literature review of field survey

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

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

Table of Contents

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

How to write a good literature review 

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

What is a literature review?

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

What is the purpose of literature review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature review example

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

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

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

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

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

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

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

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

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

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conducting a literature review

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

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

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

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

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

Select Databases for Searches:

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

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

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

Review the Literature:

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

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

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

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

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

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

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

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

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

Frequently asked questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 

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

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

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

Related Reads:

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

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

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, academic integrity vs academic dishonesty: types & examples, dissertation printing and binding | types & comparison , what is a dissertation preface definition and examples , the ai revolution: authors’ role in upholding academic..., the future of academia: how ai tools are..., how to write a research proposal: (with examples..., how to write your research paper in apa..., how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write a phd research proposal, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide).

• 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: Aug 29, 2024 11:05 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Research Methods

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

Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

A literature review is important because it:

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

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

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

Not an essay 

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

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

A literature review serves several purposes. For example, it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Systematic review or meta-analysis?

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

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

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

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

Not all systematic reviews contain meta-analysis. 

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: Research Design >>
• Last Updated: Jul 15, 2024 10:34 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.udel.edu/researchmethods

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

How To Write A Literature Review - A Complete Guide

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

What is a literature review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the purpose of a literature review?

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

What is the importance of a literature review?

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

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

How long should a literature review be?

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

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

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

What are the different types of literature reviews?

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

Here are the different types of literature reviews:

Argumentative review

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

Integrative review

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

Methodological review

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

Systematic review

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

Meta-analysis review

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

Historical review

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

Theoretical Review

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

Scoping Review

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

State-of-the-Art Review

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

Can you use the first person in a literature review?

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

Do you need an abstract for a literature review?

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

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

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

Is a literature review written in the past tense?

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

How many sources for a literature review?

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

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

Quick tips on how to write a literature review

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

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

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

1. Outline and identify the purpose of  a literature review

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

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

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

2. Search relevant literature

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

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

• Google Scholar
• Microsoft Academic
• Science.gov

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

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

3. Examine and assess the sources

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

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

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

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

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

4. Discover connections

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

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

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

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

5. Structure planning to write a good literature review

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

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

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

Literature review samples

1. Standalone

2. As a section of a research paper

How SciSpace Discover makes literature review a breeze?

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

Find the right information

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

Assess credibility of papers quickly

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

Get the complete picture in no time

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

Make referring sources super easy

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

Final tips on how to write a literature review

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

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

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

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. how to start a literature review.

• What questions do you want to answer?

• What sources do you need to answer these questions?

• What information do these sources contain?

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

2. What to include in a literature review?

• A brief background of the problem or issue

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

• A description of what you will do in your project

• How this study will contribute to research on the subject

3. Why literature review is important?

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

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

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

5. What are the components of a literature review?

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

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

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

6. What are common errors in writing literature review?

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

• Totally relying on secondary data while ignoring primary data.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. How many sources should a literature review have?

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

9. Can literature review have diagrams?

• To represent an abstract idea or concept

• To explain the steps of a process or procedure

• To help readers understand the relationships between different concepts

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

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

11. What are the types of literature review?

• Argumentative review

• Integrative review

• Methodological review

• Systematic review

• Meta-analysis review

• Historical review

• Theoretical review

• Scoping review

• State-of-the-Art review

12. Is a literature review mandatory?

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

But before you go,

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

You might also like

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

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

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

University Libraries

Literature review.

• What is a Literature Review?
• What is Its Purpose?
• 1. Select a Topic
• 2. Set the Topic in Context
• 3. Types of Information Sources
• 4. Use Information Sources
• 5. Get the Information
• 6. Organize / Manage the Information
• 7. Position the Literature Review
• 8. Write the Literature Review

A literature review is a comprehensive summary of previous research on a topic. The literature review surveys scholarly articles, books, and other sources relevant to a particular area of research.  The review should enumerate, describe, summarize, objectively evaluate and clarify this previous research.  It should give a theoretical base for the research and help you (the author) determine the nature of your research.  The literature review acknowledges the work of previous researchers, and in so doing, assures the reader that your work has been well conceived.  It is assumed that by mentioning a previous work in the field of study, that the author has read, evaluated, and assimiliated that work into the work at hand.

A literature review creates a "landscape" for the reader, giving her or him a full understanding of the developments in the field.  This landscape informs the reader that the author has indeed assimilated all (or the vast majority of) previous, significant works in the field into her or his research. 

 "In writing the literature review, the purpose is to convey to the reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. The literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (eg. 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.( http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/specific-types-of-writing/literature-review )

Recommended Reading

• Next: What is Its Purpose? >>
• Last Updated: Oct 2, 2023 12:34 PM

• 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

New change to library operations

All Main Library and Weaver Library doors lock 15 minutes before closing.

Conduct a literature review

What is a literature review.

A literature review is a summary of the published work in a field of study. This can be a section of a larger paper or article, or can be the focus of an entire paper. Literature reviews show that you have examined the breadth of knowledge and can justify your thesis or research questions. They are also valuable tools for other researchers who need to find a summary of that field of knowledge.

Unlike an annotated bibliography, which is a list of sources with short descriptions, a literature review synthesizes sources into a summary that has a thesis or statement of purpose—stated or implied—at its core.

How do I write a literature review?

Step 1: define your research scope.

• What is the specific research question that your literature review helps to define?
• Are there a maximum or minimum number of sources that your review should include?

Ask us if you have questions about refining your topic, search methods, writing tips, or citation management.

Step 2: Identify the literature

Start by searching broadly. Literature for your review will typically be acquired through scholarly books, journal articles, and/or dissertations. Develop an understanding of what is out there, what terms are accurate and helpful, etc., and keep track of all of it with citation management tools . If you need help figuring out key terms and where to search, ask us .

Use citation searching to track how scholars interact with, and build upon, previous research:

• Mine the references cited section of each relevant source for additional key sources
• Use Google Scholar or Scopus to find other sources that have cited a particular work

Step 3: Critically analyze the literature

Key to your literature review is a critical analysis of the literature collected around your topic. The analysis will explore relationships, major themes, and any critical gaps in the research expressed in the work. Read and summarize each source with an eye toward analyzing authority, currency, coverage, methodology, and relationship to other works. The University of Toronto's Writing Center provides a comprehensive list of questions you can use to analyze your sources.

Step 4: Categorize your resources

Divide the available resources that pertain to your research into categories reflecting their roles in addressing your research question. Possible ways to categorize resources include organization by:

• methodology
• theoretical/philosophical approach

Regardless of the division, each category should be accompanied by thorough discussions and explanations of strengths and weaknesses, value to the overall survey, and comparisons with similar sources. You may have enough resources when:

• You've used multiple databases and other resources (web portals, repositories, etc.) to get a variety of perspectives on the research topic.
• The same citations are showing up in a variety of databases.

Additional resources

Undergraduate student resources.

• Literature Review Handout (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)
• Learn how to write a review of literature (University of Wisconsin-Madison)

Graduate student and faculty resources

• Information Research Strategies (University of Arizona)
• Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students (NC State University)
• Oliver, P. (2012). Succeeding with Your Literature Review: A Handbook for Students [ebook]
• Machi, L. A. & McEvoy, B. T. (2016). The Literature Review: Six Steps to Success [ebook]
• Graustein, J. S. (2012). How to Write an Exceptional Thesis or Dissertation: A Step-by-Step Guide from Proposal to Successful Defense [ebook]
• Thomas, R. M. & Brubaker, D. L. (2008). Theses and Dissertations: A Guide to Planning, Research, and Writing

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

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

How to write a superb literature review

Andy Tay is a freelance writer based in Singapore.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Credit: Getty

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

WENTING ZHAO: Be focused and avoid jargon

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

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

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

Collection: Careers toolkit

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

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

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

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

BOZHI TIAN: Have a process and develop your style

Associate professor of chemistry, University of Chicago, Illinois.

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

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

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

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

ANKITA ANIRBAN: Timeliness and figures make a huge difference

Editor, Nature Reviews Physics .

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

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

Careers Collection: Publishing

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

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

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

YOOJIN CHOI: Stay updated and be open to suggestions

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

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

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

Synchronized editing: the future of collaborative writing

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

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

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

PAULA MARTIN-GONZALEZ: Make good use of technology

PhD student, University of Cambridge, UK.

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

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

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

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

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

Tools and techniques

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

Reference managers

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

Collaborative writing tools

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

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

Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Updates & Corrections

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

Download references

Related Articles

• Research management

Tales of a migratory marine biologist

Career Feature 28 AUG 24

Nail your tech-industry interviews with these six techniques

Career Column 28 AUG 24

How to harness AI’s potential in research — responsibly and ethically

Career Feature 23 AUG 24

Binning out-of-date chemicals? Somebody think about the carbon!

Correspondence 27 AUG 24

No more hunting for replication studies: crowdsourced database makes them easy to find

Nature Index 27 AUG 24

Partners in drug discovery: how to collaborate with non-governmental organizations

Exclusive: the papers that most heavily cite retracted studies

News 28 AUG 24

Chain retraction: how to stop bad science propagating through the literature

Comment 28 AUG 24

Alzheimer's Disease (AD) Researcher/Associate Researcher

Xiaoliang Sunney XIE’s Group is recruiting researchers specializing in Alzheimer's disease (AD).

Beijing, China

Changping Laboratory

Supervisory Bioinformatics Specialist CTG Program Head

The National Library of Medicine (NLM) is a global leader in biomedical informatics and computational health data science and the world’s largest b...

Bethesda, Maryland (US)

National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information

Post Doctoral Research Scientist

Post-Doctoral Research Scientist Position in Human Transplant Immunology at the Columbia Center for Translational Immunology in New York, NY

New York City, New York (US)

Columbia Center for Translational Immunoogy

Postdoctoral Associate- Neuromodulation and Computational Psychiatry

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Postdoctoral Fellow

Modeling Autism Spectrum Disorders using genetically modified human stem cell-derived brain organoids and mouse models.

Weill Cornell Medical College

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 Reviews

What this handout is about.

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

Introduction

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

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

What is a literature review, then?

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

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

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

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

Why do we write literature reviews?

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

Who writes these things, anyway?

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

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

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

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

Find models

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

Narrow your topic

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

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

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

Consider whether your sources are current

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

Strategies for writing the literature review

Find a focus.

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

Convey it to your reader

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

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

Consider organization

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

First, cover the basic categories

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

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

Organizing the body

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Begin composing

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

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

Use evidence

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

Be selective

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

Use quotes sparingly

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

Summarize and synthesize

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

Keep your own voice

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

Use caution when paraphrasing

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

Revise, revise, revise

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

Works consulted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Make a Gift

What Is A Literature Review?

A plain-language explainer (with examples).

By:  Derek Jansen (MBA) & Kerryn Warren (PhD) | June 2020 (Updated May 2023)

If you’re faced with writing a dissertation or thesis, chances are you’ve encountered the term “literature review” . If you’re on this page, you’re probably not 100% what the literature review is all about. The good news is that you’ve come to the right place.

Literature Review 101

• What (exactly) is a literature review
• What’s the purpose of the literature review chapter
• How to find high-quality resources
• How to structure your literature review chapter
• Example of an actual literature review

What is a literature review?

The word “literature review” can refer to two related things that are part of the broader literature review process. The first is the task of  reviewing the literature  – i.e. sourcing and reading through the existing research relating to your research topic. The second is the  actual chapter  that you write up in your dissertation, thesis or research project. Let’s look at each of them:

Reviewing the literature

The first step of any literature review is to hunt down and  read through the existing research  that’s relevant to your research topic. To do this, you’ll use a combination of tools (we’ll discuss some of these later) to find journal articles, books, ebooks, research reports, dissertations, theses and any other credible sources of information that relate to your topic. You’ll then  summarise and catalogue these  for easy reference when you write up your literature review chapter. 

The literature review chapter

The second step of the literature review is to write the actual literature review chapter (this is usually the second chapter in a typical dissertation or thesis structure ). At the simplest level, the literature review chapter is an  overview of the key literature  that’s relevant to your research topic. This chapter should provide a smooth-flowing discussion of what research has already been done, what is known, what is unknown and what is contested in relation to your research topic. So, you can think of it as an  integrated review of the state of knowledge  around your research topic. 

What’s the purpose of a literature review?

The literature review chapter has a few important functions within your dissertation, thesis or research project. Let’s take a look at these:

Purpose #1 – Demonstrate your topic knowledge

The first function of the literature review chapter is, quite simply, to show the reader (or marker) that you  know what you’re talking about . In other words, a good literature review chapter demonstrates that you’ve read the relevant existing research and understand what’s going on – who’s said what, what’s agreed upon, disagreed upon and so on. This needs to be  more than just a summary  of who said what – it needs to integrate the existing research to  show how it all fits together  and what’s missing (which leads us to purpose #2, next). 

Purpose #2 – Reveal the research gap that you’ll fill

The second function of the literature review chapter is to  show what’s currently missing  from the existing research, to lay the foundation for your own research topic. In other words, your literature review chapter needs to show that there are currently “missing pieces” in terms of the bigger puzzle, and that  your study will fill one of those research gaps . By doing this, you are showing that your research topic is original and will help contribute to the body of knowledge. In other words, the literature review helps justify your research topic.  

Purpose #3 – Lay the foundation for your conceptual framework

The third function of the literature review is to form the  basis for a conceptual framework . Not every research topic will necessarily have a conceptual framework, but if your topic does require one, it needs to be rooted in your literature review. 

For example, let’s say your research aims to identify the drivers of a certain outcome – the factors which contribute to burnout in office workers. In this case, you’d likely develop a conceptual framework which details the potential factors (e.g. long hours, excessive stress, etc), as well as the outcome (burnout). Those factors would need to emerge from the literature review chapter – they can’t just come from your gut! 

So, in this case, the literature review chapter would uncover each of the potential factors (based on previous studies about burnout), which would then be modelled into a framework. 

Purpose #4 – To inform your methodology

The fourth function of the literature review is to  inform the choice of methodology  for your own research. As we’ve  discussed on the Grad Coach blog , your choice of methodology will be heavily influenced by your research aims, objectives and questions . Given that you’ll be reviewing studies covering a topic close to yours, it makes sense that you could learn a lot from their (well-considered) methodologies.

So, when you’re reviewing the literature, you’ll need to  pay close attention to the research design , methodology and methods used in similar studies, and use these to inform your methodology. Quite often, you’ll be able to  “borrow” from previous studies . This is especially true for quantitative studies , as you can use previously tried and tested measures and scales. 

How do I find articles for my literature review?

Finding quality journal articles is essential to crafting a rock-solid literature review. As you probably already know, not all research is created equally, and so you need to make sure that your literature review is  built on credible research . 

We could write an entire post on how to find quality literature (actually, we have ), but a good starting point is Google Scholar . Google Scholar is essentially the academic equivalent of Google, using Google’s powerful search capabilities to find relevant journal articles and reports. It certainly doesn’t cover every possible resource, but it’s a very useful way to get started on your literature review journey, as it will very quickly give you a good indication of what the  most popular pieces of research  are in your field.

One downside of Google Scholar is that it’s merely a search engine – that is, it lists the articles, but oftentimes  it doesn’t host the articles . So you’ll often hit a paywall when clicking through to journal websites. 

Thankfully, your university should provide you with access to their library, so you can find the article titles using Google Scholar and then search for them by name in your university’s online library. Your university may also provide you with access to  ResearchGate , which is another great source for existing research. 

Remember, the correct search keywords will be super important to get the right information from the start. So, pay close attention to the keywords used in the journal articles you read and use those keywords to search for more articles. If you can’t find a spoon in the kitchen, you haven’t looked in the right drawer. 

Need a helping hand?

How should I structure my literature review?

Unfortunately, there’s no generic universal answer for this one. The structure of your literature review will depend largely on your topic area and your research aims and objectives.

You could potentially structure your literature review chapter according to theme, group, variables , chronologically or per concepts in your field of research. We explain the main approaches to structuring your literature review here . You can also download a copy of our free literature review template to help you establish an initial structure.

