steps followed in conducting literature review

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

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

What is a literature review?

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

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

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

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

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

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

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

2. Decide on the scope of your review

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

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

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

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

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

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

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

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

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

Tips: 

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

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

Steps in the literature review process.

• What is a literature review?
• Define your research question
• Determine inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Choose databases and search
• Review Results
• Synthesize Results
• Analyze Results
• Librarian Support
• Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools
• You may need to some exploratory searching of the literature to get a sense of scope, to determine whether you need to narrow or broaden your focus
• Identify databases that provide the most relevant sources, and identify relevant terms (controlled vocabularies) to add to your search strategy
• Finalize your research question
• Think about relevant dates, geographies (and languages), methods, and conflicting points of view
• Conduct searches in the published literature via the identified databases
• Check to see if this topic has been covered in other discipline's databases
• Examine the citations of on-point articles for keywords, authors, and previous research (via references) and cited reference searching.
• Save your search results in a citation management tool (such as Zotero, Mendeley or EndNote)
• De-duplicate your search results
• Make sure that you've found the seminal pieces -- they have been cited many times, and their work is considered foundational 
• Check with your professor or a librarian to make sure your search has been comprehensive
• Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of individual sources and evaluate for bias, methodologies, and thoroughness
• Group your results in to an organizational structure that will support why your research needs to be done, or that provides the answer to your research question  
• Develop your conclusions
• Are there gaps in the literature?
• Where has significant research taken place, and who has done it?
• Is there consensus or debate on this topic?
• Which methodological approaches work best?
• For example: Background, Current Practices, Critics and Proponents, Where/How this study will fit in 
• Organize your citations and focus on your research question and pertinent studies
• Compile your bibliography

Note: The first four steps are the best points at which to contact a librarian. Your librarian can help you determine the best databases to use for your topic, assess scope, and formulate a search strategy.

Videos Tutorials about Literature Reviews

This 4.5 minute video from Academic Education Materials has a Creative Commons License and a British narrator.

Recommended Reading

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

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved July 2, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

• UWF Libraries

Literature Review: Conducting & Writing

• Steps for Conducting a Lit Review

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

2. decide on the scope of your review., 3. select the databases you will use to conduct your searches., 4. conduct your searches and find the literature. keep track of your searches, 5. review the literature..

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

Disclaimer!!

Conducting a literature review is usually recursive, meaning that somewhere along the way, you'll find yourself repeating steps out-of-order.

That is actually a good sign.  

Reviewing the research should lead to more research questions and those questions will likely lead you to either revise your initial research question or go back and find more literature related to a more specific aspect of your research question.

Your literature review should be guided by a central research question.  Remember, it is not a collection of loosely related studies in a field but instead represents background and research developments related to a specific research question, interpreted and analyzed by you in a synthesized way.

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

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

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

Make a list of the databases you will search.  Remember to include comprehensive databases such as WorldCat and Dissertations & Theses, if you need to.

Where to find databases:

• Find Databases by Subject UWF Databases categorized by discipline
• Find Databases via Research Guides Librarians create research guides for all of the disciplines on campus! Take advantage of their expertise and see what discipline-specific search strategies they recommend!
• Review the abstracts of research studies carefully. This will save you time.
• Write down the searches you conduct in each database so that you may duplicate them if you need to later (or avoid dead-end searches   that you'd forgotten you'd already tried).
• Use the bibliographies and references of research studies you find to locate others.
• Ask your professor or a scholar in the field if you are missing any key works in the field.
• Use RefWorks to keep track of your research citations. See the RefWorks Tutorial if you need help.

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

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

Tips: 

• Again, review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
• << Previous: Home
• Next: Finding "The Literature" >>
• Last Updated: Mar 22, 2024 9:37 AM
• URL: https://libguides.uwf.edu/litreview

• OU Homepage
• OU Social Media
• The University of Oklahoma

Steps in doing a literature review

The steps below look sequential. However, doing a literature review is often an iterative process. That is, you may “circle back" to redo or modify earlier steps. You may also be working on a number of steps at the same time. 

General steps

State your research topic or question. Ask yourself: What is my central question or issue that the literature can help define? What is already known about the topic?

Clarify the purpose of your review. For example, is it to provide background information for a research paper? Is it for a “pro and con" discussion? Is it to provide a synthesis or summary of the "state of the discipline?" Is it to demonstrate that you are familiar with previous work that has been done in your discipline? You may have several purposes.

Develop a starting search plan. Ask yourself: Where will I find information? (Library databases? Google Scholar? Special digital or physical collections specific to your discipline?) What is the scope of the search? How broadly or narrowly should I search? (Hint: Check out Boston College Libraries' excellent guide on literature review scope .)

Consider using a search log to help you search more effectively. This one was created by the University of Leeds.

Do your search and choose sources that seem to have information on your topic.

Choose the exact information you want to use, discuss, or develop in your review. 

Organize and synthesize the information you've selected. Before beginning to write about the sources, you will probably find it useful to organize the sources -- perhaps thematically, perhaps chronologically. Ask yourself: What connections can be made between the texts? Is there a conflict or debate in the literature? How will reviewing the literature justify the topic I plan to investigate?

IUPUI has created a handy worksheet to help you synthesize multiple authors' research and viewpoints. Florida International University's "synthesis matrix" might also be useful.

Write a draft of the paper or article.

Acknowledgements: This page contains information adapted from Irene Clark's book Writing the Successful Thesis and Dissertation: Entering the Conversation (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2007), pp. 110-111; and from librarian Paul Fehrmann's "Literature Reviews" guide on the Kent State University Libraries website.

Some helpful resources

The following resources, available through the OU Libraries, will give you additional help in developing your literature review.

" How to Write a Literature Review ." By Andrew S. Denney and Richard Tewksbury. Journal of Criminal Justice Education , vol. 24, no. 2 (2013), pp. 218-234.

Write a Literature Review

1. narrow your topic and select papers accordingly, 2. search for literature, 3. read the selected articles thoroughly and evaluate them, 4. organize the selected papers by looking for patterns and by developing subtopics, 5. develop a thesis or purpose statement, 6. write the paper, 7. review your work.

• Resources for Gathering and Reading the Literature
• Resources for Writing and Revising
• Other Useful Resources

Ask Us: Chat, email, visit or call

Get Assistance

The library offers a range of helpful services.  All of our appointments are free of charge and confidential.

• Book an appointment

Consider your specific area of study. Think about what interests you and what interests other researchers in your field.

Talk to your professor, brainstorm, and read lecture notes and recent issues of periodicals in the field.

Limit your scope to a smaller topic area (ie. focusing on France's role in WWII instead of focusing on WWII in general).

• Four Steps to Narrow Your Research Topic (Video) This 3-minute video provides instructions on how to narrow the focus of your research topic.
• Developing a Research Question + Worksheet Use this worksheet to develop, assess, and refine your research questions. There is also a downloadable PDF version.

Define your source selection criteria (ie. articles published between a specific date range, focusing on a specific geographic region, or using a specific methodology).

Using keywords, search a library database.

Reference lists of recent articles and reviews can lead to other useful papers.

Include any studies contrary to your point of view.

Evaluate and synthesize the studies' findings and conclusions.

Note the following:

• Assumptions some or most researchers seem to make
• Methodologies, testing procedures, subjects, material tested researchers use
• Experts in the field: names/labs that are frequently referenced
• Conflicting theories, results, methodologies
• Popularity of theories and how this has/has not changed over time
• Findings that are common/contested
• Important trends in the research
• The most influential theories

Tip: If your literature review is extensive, find a large table surface, and on it place post-it notes or filing cards to organize all your findings into categories.

• Move them around if you decide that (a) they fit better under different headings, or (b) you need to establish new topic headings.
• Develop headings/subheadings that reflect the major themes and patterns you detected

Write a one or two sentence statement summarizing the conclusion you have reached about the major trends and developments you see in the research that has been conducted on your subject.

• Templates for Writing Thesis Statements This template provides a two-step guide for writing thesis statements. There is also a downloadable PDF version.
• 5 Types of Thesis Statements Learn about five different types of thesis statements to help you choose the best type for your research. There is also a downloadable PDF version.
• 5 Questions to Strengthen Your Thesis Statement Follow these five steps to strengthen your thesis statements. There is also a downloadable PDF version.

Follow the organizational structure you developed above, including the headings and subheadings you constructed.

Make certain that each section links logically to the one before and after.

Structure your sections by themes or subtopics, not by individual theorists or researchers.

• Tip: If you find that each paragraph begins with a researcher's name, it might indicate that, instead of evaluating and comparing the research literature from an analytical point of view, you have simply described what research has been done.

Prioritize analysis over description.

• For example, look at the following two passages and note that Student A merely describes the literature, whereas Student B takes a more analytical and evaluative approach by comparing and contrasting. You can also see that this evaluative approach is well signaled by linguistic markers indicating logical connections (words such as "however," "moreover") and phrases such as "substantiates the claim that," which indicate supporting evidence and Student B's ability to synthesize knowledge.

Student A: Smith (2000) concludes that personal privacy in their living quarters is the most important factor in nursing home residents' perception of their autonomy. He suggests that the physical environment in the more public spaces of the building did not have much impact on their perceptions. Neither the layout of the building nor the activities available seem to make much difference. Jones and Johnstone make the claim that the need to control one's environment is a fundamental need of life (2001), and suggest that the approach of most institutions, which is to provide total care, may be as bad as no care at all. If people have no choices or think that they have none, they become depressed.

Student B: After studying residents and staff from two intermediate care facilities in Calgary, Alberta, Smith (2000) came to the conclusion that except for the amount of personal privacy available to residents, the physical environment of these institutions had minimal if any effect on their perceptions of control (autonomy). However, French (1998) and Haroon (2000) found that availability of private areas is not the only aspect of the physical environment that determines residents' autonomy. Haroon interviewed 115 residents from 32 different nursing homes known to have different levels of autonomy (2000). It was found that physical structures, such as standardized furniture, heating that could not be individually regulated, and no possession of a house key for residents limited their feelings of independence. Moreover, Hope (2002), who interviewed 225 residents from various nursing homes, substantiates the claim that characteristics of the institutional environment such as the extent of resources in the facility, as well as its location, are features which residents have indicated as being of great importance to their independence.

• How to Integrate Critical Voice into Your Literature Review (Video)
• Look at the topic sentences of each paragraph. If you were to read only these sentences, would you find that your paper presented a clear position, logically developed, from beginning to end? The topic sentences of each paragraph should indicate the main points of your literature review.
• Make an outline of each section of the paper and decide whether you need to add information, to delete irrelevant information, or to re-structure sections.
• Read your work out loud. That way you will be better able to identify where you need punctuation marks to signal pauses or divisions within sentences, where you have made grammatical errors, or where your sentences are unclear.
• Since the purpose of a literature review is to demonstrate that the writer is familiar with the important professional literature on the chosen subject, check to make certain that you have covered all of the important, up-to-date, and pertinent texts. In the sciences and some of the social sciences it is important that your literature be quite recent; this is not so important in the humanities.
• Make certain that all of the citations and references are correct and that you are referencing in the appropriate style for your discipline. If you are uncertain which style to use, ask your professor.
• Check to make sure that you have not plagiarized either by failing to cite a source of information, or by using words quoted directly from a source. (Usually if you take three or more words directly from another source, you should put those words within quotation marks, and cite the page.)
• Text should be written in a clear and concise academic style; it should not be descriptive in nature or use the language of everyday speech.
• There should be no grammatical or spelling errors.
• Sentences should flow smoothly and logically.
• << Previous: Start Here
• Next: Resources for Gathering and Reading the Literature >>
• Last Updated: Jan 8, 2024 2:25 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uoguelph.ca/LiteratureReview

Suggest an edit to this guide

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

How to Write a Literature Review: Six Steps to Get You from Start to Finish

Writing-a-literature-review-six-steps-to-get-you-from-start-to-finish.

Tanya Golash-Boza, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of California

February 03, 2022

Writing a literature review is often the most daunting part of writing an article, book, thesis, or dissertation. “The literature” seems (and often is) massive. I have found it helpful to be as systematic as possible when completing this gargantuan task.

Sonja Foss and William Walters* describe an efficient and effective way of writing a literature review. Their system provides an excellent guide for getting through the massive amounts of literature for any purpose: in a dissertation, an M.A. thesis, or preparing a research article for publication  in any field of study. Below is a  summary of the steps they outline as well as a step-by-step method for writing a literature review.

How to Write a Literature Review

Step One: Decide on your areas of research:

Before you begin to search for articles or books, decide beforehand what areas you are going to research. Make sure that you only get articles and books in those areas, even if you come across fascinating books in other areas. A literature review I am currently working on, for example, explores barriers to higher education for undocumented students.

Step Two: Search for the literature:

Conduct a comprehensive bibliographic search of books and articles in your area. Read the abstracts online and download and/or print those articles that pertain to your area of research. Find books in the library that are relevant and check them out. Set a specific time frame for how long you will search. It should not take more than two or three dedicated sessions.

Step Three: Find relevant excerpts in your books and articles:

Skim the contents of each book and article and look specifically for these five things:

1. Claims, conclusions, and findings about the constructs you are investigating

2. Definitions of terms

3. Calls for follow-up studies relevant to your project

4. Gaps you notice in the literature

5. Disagreement about the constructs you are investigating

When you find any of these five things, type the relevant excerpt directly into a Word document. Don’t summarize, as summarizing takes longer than simply typing the excerpt. Make sure to note the name of the author and the page number following each excerpt. Do this for each article and book that you have in your stack of literature. When you are done, print out your excerpts.

Step Four: Code the literature:

Get out a pair of scissors and cut each excerpt out. Now, sort the pieces of paper into similar topics. Figure out what the main themes are. Place each excerpt into a themed pile. Make sure each note goes into a pile. If there are excerpts that you can’t figure out where they belong, separate those and go over them again at the end to see if you need new categories. When you finish, place each stack of notes into an envelope labeled with the name of the theme.

