the  subject guide  related to your topic for recommended databases. Review the  tutorial on finding articles  for tips. 
• Books: Search BruKnow, the Library's catalog. Steps to searching ebooks are covered in the  Finding Ebooks tutorial .
• What time period should it cover? Is currency important?
• Do I know of primary and secondary sources that I can use as a way to find other information?
• What should I be aware of when looking at popular, trade, and scholarly resources ? 

One strategy is to review bibliographies for sources that relate to your interest. For more on this technique, look at the tutorial on finding articles when you have a citation .

Tip: Use a Synthesis Matrix

As you read sources, themes will emerge that will help you to organize the review. You can use a simple Synthesis Matrix to track your notes as you read. From this work, a concept map emerges that provides an overview of the literature and ways in which it connects. Working with Zotero to capture the citations, you build the structure for writing your literature review.

How do I know when I am done?

A key indicator for knowing when you are done is running into the same articles and materials. With no new information being uncovered, you are likely exhausting your current search and should modify search terms or search different catalogs or databases. It is also possible that you have reached a point when you can start writing the literature review.

Tip: Manage Your Citations

These citation management tools also create citations, footnotes, and bibliographies with just a few clicks:

Zotero Tutorial

Endnote Tutorial

Your literature review should be focused on the topic defined in your research question. It should be written in a logical, structured way and maintain an objective perspective and use a formal voice.

Review the Summary Table you created for themes and connecting ideas. Use the following guidelines to prepare an outline of the main points you want to make. 

• Synthesize previous research on the topic.
• Aim to include both summary and synthesis.
• Include literature that supports your research question as well as that which offers a different perspective.
• Avoid relying on one author or publication too heavily.
• Select an organizational structure, such as chronological, methodological, and thematic.

The three elements of a literature review are introduction, body, and conclusion.

Introduction

• Define the topic of the literature review, including any terminology.
• Introduce the central theme and organization of the literature review.
• Summarize the state of research on the topic.
• Frame the literature review with your research question.
• Focus on ways to have the body of literature tell its own story. Do not add your own interpretations at this point.
• Look for patterns and find ways to tie the pieces together.
• Summarize instead of quote.
• Weave the points together rather than list summaries of each source.
• Include the most important sources, not everything you have read.
• Summarize the review of the literature.
• Identify areas of further research on the topic.
• Connect the review with your research.
• DeCarlo, M. (2018). 4.1 What is a literature review? In Scientific Inquiry in Social Work. Open Social Work Education. https://scientificinquiryinsocialwork.pressbooks.com/chapter/4-1-what-is-a-literature-review/
• Literature Reviews (n.d.) https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/literature-reviews/ Accessed Nov. 10, 2021

This guide was designed to: 

• Identify the sections and purpose of a literature review in academic writing 
• Review practical strategies and organizational methods for preparing a literature review​

Content on this page adapted from: 

Frederiksen, L. and Phelps, S. (2017).   Literature Reviews for Education and Nursing Graduate Students.  Licensed CC BY 4.0

• << Previous: EndNote
• Last Updated: May 24, 2024 10:37 AM
• URL: https://libguides.brown.edu/organize

Brown University Library  |  Providence, RI 02912  |  (401) 863-2165  |  Contact  |  Comments  |  Library Feedback  |  Site Map

Library Intranet

• University Libraries
• Research Guides
• Subject Guides

What is a literature review?

• Getting Started

Introduction

Definition and use/purpose, four stages, questions to ask.

• Finding the Literature
• Organization
• Connect with Your Librarian
• More Information

Acknowledgements

This page is based on Write a Literature Review from UC Santa Cruz.

Helpful links

• Literature review assignments Helpful breakdown of common elements and their purposes in lit reviews from Auckland University of Technology
• Literature review scoring rubric From, Boote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6), 3-15. doi:10.3102/0013189x034006003 (p.8)
• Writing a Short Literature Review An example of a literature review in stages, from annotated bibliography to lit review by William Ashton, Ph.D., York College, CUNY.

Not to be confused with a book review, a literature review surveys scholarly articles, books and other sources (e.g. dissertations, conference proceedings) relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, providing a description, summary, and critical evaluation of each work. The purpose is to offer an overview of significant literature published on a topic.

A literature review may constitute an essential chapter of a thesis or dissertation, or may be a self-contained review of writings on a subject. In either case, its purpose is to:

• Place each work in the context of its contribution to the understanding of the subject under review
• Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration
• Identify new ways to interpret, and shed light on any gaps in, previous research
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort
• Point the way forward for further research
• Place one's original work (in the case of theses or dissertations) in the context of existing literature

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

Similar to primary research, development of the literature review often follows four stages:

• Problem formulation—which topic or field is being examined and what are its component issues?
• Literature search—finding materials relevant to the subject being explored
• Data evaluation—determining which literature makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the topic
• Analysis and interpretation—discussing the findings and conclusions of pertinent literature

Literature reviews can comprise the following elements:

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

In assessing each resource (e.g., article, book chapter) you collect as part of your research, consider:

• Provenance—What are the author's credentials? Are the author's arguments supported by evidence (e.g. primary historical material, case studies, narratives, statistics, recent scientific findings)?
• Objectivity—Is the author's perspective even-handed or prejudicial? Is contrary data considered or is certain pertinent information ignored to prove the author's point?
• Persuasiveness—Which of the author's theses are most/least convincing?
• Value—Are the author's arguments and conclusions convincing? Does the work ultimately contribute in any significant way to an understanding of the subject?
• What is already known about the area of study? 
• What are the characteristics of the key concepts or the main factors or variables?
• What are the relationships between these key concepts, factors, or variables?
• What are the existing theories?
• What are the inconsistencies or other shortcomings in our knowledge and understanding?
• Why study (further) the research problem?
• What contribution can your study be expected to make? 
• Next: Finding the Literature >>
• Last Updated: Aug 17, 2023 9:45 AM
• URL: https://libguides.unm.edu/litreview

• Schools & departments

Literature review

A general guide on how to conduct and write a literature review.

Please check course or programme information and materials provided by teaching staff, including your project supervisor, for subject-specific guidance.

What is a literature review?

A literature review is a piece of academic writing demonstrating knowledge and understanding of the academic literature on a specific topic placed in context.  A literature review also includes a critical evaluation of the material; this is why it is called a literature review rather than a literature report. It is a process of reviewing the literature, as well as a form of writing.

To illustrate the difference between reporting and reviewing, think about television or film review articles.  These articles include content such as a brief synopsis or the key points of the film or programme plus the critic’s own evaluation.  Similarly the two main objectives of a literature review are firstly the content covering existing research, theories and evidence, and secondly your own critical evaluation and discussion of this content. 

Usually a literature review forms a section or part of a dissertation, research project or long essay.  However, it can also be set and assessed as a standalone piece of work.

What is the purpose of a literature review?

…your task is to build an argument, not a library. Rudestam, K.E. and Newton, R.R. (1992) Surviving your dissertation: A comprehensive guide to content and process. California: Sage, p49.

In a larger piece of written work, such as a dissertation or project, a literature review is usually one of the first tasks carried out after deciding on a topic.  Reading combined with critical analysis can help to refine a topic and frame research questions.  Conducting a literature review establishes your familiarity with and understanding of current research in a particular field before carrying out a new investigation. After doing a literature review, you should know what research has already been done and be able to identify what is unknown within your topic.

When doing and writing a literature review, it is good practice to:

• summarise and analyse previous research and theories;
• identify areas of controversy and contested claims;
• highlight any gaps that may exist in research to date.

Conducting a literature review

Focusing on different aspects of your literature review can be useful to help plan, develop, refine and write it.  You can use and adapt the prompt questions in our worksheet below at different points in the process of researching and writing your review.  These are suggestions to get you thinking and writing.

Developing and refining your literature review (pdf)

Developing and refining your literature review (Word)

Developing and refining your literature review (Word rtf)

Writing a literature review has a lot in common with other assignment tasks.  There is advice on our other pages about thinking critically, reading strategies and academic writing.  Our literature review top tips suggest some specific things you can do to help you submit a successful review.

Literature review top tips (pdf)

Literature review top tips (Word rtf)

Our reading page includes strategies and advice on using books and articles and a notes record sheet grid you can use.

Reading at university

The Academic writing page suggests ways to organise and structure information from a range of sources and how you can develop your argument as you read and write.

Academic writing

The Critical thinking page has advice on how to be a more critical researcher and a form you can use to help you think and break down the stages of developing your argument.

Critical thinking

As with other forms of academic writing, your literature review needs to demonstrate good academic practice by following the Code of Student Conduct and acknowledging the work of others through citing and referencing your sources.  

Good academic practice

As with any writing task, you will need to review, edit and rewrite sections of your literature review.  The Editing and proofreading page includes tips on how to do this and strategies for standing back and thinking about your structure and checking the flow of your argument.

Editing and proofreading

Guidance on literature searching from the University Library

The Academic Support Librarians have developed LibSmart I and II, Learn courses to help you develop and enhance your digital research skills and capabilities; from getting started with the Library to managing data for your dissertation.

Searching using the library’s DiscoverEd tool: DiscoverEd

Finding resources in your subject: Subject guides

The Academic Support Librarians also provide one-to-one appointments to help you develop your research strategies.

1 to 1 support for literature searching and systematic reviews

Advice to help you optimise use of Google Scholar, Google Books and Google for your research and study: Using Google

Managing and curating your references

A referencing management tool can help you to collect and organise and your source material to produce a bibliography or reference list. 

Referencing and reference management

Information Services provide access to Cite them right online which is a guide to the main referencing systems and tells you how to reference just about any source (EASE log-in may be required).

Cite them right

Published study guides

There are a number of scholarship skills books and guides available which can help with writing a literature review.  Our Resource List of study skills guides includes sections on Referencing, Dissertation and project writing and Literature reviews.

Study skills guides

This article was published on 2024-02-26

How To Structure Your Literature Review

3 options to help structure your chapter.

By: Amy Rommelspacher (PhD) | Reviewer: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | November 2020 (Updated May 2023)

Writing the literature review chapter can seem pretty daunting when you’re piecing together your dissertation or thesis. As  we’ve discussed before , a good literature review needs to achieve a few very important objectives – it should:

• Demonstrate your knowledge of the research topic
• Identify the gaps in the literature and show how your research links to these
• Provide the foundation for your conceptual framework (if you have one)
• Inform your own  methodology and research design

To achieve this, your literature review needs a well-thought-out structure . Get the structure of your literature review chapter wrong and you’ll struggle to achieve these objectives. Don’t worry though – in this post, we’ll look at how to structure your literature review for maximum impact (and marks!).

But wait – is this the right time?

Deciding on the structure of your literature review should come towards the end of the literature review process – after you have collected and digested the literature, but before you start writing the chapter. 

In other words, you need to first develop a rich understanding of the literature before you even attempt to map out a structure. There’s no use trying to develop a structure before you’ve fully wrapped your head around the existing research.

Equally importantly, you need to have a structure in place before you start writing , or your literature review will most likely end up a rambling, disjointed mess. 

Importantly, don’t feel that once you’ve defined a structure you can’t iterate on it. It’s perfectly natural to adjust as you engage in the writing process. As we’ve discussed before , writing is a way of developing your thinking, so it’s quite common for your thinking to change – and therefore, for your chapter structure to change – as you write. 

Need a helping hand?

Like any other chapter in your thesis or dissertation, your literature review needs to have a clear, logical structure. At a minimum, it should have three essential components – an  introduction , a  body   and a  conclusion . 

Let’s take a closer look at each of these.

1: The Introduction Section

Just like any good introduction, the introduction section of your literature review should introduce the purpose and layout (organisation) of the chapter. In other words, your introduction needs to give the reader a taste of what’s to come, and how you’re going to lay that out. Essentially, you should provide the reader with a high-level roadmap of your chapter to give them a taste of the journey that lies ahead.

Here’s an example of the layout visualised in a literature review introduction:

Your introduction should also outline your topic (including any tricky terminology or jargon) and provide an explanation of the scope of your literature review – in other words, what you  will   and  won’t   be covering (the delimitations ). This helps ringfence your review and achieve a clear focus . The clearer and narrower your focus, the deeper you can dive into the topic (which is typically where the magic lies). 

Depending on the nature of your project, you could also present your stance or point of view at this stage. In other words, after grappling with the literature you’ll have an opinion about what the trends and concerns are in the field as well as what’s lacking. The introduction section can then present these ideas so that it is clear to examiners that you’re aware of how your research connects with existing knowledge .

2: The Body Section

The body of your literature review is the centre of your work. This is where you’ll present, analyse, evaluate and synthesise the existing research. In other words, this is where you’re going to earn (or lose) the most marks. Therefore, it’s important to carefully think about how you will organise your discussion to present it in a clear way. 

The body of your literature review should do just as the description of this chapter suggests. It should “review” the literature – in other words, identify, analyse, and synthesise it. So, when thinking about structuring your literature review, you need to think about which structural approach will provide the best “review” for your specific type of research and objectives (we’ll get to this shortly).

There are (broadly speaking)  three options  for organising your literature review.

Option 1: Chronological (according to date)

Organising the literature chronologically is one of the simplest ways to structure your literature review. You start with what was published first and work your way through the literature until you reach the work published most recently. Pretty straightforward.

The benefit of this option is that it makes it easy to discuss the developments and debates in the field as they emerged over time. Organising your literature chronologically also allows you to highlight how specific articles or pieces of work might have changed the course of the field – in other words, which research has had the most impact . Therefore, this approach is very useful when your research is aimed at understanding how the topic has unfolded over time and is often used by scholars in the field of history. That said, this approach can be utilised by anyone that wants to explore change over time .

For example , if a student of politics is investigating how the understanding of democracy has evolved over time, they could use the chronological approach to provide a narrative that demonstrates how this understanding has changed through the ages.

Here are some questions you can ask yourself to help you structure your literature review chronologically.

• What is the earliest literature published relating to this topic?
• How has the field changed over time? Why?
• What are the most recent discoveries/theories?

In some ways, chronology plays a part whichever way you decide to structure your literature review, because you will always, to a certain extent, be analysing how the literature has developed. However, with the chronological approach, the emphasis is very firmly on how the discussion has evolved over time , as opposed to how all the literature links together (which we’ll discuss next ).

Option 2: Thematic (grouped by theme)

The thematic approach to structuring a literature review means organising your literature by theme or category – for example, by independent variables (i.e. factors that have an impact on a specific outcome).

As you’ve been collecting and synthesising literature , you’ll likely have started seeing some themes or patterns emerging. You can then use these themes or patterns as a structure for your body discussion. The thematic approach is the most common approach and is useful for structuring literature reviews in most fields.

For example, if you were researching which factors contributed towards people trusting an organisation, you might find themes such as consumers’ perceptions of an organisation’s competence, benevolence and integrity. Structuring your literature review thematically would mean structuring your literature review’s body section to discuss each of these themes, one section at a time.

Here are some questions to ask yourself when structuring your literature review by themes:

• Are there any patterns that have come to light in the literature?
• What are the central themes and categories used by the researchers?
• Do I have enough evidence of these themes?

PS – you can see an example of a thematically structured literature review in our literature review sample walkthrough video here.

Option 3: Methodological

The methodological option is a way of structuring your literature review by the research methodologies used . In other words, organising your discussion based on the angle from which each piece of research was approached – for example, qualitative , quantitative or mixed  methodologies.

Structuring your literature review by methodology can be useful if you are drawing research from a variety of disciplines and are critiquing different methodologies. The point of this approach is to question  how  existing research has been conducted, as opposed to  what  the conclusions and/or findings the research were.

For example, a sociologist might centre their research around critiquing specific fieldwork practices. Their literature review will then be a summary of the fieldwork methodologies used by different studies.

Here are some questions you can ask yourself when structuring your literature review according to methodology:

• Which methodologies have been utilised in this field?
• Which methodology is the most popular (and why)?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the various methodologies?
• How can the existing methodologies inform my own methodology?

3: The Conclusion Section

Once you’ve completed the body section of your literature review using one of the structural approaches we discussed above, you’ll need to “wrap up” your literature review and pull all the pieces together to set the direction for the rest of your dissertation or thesis.

The conclusion is where you’ll present the key findings of your literature review. In this section, you should emphasise the research that is especially important to your research questions and highlight the gaps that exist in the literature. Based on this, you need to make it clear what you will add to the literature – in other words, justify your own research by showing how it will help fill one or more of the gaps you just identified.

Last but not least, if it’s your intention to develop a conceptual framework for your dissertation or thesis, the conclusion section is a good place to present this.

Example: Thematically Structured Review

In the video below, we unpack a literature review chapter so that you can see an example of a thematically structure review in practice.

Let’s Recap

In this article, we’ve  discussed how to structure your literature review for maximum impact. Here’s a quick recap of what  you need to keep in mind when deciding on your literature review structure:

• Just like other chapters, your literature review needs a clear introduction , body and conclusion .
• The introduction section should provide an overview of what you will discuss in your literature review.
• The body section of your literature review can be organised by chronology , theme or methodology . The right structural approach depends on what you’re trying to achieve with your research.
• The conclusion section should draw together the key findings of your literature review and link them to your research questions.

If you’re ready to get started, be sure to download our free literature review template to fast-track your chapter outline.

Psst… there’s more!

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

You Might Also Like:

27 Comments

Great work. This is exactly what I was looking for and helps a lot together with your previous post on literature review. One last thing is missing: a link to a great literature chapter of an journal article (maybe with comments of the different sections in this review chapter). Do you know any great literature review chapters?

I agree with you Marin… A great piece

I agree with Marin. This would be quite helpful if you annotate a nicely structured literature from previously published research articles.

Awesome article for my research.

I thank you immensely for this wonderful guide

It is indeed thought and supportive work for the futurist researcher and students

Very educative and good time to get guide. Thank you

Great work, very insightful. Thank you.

Thanks for this wonderful presentation. My question is that do I put all the variables into a single conceptual framework or each hypothesis will have it own conceptual framework?

Thank you very much, very helpful

This is very educative and precise . Thank you very much for dropping this kind of write up .

Pheeww, so damn helpful, thank you for this informative piece.

I’m doing a research project topic ; stool analysis for parasitic worm (enteric) worm, how do I structure it, thanks.

comprehensive explanation. Help us by pasting the URL of some good “literature review” for better understanding.

great piece. thanks for the awesome explanation. it is really worth sharing. I have a little question, if anyone can help me out, which of the options in the body of literature can be best fit if you are writing an architectural thesis that deals with design?

I am doing a research on nanofluids how can l structure it?

Beautifully clear.nThank you!

Lucid! Thankyou!

Brilliant work, well understood, many thanks

I like how this was so clear with simple language 😊😊 thank you so much 😊 for these information 😊

Insightful. I was struggling to come up with a sensible literature review but this has been really helpful. Thank you!

You have given thought-provoking information about the review of the literature.

Thank you. It has made my own research better and to impart your work to students I teach

I learnt a lot from this teaching. It’s a great piece.

I am doing research on EFL teacher motivation for his/her job. How Can I structure it? Is there any detailed template, additional to this?

You are so cool! I do not think I’ve read through something like this before. So nice to find somebody with some genuine thoughts on this issue. Seriously.. thank you for starting this up. This site is one thing that is required on the internet, someone with a little originality!

I’m asked to do conceptual, theoretical and empirical literature, and i just don’t know how to structure it

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

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

What is the Purpose of a Literature Review?

4-minute read

• 23rd October 2023

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

1. Provide a foundation for current research.

2. Define key concepts and theories.

3. Demonstrate critical evaluation.

4. Show how research and methodologies have evolved.

5. Identify gaps in existing research.

6. Support your argument.

Keep reading to enter the exciting world of literature reviews!

What is a Literature Review?

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

Find this useful?

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

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

Provide a Foundation for Current Research

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

Define Key Concepts and Theories

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

Demonstrate Critical Evaluation 

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

Show How Research and Methodologies Have Evolved

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

Identify Gaps in Existing Research

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

Support Your Argument

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

Literature Review Editing Services 

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

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

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

9-minute read

How to Use Infographics to Boost Your Presentation

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

8-minute read

Why Interactive PDFs Are Better for Engagement

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

7-minute read

Seven Key Strategies for Voice Search Optimization

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

Five Creative Ways to Showcase Your Digital Portfolio

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

How to Ace Slack Messaging for Contractors and Freelancers

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

3-minute read

How to Insert a Text Box in a Google Doc

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

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

• Research guides

Writing a Literature Review

Phase 1: scope of review, it's a literature review of what, precisely.

Need to Have a Precise Topic It is essential that one defines a research topic very carefully. For example, it should not be too far-reaching. The following is much too broad:

"Life and Times of Sigmund Freud"

However, this is more focused and specific and, accordingly, a more appropriate topic:

"An Analysis of the Relationship of Freud and Jung in the International Psychoanalytic Association, 1910-1914"

Limitations of Study In specifying precisely one's research topic, one is also specifying appropriate limitations on the research. Limiting, for example, by time, personnel, gender, age, location, nationality, etc. results in a more focused and meaningful topic.  

Scope of the Literature Review It is also important to determine the precise scope of the literature review. For example,

• What exactly will you cover in your review?
• How comprehensive will it be?
• How long? About how many citations will you use?
• How detailed? Will it be a review of ALL relevant material or will the scope be limited to more recent material, e.g., the last five years.
• Are you focusing on methodological approaches; on theoretical issues; on qualitative or quantitative research?
• Will you broaden your search to seek literature in related disciplines?
• Will you confine your reviewed material to English language only or will you include research in other languages too?

In evaluating studies, timeliness is more significant for some subjects than others. Scientists generally need more recent material. However, currency is often less of a factor for scholars in arts/humanities. Research published in 1920 about Plato's philosophy might be more relevant than recent studies.

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Phase 2: Finding Information >>
• Last Updated: Dec 5, 2023 2:26 PM
• Subjects: Education , General
• Tags: literature_review , literature_review_in_education

Chaos to Clarity: Structuring Your Literature Review Format

Master literature review format! Learn key sections, effective citation & analysis tips to write a strong academic review.

Ever wondered how to dive into a mountain of books and articles and come up with something that not just makes sense but shines new light on a topic? What if there was a way to neatly tie together all that information, spot what’s missing, and maybe even pave the way for discoveries? 

That’s what you are going to learn in this article, literature reviews—a place where chaos meets order, and where your insights could set the stage for the next big thing. Let’s break down the literature review format , your essential guide to properly writing a literature review.

Dissecting Literature Review Format 

There are 6 main sections to make a note of while writing a literature review. Those are:

The Introduction Section

Topic background, conceptual framework.

• Synthesis and Evaluation in Literature Reviews
• Conclusion for Your Literature Review
• Reference List in Your Literature Review

Also Read: Essential Components of a Literature Review

The introduction of your literature review is where you set the stage for the entire document. It’s your first opportunity to engage your readers and provide a clear blueprint of what your review will cover and why it matters. This section does more than merely introduce the topic; it establishes the context, defines the scope, and outlines the purpose and objectives of your literature review.

Things to keep in mind while writing an introduction:

• Craft a compelling opening
• Establish the Context and Justification
• Define the Scope and Objectives
• Lay out the Structure
• Give an overview of the Structure

The “Topic Background” section of a literature review serves as the cornerstone for understanding the evolution and current state of the subject matter. It is divided into two crucial sub-sections: Historical Context and Current State of the Topic . 

Delving into these areas provides you with a comprehensive backdrop against which the literature review is framed, enriching the reader’s understanding of why the topic is of interest and what has influenced its development to the current state.

Historical Context

The Historical Context is fundamental in setting the stage for the entire literature review. This section is not just a chronology of events or developments; it’s a curated narrative that highlights the key milestones and turning points that have significantly impacted the topic. 

By examining the historical evolution, the review establishes a timeline of how understanding and perspectives have shifted over the years.

Summary Of Key Historical Developments

This involves identifying and summarizing the major breakthroughs, shifts in thinking, or seminal works that have shaped the topic. It’s important to focus on developments that have a direct relevance to the current understanding and state of the subject. For example, if the topic is about the evolution of renewable energy technologies, this part would outline the initial discovery and use of renewable sources, significant technological innovations, and pivotal policy decisions that have influenced the field.

Relevance Of Historical Context To The Topic

After outlining the key historical developments, it’s crucial to connect these events to the present topic. This means discussing how past events have laid the groundwork for current theories, practices, or debates within the field. It involves analyzing the impact of historical milestones on the subject matter, and explaining how they have contributed to current knowledge, challenges, and research questions. This section makes it clear why understanding history is essential for anyone researching or studying the topic today.

Current State Of The Topic

Moving from the historical context, the review transitions to the present with the Current State of the Topic. This part assesses the latest research, trends, debates, and technological advancements that define the subject area at the moment.

Current Trends Or Updates

Here, the focus shifts to what is happening in the field right now. This could include recent research findings, emerging theories, new methodologies, or the latest technological innovations. The aim is to provide a snapshot of the current research landscape, identifying what themes, questions, or problems are being actively explored. For instance, in the context of digital marketing, this might involve discussing the rise of artificial intelligence in customer relationship management or the impact of social media trends on marketing strategies.

Impact Of These Trends On The Subject Matter

The final step is to assess the implications of these current trends for the topic. This includes considering how recent developments have advanced the field, the challenges they present, and the opportunities they open up for future research. It’s about connecting the dots between what’s happening now and what it means for the subject area moving forward. This not only helps to frame the research questions that the literature review will address but also sets the stage for identifying gaps in the current knowledge, thereby guiding the direction of future studies.

Also Read: What is a literature review? Get the concept and start using it

When doing a literature review, it’s essential to lay a solid foundation for your exploration through a well-defined conceptual framework. This framework acts as a compass, guiding your review’s direction by establishing the key concepts, theories, and perspectives that underpin your topic. 

Definitions And Descriptions

Before diving into the depths of your literature review, it’s crucial to start with the basics. This means clearly identifying and defining the key concepts related to your topic. Think of this as setting the stage for your readers, ensuring they have a clear understanding of the fundamental terms and ideas you will be exploring.

Key Concepts Related To The Topic

Begin by listing the essential concepts central to your review. These are the building blocks of your topic, the terms that will repeatedly appear throughout your exploration. 

Detailed Definitions And Their Relevance

Once you’ve identified these concepts, provide precise and comprehensive definitions for each. Don’t hesitate to explore different dimensions or interpretations of these terms, as this can enrich your readers’ understanding. More importantly, discuss why these concepts are crucial to your review. How do they shape the scope of your exploration? How do they relate to each other and to the broader topic? This step ensures that your readers are not just familiar with the terms but also understand their significance within your review’s context.

Theoretical Perspectives

With the key concepts clearly defined, it’s time to frame your literature review within relevant theoretical perspectives. This is where you align your exploration with existing theories, models, or frameworks that provide insights into your topic.

Important Theories Related To The Topic

Identify the theories that are foundational to your topic. These could range from well-established theories that have long guided research in your field to more contemporary models that offer new insights. For example, a review of organizational behavior might draw on theories of motivation, leadership styles, and organizational culture.

Evaluation Of These Theories And Their Influence On The Topic

After pinpointing the relevant theories, critically assess their contributions to the topic. Consider questions like: How have these theories shaped understanding of the topic? What insights do they offer, and where do they fall short? Are there controversies or debates surrounding these theories? This evaluation not only deepens your review’s analytical depth but also positions your work within the larger academic conversation.

Synthesis And Evaluation In Literature Reviews

The “Synthesis and Evaluation” section is where your literature review truly comes to life. Here, you’re not just summarizing what others have said; you’re weaving together diverse strands of research to present a cohesive picture of the topic at hand.

Comparison And Contrast Of Sources

Synthesizing the literature involves more than listing findings from various studies; it’s about drawing connections between them, highlighting areas of agreement and dispute, and weaving these into a narrative that adds depth and breadth to your understanding of the topic.

Comparative Analysis

Start by grouping your sources based on similarities in their findings, methodologies, or theoretical approaches. This clustering will help you identify trends and common themes across the literature. For example, if several studies have found similar outcomes under comparable conditions, these findings can be grouped to strengthen a particular argument or observation about the topic.

Contrasts Or Conflicts Among Sources

Equally important is the identification of discrepancies in the literature. Do some studies present findings that directly contradict others? Are there differences in how researchers have interpreted similar data? Highlighting these conflicts is crucial, as it can indicate areas where the topic is still evolving or where further research is needed. It also shows your ability to critically engage with the material, a hallmark of scholarly rigor.

Analysis Of Gaps In Literature

One of your primary tasks in the synthesis and evaluation section is to identify what’s missing in the current body of research. This requires a critical eye and a deep understanding of both your topic and the broader field in which it resides.

Identification Of Research Gaps

As you comb through the literature, ask yourself: What questions remain unanswered? Are there underexplored areas or populations? Perhaps certain methodologies have been overlooked, or theoretical perspectives have not been considered. Pinpointing these gaps is not a mere exercise in academic critique; it’s a vital step in advancing knowledge within the field.

Implications Of These Gaps For Future Research

Highlighting gaps in the literature sets the stage for future studies. It’s where you, as the reviewer, can suggest new research directions that could fill these voids or further explore the topic. Discussing the implications of these gaps not only enriches your review but also contributes to the ongoing scholarly conversation. 

Conclusion For Your Literature Review

The conclusion of your literature review is where you bring together all the strands of your argument, synthesizing the insights gained and highlighting the significance of your findings. It’s not just a summary of what has been discussed; it’s an opportunity to underscore the relevance of the review, reflect on the broader implications of your synthesis and evaluation, and suggest directions for future research. 

Summary Of Key Points

Start your conclusion by succinctly summarizing the main points and findings of your review. This isn’t about rehashing every detail but rather about distilling the essence of your exploration. Highlight the critical trends, themes, and conflicts you’ve uncovered, and remind your readers of the significance of these discoveries.

Relevance And Implications Of The Literature For The Topic

Next, focus on the relevance and implications of your findings. This involves stepping back to consider the bigger picture—how does your literature review contribute to the understanding of your topic? Discuss the impact of the trends and gaps you’ve identified on the field, and elaborate on how your synthesis of the literature advances or enriches existing knowledge.

Reflection On The Research Process

Reflecting on the research process itself can provide valuable insights. Consider discussing the challenges you encountered in navigating the literature, such as dealing with conflicting findings or the scarcity of research on certain aspects of your topic. 

Directions For Future Research

One of the most critical aspects of your conclusion is to suggest directions for future research. Be as precise as possible, whether suggesting new methodologies, theoretical frameworks, or specific topics that warrant deeper investigation.

Final Thoughts

End your conclusion with a strong closing statement that reiterates the value of your literature review. Emphasize the importance of continued research on your topic and the potential it holds for advanced understanding within your field. A compelling conclusion reaffirms the significance of your work, leaving your readers with a clear sense of its contribution and the urgent need for further exploration.

Reference List In Your Literature Review

The Reference List is the backbone of your literature review, providing a comprehensive compilation of all the sources you’ve cited throughout your exploration. It’s not merely a formality but a crucial component that lends credibility and rigor to your work.

Importance Of Accuracy And Consistency

The cornerstone of a reliable Reference List is accuracy and consistency in citation style. Whether you’re adhering to APA , MLA , Chicago , or another academic citation format, it’s vital to apply the rules with precision. This includes correctly formatting author names, publication dates, titles, and publication details. 

Organizing Your References

While different citation styles have their own rules for listing references, organizing them in a way that enhances readability and accessibility is universally beneficial. Alphabetical order by the author’s last name is the most common method, as it allows readers to easily locate sources.

Comprehensive Coverage

Your Reference List should be exhaustive, including every work you’ve cited in your review. This extends beyond journal articles and books to encompass reports, conference papers, online resources, and any other materials that have informed your analysis.

The Value Of Annotations

While not always required, providing brief annotations for key sources can add tremendous value to your Reference List. An annotated bibliography offers a succinct summary of each source’s main arguments, methodologies, and findings, as well as its relevance to your literature review.

Digital Accessibility

In today’s digital age, considering the accessibility of your referenced works can greatly enhance the utility of your Reference List. Whenever possible, include Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) or stable URLs for online sources, ensuring readers can directly access the materials. 

Also read: What Is A DOI? Exploring The Purpose And Importance

Reflecting On Ethical Scholarship

Finally, your Reference List is a reflection of ethical scholarship. By accurately citing all the sources that have informed your work, you’re honoring the intellectual property of other researchers and upholding the academic community’s standards of integrity and respect. 

Crafting a meticulous Reference List is an essential aspect of your literature review that underscores the credibility, depth, and ethical foundation of your research. By adhering to the principles of accuracy, comprehensiveness, and accessibility, you not only facilitate further inquiry but also pay homage to the collective endeavor of knowledge advancement in your field.

Related Article: Navigating the AMA Citation Format: Best Tips for Referencing

In conclusion, writing a literature review involves meticulous structuring, beginning with an engaging introduction that sets the stage, followed by a detailed exploration of the topic’s background, including its historical context and current state. 

A robust conceptual framework lays the groundwork for analysis, leading to a critical synthesis and evaluation of relevant literature. 

The conclusion ties together the review’s key findings and implications, while the reference list meticulously catalogs all cited works. Mastering each section ensures a comprehensive and insightful review, essential for advancing academic understanding and contributing to scholarly discussions.

Related Article: Preliminary Literature Review: A Guide for Effective Research

Science Figures, Graphical Abstracts, And Infographics For Your Research

Revolutionize your research with infographics from Mind the Graph . From science figures, graphical abstracts to infographics, you can unleash the power of creative visuals with this user-friendly platform and make your research captivating. 

Subscribe to our newsletter

Exclusive high quality content about effective visual communication in science.

Unlock Your Creativity

Create infographics, presentations and other scientifically-accurate designs without hassle — absolutely free for 7 days!

About Sowjanya Pedada

Sowjanya is a passionate writer and an avid reader. She holds MBA in Agribusiness Management and now is working as a content writer. She loves to play with words and hopes to make a difference in the world through her writings. Apart from writing, she is interested in reading fiction novels and doing craftwork. She also loves to travel and explore different cuisines and spend time with her family and friends.

Content tags

Review of Related Literature (RRL)

Ai generator.

The Review of Related Literature (RRL) is a crucial section in research that examines existing studies and publications related to a specific topic. It summarizes and synthesizes previous findings, identifies gaps, and provides context for the current research. RRL ensures the research is grounded in established knowledge, guiding the direction and focus of new studies.

What Is Review of Related Literature (RRL)?

The Review of Related Literature (RRL) is a detailed analysis of existing research relevant to a specific topic. It evaluates, synthesizes, and summarizes previous studies to identify trends, gaps, and conflicts in the literature. RRL provides a foundation for new research, ensuring it builds on established knowledge and addresses existing gaps.

Format of Review of Related Literature (RRL)

The Review of Related Literature (RRL) is a critical part of any research paper or thesis . It provides an overview of existing research on your topic and helps to establish the context for your study. Here is a typical format for an RRL:

1. Introduction

• Purpose : Explain the purpose of the review and its importance to your research.
• Scope : Define the scope of the literature reviewed, including the time frame, types of sources, and key themes.

2. Theoretical Framework

• Concepts and Theories : Present the main theories and concepts that underpin your research.
• Relevance : Explain how these theories relate to your study.

3. Review of Empirical Studies

• Sub-theme 1 : Summarize key studies, including methodologies, findings, and conclusions.
• Sub-theme 2 : Continue summarizing studies, focusing on different aspects or variables.
• Sub-theme 3 : Include any additional relevant studies.

4. Methodological Review

• Approaches : Discuss the various methodologies used in the reviewed studies.
• Strengths and Weaknesses : Highlight the strengths and weaknesses of these methodologies.
• Gaps : Identify gaps in the existing research that your study aims to address.

5. Synthesis and Critique

• Integration : Integrate findings from the reviewed studies to show the current state of knowledge.
• Critique : Critically evaluate the literature, discussing inconsistencies, limitations, and areas for further research.

6. Conclusion

• Summary : Summarize the main findings from the literature review.
• Research Gap : Clearly state the research gap your study will address.
• Contribution : Explain how your study will contribute to the existing body of knowledge.

7. References

• Citation Style : List all the sources cited in your literature review in the appropriate citation style (e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago).

Review of Related Literature (RRL) 1. Introduction This review examines research on social media’s impact on mental health, focusing on anxiety and depression across various demographics over the past ten years. 2. Theoretical Framework Anchored in Social Comparison Theory and Uses and Gratifications Theory, this review explores how individuals’ social media interactions affect their mental health. 3. Review of Empirical Studies Adolescents’ Mental Health Instagram & Body Image : Smith & Johnson (2017) found Instagram use linked to body image issues and lower self-esteem among 500 high school students. Facebook & Anxiety : Brown & Green (2016) showed Facebook use correlated with higher anxiety and depressive symptoms in a longitudinal study of 300 students. Young Adults’ Mental Health Twitter & Stress : Davis & Lee (2018) reported higher stress levels among heavy Twitter users in a survey of 400 university students. LinkedIn & Self-Esteem : Miller & White (2019) found LinkedIn use positively influenced professional self-esteem in 200 young professionals. Adult Mental Health General Social Media Use : Thompson & Evans (2020) found moderate social media use associated with better mental health outcomes, while excessive use correlated with higher anxiety and depression in 1,000 adults. 4. Methodological Review Studies used cross-sectional surveys, longitudinal designs, and mixed methods. Cross-sectional surveys provided large data sets but couldn’t infer causation. Longitudinal studies offered insights into long-term effects but were resource-intensive. Mixed methods enriched data through qualitative insights but required careful integration. 5. Synthesis and Critique The literature shows a complex relationship between social media and mental health, with platform-specific and demographic-specific effects. However, reliance on self-reported data introduces bias, and many cross-sectional studies limit causal inference. More longitudinal and experimental research is needed. 6. Conclusion Current research offers insights into social media’s mental health impact but leaves gaps, particularly regarding long-term effects and causation. This study aims to address these gaps through comprehensive longitudinal analysis. 7. References Brown, A., & Green, K. (2016). Facebook Use and Anxiety Among High School Students . Psychology in the Schools, 53(3), 257-264. Davis, R., & Lee, S. (2018). Twitter and Psychological Stress: A Study of University Students . Journal of College Student Development, 59(2), 120-135. Miller, P., & White, H. (2019). LinkedIn and Its Effect on Professional Self-Esteem . Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(1), 78-90. Smith, J., & Johnson, L. (2017). The Impact of Instagram on Teen Body Image . Journal of Adolescent Health, 60(5), 555-560. Thompson, M., & Evans, D. (2020). The Relationship Between Social Media Use and Mental Health in Adults . Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 23(4), 201-208.

Review of Related Literature (RRL) Examples

Review of related literature in research, review of related literature in research paper, review of related literature qualitative research.

Review of Related Literature Quantitative Research

More Review of Related Literature (RRL) Examples

• Impact of E-learning on Student Performance
• Effectiveness of Mindfulness in Workplace
• Green Building and Energy Efficiency
• Impact of Technology on Healthcare Delivery
• Effects of Nutrition on Cognitive Development in Children
• Impact of Employee Training Programs on Productivity
• Effects of Climate Change on Biodiversity
• Impact of Parental Involvement on Student Achievement
• Effects of Mobile Learning on Student Engagement
• Effects of Urban Green Spaces on Mental Health

Purpose of the Review of Related Literature (RRL)

The Review of Related Literature (RRL) serves several critical purposes in research:

• Establishing Context : It situates your research within the broader field, showing how your study relates to existing work.
• Identifying Gaps : It highlights gaps, inconsistencies, and areas needing further exploration in current knowledge, providing a clear rationale for your study.
• Avoiding Duplication : By reviewing what has already been done, it helps ensure your research is original and not a repetition of existing studies.
• Building on Existing Knowledge : It allows you to build on the findings of previous research, using established theories and methodologies to inform your work.
• Theoretical Foundation : It provides a theoretical basis for your research, grounding it in existing concepts and theories.
• Methodological Insights : It offers insights into the methods and approaches used in similar studies, helping you choose the most appropriate methods for your research.
• Establishing Credibility : It demonstrates your familiarity with the field, showing that you are well-informed and have a solid foundation for your research.
• Supporting Arguments : It provides evidence and support for your research questions, hypotheses, and objectives, strengthening the overall argument of your study.

How to Write Review of Related Literature (RRL)

Writing a Review of Related Literature (RRL) involves several key steps. Here’s a step-by-step guide:

1. Define the Scope and Objectives

• Determine the Scope : Decide on the breadth of the literature you will review, including specific themes, time frame, and types of sources.
• Set Objectives : Clearly define the purpose of the review. What do you aim to achieve? Identify gaps, establish context, or build on existing knowledge.

2. Search for Relevant Literature

• Identify Keywords : Use keywords and phrases related to your research topic.
• Use Databases : Search academic databases like Google Scholar, PubMed, JSTOR, etc., for relevant articles, books, and papers.
• Select Sources : Choose sources that are credible, recent, and relevant to your research.

3. Evaluate and Select the Literature

• Read Abstracts and Summaries : Quickly determine the relevance of each source.
• Assess Quality : Consider the methodology, credibility of the authors, and publication source.
• Select Key Studies : Choose studies that are most relevant to your research questions and objectives.

4. Organize the Literature

• Thematic Organization : Group studies by themes or topics.
• Chronological Organization : Arrange studies in the order they were published to show the development of ideas over time.
• Methodological Organization : Categorize studies by the methods they used.

5. Write the Review

• State the purpose and scope of the review.
• Explain the importance of the topic.
• Theoretical Framework : Present and discuss the main theories and concepts.
• Summarize key studies, including their methodologies, findings, and conclusions.
• Organize by themes or other chosen organizational methods.
• Methodological Review : Discuss the various methodologies used, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses.
• Synthesis and Critique : Integrate findings, critically evaluate the literature, and identify gaps or inconsistencies.
• Summarize the main findings from the literature review.
• Highlight the research gaps your study will address.
• State how your research will contribute to the existing knowledge.

6. Cite the Sources

• Use Appropriate Citation Style : Follow the required citation style (e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago).
• List References : Provide a complete list of all sources cited in your review.

What is an RRL?

An RRL summarizes and synthesizes existing research on a specific topic to identify gaps and guide future studies.

Why is RRL important?

It provides context, highlights gaps, and ensures new research builds on existing knowledge.

How do you write an RRL?

Organize by themes, summarize studies, evaluate methodologies, identify gaps, and conclude with relevance to current research.

What sources are used in RRL?

Peer-reviewed journals, books, conference papers, and credible online resources.

How long should an RRL be?

Length varies; typically 10-20% of the total research paper.

What are common RRL mistakes?

Lack of organization, insufficient synthesis, over-reliance on outdated sources, and failure to identify gaps.

Can an RRL include non-scholarly sources?

Primarily scholarly, but reputable non-scholarly sources can be included for context.

What is the difference between RRL and bibliography?

RRL synthesizes and analyzes the literature, while a bibliography lists sources.

How often should an RRL be updated?

Regularly, especially when new relevant research is published.

Can an RRL influence research direction?

Yes, it identifies gaps and trends that shape the focus and methodology of new research.

Text prompt

• Instructive
• Professional

10 Examples of Public speaking

20 Examples of Gas lighting

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Mark Access Health Policy
• v.11(1); 2023
• PMC10392303

Rapid literature review: definition and methodology

Beata smela.

a Assignity, Cracow, Poland

Mondher Toumi

b Public Health Department, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France

Karolina Świerk

Clement francois, małgorzata biernikiewicz.

c Studio Slowa, Wroclaw, Poland

Emilie Clay

d Clever-Access, Paris, France

Laurent Boyer

Introduction: A rapid literature review (RLR) is an alternative to systematic literature review (SLR) that can speed up the analysis of newly published data. The objective was to identify and summarize available information regarding different approaches to defining RLR and the methodology applied to the conduct of such reviews.

Methods: The Medline and EMBASE databases, as well as the grey literature, were searched using the set of keywords and their combination related to the targeted and rapid review, as well as design, approach, and methodology. Of the 3,898 records retrieved, 12 articles were included.

Results: Specific definition of RLRs has only been developed in 2021. In terms of methodology, the RLR should be completed within shorter timeframes using simplified procedures in comparison to SLRs, while maintaining a similar level of transparency and minimizing bias. Inherent components of the RLR process should be a clear research question, search protocol, simplified process of study selection, data extraction, and quality assurance.

Conclusions: There is a lack of consensus on the formal definition of the RLR and the best approaches to perform it. The evidence-based supporting methods are evolving, and more work is needed to define the most robust approaches.

Introduction

A systematic literature review (SLR) summarizes the results of all available studies on a specific topic and provides a high level of evidence. Authors of the SLR have to follow an advanced plan that covers defining a priori information regarding the research question, sources they are going to search, inclusion criteria applied to choose studies answering the research question, and information regarding how they are going to summarize findings [ 1 ].

The rigor and transparency of SLRs make them the most reliable form of literature review [ 2 ], providing a comprehensive, objective summary of the evidence for a given topic [ 3 , 4 ]. On the other hand, the SLR process is usually very time-consuming and requires a lot of human resources. Taking into account a high increase of newly published data and a growing need to analyze information in the fastest possible way, rapid literature reviews (RLRs) often replace standard SLRs.

There are several guidelines on the methodology of RLRs [ 5–11 ]; however, only recently, one publication from 2021 attempted to construct a unified definition [ 11 ]. Generally, by RLRs, researchers understand evidence synthesis during which some of the components of the systematic approach are being used to facilitate answering a focused research question; however, scope restrictions and a narrower search strategy help to make the project manageable in a shorter time and to get the key conclusions faster [ 4 ].

The objective of this research was to collect and summarize available information on different approaches to the definition and methodology of RLRs. An RLR has been run to capture publications providing data that fit the project objective.

To find publications reporting information on the methodology of RLRs, searches were run in the Medline and EMBASE databases in November 2022. The following keywords were searched for in titles and abstracts: ‘targeted adj2 review’ OR ‘focused adj2 review’ OR ‘rapid adj2 review’, and ‘methodology’ OR ‘design’ OR ‘scheme’ OR ‘approach’. The grey literature was identified using Google Scholar with keywords including ‘targeted review methodology’ OR ‘focused review methodology’ OR ‘rapid review methodology’. Only publications in English were included, and the date of publication was restricted to year 2016 onward in order to identify the most up-to-date literature. The reference lists of each included article were searched manually to obtain the potentially eligible articles. Titles and abstracts of the retrieved records were first screened to exclude articles that were evidently irrelevant. The full texts of potentially relevant papers were further reviewed to examine their eligibility.

A pre-defined Excel grid was developed to extract the following information related to the methodology of RLR from guidelines:

• Definition,
• Research question and searches,
• Studies selection,
• Data extraction and quality assessment,
• Additional information.

There was no restriction on the study types to be analyzed; any study reporting on the methodology of RLRs could be included: reviews, practice guidelines, commentaries, and expert opinions on RLR relevant to healthcare policymakers or practitioners. The data extraction and evidence summary were conducted by one analyst and further examined by a senior analyst to ensure that relevant information was not omitted. Disagreements were resolved by discussion and consensus.

Studies selection

A total of 3,898 records (3,864 articles from a database search and 34 grey literature from Google Scholar) were retrieved. After removing duplicates, titles and abstracts of 3,813 articles were uploaded and screened. The full texts of 43 articles were analyzed resulting in 12 articles selected for this review, including 7 guidelines [ 5–11 ] on the methodology of RLRs, together with 2 papers summarizing the results of the Delphi consensus on the topic [ 12 , 13 ], and 3 publications analyzing and assessing different approaches to RLRs [ 4 , 14 , 15 ].

Overall, seven guidelines were identified: from the World Health Organization (WHO) [ 5 ], National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools (NCCMT) [ 7 ], the UK government [ 8 ], the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine [ 9 ], the Cochrane group [ 6 , 11 ], and one multi-national review [ 10 ]. Among the papers that did not describe the guidelines, Gordon et al. [ 4 ] proposed 12 tips for conducting a rapid review in the right settings and discussed why these reviews may be more beneficial in some circumstances. The objective of work conducted by Tricco et al. [ 13 ] and Pandor et al. [ 12 ] was to collect and compare perceptions of rapid reviews from stakeholders, including researchers, policymakers, industry, journal editors, and healthcare providers, and to reach a consensus outlining the domains to consider when deciding on approaches for RLRs. Haby et al. [ 14 ] run a rapid review of systematic reviews and primary studies to find out the best way to conduct an RLR in health policy and practice. In Tricco et al. (2022) [ 15 ], JBI position statement for RLRs is presented.

From all the seven identified guidelines information regarding definitions the authors used for RLRs, approach to the PICOS criteria and search strategy development, studies selection, data extractions, quality assessment, and reporting were extracted.

Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group developed methods guidance based on scoping review of the underlying evidence, primary methods studies conducted, as well as surveys sent to Cochrane representative and discussion among those with expertise [ 11 ]. They analyzed over 300 RLRs or RLR method papers and based on the methodology of those studies, constructed a broad definition RLR, one that meets a minimum set of requirements identified in the thematic analysis: ‘ A rapid review is a form of knowledge synthesis that accelerates the process of conducting a traditional systematic review through streamlining or omitting a variety of methods to produce evidence in a resource-efficient manner .’ This interpretation aligns with more than 50% of RLRs identified in this study. The authors additionally provided several other definitions, depending on specific situations or requirements (e.g., when RLR is produced on stakeholder’s request). It was additionally underlined that RLRs should be driven by the need of timely evidence for decision-making purposes [ 11 ].

Rapid reviews vary in their objective, format, and methods used for evidence synthesis. This is a quite new area, and still no agreement on optimal methods can be found [ 5 ]. All of the definitions are highlighting that RLRs are completed within shorter timeframes than SLRs, and also lack of time is one of the main reasons they are conducted. It has been suggested that most rapid reviews are conducted within 12 weeks; however, some of the resources suggest time between a few weeks to no more than 6 months [ 5 , 6 ]. Some of the definitions are highlighting that RLRs follow the SLR process, but certain phases of the process are simplified or omitted to retrieve information in a time-saving way [ 6 , 7 ]. Different mechanisms are used to enhance the timeliness of reviews. They can be used independently or concurrently: increasing the intensity of work by intensifying the efforts of multiple analysts by parallelization of tasks, using review shortcuts whereby one or more systematic review steps may be reduced, automatizing review steps by using new technologies [ 5 ]. The UK government report [ 8 ] referred to two different RLRs: in the form of quick scoping reviews (QSR) or rapid evidence assessments (REA). While being less resource and time-consuming compared to standard SLRs, QSRs and REAs are designed to be similarly transparent and to minimize bias. QSRs can be applied to rather open-ended questions, e.g., ‘what do we know about something’ but both, QSRs and REAs, provide an understanding of the volume and characteristics of evidence on a specific topic, allowing answering questions by maximizing the use of existing data, and providing a clear picture of the adequacy of existing evidence [ 8 ].

Research questions and searches

The guidelines suggest creating a clear research question and search protocol at the beginning of the project. Additionally, to not duplicate RLRs, the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group encourages all people working on RLRs to consider registering their search protocol with PROSPERO, the international prospective register of reviews; however, so far they are not formally registered in most cases [ 5 , 6 ]. They also recommend involving key stakeholders (review users) to set and refine the review question, criteria, and outcomes, as well as consulting them through the entire process [ 11 ].

Regarding research questions, it is better to structure them in a neutral way rather than focus on a specific direction for the outcome. By doing so, the researcher is in a better position to identify all the relevant evidence [ 7 ]. Authors can add a second, supportive research question when needed [ 8 ]. It is encouraged to limit the number of interventions, comparators and outcomes, to focus on the ones that are most important for decision-making [ 11 ]. Useful could be also reviewing additional materials, e.g., SLRs on the topic, as well as conducting a quick literature search to better understand the topic before starting with RLRs [ 7 ]. In SLRs researchers usually do not need to care a lot about time spent on creating PICOS, they need to make sure that the scope is broad enough, and they cannot use many restrictions. When working on RLRs, a reviewer may spend more or less time defining each of the components of the study question, and the main step is making sure that PICOS addresses the needs of those who requested the rapid review, and at the same time, it is feasible within the required time frame [ 7 ]. Search protocol should contain an outline of how the following review steps are to be carried out, including selected search keywords and a full strategy, a list of data sources, precise inclusion and exclusion criteria, a strategy for data extraction and critical appraisal, and a plan of how the information will be synthesized [ 8 ].

In terms of searches running, in most cases, an exhaustive process will not be feasible. Researchers should make sure that the search is effective and efficient to produce results in a timely manner. Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group recommends involving an information specialist and conducting peer review of at least one search strategy [ 11 ]. According to the rapid review guidebook by McMaster University [ 7 ], it is important that RLRs, especially those that support policy and program decisions, are being fed by the results of a body of literature, rather than single studies, when possible. It would result in more generalizable findings applied at the level of a population and serve more realistic findings for program decisions [ 7 ]. It is important to document the search strategy, together with a record of the date and any date limits of the search, so that it can easily be run again, modified, or updated. Furthermore, the information on the individual databases included in platform services should always be reported, as this depends on organizations’ subscriptions and must be included for transparency and repeatability [ 7 , 8 ]. Good solution for RLRs is narrowing the scope or searching a limited number of databases and other sources [ 7 ]. Often, the authors use the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases. In most reviews, two or more databases are searched, and common limits are language (usually restricted to English), date, study design, and geographical area. Some RLRs include searching of grey literature; however, contact with authors is rather uncommon [ 5 , 8 ]. According to the flexible framework for restricted systematic review published by the University of Oxford, the search should be run in at least one major scientific database such as PubMed, and one other source, e.g., Google Scholar [ 9 ]. Grey literature and unpublished evidence may be particularly needed and important for intervention questions. It is related to the fact that studies that do not report the effects of interventions are less likely to be published [ 8 ]. If there is any type of evidence that will not be considered by the RLRs, e.g., reviews or theoretical and conceptual studies, it should also be stated in the protocol together with justification [ 8 ]. Additionally, authors of a practical guide published by WHO suggest using a staged search to identify existing SLRs at the beginning, and then focusing on studies with other designs [ 5 ]. If a low number of citations have been retrieved, it is acceptable to expand searches, remove some of the limits, and add additional databases and sources [ 7 ].

Searching for RLRs is an iterative process, and revising the approach is usually needed [ 7 ]. Changes should be confirmed with stakeholders and should be tracked and reflected in the final report [ 5 ].

The next step in the rapid review is the selection of studies consisting of two phases: screening of titles and abstracts, and analysis of full texts. Prior to screening initiation, it is recommended to conduct a pilot exercise using the same 30–50 abstracts and 5–10 full-texts for the entire screening team in order to calibrate and test the review form [ 11 ]. In contrast to SLRs, it can be done by one reviewer with or without verification by a second one. If verification is performed, usually the second reviewer checks only a subset of records and compares them. Cochrane Group, in contrast, recommends a stricter approach: at least 20% of references should be double-screened at titles and abstracts stage, and while the rest of the references may be screened by one reviewer, the excluded items need to be re-examined by second reviewer; similar approach is used in full-text screening [ 11 ]. This helps to ensure that bias was reduced and that the PICOS criteria are applied in a relevant way [ 5 , 8 , 9 , 11 ]. During the analysis of titles and abstracts, there is no need to report reasons for exclusion; however, they should be tracked for all excluded full texts [ 7 ].

Data extraction and quality assessment

According to the WHO guide, the most common method for data extraction in RLRs is extraction done by a single reviewer with or without partial verification. The authors point out that a reasonable approach is to use a second reviewer to check a random sample of at least 10% of the extractions for accuracy. Dual performance is more necessary for the extraction of quantitative results than for descriptive study information. In contrast, Cochrane group recommends that second reviewer should check the correctness and completeness of all data [ 11 ]. When possible, extractions should be limited to key characteristics and outcomes of the study. The same approach to data extraction is also suggested for a quality assessment process within rapid reviews [ 5 , 9 , 11 ]. Authors of the guidebook from McMaster University highlight that data extraction should be done ideally by two reviewers independently and consensus on the discrepancies should always be reached [ 7 ]. The final decision on the approach to this important step of review should depend on the available time and should also reflect the complexity of the research question [ 9 ].

For screening, analysis of full texts, extractions, and quality assessments, researchers can use information technologies to support them by making these review steps more efficient [ 5 ].

Before data reporting, a reviewer should prepare a document with key message headings, executive summary, background related to the topic and status of the current knowledge, project question, synthesis of findings, conclusions, and recommendations. According to the McMaster University guidebook, a report should be structured in a 1:2:20 format, that is, one page for key messages, two pages for an executive summary, and a full report of up to 20 pages [ 7 ]. All the limitations of the RLRs should be analyzed, and conclusions should be drawn with caution [ 5 ]. The quality of the accumulated evidence and the strength of recommendations can be assessed using, e.g., the GRADE system [ 5 ]. When working on references quoting, researchers should remember to use a primary source, not secondary references [ 7 ]. It would be worth considering the support of some software tools to automate reporting steps. Additionally, any standardization of the process and the usage of templates can support report development and enhance the transparency of the review [ 5 ].

Ideally, all the review steps should be completed during RLRs; however, often some steps may need skipping or will not be completed as thoroughly as should because of time constraints. It is always crucial to decide which steps may be skipped, and which are the key ones, depending on the project [ 7 ]. Guidelines suggest that it may be helpful to invite researchers with experience in the operations of SLRs to participate in the rapid review development [ 5 , 9 ]. As some of the steps will be completed by one reviewer only, it is important to provide them with relevant training at the beginning of the process, as well as during the review, to minimize the risk of mistakes [ 5 ].

Additional information

Depending on the policy goal and available resources and deadlines, methodology of the RLRs may be modified. Wilson et al. [ 10 ] provided extensive guidelines for performing RLR within days (e.g., to inform urgent internal policy discussions and/or management decisions), weeks (e.g., to inform public debates), or months (e.g., to inform policy development cycles that have a longer timeline, but that cannot wait for a traditional full systematic review). These approaches vary in terms of data synthesis, types of considered evidence and project management considerations.

In shortest timeframes, focused questions and subquestions should be formulated, typically to conduct a policy analysis; the report should consist of tables along with a brief narrative summary. Evidence from SLRs is often considered, as well as key informant interviews may be conducted to identify additional literature and insights about the topic, while primary studies and other types of evidence are not typically feasible due to time restrictions. The review would be best conducted with 1–2 reviewers sharing the work, enabling rapid iterations of the review. As for RLRs with longer timeline (weeks), these may use a mix of policy, systems and political analysis. Structure of the review would be similar to shorter RLRs – tabular with short narrative summary, as the timeline does not allow for comprehensive synthesis of data. Besides SLRs, primary studies and other evidence may be feasible in this timeframe, if obtained using the targeted searches in the most relevant databases. The review team should be larger, and standardized procedures for reviewing of the results and data extraction should be applied. In contrast to previous timeframe, merit review process may be feasible. For both timeframes, brief consultations with small transdisciplinary team should be conducted at the beginning and in the final stage of the review to discuss important matters.

For RLRs spanning several months, more comprehensive methodology may be adapted in terms of data synthesis and types of evidence. However, authors advise that review may be best conducted with a small review team in order to allow for more in-depth interpretation and iteration.

Studies analyzing methodology

There have been two interesting publications summarizing the results of Delphi consensus on the RLR methodology identified and included in this review [ 12 , 13 ].

Tricco et al. [ 13 ] first conducted an international survey and scoping review to collect information on the possible approaches to the running of rapid reviews, based on which, they employed a modified Delphi method that included inputs from 113 stakeholders to explore the most optimized approach. Among the six most frequent rapid review approaches (not all detailed here) being evaluated, the approach that combines inclusion of published literature only, a search of more than one database and limitations by date and language, study selection by one analyst, data extraction, and quality assessment by one analyst and one verifier, was perceived as the most feasible approach (72%, 81/113 responses) with the potentially lowest risk of bias (12%, 12/103). The approach ranked as the first one when considering timelines assumes updating of the search from a previously published review, no additional limits on search, studies selection and data extraction done by one reviewer, and no quality assessment. Finally, based on the publication, the most comprehensive RLRs can be made by moving on with the following rules: searching more than one database and grey literature and using date restriction, and assigning one reviewer working on screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment ( Table 1 ). Pandor et al. [ 12 ] introduced a decision tool for SelecTing Approaches for Rapid Reviews (STARR) that were produced through the Delphi consensus of international experts through an iterative and rigorous process. Participants were asked to assess the importance of predefined items in four domains related to the rapid review process: interaction with commissioners, understanding the evidence base, data extraction and synthesis methods, and reporting of rapid review methods. All items assigned to four domains achieved > 70% of consensus, and in that way, the first consensus-driven tool has been created that supports authors of RLRs in planning and deciding on approaches.

Six most frequent approaches to RLRs (adapted from Tricco et al. [ 13 ]).

Haby et al. [ 14 ] run searches of 11 databases and two websites and developed a comprehensive overview of the methodology of RLRs. With five SLRs and one RCT being finally included, they identified the following approaches used in RLRs to make them faster than full SLRs: limiting the number and scope of questions, searching fewer databases, limited searching of grey literature, restrictions on language and date (e.g., English only, most recent publications), updating the existing SLRs, eliminating or limiting hand searches of reference lists, noniterative search strategies, eliminating consultation with experts, limiting dual study selection, data extraction and quality assessment, minimal data synthesis with short concise conclusions or recommendations. All the SLRs included in this review were consistent in stating that no agreed definition of rapid reviews is available, and there is still no final agreement on the best methodological rules to be followed.

Gordon et al. [ 4 ] explained the advantages of performing a focused review and provided 12 tips for its conduction. They define focused reviews as ‘a form of knowledge synthesis in which the components of the systematic process are applied to facilitate the analysis of a focused research question’. The first tip presented by the authors is related to deciding if a focused review is a right solution for the considered project. RLRs will suit emerging topics, approaches, or assessments where early synthesis can support doctors, policymakers, etc., but also can direct future research. The second, third, and fourth tips highlight the importance of running preliminary searches and considering narrowing the results by using reasonable constraints taking into account the local context, problems, efficiency perspectives, and available time. Further tips include creating a team of experienced reviewers working on the RLRs, thinking about the target journal from the beginning of work on the rapid review, registering the search protocol on the PROSPERO registry, and the need for contacting authors of papers when data available in publications are missing or incongruent. The last three tips are related to the choice of evidence synthesis method, using the visual presentation of data, and considering and describing all the limitations of the focused review.

Finally, a new publication by Tricco et al. from 2022, describing JBI position statement [ 15 ] underlined that for the time being, there is no specific tool for critical appraisal of the RLR’s methodological quality. Instead, reviewers may use available tools to assess the risk of bias or quality of SLRs, like ROBIS, the JBI critical appraisal tools, or the assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR).

Inconsistency in the definitions and methodologies of RLR

Although RLR was broadly perceived as an approach to quicken the conduct of conventional SLR, there is a lack of consensus on the formal definition of the RLR, so as to the best approaches to perform it. Only in 2021, a study proposing unified definition was published; however, it is important to note that the most accurate definition was only matching slightly over 50% of papers analysed by the authors, which underlines the lack of homogeneity in the field [ 11 ]. The evidence-based supporting methods are evolving, and more evidence is needed to define the most robust approaches [ 5 ].

Diverse terms are used to describe the RLR, including ‘rapid review’, focused systematic review’, ‘quick scoping reviews’, and ‘rapid evidence assessments’. Although the general principles of conducting RLR are to accelerate the whole process, complexity was seen in the methodologies used for RLRs, as reflected in this study. Also, inconsistencies related to the scope of the questions, search strategies, inclusion criteria, study screening, full-text review, quality assessment, and evidence presentation were implied. All these factors may hamper decision-making about optimal methodologies for conducting rapid reviews, and as a result, the efficiency of RLR might be decreased. Additionally, researchers may tend to report the methodology of their reviews without a sufficient level of detail, making it difficult to appraise the quality and robustness of their work.

Advantages and weaknesses of RLR

Although RLR used simplified approaches for evidence synthesis compared with SLR, the methodologies for RLR should be replicable, rigorous, and transparent to the greatest extent [ 16 ]. When time and resources are limited, RLR could be a practical and efficient tool to provide the summary of evidence that is critical for making rapid clinical or policy-related decisions [ 5 ]. Focusing on specific questions that are of controversy or special interest could be powerful in reaffirming whether the existing recommendation statements are still appropriate [ 17 ].

The weakness of RLR should also be borne in mind, and the trade-off of using RLR should be carefully considered regarding the thoroughness of the search, breadth of a research question, and depth of analysis [ 18 ]. If allowed, SLR is preferred over RLR considering that some relevant studies might be omitted with narrowed search strategies and simplified screening process [ 14 ]. Additionally, omitting the quality assessment of included studies could result in an increased risk of bias, making the comprehensiveness of RLR compromised [ 13 ]. Furthermore, in situations that require high accuracy, for example, where a small relative difference in an intervention has great impacts, for the purpose of drafting clinical guidelines, or making licensing decisions, a comprehensive SLR may remain the priority [ 19 ]. Therefore, clear communications with policymakers are recommended to reach an agreement on whether an RLR is justified and whether the methodologies of RLR are acceptable to address the unanswered questions [ 18 ].

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

• Scoping Review
• Open access
• Published: 24 May 2024

Impact of climate change on the global circulation of West Nile virus and adaptation responses: a scoping review

• Hao-Ran Wang 1 , 2 ,
• Tao Liu 1 , 2 ,
• Xiang Gao 1 , 2 ,
• Hong-Bin Wang 1 , 2 &
• Jian-Hua Xiao   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1109-9133 1 , 2  

Infectious Diseases of Poverty volume  13 , Article number:  38 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

210 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

West Nile virus (WNV), the most widely distributed flavivirus causing encephalitis globally, is a vector-borne pathogen of global importance. The changing climate is poised to reshape the landscape of various infectious diseases, particularly vector-borne ones like WNV. Understanding the anticipated geographical and range shifts in disease transmission due to climate change, alongside effective adaptation strategies, is critical for mitigating future public health impacts. This scoping review aims to consolidate evidence on the impact of climate change on WNV and to identify a spectrum of applicable adaptation strategies.

We systematically analyzed research articles from PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and EBSCOhost. Our criteria included English-language research articles published between 2007 and 2023, focusing on the impacts of climate change on WNV and related adaptation strategies. We extracted data concerning study objectives, populations, geographical focus, and specific findings. Literature was categorized into two primary themes: 1) climate-WNV associations, and 2) climate change impacts on WNV transmission, providing a clear understanding. Out of 2168 articles reviewed, 120 met our criteria. Most evidence originated from North America (59.2%) and Europe (28.3%), with a primary focus on human cases (31.7%). Studies on climate-WNV correlations ( n  = 83) highlighted temperature (67.5%) as a pivotal climate factor. In the analysis of climate change impacts on WNV ( n  = 37), most evidence suggested that climate change may affect the transmission and distribution of WNV, with the extent of the impact depending on local and regional conditions. Although few studies directly addressed the implementation of adaptation strategies for climate-induced disease transmission, the proposed strategies ( n  = 49) fell into six categories: 1) surveillance and monitoring (38.8%), 2) predictive modeling (18.4%), 3) cross-disciplinary collaboration (16.3%), 4) environmental management (12.2%), 5) public education (8.2%), and 6) health system readiness (6.1%). Additionally, we developed an accessible online platform to summarize the evidence on climate change impacts on WNV transmission ( https://2xzl2o-neaop.shinyapps.io/WNVScopingReview/ ).

Conclusions

This review reveals that climate change may affect the transmission and distribution of WNV, but the literature reflects only a small share of the global WNV dynamics. There is an urgent need for adaptive responses to anticipate and respond to the climate-driven spread of WNV. Nevertheless, studies focusing on these adaptation responses are sparse compared to those examining the impacts of climate change. Further research on the impacts of climate change and adaptation strategies for vector-borne diseases, along with more comprehensive evidence synthesis, is needed to inform effective policy responses tailored to local contexts.

West Nile virus (WNV), the most widely distributed flavivirus globally, is a significant mosquito-borne virus [ 1 ]. It was first isolated in 1937 from the blood of a febrile woman in the West Nile region of Uganda. The earliest reported outbreaks occurred in the 1950s near Haifa, Israel [ 2 ]. Since the 1950s, WNV outbreaks have primarily occurred in Israel and various African countries [ 3 , 4 ]. However, the epidemiology of WNV appears to have shifted since the 1990s due to the globalization of human trade and travel [ 1 ]. WNV was first detected in New York City in 1999 and subsequently spread rapidly throughout the entire Western Hemisphere, including the United States (US), Canada, and Argentina [ 5 , 6 , 7 ]. Concurrently, epidemic activity increased in Europe, the Middle East, and Russia [ 3 , 4 , 8 ]. In 2018, Europe experienced an unprecedented WNV epidemic, with human cases exceeding 1900, seven times higher than in previous seasons [ 9 ]. In 2020, locally transmitted human cases of WNV were reported for the first time in the Netherlands and Germany [ 10 , 11 ]. Evidence suggests interactive WNV cycles on all continents except Antarctica [ 1 ].

The establishment of ongoing WNV transmission relies on the interactions among the virus, vectors, hosts, and environmental factors [ 12 ]. WNV can infect a wide range of vertebrate species, including most mammals, birds, and some reptiles and amphibians [ 13 , 14 ]. Birds, serving as the primary amplifying hosts, play a crucial role in WNV proliferation. While humans and horses are susceptible to WNV, they are considered dead-end hosts [ 15 ]. In humans, WNV often results in asymptomatic or mild illness, but approximately 1 in 150 cases progress to neuroinvasive disease, potentially leading to encephalitis or death [ 16 ]. The primary vectors for WNV transmission are mosquitoes, particularly those belonging to the Culex genus. Mosquito bites are responsible for the vast majority of human WNV infections, although the virus can also spread through blood transfusions, organ transplantations, and potentially breastfeeding [ 17 ]. Given that WNV is transmitted by mosquitoes, its distribution depends on environmental conditions and is susceptible to the impacts of climate change [ 18 ]. For example, higher temperatures can accelerate viral replication, shorten the extrinsic incubation period in mosquitoes, promote vector abundance, enhance transmission efficiency, expand the suitability of vector habitats, and increase the probability of avian migration across regions [ 19 , 20 ]. Additionally, precipitation patterns have a significant impact on mosquito breeding and abundance, thus affecting the spread and geographical distribution of WNV [ 18 ].

The current body of evidence strongly indicates that climate change directly impacts the spread and proliferation of vector-borne illnesses, including WNV [ 21 ]. Numerous studies have demonstrated that areas vulnerable to WNV transmission could expand or shift due to climate elements. This encompasses projecting future global climate change scenarios, examining how vector species respond to environmental shifts in laboratory settings, and conducting field research in regions where outbreaks occur. There is some evidence of WNV emerging or re-emerging in high-latitude regions and at the edges of current endemic zones [ 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 ]. For example, in North America, the suitable range for WNV is projected to extend northward and to higher altitudes by 2050 and 2080, potentially leading to new infections in both native and non-native species [ 22 ]. In Europe, increased WNV cases and new outbreak locations are predicted under future climate scenarios, especially at the margin of current transmission areas [ 23 ]. In South America, high risk areas for WNV might shift between 2046–2065 and 2081–2100, with more pronounced changes under high greenhouse gas emission scenarios, potentially altering the current WNV distributions in some countries (e.g., parts of Bolivia, Paraguay, and Brazil) [ 24 ]. Moreover, existing surveillance data support the overall trend of heightened WNV risk due to climate change. For instance, in the Powder River Basin of Montana and Wyoming, US, the WNV mortality rate in the wild bird population was significantly higher in 2003 (the sixth most sweltering summer historically) than in 2004 and 2005 [ 25 ]. In Germany, the extreme heat in the summer of 2018 (the second most sweltering and desiccated summer historically) theoretically played a pivotal role in reducing the average extrinsic incubation period in mosquitoes, resulting in rapid viral amplification and increased transmission risks to vertebrate hosts [ 26 ]. However, the impact of climate change on WNV distribution may vary geographically, and some areas may see a decrease in cases. For example, while Keyel et al. predicted a general increase in WNV cases in 2021, a subsequent study indicated that future cases may decrease in areas outside the boundaries of the original study area in New York [ 27 , 28 ].

While efforts to mitigate climate change are essential to reduce CO 2 emissions and lessen potential future impacts, there is an increasing need to focus on adaptation strategies as well. These include various short-term measures at different levels to address the immediate effects of climate change [ 29 ]. Adaptation approaches aim to enhance resilience in health systems, preparing them to manage and minimize the health consequences of climate change [ 29 ]. Given the commitments countries have made to the Paris Agreement and Sustainable Development Goals, along with the growing global evidence base for climate change's impact on disease spread, nations have begun developing and implementing policy responses as components of national climate adaptation plans [ 30 ]. Insights into the expected magnitude of climate change impacts on WNV and associated adaptive responses can help inform best practices to mitigate public health impacts from the climate-induced spread of disease.

Contemporary prioritization in Canada of investigative pursuits on emerging human and animal diseases under climate change scenarios indicated that WNV is a disease requiring primary attention [ 31 , 32 ]. Since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report in 2007, the health impacts of climate change have garnered significant research focus [ 33 ]. This attention has increased further following the Fifth Assessment Report in 2014 and the 2015 Lancet Commission on Climate Change and Health, leading to a growth in the number of related publications [ 34 , 35 ]. In addition to highlighting the impacts of climate change, these articles also emphasize to some degree specific interventions or policy responses within defined countries and regions. To our knowledge, a comprehensive review of the global impacts and adaptation responses related to climate change and WNV has not been conducted. Such a review is necessary to consolidate existing evidence, explore how climate change influences the spread of WNV, and identify the most effective strategies for developing adaptation policies.

In summary, this scoping review aims to address two core questions:

What types of evidence exist regarding the impact of climate change on the global transmission of WNV?

What adaptation measures have been proposed or implemented in response to climate change?

Our primary focus is to elucidate the climatic drivers of WNV to better inform these strategies. This approach is intended to serve as a foundation for future research that may delve into comprehensive public health policies and adaptation measures.

Protocol and registration

We used a scoping review methodology to select studies for inclusion in this synthesis. Our review followed an established protocol, guided by the PRISMA Scoping Review Extension (PRISMA-SCR) and published scoping review methodology [ 36 , 37 , 38 ]. It was registered with the OSF Registries ( https://osf.io/9j2as ) on December 25, 2023, to ensure transparency [ 39 , 40 ].

Search strategy

We conducted systematic searches across four databases—PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, Scopus, and EBSCOhost—to identify relevant peer-reviewed publications on climate change and WNV between January 2007 and December 2023 without imposing language restrictions. Our literature searches employed terminology related to climate change and the diseases of interest. Terms for climate change were taken from the search strategy used in Sweileh’s (2020) bibliometric analysis of climate change and health publications: “climat* Change” OR “global warming” OR “changing climate” OR “climate variability” OR “greenhouse gas” OR “rising temperature” OR “extreme weather” OR “greenhouse effect” [ 41 ]. Disease-specific terms included were: “West Nile virus” OR “WNV host” OR “WNV vector”. Full search strategies for each database are provided in supplementary materials (Additional file 1 ).

This search strategy was designed to comprehensively capture all original studies examining the associations between meteorological, climatological, ecological, or environmental change factors and the transmission dynamics, outbreaks, risks, or adaptations of WNV. By conducting systematic searches across key databases, supplemented by targeted topic strings, our strategy ensures reproducibility and effectively summarizes contemporary evidence illuminating the connections between WNV and climate amidst escalating changes.

Eligibility criteria

The criteria for including and excluding articles in our analysis are outlined in Table  1 . We examined literature since 2007 to capture research conducted after the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report’s release, representing a milestone driving expanded climate-health investigations [ 33 , 41 ]. Focusing on this period enhances relevance and rigor by concentrating on studies consciously examining climate-related impacts during intensifying change. Further augmenting stringency, we concentrated solely on original quantitative and qualitative investigations published in English-language peer-reviewed academic journals. Together these boundaries help systematically extract recent high-quality evidence elucidating shifting WNV transmission dynamics amidst climate change while delineating adaptations instituted since an authoritative global assessment.

Screening and study selection

We used the systematic review software NoteExpress 3.8.0.9455 (Beijing Aegean Sea Software Company, Beijing, China) to implement standardized screening and selection procedures. Two independent reviewers carried out an initial screening of titles and abstracts to filter articles that met basic eligibility criteria, with a third reviewer resolving any discrepancies. Subsequently, these two reviewers conducted full-text evaluations of the retained articles to ensure compliance with all inclusion criteria as outlined in the predefined protocol. Any disputes again triggered third-reviewer arbitration to achieve consensus.

Data extraction

We used a predefined covidence data extraction framework to systematically characterize key article features including 1) identifiers like title, author(s), and year; 2) specific objectives, study populations, WNV research priority (primary/secondary), and geographic focus; and 3) findings of the paper, such as nature of the evidence for climate change impacts on disease emergence, transmission or spread and/or policy responses, interventions or adaptations [ 42 , 43 ].

We categorized the geographic focus of articles into six regions: North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Oceania, with multi-regional studies classified as global. The study populations analyzed included humans, mosquitoes, birds, and horses. Investigations encompassing more than one species were labeled as ‘multiple species’, and studies that did not specify their focus were marked as ‘unspecified’. The central disease under investigation in all articles was WNV. Articles primarily focused on WNV dynamics were categorized under ‘primary’ interest level, while those analyzing WNV in conjunction with other vector-borne diseases were deemed of ‘secondary’ interest.

The findings of the paper regarding evidence or arguments presented on the impacts of climate change (including extreme weather, rising temperatures, and/or climate variability) on WNV emergence, transmission, or spread were recorded. To clearly understand the impacts of climate change on WNV, articles were grouped into two main categories: 1) climate-WNV associations, and 2) climate change impacts on WNV, as categorized by Kulkarni et al. in their study of the impact of climate change on global malaria and dengue fever [ 38 ]. The articles defined as climate-WNV associations mainly refer to the impacts of climatic and seasonal factors (e.g. temperature, precipitation, and seasonal variations) on WNV transmission and spread within a certain time frame. Articles defined as climate change impacts on WNV are further categorized into two types: those with clear evidence of climate change or climate anomalies during the study period affecting WNV transmission and spread, and those with projections of future WNV transmission and spread under climate change scenarios.

The findings of the paper pertaining to evidence for policy responses, interventions, or adaptive measures addressing the impacts of climate change on disease emergence, transmission, or spread were documented. Specifically, the nature of the evidence or arguments presented regarding policy measures, interventions, and/or adaptations to mitigate the effects of climate change on the emergence, propagation, or spread of WNV were recorded. The United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) handbook on methodologies for assessing climate change impacts and adaptation strategies outlines a typology of adaptation measures to safeguard human health from climate change [ 44 ]. These encompassed five categories of measures: (1) surveillance and monitoring, (2) infrastructure development, (3) public education, (4) technology or engineering strategies, and (5) medical interventions. The content of the article on adaptation strategies is categorized according to the UNEP manual and in the context of the WNV case.

Quality assessment of included literature

The quality of the included articles was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool [ 45 ]. All selected studies were scored using the 10 quality control items suggested by the tool. A score of one was awarded for each item fulfilled while a zero score was awarded for each unmet item. Score aggregates were generated and studies were classified as either low (0–3), moderate (4–6), or high (7–10) quality.

Web development

Most reviews traditionally present evidence in a tabular format, which consumes a considerable portion of the article’s space and often hinders easy navigation through the key information [ 36 , 38 ]. In this study, we used the R Shiny interactive web application framework to develop an online-accessible website that presents evidence on the impact of climate change on WNV transmission and dissemination [ 46 ]. This website allows visitors to query and download information on the effects of climate change on WNV transmission and spread at any time and from any location. This method provides a novel way to access and understand the synthesized evidence in a clearer and more convenient manner.

Characteristics of included studies

Initially, 2168 articles were retrieved from four databases: Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and EBSCOhost. After removing 896 duplicates, 1272 articles remained (Fig. 1 ). Following title and abstract screening, 1068 articles were excluded as irrelevant, leaving 204 for full-text review. This resulted in 105 articles meeting inclusion criteria, focusing on the association between climate/weather and WNV or its transmission due to climate changes.

Flowchart diagram illustrating the article search and selection process

To comprehensively cover literature on the impact of climate change on WNV, we used specific search terms based on key themes from prior studies [ 37 , 38 ]. Although these terms helped in retrieving targeted and relevant literature, their specificity might have restricted the scope, possibly excluding significant studies that broader terms could have included. Hence, the reviewers recommended 36 relevant articles, which we screened and retained 15 articles according to the inclusion criteria.

The comprehensive review included 120 studies divided into two categories: 83 studies focused on the associations between climate/weather and WNV, and 37 studies examined the impacts of climate change on WNV transmission. All the reviewed evidence and related adaptation responses are available for exploration and download through a dedicated Shiny web application ( https://2xzl2o-neaop.shinyapps.io/WNVScopingReview/ ).

Publication year

The number of published studies on climate change and WNV has increased over time, with a sharp rise observed after 2013 (Fig.  2 ). Regarding the temporal distribution of relevant literature, two key observations can be made.

Distribution of the publication years in all articles included from 2007 to 2023

First, only 26 articles were published between 2007 and 2012, of which 21 articles focused on the associations between climate/weather [ 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 ] and 5 articles examined the impacts of climate change on WNV [ 25 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 ]. The earliest study on climate/weather factors and WNV, published in 2007, analyzed the association between precipitation and human WNV incidence in the US during 2002–2004. The first article on the impacts of climate change on WNV, published in 2007, investigated WNV prevalence in wild Greater Sage-Grouse populations across Montana and Wyoming during 2003–2005. The relatively small number of studies before 2013 indicates that relevant research was still in its infancy stage.

Second, most studies on this topic ( n  = 94) emerged after 2013, corresponding to the release of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report in 2014 and the Lancet Commission on Climate and Health in 2015 [ 34 , 35 ]. As authoritative reviews synthesizing the state-of-the-art science on anthropogenic climate change and its health consequences, these landmark reports have stimulated new research assessing climate impacts on infectious diseases like WNV.

Study location

The geographical distribution of study locations examined in the articles is shown in Fig.  3 . The most frequently studied region was North America, representing 59.2% of articles ( n  = 71). Within North America, 53 articles focused on the US [ 25 , 27 , 28 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 68 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 ], 17 on Canada [ 31 , 32 , 63 , 64 , 69 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 ], and 1 covered the entire continent [ 22 ]. Europe was the second most studied region, accounting for 28.3% of articles ( n  = 34) [ 23 , 26 , 65 , 70 , 71 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 136 , 137 , 138 , 139 , 140 , 141 , 142 , 143 , 144 , 145 ]. The other world regions assessed were Asia ( n  = 4; 3.3%) [ 66 , 146 , 147 , 148 ], Africa ( n  = 4; 3.3%) [ 67 , 149 , 150 , 151 ], South America ( n  = 2; 1.7%) [ 24 , 152 ], and Oceania ( n  = 1; 0.8%) [ 153 ]. Only 4 articles (3.3%) [ 51 , 154 , 155 , 156 ] included multiple global regions and were classified as the “global” studies.

Geographical distribution of the study areas in all articles included from 2007 to 2023

Research on WNV has focused on two regions, North America and Europe, which corresponds to the high incidence and disease burden from epidemics reported in these two regions over the past two decades. In the US, between 2007 and 2022, there were 32,600 confirmed or suspected human WNV cases reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, particularly concentrated in California, Colorado, and Texas [ 157 ]. WNV remains the leading cause of mosquito-borne disease in the US, accounting for 83.0% of the reported cases in 2020 [ 158 ]. In Canada, since the virus's emergence in 2001, there have been over 5000 lab-confirmed human cases, with around 20.0% of patients experiencing neurological complications [ 159 , 160 ]. Additionally, it is estimated that up to 27,000 cases may have gone unreported, given the largely asymptomatic nature of WNV infection [ 160 ]. Similarly severe WNV outbreaks have hit Europe in recent years — its 2018 epidemic exceeded 1900 confirmed human cases, surpassing all previous years in scale and distribution [ 161 ]. The heavy health and economic toll has reasonably triggered intensive research interests in examining environmental risk factors such as climate change. Study interests and public health priorities understandably tend to align with acute epidemic events and tangible disease burden.

Research on WNV in regions like Asia, Africa, South America, and Oceania has been comparatively sparse. This imbalance may stem from various factors, such as a lower prioritization due to limited epidemiological data and clinical cases, often attributed to suboptimal surveillance systems. Additionally, the allocation of public health resources in these regions might be challenged by competing health issues, alongside barriers to conducting coordinated multi-national research. For example, in South America, inconsistencies between actual and reported WNV cases arise from symptomatic similarity with other arboviruses and limitations in differential laboratory diagnostics [ 24 ]. Moreover, mild and self-resolving cases may remain undocumented. Meanwhile, more severe cases can also be under-diagnosed, owing to a lack of accessible healthcare facilities and logistical constraints on sample transportation and testing [ 12 ].

Regional differences in climate, vector ecology, and host community characteristics contribute to variations in WNV transmission patterns and health impacts. For example, the primary vectors of WNV display distinct seasonality under varying climatic conditions [ 68 ]. Furthermore, viral strains may evolve different levels of pathogenicity in diverse host species and environmental settings [ 84 ]. Consequently, collaborative multi-regional research is essential to formulate prevention policies that are specifically tailored to different regions. Additionally, integrating knowledge and assessment tools is crucial to further understand the environmental and social factors driving WNV transmission.

Study population

The majority of research articles ( n  = 103; 85.8%) focused exclusively on WNV, its vectors, or hosts. The remaining 17 articles (14.2%) examined WNV in conjunction with other mosquito-borne diseases, such as dengue fever and Rift Valley fever. The most studied subject was human WNV cases (Fig.  4 ), examined in 31.7% of articles ( n  = 38) [ 23 , 27 , 47 , 48 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 56 , 58 , 59 , 62 , 66 , 71 , 73 , 78 , 82 , 83 , 90 , 96 , 98 , 102 , 109 , 118 , 122 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 128 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 140 , 143 , 145 , 148 ]. Mosquito vectors[ 49 , 55 , 57 , 61 , 65 , 68 , 69 , 72 , 74 , 80 , 84 , 87 , 88 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 95 , 97 , 101 , 103 , 105 , 107 , 108 , 110 , 111 , 116 , 121 , 127 , 129 , 136 , 139 , 144 , 150 , 152 , 153 , 155 ] and multi-species [ 22 , 26 , 28 , 51 , 60 , 64 , 67 , 70 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 79 , 81 , 86 , 94 , 99 , 100 , 106 , 117 , 119 , 123 , 141 , 142 , 146 ] were investigated in 36 (30.0%) and 24 (20.0%) studies, respectively. A smaller percentage of articles ( n  = 10, 8.3%) failed to specify the study population [ 24 , 31 , 32 , 51 , 112 , 113 , 120 , 151 , 154 , 156 ]. Limited studies focused solely on bird hosts ( n  = 7, 5.8%) [ 25 , 50 , 89 , 104 , 114 , 115 , 138 ] or equine hosts ( n  = 5, 4.2%) [ 63 , 85 , 137 , 147 , 149 ].

Distribution of the study populations in all articles included from 2007 to 2023

The majority of WNV research has focused on human infection. It's estimated that about 1 in 150 infected individuals develop a severe, long-lasting illness [ 162 ]. High incidence rates in humans have been linked to environmental factors such as extensive irrigated croplands and rural settings [ 54 ]. Mosquito vectors, particularly Culex species, play a crucial role in WNV transmission cycles, with their abundance influenced by factors like the urban heat island effect, the presence of water bodies, and the extent of irrigated farmland [ 54 , 129 ].

However, there is a significant gap in the number of animal-focused studies compared to human studies. In North America, over 28,000 equine cases of WNV have been reported since 1999 [ 163 ]. Additionally, in the US alone, the virus has impacted over 300 bird species, with estimated deaths in the millions [ 164 ]. Juvenile dispersing birds have been demonstrated to play a vital role in the long-distance dispersal and rapid spatial spread of introduced WNV strains across North America [ 165 ]. Given the importance of the role of animals in the transmission and evolution of WNV, there is a need to strengthen research on the impacts of climate change on the transmission and spread of WNV in animals.

Climate-WNV associations

Among the 83 articles examining climate/weather associations with WNV, temperature was the most studied factor ( n  = 56, 67.5%) [ 28 , 47 , 49 , 51 , 52 , 54 , 55 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 63 , 64 , 66 , 72 , 75 , 76 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 84 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 98 , 105 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 132 , 134 , 137 , 138 , 139 , 147 , 150 ]. All these studies showed increased WNV transmission probabilities or cases within certain temperature ranges. Precipitation was assessed in 34 studies (41.0%), with 13 showing a positive correlation, 13 indicating a negative correlation, 7 revealing mixed positive/negative correlations, and 1 indicating no correlation with WNV risk [ 28 , 47 , 48 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 58 , 63 , 67 , 72 , 77 , 79 , 81 , 82 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 92 , 93 , 98 , 105 , 109 , 110 , 125 , 126 , 128 , 131 , 136 , 137 , 139 , 146 , 149 , 150 ]. Drought events and warmer winters were investigated less frequently, in 8 (9.7%) [ 28 , 56 , 72 , 74 , 85 , 119 , 126 , 146 ] and 5 (6.0%) [ 50 , 65 , 83 , 92 , 106 ] studies, respectively. Four articles (4.8%) showed a correlation between humidity and WNV risk, with 3 [ 47 , 80 , 91 ] showing a positive correlation and 1 [ 119 ] showing a negative correlation. Nine studies (10.8%) found links between WNV activity and climate-driven seasonal shifts [ 57 , 61 , 62 , 73 , 78 , 90 , 95 , 96 , 133 ], while 2 (2.4%) reported increased transmission associated with flooding events [ 135 , 153 ]. Three studies (3.6%) reported the correlation between WNV risk and winds/hurricanes [ 91 , 97 , 119 ].

Temperature and WNV

Ambient temperature is a critical driver influencing WNV transmission through direct and indirect impacts on vectors and hosts [ 49 , 71 ]. Specifically, higher temperatures accelerate viral replication and shorten the incubation period in mosquitoes, fuel vector population growth, increase transmission efficiency, and expand vector habitat suitability [ 49 ]. In Israel, positive temperature anomalies were linked to greater mosquito abundance and ensuing human cases [ 66 ]. Similarly in Canada, higher mean temperatures are associated with increased Culex populations and elevated WNV infections [ 129 ]. Moreover, there is a trend towards increased risk around large metropolitan areas characterized by urban heat islands, for example in the United Kingdom [ 129 ]. Phenomena such as warm winters and hot summers due to increased temperatures have also contributed to the rise in WNV infection rates [ 50 , 65 , 83 , 106 ]. The mean temperature is a strong predictor of the presence of WNV in Culex mosquitoes, and this relationship is unimodal [ 76 ]. The optimal temperature range for WNV transmission is identified as 22.7–30.2 °C [ 75 ]. Outside this range, particularly at temperatures below 17.0 °C, vector competence significantly declines, reaching a relative risk near zero [ 76 ]. It is important to note that this lower temperature threshold can vary among different vector species. Moreover, extreme heat events may further amplify outbreak magnitude [ 65 , 66 ]. However, it is important to note that an increase in temperature does not necessarily mean an increase in disease incidence altogether. For example, temperatures above 30 °C reduced survival of  Culex tarsalis  and slowed the growth of WNV in Culex mosquito [ 166 ].

In addition, ambient temperature rise under climate change may indirectly alter WNV transmission by shifting bird host ecology and associated vector exposures. Models project warming could expand bird infection prevalence to higher latitudes as longer activity seasons enable more transmission events [ 114 ]. While temperature alone allows increased vector habitat suitability and viral replication at mid-range optima, cascading impacts on avian immunity, migration timing, vector-host overlaps, and habitat ranges could potentially override direct effects. For instance, warmer climates have prompted earlier nesting in British birds, potentially leading to offspring hatching during peak mosquito seasons, increasing young birds’ exposure to vectors [ 167 ]. This phenomenon is exemplified in Caillouët et al.’s study, which demonstrates how the end of the nesting season aligns with higher mosquito populations, potentially escalating WNV transmission risks during these periods [ 168 ].

Precipitation and WNV

The positive correlation between elevated rainfall pre-outbreak and intensified WNV vector abundance/infection has been well documented [ 47 , 125 , 126 ]. For example, a 10 cm rise in summer precipitation was associated with 0.39 more WNV-positive Culex mosquitoes per 1000 tested in South Africa [ 67 ]. In the US, every 1 cm precipitation increase was linked to a 15% greater WNV incidence [ 86 ]. In Australia and Srpska, flooding due to extreme precipitation events creates favorable conditions for WNV transmission, as waterlogged environments can support larger populations of waterbirds and mosquitoes, increasing the likelihood of virus spread [ 135 , 153 ]. However, precipitation effects on WNV vary across regions and timescales, likely due to place-based differences in viral strain, vector, and host ecology. For example, a negative correlation between total monthly precipitation and the number of WNV cases was observed in Europe [ 128 ]. Similarly, in years of increased human WNV incidence in Israel, there was a significant decrease in spring precipitation [ 146 ]. In America, extreme drought caused by extremely low precipitation is a potential amplifier of WNV virus transmission and can further increase the risk of WNV transmission [ 56 , 85 ]. The cause of this phenomenon may be related to the fact that below-average precipitation creates limited water resources for mosquitoes, thereby increasing close contact between hosts and infected mosquitoes at remaining water sources [ 169 ]. In addition, both positive and negative correlations of precipitation on WNV incidence have been observed in the eastern and western parts of the US at different time scales [ 53 , 82 ].

Humidity, wind speed and WNV

Humidity and wind speed play important and complex roles in WNV transmission dynamics, but the impacts vary widely across ecosystems. For instance, higher humidity increased the probability of human infection with WNV in the US [ 47 ], and positive correlations were found between soil moisture and vector indices [ 80 ]. However, a Greek study conversely found negative relative humidity-WNV case correlations [ 119 ]. A study in New York and Connecticut showed an inverse U-shaped relationship between soil moisture and WNV-infected mosquitoes, with high infection associated with drought, but also an increase associated with wetter conditions—both patterns can be present at the same time [ 27 ]. Meanwhile, wind may impact disease transmission by influencing mosquito movement. For example, low wind speeds were found to be associated with the capture of WNV-infected mosquitoes during the same week that human cases of WNV emerged in Greece [ 119 ]. This may be related to the fact that high wind speeds reduce the chances of a mosquito blood meal, thus reducing the chances of human WNV cases [ 119 ]. Additional hypotheses, including storm roles in bird migration contributing to WNV transmission [ 170 ], require further investigation.

Climate-driven seasonal shifts and WNV

Climate-driven seasonal shifts are also important factors influencing WNV spread and outbreak magnitudes. For example, Texan counties experience major spikes following wet springs and hot, dry summers [ 73 ]. In Suffolk County, warm and dry conditions in early spring have been shown to increase WNV infection in Culex mosquitoes [ 74 ]. Patterns of dry, hot temperatures following wet years also increase WNV infections [ 78 ]. Broader European analyses suggest that anomalous seasonal temperatures and dry winters exacerbate seasonal amplification and drive WNV outbreaks [ 133 ]. These climate-mediated seasonal effects likely arise through multiple mechanisms affecting vector reproduction, host immunity, viral replication rates, and transmission efficiency at different phases [ 170 ]. As climate change intensifies precipitation variability and seasonal temperature extremes, such seasonal shift tipping points may become more frequent. Therefore, improved surveillance programs that are responsive to emerging seasonal shifts remain essential for predicting and mitigating transmission at fine geographic and temporal scales.

While climatic factors have a significant impact on the spread and transmission of WNV, many other factors also influence the complexity of the transmission dynamics. Land use, global trade, bird migration patterns, landscape features, and socioeconomics also partially determine the geographic distribution of infections [ 50 , 80 , 86 ]. For example, areas with older infrastructure, lower incomes, high percentages of cropland, and large rural populations have more landscape features and environmental conditions favorable to vector habitat, which increases local WNV risk [ 54 , 80 ]. Therefore, operationalizing the “One Health” paradigm through collaborative surveillance, modeling, and mitigation across veterinary, human, wildlife and environmental health remains imperative for fully anticipating and responding to shifting WNV.

Climate change impacts on WNV

Among the 37 articles examining climate change impacts on WNV, the majority ( n  = 28; 75.7%) predicted the impact of climate change on WNV [ 22 , 23 , 24 , 27 , 31 , 32 , 69 , 70 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 141 , 142 , 143 , 145 , 151 , 152 , 155 , 156 ]. Specifically, high latitude regions, areas with immunocompromised populations, locations prone to extreme weather events, and marginalized communities were expected to be more affected [ 22 , 24 , 103 ]. Additionally, 8 articles (21.6%) provided substantial evidence that climatic variability phenomena have already affected the transmission and distribution of WNV during recent outbreaks [ 25 , 26 , 68 , 71 , 140 , 144 , 148 , 154 ]. Only 1 article (2.7%) focused on developing a national indicator framework for monitoring climate change impacts on infectious diseases [ 51 ].

Evidence of future climate change impacts on WNV

In the review, most evidence predicts that future climate change may affect the spread and distribution of WNV [ 22 , 23 , 24 , 111 , 114 , 151 , 155 , 156 ]. In North America, the projected climatic suitability range for WNV in 2050 and 2080 is expected to expand northward and into high-altitude areas, potentially leading to infections in novel and native hosts [ 22 ]. In Europe, studies project heightened WNV infection rates and new endemic areas under future climate scenarios, particularly at the margin of current transmission zones (e.g., eastern Croatia, northeastern and northwestern Turkey) [ 23 ]. Notably, recent evidence also confirms local transmissions as far north as Germany and the Netherlands, indicating an expansion of risk areas beyond those previously identified [ 10 , 11 ]. In South America, high-risk areas for WNV may shift between 2046–2065 and 2081–2100, becoming more pronounced under high greenhouse gas emission scenarios, potentially altering the current WNV distribution in some countries (e.g. parts of Bolivia, Paraguay, and Brazil) [ 24 ]. In Morocco, the suitable habitat range for  Cx. pipiens  is projected to expand into new central and southeastern areas by 2050, increasing the risk of WNV transmission [ 151 ].

Current evidence of climate change impacts on WNV

In addition to predictive studies on the future, existing evidence also demonstrates that climatic variability phenomena have already affected the transmission and distribution of WNV in some regions [ 25 , 26 , 144 , 148 ]. In the Powder River Basin of Montana and Wyoming in the US, WNV-related mortality rates in bird populations were significantly higher in 2003, the sixth warmest summer on record, than in 2004 and 2005, the 86th and 41st warmest, respectively [ 25 ]. Although this increase in mortality coincided with higher temperatures, it is crucial to consider that 2003 also marked a period of the virus’s initial introduction into the region. This introduction likely contributed significantly to the observed mortality rates, as populations are often most vulnerable when a pathogen first emerges. In Germany, the extreme heat of the summer of 2018 (the second hottest and most arid summer on record locally) was speculated to be an important reason for the decreased mean extrinsic incubation period values in mosquitoes, leading to rapid viral amplification and increased risk of transmission to vertebrate hosts [ 26 ]. Additionally, the detection of WNV-infected Uranotaenia unguiculata in northern Germany in 2016 presents another case of climate change driving the northward spread of mosquito species and WNV [ 144 ]. In Israel, an intense heat wave and a spike in summer temperatures were observed during WNV outbreaks [ 148 ].

The extent of climate change impacts on WNV transmission depends on local regional conditions, including population immunity levels and vector abundance [ 99 , 101 , 103 ]. In areas where comprehensive vaccination programs for animals susceptible to WNV, such as horses, are in place, alongside robust public health infrastructure and strong vector monitoring and control systems, the impact of WNV may be significantly mitigated or even negligible [ 103 ]. For example, predictions for the island scrub-jay in California showed that vaccinating ≥ 60 individuals during WNV outbreaks could decrease the risk from ≥ 22% to ≤ 5% [ 104 ]. Undoubtedly, strengthening broad-spectrum socioecological resilience through surveillance, preparedness, vector management, and medical capacity building remains paramount for sustainable health amidst climate and global change [ 101 ]. However, these anthropogenic measures require considerable regional coordination and resource mobilization, frequently lacking in disproportionately impacted communities. Therefore, actualizing equitable and adaptive WNV resilience necessitates comprehensively integrating climatological, environmental, veterinary, wildlife, genetic, immunological, and public health data into prediction frameworks and response protocols prioritizing vulnerable populations. International organizations must lead in facilitating such collaborative resilience measures globally.

Adaptation strategies to address climate-driven WNV transmission and spread

Among all 120 reviewed articles, 49 proposed or discussed adaptive strategies against WNV risks in response to climate change. These measures were categorized into six groups based on UNEP criteria and the case of WNV (Fig.  5 ) [ 44 ]: surveillance and monitoring ( n  = 19; 38.8%) [ 22 , 23 , 56 , 65 , 69 , 75 , 85 , 92 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 106 , 117 , 120 , 123 , 135 , 148 , 151 , 152 ]; predictive models ( n  = 9; 18.4%) [ 49 , 70 , 74 , 81 , 84 , 98 , 103 , 105 , 111 ]; cross-disciplinary/border cooperation ( n  = 8; 16.3%) [ 24 , 51 , 80 , 126 , 131 , 133 , 141 , 156 ]; environmental management ( n  = 6; 12.2%) [ 25 , 87 , 95 , 104 , 142 , 145 ]; health system preparation ( n  = 4; 8.2%) [ 27 , 57 , 102 , 121 ]; and public education ( n  = 3; 6.1%) [ 86 , 113 , 118 ]. A brief overview table of identified adaptation strategies is provided (Additional file 2 ), with details accessible on the project website under “Detailed adaptation strategies”.

Classification of 49 articles that proposed or discussed adaptive strategies against West Nile virus risks in response to climate change, divided into six categories based on United Nations Environmental Program criteria

Monitoring and surveillance

Most studies reviewed highlight that monitoring and surveillance are the most critical means of preventing and controlling the spread of WNV under climate change scenarios. Specifically, surveillance should concentrate on high-risk populations, vector populations, wildlife and domestic animals, migrating birds, and neglected areas. As Skaff et al. noted, identifying consistencies between highly susceptible communities and local climates approaching critical thermal thresholds can enhance infectious disease prevention efficacy amidst climate change [ 75 ]. Additionally, Semenza et al. recommended fortifying epidemiological monitoring for neuroinvasive diseases potentially indicative of WNV to expand healthcare provider awareness of clinical manifestations and strengthen diagnostic testing capabilities [ 23 ]. They also advised augmenting blood donation screening and transportation safeguards while at the same time accounting for climate change in formulating robust WNV contamination prevention protocols [ 23 ]. Moreover, numerous studies have suggested that a more granular analysis of meteorological and entomological factors could improve comprehension of intricate WNV transmission dynamics [ 31 , 56 , 65 , 101 , 106 , 151 , 152 ]. Concurrently, research and control programs must localize to maximize relevance for regional climate change impacts [ 101 ]. Furthermore, public health agencies and vector control teams should amplify efforts to continuously track distributions to minimize human infection risks [ 151 , 152 ]. Meanwhile, WNV surveillance systems should be strengthened with host monitoring and regular risk assessment, especially for rural livestock, long-distance migratory birds, and wildlife with high mobility [ 117 , 123 ]. Domestic livestock, particularly horses in high-risk areas, should be vaccinated to enhance their immunity and prevent mortality and morbidity [ 85 ]. Routine surveillance should also be conducted in neglected areas (e.g., areas thought not to be transmitted zones and poor areas) [ 22 ]. Based on the results of data analysis from surveillance and monitoring, preventive and control strategies need to be adjusted accordingly to cope with changing infectious diseases.

Predictive models

Beyond intensifying surveillance, advancing predictive models and early warning systems remain vital for honing outbreak preparedness and rapid response. Sophisticated predictive tools enabling localized risk projections and efficient resource allocation can dramatically amplify intervention impact [ 38 ]. Ideally, such systems would synthesize meteorological, biological, genetic, ecological, entomological, and epidemiological data for accurate emergence prediction across scales [ 49 , 70 , 74 , 81 , 84 , 103 , 105 , 111 ]. Developing predictive models by linking laboratory-observed environmental transmission patterns to actual transmission patterns is crucial to accurately predicting the impact of climate change on WNV and other vector-borne pathogens [ 49 ]. Most importantly, next-generation frameworks must address substantial knowledge gaps around viral evolution, vector-host mutations, species migration and adaptation capacity, infection-recovery dynamics, and anthropogenic environmental change impacts on virus shifting dynamics [ 70 , 103 , 111 ]. Advancing models encompassing this intrinsic biocomplexity and policy-environment feedback remains essential to preempt unprecedented post-climate change outbreaks through context-specific preparation and response. International alliances should prioritize pioneering these innovations in prediction science alongside flexible surveillance strengthening for integrated epidemic resilience. Beyond informing ongoing emergence, these efforts will uncover complex ecological interconnectivity in the face of convergence across climate and global changes.

Cross-disciplinary/border cooperation

As climate change accelerates, advanced WNV prevention and control requires integrating “One Health” approaches across human, veterinary, wildlife, and environmental health sectors. Multidisciplinary collaboration enables the holistic elucidation of shifting transmission dynamics for accurate risk prediction, alert activation, and adaptive response [ 126 , 133 ]. Specifically, increased data sharing between public health, vector control, and meteorological agencies, coupled with artificial intelligence integration, can exponentially improve monitoring sensitivity, early warning trigger development, and outbreak interception agility [ 24 , 80 ]. Additionally, transregional information exchange and coordination remain imperative for refining control strategies and resource allocation amidst climate and global change [ 156 ]. The 2018 European WNV emergency exemplified the superiority of integrated “One Health” surveillance, ensuring targeted data-driven countermeasures, bridging counties halted uncontrolled cross-border transmission [ 141 ]. Given the existential threat of vector-borne diseases necessitates all governmental and international institutions prioritizing and operationalizing such interdisciplinary preparedness and response architectures. This obligation will grow increasingly urgent as environments continue transforming unprecedentedly.

Other adaptive strategies

Of all the studies reviewed, there are fewer strategies related to public education, environmental management, and health system preparedness. However, adapting to the growing threat of WNV under climate change will require multifaceted strategies across environmental management, public awareness-raising, and health system preparedness. Effective environmental management to suppress vector populations, including the elimination of mosquito breeding grounds and the establishment of secondary conserved populations for possible vaccination, forms a crucial first line of defense against WNV [ 25 , 104 , 142 ]. However, this must be coupled with sustained public education campaigns to promote protective behaviors among individuals and vigilant surveillance efforts to enable early response [ 86 , 113 , 118 ]. Finally, health systems must enhance their capacity for detecting WNV outbreaks in vectors and hosts, allowing timely intervention measures, as well as boosting clinical diagnosis and treatment capacity [ 102 , 121 ].

Future work

While this review concentrated on the climatic aspects of WNV transmission, it sets the stage for subsequent in-depth analyses of adaptation strategies within the public health domain. Future studies could adopt a One Health approach or leverage the UNEP framework to explore diverse responses to WNV, thereby enriching the dialogue between climate science and public health policy.

Climate change may affect the transmission and distribution of WNV, with the extent of the impact depending on local and regional conditions. Surveillance and monitoring stand out as the most recommended adaptation tactics to address the spread of WNV under climate change scenarios. However, far fewer studies have explicitly focused on adaptation strategies than have investigated the impacts of climate change. Further research on the impacts of climate change and adaptation strategies for vector-borne diseases, as well as more comprehensive evidence synthesis, are needed to inform effective policy responses tailored to local contexts.

Our findings highlight the significant role of climate factors in the transmission dynamics of WNV. However, acknowledging the limitations of our focus, we propose future research to extensively explore adaptation strategies that address these climatic challenges. Such efforts would provide comprehensive insights that are crucial for the development of robust public health policies.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.

Abbreviations

• West Nile virus

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

United Nations Environmental Program

Kramer LD, Ciota AT, Kilpatrick AM. Introduction, spread, and establishment of West Nile virus in the Americas. J Med Entomol. 2019;56(6):1448–55.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Bernkopf H, Levine S, Nerson R. Isolation of West Nile virus in Israel. Infect Dis. 1953;93:207–18.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Murgue B, Zeller H, Deubel V. The ecology and epidemiology of West Nile virus in Africa, Europe and Asia. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 2002;267:195–221.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Johnson N, de FernándezMarco M, Giovannini A, et al. Emerging mosquito-borne threats and the response from European and Eastern Mediterranean countries. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(12):2775.

Nash D, Mostashari F, Fine A, Miller J, O’leary D, Murray K, et al. The outbreak of West Nile virus infection in the New York City area in 1999. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:1807–14.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Petersen LR, Hayes EB. West Nile virus in the Americas. Med Clin North Am. 2008;92:1307–22.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Lindsey NP, Staples JE, Lehman JA, Fischer M. Surveillance for human West Nile virus disease-United States, 1999–2008. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2010;59:1–17.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Haussig JM, Young JJ, Gossner CM, Mezei E, Bella A, Sirbu A, et al. Early start of the West Nile fever transmission season 2018 in Europe. Euro Surveill. 2018;23(32):1800428.

Camp JV, Nowotny N. The knowns and unknowns of West Nile virus in Europe: what did we learn from the 2018 outbreak? Expert Rev Anti-Infect Ther. 2020;18(2):145–54.

Pietsch C, Michalski D, Münch J, Petros S, Bergs S, Trawinski H, et al. Autochthonous West Nile virus infection outbreak in humans, Leipzig, Germany, August to September 2020. Euro Surveill. 2020;25(46):2001786.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Vlaskamp DRM, Thijsen SFT, Reimerink J, Hilkens P, Bouvy WH, Bantjes SE, et al. First autochthonous human West Nile virus infections in the Netherlands, July to August 2020. Euro Surveill. 2020;25(46):2001904.

Kramer LD, Styer LM, Ebel GD. A global perspective on the epidemiology of West Nile virus. Annu Rev Entomol. 2008;53:61–81.

Kilpatrick AM, Ladeau SL, Marra PP. Ecology of West Nile virus transmission and its impact on birds in the western hemisphere. Auk. 2007;124(4):1121–36.

Article   Google Scholar  

Gómez A, Kilpatrick AM, Kramer LD, Dupuis AP, Maffei JG, Goetz SJ, et al. Land use and West Nile virus seroprevalence in wild mammals. Emerg Infect Dis. 2008;14(6):962.

David S, Abraham AM. Epidemiological and clinical aspects on West Nile virus, a globally emerging pathogen. Infect Dis. 2016;48:571–86.

Centers for Disease Control. West Nile virus - statistics & maps in 2018. https://www.cdc.gov/westnile/statsmaps/index.html . Accessed 13 June 2023.

Ciota AT. West Nile virus and its vectors. Curr Opin Insect Sci. 2017;22:28–36.

Kilpatrick AM. Globalization, land use, and the invasion of West Nile virus. Science. 2011;334(6054):323–7.

Jia Y, Moudy RM, Dupuis AP II, Ngo KA, Maffei JG, Jerzak GV, et al. Characterization of a small plaque variant of West Nile virus isolated in New York in 2000. Virology. 2007;367:339–47.

Kunkel KE, Novak RJ, Lampman RL, Gu W. Modeling the impact of variable climatic factors on the crossover of Culex restauns and Culex pipiens (Diptera: Culicidae), vectors of West Nile virus in Illinois. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2006;74:16–173.

Watts N, Amann M, Arnell N, Ayeb-Karlsson S, Beagley J, Belesova K, et al. The 2020 report of The Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: responding to converging crises. Lancet. 2021;397(10269):129–70.

Harrigan RJ, Thomassen HA, Buermann W, Smith T. A continental risk assessment of West Nile virus under climate change. Global Change Biol. 2014;20(8):2417–25.

Semenza JC, Tran A, Espinosa L, Sudre B, Domanovic D, Paz S. Climate change projections of West Nile virus infections in Europe: implications for blood safety practices. Environ Health. 2016;15(1):125–36.

Google Scholar  

Lorenz C, de Azevedo TS, Chiaravalloti-Neto F. Impact of climate change on West Nile virus distribution in South America. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2022;116(11):1043–53.

Walker BL, Naugle DE, Doherty KE, Cornish TE. West Nile virus and greater sage-grouse: estimating infection rate in a wild bird population. Avian Dis. 2007;51(3):691–6.

Ziegler U, Lühken R, Keller M, Cadar D, van der Grinten E, Michel F, et al. West Nile virus epizootic in Germany, 2018. Antivir Res. 2019;162:39–43.

Keyel AC. Patterns of West Nile virus in the Northeastern United States using negative binomial and mechanistic trait-based models. GeoHealth. 2023;7(4):e2022GH000747.

Keyel AC, Elison Timm O, Backenson PB, Prussing C, Quinones S, McDonough KA, et al. Seasonal temperatures and hydrological conditions improve the prediction of West Nile virus infection rates in Culex mosquitoes and human case counts in New York and Connecticut. Plos One. 2019;14(6): e0217854.

Chersich MF, Wright CY. Climate change adaptation in South Africa: a case study on the role of the health sector. Global Health. 2019;15:1–16.

Bardosh KL, Ryan S, Ebi K, Welburn S, Singer B. Addressing vulnerability, building resilience: community-based adaptation to vector-borne diseases in the context of global change. Infect Dis Pover. 2017;6(1):166.

Cox R, Sanchez J, Revie CW. Multi-criteria decision analysis tools for prioritising emerging or re-emerging infectious diseases associated with climate change in Canada. Plos One. 2013;8(8): e68338.

Hongoh V, Michel P, Gosselin P, Samoura K, Ravel A, Campagna C, et al. Multi-stakeholder decision aid for improved prioritization of the public health impact of climate sensitive infectious diseases. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016;13(4):419.

Pachauri RK, Reisinger A. Climate Change 2007: synthesis Report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC; 2007. p. 104.

Pachauri RK, Allen MR, Barros VR, Broome J, Cramer W, Christ R, Climate change, et al. Synthesis Report, Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC. 2014;2014:151.

Watts N, Adger WN, Agnolucci P. Health and climate change: policy responses to protect public health. Lancet. 2015;386(10006):1861–914.

Eder M, Cortes F, de SiqueiraFilhaTeixeira N, de Franca Araújo GV, Degroote S, Braga C, et al. Scoping review on vector-borne diseases in urban areas: transmission dynamics, vectorial capacity and co-infection. Infect Dis Poverty. 2018;7(1):1–24.

Orr M, Inoue Y, Seymour R, Dingle G. Impacts of climate change on organized sport: a scoping review. WIREs Clim Change. 2022;13(3): e760.

Kulkarni MA, Duguay C, Ost K. Charting the evidence for climate change impacts on the global spread of malaria and dengue and adaptive responses: a scoping review of reviews. Global Health. 2022;18(1):1–18.

Schultz A, Goertzen L, Rothney J, Wener P, Enns J, Halas G, et al. A scoping approach to systematically review published reviews: adaptations and recommendations. Res Synth Methods. 2018;9(1):116–23.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:467–73.

Sweileh WM. Bibliometric analysis of peer-reviewed literature on climate change and human health with an emphasis on infectious diseases. Glob Health. 2020;16(1):44.

Masson-Delmotte VP, Zhai P, Pirani SL, Connors C, Péan S, Berger N, et al. IPCC. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2021.

IPCC. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above preindustrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/15716/1/SR15_TS_High_Res.pdf . Accessed 29 Jan 2019.

Feenstra JF, Burton I, Smith JB, Tol RS. Handbook on Methods for Climate Change Impact Assessment and Adaptation Strategies. Amsterdam: Vrije University; 1998.

Isaiah PM, Sólveig Palmeirim M, Steinmann P. Epidemiology of pediatric schistosomiasis in hard-to-reach areas and populations: a scoping review. Infect Dis Poverty. 2023;12(1):37.

Wang H, Guo T, Wang Z, Xiao J, Gao L, Gao X, et al. PreCowKetosis: A Shiny web application for predicting the risk of ketosis in dairy cows using prenatal indicators. Comput Electron Agr. 2023;206: 107697.

Soverow JE, Wellenius GA, Fisman DN, Mittleman MA. Infectious disease in a warming world: how weather influenced West Nile virus in the United States (2001–2005). Environ Health Persp. 2009;117(7):1049–52.

Wang G, Minnis RB, Belant JL, Wax CL. Dry weather induces outbreaks of human West Nile virus infections. BMC Infect Dis. 2010;10:38–38.

Kilpatrick AM, Meola MA, Moudy RM, Kramer LD. Temperature, viral genetics, and the transmission of West Nile virus by Culex pipiens mosquitoes. Plos Pathog. 2008;4(6):e1000092.

LaDeau SL, Calder CA, Doran PJ, Marra PP. West Nile virus impacts in American crow populations are associated with human land use and climate. Ecol Res. 2011;26:909–16.

Liu H, Weng Q. Environmental factors and risk areas of West Nile Virus in southern California, 2007–2009. Environ Model Assess. 2012;17:441–52.

Walsh MG. The role of hydrogeography and climate in the landscape epidemiology of West Nile virus in New York State from 2000 to 2010. Plos One. 2012;7(2): e30620.

Landesman WJ, Allan BF, Langerhans RB, Knight TM, Chase JM. Inter-annual associations between precipitation and human incidence of West Nile virus in the United States. Vector-Borne Zoonot. 2007;7(3):337–43.

Wimberly MC, Hildreth MB, Boyte SP, Lindquist E, Kightlinger L. Ecological niche of the 2003 West Nile virus epidemic in the northern Great Plains of the United States. Plos One. 2008;3(12): e3744.

Deichmeister JM, Telang A. Abundance of West Nile virus mosquito vectors in relation to climate and landscape variables. J Vector Ecol. 2011;36(1):75–85.

DeGroote JP, Sugumaran R, Brend SM, Tucker BJ, Bartholomay LC. Landscape, demographic, entomological, and climatic associations with human disease incidence of West Nile virus in the state of Iowa, USA. Int J Health Geogr. 2008;7(1):1–16.

Shaman J, Harding K, Campbell SR. Meteorological and hydrological influences on the spatial and temporal prevalence of West Nile virus in Culex mosquitoes, Suffolk County. New York J Med Entomol. 2011;48(4):867–75.

Winters AM, Eisen RJ, Lozano-Fuentes S, Moore CG, Pape WJ, Eisen L. Predictive spatial models for risk of West Nile virus exposure in eastern and western Colorado. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2008;79(4):581.

Chuang TW, Wimberly MC. Remote sensing of climatic anomalies and West Nile virus incidence in the northern Great Plains of the United States. Plos One. 2012;7(10): e46882.

Hartley DM, Barker CM, Le Menach A, Niu T, Gaff HD, Reisen WK. Effects of temperature on emergence and seasonality of West Nile virus in California. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2012;86(5):884.

Ruiz MO, Chaves LF, Hamer GL, Sun T, Brown WM, Walker ED, et al. Local impact of temperature and precipitation on West Nile virus infection in Culex species mosquitoes in northeast Illinois, USA. Parasites Vector. 2010;3(1):1–16.

Shaman J, Day JF, Komar N. Hydrologic conditions describe West Nile virus risk in Colorado. Int J Environ Res Public He. 2010;7(2):494–508.

Epp TY, Waldner C, Berke O. Predictive risk mapping of West Nile virus (WNV) infection in Saskatchewan horses. Can J Vet Res. 2011;75(3):161–70.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Roth D, Henry B, Mak S, Fraser M, Taylor M, Li M, et al. West Nile virus range expansion into British Columbia. Emerg Infect Dis. 2010;16(8):1251.

Platonov AE, Tolpin VA, Gridneva KA, Titkov AV, Platonova OV, Kolyasnikova NM, et al. The incidence of West Nile disease in Russia in relation to climatic and environmental factors. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014;11(2):1211–32.

Paz S, Albersheim I. Influence of warming tendency on Culex pipiens population abundance and on the probability of West Nile fever outbreaks (Israeli case study:2001–2005). EcoHealth. 2008;5:40–8.

Uejio CK, Kemp A, Comrie AC. Climatic controls on West Nile virus and Sindbis virus transmission and outbreaks in South Africa. Vector-Borne Zoonot. 2012;12(2):117–25.

Chaves LF, Hamer GL, Walker ED, Brown WM, Ruiz MO, Kitron UD. Climatic variability and landscape heterogeneity impact urban mosquito diversity and vector abundance and infection. Ecosphere. 2011;2(6):1–21.

Hongoh V, Berrang-Ford L, Scott ME, Lindsay LR. Expanding geographical distribution of the mosquito, Culex pipiens , in Canada under climate change. Appl Geogr. 2012;33:53–62.

Gale P, Brouwer A, Ramnial V, Kelly L, Kosmider R, Fooks AR, et al. Assessing the impact of climate change on vector-borne viruses in the EU through the elicitation of expert opinion. Epidemiol Infect. 2010;138(2):214–25.

Paz S, Malkinson D, Green MS, Tsioni G, Papa A, Danis K, et al. Permissive summer temperatures of the 2010 European West Nile fever upsurge. Plos One. 2013;8(2): e56398.

Johnson BJ, Sukhdeo MVK. Drought-induced amplification of local and regional West Nile virus infection rates in New Jersey. J Med Entomol. 2013;50(1):195–204.

Ukawuba I, Shaman J. Association of spring-summer hydrology and meteorology with human West Nile virus infection in West Texas, USA, 2002–2016. Parasites Vector. 2018;11:1–15.

Little E, Campbell SR, Shaman J. Development and validation of a climate-based ensemble prediction model for West Nile virus infection rates in Culex mosquitoes, Suffolk County New York. Parasites Vector. 2016;9(1):1–13.

Skaff NK, Cheng Q, Clemesha RES, Collender PA, Gershunov A, Head JR, et al. Thermal thresholds heighten sensitivity of West Nile virus transmission to changing temperatures in coastal California. Proc Biol Sci. 2020;287(1932):20201065.

Shocket MS, Verwillow AB, Numazu MG, Slamani H, Cohen JM, El Moustaid F, et al. Transmission of West Nile and five other temperate mosquito-borne viruses peaks at temperatures between 23 C and 26 C. Elife. 2020;9: e58511.

Crowder DW, Dykstra EA, Brauner JM, Duffy A, Reed C, Martin E, et al. West Nile virus prevalence across landscapes is mediated by local effects of agriculture on vector and host communities. Plos One. 2013;8(1): e55006.

Smith KH, Tyre AJ, Hamik J, Hayes MJ, Zhou Y, Dai L. Using climate to explain and predict West Nile Virus risk in Nebraska. GeoHealth. 2020;4(9):e2020GH000244.

Tokarz RE, Smith RC. Crossover dynamics of Culex (Diptera: Culicidae) vector populations determine WNV transmission intensity. J Med Entomol. 2020;57(1):289–96.

Lockaby G, Noori N, Morse W, Zipperer W, Kalin L, Governo R, et al. Climatic, ecological, and socioeconomic factors associated with West Nile virus incidence in Atlanta, Georgia, USA. J Vector Ecol. 2016;41(2):232–43.

Uelmen JA, Brokopp C, Patz J. A 15 year evaluation of West Nile Virus in Wisconsin: effects on wildlife and human health. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(5):1767.

Hahn MB, Monaghan AJ, Hayden MH, Eisen RJ, Delorey MJ, Lindsey NP, et al. Meteorological conditions associated with increased incidence of West Nile virus disease in the United States, 2004–2012. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2015;92(5):1013.

Wimberly MC, Lamsal A, Giacomo P, Chuang TW. Regional variation of climatic influences on West Nile virus outbreaks in the United States. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2014;91(4):677.

Fay RL, Ngo KA, Kuo L, Willsey GG, Kramer LD, Ciota AT. Experimental evolution of West Nile virus at higher temperatures facilitates broad adaptation and increased genetic diversity. Viruses. 2021;13(10):1889.

Humphreys JM, Pelzel-McCluskey AM, Cohnstaedt LW, McGregor BL, Hanley KA, Hudson AR, et al. Integrating spatiotemporal epidemiology, eco-phylogenetics, and distributional ecology to assess West Nile disease risk in horses. Viruses. 2021;13(9):1811.

Hernandez E, Torres R, Joyce AL. Environmental and sociological factors associated with the incidence of West Nile virus cases in the Northern San Joaquin Valley of California, 2011–2015. Vector-Borne Zoonot. 2019;19(11):851–8.

Myer MH, Campbell SR, Johnston JM. Spatiotemporal modeling of ecological and sociological predictors of West Nile virus in Suffolk County, NY, mosquitoes. Ecosphere. 2017;8(6): e01854.

Myer MH, Johnston JM. Spatiotemporal Bayesian modeling of West Nile virus: Identifying risk of infection in mosquitoes with local-scale predictors. Sci Total Environ. 2019;650:2818–29.

Kala AK, Tiwari C, Mikler AR, Atkinson SF. A comparison of least squares regression and geographically weighted regression modeling of West Nile virus risk based on environmental parameters. Peer J. 2017;5: e3070.

Day JF, Shaman J. Using hydrologic conditions to forecast the risk of focal and epidemic arboviral transmission in peninsular Florida. J Med Entomol. 2014;45(3):458–65.

Peper ST, Dawson DE, Dacko N, Athanasiou K, Hunter J, Loko F, et al. Predictive modeling for West Nile virus and mosquito surveillance in Lubbock Texas. J Am Mosquito Contr. 2018;34(1):18–24.

Poh KC, Chaves LF, Reyna-Nava M, Roberts CM, Fredregill C, Bueno R Jr, et al. The influence of weather and weather variability on mosquito abundance and infection with West Nile virus in Harris County, Texas, USA. Sci Total Environ. 2019;675:260–72.

Shand L, Brown WM, Chaves LF, Goldberg TL, Hamer GL, Haramis L, et al. Predicting West Nile virus infection risk from the synergistic effects of rainfall and temperature. J Med Entomol. 2016;53(4):935–44.

Mori H, Wu J, Ibaraki M, Schwartz FW. Key factors influencing the incidence of West Nile virus in Burleigh County, North Dakota. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(9):1928.

Ward MJ, Sorek-Hamer M, Henke JA, Little E, Patel A, Shaman J, et al. A spatially resolved and environmentally informed forecast model of West Nile virus in Coachella Valley, California. GeoHealth. 2023;7(12):e2023GH000855.

Gorris ME, Randerson JT, Coffield SR, Treseder KK, Zender CS, Xu C, Manore CA. Assessing the influence of climate on the spatial pattern of West Nile virus incidence in the United States. Environ Health Perspect. 2023;131(4):047016.

Huang X, Athrey GN, Kaufman PE, Fredregill C, Slotman MA. Effective population size of Culex quinquefasciatus under insecticide-based vector management and following Hurricane Harvey in Harris County Texas. Front Genet. 2023;14:1297271.

Holcomb KM, Mathis S, Staples JE, Fischer M, Barker CM, Beard CB, et al. Evaluation of an open forecasting challenge to assess skill of West Nile virus neuroinvasive disease prediction. Parasite Vector. 2023;16(1):11.

Paull SH, Horton DE, Ashfaq M, Rastogi D, Kramer LD, Diffenbaugh NS, et al. Drought and immunity determine the intensity of West Nile virus epidemics and climate change impacts. P Roy Soc B-Biol Sci. 1848;2017(284):20162078.

Keyel AC, Raghavendra A, Ciota AT, Elison TO. West Nile virus is predicted to be more geographically widespread in New York State and Connecticut under future climate change. Global Change Biol. 2021;27(21):5430–45.

Morin CW, Comrie AC. Regional and seasonal response of a West Nile virus vector to climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110(39):15620–5.

Filippelli GM, Freeman JL, Gibson J, Jay S, Moreno-Madriñán MJ, Ogashawara I, et al. Climate change impacts on human health at an actionable scale: a state-level assessment of Indiana, USA. Clim Change. 2020;163(4):1985–2004.

Brown HE, Young A, Lega J, Andreadis TG, Schurich J, Comrie A. Projection of climate change influences on US West Nile virus vectors. Earth Interact. 2015;19(18):1–18.

Bakker VJ, Sillett TS, Boyce WM, Doak DF, Vickers TW, Reisen WK, et al. Translocation with targeted vaccination is the most effective strategy to protect an island endemic bird threatened by West Nile virus. Divers Distrib. 2020;26(9):1104–15.

Chen CC, Epp T, Jenkins E, Waldner C, Curry PS, Soos C, et al. Modeling monthly variation of Culex tarsalis (Diptera: Culicidae) abundance and West Nile Virus infection rate in the Canadian Prairies. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013;10(7):3033–51.

Mallya S, Sander B, Roy-Gagnon MH, Taljaard M, Jolly A, Kulkarn MA. Factors associated with human West Nile virus infection in Ontario: a generalized linear mixed modelling approach. BMC Infect Dis. 2018;18(1):1–9.

Temple SD, Manore CA, Kaufeld KA. Bayesian time-varying occupancy model for West Nile virus in Ontario Canada. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess. 2022;36(8):2337–52.

Talbot B, Kulkarni MA, Rioux-Rousseau M, Siebels K, Kotchi SO, Ogden NH, et al. Ecological niche and positive clusters of two West Nile virus vector in Ontario Canada. EcoHealth. 2023;20(3):249–62.

Albrecht L, Kaufeld KA. Investigating the impact of environmental factors on West Nile virus human case prediction in Ontario Canada. Front Public Health. 2023;11:1100543.

Baril C, Pilling BG, Mikkelsen MJ, Sparrow JM, Duncan CAM, Koloski CW, et al. The influence of weather on the population dynamics of common mosquito vector species in the Canadian Prairies. Parasite Vector. 2023;16(1):153.

Chen CC, Jenkins E, Epp T, Waldner C, Curry PS, Soos C. Climate change and West Nile virus in a highly endemic region of North America. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013;10(7):3052–71.

Otten A, Fazil A, Chemeris A, Breadner P, Ng V. Prioritization of vector-borne diseases in Canada under current climate and projected climate change. Microbial Risk Anal. 2020;14:100089.

Hongoh V, Campagna C, Panic M, Samuel O, Gosselin P, Waaub JP, et al. Assessing interventions to manage West Nile virus using multi-criteria decision analysis with risk scenarios. Plos One. 2016;11(8): e0160651.

Tam BY, Tsuji LJS. West Nile virus in American crows ( Corvus brachyrhynchos ) in Canada: projecting the influence of climate change. GeoJournal. 2016;81:89–101.

Tam BY, Martin I, Tsuji LJS. Geospatial analysis between the environment and past incidences of West Nile virus in bird specimens in Ontario Canada. GeoJournal. 2014;79:805–17.

Rakotoarinia MR, Seidou O, Lapen DR, Leighton PA, Ogden NH, Ludwig A. Future land-use change predictions using Dyna-Clue to support mosquito-borne disease risk assessment. Environ Monit Assess. 2023;195(7):815.

Di Pol G, Crotta M, Taylor RA. Modelling the temperature suitability for the risk of West Nile Virus establishment in European Culex pipiens populations. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2022;69(5):1787–99.

Coroian M, Petrić M, Pistol A, Sirbu A, Domșa C, Mihalca AD. Human West Nile Meningo-Encephalitis in a highly endemic country: a complex epidemiological analysis on biotic and abiotic risk factors. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(21):8250.

Stilianakis NI, Syrris V, Petroliagkis T, Pärt P, Gewehr S, Kalaitzopoulou S, et al. Identification of climatic factors affecting the epidemiology of human West Nile virus infections in northern Greece. Plos One. 2016;11(9): e0161510.

Vogels CB, Hartemink N, Koenraadt CJM. Modelling West Nile virus transmission risk in Europe: effect of temperature and mosquito biotypes on the basic reproduction number. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):5022.

Fros JJ, Geertsema C, Vogels CB, Roosjen PP, Failloux AB, Vlak JM, et al. West Nile virus: high transmission rate in north-western European mosquitoes indicates its epidemic potential and warrants increased surveillance. Plos Neglect Trop Dis. 2015;9(7):e0003956.

Tran A, Sudre B, Paz S, Rossi M, Desbrosse A, Chevalier V, et al. Environmental predictors of West Nile fever risk in Europe. Int J Health Geogr. 2014;13:1–11.

Radojicic S, Zivulj A, Petrovic T, Nisavic J, Milicevic V, Sipetic-Grujicic S, et al. Spatiotemporal analysis of West Nile virus epidemic in South Banat District, Serbia, 2017–2019. Animals. 2021;11(10):2951.

Platonov AE, Fedorova MV, Karan LS, Shopenskaya TA, Platonova OV, Zhuravlev VI. Epidemiology of West Nile infection in Volgograd, Russia, in relation to climate change and mosquito (Diptera: Culicidae) bionomics. Parasitol Res. 2008;1(103):45–53.

Moirano G, Gasparrini A, Acquaotta F, Fratianni S, Merletti F, Maule M, et al. West Nile virus infection in Northern Italy: Case-crossover study on the short-term effect of climatic parameters. Environ Res. 2018;167:544–9.

Marcantonio M, Rizzoli A, Metz M, Rosà R, Marini G, Chadwick E, et al. Identifying the environmental conditions favouring West Nile virus outbreaks in Europe. Plos One. 2015;10(3): e0121158.

Mihailović DT, Petrić D, Petrović T, Hrnjaković-Cvjetković I, Djurdjevic V, Nikolić-Đorić E, et al. Assessment of climate change impact on the malaria vector Anopheles hyrcanus, West Nile disease, and incidence of melanoma in the Vojvodina Province (Serbia) using data from a regional climate model. Plos One. 2020;15(1): e0227679.

Trájer AJ, Bede-Fazekas Á, Bobvos J, Páldy A. Seasonality and geographical occurrence of West Nile fever and distribution of Asian tiger mosquito. Q J Hung Meteorol Se. 2014;118(1):19–40.

Townroe S, Callaghan A. British container breeding mosquitoes: the impact of urbanisation and climate change on community composition and phenology. Plos One. 2014;9(4): e95325.

Paz S. West Nile Virus Eruptions in Summer 2010–What Is the Possible Linkage with Climate Change? Netherlands: National Security and Human Health Implications of Climate Change. Springer; 2012. p. 253–60.

Mavrakis A, Papavasileiou C, Alexakis D, Papakitsos EC, Salvati L. Meteorological patterns and the evolution of West Nile virus in an environmentally stressed Mediterranean area. Environ Monit Assess. 2021;193:1–11.

Vlasova NV, Masyagutova LM, Abdrakhmanova ER, Rafikova LA, Chudnovets GM. A conceptual scheme of a predictive-analytical model for describing incidence of west nile fever based on weather and climate estimation (exemplified by the Volgograd region). Health Risk Anal. 2022;4:124.

Farooq Z, Rocklöv J, Wallin J, Abiri N, Sewe MO, Sjödin H, et al. Artificial intelligence to predict West Nile virus outbreaks with ecoclimatic drivers. Lancet Reg Health Eu. 2022;17:100370.

Marini G, Pugliese A, Wint W, Alexander NS, Rizzoli A, Rosà R. Modelling the West Nile virus force of infection in the European human population. One Health. 2022;15: 100462.

Vukmir NR, Bojanić J, Mijović B, Roganović T, Aćimović J. Did intensive floods influence higher incidence rate of the West Nile virus in the population exposed to flooding in the Republic of Srpska in 2014. Arch Vet Med. 2019;12(1):21–32.

Krol L, Blom R, Dellar M, van der Beek JG, Stroo ACJ, van Bodegom PM, et al. Interactive effects of climate, land use and soil type on Culex pipiens/torrentium abundance. One Health. 2023;17: 100589.

Magallanes S, Llorente F, Ruiz-López MJ, de la PuenteMartinez - J, Soriguer R, Calderon J, et al. Long-term serological surveillance for West Nile and Usutu virus in horses in south-West Spain. One Health. 2023;17:100578.

Niczyporuk JS, Kozdrun W, Czujkowska A, Blanchard Y, Helle M, Dheilly NM, et al. West Nile virus lineage 2 in free-living Corvus cornix birds in Poland. Trop Med Infect Dis. 2023;8(8):417.

Angelou A, Gewehr S, Mourelatos S, Kioutsioukis I. Early warning impact of temperature and rainfall anomalies onto West Nile virus human cases. Environ Sci Proc. 2023;26(1):93.

Watts MJ, iMonteys VS, Mortyn PG, Kotsila P. The rise of West Nile virus in Southern and Southeastern Europe: A spatial–temporal analysis investigating the combined effects of climate, land use and economic changes. One Health. 2021;13:100315.

Lourenço J, Barros SC, Zé-Zé L, Damineli DSC, Giovanetti M, Osório HC, et al. West Nile virus transmission potential in Portugal. Comms Biol. 2022;5(1):6.

Ewing DA, Purse BV, Cobbold CA, White SM. A novel approach for predicting risk of vector-borne disease establishment in marginal temperate environments under climate change: West Nile virus in the UK. J R Soc Interface. 2021;18(178):20210049.

Trájer AJ. Meteorological conditions associated with West Nile fever incidences in mediterranean and continental climates in Europe. Idojaras. 2017;121:303–28.

Tippelt L, Walther D, Kampen H. The thermophilic mosquito species Uranotaenia unguiculata Edwards, 1913 (Diptera: Culicidae) moves north in Germany. Parasitol Res. 2017;116:3437–40.

Farooq Z, Sjödin H, Semenza JC, Tozan Y, Sewe MO, Wallin J, Rocklöv J. European projections of West Nile virus transmission under climate change scenarios. One Health. 2023;16: 100509.

Aharonson-Raz K, Lichter-Peled A, Tal S, Gelman B, Cohen D, Klement E, et al. Spatial and temporal distribution of West Nile virus in horses in Israel (1997–2013)-From endemic to epidemics. Plos One. 2014;9(11):e113149.

Ahmadnejad F, Otarod V, Fathnia A, Ahmadabadi A, Fallah MH, Zavareh A, et al. Impact of climate and environmental factors on West Nile virus circulation in Iran. J Arthropod Borne Dis. 2016;10(3):315.

Salama M, Amitai Z, Lustig Y, Mor Z, Weiberger M, Chowers M, et al. Outbreak of West Nile virus disease in Israel (2015): A retrospective analysis of notified cases. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2018;28:41–5.

Calistri P, Ippoliti C, Candeloro L, Benjelloun A, El Harrak M, Bouchra B, et al. Analysis of climatic and environmental variables associated with the occurrence of West Nile virus in Morocco. Prev Vet Med. 2013;110(3–4):549–53.

Velu RM, Kwenda G, Bosomprah S, Chisola MN, Simunyandi M, Chisenga CC, et al. Ecological niche modeling of Aedes and Culex mosquitoes: a risk map for Chikungunya and West Nile viruses in Zambia. Viruses. 2023;15(9):1900.

Outammassine A, Zouhair S, Loqman S. Rift Valley fever and West Nile virus vectors in Morocco: Current situation and future anticipated scenarios. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2022;69(3):1466–78.

Figueroa DP, Scott S, González CR, Bizama G, Flores Mara R, Bustamante R, et al. Estimating the climate change consequences on the potential distribution of Culex pipiens L. 1758, to assess the risk of West Nile virus establishment in Chile. Gatana. 2020;84(1):46–53.

Huang B, Prow NA, van den Hurk AF, Allcock RJ, Moore PR, Doggett SL, et al. Archival isolates confirm a single topotype of West Nile virus in Australia. Plos Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10(12):e0005159.

Anyamba A, Small JL, Britch SC, Tucker CJ, Pak EW, Reynolds CA, et al. Recent weather extremes and impacts on agricultural production and vector-borne disease outbreak patterns. Plos One. 2014;9(3): e92538.

Samy AM, Elaagip AH, Kenawy MA, Ayres CF, Peterson AT, Soliman DE. Climate change influences on the global potential distribution of the mosquito Culex quinquefasciatus , vector of West Nile virus and lymphatic filariasis. Plos One. 2016;11(10): e0163863.

Negev M, Paz S, Clermont A, Pri-Or NG, Shalom U, Yeger T, et al. Impacts of climate change on vector borne diseases in the Mediterranean Basin—implications for preparedness and adaptation policy. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015;12(6):6745–70.

CDC. Historic Data for WNV, 1999–2022. https://www.cdc.gov/westnile/statsmaps/historic-data.html . Accessed 11 Oct 2023.

Soto RA, Hughes ML, Staples JE, Lindsey NP. West Nile virus and other domestic nationally notifiable arboviral diseases-United States, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71(18):628.

Zheng H, Drebot MA, Coulthart MB. West Nile virus in Canada: ever-changing, but here to stay Canada. Commun Dis Rep. 2014;40(10):173–7.

Public Health Agency of Canada. West Nile virus and other mosquito-borne disease national surveillance report. https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/west-nile-virus/surveillance-west-nile-virus.html . Accessed 11 March 2024.

Young JJ, Haussig JM, Aberle SW, Pervanidou D, Riccardo F, Sekulić N, et al. Epidemiology of human West Nile virus infections in the European Union and European Union enlargement countries, 2010 to 2018. Eurosurveillance. 2021;26(19):2001095.

CDC. FAQ: general questions about West Nile virus. 2015. http://www.cdc.gov/westnile/faq/genQuestions.html . Accessed 13 Jun 2023.

Komar N. West Nile virus: epidemiology and ecology in North America. Adv Virus Res. 2003;61:185–234.

George TL, Harrigan RJ, LaManna JA, DeSante DF, Saracco JF, Smith TB. Persistent impacts of West Nile virus on North American bird populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112(46):14290–4.

Hamer GL, Walker ED, Brawn JD, Loss SR, Ruiz MO, Goldberg TL, et al. Rapid amplification of West Nile virus: the role of hatch-year birds. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2008;8(1):57–68.

Reisen WK. Effect of temperature on Culex tarsalis (Diptera: Culicidae) from the Coachella and San Joaquin valleys of California. J Med Entomol. 1995;32:636–45.

Cotton PA. Avian migration phenology and global climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100:12219–22.

Caillouët KA, Riggan AE, Bulluck LP, Carlson JC, Sabo RT. Nesting bird “host funnel” increases mosquito-bird contact rate. J Med Entomol. 2013;50(2):462–6.

Shaman J, Day JF, Stieglitz M. Drought induced amplification and epidemic transmission of West Nile virus in southern Florida. J Med Entomol. 2005;42:134–41.

Paz S. Climate change impacts on West Nile virus transmission in a global context. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2015;370(1665):20130561.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.31802217).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Veterinary Surgery, Northeast Agricultural University, Harbin, 150030, Heilongjiang, People’s Republic of China

Hao-Ran Wang, Tao Liu, Xiang Gao, Hong-Bin Wang & Jian-Hua Xiao

Heilongjiang Key Laboratory for Laboratory Animals and Comparative Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Northeast Agricultural University, Harbin, 150030, Heilongjiang, People’s Republic of China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

HRW participated in the design, study selection, data extraction and analysis, and write-up of this study. TL, XG, and HBW participated in the design of this study and revised the manuscript. JHX participated in the revision of the manuscript. All authors approved the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jian-Hua Xiao .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary material 1., supplementary material 2., rights and permissions.

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

Wang, HR., Liu, T., Gao, X. et al. Impact of climate change on the global circulation of West Nile virus and adaptation responses: a scoping review. Infect Dis Poverty 13 , 38 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40249-024-01207-2

Download citation

Received : 03 January 2024

Accepted : 17 May 2024

Published : 24 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40249-024-01207-2

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

• Climate change
• Vector-borne pathogens

Infectious Diseases of Poverty

ISSN: 2049-9957

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Published on 28.5.2024 in Vol 7 (2024)

Using AI-Based Technologies to Help Nurses Detect Behavioral Disorders: Narrative Literature Review

Authors of this article:

• Sofia Fernandes 1, 2, 3 , MScN   ; 
• Armin von Gunten 4 , MPhil, MD   ; 
• Henk Verloo 1, 4 , PhD  

1 School of Health Sciences, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland (HES-SO), Sion, Switzerland

2 Les Maisons de la Providence Nursing Home, Le Châble, Switzerland

3 Faculty of Biology and Medicine, Institute of Higher Education and Research in Healthcare, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

4 Service of Old Age Psychiatry, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

Corresponding Author:

Sofia Fernandes, MScN

School of Health Sciences

University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland (HES-SO)

Chemin de l’Agasse 5

Switzerland

Phone: 41 00415860861

Email: [email protected]

Background: The behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) are common among people with dementia and have multiple negative consequences. Artificial intelligence–based technologies (AITs) have the potential to help nurses in the early prodromal detection of BPSD. Despite significant recent interest in the topic and the increasing number of available appropriate devices, little information is available on using AITs to help nurses striving to detect BPSD early.

Objective: The aim of this study is to identify the number and characteristics of existing publications on introducing AITs to support nursing interventions to detect and manage BPSD early.

Methods: A literature review of publications in the PubMed database referring to AITs and dementia was conducted in September 2023. A detailed analysis sought to identify the characteristics of these publications. The results were reported using a narrative approach.

Results: A total of 25 publications from 14 countries were identified, with most describing prospective observational studies. We identified three categories of publications on using AITs and they are (1) predicting behaviors and the stages and progression of dementia, (2) screening and assessing clinical symptoms, and (3) managing dementia and BPSD. Most of the publications referred to managing dementia and BPSD.

Conclusions: Despite growing interest, most AITs currently in use are designed to support psychosocial approaches to treating and caring for existing clinical signs of BPSD. AITs thus remain undertested and underused for the early and real-time detection of BPSD. They could, nevertheless, provide nurses with accurate, reliable systems for assessing, monitoring, planning, and supporting safe therapeutic interventions.

Introduction

Demographic aging is a worldwide phenomenon, with significant growth in the number of older adults expected in the coming decades [ 1 ]. The number of people aged 80 years or older is expected to reach 426 million by 2050, with a high prevalence of dementia and other mental health disorders [ 2 ]. According to the World Health Organization, more than 55 million people worldwide endure dementia, and around 10 million new cases are diagnosed yearly [ 3 ]. More than 90% of them are affected by 1 or more of the behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) and 80%-90% live in nursing homes. The BPSD, also known as neuropsychiatric symptoms related to dementia, is characterized by changes in behavior, perception, thought content, and mood [ 4 ]. The most common symptoms are apathy, aberrant motor behaviors, mood disturbances, aggression, anxiety, irritability, and sleep disorders [ 4 ]. The BPSD has a negative impact on the quality of life, accelerating functional decline and leading to earlier mortality [ 5 , 6 ]. The BPSD can be the source of social isolation, abuse, and burdens for informal caregivers [ 7 , 8 ]. For health care professionals, including nurses, managing BPSD can lead to work overload, stress, burnout, reduced quality of care, and the risks of patient abuse [ 9 - 11 ]. Finally, BPSD can increase health care system costs through more consultations, hospitalizations, and the prescription of more psychotropic drugs and mood stabilizers [ 12 ].

The etiopathogenesis of the BPSD is complex. Although dementia is a prerequisite for the onset of its behavioral and psychological symptoms, it is not the sole determinant. The BPSD can result from a convergence of factors, including neurological alterations, somatic problems, psychological factors, environmental conditions, and individual patient characteristics [ 13 ]. Moreover, the frequency, intensity, and types of symptoms vary considerably from 1 person to another. Thus, effectively managing the BPSD requires a structured approach that identifies and acts on various trigger factors [ 4 , 13 - 15 ]. The literature suggests different models or approaches, but all agree on three distinct steps which are (1) assessing manifestations of the BPSD that the patients present with, (2) formulating a hypothesis to help understand them, and (3) designing 1 or more interventions targeting their trigger factors [ 4 , 13 - 15 ]. Interventions can be psychosocial, pharmacological, or a combination of both [ 4 , 13 - 15 ]. Traditionally, detecting symptoms, monitoring their evolution, and evaluating treatment efficacy are based on nursing observations documented using assessment scales (Neuropsychiatric Inventory and Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory) or solely using written notes in the patient’s medical record [ 15 , 16 ]. However, this process may prove ineffective for the early detection of the signs of BPSD, and nurses may perceive it as a potential factor in work overload [ 12 ]. Indeed, the first 2 steps require the investment of health care professionals, informal caregivers, and other individuals, and the third is more complex due to the variability and multifactorial nature of the BPSD. The BPSD challenges nurses daily, often triggering crises that are extremely complex to manage. Responding effectively and efficiently to these clinical issues requires more intensive observation and specialized care, with a greater emphasis on the prodromal detection of warning signs. However, due to an aging workforce and difficult working conditions (eg, high levels of stress and burnout, job dissatisfaction, and low levels of retention), the health care sector is facing a shortage of nursing staff [ 17 ]. The International Council of Nurses estimates a need for 13 million extra nurses to fill the worldwide shortages in the profession [ 18 ]. This shows the limitations of current human resources–based strategies, with the corollary need to explore innovative and sustainable solutions.

In recent decades, new information technologies have been adopted by every area of health care [ 19 ]. The first information technologies to be integrated into health care were electronic medical and health records, clinical information systems, and health information exchanges. More recently, other technologies have emerged, such as clinical decision support systems, mobile health apps, telehealth, telemedicine, robotics, wireless medical devices, and virtual reality [ 19 - 21 ]. Technological development in the health care sector, including nursing, is currently focused on artificial intelligence (AI) [ 19 ]. In the field of health care, AI usually refers to software capable of interpreting clinical data, learning from it, and helping clinical decision-making [ 19 , 22 ]. Combined with critical thinking and human judgment, AI has the potential to improve nurses’ clinical reasoning by increasing the speed and accuracy of assessment, anticipation, synthesis, and knowledge generation [ 23 ]. From 1985 to date, the PubMed database lists 1086 publications on AI in nursing. There has been a significant growth in the number of these publications since 2020, reinforcing the nursing sciences’ aims of developing and adapting nursing practices in line with sociodemographic changes and health care system, and medical and technical progress. [ 24 ]. Promoting the development, adoption and effective use of AI-based technologies (AITs) in health care has been identified as a key strategy to address the challenges related to both the complexity of managing the BPSD and limited resources [ 19 , 25 - 28 ]. Despite significant recent interest in the topic and the increasing number of technical devices on the market, little information is available on introducing AITs to help nurses attempting to detect BPSD as early as possible. This narrative review aims to identify and summarize the characteristics of existing publications concerning the use of AITs to support nurses in the early identification and management of BPSD.

Search Strategy

This narrative review was conducted following the Toronto and Remington guidelines [ 29 ]. The research question used to guide it was as follows:

What are the available publications on the use of artificial-intelligence-based technologies in neuropsychiatric symptoms related to dementia?

We consulted the PubMed database in September 2023 using the descriptors and keywords “artificial intelligence,” “behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia,” and “neuropsychiatric symptoms” ( Multimedia Appendix 1 ).

Eligibility Criteria

Publications addressing the concept of dementia were included because the literature often links the concepts of dementia and the BPSD. The inclusion and exclusion criteria are presented in Textbox 1 .

A total of 30 publications were identified and included after their titles and abstracts were reviewed. Following a thorough examination of their full texts, 5 publications were excluded because they focused on mental health issues unrelated to dementia or BPSD. In total, 25 publications were included.

Inclusion criteria

• Behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia
• No restrictions

Exclusion criteria

• Other mental health disorders

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Information extracted from the publications retained for analysis included study design, country, journal title and category, mental health disorder addressed, type, subtype, use of the AITs, and health care setting. The type, subtype, and use of each AIT were identified via a basic qualitative content analysis, based on the authors’ stated aims and objectives (information found in the introduction and methods sections of the papers retained). In the context of mental health care, the type of AIT used was categorized according to the groups proposed by Jin et al [ 30 ], which are, machine learning, natural language processing, and digital health. Once this information was extracted, keywords were chosen to categorize the AIT’s use, with keywords determined based on the verbs used in each paper’s objectives (eg, measure, evaluate, screen, manage, and predict). The results are reported using a narrative approach.

Study Characteristics

Publications from 14 countries were identified, with publication dates ranging from 2006 to 2023 ( Figure 1 ). A total of 8 publications addressed acute care settings [ 31 - 38 ], 6 looked at nursing homes [ 39 - 44 ], and 3 examined community care [ 45 - 47 ]. The majority described prospective observational studies published in journals covering geriatrics and psychogeriatrics [ 31 , 33 , 34 , 36 , 46 - 48 ] ( Multimedia Appendix 2 ) [ 31 - 55 ].

Uses of AITs

A total of 12 publications reported using machine learning–type AITs, including the facial expression recognition and predictive modeling subtypes [ 31 , 34 - 38 , 43 , 46 , 47 , 49 , 50 , 55 ], 11 publications explored digital health–type AITs, including the wearable technologies and robotic subtypes [ 32 , 39 - 42 , 44 , 45 , 51 - 54 ], and 2 publications examined natural language processing–type AITs [ 33 , 48 ] ( Figure 2 ).

We identified three categories of publications depending on the AIT’s use and they are (1) predicting behavior and the stage and progression of dementia, (2) screening and assessing clinical symptoms, and (3) managing dementia and the BPSD ( Figure 3 ).

A total of 4 publications reported on the use of machine learning technology to predict dementia behavior and the stage and progression of dementia [ 34 , 36 - 38 ]. Three publications referred to the use of natural language processing for screening and assessing clinical symptoms [ 35 , 48 , 49 ] and 1 reported on the use of machine learning [ 50 ]. One publication described the use of wearable technologies [ 40 ], and 1 combined this type of AIT with machine learning [ 46 ]. Finally, 10 publications reported on the use of robotics as a psychosocial approach to managing dementia and BPSD [ 32 , 39 , 41 , 42 , 44 , 45 , 51 - 54 ] ( Table 1 ).

One publication reported on the use of AITs to predict the stage and progression of dementia [ 31 ], 1 described the detection and measurement of dementia’s clinical symptoms [ 48 ], and 6 examined dementia management [ 39 , 41 , 44 , 51 - 53 ]. As for the BPSD, 5 publications reported using AITs to predict behavior [ 33 , 36 , 37 , 46 , 47 ], 3 described the detection and assessment of clinical symptoms [ 35 , 40 , 49 ], and 5 looked at managing behavior [ 32 , 42 - 44 , 55 ] ( Figure 4 ). In the context of the BPSD, behavior management refers to interventions carried out to identify and act on trigger factors.

a AIT: artificial intelligence–based technology.

b N/A: not applicable.

Principal Results

Despite the growing interest in AITs, most of those currently used take a psychosocial approach to treating and caring for patients with BPSD by using the clinical signs that are already present. AI remains largely unexplored in terms of its potential for the early, real-time detection of BPSD. Yet, in different health care settings and contexts, AITs could provide nurses with accurate and reliable systems for assessing, monitoring, planning, and supporting safe therapeutic interventions [ 27 , 56 ]. Based on our findings, it appears that the use of AITs has been explored more in acute care than in long-term care settings, which include community care and nursing homes. However, the prevalence of BPSD seems to be higher in the context of long-term care, particularly in nursing homes where 80%-90% of residents exhibit at least 1 of the BPSD and institutional resources tend to be more limited [ 57 ].

As mentioned above, BPSD has traditionally been assessed and monitored by health care professionals’ observations of patients’ behaviors [ 15 , 16 ]. However, this process may have limited success in the early detection of warning signs of the BPSD, and health care professionals perceive it to be another task or factor leading to work overload [ 11 ]. Therefore, it seems appropriate to anticipate symptom escalation and optimize staff and financial resources. Multimodal sensors for capturing physiological parameters, activity trackers, and facial expression recognition are all promising AITs that make the process of managing the BPSD more efficient and personalized [ 40 , 58 - 61 ]. By mining information from such devices, nurses could detect early warning signs of BPSD and their trigger factors. By combining this information with their clinical knowledge and experience, nurses could be equipped with a clinical decision-making support system enabling them to guide and personalize their therapeutic interventions [ 56 , 62 - 64 ].

Although nurses agree about the potential usefulness of AITs, most do not fully understand AI’s underlying principles, and they are concerned about the potential consequences of its use in clinical practice [ 65 - 68 ]. Other obstacles pertaining to AITs include the unknown cost-benefits of their use in health care settings, the current lack of use and data management protocols in those settings, and the lack of information technology capacity there to support them [ 69 , 70 ]. The published papers identified in this review reinforced these points as the involvement of nurses in designing studies and the use of AITs was low. However, in interdisciplinary contexts, nurses have key roles to play in the conception and design of AIT devices, verifying their effectiveness and adapting their use.

Strengths and Limitations

The characteristics of the publications retained in this narrative review revealed the countries and contexts where AITs have been integrated into settings dealing with the BPSD and have been investigated. It also demonstrated the types of technologies available and their intended purposes, as well as the clinical contexts in which they are deployed. These results, while not exhaustive, provide a preliminary overview of this emerging topic and identify AITs’ potential benefits for clinical practice and pathways for future research. This narrative review has some limitations, nevertheless. The absence of an assessment of the quality and validity of the selected publications may bias the quality of their reported outcomes. Furthermore, including publications that address dementia could lead to confusion regarding this narrative review’s focus. Although the concepts of dementia and BPSD are frequently interrelated in the specialized literature, including the concept of dementia could lead readers to misunderstand the scope of the results presented.

Conclusions

AI has the potential to transform nursing practice, particularly in support of the diagnosis and management of BPSD, which are currently among the major challenges in caring for older adults with dementia. However, our literature review found little experimental evidence, data, or understanding of how these types of technologies could be applied advantageously to the early detection of BPSD by nurses. Furthermore, although these are preliminary findings, the results of this review showed that research on this topic has only been done in relatively few countries, despite the impact of the BPSD being a global phenomenon. Based on this fact and the review’s limitations, we would recommend that a more comprehensive examination be performed, such as a scoping review, to meticulously explore the research conducted on AITs for the early detection of BPSD. It also seems important that future experimental research investigates the effectiveness, feasibility, and acceptability of using devices based on AITs for the prodromal detection of BPSD. Specific research in long-term care settings seems to be particularly lacking. Nurses are intimately involved in creating a vision of contemporary professional nursing practice and then applying that practice. Therefore, it seems appropriate that they should be involved in strengthening collaboration with information technology engineers and programmers. Nurses’ perceptions and experiences of using AITs to detect BPSD should also be explored, using a qualitative approach, as should how the data provided by these types of technologies contribute to nurses’ clinical reasoning and decision-making processes.

Conflicts of Interest

None declared.

Search query.

Description of the selected publications.

• Vieillissement et santé. World Health Organization. 2022. URL: https://www.who.int/fr/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ageing-and-health [accessed 2023-09-06]
• von Gunten A. Psychiatrie de la personne âgée en Suisse. Swiss Arch Neurol Psychiatr Psychother. 2017;168(02):33-40. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ]
• Démence. Organisation mondiale de la santé [World Health Organization]. 2023. URL: https://www.who.int/fr/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/dementia [accessed 2023-09-06]
• Kales HC, Lyketsos CG, Miller EM, Ballard C. Management of behavioral and psychological symptoms in people with Alzheimer's disease: an international Delphi consensus. Int Psychogeriatr. 2019;31(1):83-90. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Bränsvik V, Granvik E, Minthon L, Nordström P, Nägga K. Mortality in patients with behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia: a registry-based study. Aging Ment Health. 2021;25(6):1101-1109. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Cepoiu-Martin M, Tam-Tham H, Patten S, Maxwell CJ, Hogan DB. Predictors of long-term care placement in persons with dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2016;31(11):1151-1171. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Feast A, Orrell M, Charlesworth G, Melunsky N, Poland F, Moniz-Cook E. Behavioural and psychological symptoms in dementia and the challenges for family carers: systematic review. Br J Psychiatry. 2016;208(5):429-434. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Pinyopornpanish K, Soontornpun A, Wongpakaran T, Wongpakaran N, Tanprawate S, Pinyopornpanish K, et al. Impact of behavioral and psychological symptoms of Alzheimer's disease on caregiver outcomes. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):14138. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Kang Y, Hur Y. Nurses' experience of nursing workload-related issues during caring patients with dementia: a qualitative meta-synthesis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(19):10448. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Ostaszkiewicz J, Lakhan P, O'Connell B, Hawkins M. Ongoing challenges responding to behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia. Int Nurs Rev. 2015;62(4):506-516. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Steele C, Berry K, Brown LJE. Healthcare professionals' experiences of using a biopsychosocial approach to understand behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia: a qualitative interview study. Int J Older People Nurs. 2022;17(2):e12427. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Butler M, Gaugler JE, Talley KMC, Abdi HI, Desai PJ, Duval S, et al. Care interventions for people living with dementia and their caregivers. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 231. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Rockville, MD. URL: https:/​/effectivehealthcare.​ahrq.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​pdf/​cer-231-dementia-interventions-final_0.​pdf [accessed 2024-05-08]
• Dementia: Assessment, Management and Support for People Living with Dementia and Their Carers. London. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2018.
• Ma H, Lu X, Zhou A, Wang F, Zuo X, Zhan M, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia: a systematic review with AGREE II. Front Neurol. 2022;13:799723. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Tible OP, Riese F, Savaskan E, von Gunten A. Best practice in the management of behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2017;10(8):297-309. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Bessey LJ, Walaszek A. Management of behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2019;21(8):66. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Drennan VM, Ross F. Global nurse shortages-the facts, the impact and action for change. Br Med Bull. 2019;130(1):25-37. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• ICN policy brief—the global nursing shortage and nurse retention. International Council of Nurses. 2021. URL: https://www.icn.ch/node/1297 [accessed 2023-09-06]
• Raymond L, Castonguay A, Doyon O, Paré G. Nurse practitioners' involvement and experience with AI-based health technologies: a systematic review. Appl Nurs Res. 2022;66:151604. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Golinelli D, Boetto E, Carullo G, Nuzzolese AG, Landini MP, Fantini MP. Adoption of digital technologies in health care during the COVID-19 pandemic: systematic review of early scientific literature. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(11):e22280. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Lu L, Zhang J, Xie Y, Gao F, Xu S, Wu X, et al. Wearable health devices in health care: narrative systematic review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020;8(11):e18907. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Douthit BJ, Hu X, Richesson RL, Kim H, Cary MP. How artificial intelligence is transforming the future of nursing. Am J Nurs. 2020;15(9):100-102. [ FREE Full text ]
• Artificial intelligence, critical thinking, and the nursing process. HIMSS. 2019. URL: https://www.himss.org/resources/artificial-intelligence-critical-thinking-and-nursing-process [accessed 2023-09-06]
• Pepin J, Ducharme F, Kérouac S. La Pensée Infirmière, 4e édition. Montréal. Chenelière éducation; 2017.
• Boyne JJ, Ski CF, Fitzsimons D, Amin H, Hill L, Thompson DR. The changing role of patients, and nursing and medical professionals as a result of digitalization of health and heart failure care. J Nurs Manag. 2022;30(8):3847-3852. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• The Topol review: preparing the healthcare workforce to deliver the digital future. NHS Health Education England. 2019. URL: https://topol.hee.nhs.uk [accessed 2023-09-06]
• Stavropoulos TG, Papastergiou A, Mpaltadoros L, Nikolopoulos S, Kompatsiaris I. IoT wearable sensors and devices in elderly care: a literature review. Sensors (Basel). 2020;20(10):2826. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Global Strategy on Digital Health 2020-2025. Geneva. World Health Organization; 2021.
• Toronto CE, Remington R. A Step-by-Step Guide to Conducting an Integrative Review. Cham. Springer International Publishing; 2020.
• Jin KW, Li Q, Xie Y, Xiao G. Artificial intelligence in mental healthcare: an overview and future perspectives. Br J Radiol. 2023;96(1150):20230213. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Byeon H. Predicting the severity of Parkinson's disease dementia by assessing the neuropsychiatric symptoms with an SVM regression model. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(5):2551. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Demange M, Lenoir H, Pino M, Cantegreil-Kallen I, Rigaud AS, Cristancho-Lacroix V. Improving well-being in patients with major neurodegenerative disorders: differential efficacy of brief social robot-based intervention for 3 neuropsychiatric profiles. Clin Interv Aging. 2018;13:1303-1311. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Eikelboom WS, Singleton EH, van den Berg E, de Boer C, Coesmans M, Goudzwaard JA, et al. The reporting of neuropsychiatric symptoms in electronic health records of individuals with Alzheimer's disease: a natural language processing study. Alzheimers Res Ther. 2023;15(1):94. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Gill S, Mouches P, Hu S, Rajashekar D, MacMaster FP, Smith EE, et al. Using machine learning to predict dementia from neuropsychiatric symptom and neuroimaging data. J Alzheimers Dis. 2020;75(1):277-288. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ]
• König A, Mallick E, Tröger J, Linz N, Zeghari R, Manera V, et al. Measuring neuropsychiatric symptoms in patients with early cognitive decline using speech analysis. Eur Psychiatry. 2021;64(1):e64. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Mallo SC, Valladares-Rodriguez S, Facal D, Lojo-Seoane C, Fernández-Iglesias MJ, Pereiro AX. Neuropsychiatric symptoms as predictors of conversion from MCI to dementia: a machine learning approach. Int. Psychogeriatr. 2019;32(3):381-392. [ CrossRef ]
• Mar J, Gorostiza A, Ibarrondo O, Cernuda C, Arrospide A, Iruin Á, et al. Validation of random forest machine learning models to predict dementia-related neuropsychiatric symptoms in real-world data. J Alzheimers Dis. 2020;77(2):855-864. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Mar J, Gorostiza A, Arrospide A, Larrañaga I, Alberdi A, Cernuda C, et al. Estimation of the epidemiology of dementia and associated neuropsychiatric symptoms by applying machine learning to real-world data. Rev Psiquiatr Salud Ment (Engl Ed). Mar 25, 2021;15(3):167-175. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Chen K, Lou VWQ, Tan KCK, Wai MY, Chan LL. Effects of a humanoid companion robot on dementia symptoms and caregiver distress for residents in long-term care. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2020;21(11):1724-1728.e3. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Favela J, Cruz-Sandoval D, Morales-Tellez A, Lopez-Nava IH. Monitoring behavioral symptoms of dementia using activity trackers. J Biomed Inform. 2020;109:103520. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Hsieh CJ, Li PS, Wang CH, Lin SL, Hsu TC, Tsai CMT. Socially assistive robots for people living with dementia in long-term facilities: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Gerontology. 2023;69(8):1027-1042. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Moyle W, Bramble M, Jones CJ, Murfield JE. "She had a smile on her face as wide as the great Australian bite": a qualitative examination of family perceptions of a therapeutic robot and a plush toy. Gerontologist. 2019;59(1):177-185. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Tadokoro K, Yamashita T, Kawano S, Sato J, Omote Y, Takemoto M, et al. Immediate beneficial effect of makeup therapy on behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia and facial appearance analyzed by artificial intelligence software. J Alzheimers Dis. 2021;83(1):57-63. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Jøranson N, Pedersen I, Rokstad AMM, Ihlebæk C. Effects on symptoms of agitation and depression in persons with dementia participating in robot-assisted activity: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2015;16(10):867-873. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Liang A, Piroth I, Robinson H, MacDonald B, Fisher M, Nater UM, et al. A pilot randomized trial of a companion robot for people with dementia living in the community. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017;18(10):871-878. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Cho E, Kim S, Heo SJ, Shin J, Hwang S, Kwon E, et al. Machine learning-based predictive models for the occurrence of behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia: model development and validation. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):8073. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Chen LY, Tsai TH, Ho A, Li CH, Ke LJ, Peng LN, et al. Predicting neuropsychiatric symptoms of persons with dementia in a day care center using a facial expression recognition system. Aging (Albany NY). 2022;14(3):1280-1291. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Al-Harrasi AM, Iqbal E, Tsamakis K, Lasek J, Gadelrab R, Soysal P, et al. Motor signs in Alzheimer's disease and vascular dementia: detection through natural language processing, co-morbid features and relationship to adverse outcomes. Exp Gerontol. 2021;146:111223. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• König A, Linz N, Zeghari R, Klinge X, Tröger J, Alexandersson J, et al. Detecting apathy in older adults with cognitive disorders using automatic speech analysis. J Alzheimers Dis. 2019;69(4):1183-1193. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Shah J, Rahman Siddiquee MM, Krell-Roesch J, Syrjanen JA, Kremers WK, Vassilaki M, et al. Neuropsychiatric symptoms and commonly used biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease: a literature review from a machine learning perspective. J Alzheimers Dis. 2023;92(4):1131-1146. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Filan SL, Llewellyn-Jones RH. Animal-assisted therapy for dementia: a review of the literature. Int Psychogeriatr. 2006;18(4):597-611. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Leng M, Liu P, Zhang P, Hu M, Zhou H, Li G, et al. Pet robot intervention for people with dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Psychiatry Res. 2019;271:516-525. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Pu L, Coppieters MW, Byrnes J, Jones C, Smalbrugge M, Todorovic M, et al. Feasibility study protocol of the PainChek app to assess the efficacy of a social robot intervention for people with dementia. J Adv Nurs. 2022;78(2):587-594. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Yu C, Sommerlad A, Sakure L, Livingston G. Socially assistive robots for people with dementia: systematic review and meta-analysis of feasibility, acceptability and the effect on cognition, neuropsychiatric symptoms and quality of life. Ageing Res Rev. 2022;78:101633. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Russo FA, Mallik A, Thomson Z, de Raadt St James A, Dupuis K, Cohen D. Developing a music-based digital therapeutic to help manage the neuropsychiatric symptoms of dementia. Front Digit Health. 2023;5:1064115. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Pappadà A, Chattat R, Chirico I, Valente M, Ottoboni G. Assistive technologies in dementia care: an updated analysis of the literature. Front Psychol. 2021;12:644587. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Cloak N, Al Khalili Y. Behavioral and psychological symptoms in dementia. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island, FL. StatPearls Publishing; 2022.
• Goerss D, Hein A, Bader S, Halek M, Kernebeck S, Kutschke A, et al. Automated sensor-based detection of challenging behaviors in advanced stages of dementia in nursing homes. Alzheimers Dement. 2020;16(4):672-680. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Iaboni A, Spasojevic S, Newman K, Schindel Martin L, Wang A, Ye B, et al. Wearable multimodal sensors for the detection of behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia using personalized machine learning models. Alzheimers Dement (Amst). 2022;14(1):e12305. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Kyriakou K, Resch B, Sagl G, Petutschnig A, Werner C, Niederseer D, et al. Detecting moments of stress from measurements of wearable physiological sensors. Sensors (Basel). 2019;19(17):3805. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Melander CA, Kikhia B, Olsson M, Wälivaara BM, Sävenstedt S. The impact of using measurements of electrodermal activity in the assessment of problematic behaviour in dementia. Dement Geriatr Cogn Dis Extra. 2018;8(3):333-347. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Dada S, van der Walt C, May AA, Murray J. Intelligent assistive technology devices for persons with dementia: a scoping review. Assist Technol. 2022:1-14. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Husebo BS, Heintz HL, Berge LI, Owoyemi P, Rahman AT, Vahia IV. Sensing technology to monitor behavioral and psychological symptoms and to assess treatment response in people with dementia. a systematic review. Front Pharmacol. 2019;10:1699. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Lai Kwan C, Mahdid Y, Motta Ochoa R, Lee K, Park M, Blain-Moraes S. Wearable technology for detecting significant moments in individuals with dementia. Biomed Res Int. 2019;2019:6515813. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Abuzaid MM, Elshami W, Fadden SM. Integration of artificial intelligence into nursing practice. Health Technol (Berl). 2022;12(6):1109-1115. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Buchanan C, Howitt ML, Wilson R, Booth RG, Risling T, Bamford M. Predicted influences of artificial intelligence on nursing education: scoping review. JMIR Nurs. 2021;4(1):e23933. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Castagno S, Khalifa M. Perceptions of artificial intelligence among healthcare staff: a qualitative survey study. Front Artif Intell. 2020;3:578983. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Topaz M, Pruinelli L. Big data and nursing: implications for the future. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2017;232:165-171. [ Medline ]
• Olaye IM, Seixas AA. The gap between AI and bedside: participatory workshop on the barriers to the integration, translation, and adoption of digital health care and AI startup technology into clinical practice. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25:e32962. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Tachkov K, Zemplenyi A, Kamusheva M, Dimitrova M, Siirtola P, Pontén J, et al. Barriers to use artificial intelligence methodologies in health technology assessment in Central and East European countries. Front Public Health. 2022;10:921226. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]

Abbreviations

Edited by E Borycki, K Cato; submitted 12.11.23; peer-reviewed by A Hidki, L Nunes, A Haddadi Avval; comments to author 20.02.24; revised version received 15.04.24; accepted 26.04.24; published 28.05.24.

©Sofia Fernandes, Armin von Gunten, Henk Verloo. Originally published in JMIR Nursing (https://nursing.jmir.org), 28.05.2024.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Nursing, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://nursing.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.