writing a literature review in healthcare

• University of Detroit Mercy
• Health Professions

Health Services Administration

• Writing a Literature Review
• Find Articles (Databases)
• Evidence-based Practice
• eBooks & Articles
• General Writing Support
• Creating & Printing Posters
• Research Project Web Resources
• Statistics: Health / Medical
• Searching Tips
• Streaming Video
• Database & Library Help
• Medical Apps & Mobile Sites
• Faculty Publications

Literature Review Overview

What is a Literature Review? Why Are They Important?

A literature review is important because it presents the "state of the science" or accumulated knowledge on a specific topic. It summarizes, analyzes, and compares the available research, reporting study strengths and weaknesses, results, gaps in the research, conclusions, and authors’ interpretations.

Tips and techniques for conducting a literature review are described more fully in the subsequent boxes:

• Literature review steps
• Strategies for organizing the information for your review
• Literature reviews sections
• In-depth resources to assist in writing a literature review
• Templates to start your review
• Literature review examples

Literature Review Steps

Graphic used with permission: Torres, E. Librarian, Hawai'i Pacific University

1. Choose a topic and define your research question

• Try to choose a topic of interest. You will be working with this subject for several weeks to months.
• Ideas for topics can be found by scanning medical news sources (e.g MedPage Today), journals / magazines, work experiences, interesting patient cases, or family or personal health issues.
• Do a bit of background reading on topic ideas to familiarize yourself with terminology and issues. Note the words and terms that are used.
• Develop a focused research question using PICO(T) or other framework (FINER, SPICE, etc - there are many options) to help guide you.
• Run a few sample database searches to make sure your research question is not too broad or too narrow.
• If possible, discuss your topic with your professor. 

2. Determine the scope of your review

The scope of your review will be determined by your professor during your program. Check your assignment requirements for parameters for the Literature Review.

• How many studies will you need to include?
• How many years should it cover? (usually 5-7 depending on the professor)
• For the nurses, are you required to limit to nursing literature?

3. Develop a search plan

• Determine which databases to search. This will depend on your topic. If you are not sure, check your program specific library website (Physician Asst / Nursing / Health Services Admin) for recommendations.
• Create an initial search string using the main concepts from your research (PICO, etc) question. Include synonyms and related words connected by Boolean operators
• Contact your librarian for assistance, if needed.

4. Conduct searches and find relevant literature

• Keep notes as you search - tracking keywords and search strings used in each database in order to avoid wasting time duplicating a search that has already been tried
• Read abstracts and write down new terms to search as you find them
• Check MeSH or other subject headings listed in relevant articles for additional search terms
• Scan author provided keywords if available
• Check the references of relevant articles looking for other useful articles (ancestry searching)
• Check articles that have cited your relevant article for more useful articles (descendancy searching). Both PubMed and CINAHL offer Cited By links
• Revise the search to broaden or narrow your topic focus as you peruse the available literature
• Conducting a literature search is a repetitive process. Searches can be revised and re-run multiple times during the process.
• Track the citations for your relevant articles in a software citation manager such as RefWorks, Zotero, or Mendeley

5. Review the literature

• Read the full articles. Do not rely solely on the abstracts. Authors frequently cannot include all results within the confines of an abstract. Exclude articles that do not address your research question.
• While reading, note research findings relevant to your project and summarize. Are the findings conflicting? There are matrices available than can help with organization. See the Organizing Information box below.
• Critique / evaluate the quality of the articles, and record your findings in your matrix or summary table. Tools are available to prompt you what to look for. (See Resources for Appraising a Research Study box on the HSA, Nursing , and PA guides )
• You may need to revise your search and re-run it based on your findings.

6. Organize and synthesize

• Compile the findings and analysis from each resource into a single narrative.
• Using an outline can be helpful. Start broad, addressing the overall findings and then narrow, discussing each resource and how it relates to your question and to the other resources.
• Cite as you write to keep sources organized.
• Write in structured paragraphs using topic sentences and transition words to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.
• Don't present one study after another, but rather relate one study's findings to another. Speak to how the studies are connected and how they relate to your work.

Organizing Information

Options to assist in organizing sources and information :

1. Synthesis Matrix

• helps provide overview of the literature
• information from individual sources is entered into a grid to enable writers to discern patterns and themes
• article summary, analysis, or results
• thoughts, reflections, or issues
• each reference gets its own row
• mind maps, concept maps, flowcharts
• at top of page record PICO or research question
• record major concepts / themes from literature
• list concepts that branch out from major concepts underneath - keep going downward hierarchically, until most specific ideas are recorded
• enclose concepts in circles and connect the concept with lines - add brief explanation as needed

3. Summary Table

• information is recorded in a grid to help with recall and sorting information when writing
• allows comparing and contrasting individual studies easily
• purpose of study
• methodology (study population, data collection tool)

Efron, S. E., & Ravid, R. (2019). Writing the literature review : A practical guide . Guilford Press.

Literature Review Sections

• Lit reviews can be part of a larger paper / research study or they can be the focus of the paper
• Lit reviews focus on research studies to provide evidence
• New topics may not have much that has been published

* The sections included may depend on the purpose of the literature review (standalone paper or section within a research paper)

Standalone Literature Review (aka Narrative Review):

• presents your topic or PICO question
• includes the why of the literature review and your goals for the review.
• provides background for your the topic and previews the key points
• Narrative Reviews: tmay not have an explanation of methods.
• include where the search was conducted (which databases) what subject terms or keywords were used, and any limits or filters that were applied and why - this will help others re-create the search
• describe how studies were analyzed for inclusion or exclusion
• review the purpose and answer the research question
• thematically - using recurring themes in the literature
• chronologically - present the development of the topic over time
• methodological - compare and contrast findings based on various methodologies used to research the topic (e.g. qualitative vs quantitative, etc.)
• theoretical - organized content based on various theories
• provide an overview of the main points of each source then synthesize the findings into a coherent summary of the whole
• present common themes among the studies
• compare and contrast the various study results
• interpret the results and address the implications of the findings
• do the results support the original hypothesis or conflict with it
• provide your own analysis and interpretation (eg. discuss the significance of findings; evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the studies, noting any problems)
• discuss common and unusual patterns and offer explanations
•  stay away from opinions, personal biases and unsupported recommendations
• summarize the key findings and relate them back to your PICO/research question
• note gaps in the research and suggest areas for further research
• this section should not contain "new" information that had not been previously discussed in one of the sections above
• provide a list of all the studies and other sources used in proper APA 7

Literature Review as Part of a Research Study Manuscript:

• Compares the study with other research and includes how a study fills a gap in the research.
• Focus on the body of the review which includes the synthesized Findings and Discussion

Literature Reviews vs Systematic Reviews

Systematic Reviews are NOT the same as a Literature Review:

Literature Reviews:

• Literature reviews may or may not follow strict systematic methods to find, select, and analyze articles, but rather they selectively and broadly review the literature on a topic
• Research included in a Literature Review can be "cherry-picked" and therefore, can be very subjective

Systematic Reviews:

• Systemic reviews are designed to provide a comprehensive summary of the evidence for a focused research question
• rigorous and strictly structured, using standardized reporting guidelines (e.g. PRISMA, see link below)
• uses exhaustive, systematic searches of all relevant databases
• best practice dictates search strategies are peer reviewed
• uses predetermined study inclusion and exclusion criteria in order to minimize bias
• aims to capture and synthesize all literature (including unpublished research - grey literature) that meet the predefined criteria on a focused topic resulting in high quality evidence

Literature Review Examples

• Breastfeeding initiation and support: A literature review of what women value and the impact of early discharge (2017). Women and Birth : Journal of the Australian College of Midwives
• Community-based participatory research to promote healthy diet and nutrition and prevent and control obesity among African-Americans: A literature review (2017). Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities

• Vitamin D deficiency in individuals with a spinal cord injury: A literature review (2017). Spinal Cord

Resources for Writing a Literature Review

These sources have been used in developing this guide.

Resources Used on This Page

Aveyard, H. (2010). Doing a literature review in health and social care : A practical guide . McGraw-Hill Education.

Purdue Online Writing Lab. (n.d.). Writing a literature review . Purdue University. https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/conducting_research/writing_a_literature_review.html

Torres, E. (2021, October 21). Nursing - graduate studies research guide: Literature review. Hawai'i Pacific University Libraries. Retrieved January 27, 2022, from https://hpu.libguides.com/c.php?g=543891&p=3727230

• << Previous: General Writing Support
• Next: Creating & Printing Posters >>
• Last Updated: Mar 27, 2024 1:13 PM
• URL: https://udmercy.libguides.com/hsa

• Reserve a study room
• Library Account
• Undergraduate Students
• Graduate Students
• Faculty & Staff

How to Conduct a Literature Review (Health Sciences and Beyond)

What is a literature review, traditional (narrative) literature review, integrative literature review, systematic reviews, meta-analysis, scoping review.

• Developing a Research Question
• Selection Criteria
• Database Search
• Documenting Your Search
• Organize Key Findings
• Reference Management

Ask Us! Health Sciences Library

The health sciences library.

Call toll-free:  (844) 352-7399 E-mail:   Ask Us More contact information

Related Guides

• Systematic Reviews by Roy Brown Last Updated Oct 17, 2023 282 views this year
• Write a Literature Review by John Glover Last Updated Oct 16, 2023 1700 views this year

A literature review provides an overview of what's been written about a specific topic. There are many different types of literature reviews. They vary in terms of comprehensiveness, types of study included, and purpose. 

The other pages in this guide will cover some basic steps to consider when conducting a traditional health sciences literature review. See below for a quick look at some of the more popular types of literature reviews.

For additional information on a variety of review methods, the following article provides an excellent overview.

Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009 Jun;26(2):91-108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x. Review. PubMed PMID: 19490148.

• Next: Developing a Research Question >>
• Last Updated: Mar 15, 2024 12:22 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.vcu.edu/health-sciences-lit-review

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing - try for free!

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

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 March 25, 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”

Health (Nursing, Medicine, Allied Health)

• Find Articles/Databases
• Reference Resources
• Evidence Summaries & Clinical Guidelines
• Drug Information
• Health Data & Statistics
• Patient/Consumer Facing Materials
• Images and Streaming Video
• Grey Literature
• Mobile Apps & "Point of Care" Tools
• Tests & Measures This link opens in a new window
• Citing Sources
• Selecting Databases
• Framing Research Questions
• Crafting a Search
• Narrowing / Filtering a Search
• Expanding a Search
• Cited Reference Searching
• Saving Searches
• Term Glossary
• Critical Appraisal Resources
• What are Literature Reviews?
• Conducting & Reporting Systematic Reviews
• Finding Systematic Reviews
• Tutorials & Tools for Literature Reviews
• Finding Full Text

What are Systematic Reviews? (3 minutes, 24 second YouTube Video)

Systematic Literature Reviews: Steps & Resources

These steps for conducting a systematic literature review are listed below . 

Also see subpages for more information about:

• The different types of literature reviews, including systematic reviews and other evidence synthesis methods
• Tools & Tutorials

Literature Review & Systematic Review Steps

• Develop a Focused Question
• Scope the Literature  (Initial Search)
• Refine & Expand the Search
• Limit the Results
• Download Citations
• Abstract & Analyze
• Create Flow Diagram
• Synthesize & Report Results

1. Develop a Focused   Question 

Consider the PICO Format: Population/Problem, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome

Focus on defining the Population or Problem and Intervention (don't narrow by Comparison or Outcome just yet!)

"What are the effects of the Pilates method for patients with low back pain?"

Tools & Additional Resources:

• PICO Question Help
• Stillwell, Susan B., DNP, RN, CNE; Fineout-Overholt, Ellen, PhD, RN, FNAP, FAAN; Melnyk, Bernadette Mazurek, PhD, RN, CPNP/PMHNP, FNAP, FAAN; Williamson, Kathleen M., PhD, RN Evidence-Based Practice, Step by Step: Asking the Clinical Question, AJN The American Journal of Nursing : March 2010 - Volume 110 - Issue 3 - p 58-61 doi: 10.1097/01.NAJ.0000368959.11129.79

2. Scope the Literature

A "scoping search" investigates the breadth and/or depth of the initial question or may identify a gap in the literature. 

Eligible studies may be located by searching in:

• Background sources (books, point-of-care tools)
• Article databases
• Trial registries
• Grey literature
• Cited references
• Reference lists

When searching, if possible, translate terms to controlled vocabulary of the database. Use text word searching when necessary.

Use Boolean operators to connect search terms:

• Combine separate concepts with AND  (resulting in a narrower search)
• Connecting synonyms with OR  (resulting in an expanded search)

Search:  pilates AND ("low back pain"  OR  backache )

Video Tutorials - Translating PICO Questions into Search Queries

• Translate Your PICO Into a Search in PubMed (YouTube, Carrie Price, 5:11) 
• Translate Your PICO Into a Search in CINAHL (YouTube, Carrie Price, 4:56)

3. Refine & Expand Your Search

Expand your search strategy with synonymous search terms harvested from:

• database thesauri
• reference lists
• relevant studies

Example: 

(pilates OR exercise movement techniques) AND ("low back pain" OR backache* OR sciatica OR lumbago OR spondylosis)

As you develop a final, reproducible strategy for each database, save your strategies in a:

• a personal database account (e.g., MyNCBI for PubMed)
• Log in with your NYU credentials
• Open and "Make a Copy" to create your own tracker for your literature search strategies

4. Limit Your Results

Use database filters to limit your results based on your defined inclusion/exclusion criteria.  In addition to relying on the databases' categorical filters, you may also need to manually screen results.  

• Limit to Article type, e.g.,:  "randomized controlled trial" OR multicenter study
• Limit by publication years, age groups, language, etc.

NOTE: Many databases allow you to filter to "Full Text Only".  This filter is  not recommended . It excludes articles if their full text is not available in that particular database (CINAHL, PubMed, etc), but if the article is relevant, it is important that you are able to read its title and abstract, regardless of 'full text' status. The full text is likely to be accessible through another source (a different database, or Interlibrary Loan).  

• Filters in PubMed
• CINAHL Advanced Searching Tutorial

5. Download Citations

Selected citations and/or entire sets of search results can be downloaded from the database into a citation management tool. If you are conducting a systematic review that will require reporting according to PRISMA standards, a citation manager can help you keep track of the number of articles that came from each database, as well as the number of duplicate records.

In Zotero, you can create a Collection for the combined results set, and sub-collections for the results from each database you search.  You can then use Zotero's 'Duplicate Items" function to find and merge duplicate records.

• Citation Managers - General Guide

6. Abstract and Analyze

• Migrate citations to data collection/extraction tool
• Screen Title/Abstracts for inclusion/exclusion
• Screen and appraise full text for relevance, methods, 
• Resolve disagreements by consensus

Covidence is a web-based tool that enables you to work with a team to screen titles/abstracts and full text for inclusion in your review, as well as extract data from the included studies.

• Covidence Support
• Critical Appraisal Tools
• Data Extraction Tools

7. Create Flow Diagram

The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow diagram is a visual representation of the flow of records through different phases of a systematic review.  It depicts the number of records identified, included and excluded.  It is best used in conjunction with the PRISMA checklist .

Example from: Stotz, S. A., McNealy, K., Begay, R. L., DeSanto, K., Manson, S. M., & Moore, K. R. (2021). Multi-level diabetes prevention and treatment interventions for Native people in the USA and Canada: A scoping review. Current Diabetes Reports, 2 (11), 46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11892-021-01414-3

• PRISMA Flow Diagram Generator (ShinyApp.io, Haddaway et al. )
• PRISMA Diagram Templates  (Word and PDF)
• Make a copy of the file to fill out the template
• Image can be downloaded as PDF, PNG, JPG, or SVG
• Covidence generates a PRISMA diagram that is automatically updated as records move through the review phases

8. Synthesize & Report Results

There are a number of reporting guideline available to guide the synthesis and reporting of results in systematic literature reviews.

It is common to organize findings in a matrix, also known as a Table of Evidence (ToE).

• Reporting Guidelines for Systematic Reviews
• Download a sample template of a health sciences review matrix  (GoogleSheets)

Steps modified from: 

Cook, D. A., & West, C. P. (2012). Conducting systematic reviews in medical education: a stepwise approach.   Medical Education , 46 (10), 943–952.

• << Previous: Critical Appraisal Resources
• Next: What are Literature Reviews? >>
• Last Updated: Mar 25, 2024 3:16 PM
• URL: https://guides.nyu.edu/health

• University of Texas Libraries
• UT Libraries

Literature Reviews

• Dell Medical School Library
• LibKey Nomad - Full Text
• What's New?
• Clinical Practice Guidelines
• Clinical Trials
• Drug Information
• Health and Medical Law
• Point-of-Care Tools
• Test Prep Resources
• Video, Audio, and Images
• Search Tips
• PubMed Guide This link opens in a new window
• Ask the Question
• Acquire the Evidence
• Appraise the Evidence
• Evidence Hierarchy
• EBM Bibliography
• Child Neurology
• Dermatology
• Emergency Medicine
• Family Medicine
• Internal Medicine
• Obstetrics & Gynecology
• Ophthalmology
• Orthopaedic Surgery
• Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation
• Mobile Apps
• Citation Managers This link opens in a new window
• Citation Manuals
• General Resources
• Study Types
• Systematic Reviews
• Scoping Reviews
• Rapid Reviews
• Integrative Reviews
• Technical Reports
• Case Reports
• Getting Published
• Selecting a Journal
• Open Access Publishing
• Avoiding Low Quality Open Access
• High Quality Open Access Journals
• Keeping Up with the Literature
• Health Statistics
• Research Funding This link opens in a new window
• Author Metrics
• Article Metrics
• Journal Metrics
• Scholarly Profile Tools
• Health Humanities This link opens in a new window
• Health Equity This link opens in a new window
• UT-Authored Articles
• Resources for DMS COVID-19 Elective
• Types of Literature Reviews
• How to Write a Literature Review
• How to Write the Introduction to a Research Article
• Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements | Health Information and Libraries Journal, 2019
• A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies | Health Information and Libraries Journal, 2009
• Conceptual recommendations for selecting the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to answer research questions related to complex evidence | Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2016
• Methods for knowledge synthesis: an overview | Heart & Lung: The Journal of Critical Care, 2014
• Not sure what type of review to conduct? Brief descriptions of each type plus tools to help you decide

• Ten simple rules for writing a literature review | PLoS Computational Biology, 2013
• The Purpose, Process, and Methods of Writing a Literature Review | AORN Journal. 2016
• Why, When, Who, What, How, and Where for Trainees Writing Literature Review Articles. | Annals of Biomed Engineering, 2019
• So You Want to Write a Narrative Review Article? | Journal of Cardiothoracic and Anesthesia, 2021
• An Introduction to Writing Narrative and Systematic Reviews - Tasks, Tips and Traps for Aspiring Authors | Heart, Lung, and Circulation, 2018

• The Literature Review: A Foundation for High-Quality Medical Education Research | Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 2016
• Writing an effective literature review : Part I: Mapping the gap | Perspectives on Medical Education, 2018
• Writing an effective literature review : Part II: Citation technique | Perspectives on Medical Education, 2018
• Last Updated: Mar 7, 2024 6:43 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/medicine

• Technical Support
• Find My Rep

You are here

Doing a Literature Review in Nursing, Health and Social Care

• Michael Coughlan - Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
• Patricia Cronin - Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
• Description

A clear and practical guide to completing a literature review in nursing and healthcare studies.

Providing students with straightforward guidance on how to successfully carry out a literature review as part of a research project or dissertation, this book uses examples and activities to demonstrate how to complete each step correctly, from start to finish, and highlights how to avoid common mistakes.

The third edition includes:

• Expert advice on selecting and researching a topic
• A chapter outlining the different types of literature review
• Increased focus on Critical Appraisal Tools and how to use them effectively
• New real-world examples presenting best practice
• Instructions on writing up and presenting the final piece of work

Perfect for any nursing or healthcare student new to literature reviews and for anyone who needs a refresher in this important topic.

See what’s new to this edition by selecting the Features tab on this page. Should you need additional information or have questions regarding the HEOA information provided for this title, including what is new to this edition, please email [email protected] . Please include your name, contact information, and the name of the title for which you would like more information. For information on the HEOA, please go to http://ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.html .

For assistance with your order: Please email us at [email protected] or connect with your SAGE representative.

SAGE 2455 Teller Road Thousand Oaks, CA 91320 www.sagepub.com

Praise for the previous edition:

'This book is an excellent resource for practitioners wishing to develop their knowledge and understanding of reviewing literature and the processes involved. It uses uncomplicated language to signpost the reader effortlessly through key aspects of research processes. Practitioners will find this an invaluable companion for navigating through evidence to identify quality literature applicable to health and social care practice.' 

'Students often struggle with writing an effective literature review and this invaluable guide will help to allay their concerns. Key terms are clearly explained, and the inclusion of learning outcomes is a helpful feature for students and lecturers alike.  The examples are also very helpful, particularly for less confident students.  This is an accessible yet authoritative guide which I can thoroughly recommend.' 

'A must have - this book provides useful information and guidance to students and professionals alike. It guides the reader through various research methods in a theoretical and pragmatic manner.' 