Step Five: Create Your Conceptual Schema:

Type, in large font, the name of each of your coded themes. Print this out, and cut the titles into individual slips of paper. Take the slips of paper to a table or large workspace and figure out the best way to organize them. Are there ideas that go together or that are in dialogue with each other? Are there ideas that contradict each other? Move around the slips of paper until you come up with a way of organizing the codes that makes sense. Write the conceptual schema down before you forget or someone cleans up your slips of paper.

Step Six: Begin to Write Your Literature Review:

Choose any section of your conceptual schema to begin with. You can begin anywhere, because you already know the order. Find the envelope with the excerpts in them and lay them on the table in front of you. Figure out a mini-conceptual schema based on that theme by grouping together those excerpts that say the same thing. Use that mini-conceptual schema to write up your literature review based on the excerpts that you have in front of you. Don’t forget to include the citations as you write, so as not to lose track of who said what. Repeat this for each section of your literature review.

Once you complete these six steps, you will have a complete draft of your literature review. The great thing about this process is that it breaks down into manageable steps something that seems enormous: writing a literature review.

I think that Foss and Walter’s system for writing the literature review is ideal for a dissertation, because a Ph.D. candidate has already read widely in his or her field through graduate seminars and comprehensive exams.

It may be more challenging for M.A. students, unless you are already familiar with the literature. It is always hard to figure out how much you need to read for deep meaning, and how much you just need to know what others have said. That balance will depend on how much you already know.

For people writing literature reviews for articles or books, this system also could work, especially when you are writing in a field with which you are already familiar. The mere fact of having a system can make the literature review seem much less daunting, so I recommend this system for anyone who feels overwhelmed by the prospect of writing a literature review.

*Destination Dissertation: A Traveler's Guide to a Done Dissertation

Image Credit/Source: Goldmund Lukic/Getty Images

Watch our Webinar to help you get published

Please enter your Email Address

Please enter valid email address

Please Enter your First Name

Please enter your Last Name

Please enter your Questions or Comments.

Please enter the Privacy

Please enter the Terms & Conditions

How research content supports academic integrity

Finding time to publish as a medical student: 6 tips for Success

Software to Improve Reliability of Research Image Data: Wiley, Lumina, and Researchers at Harvard Medical School Work Together on Solutions

Driving Research Outcomes: Wiley Partners with CiteAb

ISBN, ISSN, DOI: what they are and how to find them

Image Collections for Medical Practitioners with TDS Health

How do you Discover Content?

Writing for Publication for Nurses (Mandarin Edition)

Get Published - Your How to Webinar

Finding time to publish as a medical student: 6 tips for success

Related articles.

Learn how Wiley partners with plagiarism detection services to support academic integrity around the world

Medical student Nicole Foley shares her top tips for writing and getting your work published.

Wiley and Lumina are working together to support the efforts of researchers at Harvard Medical School to develop and test new machine learning tools and artificial intelligence (AI) software that can

Learn more about our relationship with a company that helps scientists identify the right products to use in their research

What is ISBN? ISSN? DOI? Learn about some of the unique identifiers for book and journal content.

Learn how medical practitioners can easily access and search visual assets from our article portfolio

Explore free-to-use services that can help you discover new content

Watch this webinar to help you learn how to get published.

How to Easily Access the Most Relevant Research: A Q&A With the Creator of Scitrus

Atypon launches Scitrus, a personalized web app that allows users to create a customized feed of the latest research.

Effectively and Efficiently Creating your Paper

FOR INDIVIDUALS

FOR INSTITUTIONS & BUSINESSES

WILEY NETWORK

ABOUT WILEY

Corporate Responsibility

Corporate Governance

Leadership Team

Cookie Preferences

Copyright @ 2000-2024  by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., or related companies. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies.

Rights & Permissions

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Graduate Research: Guide to the Literature Review

• "Literature review" defined
• Research Communication Graphic
• Literature Review Steps
• Search techniques
• Finding Additional "Items
• Evaluating information
• Citing Styles
• Ethical Use of Information
• Research Databases This link opens in a new window
• Get Full Text
• Reading a Scholarly Article
• Author Rights
• Selecting a publisher

Introduction to Research Process: Literature Review Steps

When seeking information for a literature review or for any purpose, it helps to understand information-seeking as a process that you can follow. 5 Each of the six (6) steps has its own section in this web page with more detail. Do (and re-do) the following six steps:

1. Define your topic. The first step is defining your task -- choosing a topic and noting the questions you have about the topic. This will provide a focus that guides your strategy in step II and will provide potential words to use in searches in step III.

2. Develop a strategy. Strategy involves figuring out where the information might be and identifying the best tools for finding those types of sources. The strategy section identifies specific types of research databases to use for specific purposes.

3. Locate the information . In this step, you implement the strategy developed in II in order to actually locate specific articles, books, technical reports, etc.

4. Use and Evaluate the information. Having located relevant and useful material, in step IV you read and analyze the items to determine whether they have value for your project and credibility as sources.

5. Synthesize. In step V, you will make sense of what you've learned and demonstrate your knowledge. You will thoroughly understand, organize and integrate the information --become knowledgeable-- so that you are able to use your own words to support and explain your research project and its relationship to existing research by others.

6. Evaluate your work. At every step along the way, you should evaluate your work. However, this final step is a last check to make sure your work is complete and of high quality.

Continue below to begin working through the process.

5. Eisenberg, M. B., & Berkowitz, R. E. (1990). Information Problem-Solving: the Big Six Skills Approach to Library & Information Skills Instruction . Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

1. Define your topic.

I. Define your topic

A.  Many students have difficulty selecting a topic. You want to find a topic you find interesting and will enjoy learning more about.

B.   Students often select a topic that is too broad.  You may have a broad topic in mind initially and will need to narrow it.

1. To help narrow a broad topic :

a. Brainstorm.  

1). Try this technique for brainstorming to narrow your focus.   

a) Step 1.  Write down your broad topic.

b) Step 2. Write down a "specific kind" or "specific aspect" of the topic you identified in step 1.  

c) Step 3. Write down an aspect  --such as an attribute or behavior-- of the "specific kind" you identified in step 2.  

d) Step 4.  Continue to add  levels of specificity as needed to get to a focus that is manageable. However, you may want to begin researching the literature before narrowing further to give yourself the opportunity to explore what others are doing and how that might impact the direction that you take for your own research.                     

2) Three examples of using the narrowing technique. These examples start with very, very broad topics, so the topic at step 3 or 4 in these examples would be used for a preliminary search in the literature in order to identify a more specific focus.  Greater specificity than level 3 or 4 will ultimately be necessary for developing a specific research question. And we may discover in our preliminary research that we need to alter the direction that we originally were taking.

a) Example 1.      

             Step 1. information security

                      Step  2. protocols

                              Step 3.  handshake protocol

            Brainstorming has brought us to focus on the handshake protocol.

b) Example 2.  

            Step 1. information security

                     Step 2. single sign-on authentication

                              Step 3.  analyzing

                                       Step 4. methods

            Brainstorming has brought us to focus on methods for analyzing the security of single sign-on authentication

c) Example 3.  The diagram below is an example using the broad topic of "software" to show two potential ways to begin to narrow the topic. 

C. Once you have completed the brainstorming process and your topic is more focused, you can do preliminary research to help you identify a specific research question . 

1) Examine overview sources such as subject-specific encyclopedias and textbooks that are likely to break down your specific topic into sub-topics and to highlight core issues that could serve as possible research questions. [See section II. below on developing a strategy to learn how to find these encyclopedias]

2). Search the broad topic in a research database that includes scholarly journals and professional magazines (to find technical and scholarly articles) and scan recent article titles for ideas. [See section II. below on developing a strategy to learn how to find trade and scholarly journal articles]

D. Once you have identified a research question or questions, ask yourself what you need to know to answer the questions. For example,

1. What new knowledge do I need to gain?

2. What has already been answered by prior research of other scholars?

E.  Use the answers to the questions in C. to identify what words  to use to describe the topic when you are doing searches.

1. Identify key words

a.  For example , if you are investigating "security audits in banking", key terms to combine in your searches would be: security, audits, banking.

2.  Create a list of alternative ways of referring to a key word or phrase

a.For example , "information assurance" may be referred to in various ways such as: "information assurance," "information security," and "computer security."

b. Use these alternatives when doing searches.

3. As you are searching, pay attention to how others are writing about the topic and add new words or phrases to your searches if appropriate.

2. Develop a strategy.

II. Develop a strategy for finding the information. 

A. Start by considering what types of source might contain the information you need .  Do you need a dictionary for definitions? a directory for an address? the history of a concept or technique that might be in a book or specialized encyclopedia? today's tech news in an online tech magazine or newspaper?  current research in a journal article? background information that might be in a specialized encyclopedia? data or statistics from a specific organization or website?  Note that you will typically have online access to these source types.

B. This section provides a description of some of the common types of information needed for research.  

1. For technical and business analysis , look for articles in technical and trade magazines . These articles are written by information technology professionals to help other IT professionals do their jobs better. Content might include news on new developments in hardware or software, techniques, tools, and practical advice. Technical journals are also likely to have product ads relevant to information technology workers and to have job ads. Examples iof technical magazines include Network Computing and IEEE Spectrum .

2. To read original research studies , look for articles in scholarly journals and conference proceedings . They will provide articles written by  information technology professionals who are reporting original research; that is, research that has been done by the authors and is being reported for the first time. The audience for original research articles is other information technology scholars and professionals. Examples of scholarly journals include Journal of Applied Security Research , Journal of Management Information Systems , IEEE Transactions on Computers , and ACM Transactions on Information and System Security .

3. For original research being reported to funding agencies , look for technical reports on agency websites. Technical reports are researcher reports to funding agencies about progress on or completion of research funded by the agency.

4. For in-depth, comprehensive information on a topic , look for book-length volumes . All chapters in the book might be written by the same author(s) or might be a collection of separate papers written by different authors.

5. To learn about an unfamiliar topic , use textbooks ,  specialized encyclopedias and handbooks to get get overviews of topics, history/background, and key issues explained.

6. For instructions for hardware, software, networking, etc., look for manuals  that provide step-by-step instructions.

7. For technical details about inventions (devices, instruments, machines), look for patent documents .

C.   NOTE -  In order to search for and find original research studies,  it will help if you  understand  how information is produced, packaged  and  communicated  within your profession. This is explained in the tab  "Research Communication: Graphic."

3. Locate the information.

III. Locate the information

A. Use search tools designed to find the sources you want.  Types of sources were described in section II. above. 

Always feel free to Ask a librarian for assistance when you have questions about where and how locate the information you need.

B. Evaluate the search results (no matter where you find the information)

1. Evaluate the items you find using at least these 5 criteria:

a. accuracy -- is the information reliable and error free?

1) Is there an editor or someone who verifies/checks the information?

2) Is there adequate documentation: bibliography, footnotes, credits?

3) Are the conclusions justified by the information presented?

b. authority -- is the source of the information reputable?

1) How did you find the source of information: an index to edited/peer-reviewed material, in a bibliography from a published article, etc.?

2) What type of source is it: sensationalistic, popular, scholarly?

c. objectivity -- does the information show bias?

1) What is the purpose of the information: to inform, persuade, explain, sway opinion, advertise?

2) Does the source show political or cultural biases?

d. currency -- is the information current? does it cover the time period you need?

e. coverage -- does it provide the evidence or information you need?

2. Is the search producing the material you need? -- the right content? the right quality? right time period? right geographical location? etc. If not, are you using

a. the right sources?

b. the right tools to get to the sources?

c. are you using the right words to describe the topic?

3. Have you discovered additional terms that should be searched? If so, search those terms.

4. Have you discovered additional questions you need to answer? If so, return to section A above to begin to answer new questions.

4. Use and evaluate the information.

IV. Use the information.

A. Read, hear or view the source

1. Evaluate: Does the material answer your question(s)? -- right content? If not, return to B.

2. Evaluate: Is the material appropriate? -- right quality? If not, return to B.

B. Extract the information from the source : copy/download information, take notes, record citation, keep track of items using a citation manager.

1. Note taking (these steps will help you when you begin to write your thesis and/or document your project.):

a. Write the keywords you use in your searches to avoid duplicating previous searches if you return to search a research database again. Keeping track of keywords used will also save you time if your search is interrupted or you need return and do the search again for some other reason. It will help you remember which search terms worked successfully in which databases

b. Write the citations or record the information needed to cite each article/document you plan to read and use, or make sure that any saved a copy of the article includes all the information needed to cite it. Some article pdf files may not include all of the information needed to cite, and it's a waste of your valuable time to have to go back to search and find the items again in order to be able to cite them. Using citation management software such as EndNote will help keep track of citations and help create bibliographies for your research papers.

c. Write a summary of each article you read and/or why you want to use it.

5. Synthesize.

V. Synthesize.

A. Organize and integrate information from multiple sources

B. Present the information (create report, speech, etc. that communicates)

C. Cite material using the style required by your professor or by the venue (conference, publication, etc.). For help with citation styles, see  Guide to Citing Sources .  A link to the citing guide is also available in the "Get Help" section on the left side of the Library home page

6. Evaluate your work.

VI. Evaluate the paper, speech, or whatever you are using to communicate your research.

A. Is it effective?

B. Does it meet the requirements?

C. Ask another student or colleague to provide constructive criticism of your paper/project.

• << Previous: Research Communication Graphic
• Next: Search techniques >>
• Last Updated: Apr 15, 2024 3:27 PM
• URL: https://library.dsu.edu/graduate-research

Literature Review

• Steps for Conducting a Lit Review
• Finding "The Literature"
• Organizing/Writing
• Sample Literature Reviews
• FAMU Writing Center

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

Your literature review should be guided by a central research question.  Remember, it is not a collection of loosely related studies in a field but instead represents background and research developments related to a specific research question, interpreted and analyzed by you in a synthesized way.

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

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? 

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

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

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

• Look at the Library's research guides in your discipline to select discipline-specific databases.  Don't forget to look at books!
• Make an appointment with or contact your   subject librarian to make sure you aren't missing major databases.