In general, it’s also a good idea to start wide (i.e. the big-picture-level) and then narrow down, ending your literature review close to your research questions . However, there’s no universal one “right way” to structure your literature review. The most important thing is not to discuss your sources one after the other like a list – as we touched on earlier, your literature review needs to synthesise the research , not summarise it .

Ultimately, you need to craft your literature review so that it conveys the most important information effectively – it needs to tell a logical story in a digestible way. It’s no use starting off with highly technical terms and then only explaining what these terms mean later. Always assume your reader is not a subject matter expert and hold their hand through a journe y of the literature while keeping the functions of the literature review chapter (which we discussed earlier) front of mind.

Example of a literature review

In the video below, we walk you through a high-quality literature review from a dissertation that earned full distinction. This will give you a clearer view of what a strong literature review looks like in practice and hopefully provide some inspiration for your own. 

Wrapping Up

In this post, we’ve (hopefully) answered the question, “ what is a literature review? “. We’ve also considered the purpose and functions of the literature review, as well as how to find literature and how to structure the literature review chapter. If you’re keen to learn more, check out the literature review section of the Grad Coach blog , as well as our detailed video post covering how to write a literature review . 

Psst… there’s more!

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

16 Comments

Thanks for this review. It narrates what’s not been taught as tutors are always in a early to finish their classes.

Thanks for the kind words, Becky. Good luck with your literature review 🙂

This website is amazing, it really helps break everything down. Thank you, I would have been lost without it.

This is review is amazing. I benefited from it a lot and hope others visiting this website will benefit too.

Timothy T. Chol [email protected]

Thank you very much for the guiding in literature review I learn and benefited a lot this make my journey smooth I’ll recommend this site to my friends

This was so useful. Thank you so much.

Hi, Concept was explained nicely by both of you. Thanks a lot for sharing it. It will surely help research scholars to start their Research Journey.

The review is really helpful to me especially during this period of covid-19 pandemic when most universities in my country only offer online classes. Great stuff

Great Brief Explanation, thanks

So helpful to me as a student

GradCoach is a fantastic site with brilliant and modern minds behind it.. I spent weeks decoding the substantial academic Jargon and grounding my initial steps on the research process, which could be shortened to a couple of days through the Gradcoach. Thanks again!

This is an amazing talk. I paved way for myself as a researcher. Thank you GradCoach!

Well-presented overview of the literature!

This was brilliant. So clear. Thank you

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

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.

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

Literature Review versus Literature Survey. What is the difference?

I have read several articles about literature reviews. At the same time I found some guides about literature surveys . I am confused... how is a literature survey different from a literature review? What is the standard procedure to conduct a literature survey without making it a literature review?

• research-process
• literature-review
• literature-search

• 2 Welcome to Academia.SE. You have a couple of different questions in your post. We encourage multiple posts for multiple questions. See our tour and help center pages. Your questions about literature surveys and reviews are closely related and match the title. You should make a second post about how to pursue research given your background, since that it unrelated. –  Ben Norris Commented Dec 26, 2013 at 14:11

2 Answers 2

Reviewing the literature relevant to a given field is a standard part of doing research, as this serves to put your work into the context of the larger discipline in which you are working.

If there is an actual difference between the "literature survey" and the "literature review," it's that the latter can serve as a paper in and of itself, and is much more extensive than a literature survey, which is typically a major part of the introduction of a research paper.

The literature review as a standalone article could be compared to a "curated" overview of the literature in the field—who has done what, how do papers relate to one another, and what are the most important present and (possibly) future directions of work in such a field. Such papers can also be considerably longer than a traditional research paper, and some reviews might cite as many as a thousand references!

In comparison, the literature survey of a standard research article is usually much shorter (1-2 journal pages), and will not cite nearly as many papers (anywhere from 10 to 100, depending on the topic and the amount of relevant literature available).

• 2 Hi thanks for your comment. But I m still confused. I have seen survey papers are published and I have seen literature review sections in thesis. I mean aren't survey papers related to computer science are literature reviews ? –  Npn Commented Jan 1, 2014 at 14:51
• 3 In general, "review paper" is much more commonly used than "survey paper." Maybe CS prefers "survey paper," but essentially, there's no substantial difference between them. But every paper includes some sort of synopsis of existing literature; in a review or survey paper, it's the entire paper. –  aeismail Commented Jan 1, 2014 at 15:12
• Thanks ,I understood that review papers should be read to do a research. –  Npn Commented Jan 1, 2014 at 15:30

Well, I have written couple of survery/review articles published in prestigious journals here , here , and here and hence I think I can give you some hint on this question.

First View: One of the most important things to consider is that, these terms have been used differently in varied academic disciplines and even in some cases they are used interchangeably with negligible differences. Even in CS (my field), the way image processing scholars look at these terms may be different from networking researchers (I once experienced the comments I received from experts in image processing and realize how different they look at the works). So it might not be wrong if consider insignificant differences between these two terms.

What I describe here may be more applicable to CS. There are two different views at these terms that I describe here

Technically a feasible description around these two terms is that in survey works you should review the published papers and analyze, summarize, organize, and present findings in a novel way that can generate an original view to a certain aspect of the domain. For example, if researchers review the available research findings and conclude that electrical cars are emission-free vehicles, another researcher can review the same results and present an argument that building batteries themselves produce huge emission. The second contribution opens door for new research around emission-free production of car batteries. If we consider that survey paper is the result of literature survey, we can use the following definitions from CS journals.

• According to the definition of survey paper provided by IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials journal (one of the best CS journals), " The term survey, as applied here, is defined to mean a survey of the literature. A survey article should provide a comprehensive review of developments in a selected area ".
• In ACM Computing Survey (another prestigious CS journal), survey paper is described as “A paper that summarizes and organizes recent research results in a novel way that integrates and adds understanding to work in the field. A survey article emphasizes the classification of the existing literature, developing a perspective on the area, and evaluating trends.”
• In Elsevier journal of Computer Science Review, you will see here 4 that “Critical review of the relevant literature“ is required a component of every typical survey paper.

To summarize, these two terms can be distinguished using following notes (or maybe definitions)

Literature Survey: Is the process of analyzing, summarizing, organizing, and presenting novel conclusions from the results of technical review of large number of recently published scholarly articles. The results of the literature survey can contribute to the body of knowledge when peer-reviewed and published as survey articles

Literature Review: Is the process of technically and critically reviewing published papers to extract technical and scientific metadata from the presented contents. The metadata are usually used during literature survey to technically compare different but relevant works and draw conclusions on weaknesses and strengths of the works.

Second View: The second view over literature survey and review is that in survey, researchers usually utilize the author-provided contents available in the published works to qualitatively analyze and compare them with other related works. While in the former, you should not perform qualitative analysis. Rather it should be quantitative meaning that every research work under study should be implemented and benchmarked under certain criteria. The results of this benchmarking study can be used to compare them together and criticize or appreciate the works.

So basically you can look at current literature and find which approach is dominating in your field. Hope it helps. I try to revise it if I came a cross other points or useful comments here.

• 3 Up vote for Comprehensive answer. –  user3135645 Commented Dec 28, 2013 at 5:57
• 3 Nice answer (+1). I agree with you that the difference between the two terms is non-essential and preference in terminology depends mostly on the research discipline (field) and journal editors' preferences. Having said that, your distinction between the terms seems artificial, meaning that I don't see core logic that prevents applying both definitions to the opposite terms (unless I've missed some points). Also, I wanted to add that more accurate definitions should mention that literature survey or literature review is each both a process and an artifact , resulting from that process. –  Aleksandr Blekh Commented May 8, 2015 at 3:50

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged research-process literature-review literature-search ..

• Featured on Meta
• Bringing clarity to status tag usage on meta sites
• We've made changes to our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy - July 2024
• Announcing a change to the data-dump process

Hot Network Questions

• What would be non-slang equivalent of "copium"?
• Book or novel about an intelligent monolith from space that crashes into a mountain
• Safety pictograms
• A way to move an object with the 3D cursor location as the moving point?
• Are carbon fiber parts riveted, screwed or bolted?
• Distinctive form of "לאהוב ל-" instead of "לאהוב את"
• What rule or standard is used to assign a SOT number to a chip housing?
• Raspberry Screen Application
• Do metal objects attract lightning?
• Worth replacing greenboard for shower wall
• Is this a new result about hexagon?
• If inflation/cost of living is such a complex difficult problem, then why has the price of drugs been absoultly perfectly stable my whole life?
• Cramer's Rule when the determinant of coefficient matrix is zero?
• Could someone tell me what this part of an A320 is called in English?
• Is Intuition Indispensable in Mathematics?
• Encode a VarInt
• about flag changes in 16-bit calculations on the MC6800
• How did Oswald Mosley escape treason charges?
• I'm trying to remember a novel about an asteroid threatening to destroy the earth. I remember seeing the phrase "SHIVA IS COMING" on the cover
• Why doesn't the world fill with time travelers?
• Walk or Drive to school?
• Command-line script that strips out all comments in given source files
• Chromatic homotopy + algebraic geometry =?
• How can judicial independence be jeopardised by politicians' criticism?

Literature Review - what is a Literature Review, why it is important and how it is done

What are literature reviews, goals of literature reviews, types of literature reviews, about this guide/licence.

• Strategies to Find Sources
• Evaluating Literature Reviews and Sources
• Tips for Writing Literature Reviews
• Writing Literature Review: Useful Sites
• Citation Resources
• Other Academic Writings
• Useful Resources

Help is Just a Click Away

Search our FAQ Knowledge base, ask a question, chat, send comments...

Go to LibAnswers

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

Source NC State University Libraries. This video is published under a Creative Commons 3.0 BY-NC-SA US license.

What are the goals of creating a Literature Review?

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

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

When do you need to write a Literature Review?

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

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

Literature reviews are also written as standalone articles as a way to survey a particular research topic in-depth. This type of literature reviews look at a topic from a historical perspective to see how the understanding of the topic have change through time.

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.
• Book review essays/ Historiographical review essays : This is a type of review that focus on a small set of research books on a particular topic " to locate these books within current scholarship, critical methodologies, and approaches" in the field. - LARR
• 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 . San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing.
• 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 . Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
• 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.

Guide adapted from "Literature Review" , a guide developed by Marisol Ramos used under CC BY 4.0 /modified from original.

• Next: Strategies to Find Sources >>
• Last Updated: Jul 3, 2024 10:56 AM
• URL: https://lit.libguides.com/Literature-Review

The Library, Technological University of the Shannon: Midwest

Frequently asked questions

What is the purpose of a literature review.

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

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

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

Frequently asked questions: Academic writing

A rhetorical tautology is the repetition of an idea of concept using different words.

Rhetorical tautologies occur when additional words are used to convey a meaning that has already been expressed or implied. For example, the phrase “armed gunman” is a tautology because a “gunman” is by definition “armed.”

A logical tautology is a statement that is always true because it includes all logical possibilities.

Logical tautologies often take the form of “either/or” statements (e.g., “It will rain, or it will not rain”) or employ circular reasoning (e.g., “she is untrustworthy because she can’t be trusted”).

You may have seen both “appendices” or “appendixes” as pluralizations of “ appendix .” Either spelling can be used, but “appendices” is more common (including in APA Style ). Consistency is key here: make sure you use the same spelling throughout your paper.

The purpose of a lab report is to demonstrate your understanding of the scientific method with a hands-on lab experiment. Course instructors will often provide you with an experimental design and procedure. Your task is to write up how you actually performed the experiment and evaluate the outcome.

In contrast, a research paper requires you to independently develop an original argument. It involves more in-depth research and interpretation of sources and data.

A lab report is usually shorter than a research paper.

The sections of a lab report can vary between scientific fields and course requirements, but it usually contains the following:

• Title: expresses the topic of your study
• Abstract: summarizes your research aims, methods, results, and conclusions
• Introduction: establishes the context needed to understand the topic
• Method: describes the materials and procedures used in the experiment
• Results: reports all descriptive and inferential statistical analyses
• Discussion: interprets and evaluates results and identifies limitations
• Conclusion: sums up the main findings of your experiment
• References: list of all sources cited using a specific style (e.g. APA)
• Appendices: contains lengthy materials, procedures, tables or figures

A lab report conveys the aim, methods, results, and conclusions of a scientific experiment . Lab reports are commonly assigned in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields.

The abstract is the very last thing you write. You should only write it after your research is complete, so that you can accurately summarize the entirety of your thesis , dissertation or research paper .

If you’ve gone over the word limit set for your assignment, shorten your sentences and cut repetition and redundancy during the editing process. If you use a lot of long quotes , consider shortening them to just the essentials.

If you need to remove a lot of words, you may have to cut certain passages. Remember that everything in the text should be there to support your argument; look for any information that’s not essential to your point and remove it.

To make this process easier and faster, you can use a paraphrasing tool . With this tool, you can rewrite your text to make it simpler and shorter. If that’s not enough, you can copy-paste your paraphrased text into the summarizer . This tool will distill your text to its core message.

Revising, proofreading, and editing are different stages of the writing process .

• Revising is making structural and logical changes to your text—reformulating arguments and reordering information.
• Editing refers to making more local changes to things like sentence structure and phrasing to make sure your meaning is conveyed clearly and concisely.
• Proofreading involves looking at the text closely, line by line, to spot any typos and issues with consistency and correct them.

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

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

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

Avoid citing sources in your abstract . There are two reasons for this:

• The abstract should focus on your original research, not on the work of others.
• The abstract should be self-contained and fully understandable without reference to other sources.

There are some circumstances where you might need to mention other sources in an abstract: for example, if your research responds directly to another study or focuses on the work of a single theorist. In general, though, don’t include citations unless absolutely necessary.

An abstract is a concise summary of an academic text (such as a journal article or dissertation ). It serves two main purposes:

• To help potential readers determine the relevance of your paper for their own research.
• To communicate your key findings to those who don’t have time to read the whole paper.

Abstracts are often indexed along with keywords on academic databases, so they make your work more easily findable. Since the abstract is the first thing any reader sees, it’s important that it clearly and accurately summarizes the contents of your paper.

In a scientific paper, the methodology always comes after the introduction and before the results , discussion and conclusion . The same basic structure also applies to a thesis, dissertation , or research proposal .

Depending on the length and type of document, you might also include a literature review or theoretical framework before the methodology.

Whether you’re publishing a blog, submitting a research paper , or even just writing an important email, there are a few techniques you can use to make sure it’s error-free:

• Take a break : Set your work aside for at least a few hours so that you can look at it with fresh eyes.
• Proofread a printout : Staring at a screen for too long can cause fatigue – sit down with a pen and paper to check the final version.
• Use digital shortcuts : Take note of any recurring mistakes (for example, misspelling a particular word, switching between US and UK English , or inconsistently capitalizing a term), and use Find and Replace to fix it throughout the document.

If you want to be confident that an important text is error-free, it might be worth choosing a professional proofreading service instead.

Editing and proofreading are different steps in the process of revising a text.

Editing comes first, and can involve major changes to content, structure and language. The first stages of editing are often done by authors themselves, while a professional editor makes the final improvements to grammar and style (for example, by improving sentence structure and word choice ).

Proofreading is the final stage of checking a text before it is published or shared. It focuses on correcting minor errors and inconsistencies (for example, in punctuation and capitalization ). Proofreaders often also check for formatting issues, especially in print publishing.

The cost of proofreading depends on the type and length of text, the turnaround time, and the level of services required. Most proofreading companies charge per word or page, while freelancers sometimes charge an hourly rate.

For proofreading alone, which involves only basic corrections of typos and formatting mistakes, you might pay as little as $0.01 per word, but in many cases, your text will also require some level of editing , which costs slightly more.

It’s often possible to purchase combined proofreading and editing services and calculate the price in advance based on your requirements.

There are many different routes to becoming a professional proofreader or editor. The necessary qualifications depend on the field – to be an academic or scientific proofreader, for example, you will need at least a university degree in a relevant subject.

For most proofreading jobs, experience and demonstrated skills are more important than specific qualifications. Often your skills will be tested as part of the application process.

To learn practical proofreading skills, you can choose to take a course with a professional organization such as the Society for Editors and Proofreaders . Alternatively, you can apply to companies that offer specialized on-the-job training programmes, such as the Scribbr Academy .