' It's a very readable, concise, and accessible introduction to undertaking a literature review in the field of healthcare. The book’s layout has a logical format which really helped me to think methodically about my research question. An excellent reference for undergraduates who are about to undertake their first literature review.' 

'This book is an essential resource for students. Clearly written and excellently structured, with helpful study tools throughout, it takes the reader step by step through the literature review process in an easy, informative and accessible manner. This text gives students the skills they need to successfully complete their own review.' 

'The updating of the chapters will be exceptionally helpful given the rapid changes in online availability of resources and open-access literature.'  

Excellent resource. Useful for any stage of studying

Excellent text for masters and doctoral level students

An excellent primer to help the level 7 students write their systemised review for the assignment.

This book provides a comprehensive overview of the practical process of literature review in healthcare. It contains all details required to conduct a review by students.

This is an excellent clear and concise book on undertaking literature reviews being particularly good at demystifying jargon. It is timely given the move to student dissertations being primarily literature reviews in the current Covid pandemic. However nearly all the examples are drawn from nursing and health making the text less useful for social care and social work. A little disappointing given the title. SW students are likely to gravitate to texts where their subject is more prominent for a primary text.

Accessible, informative, step to step guide

This is a really helpful, accessible text for students and academic staff alike.

A really good addition to the repertoire of skills and techniques for understanding the essential process of literature reviewing.

Preview this book

For instructors, select a purchasing option, related products.

• Hofstra University Library Home
• Writing in the Health Sciences
• Literature Review

Writing in the Health Sciences: Literature Review

• Development of PICO
• Grant Writing
• Scoping Reviews
• Systematic Reviews
• Research Databases & Strategies
• Citation: APA 7
• Citation: AMA 11th Edition

What is a Literature Review?

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

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

Source:  Literature Reviews – The Writing Center • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (unc.edu)

How to Write a Literature Review (Video)

Helpful Links

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review  - This PLoS One article itemizes the steps in the lit review process.

Drafting the Literature Review :  Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center's LibGuide for drafting and structuring a literature review.

Literature Reviews: Handout created by the Writing Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

"Literature reviews can be written as both full-length articles that present the “state of the art” on a topic, or as introductions to new original research studies.

The stand-alone literature review:.

When a literature review stands alone, it is reviewing what is known about the topic, analyzed for trends, controversial issues, and what still needs to be studied to better understand the topic at hand. A stand-alone literature review can be as short as a few pages or may be more extensive with long bibliographies for in-depth reviews. 

The Literature Review as a Section:

Literature reviews can be used as part of dissertations, theses, research reports, and scholarly journal articles. They generally discuss what has been done before and how the research being introduced in this document fills a gap in the field's knowledge and why it is an important.  

Source:  Home - Writing a Literature Review - LibGuides at Wichita State University

• << Previous: Development of PICO
• Next: Grant Writing >>
• Last Updated: Mar 25, 2024 2:45 PM
• URL: https://libguides.hofstra.edu/WritingInTheHealthSciences

This site is compliant with the W3C-WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY Hempstead, NY 11549-1000 (516) 463-6600 © 2000-2009 Hofstra University

News alert: UC Berkeley has announced its next university librarian

Secondary menu

• Log in to your Library account
• Hours and Maps
• Connect from Off Campus
• UC Berkeley Home

Search form

Searching the public health & medical literature more effectively: literature review help.

• Getting Started
• Articles: Searching PubMed This link opens in a new window
• More Sources: Databases, Systematic Reviews, Grey Literature
• Organize Citations & Search Strategies
• Literature Review Help
• Need More Help?

Writing Guides, Manuals, etc.

Literature Review Tips Handouts

Write about something you are passionate about!

• About Literature Reviews (pdf)
• Literature Review Workflow (pdf)
• Search Tips/Search Operators
• Quick Article Evaluation Worksheet (docx)
• Tips for the Literature Review Workflow
• Sample Outline for a Literature Review (docx)

Ten simple rules for writing a literature review . Pautasso M. PLoS Comput Biol. 2013;9(7):e1003149. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149

Conducting the Literature Search . Chapter 4 of Chasan-Taber L. Writing Dissertation and Grant Proposals: Epidemiology, Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics. New York: Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2014.

A step-by-step guide to writing a research paper, from idea to full manuscript . Excellent and easy to follow blog post by Dr. Raul Pacheco-Vega.

Data Extraction

Data extraction answers the question “what do the studies tell us?”

At a minimum, consider the following when extracting data from the studies you are reviewing ( source ):

• Only use the data elements relevant to your question;
• Use a table, form, or tool (such as Covidence ) for data extraction;
• Test your methods and tool for missing data elements, redundancy, consistency, clarity.

Here is a table of data elements to consider for your data extraction. (From University of York, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination).

Critical Reading

As you read articles, write notes. You may wish to create a table, answering these questions:

• What is the hypothesis?
• What is the method? Rigorous? Appropriate sample size? Results support conclusions?
• What are the key findings?
• How does this paper support/contradict other work?
• How does it support/contradict your own approach?
• How significant is this research? What is its special contribution?
• Is this research repeating existing approaches or making a new contribution?
• What are its strengths?
• What are its weaknesses/limitations?

From: Kearns, H. & Finn, J. (2017) Supervising PhD Students: A Practical Guide and Toolkit . AU: Thinkwell, p. 103.

Submitting to a Journal? First Identify Journals That Publish on Your Topic

Through Scopus

• Visit the  Scopus database.
• Search for recent articles on your research topic.
• Above the results, click “Analyze search results."
• Click in the "Documents per year by source" box.
• On the left you will see the results listed by the number of articles published on your research topic per journal.

Through Web of Science

• Visit the Web of Science database.
• In the results, click "Analyze Results" on the right hand side.
• From the drop-down menu near the top left, choose "Publication Titles."
• Change the "Minimum record count (threshold)," if desired.
• Scroll down for a table of results by journal title.
• JANE (Journal/Author Name Estimator) Use JANE to help you discover and decide where to publish an article you have authored. Jane matches the abstract of your article to the articles in Medline to find the best matching journals (or authors, or articles).
• Jot (Journal Targeter) Jot uses Jane and other data to determine journals likely to publish your article (based on title, abstract, references) against the impact metric of those journals. From Yale University.
• EndNote Manuscript Matcher Using algorithms and data from the Web of Science and Journal Citation Reports, Manuscript Matcher identifies the most relevant and impactful journals to which one may wish to submit a manuscript. Access Manuscript Matcher via EndNote X9 or EndNote 20.
• DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals) Journal Lookup Look up a journal title on DOAJ and find information on publication fees, aims and scope, instructions for authors, submission to publication time, copyright, and more.

Writing Help @UCB

Here is a short list of sources of writing help available to UC Berkeley students, staff, and faculty:

• Purdue OWL Excellent collection of guides on writing, including citing/attribution, citation styles, grammar and punctuation, academic writing, and much more.
• Berkeley Writing: College Writing Programs "Our philosophy includes small class size, careful attention to building your critical reading and thinking skills along with your writing, personalized attention, and a great deal of practice writing and revising." Website has a Writing Resources Database .
• Graduate Writing Center, Berkeley Graduate Division Assists graduate students in the development of academic skills necessary to successfully complete their programs and prepare for future positions. Workshops and online consultations are offered on topics such as academic writing, grant writing, dissertation writing , thesis writing , editing, and preparing articles for publication, in addition to writing groups and individual consultations.
• Nature Masterclass on Scientific Writing and Publishing For Postdocs, Visiting Scholars, and Visiting Student Researchers with active, approved appointments, and current UC Berkeley graduate students who are new to publishing or wish to refresh their skills. Part 1: Writing a Research Paper; Part 2: Publishing a Research Paper; Part 3: Writing and Publishing a Review Paper. Offered by Visiting Researcher Scholar and Postdoc Affairs (VSPA) program; complete this form to gain access.

Alternative Publishing Formats

Here is some information and tips on getting your research to a broader, or to a specialized, audience

• Creating One-Page Reports One-page reports are a great way to provide a snapshot of a project’s activities and impact to stakeholders. Summarizing key facts in a format that is easily and quickly digestible engages the busy reader and can make your project stand out. From EvaluATE .
• How to write an Op-ed (Webinar) Strategies on how to write sharp op-eds for broader consumption, one of the most important ways to ensure your analysis and research is shared in the public sphere. From the Institute for Research on Public Policy .
• 10 tips for commentary writers From UC Berkeley Media Relations’ 2017 Op-Ed writing workshop.
• Journal of Science Policy and Governance JSPG publishes policy memos, op-eds, position papers, and similar items created by students.
• Writing Persuasive Policy Briefs Presentation slides from a UCB Science Policy Group session.
• 3 Essential Steps to Share Research With Popular Audiences (Inside Higher Ed) How to broaden the reach and increase the impact of your academic writing. Popular writing isn’t a distraction from core research!

The Politics of Citation

"One of the feminist practices key to my teaching and research is a feminist practice of citation."

From The Digital Feminist Collective , this blog post emphasizes the power of citing.

"Acknowledging and establishing feminist genealogies is part of the work of producing more just forms of knowledge and intellectual practice."

Here's an exercise (docx) to help you in determining how inclusive you are when citing.

Additional Resources for Inclusive Citation Practices :

• BIPOC Scientists Citation guide (Rockefeller Univ.).
• Conducting Research through an Anti-Racism Lens (Univ. of Minnesota Libraries).
• cleanBib (Code to probabilistically assign gender and race proportions of first/last authors pairs in bibliography entries).
• Balanced Citer (Python script guesses the race and gender of the first and last authors for papers in your citation list and compares your list to expected distributions based on a model that accounts for paper characteristics).
• Read Black women's work;
• Integrate Black women into the CORE of your syllabus (in life & in the classroom);
• Acknowledge Black women's intellectual production;
• Make space for Black women to speak;
• Give Black women the space and time to breathe.
• CiteASista .
• << Previous: Organize Citations & Search Strategies
• Next: Need More Help? >>
• Last Updated: Mar 1, 2024 10:44 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/publichealth/litsearch

Writing in the Health Sciences: Research and Lit Reviews

• Research and Lit Reviews
• Tables and Figures
• Citation Management
• Further Reference

What Is a Literature Review?

In simple terms, a literature review investigates the available information on a certain topic. It may be only a knowledge survey with an intentional focus. However, it is often a well-organized examination of the existing research which evaluates each resource in a systematic way. Often a lit review will involve a series of inclusion/exclusion criteria or an assessment rubric which examines the research in-depth. Below are some interesting sources to consider.

The Writing Center's Literature Reviews - UNC-Chapel Hill's writing center explains some of the key criteria involved in doing a literature review.

Literature Review vs. Systematic Review - This recent article details the difference between a literature review and a systematic review. Though the two share similar attributes, key differences are identified here.

Literature Review Steps

1. Identify a research question. For example: "Does the use of warfarin in elderly patients recovering from myocardial infarction help prevent stroke?"

2. Consider which databases might provide information for your topic. Often PubMed or CINAHL will cover a wide spectrum of biomedical issues. However, other databases and grey literature sources may specialize in certain disciplines. Embase is generally comprehensive but also specializes in pharmacological interventions.

3. Select the major subjects or ideas from your question.  Focus in on the particular concepts involved in your research. Then brainstorm synonyms and related terminology for these topics.

4. Look for the  preferred indexing terms for each concept in your question. This is especially important with databases such as PubMed, CINAHL, or Scopus where headings within the MeSH database or under the Emtree umbrella are present.  For example, the above question's keywords such as " warfarin " or "myocardial infarction" can involve related terminology or subject headings such as "anti-coagulants" or "cardiovascular disease."

5. Build your search using boolean operators. Combine the synonyms in your database using boolean operators such as AND or OR. Sometimes it is necessary to research parts of a question rather than the whole. So you might link searches for things like the preventive effects of anti-coagulants with stroke or embolism, then AND these results with the therapy for patients with cardiovascular disease.

6. Filter and save your search results from the first database (do this for all databases). This may be a short list because of your topic's limitations, but it should be no longer than 15 articles for an initial search. Make sure your list is saved or archived and presents you with what's needed to access the full text.

7. Use the same process with the next databases on your list. But pay attention to how certain major headings may alter the terminology. "Stroke" may have a suggested term of "embolism" or even "cerebrovascular incident" depending on the database.

8. Read through the material for inclusion/exclusion . Based on your project's criteria and objective, consider which studies or reviews deserve to be included and which should be discarded. Make sure the information you have permits you to go forward. 

9. Write the literature review. Begin by summarizing why your research is important and explain why your approach will help fill gaps in current knowledge. Then incorporate how the information you've selected will help you to do this. You do not need to write about all of the included research you've chosen, only the most pe rtinent.

10. Select the most relevant literature for inclusion in the body of your report. Choose the articles and data sets that are most particularly relevant to your experimental approach. Consider how you might arrange these sources in the body of your draft. 

Library Books

Call #: WZ 345 G192h 2011

ISBN #: 9780763771867

This book details a practical, step-by-step method for conducting a literature review in the health sciences. Aiming to  synthesize the information while also analyzing it, the Matrix Indexing System enables users to establish a  structured process for tracking, organizing and integrating the knowledge within a collection.

Key Research Databases

PubMed -  The premier medical database for review articles in medicine, nursing, healthcare, other related biomedical disciplines. PubMed contains over 20 million citations and can be navigated through multiple database capabilities and searching strategies.

CINAHL Ultimate - Offers comprehensive coverage of health science literature. CINAHL is particularly useful for those researching the allied disciplines of nursing, medicine, and pharmaceutical sciences.

Scopus - Database with over 12 million abstracts and citations which include peer-reviewed titles from international and Open Access journals. Also includes interactive bibliometrics and researcher profiling.

Embase - Elsevier's fully interoperable database of both Medline and Emtree-indexed articles. Embase also specializes in pharmacologic interventions.

Cochrane - Selected evidence-based medicine resources from the Cochrane Collaboration that includes peer-reviewed systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials. Access this database through OVID with TTUHSC Libraries.

DARE - Literally the Datatase of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, this collection of systematic reviews and other evidence-based research contains critical assessments from a wide variety of medical journals.

TRIP - This TRIP database is structured according to the level of evidence for its EBM content. It allows users to quickly and easily locate high-quality, accredited medical literature for clinical and research purposes.

Web of Science - Contains bibliographic articles and data from a wide variety of publications in the life sciences and other fields. Also, see this link for conducting a lit review exclusively within Web of Science.

• << Previous: Welcome
• Next: Drafting >>
• Last Updated: Sep 29, 2023 10:07 AM
• URL: https://ttuhsc.libguides.com/Writing_HealthSciences

Getting started step by step

Step 1: select your topic.

• Follow the instructions in your assignment and choose a topic of interest to you personally
• Have a quick search in databases such as MEDLINE and CINAHL to see what literature is available on your topic
• Assess whether you have enough literature or whether you need to broaden your search, or choose another topic or database

Step 2: Search the literature:

• Find journal articles on your topic by searching appropriate databases using either keywords or subject terms
• Databases Select the Databases tab, and choose your subject area from the drop down menu for a list of other databases.
• Health Databases Learn how to search various library databases for health sciences.

Step 3: Select the articles for the review

Considerations:

• Reread the question then quickly scan the abstract, introduction and conclusion of each article to ensure they are relevant
• Select the type of literature that will help you to link together your arguments, making it easier for the reader to follow
• Select peer-reviewed journal articles, ensuring that the arguments presented and data analysis have been checked by experts in the field prior to publication
• Assess whether you have enough literature or whether you need to do another search or choose another topic

Step 4: Find the full text and organise your references

• If searching a citation/abstract only database, use the Full Text Finder to locate the full text in the Library database
• In most cases you can read online or download and save a PDF
• Use Document Delivery if you find an article that is not available in full text through La Trobe University Library
• Document delivery Use the Document Delivery Service to request copies and loans from other libraries.

Step 5: Understand and appraise the literature

• Read, summarise or describe each article, noting your findings and impressions
• Examine each article for strengths and weaknesses, and validity of findings (use the evaluation template)
• Look for points of difference between the articles
• Look for common arguments or themes in the articles you have summarised
• Notice the same authors' names appearing in articles - likely they are the 'leading authors' in the field. As you read more widely, you will identify key researchers in your topic
• Note there may be differing opinions within the articles selected, for example opinions on treatment options
• Try to extract the unique concepts of the article which are central to a full understanding of the topic
• Summarise key texts to provide a useful step between note taking and integration into the review
• Note that researchers may use different methods such as quantitative or qualitative studies
• Critical Appraisal Use this guide to assist with critical reading and evaluating the literature for inclusion in the literature review for health sciences.
• Understanding health research: a tool for making sense of health studies This tool will guide you through a series of questions to help you to review and interpret a published health research paper.

Step 6: Write the literature review

Provide a clear structure.

• Introduction to explain how your review is organised
• Headings that show how the strands of your argument are incorporated
• Conclusion where the key arguments are summarised concisely

Also include:

• Explanation of the main purpose and scope of the articles
• Descriptions of the content
• Evaluation of the article including study design, any possible bias or weaknesses
• Value of the work in contributing to literature in this field
• Author credentials, currency and intended audience
• Turn a stack of papers into a literature review: useful tools for beginners Talbot, L., & Verrinder, G. (2008). Turn a Stack of Papers into a Literature Review: Useful Tools for Beginners. Focus on health professional education: a multi-disciplinary journal, 10(1), 51-58.
• << Previous: Literature review
• Next: Evaluation templates >>

• UNC Libraries
• HSL Subject Research
• Public Health
• Literature reviews

Public Health: Literature reviews

Created by health science librarians.

• Sciwheel & Citation managers
• Data & software
• Grey literature
• Popular search strategies

Section Objective

What is a literature review, clearly stated research question, search terms, searching worksheets, boolean and / or.

• Systematic reviews
• Biostatistics
• Environmental Sciences and Engineering
• Epidemiology
• Health Behavior
• Health Policy and Management
• Maternal and Child Health
• Public Health Leadership

The content in the Literature Review section defines the literature review purpose and process, explains using the PICO format to ask a clear research question, and demonstrates how to evaluate and modify search results to improve the accuracy of the retrieval.

A literature review seeks to identify, analyze and summarize the published research literature about a specific topic.  Literature reviews are assigned as course projects; included as the introductory part of master's and PhD theses; and are conducted before undertaking any new scientific research project.

The purpose of a literature review is to establish what is currently known about a specific topic and to evaluate the strength of the evidence upon which that knowledge is based. A review of a clinical topic may identify implications for clinical practice. Literature reviews also identify areas of a topic that need further research.

A systematic review is a literature review that follows a rigorous process to find all of the research conducted on a topic and then critically appraises the research methods of the highest quality reports. These reviews track and report their search and appraisal methods in addition to providing a summary of the knowledge established by the appraised research.

The UNC Writing Center provides a nice summary of what to consider when writing a literature review for a class assignment. The online book, Doing a literature review in health and social care : a practical guide (2010), is a good resource for more information on this topic.

Obviously, the quality of the search process will determine the quality of all literature reviews. Anyone undertaking a literature review on a new topic would benefit from meeting with a librarian to discuss search strategies. A consultaiton with a librarian is strongly recommended for anyone undertaking a systematic review.

Use the email form on our Ask a Librarian page to arrange a meeting with a librarian.

The first step to a successful literature review search is to state your research question as clearly as possible.

It is important to:

• be as specific as possible
• include all aspects of your question

Clinical and social science questions often have these aspects (PICO):

• People/population/problem  (What are the characteristics of the population?  What is the condition or disease?)
• Intervention (What do you want to do with this patient?  i.e. treat, diagnose)
• Comparisons [not always included]  (What is the alternative to this intervention?  i.e. placebo, different drug, surgery)
• Outcomes  (What are the relevant outcomes?  i.e. morbidity, death, complications)

If the PICO model does not fit your question, try to use other ways to help be sure to articulate all parts of your question. Perhaps asking yourself Who, What, Why, How will help.  

Example Question:  Is acupuncture as effective of a therapy as triptans in the treament of adult migraine?

Note that this question fits the PICO model.

• Population: Adults with migraines
• Intervention: Acupuncture
• Comparison: Triptans/tryptamines
• Outcome: Fewer Headache days, Fewer migraines

A literature review search is an iterative process. Your goal is to find all of the articles that are pertinent to your subject. Successful searching requires you to think about the complexity of language. You need to match the words you use in your search to the words used by article authors and database indexers. A thorough PubMed search must identify the author words likely to be in the title and abstract or the indexer's selected MeSH (Medical Subject Heading) Terms.

Start by doing a preliminary search using the words from the key parts of your research question.

Step #1: Initial Search

Enter the key concepts from your research question combined with the Boolean operator AND. PubMed does automatically combine your terms with AND. However, it can be easier to modify your search if you start by including the Boolean operators.

migraine AND acupuncture AND tryptamines

The search retrieves a number of relevant article records, but probably not everything on the topic.

Step #2: Evaluate Results

Use the Display Settings drop down in the upper left hand corner of the results page to change to Abstract display.

Review the results and move articles that are directly related to your topic to the Clipboard .

Go to the Clipboard to examine the language in the articles that are directly related to your topic.

• look for words in the titles and abstracts of these pertinent articles that differ from the words you used
• look for relevant MeSH terms in the list linked at the bottom of each article

The following two articles were selected from the search results and placed on the Clipboard.

Here are word differences to consider:

• Initial search used acupuncture. MeSH Terms use Acupuncture therapy.
• Initial search used migraine.  Related word from MeSH Terms is Migraine without Aura and Migraine Disorders.
• Initial search used tryptamines. Article title uses sumatriptan. Related word from MeSH is Sumatriptan or Tryptamines.

With this knowledge you can reformulate your search to expand your retrieval, adding synonyms for all concepts except for manual and plaque.

#3 Revise Search

Use the Boolean OR operator to group synonyms together and use parentheses around the OR groups so they will be searched properly. See the image below to review the difference between Boolean OR / Boolean AND.

Here is what the new search looks like:

(migraine OR migraine disorders) AND (acupuncture OR acupuncture therapy) AND (tryptamines OR sumatriptan)

• Search Worksheet Example: Acupuncture vs. Triptans for Migraine
• Search Worksheet
• << Previous: Popular search strategies
• Next: Systematic reviews >>
• Last Updated: Mar 22, 2024 10:47 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.unc.edu/publichealth

Search & Find

• E-Research by Discipline
• More Search & Find

Places & Spaces

• Places to Study
• Book a Study Room
• Printers, Scanners, & Computers
• More Places & Spaces
• Borrowing & Circulation
• Request a Title for Purchase
• Schedule Instruction Session
• More Services

Support & Guides

• Course Reserves
• Research Guides
• Citing & Writing
• More Support & Guides
• Mission Statement
• Diversity Statement
• Staff Directory
• Job Opportunities
• Give to the Libraries
• News & Exhibits
• Reckoning Initiative
• More About Us

• Search This Site
• Privacy Policy
• Accessibility
• Give Us Your Feedback
• 208 Raleigh Street CB #3916
• Chapel Hill, NC 27515-8890
• 919-962-1053

This website is intended for healthcare professionals

• { $refs.search.focus(); })" aria-controls="searchpanel" :aria-expanded="open" class="hidden lg:inline-flex justify-end text-gray-800 hover:text-primary py-2 px-4 lg:px-0 items-center text-base font-medium"> Search

Search menu

Bashir Y, Conlon KC. Step by step guide to do a systematic review and meta-analysis for medical professionals. Ir J Med Sci. 2018; 187:(2)447-452 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-017-1663-3

Bettany-Saltikov J. How to do a systematic literature review in nursing: a step-by-step guide.Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2012

Bowers D, House A, Owens D. Getting started in health research.Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011

Hierarchies of evidence. 2016. http://cjblunt.com/hierarchies-evidence (accessed 23 July 2019)

Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2008; 3:(2)37-41 https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Developing a framework for critiquing health research. 2005. https://tinyurl.com/y3nulqms (accessed 22 July 2019)

Cognetti G, Grossi L, Lucon A, Solimini R. Information retrieval for the Cochrane systematic reviews: the case of breast cancer surgery. Ann Ist Super Sanita. 2015; 51:(1)34-39 https://doi.org/10.4415/ANN_15_01_07

Dixon-Woods M, Cavers D, Agarwal S Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006; 6:(1) https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-6-35

Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Sinclair JC Users' guides to the medical literature IX. A method for grading health care recommendations. JAMA. 1995; 274:(22)1800-1804 https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1995.03530220066035

Hanley T, Cutts LA. What is a systematic review? Counselling Psychology Review. 2013; 28:(4)3-6

Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0. 2011. https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org (accessed 23 July 2019)

Jahan N, Naveed S, Zeshan M, Tahir MA. How to conduct a systematic review: a narrative literature review. Cureus. 2016; 8:(11) https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.864

Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1997; 33:(1)159-174

Methley AM, Campbell S, Chew-Graham C, McNally R, Cheraghi-Sohi S. PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014; 14:(1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-014-0579-0

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009; 6:(7) https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

Mueller J, Jay C, Harper S, Davies A, Vega J, Todd C. Web use for symptom appraisal of physical health conditions: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2017; 19:(6) https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6755

Murad MH, Asi N, Alsawas M, Alahdab F. New evidence pyramid. Evid Based Med. 2016; 21:(4)125-127 https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmed-2016-110401

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Methods for the development of NICE public health guidance. 2012. http://nice.org.uk/process/pmg4 (accessed 22 July 2019)

Sambunjak D, Franic M. Steps in the undertaking of a systematic review in orthopaedic surgery. Int Orthop. 2012; 36:(3)477-484 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-011-1460-y

Siddaway AP, Wood AM, Hedges LV. How to do a systematic review: a best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses. Annu Rev Psychol. 2019; 70:747-770 https://doi.org/0.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803

Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008; 8:(1) https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45

Wallace J, Nwosu B, Clarke M. Barriers to the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a systematic review of decision makers' perceptions. BMJ Open. 2012; 2:(5) https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001220

Carrying out systematic literature reviews: an introduction

Alan Davies

Lecturer in Health Data Science, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester

View articles · Email Alan

Systematic reviews provide a synthesis of evidence for a specific topic of interest, summarising the results of multiple studies to aid in clinical decisions and resource allocation. They remain among the best forms of evidence, and reduce the bias inherent in other methods. A solid understanding of the systematic review process can be of benefit to nurses that carry out such reviews, and for those who make decisions based on them. An overview of the main steps involved in carrying out a systematic review is presented, including some of the common tools and frameworks utilised in this area. This should provide a good starting point for those that are considering embarking on such work, and to aid readers of such reviews in their understanding of the main review components, in order to appraise the quality of a review that may be used to inform subsequent clinical decision making.

Since their inception in the late 1970s, systematic reviews have gained influence in the health professions ( Hanley and Cutts, 2013 ). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are considered to be the most credible and authoritative sources of evidence available ( Cognetti et al, 2015 ) and are regarded as the pinnacle of evidence in the various ‘hierarchies of evidence’. Reviews published in the Cochrane Library ( https://www.cochranelibrary.com) are widely considered to be the ‘gold’ standard. Since Guyatt et al (1995) presented a users' guide to medical literature for the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group, various hierarchies of evidence have been proposed. Figure 1 illustrates an example.

Systematic reviews can be qualitative or quantitative. One of the criticisms levelled at hierarchies such as these is that qualitative research is often positioned towards or even is at the bottom of the pyramid, thus implying that it is of little evidential value. This may be because of traditional issues concerning the quality of some qualitative work, although it is now widely recognised that both quantitative and qualitative research methodologies have a valuable part to play in answering research questions, which is reflected by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) information concerning methods for developing public health guidance. The NICE (2012) guidance highlights how both qualitative and quantitative study designs can be used to answer different research questions. In a revised version of the hierarchy-of-evidence pyramid, the systematic review is considered as the lens through which the evidence is viewed, rather than being at the top of the pyramid ( Murad et al, 2016 ).

Both quantitative and qualitative research methodologies are sometimes combined in a single review. According to the Cochrane review handbook ( Higgins and Green, 2011 ), regardless of type, reviews should contain certain features, including:

• Clearly stated objectives
• Predefined eligibility criteria for inclusion or exclusion of studies in the review
• A reproducible and clearly stated methodology
• Validity assessment of included studies (eg quality, risk, bias etc).

The main stages of carrying out a systematic review are summarised in Box 1 .

Formulating the research question

Before undertaking a systemic review, a research question should first be formulated ( Bashir and Conlon, 2018 ). There are a number of tools/frameworks ( Table 1 ) to support this process, including the PICO/PICOS, PEO and SPIDER criteria ( Bowers et al, 2011 ). These frameworks are designed to help break down the question into relevant subcomponents and map them to concepts, in order to derive a formalised search criterion ( Methley et al, 2014 ). This stage is essential for finding literature relevant to the question ( Jahan et al, 2016 ).

It is advisable to first check that the review you plan to carry out has not already been undertaken. You can optionally register your review with an international register of prospective reviews called PROSPERO, although this is not essential for publication. This is done to help you and others to locate work and see what reviews have already been carried out in the same area. It also prevents needless duplication and instead encourages building on existing work ( Bashir and Conlon, 2018 ).

A study ( Methley et al, 2014 ) that compared PICO, PICOS and SPIDER in relation to sensitivity and specificity recommended that the PICO tool be used for a comprehensive search and the PICOS tool when time/resources are limited.

The use of the SPIDER tool was not recommended due to the risk of missing relevant papers. It was, however, found to increase specificity.

These tools/frameworks can help those carrying out reviews to structure research questions and define key concepts in order to efficiently identify relevant literature and summarise the main objective of the review ( Jahan et al, 2016 ). A possible research question could be: Is paracetamol of benefit to people who have just had an operation? The following examples highlight how using a framework may help to refine the question:

• What form of paracetamol? (eg, oral/intravenous/suppository)
• Is the dosage important?
• What is the patient population? (eg, children, adults, Europeans)
• What type of operation? (eg, tonsillectomy, appendectomy)
• What does benefit mean? (eg, reduce post-operative pyrexia, analgesia).

An example of a more refined research question could be: Is oral paracetamol effective in reducing pain following cardiac surgery for adult patients? A number of concepts for each element will need to be specified. There will also be a number of synonyms for these concepts ( Table 2 ).

Table 2 shows an example of concepts used to define a search strategy using the PICO statement. It is easy to see even with this dummy example that there are many concepts that require mapping and much thought required to capture ‘good’ search criteria. Consideration should be given to the various terms to describe the heart, such as cardiac, cardiothoracic, myocardial, myocardium, etc, and the different names used for drugs, such as the equivalent name used for paracetamol in other countries and regions, as well as the various brand names. Defining good search criteria is an important skill that requires a lot of practice. A high-quality review gives details of the search criteria that enables the reader to understand how the authors came up with the criteria. A specific, well-defined search criterion also aids in the reproducibility of a review.

Search criteria

Before the search for papers and other documents can begin it is important to explicitly define the eligibility criteria to determine whether a source is relevant to the review ( Hanley and Cutts, 2013 ). There are a number of database sources that are searched for medical/health literature including those shown in Table 3 .

The various databases can be searched using common Boolean operators to combine or exclude search terms (ie AND, OR, NOT) ( Figure 2 ).

Although most literature databases use similar operators, it is necessary to view the individual database guides, because there are key differences between some of them. Table 4 details some of the common operators and wildcards used in the databases for searching. When developing a search criteria, it is a good idea to check concepts against synonyms, as well as abbreviations, acronyms and plural and singular variations ( Cognetti et al, 2015 ). Reading some key papers in the area and paying attention to the key words they use and other terms used in the abstract, and looking through the reference lists/bibliographies of papers, can also help to ensure that you incorporate relevant terms. Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) that are used by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) ( https://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/meshhome.html) to provide hierarchical biomedical index terms for NLM databases (Medline and PubMed) should also be explored and included in relevant search strategies.

Searching the ‘grey literature’ is also an important factor in reducing publication bias. It is often the case that only studies with positive results and statistical significance are published. This creates a certain bias inherent in the published literature. This bias can, to some degree, be mitigated by the inclusion of results from the so-called grey literature, including unpublished work, abstracts, conference proceedings and PhD theses ( Higgins and Green, 2011 ; Bettany-Saltikov, 2012 ; Cognetti et al, 2015 ). Biases in a systematic review can lead to overestimating or underestimating the results ( Jahan et al, 2016 ).

An example search strategy from a published review looking at web use for the appraisal of physical health conditions can be seen in Box 2 . High-quality reviews usually detail which databases were searched and the number of items retrieved from each.

A balance between high recall and high precision is often required in order to produce the best results. An oversensitive search, or one prone to including too much noise, can mean missing important studies or producing too many search results ( Cognetti et al, 2015 ). Following a search, the exported citations can be added to citation management software (such as Mendeley or Endnote) and duplicates removed.

Title and abstract screening

Initial screening begins with the title and abstracts of articles being read and included or excluded from the review based on their relevance. This is usually carried out by at least two researchers to reduce bias ( Bashir and Conlon, 2018 ). After screening any discrepancies in agreement should be resolved by discussion, or by an additional researcher casting the deciding vote ( Bashir and Conlon, 2018 ). Statistics for inter-rater reliability exist and can be reported, such as percentage of agreement or Cohen's kappa ( Box 3 ) for two reviewers and Fleiss' kappa for more than two reviewers. Agreement can depend on the background and knowledge of the researchers and the clarity of the inclusion and exclusion criteria. This highlights the importance of providing clear, well-defined criteria for inclusion that are easy for other researchers to follow.

Full-text review

Following title and abstract screening, the remaining articles/sources are screened in the same way, but this time the full texts are read in their entirety and included or excluded based on their relevance. Reasons for exclusion are usually recorded and reported. Extraction of the specific details of the studies can begin once the final set of papers is determined.

Data extraction

At this stage, the full-text papers are read and compared against the inclusion criteria of the review. Data extraction sheets are forms that are created to extract specific data about a study (12 Jahan et al, 2016 ) and ensure that data are extracted in a uniform and structured manner. Extraction sheets can differ between quantitative and qualitative reviews. For quantitative reviews they normally include details of the study's population, design, sample size, intervention, comparisons and outcomes ( Bettany-Saltikov, 2012 ; Mueller et al, 2017 ).

Quality appraisal

The quality of the studies used in the review should also be appraised. Caldwell et al (2005) discussed the need for a health research evaluation framework that could be used to evaluate both qualitative and quantitative work. The framework produced uses features common to both research methodologies, as well as those that differ ( Caldwell et al, 2005 ; Dixon-Woods et al, 2006 ). Figure 3 details the research critique framework. Other quality appraisal methods do exist, such as those presented in Box 4 . Quality appraisal can also be used to weight the evidence from studies. For example, more emphasis can be placed on the results of large randomised controlled trials (RCT) than one with a small sample size. The quality of a review can also be used as a factor for exclusion and can be specified in inclusion/exclusion criteria. Quality appraisal is an important step that needs to be undertaken before conclusions about the body of evidence can be made ( Sambunjak and Franic, 2012 ). It is also important to note that there is a difference between the quality of the research carried out in the studies and the quality of how those studies were reported ( Sambunjak and Franic, 2012 ).

The quality appraisal is different for qualitative and quantitative studies. With quantitative studies this usually focuses on their internal and external validity, such as how well the study has been designed and analysed, and the generalisability of its findings. Qualitative work, on the other hand, is often evaluated in terms of trustworthiness and authenticity, as well as how transferable the findings may be ( Bettany-Saltikov, 2012 ; Bashir and Conlon, 2018 ; Siddaway et al, 2019 ).

Reporting a review (the PRISMA statement)

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) provides a reporting structure for systematic reviews/meta-analysis, and consists of a checklist and diagram ( Figure 4 ). The stages of identifying potential papers/sources, screening by title and abstract, determining eligibility and final inclusion are detailed with the number of articles included/excluded at each stage. PRISMA diagrams are often included in systematic reviews to detail the number of papers included at each of the four main stages (identification, screening, eligibility and inclusion) of the review.

Data synthesis

The combined results of the screened studies can be analysed qualitatively by grouping them together under themes and subthemes, often referred to as meta-synthesis or meta-ethnography ( Siddaway et al, 2019 ). Sometimes this is not done and a summary of the literature found is presented instead. When the findings are synthesised, they are usually grouped into themes that were derived by noting commonality among the studies included. Inductive (bottom-up) thematic analysis is frequently used for such purposes and works by identifying themes (essentially repeating patterns) in the data, and can include a set of higher-level and related subthemes (Braun and Clarke, 2012). Thomas and Harden (2008) provide examples of the use of thematic synthesis in systematic reviews, and there is an excellent introduction to thematic analysis by Braun and Clarke (2012).

The results of the review should contain details on the search strategy used (including search terms), the databases searched (and the number of items retrieved), summaries of the studies included and an overall synthesis of the results ( Bettany-Saltikov, 2012 ). Finally, conclusions should be made about the results and the limitations of the studies included ( Jahan et al, 2016 ). Another method for synthesising data in a systematic review is a meta-analysis.

Limitations of systematic reviews

Apart from the many advantages and benefits to carrying out systematic reviews highlighted throughout this article, there remain a number of disadvantages. These include the fact that not all stages of the review process are followed rigorously or even at all in some cases. This can lead to poor quality reviews that are difficult or impossible to replicate. There also exist some barriers to the use of evidence produced by reviews, including ( Wallace et al, 2012 ):

• Lack of awareness and familiarity with reviews
• Lack of access
• Lack of direct usefulness/applicability.

Meta-analysis

When the methods used and the analysis are similar or the same, such as in some RCTs, the results can be synthesised using a statistical approach called meta-analysis and presented using summary visualisations such as forest plots (or blobbograms) ( Figure 5 ). This can be done only if the results can be combined in a meaningful way.

Meta-analysis can be carried out using common statistical and data science software, such as the cross-platform ‘R’ ( https://www.r-project.org), or by using standalone software, such as Review Manager (RevMan) produced by the Cochrane community ( https://tinyurl.com/revman-5), which is currently developing a cross-platform version RevMan Web.

Carrying out a systematic review is a time-consuming process, that on average takes between 6 and 18 months and requires skill from those involved. Ideally, several reviewers will work on a review to reduce bias. Experts such as librarians should be consulted and included where possible in review teams to leverage their expertise.

Systematic reviews should present the state of the art (most recent/up-to-date developments) concerning a specific topic and aim to be systematic and reproducible. Reproducibility is aided by transparent reporting of the various stages of a review using reporting frameworks such as PRISMA for standardisation. A high-quality review should present a summary of a specific topic to a high standard upon which other professionals can base subsequent care decisions that increase the quality of evidence-based clinical practice.

• Systematic reviews remain one of the most trusted sources of high-quality information from which to make clinical decisions
• Understanding the components of a review will help practitioners to better assess their quality
• Many formal frameworks exist to help structure and report reviews, the use of which is recommended for reproducibility
• Experts such as librarians can be included in the review team to help with the review process and improve its quality

CPD reflective questions

• Where should high-quality qualitative research sit regarding the hierarchies of evidence?
• What background and expertise should those conducting a systematic review have, and who should ideally be included in the team?
• Consider to what extent inter-rater agreement is important in the screening process

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.26(5); 2021 Aug

Conducting integrative reviews: a guide for novice nursing researchers

Shannon dhollande.

Lecturer, School of Nursing, Midwifery & Social Sciences, CQ University Brisbane, Australia

Annabel Taylor

Professor, School of Nursing, Midwifery & Social Sciences, CQ University Brisbane, Australia

Silke Meyer

Associate Professor, School of Social Sciences, Monash University, Australia

Emergency Consultant, Emergency Department, Caboolture Hospital, Australia

Integrative reviews within healthcare promote a holistic understanding of the research topic. Structure and a comprehensive approach within reviews are important to ensure the reliability in their findings.

This paper aims to provide a framework for novice nursing researchers undertaking integrative reviews.

Established methods to form a research question, search literature, extract data, critically appraise extracted data and analyse review findings are discussed and exemplified using the authors’ own review as a comprehensive and reliable approach for the novice nursing researcher undertaking an integrative literature review.

Providing a comprehensive audit trail that details how an integrative literature review has been conducted increases and ensures the results are reproducible. The use of established tools to structure the various components of an integrative review increases robustness and readers’ confidence in the review findings.

Implications for practice

Novice nursing researchers may increase the reliability of their results by employing a framework to guide them through the process of conducting an integrative review.

A literature review is a critical analysis of published research literature based on a specified topic ( Pluye et al., 2016 ). Literature reviews identify literature then examine its strengths and weaknesses to determine gaps in knowledge ( Pluye et al. 2016 ). Literature reviews are an integral aspect of research projects; indeed, many reviews constitute a publication in themselves ( Snyder, 2019 ). There are various types of literature reviews based largely on the type of literature sourced ( Cronin et al. 2008 ). These include systematic literature reviews, traditional, narrative and integrative literature reviews ( Snyder, 2019 ). Aveyard and Bradbury-Jones (2019) found more than 35 commonly used terms to describe literature reviews. Within healthcare, systematic literature reviews initially gained traction and widespread support because of their reproducibility and focus on arriving at evidence-based conclusions that could influence practice and policy development ( Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2015 ). Yet, it became apparent that healthcare-related treatment options needed to review broader spectrums of research for treatment options to be considered comprehensive, holistic and patient orientated ( Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2015 ). Stern et al. (2014) suggest that despite the focus in healthcare on quantitative research not all pertinent questions surrounding the provision of care can be answered from this approach. To devise solutions to multidimensional problems, all forms of trustworthy evidence need to be considered ( Stern et al. 2014 ).

Integrative reviews assimilate research data from various research designs to reach conclusions that are comprehensive and reliable ( Soares et al. 2014 ). For example, an integrative review considers both qualitative and quantitative research to reach its conclusions. This approach promotes the development of a comprehensive understanding of the topic from a synthesis of all forms of available evidence ( Russell, 2005 ; Torraco, 2005 ). The strengths of an integrative review include its capacity to analyse research literature, evaluate the quality of the evidence, identify knowledge gaps, amalgamate research from various research designs, generate research questions and develop theoretical frameworks ( Russell, 2005 ). Aveyard and Bradbury-Jones (2019) suggested that integrative reviews exhibit similar characteristics to systematic reviews and may therefore be regarded as rigorous.

Integrative reviews value both qualitative and quantitative research which are built upon differing epistemological paradigms. Both types of research are vital in developing the evidence base that guides healthcare provision ( Leppäkoski and Paavilainen, 2012 ). Therefore, integrative reviews may influence policy development as their conclusions have considered a broad range of appropriate literature ( Whittemore and Knafl, 2005 ). An integrative approach to evidence synthesis allows healthcare professionals to make better use of all available evidence and apply it to the clinical practice environment ( Souza et al. 2010 ). For example, Aveyard and Bradbury-Jones (2019) found in excess of 12 different types of reviews employed to guide healthcare practice. The healthcare profession requires both quantitative and qualitative forms of research to establish the robust evidence base that enables the provision of evidence-based patient-orientated healthcare.

Integrative reviews require a specific set of skills to identify and synthesise literature ( Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2010 ). There remains a paucity of literature that provides explicit guidance to novice nursing researchers on how to conduct an integrative review and importantly how to ensure the results and conclusions are both comprehensive and reliable. Furthermore, novice nursing researchers may receive little formal training to develop the skills required to generate a comprehensive integrative review ( Boote and Beile, 2005 ). Aveyard and Bradbury-Jones (2019) also emphasised the limited literature providing guidance surrounding integrative reviews. Therefore, novice nursing researchers need to rely on published guidance to assist them. In this regard this paper, using an integrative review conducted by the authors as a case study, aims to provide a framework for novice nursing researchers conducting integrative reviews.

Developing the framework

In conducting integrative reviews, the novice nursing researcher may need to employ a framework to ensure the findings are comprehensive and reliable ( Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2010 ; Snyder, 2019 ). A framework to guide novice nursing researchers in conducting integrative reviews has been adapted by the authors and will now be described and delineated. This framework used various published literature to guide its creation, namely works by Aveyard and Bradbury-Jones (2019) , Nelson (2014), Stern et al. (2014) , Whittemore and Knafl (2005) , Pluye et al. (2009) , Moher et al., (2009) and Attride-Stirling, (2001) . The suggested framework involves seven steps ( Figure 1 ).

Integrative review framework ( Cooke et al. 2012 ; Riva et al. 2012 ).

Step 1: Write the review question

The review question acts as a foundation for an integrative study ( Riva et al. 2012 ). Yet, a review question may be difficult to articulate for the novice nursing researcher as it needs to consider multiple factors specifically, the population or sample, the interventions or area under investigation, the research design and outcomes and any benefit to the treatment ( Riva et al. 2012 ). A well-written review question aids the researcher to develop their research protocol/design and is of vital importance when writing an integrative review.

To articulate a review question there are numerous tools available to the novice nursing researcher to employ. These tools include variations on the PICOTs template (PICOT, PICO, PIO), and the Spider template. The PICOTs template is an established tool for structuring a research question. Yet, the SPIDER template has gained acceptance despite the need for further research to determine its applicability to multiple research contexts ( Cooke et al., 2012 ). Templates are recommended to aid the novice nursing researcher in effectively delineating and deconstructing the various elements within their review question. Delineation aids the researcher to refine the question and produce more targeted results within a literature search. In the case study, the review question was to: identify, evaluate and synthesise current knowledge and healthcare approaches to women presenting due to intimate partner violence (IPV) within emergency departments (ED). This review objective is delineated in the review question templates shown in Table 1 .

Comparison of elements involved with a PICOTS and SPIDER review question.

( Cooke et al. 2012 ; Riva et al. 2012 ).

Step 2: Determine the search strategy

In determining a search strategy, it is important for the novice nursing researcher to consider the databases employed, the search terms, the Boolean operators, the use of truncation and the use of subject headings. Furthermore, Nelson (2014) suggests that a detailed description of the search strategy should be included within integrative reviews to ensure readers are able to reproduce the results.

The databases employed within a search strategy need to consider the research aim and the scope of information contained within the database. Many databases vary in their coverage of specific journals and associated literature, such as conference proceedings ( Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2010 ). Therefore, the novice nursing researcher should consult several databases when conducting their searches. For example, search strategies within the healthcare field may utilise databases such as Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Healthcare Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, Science Direct, ProQuest, Web of Science, Scopus and PsychInfo ( Cronin et al. 2008 ). These databases among others are largely considered appropriate repositories of reliable data that novice researchers may utilise when researching within healthcare. The date in which the searches are undertaken should be within the search strategy as searches undertaken after this date may generate increased results in line with the publication of further studies.

Utilising an established template to generate a research question allows for the delineation of key elements within the question as seen above. These key elements may assist the novice nursing researcher in determining the search terms they employ. Furthermore, keywords on published papers may provide the novice nursing researcher with alternative search terms, synonyms and introduce the researcher to key terminology employed within their field ( Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2010 ). For example, within the case study undertaken the search terms included among others: ‘domestic violence’, ‘domestic abuse’, ‘intimate partner violence and/or abuse’. To refine the search to the correct healthcare environment the terms ‘emergency department’ and/or ‘emergency room’ were employed. To link search terms, the researcher should consider their use of Boolean operators ‘And’ ‘Or’ and ‘Not’ and their use of truncation ( Cronin et al. 2008 ). Truncation is the shortening of words which in literature searches may increase the number of search results. Medical subject headings (MeSH) or general subject headings should be employed where appropriate and within this case study the headings included ‘nursing’, ‘domestic violence’ and ‘intimate partner violence’.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria allow the novice nursing researcher to reduce and refine the search parameters and locate the specific data they seek. Appropriate use of inclusion and exclusion criteria permits relevant data to be sourced as wider searches can produce a large amount of disparate data, whereas a search that is too narrow may result in the omission of significant findings ( Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2010 ). The novice nursing researcher needs to be aware that generating a large volume of search results may not necessarily result in relevant data being identified. Within integrative reviews there is potential for a large volume of data to be sourced and therefore time and resources required to complete the review need to be considered ( Heyvaert et al. 2017 ). The analysis and refining of a large volume of data can become a labour-intensive exercise for the novice nursing researcher ( Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2010 ).

Stern et al. (2014) suggest various elements that should be considered within inclusion/exclusion criteria:

• the type of studies included;
• the topic under exploration;
• the outcomes;
• publication language;
• the time period; and
• the methods employed.

The use of limiters or exclusion criteria are an effective method to manage the amount of time it takes to undertake searches and limit the volume of research generated. Yet, exclusion criteria may introduce biases in the search results and should therefore be used with caution and to produce specific outcomes by the novice nursing researcher ( Hammerstrøm et al. 2017 ).

Whittemore and Knafl (2005) suggest that randomised controlled trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, case control studies, cross sectional studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses should all be included within the search strategy. Therefore, there are no biases based on the type of publication sourced ( Hammerstrøm et al. 2017 ).

There should be no restriction on the sample size within the studies recognising that qualitative studies generally have smaller sample sizes, and to capture the breadth of research available. There was no restriction on the date of publication within the case study as quality literature was limited. Scoping widely is an important strategy within integrative reviews to produce comprehensive results. A manual citation search of the reference list of all sourced papers was also undertaken by a member of the research team.

Literature may be excluded if those papers were published in a language foreign to the researcher with no accepted translation available. Though limiting papers based on translation availability may introduce some bias, this does ensure the review remains free from translational errors and cultural misinterpretations. In the case study, research conducted in developing countries with a markedly different healthcare service and significant resource limitations were excluded due to their lack of generalisability and clinical relevance; though this may have introduced a degree of location bias ( Nelson, 2014 ).

A peer review of the search strategy by an individual who specialises in research data searches such as a research librarian may be a viable method in which the novice healthcare researcher can ensure the search strategy is appropriate and able to generate the required data. One such tool that a novice nurse may employ is the Peer Review of the Search Strategy (PRESS) checklist. A peer review of the caste study was undertaken by a research librarian. All recommendations were incorporated into the search strategy which included removing a full text limiter, and changes to the Boolean and proximity operators.

After the search strategy has been implemented the researcher removes duplicate results and screened the retrieved publications based on their titles and abstracts. A second screening was then undertaken based on the full text of retrieved publications to remove papers that were irrelevant to the research question. Full text copies should then be obtained for critical appraisal employing validated methods.

Step 3: Critical appraisal of search results

The papers identified within the search strategy should undergo a critical appraisal to determine if they are appropriate and of sufficient quality to be included within the review. This should be conducted or reviewed by a second member of the research team, which occurred within this case study. Any discrepancies were discussed until consensus was achieved. A critical appraisal allows the novice healthcare researcher to appraise the relevance and trustworthiness of a study and, therefore, determine its applicability to their research (CASP, 2013). There are several established tools a novice nurse can employ in which to structure their critical appraisal. These include the Scoring System for Mixed-Methods Research and Mixed Studies Reviews developed by Pluye et al. (2009) and the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP, 2018) Checklists.

The review undertaken by the authors employed the scoring system for mixed-methods research and mixed-studies reviews developed by Pluye et al. (2009) . This scoring system was specifically designed for reviews employing studies from various research designs and therefore was utilised with ease ( Table 2 ).

The scoring system for mixed-methods research and mixed-studies reviews ( Pluye et al. 2009 ).

Using the CASP checklist aids the novice nursing researcher to examine the methodology of identified papers to establish validity. This critical appraisal tool contains 10 items. These items are yes or no questions that assist the researcher to determine (a) if the results of the paper are valid, (b) what the results are and (c) if it is relevant in the context of their study. For example, the checklist asks the researcher to consider the presence of a clear statement surrounding the aims of the research, and to consider why and how the research is important in regard to their topic (CASP, 2013). This checklist supports the nurse researcher to assess the validity, results and significance of research, and therefore appropriately decide on its inclusion within the review ( Krainovich-Miller et al., 2009 ).

Step 4: Summarise the search results

A summary of the results generated by literature searches is important to exemplify how comprehensive the literature is or conversely to identify if there are gaps in research. This summary should include the number of, and type of papers included within the review post limiters, screening and critical appraisal of search results. For example, within the review detailed throughout this paper the search strategy resulted in the inclusion of 25 qualitative and six quantitative papers ( Bakon et al. 2019 ). Many papers provide a summary of their search results visually in a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram ( Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2015 ). PRISMA is a method of reporting that enables readers to assess the robustness of the results ( Leclercq et al. 2019 ; Moher et al. 2009 ). PRISMA promotes the transparency of the search process by delineating various items within the search process ( Leclercq et al. 2019 ; Moher et al. 2009 ). Researchers may decide how rigorously they follow this process yet should provide a rationale for any deviations ( Leclercq et al. 2019 ; Moher et al, 2009 ). Figure 2 is an example of the PRISMA flow diagram as it was applied within the case study.

Example PRISMA flow diagram ( Bakon et al. 2019 ; Moher et al. 2009 ).

Step 5: Data extraction and reduction

Data can be extracted from the critically appraised papers identified through the search strategy employing extraction tables. Within the case study data were clearly delineated, as suggested by Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic (2010) , into extraction or comparison tables ( Table 3 ). These tables specify the authors, the date of publication, year of publication, site where the research was conducted and the key findings. Setting out the data into tables facilitates the comparison of these variables and aids the researcher to determine the appropriateness of the papers’ inclusion or exclusion within the review ( Whittemore and Knafl, 2005 ).

Example of a data extraction table.

Step 6: Analysis

Thematic analysis is widely used in integrative research ( Attride-Stirling, 2001 ). In this section we will discuss the benefits of employing a structured approach to thematic analysis including the formation of a thematic network. A thematic network is a visual diagram or depiction of the themes displaying their interconnectivity. Thematic analysis with the development of a thematic network is a way of identifying themes at various levels and depicting the observed relationships and organisation of these themes ( Attride-Stirling, 2001 ). There are numerous methods and tools available in which to conduct a thematic analysis that may be of use to the novice healthcare researcher conducting an integrative review. The approach used in a thematic analysis is important though a cursory glance at many literature reviews will reveal that many authors do not delineate the methods they employ. This includes the thematic analysis approach suggested by Thomas and Harden (2008) and the approach to thematic networking suggested by Attride-Stirling (2001) .

Thomas and Harden (2008) espouse a three-step approach to thematic analysis which includes: (a) coding, (b) organisation of codes into descriptive themes, and (c) the amalgamation of descriptive themes into analytical themes. The benefit of this approach lies in its simplicity and the ease with which a novice nurse researcher can apply the required steps. In contrast, the benefit of the approach suggested by Attride-Stirling (2001) lies in its ability to move beyond analysis and generate a visual thematic network which facilitates a critical interpretation and synthesis of the data.

Thematic networks typically depict three levels: basic themes, organising themes and global themes ( Attride-Stirling, 2001 ). The thematic network can then be developed. A thematic network is a visual depiction that appears graphically as a web like design ( Attride-Stirling, 2001 ). Thematic networks emphasise the relationships and interconnectivity of the network. It is an illustrative tool that facilitates interpretation of the data ( Attride-Stirling, 2001 ).

The benefits of employing a thematic analysis and networking within integrative reviews is the flexibility inherent within the approach, which allows the novice nursing researcher to provide a comprehensive accounting of the data ( Nowell et al. 2017 ). Thematic analysis is also an easily grasped form of data analysis that is useful for exploring various perspectives on specific topics and highlighting knowledge gaps ( Nowell et al. 2017 ). Thematic analysis and networking is also useful as a method to summarise large or diversified data sets to produce insightful conclusions ( Attride-Stirling, 2001 ; Nowell et al. 2017 ). The ability to assimilate data from various seemingly disparate perspectives may be challenging for the novice nursing researcher conducting an integrative review yet this integration of data by thematic analysis and networking was is integral.

To ensure the trustworthiness of results, novice nursing researchers need to clearly articulate each stage within the chosen method of data analysis ( Attride-Stirling, 2001 ; Nowell et al. 2017 ). The method employed in data analysis needs to be precise and exhaustively delineated ( Attride-Stirling, 2001 ; Nowell et al. 2017 ). Attride-Stirling (2001) suggests six steps within her methods of thematic analysis and networking. These steps include:

• code material;
• identify themes;
• construct thematic network;
• describe and explore the thematic network;
• summarise thematic network findings; and
• interpret patterns to identify implications.

In employing the approach suggested by Attride-Stirling (2001) within the case study the coding of specific findings within the data permitted the development of various themes ( Table 4 ). Inclusion of both quantitative and qualitative findings within the themes facilitated integration of the data which identified patterns and generated insights into the current care provided to IPV victims within ED.

Coding and theme formation.

Step 7: Conclusions and implications

A conclusion is important to remind the reader why the research topic is important. The researcher can then follow advice by Higginbottom (2015) who suggests that in drawing and writing research conclusions the researcher has an opportunity to explain the significance of the findings. The researcher may also need to explain these conclusions in light of the study limitations and parameters. Higginbottom (2015) emphasises that a conclusion is not a summary or reiteration of the results but a section which details the broader implications of the research and translates this knowledge into a format that is of use to the reader. The implications of the review findings for healthcare practice, for healthcare education and research should be considered.

Employing this structured and comprehensive framework within the case study the authors were able to determine that there remains a marked barrier in the provision of healthcare within the ED to women presenting with IPV-related injury. By employing an integrative approach multiple forms of literature were reviewed, and a considerable gap was identified. Therefore, further research may need to focus on the developing a structured healthcare protocol to aid ED clinicians to meet the needs of this vulnerable patient population.

Integrative reviews can be conducted with success when they follow a structured approach. This paper proposes a framework that novice nursing researchers can employ. Applying our stepped framework within an integrative review will strengthen the robustness of the study and facilitate its translation into policy and practice. This framework was employed by the authors to identify, evaluate and synthesise current knowledge and approaches of health professionals surrounding the care provision of women presenting due to IPV within emergency departments. The recommendations from the case study are currently being translated and implemented into the practice environment.

Key points for policy, practice and/or research

• Integrative literature reviews are required within nursing to consider elements of care provision from a holistic perspective.
• There is currently limited literature providing explicit guidance on how to undertake an integrative literature review.
• Clear delineation of the integrative literature review process demonstrates how the knowledge base was understood, organised and analysed.
• Nurse researchers may utilise this guidance to ensure the reliability of their integrative review.

Shannon Dhollande is a Lecturer, registered nurse and researcher. Her research explores the provision of emergency care to vulnerable populations.

Annabel Taylor is a Professorial Research Fellow at CQ University who with her background in social work explores methods of addressing gendered violence such as domestic violence.

Silke Meyer is an Associate Professor in Criminology and the Deputy Director of the Gender and Family Violence Prevention Centre at Monash University.

Mark Scott is an Emergency Medical Consultant with a track record in advancing emergency healthcare through implementation of evidence-based healthcare.

Declaration of conflicting interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethics: Due to the nature of this article this article did not require ethical approval.

Funding: The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Shannon Dhollande https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3181-7606

Silke Meyer https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3964-042X

• Attride-Stirling J. (2001) Thematic networks: An analytic tool for qualitative research . Qualitative Research 1 ( 3 ): 385–405. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aveyard H, Bradbury-Jones C. (2019) An analysis of current practices in undertaking literature reviews in nursing: Findings from a focused mapping review and synthesis . BMC Medical Research Methodology 19 ( 1 ): 1–9. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bakon S, Taylor A, Meyer S, et al. (2019) The provision of emergency healthcare for women who experience intimate partner violence: Part 1 An integrative review . Emergency Nurse 27 : 19–25. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boell S, Cecez-Kecmanovic D. (2010) Literature reviews and the Hermeneutic circle . Australian Academic & Research Libraries 41 ( 2 ): 129–144. [ Google Scholar ]
• Boell S, Cecez-Kecmanovic D. (2015) On being systematic in literature reviews . Journal of Information Technology 30 : 161–173. [ Google Scholar ]
• Boote D, Beile P. (2005) Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation . Educational Researcher 34 ( 6 ): 3–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooke A, Smith D, Booth A. (2012) Beyond PICO: The SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis . Qualitative Health Research 22 ( 10 ): 1435–1443. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) (2018) CASP Checklists . casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists.
• Cronin P, Ryan F, Coughlan M. (2008) Undertaking a literature review: A step by step approach . British Journal of Nursing 17 ( 1 ): 38–43. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammerstrøm K, Wade A, Jørgensen A, et al. (2017) Searching for relevant studie . In: Heyvaert M, Hannes K, Onghena P. (eds) Using Mixed Methods Research Synthesis for Literature Reviews , Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 69–112. [ Google Scholar ]
• Heyvaert M, Maes B, Onghena P, et al. (2017) Introduction to MMRS literature reviews . In: Heyvaert M, Hannes K, Onghena P. (eds) Using Mixed Methods Research Synthesis for Literature Reviews , Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 1–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Higginbottom G. (2015) Drawing conclusions from your research . In: Higginbottom G, Liamputtong P. (eds) Participatory Qualitative Research Methodologies in Health , London: SAGE, pp. 80–89. [ Google Scholar ]
• Krainovich-Miller B, Haber J, Yost J, et al. (2009) Evidence-based practice challenge: Teaching critical appraisal of systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines to graduate students . Journal of Nursing Education 48 ( 4 ): 186–195. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leclercq V, Beaudart C, Ajamieh S, et al. (2019) Meta-analyses indexed in PsycINFO had a better completeness of reporting when they mention PRISMA . Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 115 : 46–54. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leppäkoski T, Paavilainen E. (2012) Triangulation as a method to create a preliminary model to identify and intervene in intimate partner violence . Applied Nursing Research 25 : 171–180. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA Statement . PLoS Med 6 ( 7 ): e1000097. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nelson H. (2014) Systematic Reviews to Answer Health Care Questions , Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer Health. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nowell L, Norris J, White D, et al. (2017) Thematic analysis . International Journal of Qualitative Methods 16 ( 1 ): 1–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pluye P, Gagnon M, Griffiths F, et al. (2009) A scoring system for appraising mixed methods research, and concomitantly appraising qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies in mixed studies reviews . International Journal of Nursing Studies 46 : 529–546. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pluye P, Hong Q, Bush P, et al. (2016) Opening up the definition of systematic literature review: The plurality of worldviews, methodologies and methods for reviews and syntheses . Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 73 : 2–5. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Riva JJ, Malik KM, Burnie SJ, et al. (2012) What is your research question? An introduction to the PICOT format for clinicians . The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association 56 ( 3 ): 167–171. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Russell C. (2005) An overview of the integrative research review . Progress in Transplantation 15 ( 1 ): 8–13. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Snyder H. (2019) Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines . Journal of Business Research 104 : 333–339. [ Google Scholar ]
• Soares C, Hoga L, Peduzzi M, et al. (2014) Integrative review: Concepts and methods used in nursing . Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP 48 ( 2 ): 335–345. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Souza M, Silva M, Carvalho R. (2010) Integrative review: What is it? How to do it? Einstein 8 ( 1 ): 102–106. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stern C, Jordan Z, McArthur A. (2014) Developing the review question and inclusion criteria . American Journal of Nursing 114 ( 4 ): 53–56. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thomas J, Harden A. (2008) Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews . BMC Medical Research Methodology 8 : 45. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Torraco R. (2005) Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples . Human Resource Development Review 4 ( 3 ): 356–367. [ Google Scholar ]
• Whittemore R, Knafl K. (2005) The integrative review: Updated methodology . Journal of Advanced Nursing 52 ( 5 ): 546–553. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]