4. Conduct your searches and find the literature. Keep track of your searches!

Tips: 

• Review the abstracts of research studies carefully. This will save you time.
• Write down the searches you conduct in each database so that you may duplicate them if you need to later (or avoid dead-end searches   that you'd forgotten you'd already tried).
• Use the bibliographies and references of research studies you find to locate others.
• Ask your professor or a scholar in the field if you are missing any key works in the field.
• Use RefWorks to keep track of your research citations. See the RefWorks Tutorial if you need help.

5. Review the literature.

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

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

Composing your literature review

O nce 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. 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 .

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Finding "The Literature" >>
• Last Updated: Oct 20, 2022 11:24 AM
• URL: https://library.famu.edu/literaturereview

Conducting a Literature Review

• Literature Review
• Developing a Topic
• Planning Your Literature Review
• Developing a Search Strategy
• Managing Citations
• Critical Appraisal Tools
• Writing a Literature Review

Before You Begin to Write.....

Do you have enough information? If you are not sure,

Ask yourself these questions:

• Has my search been wide enough to insure I've found all the relevant material?
• Has it been narrow enough to exclude irrelevant material?
• Is the number of sources I've used appropriate for the length of my paper?

You may have enough information for your literature review 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.
• Your advisor and other trusted experts say you have enough!

You have to stop somewhere and get on with the writing process!

Writing Tips

A literature review is not a list describing or summarizing one piece of literature after another. It’s usually a bad sign to see every paragraph beginning with the name of a researcher. Instead, organize the literature review into sections that present themes or identify trends, including relevant theory. You are not trying to list all the material published, but to synthesize and evaluate it according to the guiding concept of your thesis or research question

If you are writing an  annotated bibliography , you may need to summarize each item briefly, but should still follow through themes and concepts and do some critical assessment of material. Use an overall introduction and conclusion to state the scope of your coverage and to formulate the question, problem, or concept your chosen material illuminates. Usually you will have the option of grouping items into sections—this helps you indicate comparisons and relationships. You may be able to write a paragraph or so to introduce the focus of each section

Layout of Writing a Literature Review

Generally, the purpose of a review is to analyze critically a segment of a published body of knowledge through summary, classification, and comparison of prior research studies, reviews of literature, and theoretical articles.

Writing the introduction:

In the introduction, you should:

• Define or identify the general topic, issue, or area of concern, thus providing an appropriate context for reviewing the literature.
• Point out overall trends in what has been published about the topic; or conflicts in theory, methodology, evidence, and conclusions; or gaps in research and scholarship; or a single problem or new perspective of immediate interest.
• Establish the writer’s reason (point of view) for reviewing the literature; explain the criteria to be used in analyzing and comparing literature and the organization of the review (sequence); and, when necessary, state why certain literature is or is not included (scope).

Writing the body:

In the body, you should:

• Group research studies and other types of literature (reviews, theoretical articles, case studies, etc.) according to common denominators such as qualitative versus quantitative approaches, conclusions of authors, specific purpose or objective, chronology, etc.
• Summarize individual studies or articles with as much or as little detail as each merits according to its comparative importance in the literature, remembering that space (length) denotes significance.
• Provide the reader with strong “umbrella” sentences at beginnings of paragraphs, “signposts” throughout, and brief “so what” summary sentences at intermediate points in the review to aid in understanding comparisons and analyses.

WRITING TIP:  As you are writing the literature review you will mention the author names and the publication years in your text, but you will still need to compile comprehensive list citations for each entry at the end of your review. Follow  APA, MLA, or Chicago style guidelines , as your course requires.

Writing the conclusion:

In the conclusion, you should:

• Summarize major contributions of significant studies and articles to the body of knowledge under review, maintaining the focus established in the introduction.
• Evaluate the current “state of the art” for the body of knowledge reviewed, pointing out major methodological flaws or gaps in research, inconsistencies in theory and findings, and areas or issues pertinent to future study.
• Conclude by providing some insight into the relationship between the central topic of the literature review and a larger area of study such as a discipline, a scientific endeavor, or a profession.
• The Interprofessional Health Sciences Library
• 123 Metro Boulevard
• Nutley, NJ 07110
• [email protected]
• Student Services
• Parents and Families
• Career Center
• Web Accessibility
• Visiting Campus
• Public Safety
• Disability Support Services
• Campus Security Report
• Report a Problem
• Login to LibApps

Literature Reviews

• What is a Literature Review?
• Six Steps to Writing a Literature Review
• Finding Articles
• Try A Citation Manager
• Avoiding Plagiarism

Selecting a Research Topic 

The first step in the process involves exploring and selecting a topic. You may revise the topic/scope of your research as you learn more from the literature. Be sure to select a topic that you are willing to work with for a considerable amount of time.

When thinking about a topic, it is important to consider the following: 

Does the topic interest you?

Working on something that doesn’t excite you will make the process tedious. The research content should reflect your passion for research so it is essential to research in your area of interest rather than choosing a topic that interests someone else. While developing your research topic, broaden your thinking and creativity to determine what works best for you. Consider an area of high importance to your profession, or identify a gap in the research. It may take some time to narrow down on a topic and get started, but it’s worth the effort.

Is the Topic Relevant?

Be sure your subject meets the assignment/research requirements. When in doubt, review the guidelines and seek clarification from your professor. 

What is the Scope and Purpose?

Sometimes your chosen topic may be too broad. To find direction, try limiting the scope and purpose of the research by identifying the concepts you wish to explore. Once this is accomplished, you can fine-tune your topic by experimenting with keyword searches our  A-Z Databases  until you are satisfied with your retrieval results.

Are there Enough Resources to Support Your Research? 

If the topic is too narrow, you may not be able to provide the depth of results needed. When selecting a topic make sure you have adequate material to help with the research. Explore a variety of resources: journals, books, and online information. 

Adapted from https://jgateplus.com/home/2018/10/11/the-dos-of-choosing-a-research-topic-part-1/

Why use keywords to search? 

• Library databases work differently than Google. Library databases work best when you search for concepts and keywords.
• For your research, you will want to brainstorm keywords related to your research question. These keywords can lead you to relevant sources that you can use to start your research project.
• Identify those terms relevant to your research and add 2-3 in the search box. 

Now its time to decide whether or not to incorporate what you have found into your literature review.  E valuate  your resources to make sure they contain information that is authoritative, reliable, relevant and the most useful in supporting your research.

Remember to be:

• Objective : keep an open mind
• Unbiased : Consider all viewpoints, and include all sides of an argument,  even ones that don't support your own

Criteria for Evaluating Research Publications

Significance and Contribution to the Field

• What is the author’s aim?

• To what extent has this aim been achieved?

• What does this text add to the body of knowledge? (theory, data and/or practical application)

• What relationship does it bear to other works in the field?

• What is missing/not stated?

• Is this a problem?

Methodology or Approach (Formal, research-based texts)

• What approach was used for the research? (eg; quantitative or qualitative, analysis/review of theory or current practice, comparative, case study, personal reflection etc…)

• How objective/biased is the approach?

• Are the results valid and reliable?

• What analytical framework is used to discuss the results?

Argument and Use of Evidence

• Is there a clear problem, statement or hypothesis?

• What claims are made?

• Is the argument consistent?

• What kinds of evidence does the text rely on?

• How valid and reliable is the evidence?

• How effective is the evidence in supporting the argument?

• What conclusions are drawn?

• Are these conclusions justified?

Writing Style and Text Structure

• Does the writing style suit the intended audience? (eg; expert/non-expert, academic/non- academic)

• What is the organizing principle of the text?

• Could it be better organized?

Prepared by Pam Mort, Lyn Hallion and Tracey Lee Downey, The Learning Centre © April 2005 The University of New South Wales. 

Analysis: the Starting Point for Further Analysis & Inquiry

After evaluating your retrieved sources you will be ready to explore both what has been  found  and what is  missing . Analysis involves breaking the study into parts,  understanding  each part, assessing the  strength  of evidence, and drawing  conclusions  about its relationship to your topic. 

Read through the information sources you have selected and try to analyze, understand and critique what you read.  Critically  review each source's methods, procedures, data validity/reliability, and other themes of interest.  Consider  how each source approaches your topic in addition to their collective points of  intersection  and  separation .  Offer an appraisal of past and current thinking, ideas, policies, and practices, identify gaps within the research, and place your current work and research within this wider discussion by considering how your research supports, contradicts, or departs from other scholars’ research and offer recommendations for future research.

Top 10 Tips for Analyzing the Research

• Define key terms
• Note key statistics 
• Determine emphasis, strengths & weaknesses
• Critique research methodologies used in the studies
• Distinguish between author opinion and actual results
• Identify major trends, patterns, categories, relationships, and inconsistencies
• Recognize specific aspects in the study that relate to your topic
• Disclose any gaps in the literature
• Stay focused on your topic
• Excluding landmark studies, use current, up-to-date sources

Prepared by the fine librarians at California State University Sacramento. 

Synthesis vs Summary

Your literature review should not simply be a summary of the articles, books, and other scholarly writings you find on your topic. It should synthesize the various ideas from your sources with your own observations to create a map of the scholarly conversation taking place about your research topics along with gaps or areas for further research.

Bringing together your review results is called synthesis. Synthesis relies heavily on pattern recognition and relationships or similarities between different phenomena. Recognizing these patterns and relatedness helps you make  creative connections  between previously unrelated research and identify any gaps.

As you read, you'll encounter various ideas, disagreements, methods, and perspectives which can be hard to organize in a meaningful way.  A  synthesis matrix  also known as a Literature Review Matrix is an effective and efficient method to organize your literature by recording the main points of each source and documenting how sources relate to each other. If you know how to make an Excel spreadsheet, you can create your own synthesis matrix, or use one of the templates below. 

Because a literature review is NOT a summary of these different sources, it can be very difficult to keep your research organized. It is especially difficult to organize the information in a way that makes the writing process simpler. One way that seems particularly helpful in organizing literature reviews is the synthesis matrix. Click on the link below for a short tutorial and synthesis matrix spreadsheet.

• Literature Review and Synthesis
• Lit Review Synthesis Matrix
• Synthesis Matrix Example

A literature review must include a thesis statement, which is your perception of the information found in the literature. 

A literature review: 

• Demonstrates your thorough  investigation  of and acquaintance with sources related to your topic
• Is not a simple listing, but a  critical discussion
• Must  compare  and  contrast  opinions
• Must  relate  your study to previous studies
• Must show  gaps  in research
• Can  focus  on a research question or a thesis
• Includes a  compilation  of the primary questions and subject areas involved
• Identifies  sources

https://custom-writing.org/blog/best-literature-review

Organizing Your Literature Review

The structure of the review is divided into three main parts—an introduction, body, and the conclusion.

Introduction

Discuss what is already known about your topic and what readers need to know in order to understand your literature review. 

• Scope, Method, Framework: ​ Explain your selection criteria and similarities between your sources. Be sure to mention any consistent methods, theoretical frameworks, or approaches.  
• Research Question or Problem Statement:  State the problem you are addressing and why it is important. Try to write your research question as a statement. 
• Thesis : Address the connections between your sources, current state of knowledge in the field, and consistent approaches to your topic. 
• Format:  Describe your literature review’s organization and adhere to it throughout.   

​ Body 

The discussion of your research and its importance to the literature should be presented in a logical structure.

• Chronological: Structure your discussion by the literature’s publication date moving from the oldest to the newest research. Discuss how your research relates to the literature and highlight any breakthroughs and any gaps in the research.
• Historical: Similar to the chronological structure, the historical structure allows for a discussion of concepts or themes and how they have evolved over time.
• Thematic: Identify and discuss the different themes present within the research. Make sure that you relate the themes to each other and to your research.
• Methodological: This type of structure is used to discuss not so much what is found but how. For example, an methodological approach could provide an analysis of research approaches, data collection or and analysis techniques.

Provide a concise summary of your review and provide suggestions for future research.

Writing for Your Audience 

Writing within your discipline means learning:

• the  specialized vocabulary  your discipline uses
• the rhetorical conventions and  discourse  of your discipline
• the research  methodologies  which are employed

Learn how to write in your discipline by  familiarizing  yourself with the journals and trade publications professionals, researchers, and scholars use. 

Use our Databases by Title  to access:

• The best journals
• The most widely circulated trade publications
• The additional ways professionals and researchers communicate, such as conferences, newsletters, or symposiums.
• << Previous: What is a Literature Review?
• Next: Finding Articles >>
• Last Updated: Jan 18, 2024 1:14 PM
• URL: https://niagara.libguides.com/litreview

Writing a Literature Review

• Steps for Conducting a Lit Review
• Finding "The Literature"
• Organizing/Writing
• Peer Review
• Citation/Style Guides

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

Your literature review should be guided by a central research question.  Remember, it is not a collection of loosely related studies in a field but instead represents background and research developments related to a specific research question, interpreted and analyzed by you in a synthesized way.

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

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? 

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

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

Make a list of the databases you will search.  You can use a Discovery Service , such as and individual database.   

Tips: 

• Look at the library's research guides in your discipline to select discipline-specific databases.  Don't forget to look at books!
• Make an appointment with or contact your librarian to make sure you aren't missing major databases.

4. Conduct your searches and find the literature. Keep track of your searches!

• Review the abstracts of research studies carefully. This will save you time.
• Write down the searches you conduct in each database so that you may duplicate them if you need to later (or avoid dead-end searches   that you'd forgotten you'd already tried).
• Save your searches and results by creating an account and signing in.
• Use the bibliographies and references of research studies you find to locate others.
• Ask your professor or a scholar in the field if you are missing any key works in the field.
• Keep track of your searches by using Zotero or another bibliographic tool.

5. Review the literature.

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

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

Conducting a literature review is usually recursive, meaning that somewhere along the way, you'll find yourself repeating steps out-of-order.

That is actually a good sign.  

Reviewing the research should lead to more research questions and those questions will likely lead you to either revise your initial research question or go back and find more literature related to a more specific aspect of your research question.

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Finding "The Literature" >>
• Last Updated: Jul 1, 2024 3:27 PM
• URL: https://westlibrary.txwes.edu/writing_a_literature_review

Literature Reviews: Getting Started: The 5 Steps

• Introduction
• Getting Started: The 5 Steps
• Searching for Literature
• Advanced Searching Tips This link opens in a new window
• Organising Your Research
• Writing the Literature Review
• Example Reviews & Useful Books
• Research Tools
• Library 101 This link opens in a new window

These are the steps which you should follow to complete your literature review. 

Evaluating sources

It is important to make sure that the sources you're using are good quality, academic-appropriate sources.  You need to read critically when searching for literature. 

Evaluate the sources for their credibility. How have they arrived at their conclusions? Are there any conflicting theories or findings? Is the publisher reputable? Reading at this critical level will help you decide whether a publication should or should not be included in your literature review.

Author credentials

Examine how the contributors are affiliated. Are the researchers connected to a university, a research lab or a pharmaceutical company? Are the authors considered credible in their field? Are they promoting special interests?

Relevance and scope

Make sure the publications you include in your literature review are relevant and within the scope of your topic, in terms of theoretical argument, research methodology, timeframe and currency.

Reliability

How well is the study designed? Do you see any room for improvement? Do similar studies come to the same conclusion? Have the authors explored the topic from different points of view, or do they rely on a more one-sided argument?

Click HERE to see our help guide on evaluating information you find online. 

Feedback Poll

We would love feedback if this page was useful to you! If you have additional questions please reach out to us and we can try our best to help.

Step 1: Decide on your research question

The very first step in a literature review is deciding what it is you will be researching. Your research question defines the entirety of your final piece of work, including the literature review. It should focus on something from the research field that needs to be explored, where there are gaps in the information. This will ensure that your contribution is valuable and that you are providing readers with a different angle or perspective on an issue or problem.

Remember, a literature review is not a collection of vaguely related studies, but instead it represents background and research developments related to your specific research question - analysed, interpreted, and synthesised by you.  

For this reason it is important to hit on the right research question. 

Ask yourself: 

• Is it too broad? Is it too narrow? For example, a research question like “why are social networking sites harmful?” is too broad; there will be too much information to write a concise literature review. Change it to “how are online users experiencing or addressing privacy issues on Twitter and Facebook?" and it is more specific. It gives you a niche within the research field to focus on and explore.
• Has it been used as a research question by someone else before?
• Have you discussed it with your lecturer? They can guide you if your question isn't quite right yet. 

Step 2: Decide how broad or narrow your scope will be

You need to decide how broadly or narrowly you are going to search for literature. This will depend on a few factors: what your research question or topic is, what your lecturer says, and how well written on the topic is. 

Remember, the goal is not to examine everything that's ever been written on  your topic. To avoid your search results being too numerous, you should narrow down your scope by thinking of the following factors:

• How many years should your search cover?
• How comprehensive should it be? Will it cover every facet of a topic or focus on one area?
• Are there criteria by which you can narrow down the topic? For example, by age, by gender, by location, by methodology (e.g qualitative or quantitative research, case studies), by theoretical framework, etc.?

Here are some examples of topics and searches that are too braod, and more narrow approaches you could take: 

You can also narrow the scope of your search by utilising advanced search techniques, and using filters to eliminate irrelevant search results. You can find more information on both of these  HERE

Step 3: Decide where you will search

It is important to select the right databases in which to conduct your search. Rather than searching generally across all the library databases, some of which may not have anything to do with your topic, it would be more efficient to go to databases which are more closely aligned with your topic.

You can see IADT Library's list of databases  here . 

Ask your lecturer which databases they think you should search.

For information on how to use our databases, click HERE .

Step 4: Conduct your search

Searching for the literature is one of the steps which can take the most time. Take your time to be thorough and methodical. One of the best things you can do is keep track of your searches. The software we recommend to do this is Zotero . Zotero is a tool which allows you to save sources and citations, including taking notes about them as you read them, which will save you lots of time down the road when you come to analysing these sources. You can read all about Zotero here .

Tips to finding relevant literature

• Review the abstracts of research studies carefully. An abstract is a comprehensive summary of what the article is about. This will save you time because you can quickly see if the article is relevant to you or not. 
• Document the searches you conduct in each database so that you can duplicate them if you need to later (or avoid dead-end searches that you'd forgotten you'd already tried).
• Use the bibliographies and references of research studies you find to locate others.  You can also use citation tracking to see who has used a piece of work in their own research and how they've built on this.
• Note what key words are used by authors, usually in their abstracts and search for those. Sometimes having the right vocabulary for the topic can help you find many more sources you might have missed otherwise.
• Ask your lecturer if you are missing any key works in the field.

What about searching Google? Googling your topic can bring up hundreds of thousands of hits, but rarely will the sources from a Google search be appropriate to use in an academic assignment like a literature review. For a literature review, the sources need to be academically authoritative - for example, academic books, journals, research reports, government publications. Using non-scholarly or non-authoritative sources in your literature review will likely result in a poor grade. 

Step 5: Review the literature

This step is the output that you will be graded on in the end. 

Here are some questions to help you analyse the research:

• What was the research question of the study you are reviewing? What were the authors trying to discover or argue?
• Was the research funded by a source that could influence the findings?
• What were the research methodologies? Analyse its literature review, the samples and variables used, the results, and the conclusions. Does the research seem to be complete? Could it have been conducted more soundly? What further questions does it raise?
• If there are conflicting studies, why do you think that is?
• How are the authors viewed in the field? Has this study been cited?; if so, how has it been analysed by others?
• Has your topic been written about very rarely? If so, why do you think that is? What  has  been written that's close to the topic?

Tips: 

• Again, review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.

IADT LibGuides are licenced under a  Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License  (CC-BY-NC 4.0) 

• << Previous: Introduction
• Next: Searching for Literature >>
• Last Updated: May 29, 2024 3:49 PM
• URL: https://iadt.libguides.com/litreview

• Become Involved |
• Give to the Library |
• Staff Directory |
• UNF Library
• Thomas G. Carpenter Library

Conducting a Literature Review

Steps in conducting a literature review.

• Benefits of Conducting a Literature Review
• Summary of the Process
• Additional Resources
• Literature Review Tutorial by American University Library
• The Literature Review: A Few Tips On Conducting It by University of Toronto
• Write a Literature Review by UC Santa Cruz University Library

Conducting a literature review involves using research databases to identify materials that cover or are related in some sense to the research topic. In some cases the research topic may be so original in its scope that no one has done anything exactly like it, so research that is at least similar or related will provide source material for the literature review. The selection of databases will be driven by the subject matter and the scope of the project.

Selecting Databases -- Most academic libraries now provide access to a majority of their databases and their catalog via a so-called discovery tool. A discovery tool makes searching library systems more "Google-like" in that even the simplest of queries can be entered and results retrieved. However, many times the results are also "Google-like" in the sheer quantity of items retrieved. While a discovery tool can be invaluable for quickly finding a multitude of resources on nearly any topic, there are a number of considerations a researcher should keep in mind when using a discovery tool, especially for the researcher who is attempting a comprehensive literature review.

No discovery tool works with every database subscribed to by a library. Some libraries might subscribe to two or three hundred different research databases covering a large number of subject areas. Competing discovery systems might negotiate agreements with different database vendors in order to provide access to a large range of materials. There will be other vendors with whom agreements are not forthcoming, therefore their materials are not included in the discovery tool results. While this might be of only minor concern for a researcher looking to do a fairly limited research project, the researcher looking to do a comprehensive review of the literature in preparation for writing a master's thesis or a doctoral dissertation will run the risk of missing some materials by limiting the search just to a particular library's discovery system. If only one system covered everything that a researcher could possibly need, libraries would have no need to subscribe to hundreds of different databases. The reality is that no one tool does it all. Not even Google Scholar.

Book collections might be excluded from results delivered by a discovery tool. While many libraries are making results from their own catalogs available via their discovery tools, they might not cover books that are discoverable from other library collections, thus making a search of book collections incomplete. Most libraries subscribe to an international database of library catalogs known as WorldCat. This database will provide comprehensive coverage of books, media, and other physical library materials available in libraries worldwide.

Features available in a particular database might not be available in a discovery tool. Keep in mind that a discovery tool is a search system that enables searching across content from numerous individual databases. An individual database might have search features that cannot be provided through a discovery tool, since the discovery tool is designed to accommodate a large number of systems with a single search. For example, the nursing database  CINAHL  includes the ability to limit a search to specific practice areas, to limit to evidence-based practice, to limit to gender, and to search using medical subject headings, among other things, all specialized facets that are not available in a discovery tool. To have these advanced capabilities, a researcher would need to go directly to  CINAHL  and search it natively.

Some discovery tools are set, by default, to limit search results to those items directly available through a particular library's collections. While many researchers will be most concerned with what is immediately available to them at their own library, a researcher concerned with finding everything that has been done on a particular topic will need to go beyond what's available at his or her home library and include materials that are available elsewhere. Master's and doctoral candidates should take care to notice if their library's discovery tool automatically limits to available materials and broaden the scope to include ALL materials, not just those available.

With the foregoing in mind, a researcher might start a search by using the library's discovery tool and then follow up by reviewing which databases have been included in the search and, more importantly, which databases have not been included. Most libraries will facilitate locating its individual databases through a subject arrangement of some kind. Once those databases that are not discoverable have been identified, the researcher would do well to search them individually to find out if other materials can be identified outside of the discovery tool. One additional tool that a doctoral researcher should of necessity include in a search is ISI's  Web of Knowledge . The two major systems searchable within ISI's  Web  are the  Social Sciences Citation Index  and the  Science Citation Index . The purpose of these two systems is to enable a researcher to determine what research has been cited over the years by any number of researchers and how many times it has been cited.

Formulating an Effective Search Strategy -- Key to performing an effective literature review is selecting search terms that will effectively identify materials that are relevant to the research topic. An initial strategy for selecting search terminology might be to list all possible relevant terms and their synonyms in order to have a working vocabulary for use in the research databases. While an individual subject database will likely use a "controlled vocabulary" to index articles and other materials that are included in the database, the same vocabulary might not be as effective in a database that focuses on a different subject area. For example, terminology that is used frequently in psychological literature might not be as effective in searching a human resources management database. Brainstorming the topic before launching into a search will help a researcher arrive at a good working vocabulary to use when probing the databases for relevant literature.

As materials are identified with the initial search, the researcher will want to keep track of other terminology that could be of use in performing additional searches. Sometimes the most effective search terminology can be found by reading the abstracts of relevant materials located through a library's research databases. For example, an initial search on the concept of "mainstreaming" might lead the researcher to articles that discuss mainstreaming but which also look into the concept of "inclusion" in education. While the terms mainstreaming and inclusion are sometimes used synonymously, they really embody two different approaches to working with students having special needs. Abstracts of articles located in the initial search on mainstreaming will uncover related concepts such as inclusion and help a researcher develop a better, more effective vocabulary for fleshing out the literature review.

In addition to searching using key concepts aligned with the research topic, a researcher likely also will want to search for additional materials produced by key authors who are identified in the initial searches. As a researcher reviews items retrieved in the initial stages of the survey, he or she will begin to notice certain authors coming up over and over in relation to the topic. To make sure that no stone is left unturned, it would be advisable to search the available, relevant library databases for other materials by those key authors, just to make sure something of importance has not been missed. A review of the reference lists for each of the items identified in the search will also help to identify key literature that should be reviewed.

Locating the Materials and Composing the Review -- In many cases the items identified through the library's databases will also be available online through the same or related databases. This, however, is not always the case. When materials are not available online, the researcher should check the library's physical collections (print, media, etc.) to determine if the items are available in the library, itself. For those materials not physically available in the home library, the researcher will use interlibrary loan to procure copies from other libraries or services. While abstracts are extremely useful in identifying the right types of materials, they are no substitute for the actual items, themselves. The thorough researcher will make sure that all the key literature has been retrieved and read thoroughly before proceeding too far with the original research.

The end result of the literature review is a discussion of the central themes in the research and an overview of the significant studies located by the researcher. This discussion serves as the lead section of a paper or article that reports the findings of an original research study and sets the stage for presentation of the original study by providing a review of research that has been conducted prior to the current study. As the researcher conducts his or her own study, other relevant materials might enter into the professional literature. It is the researcher's responsibility to update the literature review with newly released information prior to completing his or her own study.

Updating the Initial Search -- Most research projects will take place over a period of time and are not completed in the short term. Especially in the case of master's and doctoral projects, the research process might take a year or several years to complete. During this time, it will be important for the researcher to periodically review the research that has been going on at the same time as his or her own research. Revisiting the search strategies employed in the initial pass of the ltierature will turn up any new studies that might have come to light since the initial search. Fortunately, most research databases and discovery systems provide researchers with the means for automatically notifying them when new materials matching the search strategy have entered the system. This requires that a researcher sign up for a personal "account" with the database in order to save his or her searches and set up "alerts" when new materials come online. Setting up an account does not involve charges to the researcher; this is all a part of the cost borne by the home library in providing access to the databases.

• << Previous: Benefits of Conducting a Literature Review
• Next: Summary of the Process >>
• Last Updated: Aug 29, 2022 8:54 AM
• URL: https://libguides.unf.edu/litreview

Research Process Guide

• Step 1 - Identifying and Developing a Topic
• Step 2 - Narrowing Your Topic
• Step 3 - Developing Research Questions
• Step 4 - Conducting a Literature Review
• Step 5 - Choosing a Conceptual or Theoretical Framework
• Step 6 - Determining Research Methodology
• Step 6a - Determining Research Methodology - Quantitative Research Methods
• Step 6b - Determining Research Methodology - Qualitative Design
• Step 7 - Considering Ethical Issues in Research with Human Subjects - Institutional Review Board (IRB)
• Step 8 - Collecting Data
• Step 9 - Analyzing Data
• Step 10 - Interpreting Results
• Step 11 - Writing Up Results

Step 4: Conducting a Literature Review

In order to understand your topic, before you conduct your research, it is extremely important to immerse yourself in the research that has been done on your topic and the topics that might be adjacent to your particular research interest or questions. “a researcher cannot perform significant research without first understanding the literature in the field” (Boote & Beile, 2005, p. 3). Essentially, When writing a thesis or research proposal, the review of the literature would be your Chapter 2 .