Ask our team

Want to contact us directly? No problem.  We  are always here for you.

• Email [email protected]
• Start live chat
• Call +1 (510) 822-8066
• WhatsApp +31 20 261 6040

Our team helps students graduate by offering:

• A world-class citation generator
• Plagiarism Checker software powered by Turnitin
• Innovative Citation Checker software
• Professional proofreading services
• Over 300 helpful articles about academic writing, citing sources, plagiarism, and more

Scribbr specializes in editing study-related documents . We proofread:

• PhD dissertations
• Research proposals
• Personal statements
• Admission essays
• Motivation letters
• Reflection papers
• Journal articles
• Capstone projects

Scribbr’s Plagiarism Checker is powered by elements of Turnitin’s Similarity Checker , namely the plagiarism detection software and the Internet Archive and Premium Scholarly Publications content databases .

The add-on AI detector is powered by Scribbr’s proprietary software.

The Scribbr Citation Generator is developed using the open-source Citation Style Language (CSL) project and Frank Bennett’s citeproc-js . It’s the same technology used by dozens of other popular citation tools, including Mendeley and Zotero.

You can find all the citation styles and locales used in the Scribbr Citation Generator in our publicly accessible repository on Github .

PSYC 210: Foundations of Psychology

• Tips for Searching for Articles

What is a literature review?

Conducting a literature review, organizing a literature review, writing a literature review, helpful book.

• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

A literature review is important because it:

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

Source: "What is a Literature Review?", Old Dominion University,  https://guides.lib.odu.edu/c.php?g=966167&p=6980532

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question. 

Your literature review should be guided by a central research question. It 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.
• Write down terms that are related to your question for they will be useful for searches later. 

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.
• Consider these things when planning your time for research. 

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

• By Research Guide 

4. Conduct your searches and find the literature. 

• Review the abstracts carefully - this will save you time!
• Many databases will have a search history tab for you to return to for later.
• Use bibliographies and references of research studies to locate others.
• Use citation management software such as Zotero to keep track of your research citations. 

5. Review the literature. 

Some questions to help you analyze the research: 

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

Source: "Literature Review", University of West Florida,  https://libguides.uwf.edu/c.php?g=215113&p=5139469

A literature review is not a summary of the sources but a synthesis of the sources. It is made up of the topics the sources are discussing. Each section of the review is focused on a topic, and the relevant sources are discussed within the context of that topic. 

1. Select the most relevant material from the sources

• Could be material that answers the question directly
• Extract as a direct quote or paraphrase 

2. Arrange that material so you can focus on it apart from the source text itself

• You are now working with fewer words/passages
• Material is all in one place

3. Group similar points, themes, or topics together and label them 

• The labels describe the points, themes, or topics that are the backbone of your paper’s structure

4. Order those points, themes, or topics as you will discuss them in the paper, and turn the labels into actual assertions

• A sentence that makes a point that is directly related to your research question or thesis 

This is now the outline for your literature review. 

Source: "Organizing a Review of the Literature – The Basics", George Mason University Writing Center,  https://writingcenter.gmu.edu/writing-resources/research-based-writing/organizing-literature-reviews-the-basics

• Literature Review Matrix Here is a template on how people tend to organize their thoughts. The matrix template is a good way to write out the key parts of each article and take notes. Downloads as an XLSX file.

The most common way that literature reviews are organized is by theme or author. Find a general pattern of structure for the review. When organizing the review, consider the following: 

• the methodology 
• the quality of the findings or conclusions
• major strengths and weaknesses
• any other important information

Writing Tips: 

• Be selective - Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. It should directly relate to the review's focus.
• Use quotes sparingly.
• Keep your own voice - Your voice (the writer's) should remain front and center. .   
• Aim for one key figure/table per section to illustrate complex content, summarize a large body of relevant data, or describe the order of a process
• Legend below image/figure and above table and always refer to them in text 

Source: "Composing your Literature Review", Florida A&M University,  https://library.famu.edu/c.php?g=577356&p=3982811

• << Previous: Tips for Searching for Articles
• Next: Citing Your Sources >>
• Last Updated: Aug 21, 2024 3:43 PM
• URL: https://infoguides.pepperdine.edu/PSYC210

Explore. Discover. Create.

Copyright ©  2022  Pepperdine University

Something went wrong when searching for seed articles. Please try again soon.

No articles were found for that search term.

Author, year The title of the article goes here

LITERATURE REVIEW SOFTWARE FOR BETTER RESEARCH

“Litmaps is a game changer for finding novel literature... it has been invaluable for my productivity.... I also got my PhD student to use it and they also found it invaluable, finding several gaps they missed”

Varun Venkatesh

Austin Health, Australia

As a full-time researcher, Litmaps has become an indispensable tool in my arsenal. The Seed Maps and Discover features of Litmaps have transformed my literature review process, streamlining the identification of key citations while revealing previously overlooked relevant literature, ensuring no crucial connection goes unnoticed. A true game-changer indeed!

Ritwik Pandey

Doctoral Research Scholar – Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning

Using Litmaps for my research papers has significantly improved my workflow. Typically, I start with a single paper related to my topic. Whenever I find an interesting work, I add it to my search. From there, I can quickly cover my entire Related Work section.

David Fischer

Research Associate – University of Applied Sciences Kempten

“It's nice to get a quick overview of related literature. Really easy to use, and it helps getting on top of the often complicated structures of referencing”

Christoph Ludwig

Technische Universität Dresden, Germany

“This has helped me so much in researching the literature. Currently, I am beginning to investigate new fields and this has helped me hugely”

Aran Warren

Canterbury University, NZ

“I can’t live without you anymore! I also recommend you to my students.”

Professor at The Chinese University of Hong Kong

“Seeing my literature list as a network enhances my thinking process!”

Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium

“Incredibly useful tool to get to know more literature, and to gain insight in existing research”

KU Leuven, Belgium

“As a student just venturing into the world of lit reviews, this is a tool that is outstanding and helping me find deeper results for my work.”

Franklin Jeffers

South Oregon University, USA

“Any researcher could use it! The paper recommendations are great for anyone and everyone”

Swansea University, Wales

“This tool really helped me to create good bibtex references for my research papers”

Ali Mohammed-Djafari

Director of Research at LSS-CNRS, France

“Litmaps is extremely helpful with my research. It helps me organize each one of my projects and see how they relate to each other, as well as to keep up to date on publications done in my field”

Daniel Fuller

Clarkson University, USA

As a person who is an early researcher and identifies as dyslexic, I can say that having research articles laid out in the date vs cite graph format is much more approachable than looking at a standard database interface. I feel that the maps Litmaps offers lower the barrier of entry for researchers by giving them the connections between articles spaced out visually. This helps me orientate where a paper is in the history of a field. Thus, new researchers can look at one of Litmap's "seed maps" and have the same information as hours of digging through a database.

Baylor Fain

Postdoctoral Associate – University of Florida

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.

• Open access
• Published: 29 August 2024

From admission to discharge: a systematic review of clinical natural language processing along the patient journey

• Katrin Klug 1 ,
• Katharina Beckh 1 ,
• Dario Antweiler 1 ,
• Nilesh Chakraborty 1 ,
• Giulia Baldini 2 , 3 ,
• Katharina Laue 4 ,
• René Hosch 2 , 3 ,
• Felix Nensa 2 , 3 ,
• Martin Schuler 4 &
• Sven Giesselbach 1  

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making volume  24 , Article number:  238 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Medical text, as part of an electronic health record, is an essential information source in healthcare. Although natural language processing (NLP) techniques for medical text are developing fast, successful transfer into clinical practice has been rare. Especially the hospital domain offers great potential while facing several challenges including many documents per patient, multiple departments and complex interrelated processes.

In this work, we survey relevant literature to identify and classify approaches which exploit NLP in the clinical context. Our contribution involves a systematic mapping of related research onto a prototypical patient journey in the hospital, along which medical documents are created, processed and consumed by hospital staff and patients themselves. Specifically, we reviewed which dataset types, dataset languages, model architectures and tasks are researched in current clinical NLP research. Additionally, we extract and analyze major obstacles during development and implementation. We discuss options to address them and argue for a focus on bias mitigation and model explainability.

While a patient’s hospital journey produces a significant amount of structured and unstructured documents, certain steps and documents receive more research attention than others. Diagnosis, Admission and Discharge are clinical patient steps that are researched often across the surveyed paper. In contrast, our findings reveal significant under-researched areas such as Treatment, Billing, After Care, and Smart Home. Leveraging NLP in these stages can greatly enhance clinical decision-making and patient outcomes. Additionally, clinical NLP models are mostly based on radiology reports, discharge letters and admission notes, even though we have shown that many other documents are produced throughout the patient journey. There is a significant opportunity in analyzing a wider range of medical documents produced throughout the patient journey to improve the applicability and impact of NLP in healthcare.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that there is a significant opportunity to leverage NLP approaches to advance clinical decision-making systems, as there remains a considerable understudied potential for the analysis of patient journey data.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Natural language processing (NLP) has achieved significant success in applications such as translation, speech recognition, text generation, virtual assistants, and chatbots [ 1 , 2 ]. These applications cover industrial, creative as well as lifestyle domains, and more recently, also the healthcare sector [ 3 , 4 ]. Due to an increasing number of patients, rising costs and larger amounts of data, there is a high demand for automated processing of health-related documents. Hospitals struggle to provide high-quality care due to the complexity of patient histories and the high volume of medical documents generated during hospital stays, including reports from pathology, radiology, laboratory, surgery, and care documentation [ 5 ]. This information and is crucial for any decision on diagnostics, therapy or subsequent care. Significant effort is dedicated to the tasks of writing, filing, sorting, searching, retrieving, issuing, and managing medical records by the clinicians. But it is nearly impossible for clinicians to process this bulk of information [ 5 ]. Therefore, it is highly desirable to supply healthcare professionals as well as patients with information contained in these full texts by extracting data, mapping it onto clinical guidelines or otherwise inform their decisions. Hence, almost all Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS) depend on a continuous and reliable processing of clinical text [ 6 ]. Despite the promising capabilities of NLP for enhancing clinical decision-making and operational efficiency, its integration into real-world healthcare settings remains limited due to challenges such as data quality, lack of standardization, and inadequate alignment with clinical workflows [ 7 ]. This study aims to address these challenges and provide solutions to facilitate the integration of NLP in clinical environments. The significance of this research lies in its potential to bridge the gap between NLP research and its application, ultimately contributing to improved patient outcomes and operational efficiency. Our goal is to equip researchers with established and successful approaches for clinical NLP. Together with the mounting number of publications in this research area, this motivates a systematic survey of existing approaches.

In this survey, we report on the current state of research in clinical NLP along the different stages of a patient’s journey through a hospital. In collaboration with doctors as domain experts, we have created a prototypical patient journey. In total, we reviewed 8.527 papers, applying a filtering and screening process to include medical and clinical papers. On the one hand, we used NLP-related tags to map the papers to relevant NLP tasks, models, datasets, and data languages. On the other hand, we used clinical tags, such as general patient journey and patient journey documents, to ensure mapping the NLP applications to the actual patient journey. Previous work, such as that by [ 7 ], provides a foundation for understanding the practical considerations necessary for developing effective clinical NLP systems.

We identify gaps between research and clinical application of NLP in hospitals, as well as areas that require further exploration and development. In particular, our results show that there is a lack of research in developing trustworthy models, and we thus highlight distinct challenges in this field of NLP in the clinical setting and suggest an outline on how to address them during development.

We begin by describing related work in the area of NLP for hospital documents. The subsequent section describes in detail a prototypical patient journey, along which medical documents are created, processed and consumed by hospital staff and patients themselves. We describe our methodology of identification, selection and extraction of relevant publications in the literature and the key insights obtained. In the main section, we map recognized concepts onto our framework consisting of multiple technical and medical dimensions and follow up with an analysis and discussion of the results. The final section concludes with a description of overarching patterns and suggestions for the applications of NLP systems in clinical practice.

Related work

The use of NLP in medicine has been the focus of several surveys in recent years. Topics that have been investigated include deep learning architectures deployed in medical imaging and NLP [ 8 ], or the implementation of task-oriented dialogue systems for healthcare applications [ 9 ]. Other studies have concentrated on NLP systems for capturing and standardizing unstructured clinical information and generate structured data [ 10 ]. Most of the mentioned surveys on NLP in the medical domain focus on a specific task, such as converting image to text or dialogue systems, and do not provide a holistic view of NLP applications in healthcare.

Recently, some studies have explored the patient journey in the hospital. While [ 11 ] applied process mining techniques to the patient journey to improve the patients’ satisfaction, [ 12 ] discussed general AI opportunities along the patient journey. To the best of our knowledge, no prior research has focused on mapping the patient journey onto NLP tasks in research. Therefore, in our survey, we concentrate on this mapping to analyze the current NLP research and applications along the patient journey by reviewing relevant publications. Unlike previous studies that focus on specific tasks, our review provides a holistic view of NLP applications throughout the patient journey, identifying gaps in areas such as After Care and Smart Home. Our approach integrates NLP into various stages of the patient journey, offering a detailed perspective that previous studies lack. By mapping the patient journey onto NLP tasks, we provide insights into how NLP can be utilized not only in clinical settings but also in post-discharge and home care scenarios. This broadens the scope of NLP applications beyond traditional settings. Furthermore, our approach identifies overlooked areas, offering a roadmap for future research and development in NLP applications across patient care.

• Patient journey

To better illustrate the amount of unstructured documents that patients encounter during their hospital stay, we employed a case study approach to present the hospital journey of a cancer patient. Specifically, we focused on the patient journey of a lung cancer patient, as it is one of the most commonly diagnosed subtypes of cancer, and cancer is the second leading cause of death in the western world [ 13 ].

Typically, a suspicion of lung carcinoma leads to admission to the pneumology department. Multiple tests are conducted to reach a diagnosis. The treatment options for the patient are discussed by a multidisciplinary tumor board and the patient is transferred to the oncology department to undergo the chosen therapy. Once completed, the patient is discharged from the hospital, but may continue to visit for follow-up checks to ensure effective treatment. Documents collected during this journey are highlighted in yellow. The steps in this example are marked with the symbols of the corresponding phases of the general patient journey, shown at the top

The patient journey begins with a suspected diagnosis of lung cancer, followed by complex diagnostic procedures and resulting in cancer treatment [ 14 , 15 ], as shown in Fig.  1 , where we also highlighted the emerging documents during this process. Medical information systems typically document these findings and information in unstructured text, except for laboratory test results, which are usually available in a structured format.

Most commonly, lung cancer is suspected based on arising symptoms or as an incidental finding in an imaging study. In the next step, the patient gets hospitalized for further diagnostic procedures, usually in the pneumology department. This diagnostic pathway starts with the anamnesis and a physical examination by the physician as well as laboratory tests, followed by a tumor biopsy and a lymph node sampling for histological examination and staging. The tumor staging is completed by performing further imaging studies. For the staging of lung cancer, a positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) and a brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are the gold standard. To evaluate the cardiopulmonary function of the patient, functional tests by means of electrocardiogram (ECG), transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) and pulmonary function tests are carried out. Each of these steps produces one or multiple reports. When all the diagnostic information is available, the treatment strategies are discussed in a multidisciplinary lung cancer tumor board consisting of medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, pulmonologists, thoracic surgeons, radiologists and/or nuclear medicine specialists and pathologists. If a chemotherapy is recommended, the patient is transferred to the oncology department. Once the consent discussion has been completed, a systemic anticancer therapy such as a chemotherapy and/or an immunotherapy is applied. Following the systemic therapy, the patient gets discharged. Approximately one week after the application of the therapy, an ambulant laboratory test is recommended. If necessary, the patient returns for the second cycle of chemotherapy after a typical waiting period of two to three weeks.

From this use case we initially identified five main patient journey stages: Admission , Diagnosis , Treatment , Discharge and After Care . In each of these stages, different documents are collected, processed and used by other clinicians in later stages. As shown in Fig.  1 , the corresponding events for each stage have been mapped using respective symbols. The diagnostic phase is typically the most document-intensive, as patients undergo numerous tests and procedures to obtain a suitable diagnosis. The treatment phase also generates a significant amount of documentation, owing to the close monitoring of the patient’s progress to ensure that the treatment is proceeding smoothly. Our particular patient journey involves fewer documents in the other three stages. Although not directly evident in the patient journey, we have included the initial stage of the journey, Smart Home , as Internet of Things (IoT) applications are becoming increasingly relevant in the healthcare sector [ 16 ]. Patients may, for example, bring heart rate measurements monitored using their smartwatches, which could be used as an additional diagnostic tool. Another part of the journey that does not directly influence the patient care is Billing , which is a source of multiple unstructured documents.

In summary, the hospital journey of a patient, in this example a cancer patient, generates a significant amount of structured and unstructured documents. To better understand this process, we have divided the journey into seven main stages, where each stage produces different types of documents that are crucial to the overall care of the patient. By recognizing the document-intensive nature of the patient journey and the potential for unstructured data to impede care, we can begin to explore the benefits of implementing NLP technologies to streamline document handling and improve patient outcomes.

In order to analyze the transfer of NLP research into the clinical domain and map the actual use of NLP throughout the patient journey, we conducted a systematic review of 8.527 papers based on publication venue, date, and title combined with a keyword search as our selection criteria. The tagging was performed for two dimensions. The first dimension concentrated on NLP-related tags to map the papers to relevant NLP tasks, models, datasets, and data languages. The second dimension focused on clinical tags, such as general patient journey and patient journey documents. The final list of publications was then screened with NLP-related and patient journey related tags. A team of four reviewers annotated the papers, and the papers were equally split among the reviewers. Each paper was annotated by two reviewers and in case of doubts, a third reviewer was used for tie-breaks. In visualizing the results, we employed Python along with its packages including Seaborn, Matplotlib, Pandas, Plotly, and Sankey, ensuring comprehensive data representation. In the following, we provide an overview of the methodology used in our review.

Search criteria and screening process

In the following, we describe our search criteria and screening process for selecting literature.

Publication venue . In our systematic review we focused on articles published in NLP conferences from the ACL anthology (ACL, EMNLP, COLING, CoNLL, EACL, NAACL, AACL) and workshops from end of 2018 to December 2022. Specifically, we targeted workshops that have a medical research focus, like BioNLP, NLPMC, SMM4H, ClinicalNLP, LOUHI. All articles were last extracted in January 2023.

Title screening . To further refine the search, we employed a keyword filtering process. We selected relevant keywords through discussions with healthcare professionals in the clinical domain and screened the titles of the initial list of papers. The following list of keywords was used: medical, medicine, health, care, patient, treat, cancer, hospital, surgery, surgical, drug, emergency, doctor, surgeon, human, disease, diagnosis, trauma, report, discharge, clinical .

Abstract and paper screening .

Relevance and Medical Domain: Next, we filtered our remaining paper list by screening the abstracts and excluding papers that are not relevant for the medical domain. Additionally, we excluded papers that were research or tutorial proposals, or demo papers.

Clinical Screening: As our research focuses on clinical NLP and the patient journey in a hospital, we further refined the list by identifying the papers that are relevant for the clinical domain. Research analyzing bio markers or social media posts were excluded by our clinical screening process. The initial collection, based on the selection of the publication venue and the years, consisted of 8.527 papers. The filtering process led to 609 publications after the keyword search in our title screening, 478 after relevance and medical domain filtering and remaining 185 clinical domain papers (see Fig.  2 ).

Amount of papers per screening process step for the selection of the reviewed paper list

Tagging process

Our review involved mapping every paper of our screening process to several NLP-related tags, with the aim of identifying which models, tasks, datasets, and data languages are most commonly used in healthcare NLP research. To identify the current applications of NLP research in the hospital, we included tags for patient journey and document types. Specifically, we assigned tags to each paper based on the stage of the patient journey that was being addressed (e.g., diagnosis, treatment, admission), as well as the type of patient journey document that was being analyzed (e.g., clinical notes, discharge summaries, radiology reports) (see “ Patient journey ” section). For this part of the analysis, we only focused on the papers left after the Clinical Screening process, as our patient journey concentrates on a hospital patient (see “ Search criteria and screening process ” section). We assigned multiple tags where applicable, e.g. when multiple datasets were used. Our detailed tagging scheme can be seen in Tables 1 and  2 .

Distribution of the number of papers per NLP related tag category: ( a ) dataset language ( b ) dataset type ( c ) NLP task ( d ) model type.Values that fell below the 5% threshold were aggregated into “Other” category for the purposes of analysis, except for dataset language, where we display the top three dataset languages

In this section, we present our findings in relation to (1) NLP systems in the healthcare domain and (2) along the patient journey.

Mapping NLP tags

In the following, we describe the results of our review with respect to the NLP methodologies and datasets implemented in the healthcare domain.

Dataset language : Various studies have analyzed or explored datasets consisting of multiple data languages. Through the analysis of 487 papers, we observed that English was the most frequently used dataset language (419). The second and third most used dataset language were Spanish (36) and Chinese (25). The remaining 237 languages were classified under the ‘Other’ category (see Fig.  3 ).

Dataset type : In terms of datasets, we found that patient related data, like electronic health records, were the most commonly used sources of data (27%), followed by clinical studies (20.7%), and forum posts, chat logs, social media datasets (19.1%), as demonstrated in Fig.  3 .

Model type : Figure 3 displays that transformer-based models were the most commonly used type of NLP model across a variety of tasks (44.94%), followed by recurrent neural networks (RNN) (20.39%). As shown in Fig.  4 , in 2019, RNNs were still used more frequently than transformer-based models. The use of transformer-based models increased over a four-year period, culminating in a peak in 2021 and 2022.

NLP Task : Finally, we observed that certain tasks, such as classification with almost 30%, information extraction with 26.81% and text generation/text summarization which account for 12.52%, were more frequently studied than others.

Development of model types used in NLP research over the past years

Mapping of patient journey

Analyzing the clinical patient journey, we observe that most of the clinical NLP papers focus on applications during the Diagnosis, Admission and Discharge phase of the patient, while referring to admission notes, radiology reports and discharge letters. It is remarkable that the most researched patient journey step is the Diagnosis while taking into account mostly radiology reports. As shown in Fig.  5 , paper with the focus on the Treatment of the patients do not use a specific document type as a focal point, but an evenly distribution of admission notes, radiology reports, documented histories, discharge summaries and other document types. In contrast to that, patient journey steps like Smart Home, After Care, or Billing are less represented in the clinical NLP literature.

Patient Journey results: Comparison of patient journey steps (left side) with the patient journey documents (right side). The width of each stream shows how often the patient journey step or document type appeared in the reviewed papers

We observe that most of the publications in the medical NLP literature use English datasets, see also [ 17 ]. This indicates that other languages are under-researched in the medical domain whereby potential of clinical NLP application gets lost. Focusing on English data leads to an imbalance between non-English and English medical applications [ 18 ]. NLP models that are trained solely on English data may not perform as well when applied to other languages [ 19 ], because language models often rely on patterns and structures that are specific to a particular language, and these patterns may not be present in other languages [ 20 ]. Furthermore, by expanding the scope of research to other languages, researchers can uncover new patterns and structures that may not be present in English, leading to new breakthroughs and advancements in the field [ 19 ]. We already observe attempts to include non-English datasets. For example, most studies that dealt with Spanish datasets were published in the sixth and seventh Workshop on Social Media Mining for Health Applications and assessed Spanish tweets regarding health conditions [ 21 , 22 ] or fifth Workshop on BioNLP Open Shared Tasks [ 23 ].

Looking at the data types, it is noteworthy that patient related records are used most frequently. Wornow et al. [ 17 ] found that there is an over-representation of models that were trained on the MIMIC-III dataset, as it is one of the few public available patient related datasets. Other publicly available datasets are needed to create models that are trained on larger clinical data with current knowledge about diseases and treatments [ 17 ]. Our findings show that current NLP research tends to focus on specific types of documents, such as radiology reports, discharge letters, and admission notes. There is a significant opportunity in analyzing a wider range of medical documents produced throughout the patient journey, such as care and disease progression documentation. Expanding the scope of analyzed documents to include a more diverse range of patient data will enhance the applicability and impact of NLP in healthcare. It is striking that although transformer models have been discussed in research since 2017 when they were first invented [ 24 ], they were mainly used in medical applications from 2020 onwards. This could indicate that there is a general delay in applying novel methods in the medical domain. While transformer models have shown promising results in research papers after 2017, implementing them in real-world applications may be challenging. Firstly, transformer models are often large and computationally intensive, which can make them difficult to run on resource-limited devices [ 25 ]. Additionally, transformer models require large amounts of high-quality training data. In the healthcare domain, obtaining such data can be difficult and limited due to sensitive patient related data that needs to be anonymized first [ 26 , 27 , 28 ]. Furthermore, transformer models are often referred to as “black boxes” because it can be difficult to understand how and why they predict a specific output. This lack of interpretability can make it challenging to use these models in the medical domain, where transparency and accountability are important [ 29 , 30 , 31 ].

Remarkable is the extent to which clinical systems can be supported by NLP technologies. We have shown that a patient generates a significant amount of structured and unstructured documents throughout the journey in a hospital. We observed that specific steps of the patient journey are researched more often than others. While Diagnosis and Admission are areas that are researched primarily in the clinical NLP community, there seem to be patient journey steps that are under-researched, e.g. Smart Home, Treatment, After Care, Billing, even though a lot of documents are produced for every patient in the hospital (see “ Patient journey ” section). In terms of documents, admission notes, radiology reports and discharge letters are used most frequently, which is in line with the previously analyzed patient journey steps (see Fig.  5 ). Patient journey steps such as Admission and Diagnosis are often considered to be critical in the patient journey, where early detection and intervention can have a significant impact on patient outcomes [ 32 ]. This may make them a priority for research and development of NLP models. One reason could again be that researchers may focus on points of the patient journey where high-quality data is available like admission notes, radiology and pathology reports. We observe that radiology reports are mainly used for the diagnosis in our review, which indicates that there is still a huge potential of clinical NLP technologies analyzing other report types than radiology reports for improving the diagnosis of a patient, as shown in Fig.  1 . One reason could be that radiology and imaging reports are one part of the MIMIC-III dataset and predominantly used for research. Additionally, some data that is available and not related to patient data may be medically related but not clinically related. Examples are investigation of social media data to analyze the symptoms of COVID patients [ 33 ], detect patients’ emotional states [ 34 ] and mental illnesses [ 35 , 36 ] or identify adverse drug reactions [ 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 ]. This type of data provides valuable insights into health trends and biological mechanisms, contributing to the broader understanding of medical science. However, it may not have immediate implications for patient care, unlike clinically related data, which includes patient history, diagnostic test results, and treatment outcomes. Our review shows that there is still a huge potential to support clinical decision systems with NLP methodologies, as the application opportunities lack behind the application reality. Researchers should explore NLP applications in Treatment and Billing phases to automate routine tasks, thereby reducing administrative burden and enhancing patient care which can lead to more accurate diagnoses and effective treatment plans. Practitioners can benefit from implementing NLP tools for better patient monitoring and follow-up in After Care. Furthermore, interdisciplinary collaboration between NLP researchers, clinicians, and healthcare administrators is crucial. Such collaborations ensure that NLP innovations are both technically sound and practically useful in clinical settings. Additionally, developing user-friendly NLP applications that are intuitive and easy to use can facilitate quicker adoption into clinical practice. By focusing on these aspects, both medical practitioners and researchers can use NLP methods to improve patient outcomes, streamline clinical workflows, and improve medical research.

There are several challenges which might prevent or slow down the process of applying NLP technologies in the hospital setting. While primary down-stream tasks can now be reasonably tackled, we are especially facing challenges in the field of trustworthiness. Contrary to our expectation, the reviewed papers largely omit this topic (ca. 16% of papers address trustworthy ML topics). In the following section we address this research opportunity and concentrate on the discussion of three challenges in the field: out-of-distribution generalization, explainability and bias.

• Out-of-distribution generalization

One of the fundamental assumptions in supervised machine learning is the existence of identical and independently distributed data. Models perform well provided that test-time data points are distributed similarly to those used for training. In practice, we may have several sources of distribution shift between the training environment and the setting in which the model is deployed, leading to a lack of performance.

One of the sources of distribution shifts is subpopulation shift [ 41 ]. The training dataset may consist of data points that have the same label, while simultaneously having multiple distinct subgroups among them, i.e. the label only coarsely describes the meaningful variation within the population. A data subgroup might contain spurious correlations between its features and labels that do not hold outside this subgroup. If such subgroups are large enough, a model trained by minimizing empirical risk will latch onto these spurious correlations and underperform on “minority subgroups”. Shim et al. [ 42 ] investigate imbalance in a medical code prediction dataset in terms of demographic variables, and observe the issue of subpopulation shift while analyzing the performance differences of the model across demographic groups. This problem may be exacerbated when the model is tested in a deployment scenario with different distributions of demographic groups than that encountered during training. Holderness et al. [ 43 ] show that off-the-shelf sentiment classification models trained on general domain data do not perform very well on psychiatric patient health records. They further demonstrate that domain adaptation methods based on self-training and k-nearest neighbors can be used to adapt off-the-shelf models by leveraging a corpus of unlabeled electronic health record data.

Medical records which are written by clinicians from different specialties usually differ in terms of writing styles or terminologies used. In order to train Named Entity Recognition (NER) models on medical records, human-annotated datasets are needed. But the cost of human annotation makes it difficult to create labelled datasets in all specialties. Wang et al. [ 44 ] propose a label-aware domain transfer method for medical NER that learns a close feature mapping between source and target domains. This enables NER models trained on one specialty to be conveniently applied to another one with minimal annotation effort. Liu et al. [ 45 ] uses domain-adversarial training to learn whether a pair of disease phrases from different domains are semantically similar without requiring a lot of pairwise labelled data.

Explainable machine learning

One key challenge in adopting machine learning systems in the clinical domain is missing transparency [ 29 , 30 , 31 ]. NLP systems, in particular, suffer from opaqueness due to a reliance on deep neural networks. This is evident in the results of the literature analysis: Over 70% of papers rely on transformer variants, CNNs or RNNs, which are notoriously hard to interpret.

The field of explainable machine learning offers methods to address the lack of transparency [ 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 ]. Explainability in the clinical context is relevant for compliance legislation, system improvements and verification [ 51 ]. Explanations have different forms, such as text highlighting, rules or examples. The most prevalent explanation form in NLP is feature attribution, which typically highlights the features, e.g. tokens, that contribute most to a prediction [ 52 ]. While abundant explanation methods are available for predictive tasks, explanations for generative tasks are lacking and present an open research topic.

From the reviewed work, 21 papers (4%) explicitly mention explainability or interpretability. As is common in the NLP domain, the terms are mostly used interchangeably [ 53 ]. Roughly 40% use feature attribution as explanation form, which is in line with other reviews [ 52 ]. Another 40% integrate interpretable components or can be considered interpretable-by-design. Six papers report quantitative or qualitative evaluation, incl. three works which evaluate with one or two clinicians. In contrast, the majority of papers claims that the model is more interpretable or explainable without any quantification. Anecdotal evidence is common and a fundamental flaw in the field [ 54 ].

Ghassemi et al. [ 55 ] argue that current explainability methods are not sufficient for certain purposes in the clinical domain and argue to focus more strongly on validation practices. The explanation purpose is often not defined, which hinders the assessment of usefulness. In addition, we agree that rigorous validation is important and we start to see works in this direction, e.g. [ 56 ]. However, we emphasize that e.g. the robustness field is facing similar challenges with guarantees. A sole focus on validation is not sufficient to tackle transparency requirements. For this reason, we call for purpose-driven development and adequate evaluation to derive in which ways explanations are most beneficial for the clinical context.

In the medical domain, data bias is prevalent and imminent. While biomedical publications are mainly affected by reporting bias [ 57 ], medical record datasets can contain bias from multiple sources, including authorship, target audience, local practices, type of trigger, available time, deployed software or monetary incentives [ 58 ]. Whether employed dataset(s) are representative for a patient population is heavily dependent on data collection practices. For instance, in the case of acute kidney injury (AKI), less than 29% of all clinically identified AKI patients receive a corresponding ICD code in their patient record [ 59 ]. NLP models have trouble to differentiate sentences describing normalities from important abnormalities in radiology reports [ 60 ]. For machine learning systems that support clinical staff and patients in taking informed decisions, non-discrimination of protected groups is an essential goal. Handling bias in machine learning often consists of detecting and, when indicated, reducing bias. Detection is often driven by calculating statistical fairness metrics, such as Group fairness or Equalized Odds . It must be emphasized that no single metric is sufficient on its own, instead each application requires a combination of metrics, selected by a careful consideration of moral reasoning and domain-specific challenges [ 61 ]. Debiasing word embeddings and post-processing via equalized-odds can improve downstream clinical NLP tasks [ 62 ].

Limitations

While we believe that our selection of NLP conferences provides valuable insights into current trends and advancements in the field, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of our methodology. Specifically, we chose to focus solely on NLP conferences from the ACL anthology and did not include general ML conferences or application-focused conferences from the medical domain in our analysis. This decision was made in order to provide a more focused and in-depth analysis of the technical aspects of the field. Future research may benefit from including a wider range of different NLP-related conferences and medical-related conferences in the analysis to better understand the intersection of technical advancements and real-world applications. While our study primarily focuses on mapping the patient journey onto NLP tasks, future work should expand on potential approaches to address bias mitigation and enhance model explainability. Addressing these challenges will further strengthen the deployment of NLP in healthcare, ensuring that the systems are fair, transparent and trustworthy.

In this paper, we conducted a systematic literature review and mapped clinical NLP research onto a prototypical patient journey in the hospital. Specifically, we reviewed which dataset types, dataset languages, model architectures and tasks are researched in current clinical NLP research. Our results show that, while a patient’s hospital journey produces a significant amount of structured and unstructured documents, certain steps and documents receive more research attention than others. Diagnosis, Admission and Discharge are clinical patient steps that are researched often across the surveyed paper. In contrast, we found that Treatment, Billing, After Care, and Smart Home are under-researched. Additionally, clinical NLP models are mostly based on radiology reports, discharge letters and admission notes, even though we have shown that many other documents are produced throughout the patient journey. Our findings suggest that there is a significant opportunity to leverage NLP approaches to advance clinical decision-making systems, as there remains a considerable understudied potential for the analysis of patient journey data.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Natural Language Processing

Clinical Decision Support Systems

Positron Emission Tomography-Computed Tomography

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Electrocardiogram

Transthoracic Echocardiogram

Internet of Things

Named Entity Recognition

Convolutional Neural Networks

Recurrent Neural Networks

Acute Kidney Injury

Paaß G, Giesselbach S. Foundation models for natural language processing–pre-trained language models integrating media. 2023. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.08575 .

Zhou C, Li Q, Li C, Yu J, Liu Y, Wang G, et al. A comprehensive survey on pretrained foundation models: a history from bert to chatgpt. 2023. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.09419 .

Wu H, Wang M, Wu J, Francis F, Chang YH, Shavick A, et al. A survey on clinical natural language processing in the United Kingdom from 2007 to 2022. NPJ Digit Med. 2022;5(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-022-00730-6 .

Moor M, Banerjee O, Abad ZSH, Krumholz HM, Leskovec J, Topol EJ, et al. Foundation models for generalist medical artificial intelligence. Nature. 2023;616(7956):259–65.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Danladi Garba K, Yahaya I. Significance and challenges of medical records: a systematic literature review. Adv Librariansh. 2018;9:26–31.

Google Scholar  

Reyes-Ortiz JA, Gonzalez-Beltran BA, Gallardo-Lopez L. Clinical decision support systems: a survey of NLP-based approaches from unstructured data. In: 2015 26th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA). IEEE; 2015. pp. 163–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/dexa.2015.47 .

Tamang S, Humbert-Droz M, Gianfrancesco M, Izadi Z, Schmajuk G, Yazdany J. Practical Considerations for Developing Clinical Natural Language Processing Systems for Population Health Management and Measurement. JMIR Med Inform. 2023;11:e37805. https://doi.org/10.2196/37805 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Pandey B, Kumar Pandey D, Pratap Mishra B, Rhmann W. A comprehensive survey of deep learning in the field of medical imaging and medical natural language processing: Challenges and research directions. J King Saud Univ Comput Inform Sci. 2022;34(8, Part A):5083–5099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksuci.2021.01.007 .

Valizadeh M, Parde N. The AI Doctor Is In: A Survey of Task-Oriented Dialogue Systems for Healthcare Applications. In: Muresan S, Nakov P, Villavicencio A, editors. Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). Dublin: Association for Computational Linguistics; 2022. pp. 6638–6660. https://aclanthology.org/2022.acl-long.458 . Accessed 1 Jan 2023.

Kreimeyer K, Foster M, Pandey A, Arya N, Halford G, Jones SF, et al. Natural language processing systems for capturing and standardizing unstructured clinical information: A systematic review. J Biomed Inform. 2017;73:14–29.

Nazir T, Mushhood Ur Rehman M, Asghar MR, Kalia JS. Artificial intelligence assisted acute patient journey. Front Artif Intell. 2022;5:962165.

Arias M, Rojas E, Aguirre S, Cornejo F, Munoz-Gama J, Sepúlveda M, et al. Mapping the patient’s journey in healthcare through process mining. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(18):6586.

Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209–49.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Postmus PE, Kerr KM, Oudkerk M, Senan S, Waller DA, Vansteenkiste JF, et al. Early and locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2017;28, Suppl 4:iv1–iv21.

Planchard D, Popat S, Kerr KM, Novello S, Smit EF, Faivre-Finn C, et al. Metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2018;29, Suppl 4:iv192–iv237.

Abdulmalek S, Nasir A, Jabbar WA, Almuhaya MAM, Bairagi AK, Khan MAM, et al. IoT-Based Healthcare-Monitoring System towards Improving Quality of Life: A Review. Healthcare. 2022;10(10):1993.

Wornow M, Xu Y, Thapa R, Patel B, Steinberg E, Fleming S, et al. The shaky foundations of large language models and foundation models for electronic health records. NPJ Digit Med. 2023;6(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-023-00879-8 .

Rojas M, Dunstan J, Villena F. Clinical Flair: A Pre-Trained Language Model for Spanish Clinical Natural Language Processing. In: Proceedings of the 4th Clinical Natural Language Processing Workshop. Seattle: Association for Computational Linguistics; 2022. pp. 87–92. https://aclanthology.org/2022.clinicalnlp-1.9 . Accessed 1 Jan 2023.

Pilan I, Brekke PH, Dahl FA, Gundersen T, Husby H, Nytrø Ø, et al. Classification of Syncope Cases in Norwegian Medical Records. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Clinical Natural Language Processing Workshop. Online: Association for Computational Linguistics; 2020. pp. 79–84. https://aclanthology.org/2020.clinicalnlp-1.9 . Accessed 1 Jan 2023.

Ehsani R, Niemi T, Khullar G, Leivo T. Clinical Data Classification using Conditional Random Fields and Neural Parsing for Morphologically Rich Languages. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Clinical Natural Language Processing Workshop. Minneapolis: Association for Computational Linguistics; 2019. pp. 149–155. https://aclanthology.org/W19-1919 . Accessed 1 Jan 2023.

Magge A, Klein A, Miranda-Escalada A, Al-garadi MA, Alimova I, Miftahutdinov Z, et al., editors. Proceedings of the Sixth Social Media Mining for Health (#SMM4H) Workshop and Shared Task. Mexico City: Association for Computational Linguistics; 2021. https://aclanthology.org/2021.smm4h-1.0 . Accessed 1 Jan 2023.

Gonzalez-Hernandez G, Weissenbacher D, editors. Proceedings of The Seventh Workshop on Social Media Mining for Health Applications, Workshop & Shared Task. Gyeongju: Association for Computational Linguistics; 2022. https://aclanthology.org/2022.smm4h-1.0 . Accessed 1 Jan 2023.

Jin-Dong K, Claire N, Robert B, Louise D, editors. Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on BioNLP Open Shared Tasks. Hong Kong: Association for Computational Linguistics; 2019. https://aclanthology.org/D19-5700 . Accessed 1 Jan 2023.

Vaswani A, Shazeer N, Parmar N, Uszkoreit J, Jones L, Gomez AN, et al. Attention Is All You Need. CoRR. 2017. arXiv:1706.03762 .

Kim G, Cho K. Length-Adaptive Transformer: Train Once with Length Drop, Use Anytime with Search. In: Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers). Online: Association for Computational Linguistics; 2021. pp. 6501–6511. https://aclanthology.org/2021.acl-long.508 . Accessed 1 Jan 2023.

Patel P, Davey D, Panchal V, Pathak P. Annotation of a Large Clinical Entity Corpus. In: Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Brussels: Association for Computational Linguistics; 2018. pp. 2033–2042. https://aclanthology.org/D18-1228 . Accessed 1 Jan 2023.

Raghavan P, Patwardhan S. Question Answering on Electronic Medical Records. In: Proceedings of the 2016 Summit on Clinical Research Informatics. San Francisco: AMIA; 2016. http://knowledge.amia.org/amia-59309-cri2016-1.3011827/t004-1.3012641/f004-1.3012642/a103-1.3012719/a105-1.3012714 .

Pampari A, Raghavan P, Liang J, Peng J. emrQA: A Large Corpus for Question Answering on Electronic Medical Records. In: Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Brussels: Association for Computational Linguistics; 2018. pp. 2357–2368. https://aclanthology.org/D18-1258 . Accessed 1 Jan 2023.

He J, Baxter SL, Xu J, Xu J, Zhou X, Zhang K. The practical implementation of artificial intelligence technologies in medicine. Nat Med. 2019;25:30–6.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Tonekaboni S, Joshi S, McCradden MD, Goldenberg A. What Clinicians Want: Contextualizing Explainable Machine Learning for Clinical End Use. In: Proceedings of the 4th Machine Learning for Healthcare Conference, vol. 106. PMLR; 2019. pp. 359–380.

Jia Y, McDermid J, Lawton T, Habli I. The Role of Explainability in Assuring Safety of Machine Learning in Healthcare. IEEE Trans Emerg Top Comput. 2022;10(4):1746–60. https://doi.org/10.1109/TETC.2022.3171314 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Kobo O, Brown SA, Nafee T, Mohamed MO, Sharma K, Istanbuly S, et al. Impact of malignancy on In-hospital mortality, stratified by the cause of admission: An analysis of 67 million patients from the National Inpatient Sample. Int J Clin Pract. 2021;75(11):e14758.

Savaliya V, Bhatnagar A, Bhavsar N, Singh M. Innovators@SMM4H’22: An Ensembles Approach for Stance and Premise Classification of COVID-19 Health Mandates Tweets. In: Proceedings of The Seventh Workshop on Social Media Mining for Health Applications, Workshop & Shared Task. Gyeongju: Association for Computational Linguistics; 2022. pp. 126–129. https://aclanthology.org/2022.smm4h-1.35 . Accessed 1 Jan 2023.

Khanpour H, Caragea C. Fine-Grained Emotion Detection in Health-Related Online Posts. In: Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Brussels: Association for Computational Linguistics; 2018. pp. 1160–1166. https://aclanthology.org/D18-1147 . Accessed 1 Jan 2023.

Jiang Z, Levitan SI, Zomick J, Hirschberg J. Detection of Mental Health from Reddit via Deep Contextualized Representations. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Health Text Mining and Information Analysis. Online: Association for Computational Linguistics; 2020. pp. 147–156. https://aclanthology.org/2020.louhi-1.16 . Accessed 1 Jan 2023.

Kulkarni A, Hengle A, Kulkarni P, Marathe M. Cluster Analysis of Online Mental Health Discourse using Topic-Infused Deep Contextualized Representations. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Health Text Mining and Information Analysis. Online: Association for Computational Linguistics; 2021. pp. 83–93. https://aclanthology.org/2021.louhi-1.10 . Accessed 1 Jan 2023.

Alimova I, Tutubalina E. Detecting Adverse Drug Reactions from Biomedical Texts with Neural Networks. In: Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Student Research Workshop. Florence: Association for Computational Linguistics; 2019. pp. 415–421. https://aclanthology.org/P19-2058 . Accessed 1 Jan 2023.

Portelli B, Lenzi E, Chersoni E, Serra G, Santus E. BERT Prescriptions to Avoid Unwanted Headaches: A Comparison of Transformer Architectures for Adverse Drug Event Detection. In: Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume. Online: Association for Computational Linguistics; 2021. pp. 1740–1747. https://aclanthology.org/2021.eacl-main.149 . Accessed 1 Jan 2023.

Mesbah S, Yang J, Sips RJ, Valle Torre M, Lofi C, Bozzon A, et al. Training Data Augmentation for Detecting Adverse Drug Reactions in User-Generated Content. In: Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP). Hong Kong: Association for Computational Linguistics; 2019. pp. 2349–2359. https://aclanthology.org/D19-1239 . Accessed 1 Jan 2023.

Miftahutdinov Z, Tutubalina E. Deep Neural Models for Medical Concept Normalization in User-Generated Texts. In: Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Student Research Workshop. Florence: Association for Computational Linguistics; 2019. pp. 393–399. https://aclanthology.org/P19-2055 . Accessed 1 Jan 2023.

Santurkar S, Tsipras D, Madry A. Breeds: Benchmarks for subpopulation shift. 2020. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.04859 .

Shim H, Lowet D, Luca S, Vanrumste B. An exploratory data analysis: the performance differences of a medical code prediction system on different demographic groups. In: Proceedings of the 4th Clinical Natural Language Processing Workshop. Seattle: Association for Computational Linguistics; 2022. pp. 93–102. https://aclanthology.org/2022.clinicalnlp-1.10/ .

Holderness E, Cawkwell P, Bolton K, Pustejovsky J, Hall MH. Distinguishing clinical sentiment: The importance of domain adaptation in psychiatric patient health records. 2019. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.03225 .

Wang Z, Qu Y, Chen L, Shen J, Zhang W, Zhang S, et al. Label-aware double transfer learning for cross-specialty medical named entity recognition. 2018. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.09021 .

Liu M, Han J, Zhang H, Song Y. Domain adaptation for disease phrase matching with adversarial networks. In: Proceedings of the BioNLP 2018 workshop. Melbourne: Association for Computational Linguistics; 2018. pp. 137–141. https://aclanthology.org/W18-2315 .

Tjoa E, Guan C. A survey on explainable artificial intelligence (xai): Toward medical xai. IEEE Trans Neural Netw Learn Syst. 2020;32(11):4793–813.

Doshi-Velez F, Kim B. Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning. 2017. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.08608 .

Beckh K, Müller S, Jakobs M, Toborek V, Tan H, Fischer R, et al. Harnessing Prior Knowledge for Explainable Machine Learning: An Overview. In: First IEEE Conference on Secure and Trustworthy Machine Learning. 2023. pp. 450–463. In Press

Borys K, Schmitt YA, Nauta M, Seifert C, Krämer N, Friedrich CM, et al. Explainable AI in medical imaging: An overview for clinical practitioners – Saliency-based XAI approaches. Eur J Radiol. 2023;162:110787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.110787 .

Borys K, Schmitt YA, Nauta M, Seifert C, Krämer N, Friedrich CM, et al. Explainable AI in medical imaging: An overview for clinical practitioners – Beyond saliency-based XAI approaches. Eur J Radiol. 2023;162:110786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.110786 .

Amann J, Blasimme A, Vayena E, Frey D, Madai VI. Explainability for artificial intelligence in healthcare: a multidisciplinary perspective. BMC Med Inform Dec Making. 2020;20:1–9.

Shen H, Huang TH. Explaining the Road Not Taken. 2021. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.14973 .

Jacovi A, Goldberg Y. Towards Faithfully Interpretable NLP Systems: How Should We Define and Evaluate Faithfulness? In: Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Online: Association for Computational Linguistics; 2020. pp. 4198–4205. https://aclanthology.org/2020.acl-main.386 .

Nauta M, Trienes J, Pathak S, Nguyen E, Peters M, Schmitt Y, et al. From Anecdotal Evidence to Quantitative Evaluation Methods: A Systematic Review on Evaluating Explainable AI. ACM Comput Surv. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1145/3583558 .

Ghassemi M, Oakden-Rayner L, Beam AL. The false hope of current approaches to explainable artificial intelligence in health care. Lancet Digit Health. 2021;3(11):e745–50.

Van Aken B, Herrmann S, Löser A. What Do You See in this Patient? Behavioral Testing of Clinical NLP Models. In: Proceedings of the 4th Clinical Natural Language Processing Workshop. Seattle: Association for Computational Linguistics; 2022. pp. 63–73. https://aclanthology.org/2022.clinicalnlp-1.7 .

Shwartz V, Choi Y. Do Neural Language Models Overcome Reporting Bias? In: Scott D, Bel N, Zong C, editors. Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Barcelona: International Committee on Computational Linguistics; 2020. pp. 6863–6870. https://aclanthology.org/2020.coling-main.605 . Accessed 1 Mar 2023.

Verheij RA, Curcin V, Delaney BC, McGilchrist MM. Possible Sources of Bias in Primary Care Electronic Health Record Data Use and Reuse. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(5):e185. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.9134 .

Khadzhynov D, Schmidt D, Hardt J, Rauch G, Gocke P, Eckardt KU, et al. The Incidence of Acute Kidney Injury and Associated Hospital Mortality. Deutsches Ärzteblatt Int. 2019. https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2019.0397 .

Liu F, Ge S, Wu X. Competence-based Multimodal Curriculum Learning for Medical Report Generation. In: Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers). Association for Computational Linguistics; 2021. pp. 3001–3012. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.234 .

Barocas S, Hardt M, Narayanan A. Fairness and Machine Learning: Limitations and Opportunities. fairmlbook.org; 2019. http://www.fairmlbook.org . Accessed 1 Mar 2023.

Chen J, Berlot-Attwell I, Wang X, Hossain S, Rudzicz F. Exploring Text Specific and Blackbox Fairness Algorithms in Multimodal Clinical NLP. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Clinical Natural Language Processing Workshop. Online: Association for Computational Linguistics; 2020. pp. 301–312. https://aclanthology.org/2020.clinicalnlp-1.33 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would also like to thank Johann Jasper Schulze Buschhoff for his support in data provision and annotation.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. This work was done within the project SmartHospital.NRW with grant number 005-2011-0041/2 and project number 2011ki001b, funded by the Ministry for Economic Affairs, Industry, Climate Action and Energy of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Fraunhofer IAIS, Sankt Augustin, Germany

Katrin Klug, Katharina Beckh, Dario Antweiler, Nilesh Chakraborty & Sven Giesselbach

Institute of Interventional and Diagnostic Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany

Giulia Baldini, René Hosch & Felix Nensa

Institute for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany

West German Cancer Centre, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany

Katharina Laue & Martin Schuler

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

SG, DA contributed to the original idea and design of the study. KK, KB, NC and DA conducted the literature review and annotated the dataset. KK collected and analyzed the data. KK, KB, GB, KL, NC and DA co-wrote the manuscript. SG, RH, FN and MS reviewed and improved the manuscript. All authors critically revised the manuscript and approved its final content.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katrin Klug .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

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

Cite this article.

Klug, K., Beckh, K., Antweiler, D. et al. From admission to discharge: a systematic review of clinical natural language processing along the patient journey. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 24 , 238 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-024-02641-w

Download citation

Received : 22 December 2023

Accepted : 20 August 2024

Published : 29 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-024-02641-w

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Clinical natural language processing
• Explainable ML

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making

ISSN: 1472-6947

• General enquiries: [email protected]

A Comprehensive Review of Deep Learning for Activity Recognition

• First Online: 27 May 2024

Cite this chapter

• Dipanwita Thakur   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2895-1425 8 &
• Giancarlo Fortino   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4039-891X 8  

Part of the book series: Internet of Things ((ITTCC))

26 Accesses

Human Activity Recognition (HAR) is an important field in smart healthcare that has attracted remarkable attention from researchers. Several HAR systems are existing in the literature. However, there exist substantial challenges that could influence the performance of the recognition system in practical scenarios. Recently, as deep learning has demonstrated its effectiveness in many areas, plenty of deep methods have been investigated to address the challenges in activity recognition. This survey aims to provide a comprehensive overview of HAR approaches based on deep learning. Our work discusses the challenges of HAR systems to provide a comprehensive overview for researchers who are interested in this field of HAR. Firstly, we identify the challenges of HAR. Then, we discuss various sensors to implement the HAR systems. Finally, we discuss the challenges and role of deep learning in HAR. We also compare the performance of recently proposed methods on popular benchmark datasets. We review 22 benchmark datasets for human action recognition. Some potential research directions are discussed to conclude this survey.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Abedin, A., Rezatofighi, S. H., Shi, Q., & Ranasinghe, D. C. (2019). Sparsesense: Human activity recognition from highly sparse sensor data-streams using set-based neural networks .

Google Scholar  

Akbari, A. & Jafari, R. (2020). Personalizing activity recognition models through quantifying different types of uncertainty using wearable sensors. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 67 (9), 2530–2541.

Article   Google Scholar  

Alemdar, H., van Kasteren, T. L. M., & Ersoy, C. (2011). Using active learning to allow activity recognition on a large scale. In D. V. Keyson, M. L. Maher, N. Streitz, A. Cheok, J. C. Augusto, R. Wichert, G. Englebienne, H. Aghajan, & B. J. A. Kröse (Eds.). Ambient intelligence (pp. 105–114). Berlin: Springer.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Almaslukh, B., AlMuhtadi, J., & Artoli, A. (2017). An effective deep autoencoder approach for online smartphonebased human activity recognition. International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, 17 (4), 160–165.

An, S., Bhat, G., Gumussoy, S., & Ogras, U. (2023). Transfer learning for human activity recognition using representational analysis of neural networks. ACM Transactions on Computing for Healthcare, 4 (1), 1–21.

Anguita, D., Ghio, A., Oneto, L., Parra, X., & Reyes-Ortiz, J. L. (2013). A public domain dataset for human activity recognition using smartphones. In 21st European symposium on artificial neural networks, computational intelligence and machine learning .

Bächlin, M., Plotnik, M., Roggen, D., Maidan, I., Hausdorff, J. M., Giladi, N., & Tröster, G. (2010). Wearable assistant for parkinson’s disease patients with the freezing of gait symptom. Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine, 14 (2), 436–446.

Bai, L., Yeung, C., Efstratiou, C., & Chikomo, M. (2019). Motion2vector: unsupervised learning in human activity recognition using wrist-sensing data. In Adjunct proceedings of the 2019 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing and Proceedings of the 2019 ACM international symposium on wearable computers (pp. 537–542). New York: UbiComp/ISWC ’19 Adjunct, Association for Computing Machinery.

Balabka, D. (2019). Semi-supervised learning for human activity recognition using adversarial autoencoders. In Adjunct proceedings of the 2019 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing and Proceedings of the 2019 ACM international symposium on wearable computers (pp. 685–688). New York: UbiComp/ISWC ’19 Adjunct, Association for Computing Machinery.

Banos, O., Damas, M., Pomares, H., Prieto, A., & Rojas, I. (2012). Daily living activity recognition based on statistical feature quality group selection. Expert Systems with Applications, 39 (9), 8013–8021.

Banos, O., Garcia, R., Holgado-Terriza, J. A., Damas, M., Pomares, H., Rojas, I., Saez, A., & Villalonga, C. (2014). mhealthdroid: A novel framework for agile development of mobile health applications. In L. Pecchia, L. L. Chen, C. Nugent, & J. Bravo (Eds.) Ambient assisted living and daily activities (pp. 91–98). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Barshan, B., & Yüksek, M. C. (2014). Recognizing daily and sports activities in two open source machine learning environments using body-worn sensor units. The Computer Journal, 57 (11), 1649–1667.

Bengio, Y. (2013). Deep learning of representations: Looking forward. In A. H. Dediu, C. Martín-Vide, R. Mitkov, & B. Truthe (Eds.), Statistical language and speech processing (pp. 1–37). Berlin: Springer.

Bharti, P., De, D., Chellappan, S., & Das, S. K. (2019). Human: Complex activity recognition with multi-modal multi-positional body sensing. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 18 (4), 857–870.

Bi, H., Perello-Nieto, M., Santos-Rodriguez, R., & Flach, P. (2021). Human activity recognition based on dynamic active learning. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 25 (4), 922–934.

Chavarriaga, R., Sagha, H., Calatroni, A., Digumarti, S. T., Tröster, G., del R. Millán, J., & Roggen, D. (2013). The opportunity challenge: A benchmark database for on-body sensor-based activity recognition. Pattern Recognition Letters, 34 (15), 2033–2042. smart Approaches for Human Action Recognition

Chawla, N. V., Japkowicz, N., & Kotcz, A. (2004). Editorial: Special issue on learning from imbalanced data sets. SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter, 6 (1), 1–6.

Chen, K., Zhang, D., Yao, L., Guo, B., Yu, Z., & Liu, Y. (2021). Deep learning for sensor-based human activity recognition: Overview, challenges, and opportunities. ACM Computing Surveys, 54 (4), 1–40.

Cruciani, F., Vafeiadis, A., Nugent, C., Cleland, I., McCullagh, P., Votis, K., Giakoumis, D., Tzovaras, D., Chen, L., & Hamzaoui, R. (2020). Feature learning for human activity recognition using convolutional neural networks. CCF Transactions on Pervasive Computing and Interaction, 2 (1), 18–32.

Deep, S., & Zheng, X. (2019). Hybrid model featuring CNN and LSTM architecture for human activity recognition on smartphone sensor data. In 2019 20th international conference on parallel and distributed computing, applications and technologies (PDCAT) (pp. 259–264).

Dhanraj, S., De, S., & Dash, D. (2019). Efficient smartphone-based human activity recognition using convolutional neural network. In 2019 international conference on information technology (ICIT) (pp. 307–312).

Diethe, T., Twomey, N., & Flach, P. A. (2016). Active transfer learning for activity recognition. In ESANN 2016 proceedings, European symposium on artificial neural networks, computational intelligence and machine learning .

Ercolano, G., & Rossi, S. (2021). Combining CNN and LSTM for activity of daily living recognition with a 3d matrix skeleton representation. Intelligent Service Robotics, 14 (2), 175–185.

Fortino, G., Greco, C., Guzzo, A., & Ianni, M. (2022). Neural network based temporal point processes for attack detection in industrial control systems. In: 2022 IEEE international conference on cyber security and resilience (CSR) (pp. 221–226). New York: IEEE.

Fortino, G., Greco, C., Guzzo, A., & Ianni, M. (2023). Identification and prediction of attacks to industrial control systems using temporal point processes. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 14 (5), 4771–4783.

Fortino, G., Guzzo, A., Ianni, M., Leotta, F., & Mecella, M. (2020). Exploiting marked temporal point processes for predicting activities of daily living. In 2020 IEEE international conference on human-machine systems (ICHMS) (pp. 1–6). New York: IEEE.

Fortino, G., Guzzo, A., Ianni, M., Leotta, F., & Mecella, M. (2021). Predicting activities of daily living via temporal point processes: Approaches and experimental results. Computers & Electrical Engineering, 96 , 107567.

Galar, M., Fernandez, A., Barrenechea, E., Bustince, H., & Herrera, F. (2012). A review on ensembles for the class imbalance problem: Bagging-, boosting-, and hybrid-based approaches. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews), 42 (4), 463–484.

Gamble, J. A., & Huang, J. (2020). Convolutional neural network for human activity recognition and identification. In 2020 IEEE international systems conference (SysCon) (pp. 1–7).

Gao, X., Luo, H., Wang, Q., Zhao, F., Ye, L., & Zhang, Y. (2019). A human activity recognition algorithm based on stacking denoising autoencoder and lightGBM. Sensors, 19 (4), 947.

Garcia, K. D., de Sá, C. R., Poel, M., Carvalho, T., Mendes-Moreira, J., Cardoso, J. M., de Carvalho, A. C., & Kok, J. N. (2021). An ensemble of autonomous auto-encoders for human activity recognition. Neurocomputing, 439 , 271–280.

Geng, C. & Song, J. (2016). Human action recognition based on convolutional neural networks with a convolutional auto-encoder. In Proceedings of the 2015 5th international conference on computer sciences and automation engineering (pp. 933–938). New York: Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/iccsae-15.2016.173

Gholamrezaii, M. & Taghi Almodarresi, S. M. (2019). Human activity recognition using 2d convolutional neural networks. In 2019 27th Iranian conference on electrical engineering (ICEE) (pp. 1682–1686).

Gong, Z., & Chen, H. (2016). Model-based oversampling for imbalanced sequence classification. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM international on conference on information and knowledge management (CIKM ’16) (pp. 1009–1018). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.

Goodfellow, I., Pouget-Abadie, J., Mirza, M., Xu, B., Warde-Farley, D., Ozair, S., Courville, A., & Bengio, Y. (2014). Generative adversarial nets. In Z. Ghahramani, M. Welling, C. Cortes, N. Lawrence, & K. Weinberger (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems (vol. 27). New York: Curran Associates, Inc.

Greff, K., Srivastava, R. K., Koutník, J., Steunebrink, B. R., & Schmidhuber, J. (2017). LSTM: A search space odyssey. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 28 (10), 2222–2232.

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Gudur, G. K., Sundaramoorthy, P., & Umaashankar, V. (2019). Activeharnet: Towards on-device deep bayesian active learning for human activity recognition. In The 3rd international workshop on deep learning for mobile systems and applications (EMDL ’19) (pp. 7–12). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.

Guo, H., Chen, L., Peng, L., & Chen, G. (2016). Wearable sensor based multimodal human activity recognition exploiting the diversity of classifier ensemble. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing (UbiComp ’16) (pp. 1112–1123). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.

Guo, R., Liu, H., Xie, G., Zhang, Y., & Liu, D. (2023). A self-interpretable soft sensor based on deep learning and multiple attention mechanism: From data selection to sensor modeling. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 19 (5), 6859–6871.

Guzzo, A., Ianni, M., Pugliese, A., & Saccà, D. (2020). Modeling and efficiently detecting security-critical sequences of actions. Future Generation Computer Systems, 113 , 196–206.

Hammerla, N. Y., Halloran, S., & Pl \(\ddot {o}\) tz, T. (2016). Deep, convolutional, and recurrent models for human activity recognition using wearables. In Proceedings of the twenty-fifth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI’16) (pp. 1533–1540). New York: AAAI Press.

Han, H., Wang, W. Y., & Mao, B. H. (2005). Borderline-smote: A new over-sampling method in imbalanced data sets learning. In D. S. Huang, X. P. Zhang, & G. B. Huang (Eds.), Advances in intelligent computing (pp. 878–887). Berlin: Springer.

Hasan, M., & Roy-Chowdhury, A. K.: Continuous learning of human activity models using deep nets. In D. Fleet, T. Pajdla, B. Schiele, & T. Tuytelaars (Eds.), Computer Vision—ECCV 2014 (pp. 705–720). Cham: Springer International Publishing (2014).

Hayashi, T., Nishida, M., Kitaoka, N., & Takeda, K. (2015). Daily activity recognition based on DNN using environmental sound and acceleration signals. In 2015 23rd European signal processing conference (EUSIPCO) (pp. 2306–2310)

He, H., & Garcia, E.A. (2009). Learning from imbalanced data. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 21 (9), 1263–1284.

Hinton, G. E., Osindero, S., & Teh, Y. W. (2006). A fast learning algorithm for deep belief nets. Neural Computer, 18 (7), 1527–1554.

Hnoohom, N., Jitpattanakul, A., You, I., & Mekruksavanich, S. (2021). Deep learning approach for complex activity recognition using heterogeneous sensors from wearable device. In 2021 Research, invention, and innovation congress: Innovation electricals and electronics (RI2C) (pp. 60–65).

Hossain, H. S., Roy, N., & Al Hafiz Khan, M. A. (2016). Active learning enabled activity recognition. In 2016 IEEE international conference on pervasive computing and communications (PerCom) (pp. 1–9).

Ignatov, A. (2018). Real-time human activity recognition from accelerometer data using convolutional neural networks. Applied Soft Computing, 62 , 915–922.

Jeong, C. Y., Shin, H. C., & Kim, M. (2021). Sensor-data augmentation for human activity recognition with time-warping and data masking. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 80 (14), 20991–21009.

Jiang, X., Lu, Y., Lu, Z., & Zhou, H. (2018). Smartphone-based human activity recognition using cnn in frequency domain. In APWeb/WAIM Workshops .

Kwapisz, J. R., Weiss, G. M., & Moore, S. A. (2011). Activity recognition using cell phone accelerometers. SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter, 12 (2), 74–82.

Lara, O. D. & Labrador, M. A. (2013). A survey on human activity recognition using wearable sensors. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 15 (3), 1192–1209.

Li, X., Luo, J., & Younes, R. (2020). Activitygan: Generative adversarial networks for data augmentation in sensor-based human activity recognition (UbiComp-ISWC ’20) (pp. 249–254). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.

Li, Y., Shi, D., Ding, B., & Liu, D. (2014). Unsupervised feature learning for human activity recognition using smartphone sensors. Mining Intelligence and Knowledge Exploration, Lecture Notes In Computer Science, 8891 , 99–107.

Li, Z., Le Kernec, J., Abbasi, Q., Fioranelli, F., Yang, S., & Romain, O. (2023). Radar-based human activity recognition with adaptive thresholding towards resource constrained platforms. Scientific Reports, 13 (1), 3473.

Liu, C., & Yuen, P. C. (2011). A boosted co-training algorithm for human action recognition. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 21 (9), 1203–1213.

Liu, R., Chen, T., & Huang, L. (2010). Research on human activity recognition based on active learning. In 2010 International conference on machine learning and cybernetics (vol. 1, pp. 285–290).

Mauch, L. & Yang, B. (2017). Selecting optimal layer reduction factors for model reduction of deep neural networks. In 2017 IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing (ICASSP) (pp. 2212–2216).

Mohammed, Z., Elfadel, I. A. M., & Rasras, M. (2018). Monolithic multi degree of freedom (MDoF) capacitive mems accelerometers. Micromachines, 9 (11), 602.

Moya Rueda, F., Grzeszick, R., Fink, G. A., Feldhorst, S., & Ten Hompel, M. (2018). Convolutional neural networks for human activity recognition using body-worn sensors. Informatics, 5 (2), 26.

Mutegeki, R., & Han, D. S. (2020). A CNN-LSTM approach to human activity recognition. In 2020 International conference on artificial intelligence in information and communication (ICAIIC) (pp. 362–366).

Ng, W. W. Y., Hu, J., Yeung, D. S., Yin, S., & Roli, F. (2015). Diversified sensitivity-based undersampling for imbalance classification problems. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 45 (11), 2402–2412.

Ofli, F., Chaudhry, R., Kurillo, G., Vidal, R., & Bajcsy, R. (2013). Berkeley mhad: A comprehensive multimodal human action database. In 2013 IEEE workshop on applications of computer vision (WACV) (pp. 53–60).

Ordonez, F. J. & Roggen, D. (2016). Deep convolutional and LSTM recurrent neural networks for multimodal wearable activity recognition. Sensors, 16 (1), 115.

Ozcan, T. & Basturk, A. (2020). Human action recognition with deep learning and structural optimization using a hybrid heuristic algorithm. Cluster Computing, 23 (4), 2847–2860.

Peng, L., Chen, L., Ye, Z., & Zhang, Y. (2018). Aroma: A deep multi-task learning based simple and complex human activity recognition method using wearable sensors. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies, 2 (2), 1–16.

Pham, C. & Olivier, P. (2009). Slice&dice: Recognizing food preparation activities using embedded accelerometers. In M. Tscheligi, B. de Ruyter, P. Markopoulus, R. Wichert, T. Mirlacher, A. Meschterjakov, W. Reitberger (Eds.), Ambient Intelligence (pp. 34–43). Berlin: Springer.

Pl \(\ddot {o}\) tz, T., Hammerla, N. Y., & Olivier, P. (2011). Feature learning for activity recognition in ubiquitous computing. In Proceedings of the twenty-second international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI’11) (vol. 2, pp. 1729–1734). New York: AAAI Press.

Pourbabaee, B., Roshtkhari, M. J., & Khorasani, K. (2018). Deep convolutional neural networks and learning ecg features for screening paroxysmal atrial fibrillation patients. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, 48 (12), 2095–2104.

Poyiadzis, R., Santos-Rodriguez, R., & Twomey, N. (2019). Active learning with label proportions. In ICASSP 2019–2019 IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing (ICASSP) (pp. 3097–3101).

Prabono, A. G., Yahya, B. N., & Lee, S. L. (2021). Atypical sample regularizer autoencoder for cross-domain human activity recognition. Information Systems Frontiers, 23 (1), 71–80.

Press, O., Bar, A., Bogin, B., Berant, J., & Wolf, L. (2017). Language generation with recurrent generative adversarial networks without pre-training .

Qi, W., Su, H., Yang, C., Ferrigno, G., De Momi, E., & Aliverti, A. (2019). A fast and robust deep convolutional neural networks for complex human activity recognition using smartphone. Sensors, 19 (17), 3731.

Qian, H., Pan, S. J., & Miao, C. (2019). Distribution-based semi-supervised learning for activity recognition. In Thirty-Sixth AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (vol. 33, pp. 7699–7706). Palo Alto: AAAI Press.

Qiu, S., Zhao, H., Jiang, N., Wang, Z., Liu, L., An, Y., Zhao, H., Miao, X., Liu, R., Fortino, Giancarlo Wang, Z., Jiang, M., Hu, Y., & Li, H.: An incremental learning method based on probabilistic neural networks and adjustable fuzzy clustering for human activity recognition by using wearable sensors. IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine, 16 (4), 691–699 (2012).

Ravì, D., Wong, C., Lo, B., & Yang, G. Z. (2017). A deep learning approach to on-node sensor data analytics for mobile or wearable devices. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 21 (1), 56–64.

Razzaq, M. A., Quero, J. M., Cleland, I., Nugent, C., Akhtar, U., Bilal, H. S. M., Rehman, U. U., & Lee, S. (2020). UMODT: An unobtrusive multi-occupant detection and tracking using robust kalman filter for real-time activity recognition. Multimedia Systems, 26 (5), 553–569.

Reiss, A. & Stricker, D. (2012). Introducing a new benchmarked dataset for activity monitoring. In 2012 16th International symposium on wearable computers (pp. 108–109).

Reyes-Ortiz, J. L., Oneto, L., Samà, A., Parra, X., & Anguita, D. (2016). Transition-aware human activity recognition using smartphones. Neurocomputing, 171 , 754–767.

Roggen, D., Calatroni, A., Rossi, M., Holleczek, T., Förster, K., Tröster, G., Lukowicz, P., Bannach, D., Pirkl, G., Ferscha, A., Doppler, J., Holzmann, C., Kurz, M., Holl, G., Chavarriaga, R., Sagha, H., Bayati, H., Creatura, M., & Millàn, J. d. R. (2010). Collecting complex activity datasets in highly rich networked sensor environments. In 2010 Seventh international conference on networked sensing systems (INSS) (pp. 233–240).

Ronao, C., & Cho, S. B. (2016). Human activity recognition with smartphone sensors using deep learning neural networks. Expert Systems with Applications, 59 , 235–244.

Ronao, C. A. & Cho, S. B. (2015). Deep convolutional neural networks for human activity recognition with smartphone sensors. In S. Arik, T. Huang, W. K. Lai, Q. Liu (Eds.), Neural information processing (pp. 46–53). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Shahmohammadi, F., Hosseini, A., King, C. E., & Sarrafzadeh, M. (2017). Smartwatch based activity recognition using active learning. In 2017 IEEE/ACM international conference on connected health: applications, systems and engineering technologiesm (CHASE) (pp. 321–329).

Shoaib, M., Bosch, S., Incel, O. D., Scholten, H., & Havinga, P. J. M. (2014). Fusion of smartphone motion sensors for physical activity recognition. Sensors, 14 (6), 10146–10176.

Sikder, N. & Nahid, A. A.: Ku-har (2021). An open dataset for heterogeneous human activity recognition. Pattern Recognition Letters, 146 , 46–54.

Stiefmeier, T., Roggen, D., Ogris, G., Lukowicz, P., & Tröster, G. (2008). Wearable activity tracking in car manufacturing. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 7 (2), 42–50.

Stisen, A., Blunck, H., Bhattacharya, S., Prentow, T. S., Kjærgaard, M. B., Dey, A., Sonne, T., & Jensen, M. M. (2015). Smart devices are different: Assessing and mitigatingmobile sensing heterogeneities for activity recognition. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM conference on embedded networked sensor systems (SenSys ’15) (pp. 127–140). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.

Suzuki, S., Amemiya, Y., & Sato, M. (2020). Skeleton-based explainable human activity recognition for child gross-motor assessment. In IECON 2020 the 46th annual conference of the IEEE industrial electronics society (pp. 4015–4022).

Thakur, D. & Biswas, S. (2020). Smartphone based human activity monitoring and recognition using ML and DL: A comprehensive survey. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 11 (11), 5433–5444.

Thakur, D. & Biswas, S. (2021). Feature fusion using deep learning for smartphone based human activity recognition. International Journal of Information Technology, 13 (4), 1615–1624.

Thakur, D. & Biswas, S. (2022). An integration of feature extraction and guided regularized random forest feature selection for smartphone based human activity recognition. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 204 , 103417.

Thakur, D., Biswas, S., & Ho, E. S. L., Chattopadhyay, S. (2022). Convae-lstm: Convolutional autoencoder long short-term memory network for smartphone-based human activity recognition. IEEE Access, 10 , 4137–4156.

Thapa, K., Abdullah Al, Z. M., Lamichhane, B., & Yang, S. H. (2020). A deep machine learning method for concurrent and interleaved human activity recognition. Sensors, 20 (20), 5770.

Tonmoy, M. T. H., Mahmud, S., Rahman, A. K. M. M., Amin, M. A., & Ali, A. A. (2021). Hierarchical self attention based autoencoder for open-set human activity recognition. In P. K. Karlapalem, H. Cheng, N. Ramakrishnan, R. K. Agrawal, P. K. Reddy, D. J. Srivastava, A. P. T. Chakraborty (Eds.), Advances in knowledge discovery and data mining .

Varamin, A. A., Abbasnejad, E., Shi, Q., Ranasinghe, D. C., & Rezatofighi, H. (2018). Deep auto-set: A deep auto-encoder-set network for activity recognition using wearables. In Proceedings of the 15th EAI international conference on mobile and ubiquitous systems: Computing, networking and services (MobiQuitous ’18) (pp. 246–253). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.

Vepakomma, P., De, D., Das, S. K., & Bhansali, S. (2015). A-wristocracy: Deep learning on wrist-worn sensing for recognition of user complex activities. In 2015 IEEE 12th international conference on wearable and implantable body sensor networks (BSN) (pp. 1–6).

Vu, T. H., Dang, A., Dung, L., & Wang, J. C. (2017). Self-gated recurrent neural networks for human activity recognition on wearable devices. In Proceedings of the on thematic workshops of ACM multimedia 2017 (Thematic Workshops ’17) (pp. 179–185). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.

Wan, S., Qi, L., Xu, X., Tong, C., & Gu, Z. (2020). Deep learning models for real-time human activity recognition with smartphones. Mobile Networks and Applications, 25 (2), 743–755.

Wang, H., Zhao, J., Li, J., Tian, L., Tu, P., Cao, T., An, Y., Wang, K., & Li, S. (2020). Wearable sensor-based human activity recognition using hybrid deep learning techniques. Security and Communication Networks, 2020 , 12.

Wang, J., Chen, Y., Hao, S., Peng, X., & Hu, L. (2017). Deep learning for sensor-based activity recognition: A survey. CoRR abs/1707.03502 .

Wang, J., Chen, Y., Gu, Y., Xiao, Y., & Pan, H. (2018). Sensorygans: An effective generative adversarial framework for sensor-based human activity recognition. In 2018 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) (pp. 1–8).

Wang, Z., Zhao, H., Qiu, S., & Gao, Q. (2015). Stance-phase detection for zupt-aided foot-mounted pedestrian navigation system. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 20 (6), 3170–3181.

Webb, G. & Zheng, Z. (2004). Multistrategy ensemble learning: Reducing error by combining ensemble learning techniques. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 16 (8), 980–991.

Wu, J., Tian, Z., Sun, L., Estevez, L., & Jafari, R. (2015). Real-time American sign language recognition using wrist-worn motion and surface EMG sensors. In 2015 IEEE 12th international conference on wearable and implantable body sensor networks (BSN) (pp. 1–6).

Xia, K., Huang, J., & Wang, H. (2020). LSTM-CNN architecture for human activity recognition. IEEE Access, 8 , 56855–56866.

Xu, C., Chai, D., He, J., Zhang, X., & Duan, S. (2019). Innohar: A deep neural network for complex human activity recognition. IEEE Access, 7 , 9893–9902.

Yang, J. B., Nhut, N., San, P., Li, X., & Shonali, P. (2015). Deep convolutional neural networks on multichannel time series for human activity recognition. In IJCAI (vol. 15, pp. 3995-4001).

Yang, L., Qiu, Y., Lin, F., Wang, B., & Wu, X. (2019). Optimized algorithm for RFID-based activity recognition of the elderly. IEEE Access, 7 , 136777–136782.

Yao, L., Nie, F., Sheng, Q. Z., Gu, T., Li, X., & Wang, S. (2016). Learning from less for better: Semi-supervised activity recognition via shared structure discovery. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing (UbiComp ’16) (pp. 13–24). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.

Ye, W., Cheng, J., Yang, F., & Xu, Y. (2019). Two-stream convolutional network for improving activity recognition using convolutional long short-term memory networks. IEEE Access, 7 , 67772–67780.

Yen, C. T., Liao, J. X., & Huang, Y. K. (2020). Human daily activity recognition performed using wearable inertial sensors combined with deep learning algorithms. IEEE Access, 8 , 174105–174114.

Yu, S. & Qin, L. (2018). Human activity recognition with smartphone inertial sensors using bidir-lstm networks. In 2018 3rd international conference on mechanical, control and computer engineering (ICMCCE) (pp. 219–224).

Zebin, T., Scully, P. J., Peek, N., Casson, A. J., & Ozanyan, K. B. (2019). Design and implementation of a convolutional neural network on an edge computing smartphone for human activity recognition. IEEE Access, 7 , 133509–133520.

Zebin, T., Sperrin, M., Peek, N., & Casson, A. J. (2018). Human activity recognition from inertial sensor time-series using batch normalized deep LSTM recurrent networks. In 2018 40th annual international conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society (EMBC) (pp. 1–4).

Zeng, M., Nguyen, L. T., Yu, B., Mengshoel, O. J., Zhu, J., Wu, P., & Zhang, J. (2014). Convolutional neural networks for human activity recognition using mobile sensors. In Proceedings of the 6th International conference on mobile computing, applications and services (pp. 197–205). https://doi.org/10.4108/icst.mobicase.2014.257786 .

Zhang, J., Qiao, S., Lin, Z., & Zhou, Y. (2021). Human activity recognition based on residual network. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 693 (1), 012041.

Zhang, M. & Sawchuk, A. A. (2012). USC-HAD: A daily activity dataset for ubiquitous activity recognition using wearable sensors. In ACM international conference on ubiquitous computing (Ubicomp) workshop on situation, activity and goal awareness (SAGAware) . Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.

Zhao, Y., Yang, R., Chevalier, G., Xu, X., & Zhang, Z. (2018). Deep residual BIDIR-LSTM for human activity recognition using wearable sensors. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2018 , 7316954.

Zheng, Y., Liu, Q., Chen, E., Ge, Y., & Zhao, J. L. (2014). Time series classification using multi-channels deep convolutional neural networks. In F. Li, G. Li, S.w. Hwang, B. Yao, & Z. Zhang (Eds.), Web-Age information management (pp. 298–310). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Zhou, B., Yang, J., & Li, Q. (2019). Smartphone-based activity recognition for indoor localization using a convolutional neural network. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 19 (3), 621.

Zhu, J. Y. (2019). Learning to synthesize and manipulate natural images. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 39 (2), 14–23.

Zhu, Z., Wang, Z., Li, D., Zhu, Y., & Du, W. (2020). Geometric structural ensemble learning for imbalanced problems. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 50 (4), 1617–1629.

Zhuravchak, A., Kapshii, O., & Pournaras, E. (2022). Human activity recognition based on wi-fi csi data -a deep neural network approach. Procedia Computer Science, 198 , 59–66. 12th International Conference on Emerging Ubiquitous Systems and Pervasive Networks / 11th International Conference on Current and Future Trends of Information and Communication Technologies in Healthcare.

Zia Ur Rehman, M., Waris, A., Gilani, S. O., Jochumsen, M., Niazi, I. K., Jamil, M., Farina, D., & Kamavuako, E. N. (2018). Multiday emg-based classification of hand motions with deep learning techniques. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 18 (8), 2497.

Zou, H., Zhou, Y., Yang, J., Jiang, H., Xie, L., & Spanos, C. J. (2018). Deepsense: Device-free human activity recognition via autoencoder long-term recurrent convolutional network. In 2018 IEEE international conference on communications (ICC) (pp. 1–6).

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Informatics, Modeling, Electronics, and Systems of the University of Calabria (Unical), Rende, Italy

Dipanwita Thakur & Giancarlo Fortino

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dipanwita Thakur .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

University of Calabria, Rende, Italy

Michele Ianni

Antonella Guzzo

Dept of Informatics, Univ della Calabria, Rende, Reggio Calabria, Italy

Raffaele Gravina

Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA

Hassan Ghasemzadeh

Elec Info & Electrical Engg, Rm A0624, Dalian University Technology, Dalian, Liaoning, China

Zhelong Wang

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Thakur, D., Fortino, G. (2024). A Comprehensive Review of Deep Learning for Activity Recognition. In: Ianni, M., Guzzo, A., Gravina, R., Ghasemzadeh, H., Wang, Z. (eds) Activity Recognition and Prediction for Smart IoT Environments. Internet of Things. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-60027-2_4

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-60027-2_4

Published : 27 May 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-60026-5

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-60027-2

eBook Packages : Engineering Engineering (R0)

Share this chapter

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

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Tubal cancer clinical management: two exceptional scenarios and a review of the literature.

1. Introduction

2. materials and methods, 3.1. tubal cancer: from precancerous lesion to invasive carcinoma, 3.2. imaging diagnosis, 3.3. anatomopathological diagnosis, 3.4. staging and management, 3.5. preventive management and fertility-sparing options, 3.6. exceptional scenarios, 3.6.1. case 1, 3.6.2. case 2, 4. discussion, 5. conclusions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• Gottschau, M.; Mellemkjaer, L.; Hannibal, C.G.; Kjaer, S.K. Ovarian and tubal cancer in Denmark: An update on incidence and survival. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2016 , 95 , 1181–1189. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ludovisi, M.; De Blasis, I.; Virgilio, B.; Fischerova, D.; Franchi, D.; Pascual, M.A.; Savelli, L.; Epstein, E.; Van Holsbeke, C.; Guerriero, S.; et al. Imaging in gynecological disease (9): Clinical and ultrasound characteristics of tubal cancer. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2014 , 43 , 328–335. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kurman, R.J.; Shih, I.M. The Dualistic Model of Ovarian Carcinogenesis: Revisited, Revised, and Expanded. Am. J. Pathol. 2016 , 186 , 733–747. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Siegel, R.L.; Miller, K.D.; Fuchs, H.E.; Jemal, A. Cancer statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2022 , 72 , 7–33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bogaerts, J.M.A.; Steenbeek, M.P.; van Bommel, M.H.D.; Bulten, J.; van der Laak, J.A.W.M.; de Hullu, J.A.; Simons, M. Recommendations for diagnosing STIC: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Virchows Arch. 2022 , 480 , 725–737. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Stanciu, P.I.; Ind, T.E.J.; Barton, D.P.J.; Butler, J.B.; Vroobel, K.M.; Attygalle, A.D.; Nobbenhuis, M.A.E. Development of Peritoneal Carcinoma in women diagnosed with Serous Tubal Intraepithelial Carcinoma (STIC) following Risk-Reducing Salpingo-Oophorectomy (RRSO). J. Ovarian Res. 2019 , 12 , 50. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Colombo, N.; Sessa, C.; du Bois, A.; Ledermann, J.; McCluggage, W.G.; McNeish, I.; Morice, P.; Pignata, S.; Ray-Coquard, I.; Vergote, I.; et al. ESMO-ESGO consensus conference recommendations on ovarian cancer: Pathology and molecular biology, early and advanced stages, borderline tumours and recurrent disease. Ann. Oncol. 2019 , 30 , 672–705. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Daly, M.B.; Pal, T.; Maxwell, K.N.; Churpek, J.; Kohlmann, W.; AlHilli, Z.; Arun, B.; Buys, S.S.; Cheng, H.; Domchek, S.M.; et al. NCCN Guidelines ® Insights: Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic, Version 2.2024. J. Natl. Compr. Canc. Netw. 2023 , 21 , 1000–1010. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021 , 372 , n71. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Sherman, M.E.; Piedmonte, M.; Mai, P.L.; Ioffe, O.B.; Ronnett, B.M.; Van Le, L.; Ivanov, I.; Bell, M.C.; Blank, S.V.; DiSilvestro, P.; et al. Pathologic findings at risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy: Primary results from Gynecologic Oncology Group Trial GOG-0199. J. Clin. Oncol. 2014 , 32 , 3275–3283. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Terada, K.Y.; Ahn, H.J.; Kessel, B. Differences in risk for type 1 and type 2 ovarian cancer in a large cancer screening trial. J. Gynecol. Oncol. 2016 , 27 , e25. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Onda, T.; Satoh, T.; Saito, T.; Kasamatsu, T.; Nakanishi, T.; Nakamura, K.; Wakabayashi, M.; Takehara, K.; Saito, M.; Ushijima, K.; et al. Comparison of treatment invasiveness between upfront debulking surgery versus interval debulking surgery following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for stage III/IV ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal cancers in a phase III randomised trial: Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study JCOG0602. Eur. J. Cancer 2016 , 64 , 22–31. [ Google Scholar ] [ PubMed ]
• Gentry-Maharaj, A.; Glazer, C.; Burnell, M.; Ryan, A.; Berry, H.; Kalsi, J.; Woolas, R.; Skates, S.J.; Campbell, S.; Parmar, M.; et al. Changing trends in reproductive/lifestyle factors in UK women: Descriptive study within the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS). BMJ Open 2017 , 7 , e011822. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rouzier, R.; Gouy, S.; Selle, F.; Lambaudie, E.; Floquet, A.; Fourchotte, V.; Pomel, C.; Colombo, P.E.; Kalbacher, E.; Martin-Francoise, S.; et al. Efficacy and safety of bevacizumab-containing neoadjuvant therapy followed by interval debulking surgery in advanced ovarian cancer: Results from the ANTHALYA trial. Eur. J. Cancer 2017 , 70 , 133–142. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Onda, T.; Satoh, T.; Ogawa, G.; Saito, T.; Kasamatsu, T.; Nakanishi, T.; Mizutani, T.; Takehara, K.; Okamoto, A.; Ushijima, K.; et al. Comparison of survival between primary debulking surgery and neoadjuvant chemotherapy for stage III/IV ovarian, tubal and peritoneal cancers in phase III randomised trial. Eur. J. Cancer 2020 , 130 , 114–125. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Onda, T.; Tanaka, Y.O.; Kitai, S.; Manabe, T.; Ishikawa, M.; Hasumi, Y.; Miyamoto, K.; Ogawa, G.; Satoh, T.; Saito, T.; et al. Stage III disease of ovarian, tubal and peritoneal cancers can be accurately diagnosed with pre-operative CT. Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study JCOG0602. Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol. 2021 , 51 , 205–212. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Taylor, J.A.; Burnell, M.; Ryan, A.; Karpinskyj, C.; Kalsi, J.K.; Taylor, H.; Apostolidou, S.; Sharma, A.; Manchanda, R.; Woolas, R.; et al. Association of hysterectomy and invasive epithelial ovarian and tubal cancer: A cohort study within UKCTOCS. BJOG 2022 , 129 , 110–118. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Maurer, T.; Belau, M.H.; von Grundherr, J.; Schlemmer, Z.; Patra, S.; Becher, H.; Schulz, K.H.; Zyriax, B.C.; Schmalfeldt, B.; Chang-Claude, J. Randomised controlled trial testing the feasibility of an exercise and nutrition intervention for patients with ovarian cancer during and after first-line chemotherapy (BENITA-study). BMJ Open 2022 , 12 , e054091. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• van Bommel, M.H.D.; Steenbeek, M.P.; IntHout, J.; Hermens, R.P.M.G.; Hoogerbrugge, N.; Harmsen, M.G.; van Doorn, H.C.; Mourits, M.J.E.; van Beurden, M.; Zweemer, R.P.; et al. Cancer worry among BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers choosing surgery to prevent tubal/ovarian cancer: Course over time and associated factors. Support. Care Cancer 2022 , 30 , 3409–3418. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Menon, U.; Gentry-Maharaj, A.; Burnell, M.; Ryan, A.; Kalsi, J.K.; Singh, N.; Dawnay, A.; Fallowfield, L.; McGuire, A.J.; Campbell, S.; et al. Mortality impact, risks, and benefits of general population screening for ovarian cancer: The UKCTOCS randomised controlled trial. Health Technol. Assess. 2023 , 11 , 1–81. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Corzo, C.; Iniesta, M.D.; Patrono, M.G.; Lu, K.H.; Ramirez, P.T. Role of Fallopian Tubes in the Development of Ovarian Cancer. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2017 , 24 , 230–234. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ludovisi, M.; Bruno, M.; Capanna, G.; Di Florio, C.; Calvisi, G.; Guido, M. Sonographic features of pelvic tuberculosis mimicking ovarian-tubal-peritoneal carcinoma. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2023 , 61 , 536–538. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shih, I.M.; Wang, Y.; Wang, T.L. The Origin of Ovarian Cancer Species and Precancerous Landscape. Am. J. Pathol. 2021 , 191 , 26–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bogaerts, J.M.A.; van Bommel, M.H.D.; Hermens, R.P.M.G.; Steenbeek, M.P.; de Hullu, J.A.; van der Laak, J.A.W.M.; STIC consortium; Simons, M. Consensus based recommendations for the diagnosis of serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma: An international Delphi study. Histopathology 2023 , 83 , 67–79. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rabban, J.T.; Garg, K.; Crawford, B.; Chen, L.M.; Zaloudek, C.J. Early detection of high-grade tubal serous carcinoma in women at low risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome by systematic examination of fallopian tubes incidentally removed during benign surgery. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2014 , 38 , 729–742. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, H.X.; Lu, Z.H.; Shen, K.; Cheng, W.J.; Malpica, A.; Zhang, J.; Wei, J.J.; Zhang, Z.H.; Liu, J. Advances in serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma: Correlation with high grade serous carcinoma and ovarian carcinogenesis. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Pathol. 2014 , 7 , 848–857. [ Google Scholar ]
• Patrono, M.G.; Iniesta, M.D.; Malpica, A.; Lu, K.H.; Fernandez, R.O.; Salvo, G.; Ramirez, P.T. Clinical outcomes in patients with isolated serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC): A comprehensive review. Gynecol. Oncol. 2015 , 139 , 568–572. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Steenbeek, M.P.; van Bommel, M.H.D.; Bulten, J.; Hulsmann, J.A.; Bogaerts, J.; Garcia, C.; Cun, H.T.; Lu, K.H.; van Beekhuizen, H.J.; Minig, L.; et al. Risk of Peritoneal Carcinomatosis After Risk-Reducing Salpingo-Oophorectomy: A Systematic Review and Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis. J. Clin. Oncol. 2022 , 40 , 1879–1891. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• van der Ven, J.; Linz, V.C.; Anic, K.; Schmidt, M.W.; Loewe, A.; Krajnak, S.; Schmidt, M.; Kommoss, S.; Schmalfeldt, B.; Sehouli, J.; et al. A questionnaire-based survey on the diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for patients with STIC in Germany. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2023 , 308 , 527–534. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Tongsong, T.; Wanapirak, C.; Tantipalakorn, C.; Tinnangwattana, D. Sonographic Diagnosis of Tubal Cancer with IOTA Simple Rules Plus Pattern Recognition. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2017 , 18 , 3011–3015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fedoua, W.; Mouna, H.; Hasana, S.; Boufettal, H.; Mahdaoui, S.; Samouh, N. Tubal adenocarcinoma: Report of 3 cases and review of the literature. Int. J. Surg. Case Rep. 2023 , 109 , 108494. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Berek, J.S.; Renz, M.; Kehoe, S.; Kumar, L.; Friedlander, M. Cancer of the ovary, fallopian tube, and peritoneum: 2021 update. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 2021 , 155 (Suppl. S1), 61–85. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Howitt, B.E.; Hanamornroongruang, S.; Lin, D.I.; Conner, J.E.; Schulte, S.; Horowitz, N.; Crum, C.P.; Meserve, E.E. Evidence for a Dualistic Model of High-grade Serous Carcinoma. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2015 , 39 , 287–293. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fagotti, A.; Perelli, F.; Pedone, L.; Scambia, G. Current Recommendations for Minimally Invasive Surgical Staging in Ovarian Cancer. Curr. Treat. Options Oncol. 2016 , 17 , 3. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fagotti, A.; Ferrandina, G.; Fanfani, F.; Garganese, G.; Vizzielli, G.; Carone, V.; Salerno, M.G.; Scambia, G. Prospective validation of a laparoscopic predictive model for optimal cytoreduction in advanced ovarian carcinoma. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2008 , 199 , 642.e1–642.e6. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Han, J.; Sadiq, N.M. Anatomy, Abdomen and Pelvis: Fallopian Tube. In StatPearls [Internet] ; StatPearls Publishing: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2024. [ Google Scholar ]
• Visvanathan, K.; Shaw, P.; May, B.J.; Bahadirli-Talbott, A.; Kaushiva, A.; Risch, H.; Narod, S.; Wang, T.L.; Parkash, V.; Vang, R.; et al. Fallopian Tube Lesions in Women at High Risk for Ovarian Cancer: A Multicenter Study. Cancer Prev. Res. 2018 , 11 , 697–706. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Vizzielli, G.; Costantini, B.; Tortorella, L.; Pitruzzella, I.; Gallotta, V.; Fanfani, F.; Gueli Alletti, S.; Cosentino, F.; Nero, C.; Scambia, G.; et al. A laparoscopic risk-adjusted model to predict major complications after primary debulking surgery in ovarian cancer: A single-institution assessment. Gynecol. Oncol. 2016 , 142 , 19–24. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Colombi, I.; D’Indinosante, M.; Lazzeri, L.; Zupi, E.; Pisaneschi, S.; Giusti, M.; Mattei, A.; Debonis, E.V.; Cassisa, A.; Cavaliere, A.F.; et al. Tubal Cancer Clinical Management: Two Exceptional Scenarios and a Review of the Literature. J. Clin. Med. 2024 , 13 , 5075. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13175075

Colombi I, D’Indinosante M, Lazzeri L, Zupi E, Pisaneschi S, Giusti M, Mattei A, Debonis EV, Cassisa A, Cavaliere AF, et al. Tubal Cancer Clinical Management: Two Exceptional Scenarios and a Review of the Literature. Journal of Clinical Medicine . 2024; 13(17):5075. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13175075

Colombi, Irene, Marco D’Indinosante, Lucia Lazzeri, Errico Zupi, Silvia Pisaneschi, Marco Giusti, Alberto Mattei, Elisa Valentina Debonis, Angelo Cassisa, Anna Franca Cavaliere, and et al. 2024. "Tubal Cancer Clinical Management: Two Exceptional Scenarios and a Review of the Literature" Journal of Clinical Medicine 13, no. 17: 5075. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13175075

Article Metrics

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

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals