literature research de

Libraries | Research Guides

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

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

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

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

• Next: Planning the Review >>
• Last Updated: Jan 17, 2024 10:05 AM
• URL: https://libguides.northwestern.edu/literaturereviews

• 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

• 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

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.

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

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

How to write a superb literature review

Andy Tay is a freelance writer based in Singapore.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

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

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

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

Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Updates & Corrections

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

Download references

Related Articles

• Research management

Want to make a difference? Try working at an environmental non-profit organization

Career Feature 26 APR 24

Scientists urged to collect royalties from the ‘magic money tree’

Career Feature 25 APR 24

NIH pay rise for postdocs and PhD students could have US ripple effect

News 25 APR 24

Algorithm ranks peer reviewers by reputation — but critics warn of bias

Nature Index 25 APR 24

Researchers want a ‘nutrition label’ for academic-paper facts

Nature Index 17 APR 24

How young people benefit from Swiss apprenticeships

Spotlight 17 APR 24

Retractions are part of science, but misconduct isn’t — lessons from a superconductivity lab

Editorial 24 APR 24

Junior Group Leader

The Imagine Institute is a leading European research centre dedicated to genetic diseases, with the primary objective to better understand and trea...

Paris, Ile-de-France (FR)

Imagine Institute

Director of the Czech Advanced Technology and Research Institute of Palacký University Olomouc

The Rector of Palacký University Olomouc announces a Call for the Position of Director of the Czech Advanced Technology and Research Institute of P...

Czech Republic (CZ)

Palacký University Olomouc

Course lecturer for INFH 5000

The HKUST(GZ) Information Hub is recruiting course lecturer for INFH 5000: Information Science and Technology: Essentials and Trends.

Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou)

Suzhou Institute of Systems Medicine Seeking High-level Talents

Full Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor

Suzhou, Jiangsu, China

Suzhou Institute of Systems Medicine (ISM)

Postdoctoral Fellowships: Early Diagnosis and Precision Oncology of Gastrointestinal Cancers

We currently have multiple postdoctoral fellowship positions within the multidisciplinary research team headed by Dr. Ajay Goel, professor and foun...

Monrovia, California

Beckman Research Institute, City of Hope, Goel Lab

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

Quick links

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

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the parts of a lit review?

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

Introduction:

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

Conclusion:

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

How should I organize my lit review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature Searching

In this guide.

• Introduction
• Steps for searching the literature in PubMed
• Step 1 - Formulate a search question
• Step 2- Identify primary concepts and gather synonyms
• Step 3 - Locate subject headings (MeSH)
• Step 4 - Combine concepts using Boolean operators
• Step 5 - Refine search terms and search in PubMed
• Step 6 - Apply limits

Steps for Searching the Literature

Searching is an iterative process and often requires re-evaluation and testing by adding or changing keywords and the ways they relate to each other. To guide your search development, you can follow the search steps below. For more information on each step, navigate to its matching tab on the right menu. 

1. Formulate a clear, well-defined, answerable search question

Generally, the basic literature search process begins with formulating a clear, well-defined research question. Asking the right research question is essential to creating an effective search. Your research question(s) must be well-defined and answerable. If the question is too broad, your search will yield more information than you can possibly look through.

2. Identify primary concepts and gather synonyms

Your research question will also help identify the primary search concepts. This will allow you to think about how you want the concepts to relate to each other. Since different authors use different terminology to refer to the same concept, you will need to gather synonyms and all the ways authors might express them. However, it is important to balance the terms so that the synonyms do not go beyond the scope of how you've defined them.

3. Locate subject headings (MeSH)

Subject databases like PubMed use 'controlled vocabularies' made up of subject headings that are preassigned to indexed articles that share a similar topic. These subject headings are organized hierarchically within a family tree of broader and narrower concepts. In PubMed and MEDLINE, the subject headings are called Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). By including MeSH terms in your search, you will not have to think about word variations, word endings, plural or singular forms, or synonyms. Some topics or concepts may even have more than one appropriate MeSH term. There are also times when a topic or concept may not have a MeSH term. 

4. Combine concepts using Boolean operators AND/OR

Once you have identified your search concepts, synonyms, and MeSH terms, you'll need to put them together using nesting and Boolean operators (e.g. AND, OR, NOT). Nesting uses parentheses to put search terms into groups. Boolean operators are used to combine similar and different concepts into one query. 

5. Refine search terms and search in PubMed

There are various database search tactics you can use, such as field tags to limit the search to certain fields, quotation marks for phrase searching, and proximity operators to search a number of spaces between terms to refine your search terms. The constructed search string is ready to be pasted into PubMed. 

6. Apply limits (optional)

If you're getting too many results, you can further refine your search results by using limits on the left box of the results page. Limits allow you to narrow your search by a number of facets such as year, journal name, article type, language, age, etc. 

Depending on the nature of the literature review, the complexity and comprehensiveness of the search strategies and the choice of databases can be different. Please contact the Lane Librarians if you have any questions. 

The type of information you gather is influenced by the type of information source or database you select to search. Bibliographic databases contain references to published literature, such as journal articles, conference abstracts, books, reports, government and legal publications, and patents. Literature reviews typically synthesis indexed, peer-reviewed articles (i.e. works that generally represent the latest original research and have undergone rigorous expert screening before publication), and gray literature (i.e. materials not formally published by commercial publishers or peer-reviewed journals). PubMed offers a breadth of health sciences literature and is a good starting point to locate journal articles.

What is PubMed?

PubMed is a free search engine accessing primarily the MEDLINE database of references and abstracts on life sciences and biomedical topics. Available to the public online since 1996, PubMed was developed and is maintained by the  National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) , at the  U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM) , located at the  National Institutes of Health (NIH) .

MEDLINE is the National Library of Medicine’s (NLM) premier bibliographic database that contains more than 27 million references to journal articles from more than 5,200 worldwide journals in life sciences with a concentration on biomedicine. The Literature Selection Technica Review Committee (LSTRC) reviews and selects journals for MEDLINE based on the research quality and impact of the journals. A distinctive feature of MEDLINE is that the records are indexed with NLM  Medical Subject Headings  (MeSH).

PubMed also contains citations for  PubMed Central (PMC)  articles. PMC is a full-text archive that includes articles from journals reviewed and selected by NLM for archiving (current and historical), as well as individual articles collected for archiving in compliance with funder policies.  PubMed allows users to search keywords in the bibliographic data, but not the full text of the PMC articles.

How to Access PubMed?

To access PubMed, go to the Lane Library homepage and click PubMed in "Top Resources" on the left. This PubMed link is coded with Find Fulltext @ Lane Library Stanford that links you to Lane's full-text articles online. 

• << Previous: Introduction
• Next: Step 1 - Formulate a search question >>
• Last Updated: Jan 9, 2024 10:30 AM
• URL: https://laneguides.stanford.edu/LitSearch

• 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: Apr 24, 2024 10:51 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

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

What is a literature review?

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

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

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

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

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

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

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

2. Decide on the scope of your review

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

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

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

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

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

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

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

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

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

Tips: 

• Review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
• Create a matrix of the studies for easy analysis, and synthesis, across all of the studies.
• << Previous: Recommended Books
• Last Updated: Jan 4, 2024 10:52 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

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
• Clinics (Sao Paulo)

Approaching literature review for academic purposes: The Literature Review Checklist

Debora f.b. leite.

I Departamento de Ginecologia e Obstetricia, Faculdade de Ciencias Medicas, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, SP, BR

II Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Pernambuco, PE, BR

III Hospital das Clinicas, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Pernambuco, PE, BR

Maria Auxiliadora Soares Padilha

Jose g. cecatti.

A sophisticated literature review (LR) can result in a robust dissertation/thesis by scrutinizing the main problem examined by the academic study; anticipating research hypotheses, methods and results; and maintaining the interest of the audience in how the dissertation/thesis will provide solutions for the current gaps in a particular field. Unfortunately, little guidance is available on elaborating LRs, and writing an LR chapter is not a linear process. An LR translates students’ abilities in information literacy, the language domain, and critical writing. Students in postgraduate programs should be systematically trained in these skills. Therefore, this paper discusses the purposes of LRs in dissertations and theses. Second, the paper considers five steps for developing a review: defining the main topic, searching the literature, analyzing the results, writing the review and reflecting on the writing. Ultimately, this study proposes a twelve-item LR checklist. By clearly stating the desired achievements, this checklist allows Masters and Ph.D. students to continuously assess their own progress in elaborating an LR. Institutions aiming to strengthen students’ necessary skills in critical academic writing should also use this tool.

INTRODUCTION

Writing the literature review (LR) is often viewed as a difficult task that can be a point of writer’s block and procrastination ( 1 ) in postgraduate life. Disagreements on the definitions or classifications of LRs ( 2 ) may confuse students about their purpose and scope, as well as how to perform an LR. Interestingly, at many universities, the LR is still an important element in any academic work, despite the more recent trend of producing scientific articles rather than classical theses.

The LR is not an isolated section of the thesis/dissertation or a copy of the background section of a research proposal. It identifies the state-of-the-art knowledge in a particular field, clarifies information that is already known, elucidates implications of the problem being analyzed, links theory and practice ( 3 - 5 ), highlights gaps in the current literature, and places the dissertation/thesis within the research agenda of that field. Additionally, by writing the LR, postgraduate students will comprehend the structure of the subject and elaborate on their cognitive connections ( 3 ) while analyzing and synthesizing data with increasing maturity.

At the same time, the LR transforms the student and hints at the contents of other chapters for the reader. First, the LR explains the research question; second, it supports the hypothesis, objectives, and methods of the research project; and finally, it facilitates a description of the student’s interpretation of the results and his/her conclusions. For scholars, the LR is an introductory chapter ( 6 ). If it is well written, it demonstrates the student’s understanding of and maturity in a particular topic. A sound and sophisticated LR can indicate a robust dissertation/thesis.

A consensus on the best method to elaborate a dissertation/thesis has not been achieved. The LR can be a distinct chapter or included in different sections; it can be part of the introduction chapter, part of each research topic, or part of each published paper ( 7 ). However, scholars view the LR as an integral part of the main body of an academic work because it is intrinsically connected to other sections ( Figure 1 ) and is frequently present. The structure of the LR depends on the conventions of a particular discipline, the rules of the department, and the student’s and supervisor’s areas of expertise, needs and interests.

Interestingly, many postgraduate students choose to submit their LR to peer-reviewed journals. As LRs are critical evaluations of current knowledge, they are indeed publishable material, even in the form of narrative or systematic reviews. However, systematic reviews have specific patterns 1 ( 8 ) that may not entirely fit with the questions posed in the dissertation/thesis. Additionally, the scope of a systematic review may be too narrow, and the strict criteria for study inclusion may omit important information from the dissertation/thesis. Therefore, this essay discusses the definition of an LR is and methods to develop an LR in the context of an academic dissertation/thesis. Finally, we suggest a checklist to evaluate an LR.

WHAT IS A LITERATURE REVIEW IN A THESIS?

Conducting research and writing a dissertation/thesis translates rational thinking and enthusiasm ( 9 ). While a strong body of literature that instructs students on research methodology, data analysis and writing scientific papers exists, little guidance on performing LRs is available. The LR is a unique opportunity to assess and contrast various arguments and theories, not just summarize them. The research results should not be discussed within the LR, but the postgraduate student tends to write a comprehensive LR while reflecting on his or her own findings ( 10 ).

Many people believe that writing an LR is a lonely and linear process. Supervisors or the institutions assume that the Ph.D. student has mastered the relevant techniques and vocabulary associated with his/her subject and conducts a self-reflection about previously published findings. Indeed, while elaborating the LR, the student should aggregate diverse skills, which mainly rely on his/her own commitment to mastering them. Thus, less supervision should be required ( 11 ). However, the parameters described above might not currently be the case for many students ( 11 , 12 ), and the lack of formal and systematic training on writing LRs is an important concern ( 11 ).

An institutional environment devoted to active learning will provide students the opportunity to continuously reflect on LRs, which will form a dialogue between the postgraduate student and the current literature in a particular field ( 13 ). Postgraduate students will be interpreting studies by other researchers, and, according to Hart (1998) ( 3 ), the outcomes of the LR in a dissertation/thesis include the following:

• To identify what research has been performed and what topics require further investigation in a particular field of knowledge;
• To determine the context of the problem;
• To recognize the main methodologies and techniques that have been used in the past;
• To place the current research project within the historical, methodological and theoretical context of a particular field;
• To identify significant aspects of the topic;
• To elucidate the implications of the topic;
• To offer an alternative perspective;
• To discern how the studied subject is structured;
• To improve the student’s subject vocabulary in a particular field; and
• To characterize the links between theory and practice.

A sound LR translates the postgraduate student’s expertise in academic and scientific writing: it expresses his/her level of comfort with synthesizing ideas ( 11 ). The LR reveals how well the postgraduate student has proceeded in three domains: an effective literature search, the language domain, and critical writing.

Effective literature search

All students should be trained in gathering appropriate data for specific purposes, and information literacy skills are a cornerstone. These skills are defined as “an individual’s ability to know when they need information, to identify information that can help them address the issue or problem at hand, and to locate, evaluate, and use that information effectively” ( 14 ). Librarian support is of vital importance in coaching the appropriate use of Boolean logic (AND, OR, NOT) and other tools for highly efficient literature searches (e.g., quotation marks and truncation), as is the appropriate management of electronic databases.

Language domain

Academic writing must be concise and precise: unnecessary words distract the reader from the essential content ( 15 ). In this context, reading about issues distant from the research topic ( 16 ) may increase students’ general vocabulary and familiarity with grammar. Ultimately, reading diverse materials facilitates and encourages the writing process itself.

Critical writing

Critical judgment includes critical reading, thinking and writing. It supposes a student’s analytical reflection about what he/she has read. The student should delineate the basic elements of the topic, characterize the most relevant claims, identify relationships, and finally contrast those relationships ( 17 ). Each scientific document highlights the perspective of the author, and students will become more confident in judging the supporting evidence and underlying premises of a study and constructing their own counterargument as they read more articles. A paucity of integration or contradictory perspectives indicates lower levels of cognitive complexity ( 12 ).

Thus, while elaborating an LR, the postgraduate student should achieve the highest category of Bloom’s cognitive skills: evaluation ( 12 ). The writer should not only summarize data and understand each topic but also be able to make judgments based on objective criteria, compare resources and findings, identify discrepancies due to methodology, and construct his/her own argument ( 12 ). As a result, the student will be sufficiently confident to show his/her own voice .

Writing a consistent LR is an intense and complex activity that reveals the training and long-lasting academic skills of a writer. It is not a lonely or linear process. However, students are unlikely to be prepared to write an LR if they have not mastered the aforementioned domains ( 10 ). An institutional environment that supports student learning is crucial.

Different institutions employ distinct methods to promote students’ learning processes. First, many universities propose modules to develop behind the scenes activities that enhance self-reflection about general skills (e.g., the skills we have mastered and the skills we need to develop further), behaviors that should be incorporated (e.g., self-criticism about one’s own thoughts), and each student’s role in the advancement of his/her field. Lectures or workshops about LRs themselves are useful because they describe the purposes of the LR and how it fits into the whole picture of a student’s work. These activities may explain what type of discussion an LR must involve, the importance of defining the correct scope, the reasons to include a particular resource, and the main role of critical reading.

Some pedagogic services that promote a continuous improvement in study and academic skills are equally important. Examples include workshops about time management, the accomplishment of personal objectives, active learning, and foreign languages for nonnative speakers. Additionally, opportunities to converse with other students promotes an awareness of others’ experiences and difficulties. Ultimately, the supervisor’s role in providing feedback and setting deadlines is crucial in developing students’ abilities and in strengthening students’ writing quality ( 12 ).

HOW SHOULD A LITERATURE REVIEW BE DEVELOPED?

A consensus on the appropriate method for elaborating an LR is not available, but four main steps are generally accepted: defining the main topic, searching the literature, analyzing the results, and writing ( 6 ). We suggest a fifth step: reflecting on the information that has been written in previous publications ( Figure 2 ).

First step: Defining the main topic

Planning an LR is directly linked to the research main question of the thesis and occurs in parallel to students’ training in the three domains discussed above. The planning stage helps organize ideas, delimit the scope of the LR ( 11 ), and avoid the wasting of time in the process. Planning includes the following steps:

• Reflecting on the scope of the LR: postgraduate students will have assumptions about what material must be addressed and what information is not essential to an LR ( 13 , 18 ). Cooper’s Taxonomy of Literature Reviews 2 systematizes the writing process through six characteristics and nonmutually exclusive categories. The focus refers to the reviewer’s most important points of interest, while the goals concern what students want to achieve with the LR. The perspective assumes answers to the student’s own view of the LR and how he/she presents a particular issue. The coverage defines how comprehensive the student is in presenting the literature, and the organization determines the sequence of arguments. The audience is defined as the group for whom the LR is written.
• Designating sections and subsections: Headings and subheadings should be specific, explanatory and have a coherent sequence throughout the text ( 4 ). They simulate an inverted pyramid, with an increasing level of reflection and depth of argument.
• Identifying keywords: The relevant keywords for each LR section should be listed to guide the literature search. This list should mirror what Hart (1998) ( 3 ) advocates as subject vocabulary . The keywords will also be useful when the student is writing the LR since they guide the reader through the text.
• Delineating the time interval and language of documents to be retrieved in the second step. The most recently published documents should be considered, but relevant texts published before a predefined cutoff year can be included if they are classic documents in that field. Extra care should be employed when translating documents.

Second step: Searching the literature

The ability to gather adequate information from the literature must be addressed in postgraduate programs. Librarian support is important, particularly for accessing difficult texts. This step comprises the following components:

• Searching the literature itself: This process consists of defining which databases (electronic or dissertation/thesis repositories), official documents, and books will be searched and then actively conducting the search. Information literacy skills have a central role in this stage. While searching electronic databases, controlled vocabulary (e.g., Medical Subject Headings, or MeSH, for the PubMed database) or specific standardized syntax rules may need to be applied.

In addition, two other approaches are suggested. First, a review of the reference list of each document might be useful for identifying relevant publications to be included and important opinions to be assessed. This step is also relevant for referencing the original studies and leading authors in that field. Moreover, students can directly contact the experts on a particular topic to consult with them regarding their experience or use them as a source of additional unpublished documents.

Before submitting a dissertation/thesis, the electronic search strategy should be repeated. This process will ensure that the most recently published papers will be considered in the LR.

• Selecting documents for inclusion: Generally, the most recent literature will be included in the form of published peer-reviewed papers. Assess books and unpublished material, such as conference abstracts, academic texts and government reports, are also important to assess since the gray literature also offers valuable information. However, since these materials are not peer-reviewed, we recommend that they are carefully added to the LR.

This task is an important exercise in time management. First, students should read the title and abstract to understand whether that document suits their purposes, addresses the research question, and helps develop the topic of interest. Then, they should scan the full text, determine how it is structured, group it with similar documents, and verify whether other arguments might be considered ( 5 ).

Third step: Analyzing the results

Critical reading and thinking skills are important in this step. This step consists of the following components:

• Reading documents: The student may read various texts in depth according to LR sections and subsections ( defining the main topic ), which is not a passive activity ( 1 ). Some questions should be asked to practice critical analysis skills, as listed below. Is the research question evident and articulated with previous knowledge? What are the authors’ research goals and theoretical orientations, and how do they interact? Are the authors’ claims related to other scholars’ research? Do the authors consider different perspectives? Was the research project designed and conducted properly? Are the results and discussion plausible, and are they consistent with the research objectives and methodology? What are the strengths and limitations of this work? How do the authors support their findings? How does this work contribute to the current research topic? ( 1 , 19 )
• Taking notes: Students who systematically take notes on each document are more readily able to establish similarities or differences with other documents and to highlight personal observations. This approach reinforces the student’s ideas about the next step and helps develop his/her own academic voice ( 1 , 13 ). Voice recognition software ( 16 ), mind maps ( 5 ), flowcharts, tables, spreadsheets, personal comments on the referenced texts, and note-taking apps are all available tools for managing these observations, and the student him/herself should use the tool that best improves his/her learning. Additionally, when a student is considering submitting an LR to a peer-reviewed journal, notes should be taken on the activities performed in all five steps to ensure that they are able to be replicated.

Fourth step: Writing

The recognition of when a student is able and ready to write after a sufficient period of reading and thinking is likely a difficult task. Some students can produce a review in a single long work session. However, as discussed above, writing is not a linear process, and students do not need to write LRs according to a specific sequence of sections. Writing an LR is a time-consuming task, and some scholars believe that a period of at least six months is sufficient ( 6 ). An LR, and academic writing in general, expresses the writer’s proper thoughts, conclusions about others’ work ( 6 , 10 , 13 , 16 ), and decisions about methods to progress in the chosen field of knowledge. Thus, each student is expected to present a different learning and writing trajectory.

In this step, writing methods should be considered; then, editing, citing and correct referencing should complete this stage, at least temporarily. Freewriting techniques may be a good starting point for brainstorming ideas and improving the understanding of the information that has been read ( 1 ). Students should consider the following parameters when creating an agenda for writing the LR: two-hour writing blocks (at minimum), with prespecified tasks that are possible to complete in one section; short (minutes) and long breaks (days or weeks) to allow sufficient time for mental rest and reflection; and short- and long-term goals to motivate the writing itself ( 20 ). With increasing experience, this scheme can vary widely, and it is not a straightforward rule. Importantly, each discipline has a different way of writing ( 1 ), and each department has its own preferred styles for citations and references.

Fifth step: Reflecting on the writing

In this step, the postgraduate student should ask him/herself the same questions as in the analyzing the results step, which can take more time than anticipated. Ambiguities, repeated ideas, and a lack of coherence may not be noted when the student is immersed in the writing task for long periods. The whole effort will likely be a work in progress, and continuous refinements in the written material will occur once the writing process has begun.

LITERATURE REVIEW CHECKLIST

In contrast to review papers, the LR of a dissertation/thesis should not be a standalone piece or work. Instead, it should present the student as a scholar and should maintain the interest of the audience in how that dissertation/thesis will provide solutions for the current gaps in a particular field.

A checklist for evaluating an LR is convenient for students’ continuous academic development and research transparency: it clearly states the desired achievements for the LR of a dissertation/thesis. Here, we present an LR checklist developed from an LR scoring rubric ( 11 ). For a critical analysis of an LR, we maintain the five categories but offer twelve criteria that are not scaled ( Figure 3 ). The criteria all have the same importance and are not mutually exclusive.

First category: Coverage

1. justified criteria exist for the inclusion and exclusion of literature in the review.

This criterion builds on the main topic and areas covered by the LR ( 18 ). While experts may be confident in retrieving and selecting literature, postgraduate students must convince their audience about the adequacy of their search strategy and their reasons for intentionally selecting what material to cover ( 11 ). References from different fields of knowledge provide distinct perspective, but narrowing the scope of coverage may be important in areas with a large body of existing knowledge.

Second category: Synthesis

2. a critical examination of the state of the field exists.

A critical examination is an assessment of distinct aspects in the field ( 1 ) along with a constructive argument. It is not a negative critique but an expression of the student’s understanding of how other scholars have added to the topic ( 1 ), and the student should analyze and contextualize contradictory statements. A writer’s personal bias (beliefs or political involvement) have been shown to influence the structure and writing of a document; therefore, the cultural and paradigmatic background guide how the theories are revised and presented ( 13 ). However, an honest judgment is important when considering different perspectives.

3. The topic or problem is clearly placed in the context of the broader scholarly literature

The broader scholarly literature should be related to the chosen main topic for the LR ( how to develop the literature review section). The LR can cover the literature from one or more disciplines, depending on its scope, but it should always offer a new perspective. In addition, students should be careful in citing and referencing previous publications. As a rule, original studies and primary references should generally be included. Systematic and narrative reviews present summarized data, and it may be important to cite them, particularly for issues that should be understood but do not require a detailed description. Similarly, quotations highlight the exact statement from another publication. However, excessive referencing may disclose lower levels of analysis and synthesis by the student.

4. The LR is critically placed in the historical context of the field

Situating the LR in its historical context shows the level of comfort of the student in addressing a particular topic. Instead of only presenting statements and theories in a temporal approach, which occasionally follows a linear timeline, the LR should authentically characterize the student’s academic work in the state-of-art techniques in their particular field of knowledge. Thus, the LR should reinforce why the dissertation/thesis represents original work in the chosen research field.

5. Ambiguities in definitions are considered and resolved

Distinct theories on the same topic may exist in different disciplines, and one discipline may consider multiple concepts to explain one topic. These misunderstandings should be addressed and contemplated. The LR should not synthesize all theories or concepts at the same time. Although this approach might demonstrate in-depth reading on a particular topic, it can reveal a student’s inability to comprehend and synthesize his/her research problem.

6. Important variables and phenomena relevant to the topic are articulated

The LR is a unique opportunity to articulate ideas and arguments and to purpose new relationships between them ( 10 , 11 ). More importantly, a sound LR will outline to the audience how these important variables and phenomena will be addressed in the current academic work. Indeed, the LR should build a bidirectional link with the remaining sections and ground the connections between all of the sections ( Figure 1 ).

7. A synthesized new perspective on the literature has been established

The LR is a ‘creative inquiry’ ( 13 ) in which the student elaborates his/her own discourse, builds on previous knowledge in the field, and describes his/her own perspective while interpreting others’ work ( 13 , 17 ). Thus, students should articulate the current knowledge, not accept the results at face value ( 11 , 13 , 17 ), and improve their own cognitive abilities ( 12 ).

Third category: Methodology

8. the main methodologies and research techniques that have been used in the field are identified and their advantages and disadvantages are discussed.

The LR is expected to distinguish the research that has been completed from investigations that remain to be performed, address the benefits and limitations of the main methods applied to date, and consider the strategies for addressing the expected limitations described above. While placing his/her research within the methodological context of a particular topic, the LR will justify the methodology of the study and substantiate the student’s interpretations.

9. Ideas and theories in the field are related to research methodologies

The audience expects the writer to analyze and synthesize methodological approaches in the field. The findings should be explained according to the strengths and limitations of previous research methods, and students must avoid interpretations that are not supported by the analyzed literature. This criterion translates to the student’s comprehension of the applicability and types of answers provided by different research methodologies, even those using a quantitative or qualitative research approach.

Fourth category: Significance

10. the scholarly significance of the research problem is rationalized.

The LR is an introductory section of a dissertation/thesis and will present the postgraduate student as a scholar in a particular field ( 11 ). Therefore, the LR should discuss how the research problem is currently addressed in the discipline being investigated or in different disciplines, depending on the scope of the LR. The LR explains the academic paradigms in the topic of interest ( 13 ) and methods to advance the field from these starting points. However, an excess number of personal citations—whether referencing the student’s research or studies by his/her research team—may reflect a narrow literature search and a lack of comprehensive synthesis of ideas and arguments.

11. The practical significance of the research problem is rationalized

The practical significance indicates a student’s comprehensive understanding of research terminology (e.g., risk versus associated factor), methodology (e.g., efficacy versus effectiveness) and plausible interpretations in the context of the field. Notably, the academic argument about a topic may not always reflect the debate in real life terms. For example, using a quantitative approach in epidemiology, statistically significant differences between groups do not explain all of the factors involved in a particular problem ( 21 ). Therefore, excessive faith in p -values may reflect lower levels of critical evaluation of the context and implications of a research problem by the student.

Fifth category: Rhetoric

12. the lr was written with a coherent, clear structure that supported the review.

This category strictly relates to the language domain: the text should be coherent and presented in a logical sequence, regardless of which organizational ( 18 ) approach is chosen. The beginning of each section/subsection should state what themes will be addressed, paragraphs should be carefully linked to each other ( 10 ), and the first sentence of each paragraph should generally summarize the content. Additionally, the student’s statements are clear, sound, and linked to other scholars’ works, and precise and concise language that follows standardized writing conventions (e.g., in terms of active/passive voice and verb tenses) is used. Attention to grammar, such as orthography and punctuation, indicates prudence and supports a robust dissertation/thesis. Ultimately, all of these strategies provide fluency and consistency for the text.

Although the scoring rubric was initially proposed for postgraduate programs in education research, we are convinced that this checklist is a valuable tool for all academic areas. It enables the monitoring of students’ learning curves and a concentrated effort on any criteria that are not yet achieved. For institutions, the checklist is a guide to support supervisors’ feedback, improve students’ writing skills, and highlight the learning goals of each program. These criteria do not form a linear sequence, but ideally, all twelve achievements should be perceived in the LR.

CONCLUSIONS

A single correct method to classify, evaluate and guide the elaboration of an LR has not been established. In this essay, we have suggested directions for planning, structuring and critically evaluating an LR. The planning of the scope of an LR and approaches to complete it is a valuable effort, and the five steps represent a rational starting point. An institutional environment devoted to active learning will support students in continuously reflecting on LRs, which will form a dialogue between the writer and the current literature in a particular field ( 13 ).

The completion of an LR is a challenging and necessary process for understanding one’s own field of expertise. Knowledge is always transitory, but our responsibility as scholars is to provide a critical contribution to our field, allowing others to think through our work. Good researchers are grounded in sophisticated LRs, which reveal a writer’s training and long-lasting academic skills. We recommend using the LR checklist as a tool for strengthening the skills necessary for critical academic writing.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Leite DFB has initially conceived the idea and has written the first draft of this review. Padilha MAS and Cecatti JG have supervised data interpretation and critically reviewed the manuscript. All authors have read the draft and agreed with this submission. Authors are responsible for all aspects of this academic piece.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful to all of the professors of the ‘Getting Started with Graduate Research and Generic Skills’ module at University College Cork, Cork, Ireland, for suggesting and supporting this article. Funding: DFBL has granted scholarship from Brazilian Federal Agency for Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education (CAPES) to take part of her Ph.D. studies in Ireland (process number 88881.134512/2016-01). There is no participation from sponsors on authors’ decision to write or to submit this manuscript.

No potential conflict of interest was reported.

1 The questions posed in systematic reviews usually follow the ‘PICOS’ acronym: Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, Study design.

2 In 1988, Cooper proposed a taxonomy that aims to facilitate students’ and institutions’ understanding of literature reviews. Six characteristics with specific categories are briefly described: Focus: research outcomes, research methodologies, theories, or practices and applications; Goals: integration (generalization, conflict resolution, and linguistic bridge-building), criticism, or identification of central issues; Perspective: neutral representation or espousal of a position; Coverage: exhaustive, exhaustive with selective citations, representative, central or pivotal; Organization: historical, conceptual, or methodological; and Audience: specialized scholars, general scholars, practitioners or policymakers, or the general public.

In order to help minimize spread of the coronavirus and protect our campus community, Cowles Library is adjusting our services, hours, and building access. Read more...

• Research, Study, Learning
• Archives & Special Collections

• Cowles Library
• Find Journal Articles
• Find Articles in Related Disciplines
• Find Streaming Video
• Conducting a Literature Review
• Organizations, Associations, Societies
• For Faculty

What is a Literature Review?

Description.

A literature review, also called a review article or review of literature, surveys the existing research on a topic. The term "literature" in this context refers to published research or scholarship in a particular discipline, rather than "fiction" (like American Literature) or an individual work of literature. In general, literature reviews are most common in the sciences and social sciences.

Literature reviews may be written as standalone works, or as part of a scholarly article or research paper. In either case, the purpose of the review is to summarize and synthesize the key scholarly work that has already been done on the topic at hand. The literature review may also include some analysis and interpretation. A literature review is  not  a summary of every piece of scholarly research on a topic.

Why are literature reviews useful?

Literature reviews can be very helpful for newer researchers or those unfamiliar with a field by synthesizing the existing research on a given topic, providing the reader with connections and relationships among previous scholarship. Reviews can also be useful to veteran researchers by identifying potentials gaps in the research or steering future research questions toward unexplored areas. If a literature review is part of a scholarly article, it should include an explanation of how the current article adds to the conversation. (From: https://researchguides.drake.edu/englit/criticism)

How is a literature review different from a research article?

Research articles: "are empirical articles that describe one or several related studies on a specific, quantitative, testable research question....they are typically organized into four text sections: Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion." Source: https://psych.uw.edu/storage/writing_center/litrev.pdf)

Steps for Writing a Literature Review

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

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

2. Conduct a Literature Search

Use a range of keywords to search databases such as PsycINFO and any others that may contain relevant articles.  You should focus on peer-reviewed, scholarly articles . In SuperSearch and most databases, you may find it helpful to select the Advanced Search mode and include "literature review" or "review of the literature" in addition to your other search terms.  Published books may also be helpful, but keep in mind that peer-reviewed articles are widely considered to be the “gold standard” of scientific research.  Read through titles and abstracts, select and obtain articles (that is, download, copy, or print them out), and save your searches as needed. Most of the databases you will need are linked to from the Cowles Library Psychology Research guide .

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

Absorb as much information as you can.  Read through the articles and books that you have found, and as you do, take notes.  The notes should include anything that will be helpful in advancing your own thinking about the topic and in helping you write the literature review (such as key points, ideas, or even page numbers that index key information).  Some references may turn out to be more helpful than others; you may notice patterns or striking contrasts between different sources; and some sources may refer to yet other sources of potential interest.  This is often the most time-consuming part of the review process.  However, it is also where you get to learn about the topic in great detail. You may want to use a Citation Manager to help you keep track of the citations you have found. 

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

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

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

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

6. Incorporate the literature review into your research paper draft. (note: this step is only if you are using the literature review to write a research paper. Many times the literature review is an end unto itself).

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

These steps were taken from: https://psychology.ucsd.edu/undergraduate-program/undergraduate-resources/academic-writing-resources/writing-research-papers/writing-lit-review.html#6.-Incorporate-the-literature-r

• << Previous: Find Streaming Video
• Next: Organizations, Associations, Societies >>
• Last Updated: Feb 29, 2024 4:09 PM
• URL: https://researchguides.drake.edu/psychology

• 2507 University Avenue
• Des Moines, IA 50311
• (515) 271-2111

Trouble finding something? Try searching , or check out the Get Help page.

• Harvard Library
• Research Guides
• Harvard Graduate School of Design - Frances Loeb Library

Write and Cite

• Literature Review
• Academic Integrity
• Citing Sources
• Fair Use, Permissions, and Copyright
• Writing Resources
• Grants and Fellowships
• Last Updated: Apr 26, 2024 10:28 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.harvard.edu/gsd/write

Harvard University Digital Accessibility Policy

Literature Mapping Tools

• Research Rabbit
• Connected Papers
• Library Subscriptions
• A.I. Glossary
• Need Assistance?

Head, Research and Engagement

Literature Reviews: A Working Definition

A literature review is a methodical or organized review of the published literature on a specific topic or research question designed to analyze--not just summarize--scholarly writings that are related directly to your research question. That is, it represents the literature that provides the context for your research and shows a correspondence between those writings and your own work.

Before you get started...

The past few years have seen an explosion of online tools designed to automate the process of doing literature reviews. These tools generally work by asking you to identify a relevant article (often called a "seed article") and use the metadata attached to articles (such as authors and keywords), or citations and reference lists to find related articles. Most tools offer some type of visualization feature to trace the connections between papers, and increasingly, tools offer summaries of the research content. These tools provide researchers with an option to at least partially automate some of their literature review work which can save a lot of time.

Things to keep in mind:

• Very little independent research has been done to test the reliability, scope, and accuracy of these tools
• In our own testing of tools that provide summaries of articles, we have sometimes found that summaries do not reflect the same key take-aways that we have identified
• Reproducibility of searches is questionable so they may not be the best choice for things like systematic reviews
• Because of the reliance on citation chaining, there is a built in bias towards heavily cited works which ends up creating a feedback loop that may cause you to miss relevant and/or newer materials
• Not everything is indexed in the data sets used by a given tool; this is particularly the case in the arts and humanities which are more oriented towards books
• Both the tools themselves, many of which are open access projects, and the indices they rely on may stop being updated/maintained, or go offline for a variety of reasons
• You still need to use a library to access full text in a majority of cases

NOTE: This is a rapidly evolving field and we will be updating this guide on a regular basis.

• Next: Elicit >>
• Last Updated: Feb 23, 2024 1:40 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.udel.edu/litmap

Merkel cell carcinoma overlapping Bowen’s disease: two cases report and literature review

• Open access
• Published: 26 April 2024
• Volume 150 , article number  217 , ( 2024 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Xueqin Chen 1 ,
• Xiao Song 1 ,
• Hui Huang 1 ,
• Lian Zhang 1 ,
• Zhiqiang Song 1 ,
• Xichuan Yang 1 ,
• Shanchuan Lei 2 &
• Zhifang Zhai 1  

Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare neuroendocrine tumor of the skin, which mainly occurs in the sun exposed sites of white patients over 65 years, with a higher recurrence and metastasis rate. Clinically, MCC overlapping Bowen’s disease (BD) is a very rare subtype of MCC. Few cases in the literature have been described and the management is not well defined. We summarize and update the epidemiology, clinical and histopathological features, metastasis characteristics, local recurrence rate and management of it by presenting two cases of MCC overlapping BD and reviewing the literature over the last 11 years.

We consulted databases from PubMed, ResearchGate and Google Scholar by MeSh “Merkel cell carcinoma” and “Bowen’s disease”, “Bowen disease” or “squamous cell carcinoma in situ”, from January 2013 to December 2023 and reviewed the literatures. We reported two additional cases.

Total 13 cases of MCC overlapping BD were retrospectively analyzed, in whom mainly in elderly women over 70 years, the skin lesions were primarily located on the faces, followed by the extremities and trunk. Most of them were asymptomatic, firm, dark red nodules arising on rapidly growing red or dark brown patches, or presenting as isolated nodules. Dermoscopy evaluation was rarely performed in the pre-operative diagnostic setting. All cases were confirmed by histopathology and immunohistochemistry. The most definitive treatment was extended local excision, but local recurrences were common. Of the 13 cases, 4 cases experienced local or distant metastasis. One suffered from an in-transit recurrence of MCC on the ipsilateral leg after local excision and lymph node dissection, whose metastasis completely subsided after avelumab treatment and without recurrence or metastasis during 6 months of follow-up.

Conclusions

MCC overlapping BD is a very rare skin tumor mainly predisposed on the faces, with high misdiagnosis rate and recurrence rate. Advanced disease at diagnosis is a poor prognostic factor, suggesting that earlier detection may improve outcome. The acronym, AEIOUN, has been proposed to aid in clinical identification. Our reports and the literature review can provide a better awareness and management of it.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare and highly aggressive primary cutaneous neuroendocrine carcinoma, which predominantly affects individuals of Caucasian descent. Risk factors include advanced age, exposure to ultraviolet radiation, male gender, immunosuppression, hematologic malignancies or posttransplant status, and infection with Merkel cell polyomavirus (MCPyV) (Harms et al. 2018 ). It is characterized by high invasiveness, frequent local recurrence, a tendency for regional lymph node and distant metastases, with high mortality rates of 33–46% (Harms 2017 ; Garcia-Carbonero et al. 2019 ).

MCC often occurs in sunexposed sites, typically presenting as solitary nodules or patches with skin-colored, red or purple hues. Reportedly, it occured concomitantly with or in the setting of pre-existing cutaneous neoplasms, including actinic keratosis, Bowen’s disease (BD), squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and miscellaneous adnexal tumors (Kervarrec et al. 2022 ). Only a small percentage of MCC presented combined with other tumors, for which, current data have suggested a more aggressive course than pure MCC (Tono et al. 2015 ; Chattopadhyay et al. 2020 ). Clinically, its association with BD is exceedingly uncommon. Its unspecific manifestations often lead to delayed diagnosis clinically, which is necessary for dermatologists and oncologists to familiarize themselves with and recognize it (Swain et al. 2022 ).

Few cases in the literature have been described and the management is not well defined. In our paper, we reviewed the literature and reported two additional cases to summarize the epidemiology, clinical and histopathological characteristics and management of it.

We first reported two cases with MCC overlapping BD. Then, we searched different databases, including PubMed, ResearchGate and Google Scholar by the combination MeSh of “Merkel cell carcinoma” and “Bowen’s disease, “Bowen disease” or “squamous cell carcinoma in situ” from January 2013 to December 2023. Total 15 papers were identified. Inclusion criteria were systematic review or meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, review, retrospective comparative reviews/studies and case series. Exclusion criteria were laboratory studies and non-English translated articles. A wide review of the bibliography of each of the selected articles was performed. In total, 10 papers met our inclusion criteria, including 11 case reports and case series.

We reviewed and analyzed all of the cases with MCC overlapping BD and summarized the demographic information, such as the age, sex and the medical history, clinical and histopathological characteristics and the treatment and prognosis of them.

Case reports

Case 1 A 51-year-old man presented with a pruritic erythema on the right waist for over 5 years. In the past years, he paid no attention to it, though a dull red nodule had developed and gradually enlarged on the erythema. Physical examination revealed a 5 cm × 3 cm oval-invasive erythema covering with some scale, in the center of which a dull red, solid, non-tendor, well-demarcated nodule measuring 3 cm × 2 cm × 2 cm protruded from the skin surface. Significant hyperplasia of dilated capillaries, and a few scales can be seen on the surface of the neoplasm (Fig. 1 a). Thoracoabdominal CT revealed no significant abnormalities, and peripheral blood count and tumor marker tests were normal.

Case 2 An 87-year-old female presented with an asymptomatic neoplasm on the right maindibular angle for over a year. Physical examination showed a dull red patch measuring 2 cm × 1.5 cm , with a solid, well-defined and protruding nodule in the center measuring  1.5 cm × 1.5 cm × 1 cm, and with some scaling (Fig. 1 b). There were no positive findings by the cranial and thoracoabdominal CT scans.

Biopsies were performed respectively on the neoplasms in both cases. Both the histopathological examination of the two cases revealed gross hyperkeratosis with parakeratosis overlying a thickened dysplastic epidermis, with the atypical mitoses and multinucleated tumor giant cells. A small blue cell tumor extended deeply into the subcutaneous fat under the low-power magnification, and the pathognomonic tumor nuclei were large and pale staining and contain tiny nucleoli (Fig. 2 a–f). Immunohistochemistry of case one showed positivity for CK, CK20, EMA, Synaptophysin (Syn) and Bcl-2 (Fig. 3 a–d). Vimentin was positive in the stroma, while CD3, CD4, CD8 and CD20 showed scattered positivity. Ki67 was positive in 90% of tumor cells. LCA, CD68, CD30, TdT, CD56, Mum-1, TIA1, Granzyme B, EBER, Neuron-Specific Enolase (NSE), Chromogranin A (CgA) and CD79a were negative. In case two, immunohistochemistry showed positivity for CD56, focal positivity for CK, CK20, CAM5.2 and CgA, and negativity for Syn and CK7. Ki67 was positive in 80% of cells (Fig. 4 a–f)

Clinical aspect of an MCC overlapping BD. a Solitary and dome shaped reddish nodule surrounded by an erythematous scaly patch on the right waist. b Ovoid dark erythematous painless tumor mass on the right mandibular angle, with peeling and scabbing on the surface of the mass

a, b On histopathology, BD is juxtaposed or strictly intermingled with MCC (H&E, ×4). c, d BD shows full thickness of atypical squamous cells (H&E, ×10). e, f Dermal dense infiltration of small round hyperchromatic small cells (H&E, ×10)

a–c Immunohistochemical staining showed that CK, CK20 and Syn were positive Magnification: ×10. d Immunohistochemical staining showed that Ki67 was positive in 90% of the cells Magnification: ×10

a Immunohistochemical staining showed CD56 positive Magnification: ×10. b–e Immunohistochemical staining showed that CK, CK20, CAM5.2 and CgA were focally positive Magnification: ×10. f Immunohistochemical staining showed that Ki67 was positive in 80% of the cells Magnification: ×10

Both patients were diagnosed with MCC overlapping BD. They all underwent surgical excision extending 1 cm beyond the tumor margins. There was no recurrence during a follow-up period of 3 years in case one and about half a year in case two.

Literature review

The demographic data.

In the last 11 years (from 2013 to 2023), only 13 cases (including our two cases) of MCC overlapping BD have been described in the literature. The incidence was slightly higher in females than in males, with a male-to-female ratio of 1:1.6 (5 cases to 8 cases). The age ranged from 32 to 87 years (mean 72 years, median 73 years). Lesions mainly occurred at the age of more than 70 years (77%), and only one extremely rare case occurred at the age of 32 years. The overall duration of the disease varied from 2 months to 5 years. Some patients had a history of annual herbal pill consumption, exposure to ultraviolet radiation, and previous diagnoses of multiple myeloma, basal cell carcinoma, and BD (Choe et al. 2014 ; Miraflor et al. 2016 ) (Table 1 ).

Clinical manifestations

All the studies reported the location of the lesions. MCC overlapping BD were mostly located on the faces ( N = 7/13, 53.8%), followed by the trunk ( N = 3/13,23.1%), the upper extremity ( N = 1/ 13,7.7%) , lower extremity ( N = 1/ 13,7.7%) and groin ( N = 1/ 13,7.7%). No patient had multiple lesions (Table 1 ).

Information regarding the initial clinical presentation was available for all patients. The lesions were most frequently described as asymptomatic, firm, dull red nodules on red or dark brown patches with frequent rapidly growing behavior, or as solitary nodules. None of the lesions described with accuracy were correctly diagnosed before biopsy and histological examination. The size of the tumor lesions was available for 11 lesions (84.6%). Tumor diameters ranged from 0.3 to 6.5 cm (mean: 2 cm, median: 1 cm). Rapid growth, either of new lesion or stable lesion from several months was the most frequent motivation for biopsy and diagnosis (Table 1 ).

Locoregional or distant metastases occurred in four patients (30.8%) (Swain et al. 2022 ; Choe et al. 2014 ; Ishida et al. 2013 ; Kiyohara et al. 2019 ). One patient showed lymph node and liver metastasis (Choe et al. 2014 ). After local excision of the cutaneous lesion and left inguinal lymph node dissection in one patient, several dermal and subcutaneous nodules developed successively on the left lower extremity (Kiyohara et al. 2019 ) (Table 1 ).

All 13cases had a histological diagnosis of MCC overlapping BD (Table 1 ). Eight patients were diagnosed by histopathology, followed by extensive local excision treatment. Of them, an 82-year-old female was diagnosed with MCC overlapping BD by histopathology but refused further evaluation and operative treatment (Jeong et al. 2018 ). Seven patients underwent direct extensive local excision treatment, followed by histopathological detection of the tissue post-surgery (Tono et al. 2015 ; Swain et al. 2022 ; Choe et al. 2014 ; Miraflor et al. 2016 ; Ishida et al. 2013 ; Kiyohara et al. 2019 ; Yamamoto 2014 ; McGowan et al. 2016 ; Casari et al. 2018 ). A 77-year-old woman was found to have lymph node and liver metastases after surgical treatment, followed by radiation and chemotherapy (Choe et al. 2014 ). A 65-year-old Japanese man experienced recurrent skin lesions after local surgery and lymph node clearance. After receiving avelumab treatment for 2 months, all lesions disappeared completely. Subsequent follow-ups over six months showed no recurrence (Kiyohara et al. 2019 ). A 32-year-old lady underwent surgery, lymph node clearance and received radiation therapy. This patient had an axillary dissection because of a palpable lymph node. Two lymph nodes out of 14 showed metastatic deposits, hence the female patient received radiotherapy after which she is well and completely free of disease now, 7 years after the initial diagnosis (Swain et al. 2022 ). A 71-year-old Caucasian male remained recurrence-free during the 1-year follow-up after surgical treatment (Miraflor et al. 2016 ). The follow-up status for the remaining seven patients has not been reported.

• Histopathology

Histopathologically MCC primarily locates within the dermis and can invade subcutaneous tissues. At low magnification, it appeared as a typical small round blue-cell tumor, comprising three different histologic subtypes: trabecular type, intermediate type and small cell type. Among them, the intermediate type was the most common. The tumor consisted of nodules and diffuse sheets of basophilic tumor cells with vacuolated, pale-staining nuclei containing small nucleoli. The cytoplasm was indistinct with common nuclear folding. The trabecular type, the least common, was composed of slender, uniformly shaped cells, often with nuclear folding. The small cells type was characterized by infiltrates of deeply staining 'oat cell-like' cells with significant cell fragmentation.

The histopathological feature of MCC overlapping BD include abnormal keratin-forming cells of BD within the epidermis and small round blue-staining cells of MCC in the dermis. There has been a case reported where the MCC component, in association with BD, was confined to the epidermis, referred to as “intraepidermal MCC”(Miraflor et al. 2016 ).

The immunohistochemical characteristics of MCC overlapping BD indicate that MCC cells express neuroendocrine markers such as NSE, CK20, Neurofilament (NF), CgA, and Syn. Most MCCs do not express Thyroid Transcription Factor-1 (TTF-1). On the other hand, BD commonly exhibits expression of squamous cell markers like CK5/6, CK10 and CK14.

Dermoscopic examination was only reported in two patients (Casari et al. 2018 ). Dermoscopic examination showed the presence of clustered dotted vessels over a reddish structureless area that was suggestive for the diagnosis of BD. Addittional dermoscopical characteristic of the nodule included an atypical vascular pattern with tortuous vessels overlying a whitish background.

MCC is a primary cutaneous neuroendocrine carcinoma, predominantly diagnosed in fair-skinned elderly populations. Characterized by its aggressive nature, MCC is particularly notorious for its tendency towards local recurrences and distant metastases (Siqueira et al. 2023 ). Interestingly, MCC lesions may coexist with, or be found in close proximity to, a variety of other neoplasms, including actinic keratosis, BD, invasive SCC, BCC and sweat gland tumors (Kervarrec et al. 2022 ; Hobbs et al. 2020 ). Clinically, cases of MCC coexisting with BD are very rare. This comprehensive review of the literature spanning the past decade has revealed a notably rare occurrence, identifying only 11 cases of MCC overlapping BD. At the same time, we reported another two cases with MCC overlapping BD in the paper.

The annual incidence rate of MCC is approximately 0.24 cases per 100,000 individuals, showing a trend of exponential increase. This rising incidence can be attributed to a confluence of factors, including demographic shifts towards an aging population, heightened use of immunosuppressive agents, significant improvements in diagnostic technologies facilitating earlier and more accurate detection, and a general enhancement in clinical vigilance and awareness regarding this malignancy (Mistry et al. 2023 ; Mohsen et al. 2023 ). Our retrospective examination has disclosed that incidences of MCC overlapping BD present a gender distribution, with a male-to-female ratio of 1:1.6. Notably, a higher prevalence is observed in females, a finding potentially attributable to the limited scope of the sample size. The pathological manifestations of MCC predominantly arise in individuals aged over 70, though a sporadic occurrence in middle-aged adults has been noted (Swain et al. 2022 ). Owing to the absence of a conclusive diagnosis in MCC patients before undergoing histopathological examination, recent research has offered valuable insights into the clinical presentation of MCC, coalescing into the AEIOU mnemonic for ease of recall. “A” stands for asymptomatic lesions, often presenting without pain or tenderness. “E” denotes rapid expansion, with lesions demonstrating notable enlargement over a period of just three months. “I” represents immunosuppression, a key risk factor, encompassing conditions such as HIV infection, post-solid organ transplantation, or chronic lymphocytic leukemia. “O” refers to individuals over the age of 50, a demographic showing increased susceptibility. Finally, “U” highlights ultraviolet exposure in fair-skinned individuals as a significant risk factor. In the context of MCC overlapping BD, we propose the “AEIOUN” guideline, wherein “N” signifies the rapid emergence of nodules on the foundation of erythematous patches, expanding upon the initial AEIOU criteria.The presence of three or more of these features warrants a heightened clinical suspicion of MCC or MCC overlapping BD, guiding the clinician towards appropriate diagnostic and therapeutic interventions (Siqueira et al. 2023 ; Brusasco et al. 2022 ; Mistry et al. 2023 ).

The etiology of MCC is multifactorial. Current research posits that infection with MCPyV and genetic mutations triggered by ultraviolet (UV) radiation are primary contributors to the pathogenesis of MCC (Yang et al. 2022 ). Specifically, UV radiation plays a critical role in the development of MCPyV-negative MCC cases. Intriguingly, MCC cases that present concurrently with SCC or BD predominantly lack MCPyV. Among the 13 cases of MCC overlapping BD that were reviewed, only three patients underwent testing for MCPyV, and all 3 cases were negative for MCPyV. This observation suggests a distinct oncogenic mechanism in composite MCC, diverging from the pathways observed in solitary MCC (Kervarrec et al. 2022 ). The simultaneous manifestation of MCC overlapping BD might be attributed to a confluence of various factors, including immune regulation and the intricacies of the tumor microenvironment (Chattopadhyay et al. 2020 ). Genetic predisposition also appears to play a significant role in this context. Moreover, the pathogenesis of these conditions may be exacerbated by immunosuppression, immune deficiency or immune system dysregulation. The interplay and communication among cells within the tumor microenvironment, particularly through the release of cytokines, are believed to significantly influence the coexistence of MCC overlapping BD. Furthermore, lifestyle choices and environmental exposures, such as to chemicals, ultraviolet radiation, or toxins, are potential contributory elements in the concurrent development of these dermatological conditions (Casari et al. 2018 ).

MCC is unequivocally diagnosed through histopathological examination, recognized as the definitive gold standard. This is often supplemented by immunohistochemical profiling to accurately distinguish MCC from other poorly differentiated neoplasms. A significant majority of MCC cases demonstrate cytokeratin expression, with approximately 95% exhibiting perinuclear and/or cytoplasmic positivity for CK20 or CAM5.2. Additionally, these carcinomas frequently express neuroendocrine markers, most notably Syn, CgA, CD56 and NF. In contrast, TTF-1 and CDX-2 are typically negative in MCC (Khanna et al. 2020 ). Emerging studies suggest that around 60% of MCC cases express the protein p63, which is potentially correlating with a decreased overall survival rate and a lower disease-specific survival rate of patients. CK7 expression is generally absent in MCC, while there are noteworthy instances of CK7 positivity. A notable aspect in the immunohistochemical landscape of MCC is positive for MCV, observed in about 55% to 90% of cases. Interestingly, MCV-negative cases frequently demonstrated a lack of NF expression, and they distinctively exhibit markers of follicular stem cells along with a higher incidence of p53 positivity, which are predominant in CK20-negative MCCs. In patients with MCC overlapping BD, a distinctive dual pathology is often revealed through marker expression. The immunohistochemical signature of MCC is characterized by the concurrent expression of epithelial markers, including AE/1AE3, CAM5.2 and a broad spectrum of cytokeratins, alongside neuroendocrine markers such as neurofilaments and neuron-specific enolase. In contrast, BD typically demonstrates positive immunoreactivity for markers like CK7 and p16. Notably, an uncommon immunophenotype has been documented in a case merging MCC overlapping BD. In some cases, the MCC cells exhibited an absence of CK20 expression while maintaining positivity for CK7.

This diagnostic approach assumes critical importance in instances where MCC coexists with other tumors derived from epidermal origins. In conducting histological evaluations, it is imperative to scrutinize for the co-occurrence of other tumor types, such as SCC (observed in up to 15% of cases) or BCC. A critical aspect of the assessment is determining the extent of epithelial involvement by the tumor, whether the tumor cells are situated within the epidermis or affect the cutaneous adnexa. Furthermore, a detailed examination of the tumor's morphological attributes is essential, including discerning whether the tumor presents as infiltrative or manifests as well-defined nodular formations, alongside evaluating the dimensions (ranging from small to large) and the particular morphology of the cells, which can determine the appropriate treatment strategies and the prognosis of the tumors. The extent of invasion, growth patterns, and overall prognosis of MCC tumors exhibit significant interrelations (Gonzalez et al. 2022 ). Notably, patients exhibiting sentinel lymph node involvement typically will face a more challenging prognosis. Similarly, individuals suffering from active hematologic malignancies or under immunosuppression are also likely to experience adverse outcomes. Research on the differential prognosis or metastasis rates between MCC and MCC overlapping BD remains scarce. However, the co-occurrence of MCC overlapping BD may signal a broader spectrum of skin damage and an elevated risk of recurrence or metastasis.

The treatment of MCC overlapping BD adheres to the principles established for MCC treatment (Green et al. 2022 ; Harvey et al. 2022 ). In the management of MCC, surgical excision is often considered the primary modality of treatment. This involves employing techniques such as Mohs micrographic surgery or its modified forms, ensuring a margin of 1–2 cm extending to the fascia or periosteum (Uitentuis et al. 2022 ). For metastatic, post-surgical residual, or recurrent MCC, a combination of radiotherapy and chemotherapy serves as effective adjunctive treatment modalities. In recent advancements, immunotherapies targeting various anti-tumor immune mechanisms, particularly therapies focused on the PD-1 and PD-L1 pathways, have emerged as frontline treatments for metastatic MCC (Harms et al. 2018 ; Becker et al. 2018 ). Agents such as Avelumab, Pembrolizumab, and Nivolumab have been instrumental in significantly prolonging patient survival in these cases (Fojnica et al. 2023 ; Topalian et al. 2020 ).

The coexistence of MCC overlapping BD represents an exceedingly rare condition, necessitating further research and accumulation of cases to better comprehend its clinical characteristics and determine the optimal therapeutic regimen. It is a lesion with nonspecific features and dermoscopy evaluation can be helpful for improving the clinical suspicion. We introduce the concept of “AEIOUN” as a pioneering approach for the early identification of clinically suspicious lesions indicative of MCC overlapping BD. The excision of doubtful nodular lesions is mandatory especially in the elderly, because MCC overlapping BD has not only a tendency to recur locally, but it can also metastasize. However, due to its rarity, there are no well-defined guidelines for the management. Complete surgical excision with clear margins stands as the optimal therapeutic choice, complemented by adjuvant radiotherapy, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or their combination. Regular follow-ups are strongly recommended to monitor the condition. These two case reports and the review of the literature can provide better awareness and management of this rare tumor.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Becker JC, Stang A, Hausen AZ, Fischer N, DeCaprio JA, Tothill RW et al (2018) Epidemiology, biology and therapy of Merkel cell carcinoma: conclusions from the EU project IMMOMEC. Cancer Immunol Immunother 67(3):341–351

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Brusasco M, Macchi S, DEG F, Mora E, Zucchi A, Feliciani C et al (2022) AEIOU not only merkel cell carcinoma. Ital J Dermatol Venerol 157(5):453–454

Google Scholar  

Casari A, Argenziano G, Piana S, Lallas A, Moscarella E, Lombardi M et al (2018) Merkel cell carcinoma arising on a pre-existing bowen’s disease: is it just by chance? G Ital Dermatol Venereol 153(2):273–275

Chattopadhyay S, Hemminki A, Forsti A, Sundquist K, Sundquist J, Hemminki K (2020) Second primary cancers in patients with invasive and in situ squamous cell skin carcinoma, kaposi sarcoma, and merkel cell carcinoma: role for immune mechanisms? J Invest Dermatol 140(1):48–55

Choe Y, Kim Y, Park H, Yoon H, Cho S (2014) A case of merkel cell carcinoma concurrent with bowen’s disease. Korean J Dermatol 53(2):169–171

Fojnica A, Ljuca K, Akhtar S, Gatalica Z, Vranic S (2023) An updated review of the biomarkers of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors in merkel cell carcinoma merkel cell carcinoma and immunotherapy. Cancers (Basel) 15(20):5084

Garcia-Carbonero R, Marquez-Rodas I, de la Cruz-Merino L, Martinez-Trufero J, Cabrera MA, Piulats JM et al (2019) Recent therapeutic advances and change in treatment paradigm of patients with merkel cell carcinoma. Oncologist 24(10):1375–1383

Article   Google Scholar  

Gonzalez MR, Bryce-Alberti M, Portmann-Baracco A, Castillo-Flores S, Pretell-Mazzini J (2022) Treatment and survival outcomes in metastatic merkel cell carcinoma: analysis of 2010 patients from the SEER database. Cancer Treat Res Commun 33:100665

Green C, Isaksson Mettavainio M, Kjellman C, Ramqvist T, Dalianis T, Israelsson P et al (2022) Combined treatment with radiotherapy, chemotherapy and avelumab results in regression of metastatic merkel cell carcinoma and improvement of associated lambert-eaton myasthenic syndrome: a case report. Oncol Lett 24(5):393

Harms PW (2017) Update on merkel cell carcinoma. Clin Lab Med 37(3):485–501

Harms PW, Harms KL, Moore PS, DeCaprio JA, Nghiem P, Wong MKK et al (2018) The biology and treatment of Merkel cell carcinoma: current understanding and research priorities. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 15(12):763–776

Harvey JA, Mirza SA, Erwin PJ, Chan AW, Murad MH, Brewer JD (2022) Recurrence and mortality rates with different treatment approaches of merkel cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Dermatol 61(6):687–697

Hobbs MM, Geers TE, Brown TS, Malone JC (2020) Triple collision tumor comprising merkel cell carcinoma with an unusual immunophenotype, squamous cell carcinoma in situ, and basal cell carcinoma. J Cutan Pathol 47(8):764–767

Ishida M, Okabe H (2013) Merkel cell carcinoma concurrent with bowen’s disease: two cases, one with an unusual immunophenotype. J Cutan Pathol 40(9):839–843

Jeong I, Kim T, Lee H (2018) Merkel cell carcinoma originating in a setting of pre-existing bowen’s disease. Korean J Dermatol 56(8):525–527

Kervarrec T, Appenzeller S, Samimi M, Sarma B, Sarosi EM, Berthon P et al (2022) Merkel cell polyomavirus-negative merkel cell carcinoma originating from in situ squamous cell carcinoma: a keratinocytic tumor with neuroendocrine differentiation. J Invest Dermatol 142(3):516–527

Khanna U, North JP (2020) Large-cell variant of merkel cell carcinoma with clear-cell change. J Cutan Pathol 47(1):1–5

Kiyohara T, Shijimaya T, Miyamoto M, Nagano N, Nakamaru S, Makimura K et al (2019) In-transit recurrence of merkel cell carcinoma associated with bowen’s disease: the first reported case successfully treated by avelumab. J Dermatol 46(5):440–443

McGowan MA, Helm MF, Tarbox MB (2016) Squamous cell carcinoma in situ overlying merkel cell carcinoma. J Cutan Med Surg 20(6):563–566

Miraflor AP, LeBoit PE, Hirschman SA (2016) Intraepidermal merkel cell carcinoma with pagetoid bowen’s disease. J Cutan Pathol 43(11):921–926

Mistry K, Venables ZC (2023) A systematic review on merkel cell carcinoma epidemiology highlights the rising incidence, poor prognosis and data heterogeneity. Br J Dermatol. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjd/ljad434

Mistry K, Levell NJ, Hollestein L, Wakkee M, Nijsten T, Knott CS et al (2023) Trends in incidence, treatment and survival of merkel cell carcinoma in England 2004–2018: a cohort study. Br J Dermatol 188(2):228–236

Mohsen ST, Price EL, Chan AW, Hanna TP, Limacher JJ, Nessim C et al (2023) Incidence, mortality, and survival of merkel cell carcinoma: a systematic review of population based-studies. Br J Dermatol. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjd/ljad404

Siqueira SOM, Campos-do-Carmo G, Dos Santos ALS, Martins C, de Melo AC (2023) Merkel cell carcinoma: epidemiology, clinical features, diagnosis and treatment of a rare disease. An Bras Dermatol 98(3):277–286

Swain M, Yadav A, Pendharkar D, Patnaik S (2022) Concurrent merkel cell carcinoma and bowen’s disease in a young lady. Indian J Dermatol 67(6):761–763

Tono H, Fujimura T, Iwama E, Kusakari Y, Furudate S, Kambayashi Y et al (2015) Merkel cell carcinoma concomitant with invasive bowen’s disease: immunohistochemical investigation of tumor-infiltrating leukocytes. Case Rep Dermatol 7(1):1–6

Topalian SL, Bhatia S, Amin A, Kudchadkar RR, Sharfman WH, Lebbe C et al (2020) Neoadjuvant nivolumab for patients with resectable merkel cell carcinoma in the checkmate 358 trial. J Clin Oncol 38(22):2476–2487

Uitentuis SE, Bambach C, Elshot YS, Limpens J, van Akkooi ACJ, Bekkenk MW (2022) Merkel cell carcinoma, the impact of clinical excision margins and mohs micrographic surgery on recurrence and survival: a systematic review. Dermatol Surg 48(4):387–394

Yamamoto T (2014) Epidermotropic pagetoid spread and squamous cell carcinoma in situ in the overlying epidermis of merkel cell carcinoma. Our Dermatol Online 5(2):210–211

Yang A, Wijaya WA, Yang L, He Y, Cen Y, Chen J (2022) The impact of merkel cell polyomavirus positivity on prognosis of merkel cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Oncol 12:1020805

Download references

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Dermatology, Southwest Hospital, Army Medical University, No. 30, Gaotanyan Street, Shapingba District, Chongqing, 400038, China

Xueqin Chen, Xiao Song, Hui Huang, Lian Zhang, Zhiqiang Song, Xichuan Yang & Zhifang Zhai

Department of Dermatology, Yongchuan Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, No. 439, Xuanhua Road, Yongchuan District, Chongqing, 402160, China

Shanchuan Lei

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

XC, SL and ZZ: designed the research; XS, HH and LZ: performed the research; ZS and XY: contributed vital analytical tools; all authors contributed to manuscript revisions and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Shanchuan Lei or Zhifang Zhai .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Consent to participate

Written informed consent was obtained from the individual included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Chen, X., Song, X., Huang, H. et al. Merkel cell carcinoma overlapping Bowen’s disease: two cases report and literature review. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 150 , 217 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-024-05743-0

Download citation

Received : 07 March 2024

Accepted : 04 April 2024

Published : 26 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-024-05743-0

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

• Merkel cell carcinoma
• Bowen’s disease
• Squamous cell carcinoma in situ
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Help & FAQ

Update 2024: Nematode taxonomy and systematics online - The Loof Literature Collection: Particularly for rare taxonomical articles

• Laboratory of Nematology

Research output : Contribution to conference › Poster › Academic

T1 - Update 2024: Nematode taxonomy and systematics online - The Loof Literature Collection: Particularly for rare taxonomical articles

AU - Groeneveld-Vervloed, E.M.P.

PY - 2024/4/18

Y1 - 2024/4/18

M3 - Poster

T2 - 35th Symposium of the European Society of Nematologists

Y2 - 15 April 2024 through 19 April 2024

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Foreign states targeting sensitive research at UK universities, MI5 warns

Ministers considering more funding to protect important research sites, with China seen as a particular concern

MI5 has warned universities that hostile foreign states are targeting sensitive research, as ministers consider measures to bolster protections.

Vice-chancellors from 24 leading institutions, including Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial College London , were briefed on the threat by the domestic security service’s director general, Ken McCallum, and National Cybersecurity Centre (NCSC) chief, Felicity Oswald.

In addition, the UK government is looking at increased funding to improve security at sensitive sites. Oliver Dowden, the deputy prime minister, announced plans for a consultation on a package of measures that could include looking at key university personnel being given security clearance and a strengthened process to improve the transparency of funding, particularly with foreign institutions.

The measures will be focused on a small proportion of academic work, with a particular focus on research with potential dual uses in civilian and military life.

McCallum told the vice-chancellors that hostile states are targeting universities to steal technology that can “deliver their authoritarian, military and commercial priorities”, the Times reported.

The government ordered a review of protections for higher education in its refreshed foreign and security policy last year amid concerns that hostile states – and particularly China – were gaining undue influence over the sector.

Dowden has previously warned that some universities’ reliance on overseas funding could leave them open to being “influenced, exploited, or even coerced” by a foreign power.

After the security briefing, Dowden said: “For a millennium, our universities have thrived on being open – open to ideas, open to innovation, open to being independent of government.

“This is not about erecting fences, this is about balancing evolving threats and protecting the integrity and security of our great institutions.”

The consultation will explore proposals to protect cutting-edge technology under development in sensitive sectors that are being targeted by states intent on stealing intellectual property to enhance their own economic and military capabilities.

The NCSC and the National Protective Security Authority have also launched a tool to help universities assess their research security.

Michelle Donelan, the science and technology secretary, said: “I believe that universities are on the frontlines of a battle for information.

“Maintaining the UK’s world-leading reputation as an academic superpower relies on having strong safeguards to protect research from those who wish to do us harm.”

Tim Bradshaw, chief executive of the Russell Group of leading research universities, said: “Russell Group universities take their national security responsibilities incredibly seriously and already work closely with government and the intelligence community to help protect UK breakthroughs in fields like AI, which are important to our national interest.

“But we also recognise security is a dynamic and evolving challenge which means we need the right expertise and intelligence to keep pace with this.”

Universities UK chief executive Vivienne Stern said: “For several years, Universities UK has worked with government to ensure that universities are supported and equipped to recognise and mitigate risks to national security.

“This is important and necessary, and we welcome the government’s approach to working hand in hand with us to get the mechanisms right.”

• Universities
• University of Oxford
• University of Cambridge
• Imperial College London

More on this story

Bernardine Evaristo joins calls to save Goldsmiths’ Black British literature MA

How the dung queen of Dublin was swept from history

German university rescinds Jewish American’s job offer over pro-Palestinian letter

Creative arts courses at English universities face funding cut

Tory immigration policies risk over-reliance on Chinese students, ex-universities minister warns

Sunak’s student visas clampdown continues boom-and-bust pattern

Sadiq Khan pledges new Erasmus-style overseas study scheme for London youngsters

Britain’s universities are in freefall – and saving them will take more than funding

Most viewed.

Search biomes for Pokémon first discovered in Kanto during the Rediscover Kanto event!

Rediscover Kanto

Monday, April 22, at 10:00 a.m. to Thursday, May 9, 2024, at 8:00 p.m. PDT

Rediscover the world

Feel more immersed in the world of Pokémon GO than ever before with a whole new look! Check out these refreshed visuals by exploring biomes, environments where you can find certain Pokémon!

Pokémon originally discovered in the Kanto region will appear in specific biomes, although they have been known to appear outside of these biomes during certain Pokémon GO Seasons or special events. Work with other Trainers to find as many biome types as you can!!

Event bonuses

• Increased XP for a seven-day PokéStop spin streak.
• Increased XP for a seven-day Pokémon catch streak.
• Friendship levels will increase faster than normal through opening Gifts, trading Pokémon, or battling together in raids, Gyms, or Trainer Battles!
• Increased chance to encounter Shiny Bulbasaur, Shiny Charmander, and Shiny Squirtle in their respective biomes!

Featured attacks

The following featured attacks will be available when evolving the following Pokémon during the event.

Venusaur Evolve Ivysaur (Bulbasaur’s Evolution) to get a Venusaur that knows the Charged Attack Frenzy Plant.

Charizard Evolve Charmeleon (Charmander’s Evolution) to get a Charizard that knows the Charged Attack Blast Burn.

Blastoise Evolve Wartortle (Squirtle’s Evolution) to get a Blastoise that knows the Charged Attack Hydro Cannon.

Field Research task rewards

Event-themed Field Research tasks will be available!

Complete certain Field Research tasks to earn Mega Energy for the following Pokémon.

Venusaur Mega Energy Charizard Mega Energy Blastoise Mega Energy

Special Research

Special Research will be available to all Trainers for free beginning with the Rediscover Kanto event! Trainers who complete the Special Research will earn items, XP, Stardust, and encounters with event-themed Pokémon.*

Please be aware of your surroundings and follow guidelines from local health authorities when playing Pokémon GO. Upcoming events are subject to change. Be sure to follow us on social media, opt in to receiving push notifications, and subscribe to our emails to stay updated.

—The Pokémon GO team