Frankly, the literature review is often the first major challenge of the writing process. Sometimes, the task to review and synthesize all of the previous research on and around your topic can feel overwhelming. Although the literature review is foundational to situate your research within the body of literature on your topic, there is almost no literature on the challenges and pitfalls of writing a literature review (Randolph, 2009).

Boote and Beile (2005) reveal through their research on dissertation writing, that although a sophisticated literature review is essential for substantial research, they are often poorly written and lack organizational structure and conceptual relevance. So, the question is, how can you write a literature that is well-organized, comprehensive and situate your research within the literature?

Onweugbuzie et al. (2012) identify 23 core components of an effective literature review in their research and are referred to as the standard checklist for most empirical researchers. The list includes the following:

• What has been researched and what needs to be in the future.
• Identify variables within the literature that are relevant to your study.
• Identify the relationship between theory and practice within the literature.
• Discuss the quality of research with particular emphasis on the exemplary studies.
• Examine the methodologies and research design used throughout the literature, and evaluate the efficacy.
• Pay attention to any contradictions within the literature and
• Make sure to not replicate studies that have already been completed, however, if there are similarities, identify how your study and variables examined are important, different, and relevant.

How to complete a literature review

Fair Warning: The literature review is often time-consuming and can feel like an endless process.  Don’t Give Up! It is the first major hurdle of the research proposal process. Once you have completed the literature review, you will have a good idea of what is significant, relevant and novel about your research. The key is to spend time reading, recording important findings, and organizing the scholarly literature on (and around) your topic.

At this point, it is important to distinguish between scholarly literature and other sources. You need to keep in mind that you are only reviewing scholarly literature, which includes sources and studies that have a clear methodology, empirical evidence, results and conclusions. These studies are PEER-REVIEWED, meaning, contemporaries in the field have reviewed the research methods and findings of the literature, and found them relevant, significant, authentic and valid (Wakefield, 2015).

Where do you begin? Great question.

According to Randolph (2009), the goal of a literature review is to integrate and generalize findings across studies, debate findings within a field, resolve the debate, and discuss the language specific to the field. For a meta-analysis, which is a common strategy for a literature review, the goal is largely to integrate quantitative findings across the research on the topic. For other strategies to complete the literature review, the goals may be to critically analyze previous studies, identify central themes or issues within the existing literature or analyze an argument in the field (Randolph, 2009). In literature reviews for dissertation, the goal is to largely interrogate and analyze the current findings to find weaknesses or contradictions in order to place your study within the context of the current literature and to justify your study’s relevance.  So in essence, the goals of literature review, regardless of the strategy, are not only to deal with the central theme across the literature and to present a thematic analysis of that literature, but also, and perhaps more importantly, it is to focus on whether the body of knowledge is credible, reliable and valid based on the methodological approaches and outcomes of the literature in the field (Wakefield, 2015).

A few initial steps are:

• Develop a list of key words and phrases that relate to your topic and questions (Denney & Tewksbury, 2013).
• Search for relevant sources using useful databases found in Kean University’s Library :
• Kean University’s WorldCat Discovery single-search application
• ERIC (education)
• JSTOR (multidisciplinary)
• Project Muse (humanities and social science)
• Web of Science (citation searching)
• Google Scholar
• Set up an account with a bibliographic citation manager like EndNote Online (access provided by Kean University) or a freely available option such as Zotero. The EndNote Online Guide provides separate on-campus and off-campus account registration instructions. A bibliographic citation manager will not only help you manage and organize your sources, but it will also help you format your references in various citation styles.
• Take advantage of research support options provided by Kean’s librarians, including workshops , appointments with a librarian , and 24/7 Chat .

If you identify a source (article or book) that is not available through Kean University’s library collections, you may submit an Interlibrary Loan request. Book or article records found in the WorldCat Discovery database will feature an Interlibrary Loan request option. However, you may also utilize the Interlibrary Loan form .

You may also use the VALE Reciprocal Borrowing Program , which enables Kean University students and faculty to check out books from libraries at other New Jersey colleges and universities. To participate in this program, a researcher must first obtain a signed "VALE Reciprocal Borrowing Application Form" from the Nancy Thompson Learning Commons before they can borrow at one of the participating libraries .

What are the sources that are appropriate for a literature review? According to Garrard (2009) and others scientific or empirical research refers to the:

         …theoretical and research publications in scientific journals, reference books, government practice, policy statements, and other materials          about the theory, practice, and results of scientific inquiry. These materials and publications are produced by individuals or groups in          universities, foundations, government research laboratories, and other nonprofit or for-profit organizations (p.4). Onwuegbuzie et al. (2010; as cited in Onwuegbuzie et al., 2012) goes further and describes the literature that could be included in a literature review, “research articles,… essays, article reviews, monographs, dissertations, books, Internet websites, video, interview transcripts, encyclopedias, company reports, trade catalogues, government documents, congressional/parliamentary bills…” (p. 7). However, Onwuegbuzie et al. (2012) builds on this definition, by saying that a literature review is largely, “a systematic, explicit, and reproducible method for identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing the existing body of completed and recorded work produced by researchers, scholars and practitioners” (p.3).

So, what does this mean for you, the researcher and author of the literature review? You want to use multiple source types. Additionally, stick to the parameters laid out by Onwuegbuzie et al. (2012)  in that the literature reviewed should be an evaluation and synthesis of the existing work completed by “researchers, scholars and practitioners.” The list of sources should be semi-exhaustive and representative of the field.

Next, you should:

     3. Evaluate and select your sources. Read the abstract first to see if the source is relevant to your topic (Wakefield, 2015; Denney & Tewksbury, 2013; Randolph, 2009).

• Is this source peer-reviewed?
• Is this source presenting empirical evidence, meeting the threshold for scholarly research?
• Is this topic relevant to my research topic/questions?

Organizing your Literature Review:

Outline your literature review- how do you want it organized? You are “synthesizing” the literature as your purpose here. What structure works best for your topic and study? The most common formats are (Randolph, 2009; Onwuegbuzie et al., 2012):

• Historical format - literature is reviewed chronologically.This method is preferred when there is a goal of analyzing the progression of research methods, theories or practices over time.
• Conceptual format - centered arounds the propositions in research rationale or a theoretical- centered review which is organized according to the theories in the literature.
• Methodological format - this involves the discussion of methodology  as in an imperial paper including an introduction, method, results and discussion. This approach is most commonly used in meta- analytical reports.

Let’s talk about synthesis.

A literature review is not only a review of the empirical research, but it is also evaluation and synthesis of the research. Boote and Beile (2005) have created a five- category list for evaluating a literature review. The categories are coverage, synthesis, methodology, significance, and rhetoric .

• You need to create a justified criteria for including and excluding studies from your review
• You need to discuss what has been done in the field and what still needs to be done.
• Place the topic or problem within the greater context of scholarly literature.
• Place the topic or problem within the historical context.
• Discuss the subject vocabulary.
• Articulate the important variables and phenomena that are relevant to the topic.
• Synthesize and discuss a new perspective on the literature.
• Identify the main methods and research techniques that have been used in the field as well as their advantages/disadvantages.
• Relate ideas and theories to research methodologies.
• Rationalize the practical significance of the research problem.
• Rationalize the scholarly significance of the research problem.
• Write in coherent language and be sure the organization/ structure of the review makes sense.

Synthesis is difficult - you need to articulate what this literature means for your research and/or how does the literature inform the purpose, impact, methodology of your study? Rather than summarizing, the idea behind synthesis is taking the information you have discussed and drawing your own conclusions, making connections between the literature and your study.

Boote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34 (6), 3-15. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3699805

Denney, A. S., & Tewksbury, R. (2013). How to write a literature review. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 24 (2), 218-234. https://doi-org.kean.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/10511253.2012.730617

Garrard, J. (2009). Health sciences literature review made easy: The matrix method.  Jones and Bartlett.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Leech, N. L., & Collins, K. M. (2012). Qualitative analysis techniques for the review of the literature. Qualitative Report, 17( 28), 1-28.

Randolph, J. (2009). A guide to writing the dissertation literature review. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 14 (1), 13.

Wakefield, A. (2015). Synthesising the literature as part of a literature review. Nursing Standard, 29 (29), 44-51. https://doi.org/10.7748/ns.29.29.44.e8957

• Last Updated: Jun 29, 2023 1:35 PM
• URL: https://libguides.kean.edu/ResearchProcessGuide

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
• v.15(12); 2023 Dec
• PMC10828625

Ten Steps to Conduct a Systematic Review

Ernesto calderon martinez.

1 Digital Health, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad de Mexico, MEX

Jose R Flores Valdés

2 General Medicine, Universidad Autonoma de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, MEX

Jaqueline L Castillo

Jennifer v castillo.

3 General Medicine, Universidad Autónoma de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, MEX

Ronald M Blanco Montecino

4 Research, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, USA

Julio E Morin Jimenez

5 General Medicine, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México, Ciudad de Mexico, MEX

David Arriaga Escamilla

6 Internal Medicine, Universidad Justo Sierra, Ciudad de Mexico, MEX

Edna Diarte

7 Medicine, Universidad Autonoma de Sinaloa, Culiacan, MEX

This article introduces a concise 10-step guide tailored for researchers engaged in systematic reviews within the field of medicine and health, aligning with the imperative for evidence-based healthcare. The guide underscores the importance of integrating research evidence, clinical proficiency, and patient preferences. It emphasizes the need for precision in formulating research questions, utilizing tools such as PICO(S)(Population Intervention Comparator Outcome), PEO (Population Exposure Outcome), SPICE (setting, perspective, intervention/exposure/interest, comparison, and evaluation), and SPIDER (expectation, client group, location, impact, professionals, service and evaluation), and advocates for the validation of research ideas through preliminary investigations. The guide prioritizes transparency by recommending the documentation and registration of protocols on various platforms. It highlights the significance of a well-organized literature search, encouraging the involvement of experts to ensure a high-quality search strategy. The critical stages of screening titles and abstracts are navigated using different tools, each characterized by its specific advantages. This diverse approach aims to enhance the effectiveness of the systematic review process. In conclusion, this 10-step guide provides a practical framework for the rigorous conduct of systematic reviews in the domain of medicine and health. It addresses the unique challenges inherent in this field, emphasizing the values of transparency, precision, and ongoing efforts to improve primary research practices. The guide aims to contribute to the establishment of a robust evidence base, facilitating informed decision-making in healthcare.

Introduction

The necessity of evidence-based healthcare, which prioritizes the integration of top-tier research evidence, clinical proficiency, and patient preferences, is increasingly recognized [ 1 , 2 ]. Due to the extensive amount and varied approaches of primary research, secondary research, particularly systematic reviews, is required to consolidate and interpret this information with minimal bias [ 3 , 4 ]. Systematic reviews, structured to reduce bias in the selection, examination, and consolidation of pertinent research studies, are highly regarded in the research evidence hierarchy. The aim is to enable objective, repeatable, and transparent healthcare decisions by reducing systematic errors.

To guarantee the quality and openness of systematic reviews, protocols are formulated, registered, and published prior to the commencement of the review process. Platforms such as PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) aid in the registration of systematic review protocols, thereby enhancing transparency in the review process [ 5 ]. High-standard reviews comply with stringent peer review norms, ensuring that methodologies are revealed beforehand, thus reducing post hoc alterations for objective, repeatable, and transparent outcomes [ 6 ].

Nonetheless, the practical execution of systematic reviews, particularly in the field of medicine and health, poses difficulties for researchers. To address this, a succinct 10-step guide is offered to both seasoned and novice researchers, with the goal of improving the rigor and transparency of systematic reviews.

Technical report

Step 1: structure of your topic

When developing a research question for a systematic review or meta-analysis (SR/MA), it is essential to precisely outline the objectives of the study, taking into account potential effect modifiers. The research question should concentrate on and concisely explain the scientific elements and encapsulate the aim of the project.

Instruments such as PICO(S)(Population Intervention Comparator Outcome), PEO (Population Exposure Outcome), SPICE (setting, perspective, intervention/exposure/interest, comparison, and evaluation), and SPIDER (expectation, client group, location, impact, professionals, service and evaluation) assist in structuring research questions for evidence-based clinical practice, qualitative research, and mixed-methods research [ 7 - 9 ]. A joint strategy of employing SPIDER and PICO is suggested for exhaustive searches, subject to time and resource constraints. PICO and SPIDER are the frequently utilized tools. The selection between them is contingent on the research’s nature. The ability to frame and address research questions is crucial in evidence-based medicine. The "PICO format" extends to the "PICOTS" (Population Intervention Comparator Outcome Time Setting) (Table  1 ) design. Explicit delineation of these components is critical for systematic reviews, ensuring a balanced and pertinent research question with broad applicability.

This table gives a breakdown of the mnemonic for the elements required to formulate an adequate research question. Utilizing this mnemonic leads to a proper and non-biased search. Examples extracted from “The use and efficacy of oral phenylephrine versus placebo on adults treating nasal congestion over the years in a systematic review” [ 10 ].

RCT, randomized control trial; PICOTS, Population Intervention Comparator Outcome Time Setting

While there are various formats like SPICE and ECLIPSE, PICO continues to be favored due to its adaptability across research designs. The research question should be stated in the introduction of a systematic review, laying the groundwork for impartial interpretations. The PICOTS template is applicable to systematic reviews that tackle a variety of research questions.

Validation of the Idea

To bolster the solidity of our research, we advocate for the execution of preliminary investigations and the validation of ideas. An initial exploration, especially in esteemed databases like PubMed, is vital. This process serves several functions, including the discovery of pertinent articles, the verification of the suggested concept, the prevention of revisiting previously explored queries, and the assurance of a sufficient collection of articles for review.

Moreover, it is crucial to concentrate on topics that tackle significant healthcare challenges, align with worldwide necessities and principles, mirror the present scientific comprehension, and comply with established review methodologies. Gaining a profound comprehension of the research field through pertinent videos and discussions is crucial for enhancing result retrieval. Overlooking this step could lead to the unfortunate unearthing of a similar study published earlier, potentially leading to the termination of our research, a scenario where precious time would be squandered on an issue already thoroughly investigated.

For example, during our initial exploration using the terms “Silymarin AND Liver Enzyme Levels” on PubMed, we discovered a systematic review and meta-analysis discussing the impact of Silymarin on liver enzyme levels in humans [ 11 ]. This discovery acts as a safety net because we will not pursue this identical idea/approach and face rejection; instead, we can rephrase a more sophisticated research question or objective, shifting the focus on evaluating different aspects of the same idea by just altering a part of the PICOTS structure. We can evaluate a different population, a different comparator, and a different outcome and arrive at a completely novel idea. This strategic method guarantees the relevance and uniqueness of our research within the scientific community.

Step 2: databases

This procedure is consistently executed concurrently. A well-orchestrated and orderly team is essential for primary tasks such as literature review, screening, and risk of bias evaluation by independent reviewers. During the study inclusion phase, if disagreements arise, the involvement of a third independent reviewer often becomes vital for resolution. The team’s composition should strive to include individuals with a variety of skills.

The intricacy of the research question and the expected number of references dictate the team’s size. The final team structure is decided after the definitive search, with the participation of independent reviewers dependent on the number of hits obtained. It is crucial to maintain a balance of expertise among team members to avoid undue influence from a specific group of experts. Importantly, a team requires a competent leader who may not necessarily be the most senior member or a professor. The leader plays a central role in coordinating the project, ensuring compliance with the study protocol, keeping all team members updated, and promoting their active involvement.

Establishing solid selection criteria is the foundational step in a systematic review. These criteria act as the guiding principles during the screening process, ensuring a focused approach that conserves time, reduces errors, and maintains transparency and reproducibility, being a primary component of all systematic review protocols. Carefully designed to align with the research question, as in Table  1 , the selection criteria cover a range of study characteristics, including design, publication date, and geographical location. Importantly, they incorporate details related to the study population, exposure and outcome measures, and methodological approaches. Concurrently, researchers must develop a comprehensive search strategy to retrieve eligible studies. A well-organized strategy using various terms and Boolean operators is typically required (Figure  1 ). It involves crafting specific search queries for different online databases, such as Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. In these searches, we can include singulars and plurals of the terms, misspellings of the terms, and related terms, among others. However, it is crucial to strike a balance, avoiding overly extensive searches that yield unnecessary results and insufficient searches that may miss relevant evidence. In this process, collaborating with a librarian or search specialist improves the quality and reproducibility of the search. For this, it is important to understand the basic characteristics of the main databases (Table  2 ). It is important for the team to include in their methodology how they will collect the data and the tools they will use for their entire protocol so that there is a consensus about this among all of them.

Principal databases where the main articles of the whole body of the research can be gathered. This is an example of specialities and it can be used for the researchers to have a variety of databases to work.

NLM, National Library of Medicine; ICTRP, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; LILACS, Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde

Boolean operators help break down and narrow down the search. "AND" will narrow your search so you get fewer results. It tells the database that your search results must include every one of your search terms. "OR" means MORE results. OR tells the database that you want results that mention one or both of your search terms. "NOT" means you are telling the database that you wish to have information related to the first term but not the second.

Image credits to authors of the articles (Created on  www.canva.com )

Documenting and registering the protocol early in the research process is crucial for transparency and avoiding duplication. The protocol serves as recorded guidance, encompassing elements like the research question, eligibility criteria, intervention details, quality assessment, and the analysis plan. Before uploading to registry sites, such as PROSPERO, it is advisable to have the protocol reviewed by the principal investigator. The comprehensive study protocol outlines research objectives, design, inclusion/exclusion criteria, electronic search strategy, and analysis plan, providing a framework for reviewers during the screening process. These are steps previously established in our process. Registration can be done on platforms like PROSPERO 5 for health and social care reviews or Cochrane 3 for interventions.

Step 3: search

In the process of conducting a systematic review, a well-organized literature search is a pivotal step. It is suggested to incorporate at least two to four online databases, such as Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane. As mentioned earlier, formulating search strategies for each database is crucial due to their distinct requirements. In line with AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) guidelines, a minimum of two databases should be explored in systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/MA), but increasing this number improves the accuracy of the results [ 22 ]. We advise including databases from China as most studies exclude databases from this demographic [ 9 ]. The choice of databases, like Cochrane or ICTRP, is dependent on the review questions, especially in the case of clinical trials. These databases cater to various health-related aspects, and researchers should select based on the research subject. Additionally, it is important to consider unique search methods for each database, as some may not support the use of Boolean operators or quotations. Detailed search strategies for each database, including customization based on specific attributes, are provided for guidance. In general, systematic reviews involve searching through multiple databases and exploring additional sources, such as reference lists, clinical trial registries, and databases of non-indexed journals, to ensure a comprehensive review of both published and, in some instances, unpublished literature.

It is important to note that the extraction of information will also vary among databases. However, our goal is to obtain a RIS, BibText, CSV, bib, or txt file to import into any of the tools we will use in subsequent steps.

Step 4: tools

It is necessary to upload all our reference files into a predetermined tool like Rayyan, Covidence, EPPI, CADIMA, and DistillerSR for the collection and management of records (Table  3 ). The subsequent step entails the elimination of duplicates using a particular method. Duplicates are recognized if they have the same title and author published in the same year or if they have the same title and author published in the same journal. Tools such as Rayyan or Covidence assist in automatically identifying duplicates. The eradication of duplicate records is vital for lessening the workload during the screening of titles and abstracts.

The tools described above use artificial intelligence to help create keywords according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria defined previously by the researcher. This tool will help to reduce the amount of time to rule in or out efficiently.

Step 5: title and abstract screening

The process of a systematic review encompasses several steps, which include screening titles and abstracts and applying selection criteria. During the phase of title and abstract screening, a minimum of two reviewers independently evaluate the pertinence of each reference. Tools like Rayyan, Covidence, and DistillerSR are suggested for this phase due to their effectiveness. The decisions to further assess retrieved articles are made based on the selection criteria. It is recommended to involve at least three reviewers to minimize the likelihood of errors and resolve disagreements.

In the following stages of the systematic review process, the focus is on acquiring full-text articles. Numerous search engines provide links for free access to full-text articles, and in situations where this is not feasible, alternative routes such as ResearchGate are pursued for direct requests from authors. Additionally, a manual search is carried out to decrease bias, using methods like searching references from included studies, reaching out to authors and experts, and exploring related articles in PubMed and Google Scholar. This manual search is vital for identifying reports that might have been initially overlooked. The approach involves independent reviewing by assigning specific methods to each team member, with the results gathered for comparison, discussion, and minimizing bias.

Step 6: full-text screening

The second phase in the screening process is full-text screening. This involves a thorough examination of the study reports that were selected after the title and abstract screening stage. To prevent bias, it is essential that three individuals participate in the full-text screening. Two individuals will scrutinize the entire text to ensure that the initial research question is being addressed and that none of the previously determined exclusion criteria are present in the articles. They have the option to "include" or "exclude" an article. If an article is "excluded," the reviewer must provide a justification for its exclusion. The third reviewer is responsible for resolving any disagreements, which could arise if one reviewer "excludes" an article that another reviewer "includes." The articles that are "included" will be used in the systematic review.

The process of seeking additional references following the full-text screening in a systematic review involves identifying other potentially relevant studies that were not found in the initial literature search. This can be achieved by reviewing the reference lists of the studies that were included after the full-text screening. This step is crucial as it can help uncover additional studies that are relevant to your research question but might have been overlooked in the initial database search due to variations in keywords, indexing terms, or other factors [ 15 ]. 

A PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) chart, also referred to as a PRISMA flow diagram, is a visual tool that illustrates the steps involved in an SR/MA. These steps encompass the identification, screening, evaluation of eligibility, and inclusion of studies.

The PRISMA diagram provides a detailed overview of the information flow during the various stages of an SR/MA. It displays the count of records that were identified, included, and excluded, along with the reasons for any exclusions.

The typical stages represented on a PRISMA chart are as follows: 1) identification: this is where records are discovered through database searches. 2) screening: this stage involves going through the records after removing any duplicates. 3) eligibility: at this stage, full-text articles are evaluated for their suitability. 4) included: this refers to the studies that are incorporated into the qualitative and quantitative synthesis. The PRISMA chart serves as a valuable tool for researchers and readers alike, aiding in understanding the process of study selection in the review and the reasons for the exclusion of certain studies. It is usually the initial figure presented in the results section of your systematic review [ 4 ].

Step 7: data extraction

As the systematic review advances, the subsequent crucial steps involve data extraction from the studies included. This process involves a structured data extraction from the full texts included, guided by a pilot-tested Excel sheet, which aids two independent reviewers in meticulously extracting detailed information from each article [ 28 ]. This thorough process offers an initial comprehension of the common characteristics within the evidence body and sets the foundation for the following analytical and interpretive synthesis. The participation of two to three independent reviewers ensures a holistic approach, including the extraction of both adjusted and non-adjusted data to account for potential confounding factors in future analyses. Moreover, numerical data extracted, such as dichotomous or continuous data in intervention reviews or information on true and false results in diagnostic test reviews, undergoes a thorough process. The extracted data might be suitable for pooled analysis, depending on sufficiency and compatibility. Difficulties in harmonizing data formats might occur, and systematic review authors might resort to communication with study authors to resolve these issues and enhance the robustness of the synthesis. This multi-dimensional data extraction process ensures a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the included studies, paving the way for the subsequent analysis and synthesis phases.

Step 8: risk of bias assessment

To conduct a risk of bias in medical research, it is crucial to adhere to a specific sequence: choose tools that are specifically designed for systematic reviews. These tools should have proven acceptable validity and reliability, specifically address items related to methodological quality (internal validity), and ideally be based on empirical evidence of bias [ 29 ]. These tools should be chosen once the full text is obtained. For easy organization, it can be helpful to compile a list of the retrieved articles and view the type of study because it is necessary to understand how to select and organize each one. The most common tools to evaluate the risk of bias can be found in Table  4 .

The table summarizes some of the different tools to appraise the different types of studies and their main characteristics.

ROB, risk of bias; RRB, risk of reporting bias; AMSTAR; A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews; GRADE, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations; ROBINS, risk of bias in non-randomized studies; RCT, randomized controlled trials

After choosing the suitable tool for the type of study, you should know that a good risk of bias should be transparent and easily replicable. This necessitates the review protocol to include clear definitions of the biases that will be evaluated [ 30 ].

The subsequent step in determining the risk of bias is to understand the different categories of risk of bias. This will explicitly assess the risk of selection, performance, attrition, detection, and selective outcome reporting biases. It allows for separate risk of bias ratings by the outcome to account for the outcome-specific variations in detection bias and specific outcome reporting bias.

Keep in mind that assessing the risk of bias based on study design and conduct rather than reporting is very important. Poorly reported studies may be judged as unclear risk of bias. Avoid presenting the risk of bias assessment as a composite score. Finally, classifying the risk of bias as "low," "medium," or "high" is a more practical way to proceed. Methods for determining an overall categorization for the study limitations should be established a priori and documented clearly.

As a concluding statement or as a way to summarize the risk of bias, the assessment is to evaluate the internal validity of the studies included in the systematic review. This process helps to ensure that the conclusions drawn from the review are based on high-quality, reliable evidence.

Step 9: synthesis

This step can be broken down to simplify the concept of conducting a descriptive synthesis of a systematic review. 1) inclusion of studies: the final count of primary studies included in the review is established based on the screening process. 2) flowchart: the systematic review process flow is summarized in a flowchart. This includes the number of references discovered, the number of abstracts and full texts screened, and the final count of primary studies included. 3) study description: the characteristics of the included studies are detailed in a table in the main body of the manuscript. This includes the populations studied, types of exposures, intervention details, and outcomes. 4) results: if a meta-analysis is not possible, the results of the included studies are described. This includes the direction and magnitude of the effect, consistency of the effect across studies, and the strength of evidence for the effect. 5) reporting bias check: reporting bias is a systematic error that can influence the results of a systematic review. It happens when the nature and direction of the results affect the dissemination of research findings. Checking for this bias is an important part of the review process. 6) result verification: the results of the included studies should be verified for accuracy and consistency [ 36 , 37 ]. The descriptive synthesis primarily relies on words and text to summarize and explain the findings, necessitating careful planning and meticulous execution. 

Step 10: manuscript

When working on a systematic review and meta-analysis for submission, it is essential to keep the bibliographic database search current if more than six to 12 months have passed since the initial search to capture newly published articles. Guidelines like PRISMA and MOOSE provide flowcharts that visually depict the reporting process for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, promoting transparency, reproducibility, and comparability across studies [ 4 , 38 ]. The submission process requires a comprehensive PRISMA or MOOSE report with these flowcharts. Moreover, consulting with subject matter experts can improve the manuscript, and their contributions should be recognized in the final publication. A last review of the results' interpretation is suggested to further enhance the quality of the publication.

The composition process is organized into four main scientific sections: introduction, methods, results, and discussion, typically ending with a concluding section. After the manuscript, characteristics table, and PRISMA flow diagram are finalized, the team should forward the work to the principal investigator (PI) for comprehensive review and feedback. Finally, choosing an appropriate journal for the manuscript is vital, taking into account factors like impact factor and relevance to the discipline. Adherence to the author guidelines of journals is crucial before submitting the manuscript for publication.

The report emphasizes the increasing recognition of evidence-based healthcare, underscoring the integration of research evidence. The acknowledgment of the necessity for systematic reviews to consolidate and interpret extensive primary research aligns with the current emphasis on minimizing bias in evidence synthesis. The report highlights the role of systematic reviews in reducing systematic errors and enabling objective and transparent healthcare decisions. The detailed 10-step guide for conducting systematic reviews provides valuable insights for both experienced and novice researchers. The report emphasizes the importance of formulating precise research questions and suggests the use of tools for structuring questions in evidence-based clinical practice.

The validation of ideas through preliminary investigations is underscored, demonstrating a thorough approach to prevent redundancy in research efforts. The report provides a practical example of how an initial exploration of PubMed helped identify an existing systematic review, highlighting the importance of avoiding duplication. The systematic and well-coordinated team approach in the establishment of selection criteria, development of search strategies, and an organized methodology is evident. The detailed discussion on each step, such as data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and the importance of a descriptive synthesis, reflects a commitment to methodological rigor.

Conclusions

The systematic review process is a rigorous and methodical approach to synthesizing and evaluating existing research on a specific topic. The 10 steps we followed, from defining the research question to interpreting the results, ensured a comprehensive and unbiased review of the available literature. This process allowed us to identify key findings, recognize gaps in the current knowledge, and suggest areas for future research. Our work contributes to the evidence base in our field and can guide clinical decision-making and policy development. However, it is important to remember that systematic reviews are dependent on the quality of the original studies. Therefore, continual efforts to improve the design, reporting, and transparency of primary research are crucial.

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Author Contributions

Concept and design:   Ernesto Calderon Martinez, Jennifer V. Castillo, Julio E. Morin Jimenez, Jaqueline L. Castillo, Edna Diarte

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data:   Ernesto Calderon Martinez, Ronald M. Blanco Montecino , Jose R. Flores Valdés, David Arriaga Escamilla, Edna Diarte

Drafting of the manuscript:   Ernesto Calderon Martinez, Julio E. Morin Jimenez, Ronald M. Blanco Montecino , Jaqueline L. Castillo, David Arriaga Escamilla

Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content:   Ernesto Calderon Martinez, Jennifer V. Castillo, Jose R. Flores Valdés, Edna Diarte

Supervision:   Ernesto Calderon Martinez

Human Ethics

Consent was obtained or waived by all participants in this study

Animal Ethics

Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue.

Ohio State nav bar

The Ohio State University

• BuckeyeLink
• Find People
• Search Ohio State

Systematic Reviews

• What is a Systematic Review?

What are the Steps of a Systematic Review?

• An Overview of the Systematic Review Process
• 1. Choose the Right Kind of Review
• 2. Formulate Your Question
• 3. Establish a Team
• 4. Develop a Protocol
• 5. Conduct the Search
• 6. Select Studies
• 7. Extract Data
• 8. Synthesize Your Results
• 9. Disseminate Your Report
• Request a Librarian Consultation

Consult With a Librarian

To make an appointment to consult with an HSL librarian on your systematic review, please read our Systematic Review Policy and submit a Systematic Review Consultation Request .

To ask a question or make an appointment for assistance with a narrative review, please complete the Ask a Librarian Form .

This video from the Yale University Medical Library provides a brief overview of the process of conducting a systematic review:

Check out the rest of Yale's video series on conducting systematic searches: 

• Systematic Searches Series from Yale University
• << Previous: What is a Systematic Review?
• Next: 1. Choose the Right Kind of Review >>
• Last Updated: May 14, 2024 8:03 AM
• URL: https://hslguides.osu.edu/systematic_reviews

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

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

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

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

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

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

Original Submission Date Received: .

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

Article Menu

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

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

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

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Prevalence of malocclusion traits in primary dentition, 2010–2024: a systematic review.

1. Introduction

2. materials and methods, 2.1. search strategy, 2.2. study selection, 2.3. data extraction.

• Sagittal relationship of second primary molars
• Sagittal relationship of primary canines
• Sagittal Anomalies
• Vertical Anomalies
• Transversal Anomalies
• Space Discrepancies

2.4. Quality Assessment

2.5. data analysis, 4. discussion, 5. conclusions, supplementary materials, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Zou, J.; Meng, M.; Law, C.S.; Rao, Y.; Zhou, X. Common dental diseases in children and malocclusion. Int. J. Oral Sci. 2018 , 10 , 7. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Alshammari, A.; Almotairy, N.; Kumar, A.; Grigoriadis, A. Effect of malocclusion on jaw motor function and chewing in children: A systematic review. Clin. Oral Investig. 2022 , 26 , 2335–2351. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Assaf, D.D.C.; Knorst, J.K.; Busanello-Stella, A.R.; Ferrazzo, V.A.; Berwig, L.C.; Ardenghi, T.M.; Marquezan, M. Association between malocclusion, tongue position and speech distortion in mixed-dentition schoolchildren: An epidemiological study. J. Appl. Oral Sci. 2021 , 29 , e20201005. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nishi, S.E.; Basri, R.; Rahman, N.A.; Husein, A.; Alam, M.K. Association between muscle activity and overjet in class II malocclusion with surface electromyography. J. Orthod. Sci. 2018 , 7 , 3. [ Google Scholar ] [ PubMed ]
• English, J.D.; Buschang, P.H.; Throckmorton, G.S. Does malocclusion affect masticatory performance? Angle Orthod. 2002 , 72 , 21–27. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dimberg, L.; Arnrup, K.; Bondemark, L. The impact of malocclusion on the quality of life among children and adolescents: A systematic review of quantitative studies. Eur. J. Orthod. 2015 , 37 , 238–247. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Guimaraes, S.P.A.; Jorge, K.O.; Fontes, M.J.F.; Ramos-Jorge, M.L.; Araujo, C.T.P.; Ferreira, E.F.; Melgaco, C.A.; Zarzar, P.M. Impact of malocclusion on oral health-related quality of life among schoolchildren. Braz. Oral Res. 2018 , 32 , e95. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• George, A.M.; Felicita, A.S.; Priyadharsini, V.J.; P, A.; Tr, P.A. Role of the Growth Hormone Receptor (GHR) Gene in Skeletal Class II Malocclusion and Its Significant Influence on the Skeletal Facial Profile in Both the Sagittal and Vertical Dimensions: A Systematic Review. Cureus 2024 , 16 , e53596. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhou, X.; Zhang, C.; Yao, S.; Fan, L.; Ma, L.; Pan, Y. Genetic architecture of non-syndromic skeletal class III malocclusion. Oral Dis. 2023 , 29 , 2423–2437. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Belitz, G.S.; Furlan, L.J.N.; Knorst, J.K.; Berwig, L.C.; Ardenghi, T.M.; Ferrazzo, V.A.; Marquezan, M. Association between malocclusion in the mixed dentition with breastfeeding and past nonnutritive sucking habits in school-age children. Angle Orthod. 2022 , 92 , 669–676. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kolawole, K.A.; Folayan, M.O.; Agbaje, H.O.; Oyedele, T.A.; Onyejaka, N.K.; Oziegbe, E.O. Oral habits and malocclusion in children resident in Ile-Ife Nigeria. Eur. Arch. Paediatr. Dent. 2019 , 20 , 257–265. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aroucha Lyra, M.C.; Aguiar, D.; Paiva, M.; Arnaud, M.; Filho, A.A.; Rosenblatt, A.; Therese Innes, N.P.; Heimer, M.V. Prevalence of sleep-disordered breathing and associations with malocclusion in children. J. Clin. Sleep Med. 2020 , 16 , 1007–1012. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Lin, L.; Chen, W.; Zhong, D.; Cai, X.; Chen, J.; Huang, F. Prevalence and Associated Factors of Malocclusion among Preschool Children in Huizhou, China: A Cross-Sectional Study. Healthcare 2023 , 11 , 1050. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Boyd, K.; Saccomanno, S.; Lewis, C.J.; Coceani Paskay, L.; Quinzi, V.; Marzo, G. Myofunctional therapy. Part 1: Culture, industrialisation and the shrinking human face. Eur. J. Paediatr. Dent. 2021 , 22 , 80–81. [ Google Scholar ] [ PubMed ]
• Grippaudo, C.; Paolantonio, E.G.; Antonini, G.; Saulle, R.; La Torre, G.; Deli, R. Association between oral habits, mouth breathing and malocclusion. Acta Otorhinolaryngol. Ital. 2016 , 36 , 386–394. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• D’Onofrio, L. Oral dysfunction as a cause of malocclusion. Orthod. Craniofac. Res. 2019 , 22 , 43–48. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Germec-Cakan, D.; Canter, H.I.; Cakan, U.; Demir, B. Interdisciplinary treatment of a patient with bilateral cleft lip and palate and congenitally missing and transposed teeth. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2014 , 145 , 381–392. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Sá-Pinto, A.C.; Rego, T.M.; Marques, L.S.; Martins, C.C.; Ramos-Jorge, M.L.; Ramos-Jorge, J. Association between malocclusion and dental caries in adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. Arch. Paediatr. Dent. 2018 , 19 , 73–82. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Gois, E.G.; Vale, M.P.; Paiva, S.M.; Abreu, M.H.; Serra-Negra, J.M.; Pordeus, I.A. Incidence of malocclusion between primary and mixed dentitions among Brazilian children. A 5-year longitudinal study. Angle Orthod. 2012 , 82 , 495–500. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Bauman, J.M.; Souza, J.G.S.; Bauman, C.D.; Florio, F.M. Epidemiological pattern of malocclusion in Brazilian preschoolers. Cienc. Saude Coletiva 2018 , 23 , 3861–3868. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Berneburg, M.; Zeyher, C.; Merkle, T.; Möller, M.; Schaupp, E.; Göz, G. Orthodontic findings in 4- to 6-year-old kindergarten children from southwest Germany. J. Orofac. Orthop. 2010 , 71 , 174–186. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Fu, M.; Zhang, D.; Wang, B.; Deng, Y.; Wang, F.; Ye, X. The prevalence of malocclusion in China—An investigation of 25,392 children. Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 2002 , 37 , 371–373. [ Google Scholar ] [ PubMed ]
• Singh, G.D. Morphologic determinants in the etiology of class III malocclusions: A review. Clin. Anat. 1999 , 12 , 382–405. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dehesa-Santos, A.; Iber-Diaz, P.; Iglesias-Linares, A. Genetic factors contributing to skeletal class III malocclusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Oral Investig. 2021 , 25 , 1587–1612. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Chen, X.X.; Xia, B.; Ge, L.H. Effects of breast-feeding duration, bottle-feeding duration and non-nutritive sucking habits on the occlusal characteristics of primary dentition. BMC Pediatr. 2015 , 15 , 46. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Zhou, Z.F.; Liu, F.; Shen, S.N.; Shang, L.J.; Shang, L.; Wang, X.J. Prevalence of and factors affecting malocclusion in primary dentition among children in Xi’an, China. BMC Oral Health 2016 , 16 , 91. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Zhou, X.H.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, H.; Chen, L.; Liu, Y.H. Prevalence of Malocclusion in 3-to 5-Year-Old Children in Shanghai, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017 , 14 , 328. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, S.; Lo, E.C.M.; Chu, C.H. Occlusal Features and Caries Experience of Hong Kong Chinese Preschool Children: A Cross-Sectional Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017 , 14 , 621. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Duraisamy, V.; Pragasam, A.X.; Vasavaih, S.K.; John, J.B. Maternal Knowledge Regarding Feeding Practices and its Effect on Occlusion of Primary Dentition in Children: A Cross-sectional Study. Int. J. Clin. Pediatr. Dent. 2020 , 13 , 31–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Khan, R.; Singh, N.; Govil, S.; Tandon, S. Occlusion and occlusal characteristics of primary dentition in North Indian children of East Lucknow region. Eur. Arch. Paediatr. Dent. 2014 , 15 , 293–299. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lochib, S.; Indushekar, K.R.; Saraf, B.G.; Sheoran, N.; Sardana, D. Occlusal characteristics and prevalence of associated dental anomalies in the primary dentition. J. Epidemiol. Glob. Health 2015 , 5 , 151–157. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Fernandes, S.; Patel, D.G.; Ranadheer, E.; Kalgudi, J.; Santoki, J.; Chaudhary, S. Occlusal traits of primary dentition among pre-school children of Mehsana District, North Gujarat, India. J. Clin. Diagn. Res. 2017 , 11 , ZC92–ZC96. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Golovachova, E.; Mikadze, T.; Darjania, O. Prevalence of malocclusion and associated variables in preschool children of Tbilisi, Georgia. Open Dent. J. 2021 , 15 , 457–463. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sasaki, Y.; Otsugu, M.; Sasaki, H.; Fujikawa, N.; Okawa, R.; Kato, T.; Nakano, K. Relationship between Dental Occlusion and Maximum Tongue Pressure in Preschool Children Aged 4-6 Years. Children 2022 , 9 , 141. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Otsugu, M.; Sasaki, Y.; Mikasa, Y.; Kadono, M.; Sasaki, H.; Kato, T.; Nakano, K. Incompetent lip seal and nail biting as risk factors for malocclusion in Japanese preschool children aged 3–6 years. BMC Pediatr. 2023 , 23 , 532. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Abdellatif, H.M.; Sawan, N.; Alabdulmohsen, A.M.; Alkheraif, G.; Alkhonin, H.; Ali, A.; Elkateb, M.A. Prevalence and risk indicators of primary dentition malocclusion in Riyadh-Saudi Arabia using a new case definition: A cross-sectional study. Saudi Dent. J. 2024 , 36 , 60–65. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sepp, H.; Saag, M.; Vinkka-Puhakka, H.; Svedström-Oristo, A.L.; Peltomäki, T. Occlusal traits of 4-5-year-old Estonians. Parents’ perception of orthodontic treatment need and satisfaction with dental appearance. Clin. Exp. Dent. Res. 2019 , 5 , 199–204. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Davidopoulou, S.; Arapostathis, K.; Berdouses, E.D.; Kavvadia, K.; Oulis, C. Occlusal features of 5-year-old Greek children: A cross-sectional national study. BMC Oral Health 2022 , 22 , 281. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kongo, E.; Gribizi, I.; Spahiu, E.; Gravina, G.M. Prevalence of malocclusion and oral health-related factors among pre-school children in Northern Albania. J. Clin. Pediatr. Dent. 2023 , 48 , 136–142. [ Google Scholar ]
• Normando, T.S.; Barroso, R.F.; Normando, D. Influence of the socioeconomic status on the prevalence of malocclusion in the primary dentition. Dent. Press J. Orthod. 2015 , 20 , 74–78. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sousa, R.V.; Pinto-Monteiro, A.K.; Martins, C.C.; Granville-Garcia, A.F.; Paiva, S.M. Malocclusion and socioeconomic indicators in primary dentition. Braz. Oral Res. 2014 , 28 , 54–60. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gomes, M.C.; Pinto-Sarmento, T.C.; Costa, E.M.; Martins, C.C.; Granville-Garcia, A.F.; Paiva, S.M. Impact of oral health conditions on the quality of life of preschool children and their families: A cross-sectional study. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2014 , 12 , 55. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Machado, J.I.A.G.; Andrade, N.S.; Silva, R.N.C.; Do Rego, M.V.N.N.; Moura, L.F.A.D.; de Moura, W.L.; de Lima, M.D.M. Is low income associated with malocclusion in primary dentition among preschoolers? Pesqui. Bras. Em Odontopediatria E Clin. Integr. 2020 , 20 , e4923. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Assis, W.C.; Pereira, J.S.; Silva, Y.S.; Brito, F.R.; Nunes, L.A.; Santos Ribeiro, I.J.; Casotti, C.A. Factors Associated with Malocclusion in Preschool Children in a Brazilian Small Town. Pesqui. Bras. Em Odontopediatria E Clin. Integr. 2020 , 20 , e5351. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Carvalho, A.C.; Paiva, S.M.; Viegas, C.M.; Scarpelli, A.C.; Ferreira, F.M.; Pordeus, I.A. Impact of malocclusion on oral health-related quality of life among Brazilian preschool children: A population-based study. Braz. Dent. J. 2013 , 24 , 655–661. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Corrêa-Faria, P.; Ramos-Jorge, M.L.; Martins-Júnior, P.A.; Vieira-Andrade, R.G.; Marques, L.S. Malocclusion in preschool children: Prevalence and determinant factors. Eur. Arch. Paediatr. Dent. 2014 , 15 , 89–96. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ramos-Jorge, J.; Motta, T.; Marques, L.S.; Paiva, S.M.; Ramos-Jorge, M.L. Association between anterior open bite and impact on quality of life of preschool children. Braz. Oral Res. 2015 , 29 , 1. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Homem, M.A.; Ramos-Jorge, M.L.; Mota-Veloso, I.; Pereira, T.S.; Martins-Junior, P.A.; Normando, D.; Paiva, S.M.; Pordeus, I.A.; Flores-Mir, C.; Marques, L.S. Malocclusion Impact Scale for Early Childhood (MIS-EC): Development and validation. Braz. Oral Res. 2021 , 35 , e068. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jabbar, N.S.A.; Bueno, A.B.M.; da Silva, P.E.; Scavone-Junior, H.; Ferreira, R.I. Bottle feeding, increased overjet and class 2 primary canine relationship: Is there any association? Braz. Oral Res. 2011 , 25 , 331–337. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bueno, S.B.; Bittar, T.O.; Vazquez Fde, L.; Meneghim, M.C.; Pereira, A.C. Association of breastfeeding, pacifier use, breathing pattern and malocclusions in preschoolers. Dent. Press J. Orthod. 2013 , 18 , e1–e6. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Abanto, J.; Tello, G.; Bonini, G.C.; Oliveira, L.B.; Murakami, C.; Bonecker, M. Impact of traumatic dental injuries and malocclusions on quality of life of preschool children: A population-based study. Int. J. Paediatr. Dent. 2015 , 25 , 18–28. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alves Carneiro, D.P.; dos Santos, P.R.; Valdrighi, H.C.; Meneghim, M.d.C.; Scudeler Vedovello, S.A. Does dental trauma in early childhood have the potential to affect the quality of life of children and families? Rev. Paul. Pediatr. 2021 , 39 , e2019329. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Antunes, L.A.; Gomes, I.F.; Almeida, M.H.; Silva, E.A.; Calasans-Maia, J.e.; Antunes, L.S. Increased overjet is a risk factor for dental trauma in preschool children. Indian J. Dent. Res. Off. Publ. Indian Soc. Dent. Res. 2015 , 26 , 356–360. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Torres de Vasconcelos, F.M.; Vitali, F.C.; Ximenes, M.; Dias, L.F.; da Silva, C.P.; Borgatto, A.F.; Bolan, M.; Cardoso, M. Impact of primary dentition malocclusion on the oral health-related quality of life in preschoolers. Prog. Orthod. 2021 , 22 , 1–8. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Barasuol, J.C.; Soares, J.P.; Bolan, M.; Cardoso, M. The perception of caregivers of poor oral health of their children and its related clinical conditions. Rev. Paul. Pediatr. 2021 , 39 , e2019381. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Motta-Rego, T.; Soares, M.E.C.; Souto-Souza, D.; Souza, E.A.; Paiva, S.M.; Ramos-Jorge, M.L.; Ramos-Jorge, J. Association of the prevalence and severity of untreated traumatic dental injuries with body mass index among Brazilian preschool children. Dent. Traumatol. 2022 , 38 , 206–212. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Souto-Souza, D.; Ramos-Jorge, M.L.; Oliveira, T.F.; Soares, M.; Primo-Miranda, E.F.; Pereira, L.J.; Ramos-Jorge, J. Children who have more toothache-related behaviors have worse masticatory performance. J. Texture Stud. 2022 , 53 , 52–59. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cerqueira Silva, R.N.; Lima, C.C.B.; Bendo, C.B.; Lima, L.R.S.; de Moura, M.S.; Moura, L.; Lima, M.D.M. Impact of hypomineralised second primary molar on preschoolers’ oral health-related quality of life-A hierarchical approach. Int. J. Paediatr. Dent. 2022 , 32 , 194–203. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Scarpelli, A.C.; Paiva, S.M.; Viegas, C.M.; Carvalho, A.C.; Ferreira, F.M.; Pordeus, I.A. Oral health-related quality of life among Brazilian preschool children. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2013 , 41 , 336–344. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Clementino, M.A.; Pinto-Sarmento, T.C.A.; Costa, E.M.; Martins, C.C.; Granville-Garcia, A.F.; Paiva, S.M. Association between oral conditions and functional limitations in childhood. J. Oral Rehabil. 2015 , 42 , 420–429. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Corrêa-Faria, P.; de Abreu, M.H.N.G.; Jordão, L.M.R.; Freire, M.D.C.M.; Costa, L.R. Association of breastfeeding and malocclusion in 5-year-old children: Multilevel approach. Int. J. Paediatr. Dent. 2018 , 28 , 602–607. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Perazzo, M.F.; Gomes, M.C.; Neves, E.T.B.; Firmino, R.T.; Barros, A.A.; Silva, L.C.; Martins, C.C.; Paiva, S.M.; Granville-Garcia, A.F. Self-Perceptions of the Impact of Oral Problems on the Social Behavior of Preschoolers. Jdr. Clin. Transl. Res. 2020 , 5 , 342–348. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Souto-Souza, D.; Consolacao Soares, M.E.; Primo-Miranda, E.F.; Pereira, L.J.; Ramos-Jorge, M.L.; Ramos-Jorge, J. The influence of malocclusion, sucking habits and dental caries in the masticatory function of preschool children. Braz. Oral Res. 2020 , 34 , e059. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huamán Mendoza, A.A.; Pinedo Tellez, K.S.; Rodrigues de Almeida Silva, C.; Tello Guerrero, Y.G.; Calle Lopez, P.; García Rupaya, C.R.; Valdez Jurado, F.R. Factors associated with oral health related-quality of life in preschoolers from an Andean community. Rev. Estomatológica Hered. 2023 , 33 , 26–33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mtaya, M.; Brudvik, P.; Astrom, A.N. Prevalence of malocclusion and its associated factors among preschoolchildren in Kinondoni and Temeke Districts, Tanzania. Tanzan. J. Health Res. 2017 , 19 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Golovachova, E.; Mikadze, T.; Kalandadze, M. The prevalence of different types of occlusal relationships based on the type of terminal plane in primary dentition: A study among 3- to 6-year old children in Tbilisi, Georgia. J. Dent. Res. Dent. Clin. Dent. Prospect. 2022 , 16 , 24–28. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alarcón-Calle, C.S.; Góngora-León, I.; Aliaga-Del Castillo, A.; Flores-Mir, C.; Arriola-Guillén, L.E. Association Between Breastfeeding Type and Duration and the Molar and Facial Characteristics of Preschoolers Aged 2 To 6 Years: A Cross-Sectional Study. J. Clin. Pediatr. Dent. 2022 , 46 , 233–240. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huh, A.; Horton, M.J.; Cuenco, K.T.; Raoul, G.; Rowlerson, A.M.; Ferri, J.; Sciote, J.J. Epigenetic influence of KAT6B and HDAC4 in the development of skeletal malocclusion. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2013 , 144 , 568–576. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Küchler, E.C.; Barreiros, D.; Silva, R.O.D.; Abreu, J.G.B.; Teixeira, E.C.; Silva, R.; Silva, L.; Nelson Filho, P.; Romano, F.L.; Granjeiro, J.M.; et al. Genetic Polymorphism in MMP9 May Be Associated With Anterior Open Bite in Children. Braz. Dent. J. 2017 , 28 , 277–280. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lacchini, R.; Metzger, I.F.; Luizon, M.; Ishizawa, M.; Tanus-Santos, J.E. Interethnic differences in the distribution of matrix metalloproteinases genetic polymorphisms are consistent with interethnic differences in disease prevalence. DNA Cell Biol. 2010 , 29 , 649–655. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yousefzadeh, F.; Shcherbatyy, V.; King, G.J.; Huang, G.J.; Liu, Z.J. Cephalometric and electromyographic study of patients of East African ethnicity with and without anterior open bite. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2010 , 137 , 236–246. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Moimaz, S.A.; Garbin, A.J.; Lima, A.M.; Lolli, L.F.; Saliba, O.; Garbin, C.A. Longitudinal study of habits leading to malocclusion development in childhood. BMC Oral Health 2014 , 14 , 96. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Infante, P.F. An epidemiologic study of deciduous molar relations in preschool children. J. Dent. Res. 1975 , 54 , 723–727. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tschill, P.; Bacon, W.; Sonko, A. Malocclusion in the deciduous dentition of Caucasian children. Eur. J. Orthod. 1997 , 19 , 361–367. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Malandris, M.; Mahoney, E.K. Aetiology, diagnosis and treatment of posterior cross-bites in the primary dentition. Int. J. Paediatr. Dent. 2004 , 14 , 155–166. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Castelo, P.M.; Gaviao, M.B.; Pereira, L.J.; Bonjardim, L.R. Maximal bite force, facial morphology and sucking habits in young children with functional posterior crossbite. J. Appl. Oral Sci. 2010 , 18 , 143–148. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Almahrul, A.; Alsulaimani, L.; Alghamdi, F. The Impact of Breastfeeding and Non-Nutritive Sucking Behaviors on Skeletal and Dental Malocclusions of Pediatric Patients: A Narrative Review of the Literature. Cureus 2021 , 13 , e19160. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Uribe, S.E.; Innes, N.; Maldupa, I. The global prevalence of early childhood caries: A systematic review with meta-analysis using the WHO diagnostic criteria. Int. J. Paediatr. Dent. 2021 , 31 , 817–830. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alhammadi, M.S.; Halboub, E.; Fayed, M.S.; Labib, A.; El-Saaidi, C. Global distribution of malocclusion traits: A systematic review. Dent. Press J. Orthod. 2018 , 23 , e1–e40. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Guan, X.; Song, Y.; Ott, J.; Zhang, Y.; Li, C.; Xin, T.; Li, Z.; Gan, Y.; Li, J.; Zhou, S.; et al. The ADAMTS1 Gene Is Associated with Familial Mandibular Prognathism. J. Dent. Res. 2015 , 94 , 1196–1201. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, Q.; Li, X.; Zhang, F.; Chen, F. The identification of a novel locus for mandibular prognathism in the Han Chinese population. J. Dent. Res. 2011 , 90 , 53–57. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xue, F.; Wong, R.; Rabie, A.B. Identification of SNP markers on 1p36 and association analysis of EPB41 with mandibular prognathism in a Chinese population. Arch Oral Biol. 2010 , 55 , 867–872. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, Q.; Zhang, F.; Li, X.; Chen, F. Genome scan for locus involved in mandibular prognathism in pedigrees from China. PLoS ONE 2010 , 5 , e12678. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xiong, X.; Li, S.; Cai, Y.; Chen, F. Targeted sequencing in FGF/FGFR genes and association analysis of variants for mandibular prognathism. Medicine 2017 , 96 , e7240. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jang, J.Y.; Park, E.K.; Ryoo, H.M.; Shin, H.I.; Kim, T.H.; Jang, J.S.; Park, H.S.; Choi, J.Y.; Kwon, T.G. Polymorphisms in the Matrilin-1 gene and risk of mandibular prognathism in Koreans. J. Dent. Res. 2010 , 89 , 1203–1207. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Perillo, L.; Monsurrò, A.; Bonci, E.; Torella, A.; Mutarelli, M.; Nigro, V. Genetic association of ARHGAP21 gene variant with mandibular prognathism. J. Dent. Res. 2015 , 94 , 569–576. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bishara, S.E.; Hoppens, B.J.; Jakobsen, J.R.; Kohout, F.J. Changes in the molar relationship between the deciduous and permanent dentitions: A longitudinal study. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 1988 , 93 , 19–28. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• PubMed Overview. Available online: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/about/ (accessed on 20 December 2022).
• Web of Science Overview. Available online: https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/ (accessed on 20 December 2022).
• Embase Content Coverage. Available online: https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/embase-biomedical-research/coverage-and-content (accessed on 20 December 2022).
• 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 ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Chen, H.; Lin, L.; Chen, J.; Huang, F. Prevalence of Malocclusion Traits in Primary Dentition, 2010–2024: A Systematic Review. Healthcare 2024 , 12 , 1321. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12131321

Chen H, Lin L, Chen J, Huang F. Prevalence of Malocclusion Traits in Primary Dentition, 2010–2024: A Systematic Review. Healthcare . 2024; 12(13):1321. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12131321

Chen, Hanyi, Lude Lin, Jieyi Chen, and Fang Huang. 2024. "Prevalence of Malocclusion Traits in Primary Dentition, 2010–2024: A Systematic Review" Healthcare 12, no. 13: 1321. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12131321

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, supplementary material.

ZIP-Document (ZIP, 361 KiB)

Further Information

Mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals