example of literature review for research

15 Literature Review Examples

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

Learn about our Editorial Process

Literature reviews are a necessary step in a research process and often required when writing your research proposal . They involve gathering, analyzing, and evaluating existing knowledge about a topic in order to find gaps in the literature where future studies will be needed.

Ideally, once you have completed your literature review, you will be able to identify how your research project can build upon and extend existing knowledge in your area of study.

Generally, for my undergraduate research students, I recommend a narrative review, where themes can be generated in order for the students to develop sufficient understanding of the topic so they can build upon the themes using unique methods or novel research questions.

If you’re in the process of writing a literature review, I have developed a literature review template for you to use – it’s a huge time-saver and walks you through how to write a literature review step-by-step:

Get your time-saving templates here to write your own literature review.

Literature Review Examples

For the following types of literature review, I present an explanation and overview of the type, followed by links to some real-life literature reviews on the topics.

1. Narrative Review Examples

Also known as a traditional literature review, the narrative review provides a broad overview of the studies done on a particular topic.

It often includes both qualitative and quantitative studies and may cover a wide range of years.

The narrative review’s purpose is to identify commonalities, gaps, and contradictions in the literature .

I recommend to my students that they should gather their studies together, take notes on each study, then try to group them by themes that form the basis for the review (see my step-by-step instructions at the end of the article).

Example Study

Title: Communication in healthcare: a narrative review of the literature and practical recommendations

Citation: Vermeir, P., Vandijck, D., Degroote, S., Peleman, R., Verhaeghe, R., Mortier, E., … & Vogelaers, D. (2015). Communication in healthcare: a narrative review of the literature and practical recommendations. International journal of clinical practice , 69 (11), 1257-1267.

Source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/ijcp.12686  

Overview: This narrative review analyzed themes emerging from 69 articles about communication in healthcare contexts. Five key themes were found in the literature: poor communication can lead to various negative outcomes, discontinuity of care, compromise of patient safety, patient dissatisfaction, and inefficient use of resources. After presenting the key themes, the authors recommend that practitioners need to approach healthcare communication in a more structured way, such as by ensuring there is a clear understanding of who is in charge of ensuring effective communication in clinical settings.

Other Examples

• Burnout in United States Healthcare Professionals: A Narrative Review (Reith, 2018) – read here
• Examining the Presence, Consequences, and Reduction of Implicit Bias in Health Care: A Narrative Review (Zestcott, Blair & Stone, 2016) – read here
• A Narrative Review of School-Based Physical Activity for Enhancing Cognition and Learning (Mavilidi et al., 2018) – read here
• A narrative review on burnout experienced by medical students and residents (Dyrbye & Shanafelt, 2015) – read here

2. Systematic Review Examples

This type of literature review is more structured and rigorous than a narrative review. It involves a detailed and comprehensive plan and search strategy derived from a set of specified research questions.

The key way you’d know a systematic review compared to a narrative review is in the methodology: the systematic review will likely have a very clear criteria for how the studies were collected, and clear explanations of exclusion/inclusion criteria. 

The goal is to gather the maximum amount of valid literature on the topic, filter out invalid or low-quality reviews, and minimize bias. Ideally, this will provide more reliable findings, leading to higher-quality conclusions and recommendations for further research.

You may note from the examples below that the ‘method’ sections in systematic reviews tend to be much more explicit, often noting rigid inclusion/exclusion criteria and exact keywords used in searches.

Title: The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review  

Citation: Roman, S., Sánchez-Siles, L. M., & Siegrist, M. (2017). The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review. Trends in food science & technology , 67 , 44-57.

Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092422441730122X  

Overview: This systematic review included 72 studies of food naturalness to explore trends in the literature about its importance for consumers. Keywords used in the data search included: food, naturalness, natural content, and natural ingredients. Studies were included if they examined consumers’ preference for food naturalness and contained empirical data. The authors found that the literature lacks clarity about how naturalness is defined and measured, but also found that food consumption is significantly influenced by perceived naturalness of goods.

• A systematic review of research on online teaching and learning from 2009 to 2018 (Martin, Sun & Westine, 2020) – read here
• Where Is Current Research on Blockchain Technology? (Yli-Huumo et al., 2016) – read here
• Universities—industry collaboration: A systematic review (Ankrah & Al-Tabbaa, 2015) – read here
• Internet of Things Applications: A Systematic Review (Asghari, Rahmani & Javadi, 2019) – read here

3. Meta-analysis

This is a type of systematic review that uses statistical methods to combine and summarize the results of several studies.

Due to its robust methodology, a meta-analysis is often considered the ‘gold standard’ of secondary research , as it provides a more precise estimate of a treatment effect than any individual study contributing to the pooled analysis.

Furthermore, by aggregating data from a range of studies, a meta-analysis can identify patterns, disagreements, or other interesting relationships that may have been hidden in individual studies.

This helps to enhance the generalizability of findings, making the conclusions drawn from a meta-analysis particularly powerful and informative for policy and practice.

Title: Cholesterol and Alzheimer’s Disease Risk: A Meta-Meta-Analysis

Citation: Sáiz-Vazquez, O., Puente-Martínez, A., Ubillos-Landa, S., Pacheco-Bonrostro, J., & Santabárbara, J. (2020). Cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease risk: a meta-meta-analysis. Brain sciences, 10(6), 386.

Source: https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10060386  

O verview: This study examines the relationship between cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Researchers conducted a systematic search of meta-analyses and reviewed several databases, collecting 100 primary studies and five meta-analyses to analyze the connection between cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease. They find that the literature compellingly demonstrates that low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels significantly influence the development of Alzheimer’s disease.

• The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research (Wisniewski, Zierer & Hattie, 2020) – read here
• How Much Does Education Improve Intelligence? A Meta-Analysis (Ritchie & Tucker-Drob, 2018) – read here
• A meta-analysis of factors related to recycling (Geiger et al., 2019) – read here
• Stress management interventions for police officers and recruits (Patterson, Chung & Swan, 2014) – read here

Other Types of Reviews

• Scoping Review: This type of review is used to map the key concepts underpinning a research area and the main sources and types of evidence available. It can be undertaken as stand-alone projects in their own right, or as a precursor to a systematic review.
• Rapid Review: This type of review accelerates the systematic review process in order to produce information in a timely manner. This is achieved by simplifying or omitting stages of the systematic review process.
• Integrative Review: This review method is more inclusive than others, allowing for the simultaneous inclusion of experimental and non-experimental research. The goal is to more comprehensively understand a particular phenomenon.
• Critical Review: This is similar to a narrative review but requires a robust understanding of both the subject and the existing literature. In a critical review, the reviewer not only summarizes the existing literature, but also evaluates its strengths and weaknesses. This is common in the social sciences and humanities .
• State-of-the-Art Review: This considers the current level of advancement in a field or topic and makes recommendations for future research directions. This type of review is common in technological and scientific fields but can be applied to any discipline.

How to Write a Narrative Review (Tips for Undergrad Students)

Most undergraduate students conducting a capstone research project will be writing narrative reviews. Below is a five-step process for conducting a simple review of the literature for your project.

• Search for Relevant Literature: Use scholarly databases related to your field of study, provided by your university library, along with appropriate search terms to identify key scholarly articles that have been published on your topic.
• Evaluate and Select Sources: Filter the source list by selecting studies that are directly relevant and of sufficient quality, considering factors like credibility , objectivity, accuracy, and validity.
• Analyze and Synthesize: Review each source and summarize the main arguments  in one paragraph (or more, for postgrad). Keep these summaries in a table.
• Identify Themes: With all studies summarized, group studies that share common themes, such as studies that have similar findings or methodologies.
• Write the Review: Write your review based upon the themes or subtopics you have identified. Give a thorough overview of each theme, integrating source data, and conclude with a summary of the current state of knowledge then suggestions for future research based upon your evaluation of what is lacking in the literature.

Literature reviews don’t have to be as scary as they seem. Yes, they are difficult and require a strong degree of comprehension of academic studies. But it can be feasibly done through following a structured approach to data collection and analysis. With my undergraduate research students (who tend to conduct small-scale qualitative studies ), I encourage them to conduct a narrative literature review whereby they can identify key themes in the literature. Within each theme, students can critique key studies and their strengths and limitations , in order to get a lay of the land and come to a point where they can identify ways to contribute new insights to the existing academic conversation on their topic.

Ankrah, S., & Omar, A. T. (2015). Universities–industry collaboration: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(3), 387-408.

Asghari, P., Rahmani, A. M., & Javadi, H. H. S. (2019). Internet of Things applications: A systematic review. Computer Networks , 148 , 241-261.

Dyrbye, L., & Shanafelt, T. (2016). A narrative review on burnout experienced by medical students and residents. Medical education , 50 (1), 132-149.

Geiger, J. L., Steg, L., Van Der Werff, E., & Ünal, A. B. (2019). A meta-analysis of factors related to recycling. Journal of environmental psychology , 64 , 78-97.

Martin, F., Sun, T., & Westine, C. D. (2020). A systematic review of research on online teaching and learning from 2009 to 2018. Computers & education , 159 , 104009.

Mavilidi, M. F., Ruiter, M., Schmidt, M., Okely, A. D., Loyens, S., Chandler, P., & Paas, F. (2018). A narrative review of school-based physical activity for enhancing cognition and learning: The importance of relevancy and integration. Frontiers in psychology , 2079.

Patterson, G. T., Chung, I. W., & Swan, P. W. (2014). Stress management interventions for police officers and recruits: A meta-analysis. Journal of experimental criminology , 10 , 487-513.

Reith, T. P. (2018). Burnout in United States healthcare professionals: a narrative review. Cureus , 10 (12).

Ritchie, S. J., & Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2018). How much does education improve intelligence? A meta-analysis. Psychological science , 29 (8), 1358-1369.

Roman, S., Sánchez-Siles, L. M., & Siegrist, M. (2017). The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review. Trends in food science & technology , 67 , 44-57.

Sáiz-Vazquez, O., Puente-Martínez, A., Ubillos-Landa, S., Pacheco-Bonrostro, J., & Santabárbara, J. (2020). Cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease risk: a meta-meta-analysis. Brain sciences, 10(6), 386.

Vermeir, P., Vandijck, D., Degroote, S., Peleman, R., Verhaeghe, R., Mortier, E., … & Vogelaers, D. (2015). Communication in healthcare: a narrative review of the literature and practical recommendations. International journal of clinical practice , 69 (11), 1257-1267.

Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K., & Hattie, J. (2020). The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research. Frontiers in Psychology , 10 , 3087.

Yli-Huumo, J., Ko, D., Choi, S., Park, S., & Smolander, K. (2016). Where is current research on blockchain technology?—a systematic review. PloS one , 11 (10), e0163477.

Zestcott, C. A., Blair, I. V., & Stone, J. (2016). Examining the presence, consequences, and reduction of implicit bias in health care: a narrative review. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations , 19 (4), 528-542

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 19 Top Cognitive Psychology Theories (Explained)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 119 Bloom’s Taxonomy Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ All 6 Levels of Understanding (on Bloom’s Taxonomy)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 15 Self-Actualization Examples (Maslow's Hierarchy)

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

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

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

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

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

Table of Contents

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

How to write a good literature review 

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

What is a literature review?

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

What is the purpose of literature review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature review example

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

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

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

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

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

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

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

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

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

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conducting a literature review

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

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

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

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

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

Select Databases for Searches:

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

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

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

Review the Literature:

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

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

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

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

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

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

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

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

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

Frequently asked questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 

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

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

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

Related Reads:

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

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

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, how to structure an essay, leveraging generative ai to enhance student understanding of..., what’s the best chatgpt alternative for academic writing, how to write a good hook for essays,..., addressing peer review feedback and mastering manuscript revisions..., how paperpal can boost comprehension and foster interdisciplinary..., what is the importance of a concept paper..., how to write the first draft of a..., mla works cited page: format, template & examples, how to ace grant writing for research funding....

• UWF Libraries

Literature Review: Conducting & Writing

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

Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts

Have an exemplary literature review.

• Literature Review Sample 1
• Literature Review Sample 2
• Literature Review Sample 3

Have you written a stellar literature review you care to share for teaching purposes?

Are you an instructor who has received an exemplary literature review and have permission from the student to post?

Please contact Britt McGowan at [email protected] for inclusion in this guide. All disciplines welcome and encouraged.

• << Previous: MLA Style
• Next: Get Help! >>
• Last Updated: Mar 22, 2024 9:37 AM
• URL: https://libguides.uwf.edu/litreview

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the parts of a lit review?

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

Introduction:

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

Conclusion:

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

How should I organize my lit review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reference management. Clean and simple.

What is a literature review? [with examples]

What is a literature review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The four main objectives of a literature review are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How To Write An A-Grade Literature Review

3 straightforward steps (with examples) + free template.

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Expert Reviewed By: Dr. Eunice Rautenbach | October 2019

Quality research is about building onto the existing work of others , “standing on the shoulders of giants”, as Newton put it. The literature review chapter of your dissertation, thesis or research project is where you synthesise this prior work and lay the theoretical foundation for your own research.

Long story short, this chapter is a pretty big deal, which is why you want to make sure you get it right . In this post, I’ll show you exactly how to write a literature review in three straightforward steps, so you can conquer this vital chapter (the smart way).

Overview: The Literature Review Process

• Understanding the “ why “
• Finding the relevant literature
• Cataloguing and synthesising the information
• Outlining & writing up your literature review
• Example of a literature review

But first, the “why”…

Before we unpack how to write the literature review chapter, we’ve got to look at the why . To put it bluntly, if you don’t understand the function and purpose of the literature review process, there’s no way you can pull it off well. So, what exactly is the purpose of the literature review?

Well, there are (at least) four core functions:

• For you to gain an understanding (and demonstrate this understanding) of where the research is at currently, what the key arguments and disagreements are.
• For you to identify the gap(s) in the literature and then use this as justification for your own research topic.
• To help you build a conceptual framework for empirical testing (if applicable to your research topic).
• To inform your methodological choices and help you source tried and tested questionnaires (for interviews ) and measurement instruments (for surveys ).

Most students understand the first point but don’t give any thought to the rest. To get the most from the literature review process, you must keep all four points front of mind as you review the literature (more on this shortly), or you’ll land up with a wonky foundation.

Okay – with the why out the way, let’s move on to the how . As mentioned above, writing your literature review is a process, which I’ll break down into three steps:

• Finding the most suitable literature
• Understanding , distilling and organising the literature
• Planning and writing up your literature review chapter

Importantly, you must complete steps one and two before you start writing up your chapter. I know it’s very tempting, but don’t try to kill two birds with one stone and write as you read. You’ll invariably end up wasting huge amounts of time re-writing and re-shaping, or you’ll just land up with a disjointed, hard-to-digest mess . Instead, you need to read first and distil the information, then plan and execute the writing.

Step 1: Find the relevant literature

Naturally, the first step in the literature review journey is to hunt down the existing research that’s relevant to your topic. While you probably already have a decent base of this from your research proposal , you need to expand on this substantially in the dissertation or thesis itself.

Essentially, you need to be looking for any existing literature that potentially helps you answer your research question (or develop it, if that’s not yet pinned down). There are numerous ways to find relevant literature, but I’ll cover my top four tactics here. I’d suggest combining all four methods to ensure that nothing slips past you:

Method 1 – Google Scholar Scrubbing

Google’s academic search engine, Google Scholar , is a great starting point as it provides a good high-level view of the relevant journal articles for whatever keyword you throw at it. Most valuably, it tells you how many times each article has been cited, which gives you an idea of how credible (or at least, popular) it is. Some articles will be free to access, while others will require an account, which brings us to the next method.

Method 2 – University Database Scrounging

Generally, universities provide students with access to an online library, which provides access to many (but not all) of the major journals.

So, if you find an article using Google Scholar that requires paid access (which is quite likely), search for that article in your university’s database – if it’s listed there, you’ll have access. Note that, generally, the search engine capabilities of these databases are poor, so make sure you search for the exact article name, or you might not find it.

Method 3 – Journal Article Snowballing

At the end of every academic journal article, you’ll find a list of references. As with any academic writing, these references are the building blocks of the article, so if the article is relevant to your topic, there’s a good chance a portion of the referenced works will be too. Do a quick scan of the titles and see what seems relevant, then search for the relevant ones in your university’s database.

Method 4 – Dissertation Scavenging

Similar to Method 3 above, you can leverage other students’ dissertations. All you have to do is skim through literature review chapters of existing dissertations related to your topic and you’ll find a gold mine of potential literature. Usually, your university will provide you with access to previous students’ dissertations, but you can also find a much larger selection in the following databases:

• Open Access Theses & Dissertations
• Stanford SearchWorks

Keep in mind that dissertations and theses are not as academically sound as published, peer-reviewed journal articles (because they’re written by students, not professionals), so be sure to check the credibility of any sources you find using this method. You can do this by assessing the citation count of any given article in Google Scholar. If you need help with assessing the credibility of any article, or with finding relevant research in general, you can chat with one of our Research Specialists .

Alright – with a good base of literature firmly under your belt, it’s time to move onto the next step.

Need a helping hand?

Step 2: Log, catalogue and synthesise

Once you’ve built a little treasure trove of articles, it’s time to get reading and start digesting the information – what does it all mean?

While I present steps one and two (hunting and digesting) as sequential, in reality, it’s more of a back-and-forth tango – you’ll read a little , then have an idea, spot a new citation, or a new potential variable, and then go back to searching for articles. This is perfectly natural – through the reading process, your thoughts will develop , new avenues might crop up, and directional adjustments might arise. This is, after all, one of the main purposes of the literature review process (i.e. to familiarise yourself with the current state of research in your field).

As you’re working through your treasure chest, it’s essential that you simultaneously start organising the information. There are three aspects to this:

• Logging reference information
• Building an organised catalogue
• Distilling and synthesising the information

I’ll discuss each of these below:

2.1 – Log the reference information

As you read each article, you should add it to your reference management software. I usually recommend Mendeley for this purpose (see the Mendeley 101 video below), but you can use whichever software you’re comfortable with. Most importantly, make sure you load EVERY article you read into your reference manager, even if it doesn’t seem very relevant at the time.

2.2 – Build an organised catalogue

In the beginning, you might feel confident that you can remember who said what, where, and what their main arguments were. Trust me, you won’t. If you do a thorough review of the relevant literature (as you must!), you’re going to read many, many articles, and it’s simply impossible to remember who said what, when, and in what context . Also, without the bird’s eye view that a catalogue provides, you’ll miss connections between various articles, and have no view of how the research developed over time. Simply put, it’s essential to build your own catalogue of the literature.

I would suggest using Excel to build your catalogue, as it allows you to run filters, colour code and sort – all very useful when your list grows large (which it will). How you lay your spreadsheet out is up to you, but I’d suggest you have the following columns (at minimum):

• Author, date, title – Start with three columns containing this core information. This will make it easy for you to search for titles with certain words, order research by date, or group by author.
• Categories or keywords – You can either create multiple columns, one for each category/theme and then tick the relevant categories, or you can have one column with keywords.
• Key arguments/points – Use this column to succinctly convey the essence of the article, the key arguments and implications thereof for your research.
• Context – Note the socioeconomic context in which the research was undertaken. For example, US-based, respondents aged 25-35, lower- income, etc. This will be useful for making an argument about gaps in the research.
• Methodology – Note which methodology was used and why. Also, note any issues you feel arise due to the methodology. Again, you can use this to make an argument about gaps in the research.
• Quotations – Note down any quoteworthy lines you feel might be useful later.
• Notes – Make notes about anything not already covered. For example, linkages to or disagreements with other theories, questions raised but unanswered, shortcomings or limitations, and so forth.

If you’d like, you can try out our free catalog template here (see screenshot below).

2.3 – Digest and synthesise

Most importantly, as you work through the literature and build your catalogue, you need to synthesise all the information in your own mind – how does it all fit together? Look for links between the various articles and try to develop a bigger picture view of the state of the research. Some important questions to ask yourself are:

• What answers does the existing research provide to my own research questions ?
• Which points do the researchers agree (and disagree) on?
• How has the research developed over time?
• Where do the gaps in the current research lie?

To help you develop a big-picture view and synthesise all the information, you might find mind mapping software such as Freemind useful. Alternatively, if you’re a fan of physical note-taking, investing in a large whiteboard might work for you.

Step 3: Outline and write it up!

Once you’re satisfied that you have digested and distilled all the relevant literature in your mind, it’s time to put pen to paper (or rather, fingers to keyboard). There are two steps here – outlining and writing:

3.1 – Draw up your outline

Having spent so much time reading, it might be tempting to just start writing up without a clear structure in mind. However, it’s critically important to decide on your structure and develop a detailed outline before you write anything. Your literature review chapter needs to present a clear, logical and an easy to follow narrative – and that requires some planning. Don’t try to wing it!

Naturally, you won’t always follow the plan to the letter, but without a detailed outline, you’re more than likely going to end up with a disjointed pile of waffle , and then you’re going to spend a far greater amount of time re-writing, hacking and patching. The adage, “measure twice, cut once” is very suitable here.

In terms of structure, the first decision you’ll have to make is whether you’ll lay out your review thematically (into themes) or chronologically (by date/period). The right choice depends on your topic, research objectives and research questions, which we discuss in this article .

Once that’s decided, you need to draw up an outline of your entire chapter in bullet point format. Try to get as detailed as possible, so that you know exactly what you’ll cover where, how each section will connect to the next, and how your entire argument will develop throughout the chapter. Also, at this stage, it’s a good idea to allocate rough word count limits for each section, so that you can identify word count problems before you’ve spent weeks or months writing!

PS – check out our free literature review chapter template…

3.2 – Get writing

With a detailed outline at your side, it’s time to start writing up (finally!). At this stage, it’s common to feel a bit of writer’s block and find yourself procrastinating under the pressure of finally having to put something on paper. To help with this, remember that the objective of the first draft is not perfection – it’s simply to get your thoughts out of your head and onto paper, after which you can refine them. The structure might change a little, the word count allocations might shift and shuffle, and you might add or remove a section – that’s all okay. Don’t worry about all this on your first draft – just get your thoughts down on paper.

Once you’ve got a full first draft (however rough it may be), step away from it for a day or two (longer if you can) and then come back at it with fresh eyes. Pay particular attention to the flow and narrative – does it fall fit together and flow from one section to another smoothly? Now’s the time to try to improve the linkage from each section to the next, tighten up the writing to be more concise, trim down word count and sand it down into a more digestible read.

Once you’ve done that, give your writing to a friend or colleague who is not a subject matter expert and ask them if they understand the overall discussion. The best way to assess this is to ask them to explain the chapter back to you. This technique will give you a strong indication of which points were clearly communicated and which weren’t. If you’re working with Grad Coach, this is a good time to have your Research Specialist review your chapter.

Finally, tighten it up and send it off to your supervisor for comment. Some might argue that you should be sending your work to your supervisor sooner than this (indeed your university might formally require this), but in my experience, supervisors are extremely short on time (and often patience), so, the more refined your chapter is, the less time they’ll waste on addressing basic issues (which you know about already) and the more time they’ll spend on valuable feedback that will increase your mark-earning potential.

Literature Review Example

In the video below, we unpack an actual literature review so that you can see how all the core components come together in reality.

Let’s Recap

In this post, we’ve covered how to research and write up a high-quality literature review chapter. Let’s do a quick recap of the key takeaways:

• It is essential to understand the WHY of the literature review before you read or write anything. Make sure you understand the 4 core functions of the process.
• The first step is to hunt down the relevant literature . You can do this using Google Scholar, your university database, the snowballing technique and by reviewing other dissertations and theses.
• Next, you need to log all the articles in your reference manager , build your own catalogue of literature and synthesise all the research.
• Following that, you need to develop a detailed outline of your entire chapter – the more detail the better. Don’t start writing without a clear outline (on paper, not in your head!)
• Write up your first draft in rough form – don’t aim for perfection. Remember, done beats perfect.
• Refine your second draft and get a layman’s perspective on it . Then tighten it up and submit it to your supervisor.

Psst… there’s more!

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

You Might Also Like:

38 Comments

Thank you very much. This page is an eye opener and easy to comprehend.

This is awesome!

I wish I come across GradCoach earlier enough.

But all the same I’ll make use of this opportunity to the fullest.

Thank you for this good job.

Keep it up!

You’re welcome, Yinka. Thank you for the kind words. All the best writing your literature review.

Thank you for a very useful literature review session. Although I am doing most of the steps…it being my first masters an Mphil is a self study and one not sure you are on the right track. I have an amazing supervisor but one also knows they are super busy. So not wanting to bother on the minutae. Thank you.

You’re most welcome, Renee. Good luck with your literature review 🙂

This has been really helpful. Will make full use of it. 🙂

Thank you Gradcoach.

Really agreed. Admirable effort

thank you for this beautiful well explained recap.

Thank you so much for your guide of video and other instructions for the dissertation writing.

It is instrumental. It encouraged me to write a dissertation now.

Thank you the video was great – from someone that knows nothing thankyou

an amazing and very constructive way of presetting a topic, very useful, thanks for the effort,

It is timely

It is very good video of guidance for writing a research proposal and a dissertation. Since I have been watching and reading instructions, I have started my research proposal to write. I appreciate to Mr Jansen hugely.

I learn a lot from your videos. Very comprehensive and detailed.

Thank you for sharing your knowledge. As a research student, you learn better with your learning tips in research

I was really stuck in reading and gathering information but after watching these things are cleared thanks, it is so helpful.

Really helpful, Thank you for the effort in showing such information

This is super helpful thank you very much.

Thank you for this whole literature writing review.You have simplified the process.

I’m so glad I found GradCoach. Excellent information, Clear explanation, and Easy to follow, Many thanks Derek!

You’re welcome, Maithe. Good luck writing your literature review 🙂

Thank you Coach, you have greatly enriched and improved my knowledge

Great piece, so enriching and it is going to help me a great lot in my project and thesis, thanks so much

This is THE BEST site for ANYONE doing a masters or doctorate! Thank you for the sound advice and templates. You rock!

Thanks, Stephanie 🙂

This is mind blowing, the detailed explanation and simplicity is perfect.

I am doing two papers on my final year thesis, and I must stay I feel very confident to face both headlong after reading this article.

thank you so much.

if anyone is to get a paper done on time and in the best way possible, GRADCOACH is certainly the go to area!

This is very good video which is well explained with detailed explanation

Thank you excellent piece of work and great mentoring

Thanks, it was useful

Thank you very much. the video and the information were very helpful.

Good morning scholar. I’m delighted coming to know you even before the commencement of my dissertation which hopefully is expected in not more than six months from now. I would love to engage my study under your guidance from the beginning to the end. I love to know how to do good job

Thank you so much Derek for such useful information on writing up a good literature review. I am at a stage where I need to start writing my one. My proposal was accepted late last year but I honestly did not know where to start

Like the name of your YouTube implies you are GRAD (great,resource person, about dissertation). In short you are smart enough in coaching research work.

This is a very well thought out webpage. Very informative and a great read.

Very timely.

I appreciate.

Very comprehensive and eye opener for me as beginner in postgraduate study. Well explained and easy to understand. Appreciate and good reference in guiding me in my research journey. Thank you

Thank you. I requested to download the free literature review template, however, your website wouldn’t allow me to complete the request or complete a download. May I request that you email me the free template? Thank you.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

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

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

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

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

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

Correct my document today

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 24 June 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

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

How To Write A Literature Review - A Complete Guide

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

What is a literature review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the purpose of a literature review?

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

What is the importance of a literature review?

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

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

How long should a literature review be?

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

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

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

What are the different types of literature reviews?

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

Here are the different types of literature reviews:

Argumentative review

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

Integrative review

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

Methodological review

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

Systematic review

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

Meta-analysis review

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

Historical review

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

Theoretical Review

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

Scoping Review

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

State-of-the-Art Review

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

Can you use the first person in a literature review?

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

Do you need an abstract for a literature review?

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

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

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

Is a literature review written in the past tense?

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

How many sources for a literature review?

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

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

Quick tips on how to write a literature review

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

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

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

1. Outline and identify the purpose of  a literature review

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

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

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

2. Search relevant literature

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

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

• Google Scholar
• Microsoft Academic
• Science.gov

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

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

3. Examine and assess the sources

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

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

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

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

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

4. Discover connections

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

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

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

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

5. Structure planning to write a good literature review

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

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

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

Literature review samples

1. Standalone

2. As a section of a research paper

How SciSpace Discover makes literature review a breeze?

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

Find the right information

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

Assess credibility of papers quickly

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

Get the complete picture in no time

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

Make referring sources super easy

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

Final tips on how to write a literature review

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

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

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

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. how to start a literature review.

• What questions do you want to answer?

• What sources do you need to answer these questions?

• What information do these sources contain?

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

2. What to include in a literature review?

• A brief background of the problem or issue

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

• A description of what you will do in your project

• How this study will contribute to research on the subject

3. Why literature review is important?

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

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

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

5. What are the components of a literature review?

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

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

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

6. What are common errors in writing literature review?

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

• Totally relying on secondary data while ignoring primary data.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. How many sources should a literature review have?

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

9. Can literature review have diagrams?

• To represent an abstract idea or concept

• To explain the steps of a process or procedure

• To help readers understand the relationships between different concepts

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

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

11. What are the types of literature review?

• Argumentative review

• Integrative review

• Methodological review

• Systematic review

• Meta-analysis review

• Historical review

• Theoretical review

• Scoping review

• State-of-the-Art review

12. Is a literature review mandatory?

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

But before you go,

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

You might also like

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

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

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

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

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

What is a literature review?

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

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

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

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

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

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

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

2. Decide on the scope of your review

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

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

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

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

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

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

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

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

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

Tips: 

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

Libraries | Research Guides

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

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

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

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

• Next: Planning the Review >>
• Last Updated: May 2, 2024 10:39 AM
• URL: https://libguides.northwestern.edu/literaturereviews

The Sheridan Libraries

• Write a Literature Review
• Sheridan Libraries
• Find This link opens in a new window
• Evaluate This link opens in a new window

What Will You Do Differently?

Please help your librarians by filling out this two-minute survey of today's class session..

Professor, this one's for you .

Introduction

Literature reviews take time. here is some general information to know before you start.  .

•  VIDEO -- This video is a great overview of the entire process.  (2020; North Carolina State University Libraries) --The transcript is included --This is for everyone; ignore the mention of "graduate students" --9.5 minutes, and every second is important  
• OVERVIEW -- Read this page from Purdue's OWL. It's not long, and gives some tips to fill in what you just learned from the video.  
• NOT A RESEARCH ARTICLE -- A literature review follows a different style, format, and structure from a research article.  

Steps to Completing a Literature Review

• Next: Find >>
• Last Updated: Sep 26, 2023 10:25 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.jhu.edu/lit-review

WTO / Education / 39 Best Literature Review Examples (Guide with Samples)

39 Best Literature Review Examples (Guide with Samples)

A literature review is a compilation of current knowledge on a particular topic derived from the critical evaluation of different scholarly sources such as books, articles, and publications, which is then presented in an organized manner to relate to a specific research problem being investigated.

It highlights the methods, relevant theories, and gaps in existing research on a particular subject. It can be both a summary and synthesis of information on a specific topic. A summary reiterates key information from scholarly sources, while synthesis is a new interpretation or combination of new and old material. 

As a synthesis, it can outline the intellectual progression of knowledge in a particular field or topic, which might involve stating key debates throughout the advancement period.  

Literature Review Examples

Purpose of Literature Review

Literature reviews have different purposes in scholarly articles, research papers, and books, depending on the discipline at hand. First and foremost, reviews are generally meant to showcase the extensive research carried out by an author on a particular topic and their findings, which will form the foundation of the research. It then summarizes the information to show the author’s familiarity with the topic in question.

The review also demonstrates the relationship between the topic being investigated and other topics that were under consideration. Finally, it outlines the gaps in the previous works of other scholars, which create areas of research.

Literature reviews provide a new interpretation of previous scholarly publications and aim to resolve conflicting studies done in the past. In addition, identifying existing gaps in a particular research area illustrates the starting point of the research.

Literature Review vs. Academic Research Paper

A research paper presents new ideas, arguments, and approaches toward a particular topic. The conclusions of a research paper will be based on the analysis and interpretation of raw data collected by the author and an original study. On the other hand, a literature review is based on the findings of other publications. Thus, the review highlights the author’s understanding of a topic based on the previously conducted research. It is part of a research paper.

Where, When, and Why

The need for a literature review in a publication will vary from one situation to the other and the field/discipline of research. These two factors determine what is expected from the lit review. For example, a scientific review will be more analytical on the methods and results of previous research. In contrast, a philosophical review will be more argumentative, highlighting the discrepancies and correspondences between scholars.

It can either be part of a publication or a stand-alone document. As part of a research publication, it is often placed after the introduction to the topic outlining knowledge about a particular topic and critical sources that formed the foundation of the research. As an individual document, it is prepared by students as part of course study to aid the students in familiarizing themselves with different topics in their field of study.

Lit reviews also guide students to help them synthesize theoretical methodologies and frameworks to adopt in academic research. As a publication, literature reviews are used to document existing information about a topic for readers (other scholars) to go through for whatever reasons they may have. Published studies are essentially helpful to new scholars getting into any field of research.

Types of Literature Review

Before looking into how to write a literature review, it is vital to understand the different types. The type will usually depend on the objective approach of the author.

Common types are:  

Argumentative review

An argumentative review is adopted when the research paper or publication is meant to take a contrarian viewpoint on a particular subject. The review analyses an existing argument, philosophical problem, assumption, or conclusion outlined in different studies with an objective to either support or oppose the argument. 

Integrative review

An integrative review integrates secondary data to develop new perspectives and frameworks on a topic. This is more prevalent in research that does not involve primary data. In addition, integrative reviews are more familiar with social sciences.       

Historical review

Historical reviews are used when scholars or authors place a particular idea, concept, theory, or research in a historical context. It examines the idea, theory, or issue from the first time it was discussed and outlines its evolution throughout a given period.  

Methodological review

Methodological reviews look at how a specific theory, concept, results, or findings were developed. Therefore, methodological reviews will analyze the different methods used by different scholars to arrive at conclusions or knowledge about the topic being investigated.

Some of the methods scholars use in different disciplines to obtain information are interviewing, sampling, practical experiments/data collection, research approaches, critical thinking, social experiments, etc.

Methodological reviews are hence used to discuss tested methods of research and ethics that a researcher should be aware of before undertaking their investigations.  

Systematic review

A systematic review is a more detailed and comprehensive review compared to other types of lit reviews. It highlights any existing research evidence associated with a clearly defined research problem or question. The evidence is collected, analyzed, and reported in a summarized but detailed manner. Systematic reviews are popularly presented as a cause-and-effect structure.

Theoretical review

A theoretical review delves into the different theories regarding a particular issue, challenge, concept, or theory. It identifies their inadequacy in explaining the issue or concept at hand. The review then identifies the relationships between the identified theories, and the degree of research done and poses novel hypotheses to be investigated.

Organization of a Literature Review

How an author organizes a literature review will depend on what they aim to achieve. As a consequence, there are multiple ways of organizing it which are discussed below:

Chronological 

A chronological format outlines knowledge on a particular topic based on when the scholarly source of information was published. Starting with the earliest followed up to the most recent chronological order. This format should be used if there is a clear chronological order in the development of the information; therefore, it will not be applicable in some cases. Instead, key turning points, patterns, and events that impacted the direction of the knowledge should be outlined.  

By publication

It can be organized in the scholarly publications reviewed by the author, scholar, or student. The by-publication format should only improve the review and facilitate what the author aims to accomplish. 

Scholars or students can adopt a dominant trend in research, such as history, developmental stages, steps involved in a process, etc.

Methodological

A methodological format is based on the methods used by the researcher. Thus, the order of contents in the lit review will depend on the method they will use to carry out their research, knowledge obtained from the first method appears first, and the rest of the information follows in the same order according to the methods used by the author.  

Literature reviews organized in a thematic format revolve around the subject being investigated in no order. It is, therefore, ordinarily up to the researcher or author to determine how they intend to outline the information. A thematic format will crossover from one period and publication to another, but can sometimes incorporate a chronological order.

Theoretical

Literature reviews organized in a theoretical format have their contents organized in an abstract framework established by the author to discuss different concepts, theories, and concepts and how they relate to the research at hand.

Additional sections

Depending on the objective, other sections do not fit under conventional lit review formats that one may need to add. Below are some of the sections that authors or students can include in the lit review:

• Current situation: The review can have information about the current state of things regarding the topic at hand to facilitate further understanding.
• History: Researchers can summarize the subject under investigation, literature, or concept if the review is not already in chronological format.
• Selection methods: Lit reviews are known to outline the methods or criteria used in selecting the way to present information and scholarly sources referenced in the review.
• Standards: it can also include the standards used in choosing the format to present information in the review and the scholarly literature used in the research.
• Further questions for research: The review can include questions emanating from the review and how the researcher will further explore their research to address the queries raised.

Literature Review Samples

Considerations Before Writing a Literature Review

Preparation is essential when it comes to writing. The objective should be to come up with a review that satisfactorily explores the topic being discussed. The following considerations are steps towards that if incorporated into the writing process:

Authors should seek clarification from mentors or supervisors before commencing the writing process. First, determine what is expected from the lit review. The type and number of sources to be used, the assignment (summarize, synthesize, or critique), and the type of information provided should be clear.

Find models

You should review literature from other authors in the same discipline and evaluate how those authors presented their lit reviews. Previous lit reviews can be used as guides that point authors in the right direction when writing their lit reviews.

Narrow your topic

It is always advantageous to narrow down the research topic to a specific area of research; that way, the number of sources can also be reduced. Even though conducting research will usually involve extensive research on all available materials about a particular topic, having a well-defined topic simplifies the task at hand.

Current sources

Determine if the research project or discipline ought to be based on the most recent findings or information. It is common for knowledge to become obsolete, especially in disciplines where discoveries and new inventions are made fast. If the lit review should be based on current knowledge, limit the sources to the most recent literature. Some disciplines will typically have a limit on how old the sources should be.  

How to Write a Literature Review (Expert Guide)

Once all pre-writing considerations have been taken into account, it is time to write the document. At this point, you should already be aware of what you wish to accomplish with the literature review, and the steps to writing an exemplary lit review are mentioned below:

Problem formulation

First and foremost, clearly define the topic (research area) to be investigated. For students, this will sometimes be given as an assignment. However, the research could be an academic project, which means that the author has to come up with the problem and define it themselves.

Search for relevant studies

Once the problem is clearly expressed, you should search for studies related to the topic, concept, theory, or idea and questions surrounding the topic. Most stand-alone lit reviews will generally attempt to answer a more concentrated question. On the internet, literature can be searched using keywords related to the research area. In addition to keywords, include vital variables such as synonyms and associated terms. The inclusion of Boolean operators and, or not, is also used to narrow down results to more specific publications.

Familiar sources for publications are:

• Google Scholar
• Library catalogue
• Econ lit (economics)
• Project Muse (humanities and social sciences)
• Inspec (physics, engineering, and computer science)
• Medline (life sciences and biomedicine)

Before selecting relevant studies, go through their abstract and determine if they fit the scope needed in the investigation. Use a list to note down any chosen works. Select landmark sources in the discipline.

Evaluation of sources/data

The next step is the evaluation stage. Evaluation involves a lot of reading. Evaluation can be done in two stages; overall skimming and thorough reading. During the second stage of this step, be critical, ask questions, and take many notes.

Some of the questions authors or researchers should ask themselves are:

• What is the author’s objective? What problem, concept, or theory are they putting across?
• What are the main concepts?
• What are the methodologies used by the author to arrive at the results and conclusions?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the results and conclusions?

Use credible sources. Most cited sources are preferred as they indicate their influence in the field. Also, keep track of the citations to be later incorporated.

Identify themes, debates, and gaps

While reading the sources, identify key patterns, themes, debates/arguments, and gaps in each literature. These elements help tie the literature to the topic under investigation. Look for consistent patterns, themes, questions, challenges, methods, and inconsistencies in the same. Consistencies present critical information for consideration, while inconsistencies present opportunities for research areas.

Outline the structure

Formatting is part and parcel of a well-written work. Selecting the structure should start by creating an outline with all the information that will go into the lit review, then consider the different types of structures and select the most suitable. Next, take the basic structure of the introduction, body, and conclusion into consideration and start work from there. 

Analysis and interpretation 

Lastly, perform an in-depth analysis and interpretation of the information obtained from the scholarly research and put it into writing. The summarized, synthesized, and critically evaluated information is then written down in well-structured paragraphs that follow the chosen structure. Transition words are used to draw comparisons, connections, and contrasts.

Format 

Ordinarily, a literature review will have three key components: introduction, body, and conclusion. These components should appear in the document in the following order:

Introduction

An introduction should inform the reader which topic is being studied. It gives the reader an overall idea of the purpose and focus of the document. The introduction lets the reader know beforehand the key things that will be highlighted in the document. Therefore, the introduction should be brief and precise.

The next item is the body, where the primary purpose of the lit review is fulfilled. The body should take critical information from all the sources used and comprehensively present them. This is where the author reports the extensive analysis and interpretation results that they gathered from all the sources they reviewed. The body should be categorized into themes, ideas, and concepts within the main topic.

Lastly, a summary of what the lit review entails should be provided as a conclusion. The critical points obtained from examining the sources should be written down and linked to the primary subject of the review. Key points are those that have the most outstanding contribution to the research.

Studies used should be screened based on provenance (author’s credentials or credibility), methodology, objectivity, persuasiveness, and value related to the topic at hand.

Guidelines for Writing a Literature Review

To improve the delivery of information, there are certain elements that authors can incorporate. They are:

Use evidence

The lit review’s findings, interpretations, and general contents should be based on actual evidence or credible literature. Using citations is evidence of authentic information.

Be selective

There will always be a lot of information available from the reviewed sources. Authors should therefore be selective and discuss the key points that focus on the topic. Not all information must be included in the review.  

Word-for-word quotes are acceptable. This is even more so if a critical point or author-specific terminology or knowledge cannot be paraphrased. Quotes should, however, be used sparingly.

Summarize and synthesize

The information obtained from the sources should be summarized, and the author should use it to synthesize new arguments, concepts, or ideas related to their research.

Keep your voice

The literature review should reflect the author’s voice as it is a review of other people’s works. This can be done by starting and ending the paragraphs with an original voice, ideas, and wordings.

Use caution while paraphrasing

Any paraphrased information should be conveyed accurately and in the author’s words. A citation must always be done, even when paraphrasing has been done.

Proofread before submitting or publishing. Go through the document a few times and make the necessary changes. The review should be within the applicable guidelines. Check for language and any other errors and edit accordingly.

Do’s and Don’ts for a Literature Review 

Every researcher wants to introduce their readers to a particular topic in an informative and engaging manner. Below are tips that can be used to this effect.

The following things should be opted by the researcher when writing a lit review:

• Find a focus: Authors should take a direction, idea, concept, or argument and stick to it. The information conveyed should then be made to align with the chosen point of focus. Thus, the review is not simply a list of analyzed sources, but a detailed summary of how different sources have a focal point (intertwined).
• Well-chosen sources: The quality of the information will, to a great extent, be determined by the quality of sources used. Therefore, take time to select suitable sources and more value will be added to the review.
• Create an annotated bibliography: Creating an annotated bibliography is recommended as one reads their sources. The bibliography keeps track of sources and takes notes. This information can be used when writing the final lit review.
• Synthesize research: Information obtained from the relevant studies should be combined to come up with new or original ideas. You should present a new domain based on previous sources’ knowledge, not just restating the information.
• Argumentative approach: Well-written literature reviews will often argue to support an author’s stance on a particular topic. The author can choose to address how the author’s work is filling a particular gap or support one of the scholar’s arguments and perception towards a particular topic. However, this argumentative approach will not work in all situations; it is usually discipline-specific. 
• Convey it to the reader: It should let the reader know the document’s main idea, concept, or argument. This can be done by including a simple statement that compels the reader to think precisely and know what to expect.
• Break out your disciplinary box: The research will often be multi-disciplinary. Literature reviews should then collect interdisciplinary information from multiple sources as they add novel dynamics to the topic under investigation. It should be noted that this does not imply that the researcher should substitute the literature from the topic’s discipline with that from other disciplines. This is usually an improvement strategy that adds substance to the review.
• Look for repeated patterns: Be attentive to pick out repeated ideas, findings, and concepts from different scholars as they will often illustrate agreed research dead-end or a scholarly conclusion.
• Don’t just review for content: When reviewing the literature, examine the content and other writing and presentation techniques. Look out for unique ways information has been presented, methods used, consistent citations, and non-textual elements such as graphs, and figures used to present information. In addition, the researcher identifies theories used to predict, explain, or understand phenomena within the discipline.
• Search Web of Science and Google Scholar: Conduct citation tracking about the leading scholars already identified in the search process. Scholars cited by multiple scholars outside the principal discipline will generally indicate that there are no new publications on the topic.

The following don’ts should be avoided:

• Do not select studies that are not directly related to the topic being investigated.
• Avoid rushing when identifying and selecting sources to use to research the problem.
• Avoid the use of secondary analytical sources. Instead, opt to use sources with primary research studies or data. Secondary analytical sources will often cite primary analytical sources; research should refer to them instead.
• Do not accept other scholarly findings, theories, or interpretations without critically examining and critiquing them.
• Researchers should not outline the search procedures used to identify scholarly sources for reviewing purposes.
• Avoid including isolated statistical findings without illustrating how they were arrived at using chi-squared or meta-analytic methods.
• Do not review studies that only validate the assumptions, stances, and concepts of your thesis; consider contradicting works with alternative and conflicting stances.

Frequently Asked Questions

It is written by researchers, authors, and students who must study literature to gather knowledge on a particular topic they are interested in.

It should be placed right after the introduction of the dissertation. It places the research in a scholarly context by summarizing existing knowledge on the particular topic.

Researchers and authors are not limited in terms of how many sources they can review. Students will usually have a given number of sources to review as an assignment. However, the number of sources referenced in a lit review will vary from one topic or discipline to the other. Some topics have a vast catalog of available sources, while others have minimal sources, especially emerging issues. It is, however, advised that each key point discussed should have at least 2-3 references/sources. For example, a 10-page lit review will have an average of 30 references.

About This Article

Was this helpful?

Great! Tell us more about your experience

Not up to par help us fix it, keep reading.

12 Perfect Examples of Salutatorian Speech

12 Free Yes No Flowchart Templates (PowerPoint)

10 Free Homeschool Report Card Templates

12 Free Class Schedule Templates

Thank you for your feedback.

Your Voice, Our Progress. Your feedback matters a lot to us.

How to write a literature review introduction (+ examples)

The introduction to a literature review serves as your reader’s guide through your academic work and thought process. Explore the significance of literature review introductions in review papers, academic papers, essays, theses, and dissertations. We delve into the purpose and necessity of these introductions, explore the essential components of literature review introductions, and provide step-by-step guidance on how to craft your own, along with examples.

Why you need an introduction for a literature review

A literature review is a comprehensive examination of the international academic literature concerning a particular topic. It involves summarizing published works, theories, and concepts while also highlighting gaps and offering critical reflections.

It is imperative to remember that you should never start sharing your findings abruptly. Even if there isn’t a dedicated introduction section .

Instead, you should always offer some form of introduction to orient the reader and clarify what they can expect.

When you need an introduction for a literature review

What to include in a literature review introduction.

It is crucial to customize the content and depth of your literature review introduction according to the specific format of your academic work.

Academic literature review paper

By addressing these elements, your introduction will provide a clear and structured overview of what readers can expect in your literature review paper.

Regular literature review section in an academic article or essay

Introduction to a literature review chapter in thesis or dissertation.

The literature review typically constitutes a distinct chapter within a thesis or dissertation. Often, it is Chapter 2 of a thesis or dissertation.

Examples of literature review introductions

Example 1: an effective introduction for an academic literature review paper.

To begin, let’s delve into the introduction of an academic literature review paper. We will examine the paper “How does culture influence innovation? A systematic literature review”, which was published in 2018 in the journal Management Decision.

Example 2: An effective introduction to a literature review section in an academic paper

The paper begins with a general introduction and then proceeds to the literature review, designated by the authors as their conceptual framework. Of particular interest is the first paragraph of this conceptual framework, comprising 142 words across five sentences:

Examples 3-5: Effective introductions to literature review chapters

The introduction to a literature review chapter can vary in length, depending largely on the overall length of the literature review chapter itself. For example, a master’s thesis typically features a more concise literature review, thus necessitating a shorter introduction. In contrast, a Ph.D. thesis, with its more extensive literature review, often includes a more detailed introduction.

Master’s thesis literature review introduction

Phd thesis literature review chapter introduction, phd thesis literature review introduction, steps to write your own literature review introduction.

Having absorbed all of this information, let’s recap the essential steps and offer a succinct guide on how to proceed with creating your literature review introduction:

Master Academia

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox, the best answers to "what are your plans for the future", 10 tips for engaging your audience in academic writing, related articles, introduce yourself in a phd interview (4 simple steps + examples), 37 creative ways to get motivation to study, types of editorial decisions after peer review (+ how to react), minor revisions: sample peer review comments and examples.

Literature Review: Examples of Published Literature Reviews

• Sample Searches
• Examples of Published Literature Reviews
• Researching Your Topic
• Subject Searching
• Google Scholar
• Track Your Work
• Citation Managers This link opens in a new window
• Citation Guides This link opens in a new window
• Tips on Writing Your Literature Review This link opens in a new window
• Research Help

Ask a Librarian

Chat with a Librarian

Lisle: (630) 829-6057 Mesa: (480) 878-7514 Toll Free: (877) 575-6050 Email: [email protected]

Book a Research Consultation Library Hours

• Example of a Literature Review in History
• Comparing the Annotated Bibliography to the Literature Review
• Literature Review Guidelines Literature Review (Historiographic Essay): Making sense of what has been written on your topic.

To find examples of published literature reviews in your field or niche, try searching ProQuest Dissertations and Theses by keyword, advisor, or subject. 

• Dissertations & Theses Theses and dissertations from around the world covering all areas of study.
• << Previous: Sample Searches
• Next: Researching Your Topic >>
• Last Updated: Apr 25, 2024 3:34 PM
• URL: https://researchguides.ben.edu/lit-review

Kindlon Hall 5700 College Rd. Lisle, IL 60532 (630) 829-6050

Gillett Hall 225 E. Main St. Mesa, AZ 85201 (480) 878-7514

• Research Consultation
• How-to Guides
• People Search
• Library Databases
• Research Guides
• Find Periodicals
• Google Scholar
• Library Map
• Texts for Vets
• Interlibrary Loan - ILL
• Research & Instruction
• Computers and Laptops
• Services For...
• Reserve a Room
• APSU Records Management
• Library Collections
• Digital Collections
• Special Collections
• Veterans' Oral History
• Government Resources
• Subject Librarians
• Library Information
• Woodward Library Society
• New @ Woodward Library
• Celebration of Scholarship
• Join Woodward Library Society

Writing a Literature Review: Examples & Tutorials

• Phase 1: Scope of Review
• Phase 2: Finding Information
• Phase 3: Recording Information
• Phase 4: Evaluating Information
• Phase 5: Organizing the Review
• Phase 6: Writing the Review & Bibliography
• Tools & Resources
• Examples & Tutorials

Examples of Lit. Reviews

Sample Literature Review -Here is a sample literature review written by a librarian at American University Library.

Deshmukh, Marion F. " The Visual Arts and Cultural Migration in the 1930s and 1940s: A Literature Review. " Central European History (Cambridge University Press / UK) 41.4 (2008): 569-604. Dunjó, Jordi, et al. " Hazard and Operability (HAZOP) Analysis. A Literature Review ." Journal of Hazardous Materials 173.1-3 (2010): 19-32. Gibbons, Susan. " Understanding Empathy as a Complex Construct: A Review of the Literature ." Clinical Social Work Journal 39.3 (2011): 243-52.

Liddle, H. A. (2004). Family-based therapies for adolescent alcohol and drug use: Research contributions and future research needs.   Addiction , 99 (Suppl.2), 76-92.

Mayer, David J. " Acupuncture: An Evidence-Based Review of the Clinical Literature ." Annual Review of Medicine 51:1 (2000): 49-63.

Meyer, Sebastian, Bruno Glaser, and Peter Quicker. " Technical, Economical, and Climate-Related Aspects of Biochar Production Technologies: A Literature Review. " Environmental science & technology 45.22 (2011): 9473-83.

• Writing the Literature Review Part I Defines what a literature review is - and is not.
• Writing the Literature Review Part II Organizing sources, basic steps in the writing process.
• Literature Review Overview for Graduate Students Understand how studies relate to one another, how your own ideas fit within the existing literature.
• Interactive tutorial for literature reviews in Education & Behavioral Sciences • Understanding the Literature Review • Identifying Sources for the Literature Review • Finding Review and Research Articles • Putting it All Together

Literature Review Overview

Subject Guide

• << Previous: Tools & Resources
• Last Updated: Oct 17, 2023 12:56 PM
• URL: https://libguides.apsu.edu/litreview

Literature Review

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

Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts

• Literature Review Sample 1
• Literature Review Sample 2
• Literature Review Sample 3
• << Previous: MLA Style
• Next: FAMU Writing Center >>
• Last Updated: Oct 20, 2022 11:24 AM
• URL: https://library.famu.edu/literaturereview

Communicative Sciences and Disorders

• Online Learners: Quick Links
• ASHA Journals
• Research Tip 1: Define the Research Question
• Reference Resources
• Evidence Summaries & Clinical Guidelines
• Drug Information
• Health Data & Statistics
• Patient/Consumer Facing Materials
• Images/Streaming Video
• Database Tutorials
• Crafting a Search
• Cited Reference Searching
• Research Tip 4: Find Grey Literature
• Research Tip 5: Save Your Work
• Cite and Manage Your Sources
• Critical Appraisal
• What are Literature Reviews?
• Conducting & Reporting Systematic Reviews
• Finding Systematic Reviews
• Tutorials & Tools for Literature Reviews
• Point of Care Tools (Mobile Apps)

Choosing a Review Type

For guidance related to choosing a review type, see:

• "What Type of Review is Right for You?" - Decision Tree (PDF) This decision tree, from Cornell University Library, highlights key difference between narrative, systematic, umbrella, scoping and rapid reviews.
• Reviewing the literature: choosing a review design Noble, H., & Smith, J. (2018). Reviewing the literature: Choosing a review design. Evidence Based Nursing, 21(2), 39–41. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2018-102895
• What synthesis methodology should I use? A review and analysis of approaches to research synthesis Schick-Makaroff, K., MacDonald, M., Plummer, M., Burgess, J., & Neander, W. (2016). What synthesis methodology should I use? A review and analysis of approaches to research synthesis. AIMS Public Health, 3 (1), 172-215. doi:10.3934/publichealth.2016.1.172 More information less... ABSTRACT: Our purpose is to present a comprehensive overview and assessment of the main approaches to research synthesis. We use "research synthesis" as a broad overarching term to describe various approaches to combining, integrating, and synthesizing research findings.
• Right Review - Decision Support Tool Not sure of the most suitable review method? Answer a few questions and be guided to suitable knowledge synthesis methods. Updated in 2022 and featured in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.03.004

Types of Evidence Synthesis / Literature Reviews

Literature reviews are comprehensive summaries and syntheses of the previous research on a given topic.  While narrative reviews are common across all academic disciplines, reviews that focus on appraising and synthesizing research evidence are increasingly important in the health and social sciences.  

Most evidence synthesis methods use formal and explicit methods to identify, select and combine results from multiple studies, making evidence synthesis a form of meta-research.  

The review purpose, methods used and the results produced vary among different kinds of literature reviews; some of the common types of literature review are detailed below.

Common Types of Literature Reviews 1

Narrative (literature) review.

• A broad term referring to reviews with a wide scope and non-standardized methodology
• Search strategies, comprehensiveness of literature search, time range covered and method of synthesis will vary and do not follow an established protocol

Integrative Review

• A type of literature review based on a systematic, structured literature search
• Often has a broadly defined purpose or review question
• Seeks to generate or refine and theory or hypothesis and/or develop a holistic understanding of a topic of interest
• Relies on diverse sources of data (e.g. empirical, theoretical or methodological literature; qualitative or quantitative studies)

Systematic Review

• Systematically and transparently collects and categorize existing evidence on a question of scientific, policy or management importance
• Follows a research protocol that is established a priori
• Some sub-types of systematic reviews include: SRs of intervention effectiveness, diagnosis, prognosis, etiology, qualitative evidence, economic evidence, and more.
• Time-intensive and often takes months to a year or more to complete 
• The most commonly referred to type of evidence synthesis; sometimes confused as a blanket term for other types of reviews

Meta-Analysis

• Statistical technique for combining the findings from disparate quantitative studies
• Uses statistical methods to objectively evaluate, synthesize, and summarize results
• Often conducted as part of a systematic review

Scoping Review

• Systematically and transparently collects and categorizes existing evidence on a broad question of scientific, policy or management importance
• Seeks to identify research gaps, identify key concepts and characteristics of the literature and/or examine how research is conducted on a topic of interest
• Useful when the complexity or heterogeneity of the body of literature does not lend itself to a precise systematic review
• Useful if authors do not have a single, precise review question
• May critically evaluate existing evidence, but does not attempt to synthesize the results in the way a systematic review would 
• May take longer than a systematic review

Rapid Review

• Applies a systematic review methodology within a time-constrained setting
• Employs methodological "shortcuts" (e.g., limiting search terms and the scope of the literature search), at the risk of introducing bias
• Useful for addressing issues requiring quick decisions, such as developing policy recommendations

Umbrella Review

• Reviews other systematic reviews on a topic
• Often defines a broader question than is typical of a traditional systematic review
• Most useful when there are competing interventions to consider

1. Adapted from:

Eldermire, E. (2021, November 15). A guide to evidence synthesis: Types of evidence synthesis. Cornell University LibGuides. https://guides.library.cornell.edu/evidence-synthesis/types

Nolfi, D. (2021, October 6). Integrative Review: Systematic vs. Scoping vs. Integrative. Duquesne University LibGuides. https://guides.library.duq.edu/c.php?g=1055475&p=7725920

Delaney, L. (2021, November 24). Systematic reviews: Other review types. UniSA LibGuides. https://guides.library.unisa.edu.au/SystematicReviews/OtherReviewTypes

Further Reading: Exploring Different Types of Literature Reviews

• A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26 (2), 91-108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x More information less... ABSTRACT: The expansion of evidence-based practice across sectors has lead to an increasing variety of review types. However, the diversity of terminology used means that the full potential of these review types may be lost amongst a confusion of indistinct and misapplied terms. The objective of this study is to provide descriptive insight into the most common types of reviews, with illustrative examples from health and health information domains.
• Clarifying differences between review designs and methods Gough, D., Thomas, J., & Oliver, S. (2012). Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Systematic Reviews, 1 , 28. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-28 More information less... ABSTRACT: This paper argues that the current proliferation of types of systematic reviews creates challenges for the terminology for describing such reviews....It is therefore proposed that the most useful strategy for the field is to develop terminology for the main dimensions of variation.
• Are we talking the same paradigm? Considering methodological choices in health education systematic review Gordon, M. (2016). Are we talking the same paradigm? Considering methodological choices in health education systematic review. Medical Teacher, 38 (7), 746-750. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2016.1147536 More information less... ABSTRACT: Key items discussed are the positivist synthesis methods meta-analysis and content analysis to address questions in the form of "whether and what" education is effective. These can be juxtaposed with the constructivist aligned thematic analysis and meta-ethnography to address questions in the form of "why." The concept of the realist review is also considered. It is proposed that authors of such work should describe their research alignment and the link between question, alignment and evidence synthesis method selected.
• Meeting the review family: Exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements Sutton, A., Clowes, M., Preston, L., & Booth, A. (2019). Meeting the review family: Exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 36(3), 202–222. doi: 10.1111/hir.12276

Integrative Reviews

"The integrative review method is an approach that allows for the inclusion of diverse methodologies (i.e. experimental and non-experimental research)." (Whittemore & Knafl, 2005, p. 547).

• The integrative review: Updated methodology Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52 (5), 546–553. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x More information less... ABSTRACT: The aim of this paper is to distinguish the integrative review method from other review methods and to propose methodological strategies specific to the integrative review method to enhance the rigour of the process....An integrative review is a specific review method that summarizes past empirical or theoretical literature to provide a more comprehensive understanding of a particular phenomenon or healthcare problem....Well-done integrative reviews present the state of the science, contribute to theory development, and have direct applicability to practice and policy.

• Conducting integrative reviews: A guide for novice nursing researchers Dhollande, S., Taylor, A., Meyer, S., & Scott, M. (2021). Conducting integrative reviews: A guide for novice nursing researchers. Journal of Research in Nursing, 26(5), 427–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987121997907
• Rigour in integrative reviews Whittemore, R. (2007). Rigour in integrative reviews. In C. Webb & B. Roe (Eds.), Reviewing Research Evidence for Nursing Practice (pp. 149–156). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470692127.ch11

Scoping Reviews

Scoping reviews are evidence syntheses that are conducted systematically, but begin with a broader scope of question than traditional systematic reviews, allowing the research to 'map' the relevant literature on a given topic.

• Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8 (1), 19-32. doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616 More information less... ABSTRACT: We distinguish between different types of scoping studies and indicate where these stand in relation to full systematic reviews. We outline a framework for conducting a scoping study based on our recent experiences of reviewing the literature on services for carers for people with mental health problems.
• Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O'Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5 (1), 69. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 More information less... ABSTRACT: We build upon our experiences conducting three scoping studies using the Arksey and O'Malley methodology to propose recommendations that clarify and enhance each stage of the framework.
• Methodology for JBI scoping reviews Peters, M. D. J., Godfrey, C. M., McInerney, P., Baldini Soares, C., Khalil, H., & Parker, D. (2015). The Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers’ manual: Methodology for JBI scoping reviews [PDF]. Retrieved from The Joanna Briggs Institute website: http://joannabriggs.org/assets/docs/sumari/Reviewers-Manual_Methodology-for-JBI-Scoping-Reviews_2015_v2.pdf More information less... ABSTRACT: Unlike other reviews that address relatively precise questions, such as a systematic review of the effectiveness of a particular intervention based on a precise set of outcomes, scoping reviews can be used to map the key concepts underpinning a research area as well as to clarify working definitions, and/or the conceptual boundaries of a topic. A scoping review may focus on one of these aims or all of them as a set.

Systematic vs. Scoping Reviews: What's the Difference? 

YouTube Video 4 minutes, 45 seconds

Rapid Reviews

Rapid reviews are systematic reviews that are undertaken under a tighter timeframe than traditional systematic reviews. 

• Evidence summaries: The evolution of a rapid review approach Khangura, S., Konnyu, K., Cushman, R., Grimshaw, J., & Moher, D. (2012). Evidence summaries: The evolution of a rapid review approach. Systematic Reviews, 1 (1), 10. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-10 More information less... ABSTRACT: Rapid reviews have emerged as a streamlined approach to synthesizing evidence - typically for informing emergent decisions faced by decision makers in health care settings. Although there is growing use of rapid review "methods," and proliferation of rapid review products, there is a dearth of published literature on rapid review methodology. This paper outlines our experience with rapidly producing, publishing and disseminating evidence summaries in the context of our Knowledge to Action (KTA) research program.
• What is a rapid review? A methodological exploration of rapid reviews in Health Technology Assessments Harker, J., & Kleijnen, J. (2012). What is a rapid review? A methodological exploration of rapid reviews in Health Technology Assessments. International Journal of Evidence‐Based Healthcare, 10 (4), 397-410. doi:10.1111/j.1744-1609.2012.00290.x More information less... ABSTRACT: In recent years, there has been an emergence of "rapid reviews" within Health Technology Assessments; however, there is no known published guidance or agreed methodology within recognised systematic review or Health Technology Assessment guidelines. In order to answer the research question "What is a rapid review and is methodology consistent in rapid reviews of Health Technology Assessments?", a study was undertaken in a sample of rapid review Health Technology Assessments from the Health Technology Assessment database within the Cochrane Library and other specialised Health Technology Assessment databases to investigate similarities and/or differences in rapid review methodology utilised.
• Rapid Review Guidebook Dobbins, M. (2017). Rapid review guidebook. Hamilton, ON: National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools.
• NCCMT Summary and Tool for Dobbins' Rapid Review Guidebook National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. (2017). Rapid review guidebook. Hamilton, ON: McMaster University. Retrieved from http://www.nccmt.ca/knowledge-repositories/search/308
• << Previous: Literature Reviews
• Next: Conducting & Reporting Systematic Reviews >>
• Last Updated: Jun 26, 2024 2:55 PM
• URL: https://guides.nyu.edu/speech

How to Determine the Scope of Research | Examples & Tips

Introduction

What is the scope of a study, what is a research scope example, what is the purpose of the research scope, what considerations are relevant to the research scope, how do i write the scope in a report.

The scope of a research project is one of the more important yet sometimes understated aspects of a study. The scope of the study explains what the researchers are examining and what environment they are studying.

This article explains the general purpose of the research scope, how it informs the broader study at hand, and how it can be incorporated in a research paper to establish the necessary transparency and rigor for your research audience.

Scientific knowledge very rarely, if ever, produces universal axioms. The boiling point of water changes depending on the amount of pressure in the air and, by extension, the altitude you are at relative to sea level when you boil water. What looks like polite behavior in a given culture may look rude in another. The definition of beauty is bound to change as people get older.

Similarly, research findings that aren't contextualized are less persuasive. If you are reading a study that looks at interactional patterns between parents and their children, it's important to have a clear sense of the theoretical lens , data collection , and analysis in order to determine the extent to which the findings are applicable across contexts.

In a nutshell, the scope tells you what the researchers are looking at and are not looking at. It provides the context necessary to understand the research, how it was conducted, and what findings it generated.

Conversely, establishing the bounds of the scope also clarify what research inquiries are not addressed in the study, ensuring that the study's argumentation is clearly grounded in the theory, data, and analysis.

Let's imagine an example of a research study examining best practices for mental health. The research design centers on a survey study with a target population of college students with part-time jobs in addition to their coursework.

The researchers can focus on any number of things affecting mental health, including lifestyle factors such as sleep, socioeconomic factors such as income, and even influences further afield like the political alignment of friends and family.

Certainly, any of these things can have a profound impact on one's mental health. But when there are so many things to examine, it's necessary to narrow down what the research project at hand should examine.

The scope of the study can come down to any number of things, including the researchers' interest, the current state of theoretical development on the subject of mental health, and the design of the study, particularly how the data is collected. It might even boil down to influences like geographical location, which can determine the kind of research participants involved in the study.

All of these factors can inform an explicit description of the scope, which might look like this if found in the methodology section of a paper:

"In this study, the researchers focused on surveying college students over four months, roughly the same time frame as a semester at a university in the United States. Surveys were distributed to all college students, but this paper will narrow the data analysis to those students who reported having part-time jobs. This refined lens aligns with our interest in examining work-related factors contributing to negative mental health outcomes, as established in previous studies."

The above example of a study's scope highlights what the researchers focused on during the study and while analyzing the data. The researchers chose to study a narrow subset of their data to generate insights most applicable to their research interests. The researchers might also analyze the proportion of students that reported having part-time jobs to give a broader description of the study body, but they clearly focus on understanding the mental health of students with part-time jobs.

Moreover, the narrow scope allows the researchers to focus on a small number of elements in the relationship between mental health and work, which allows the researchers to make deeper contributions to this specific part of the conversation around students' mental health.

Defining the scope of the study benefits both the researcher and their audience. Ultimately, establishing transparency in a research project focuses the data collection and analysis processes and makes the findings more compelling and persuasive.

Describing the scope can clarify what specific concepts should be used and examined during the course of the study. A good scope can keep the researcher focused on what data to collect and what ancillary developments, however interesting or useful, should be discarded or left to another study. Setting a clear scope can greatly help researchers maintain a coherent fit between their research question, collected data, and ultimate findings. Journal editors and reviewers often reject papers for publication because of a lack of fit between these important elements, which highlights the value of a clear research scope for conducting rigorous research.

In logistical terms, a well-defined scope also ensures the feasibility of a study by limiting the researcher's lens to a small but manageable set of factors to observe and analyze during the course of the study. Conversely, an unfocused study makes the collection of data a significant challenge when the researcher is left to document as much as possible, potentially gathering all kinds of data that may not be relevant to a given research question , while not gathering enough of the appropriate data that can address a research inquiry.

The research audience also requires an understanding of the scope of the study to determine the relevance of the findings to their own research inquiry. Readers of research bring their own assumptions and preconceived notions about what to look at in a given context. A well-written scope, on the other hand, gives readers clear guidance on what to look for in the study's analysis and findings.

From start to finish, make ATLAS.ti your research solution

Make the most of your qualitative data with ATLAS.ti. Get started by downloading a free trial.

Besides the research area being studied, the scope of a study has a clear description of most of the following aspects. Understanding what makes rigorous research and what readers of research look for in a well-crafted study will be useful for describing the scope of a research project.

Target population

The kind of research participants you are including in a study informs what theories are relevant and how the study should be designed. Are you researching children, young adults, or older professionals? Do they belong to a specific culture or community? Are they connected or related to each other in some way or do they just happen to belong to the same demographic?

Because qualitative, social science research seldom yields universal theories, it's important to narrow the scope of a study down to a specific set of the population. The more specific the scope, the more that the findings and resulting theoretical developments can be appropriately contextualized and thus inform how other researchers can build on those insights.

Geographical location

The geographical location covered by the study provides a necessary context for any study in the social sciences. Even if you narrow the targeted population to a specific demographic, what is true for that population in one country or region may not be true for another.

As a result, a scope that describes the location of the study explains where the findings are most relevant and where they might be relevant for further study.

Data collection

If you are conducting observational or ethnographic research , it may seem like you are facing a firehose when it comes to collecting data. Even interviews , focus groups , and surveys can provide a torrent of data, much of which may not be relevant to your inquiry if the study design isn't refined.

Without a sufficiently defined scope that identifies what aspects of the world you are looking at, the data you collect may become unmanageable at best. When crafting your study, develop the scope to determine the specific topics and aspects worth exploring.

In academic publishing , reviewers and editors need a clear understanding of the scope of the study in a manuscript when evaluating the research. Despite its importance, however, the scope doesn't necessarily have its own explicit section in a research paper.

That said, you can describe the study's scope in key areas of your research writing. Here are some of the important sections in a typical research paper for academic writing where a description of the scope is key.

Literature review

Any study disseminated for academic publishing requires a thorough understanding of the current research and existing theories that are relevant to your study. In turn, the literature review also defines the aspects of the phenomenon or concepts that you can study for the purpose of theoretical development.

Rely on the key theories in the literature review to define a useful scope that identifies key aspects of the theoretical framework that will inform the data collection and analysis .

Problem statement

A well-crafted problem statement generally sets the stage for what knowledge is missing and what novel and interesting insights can be uncovered in new research. As a result, a clear understanding of the research scope helps define the problem that a new research project seeks to address.

When incorporating a problem statement in your research paper, be sure to explicitly detail the rationale for problematizing the phenomenon you are researching.

Research question

Research questions define the relationships between the relevant concepts or phenomena being explored, and thus provide evidence of a scope that has been thoughtfully planned. Use the wording of your research question to highlight what is the central focus and, thus, the scope of the study.

At minimum, the scope of the study should narrow the focus of data collection and data analysis to the study of certain concepts relevant to addressing the given research question. Qualitative research methods can often result in open-ended data collection that can yield many insights, only a few of which may directly address the research inquiry.

Narrowing the collection of data to a set of relevant criteria can help the researcher avoid any unnecessary rabbit holes that might complicate the later analysis with irrelevant information.

Limitations

Research scope and limitations go hand in hand because, together, they define what is studied within a research project and what is not. Moreover, a good description of the study's scope can also provide direction, by way of the description of limitations, about what inquiries other researchers could pursue next.

Bring clarity to your research with ATLAS.ti

Turn data into insights with our powerful data analysis platform. Download a free trial of ATLAS.ti today.

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

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Systematic Review
• Open access
• Published: 24 June 2024

Placebo effects in randomized trials of pharmacological and neurostimulation interventions for mental disorders: An umbrella review

• Nathan T. M. Huneke   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5981-6707 1 , 2 ,
• Jay Amin   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3792-0428 1 , 2 ,
• David S. Baldwin 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Alessio Bellato 4 , 5 ,
• Valerie Brandt   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3208-2659 5 , 6 ,
• Samuel R. Chamberlain 1 , 2 ,
• Christoph U. Correll   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7254-5646 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ,
• Luis Eudave 11 ,
• Matthew Garner 1 , 5 , 12 ,
• Corentin J. Gosling 5 , 13 , 14 ,
• Catherine M. Hill 1 , 15 ,
• Ruihua Hou 1 ,
• Oliver D. Howes   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2928-1972 16 , 17 , 18 ,
• Konstantinos Ioannidis 1 , 2 ,
• Ole Köhler-Forsberg 19 , 20 ,
• Lucia Marzulli 21 ,
• Claire Reed   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1385-4729 5 ,
• Julia M. A. Sinclair 1 ,
• Satneet Singh 2 ,
• Marco Solmi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4877-7233 5 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25   na1 &
• Samuele Cortese   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5877-8075 1 , 5 , 26 , 27 , 28   na1  

Molecular Psychiatry ( 2024 ) Cite this article

65 Accesses

5 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Drug discovery
• Neuroscience
• Psychiatric disorders

There is a growing literature exploring the placebo response within specific mental disorders, but no overarching quantitative synthesis of this research has analyzed evidence across mental disorders. We carried out an umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of biological treatments (pharmacotherapy or neurostimulation) for mental disorders. We explored whether placebo effect size differs across distinct disorders, and the correlates of increased placebo effects. Based on a pre-registered protocol, we searched Medline, PsycInfo, EMBASE, and Web of Knowledge up to 23.10.2022 for systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses reporting placebo effect sizes in psychopharmacological or neurostimulation RCTs. Twenty meta-analyses, summarising 1,691 RCTs involving 261,730 patients, were included. Placebo effect size varied, and was large in alcohol use disorder ( g  = 0.90, 95% CI [0.70, 1.09]), depression ( g  = 1.10, 95% CI [1.06, 1.15]), restless legs syndrome ( g  = 1.41, 95% CI [1.25, 1.56]), and generalized anxiety disorder ( d  = 1.85, 95% CI [1.61, 2.09]). Placebo effect size was small-to-medium in obsessive-compulsive disorder ( d  = 0.32, 95% CI [0.22, 0.41]), primary insomnia ( g  = 0.35, 95% CI [0.28, 0.42]), and schizophrenia spectrum disorders (standardized mean change = 0.33, 95% CI [0.22, 0.44]). Correlates of larger placebo response in multiple mental disorders included later publication year (opposite finding for ADHD), younger age, more trial sites, larger sample size, increased baseline severity, and larger active treatment effect size. Most (18 of 20) meta-analyses were judged ‘low’ quality as per AMSTAR-2. Placebo effect sizes varied substantially across mental disorders. Future research should explore the sources of this variation. We identified important gaps in the literature, with no eligible systematic reviews/meta-analyses of placebo response in stress-related disorders, eating disorders, behavioural addictions, or bipolar mania.

Similar content being viewed by others

Effects of open-label placebos in clinical trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis

A transdiagnostic meta-analysis of acute augmentations to psychological therapy

Treatment resistance in psychiatry: state of the art and new directions

Introduction.

A placebo is an ‘inactive’ substance or ‘sham’ technique that is used as a control for assessing the efficacy of an active treatment [ 1 ]. However, study participants in a placebo control group may experience considerable symptom improvements - a ‘placebo response’ [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. Statistical artifacts or non-specific effects account for some of the placebo response. For example, many individuals seek treatment and are enrolled in clinical trials while their symptoms are at their worst. Their symptoms will gradually return to their usual severity (‘regression to the mean’), giving the appearance of a placebo response [ 4 ]. Further, it has been suggested that the placebo response is exacerbated due to unreliable ratings as well as baseline symptom severity inflation if raters are aware of severity criteria for entry to a trial [ 5 , 6 ]. Other potential sources of apparent placebo responses include sampling biases caused by the withdrawal of the least improved patients in the placebo arm, non-specific beneficial effects resulting from interactions with staff delivering the trial, environmental effects due to inpatient care during placebo-controlled trials, or other unaccounted for factors, such as dietary or exercise changes during the trial [ 7 , 8 , 9 ]. Nonetheless, there is evidence that placebo administration results in ‘true’ - or non-artefactual - placebo effects, that is, identifiable changes in biological systems [ 1 , 10 , 11 ]. For example, placebo administration is capable of causing immunosuppression [ 12 , 13 ], placebo effects in Parkinson’s disease are driven by striatal dopamine release [ 10 , 14 ], and placebo analgesia is mediated by endogenous opioid release [ 15 , 16 ]. Furthermore, there is evidence that placebo effects in depressive and anxiety disorders are correlated with altered activity in the ventral striatum, orbitofrontal cortex, rostral anterior cingulate cortex, and the default mode network [ 17 ]. The placebo effect size can be increased through the use of verbal suggestions and conditioning procedures, thus suggesting the underlying role of psychological mechanisms including learning and expectations [ 11 , 18 ].

Across age groups, treatment modalities, and diverse mental disorders, biological treatments (pharmacotherapy or neurostimulation) do reduce symptoms [ 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 ], but only a subgroup of patients experience a clinically significant symptom response or enter remission [ 23 , 24 , 25 ]. Furthermore, current medications may also have unfavourable side effects [ 23 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 ]. Given the high prevalence of mental disorders and their significant socioeconomic burden [ 32 , 33 , 34 ], there is a need to develop more effective and safer psychopharmacologic and neurostimulation treatments. However, in randomized-controlled trials (RCTs), the magnitude of the placebo response may be considerable, which can affect the interpretation of their results [ 35 , 36 , 37 ]. For example, in antipsychotic trials over the past 40 years, placebo response has increased while medication response has remained consistent [ 38 , 39 ]. Consequently, the trial’s ability to statistically differentiate between an active medication and a placebo is diminished [ 40 ]. Indeed, large placebo response rates have been implicated in hindering psychotropic drug development [ 41 , 42 ]. The increased placebo response can also affect larger data synthesis approaches, such as network meta-analysis, in which assumptions about placebo responses (e.g. stability over time) might affect the validity of results [ 43 ].

Improved understanding of participant, trial, and mental disorder-related factors that contribute to placebo response might allow better clinical trial design to separate active treatment from placebo effects. There is a growing body of research, including individual studies and systematic reviews/meta-analyses, examining the placebo response within specific mental disorders [ 35 ]. However, to date, no overarching synthesis of this literature, to detect any similarities or differences across mental disorders, has been published. We therefore carried out an umbrella review of meta-analyses to address this need. We aimed to assess the placebo effect size in RCTs for a range of mental disorders, whether the effect size differs across distinct mental disorders, and identify any correlates of increased placebo effect size or response rate.

The protocol for this systematic umbrella review was pre-registered on the open science framework ( https://osf.io/fxvn4/ ) and published [ 44 ]. Deviations from this protocol, and additions to it, were: eight authors were involved in record screening rather than two; we reported effect sizes pooled across age groups and analyses comparing placebo effect sizes between age groups; and we included a meta-analysis that incorporated trials of dietary supplements as well as medications in autism. For the rationale behind these decisions, see eMethods.

Eight authors (NH, AB, VB, LE, OKF, LM, CR, SS) carried out the systematic review and data extraction independently in pairs. Discrepancies were resolved through consensus or through arbitration by a third reviewer (NH or SCo). We searched, without date or language restrictions, up to 23.10.2022, Medline, PsycInfo, EMBASE + EMBASE Classic, and Web of Knowledge for systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses of RCTs of biological treatments (psychopharmacotherapy or neurostimulation) compared with a placebo or sham treatment in individuals with mental disorders diagnosed according to standardized criteria. The full search strategy is included in eMethods. We also sought systematic reviews of RCTs conducted in patients with sleep-wake disorders, since these disorders are included in the DSM-5 and their core symptoms overlap with those of mental disorders [ 45 ]. We retained systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses that reported within-group changes in symptoms in the placebo arm.

Next, to prevent duplication of data, a matrix containing all eligible systematic reviews/meta-analyses for each category of mental disorder was created. Where there were multiple eligible systematic reviews/meta-analyses for the same disorder and treatment, we preferentially included meta-analyses, and if multiple eligible meta-analyses remained, then we included the one containing the largest number of studies for the same disorder and treatment, in line with recent umbrella reviews [ 46 , 47 ].

Data were extracted by at least two among six reviewers (AB, VB, LE, OKF, CR, SS) independently in pairs via a piloted form. All extracted data were further checked by a third reviewer (NH). See eMethods for a list of extracted data.

Our primary outcome was the pre-post effect size of the placebo/sham related to the condition-specific primary symptom change for each mental disorder. Secondary outcomes included any other reported clinical outcomes in eligible reviews. We report effect sizes calculated within-group from baseline and post-treatment means by meta-analysis authors, including Cohen’s d and Hedges’ g for repeated measures, which account for both mean difference and correlation between paired observations; and standardized mean change, where the average change score is divided by standard deviation of the change scores. We interpreted the effect size in line with the suggestion by Cohen [ 48 ], i.e. small (~0.2), medium (~0.5), or large (~0.8).

In addition, we extracted data regarding potential correlates of increased placebo effect size or response rate (as defined and assessed by the authors of each meta-analysis) in each mental disorder identified through correlation analyses or meta-regression. Where available, results from multivariate analyses were preferred.

The methodological quality of included reviews was assessed by at least two among six reviewers (AB, VB, LE, OKF, NH, CR) independently and in pairs using the AMSTAR-2 tool, a critical appraisal tool that enables reproducible assessments of the conduct of systematic reviews [ 49 ]. The methodological quality of each included review was rated as high, moderate, low, or critically low.

Our initial search identified 6,108 records. After screening titles and abstracts, we obtained and assessed 115 full-text reports (see eResults for a list of articles excluded following full-text assessment, with reasons). Of these, 20 were deemed eligible, and all were systematic reviews with meta-analysis (Fig.  1 ). In total, the 20 included meta-analyses synthesized data from 1,691 RCTs (median 55) involving 261,730 patients (median 5,365). These meta-analyses were published between 2007 and 2022 and involved individuals with the following mental disorders: major depressive disorder (MDD; n  = 6) [ 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 ], anxiety disorders ( n  = 4) [ 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 ], schizophrenia spectrum disorders ( n  = 3) [ 38 , 59 , 60 ], alcohol use disorder (AUD; n  = 1) [ 61 ], attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD; n  = 1) [ 62 ], autism spectrum disorders ( n  = 1) [ 63 ], bipolar depression ( n  = 1) [ 64 ], intellectual disability ( n  = 1) [ 65 ], obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD; n  = 1) [ 66 ], primary insomnia ( n  = 1) [ 67 ], and restless legs syndrome (RLS; n  = 1) [ 68 ].

Twenty meta-analyses were included.

The methodological quality of the included meta-analyses according to AMSTAR-2 ratings was high in two meta-analyses (ADHD and autism), low in four meta-analyses, and critically low in the remaining 14 meta-analyses (Table  1 ). The most common sources of bias that led to downgrading on the AMSTAR-2 were: no list of excluded full-text articles with reasons ( k  = 14), no explicit statement that the protocol was pre-registered ( k  = 14), and no assessment of the potential impact of risk of bias in individual studies on the results ( k  = 13). The full reasoning behind our AMSTAR-2 ratings is included in eResults.

Our first objective was to determine placebo effect sizes across mental conditions. Data regarding within-group placebo efficacy were reported in sixteen of the included meta-analyses [ 38 , 50 , 52 , 53 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 ]. Placebo effect sizes for the primary outcomes ranged from 0.23 to 1.85, with a median of 0.64 (Fig.  2 ). Median heterogeneity across meta-analyses was I 2  = 72%, suggesting a generally high percentage of heterogeneity due to true variation across studies.

Dots represent placebo group effect size while triangles represent active effect size. CI confidence interval, MDD major depressive disorder, GAD generalized anxiety disorder, SAD social anxiety disorder, OCD obsessive-compulsive disorder, g Hedges’ g, d Cohen’s d, SMC standardized mean change, NR not reported.

A detailed description of each meta-analysis included for this objective is included in eResults. Here, we report a summary of these results in order of the greatest number of RCT’s and meta-analyses included per disorder. In MDD, a large within-group placebo effect was observed ( g  = 1.10, 95% CI [1.06, 1.15]), although active medication had an even larger effect size ( g  = 1.49, 95% CI [1.44, 1.53]) [ 50 ]. Similarly, in children and adolescents with MDD, placebo effect size was large ( g  = 1.57, 95% CI [1.36, 1.78]), as was serotonergic medication effect size ( g  = 1.85, 95% CI [1.70, 2.00]) [ 55 ]. In treatment-resistant MDD, the within-group placebo effect size was smaller than in non-treatment-resistant MDD ( g  = 0.89, 95% CI [0.81, 0.98]) [ 52 ]. In neuromodulation trials for MDD, the effect size of sham was g  = 0.80 (95% CI [0.65, 0.95]) [ 53 ]. In this meta-analysis, the effect size was larger for non-treatment-resistant ( g  = 1.28, 95% CI [0.47, 2.97]) compared to treatment-resistant participants (g = 0.50 95% CI [0.03, 0.99]) [ 53 ]. In adults with anxiety disorders, placebo effect sizes varied across disorders, with a medium effect size in panic disorder ( d  = 0.57, 95% CI [0.50, 0.64]) [ 56 ] and large effect sizes in generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) ( d  = 1.85, 95% CI [1.61, 2.09]) and social anxiety disorder (SAD) ( d  = 0.94, 95% CI [0.77, 1.12]) [ 57 ]. Other meta-analyses in children and adolescents and older adults pooled RCTs across anxiety disorders, and found large placebo effect sizes ( g  = 1.03, 95% CI [0.84, 1.21] and d  = 1.06, 95% CI [0.71, 1.42], respectively) [ 55 , 58 ]. In ADHD, placebo effect size was medium-to-large for clinician-rated outcomes (SMC = 0.75, 95% CI [0.67, 0.83]) [ 62 ]. There was additionally a significant negative relationship between placebo effect size and drug-placebo difference (−0.56, p  < 0.01) for self-rated outcomes [ 62 ]. In schizophrenia spectrum disorders, placebo effect size was small-to-medium in antipsychotic RCTs (SMC = 0.33, 95% CI [0.22, 0.44]) [ 38 ] and medium in RCTs focusing specifically on negative symptoms ( d  = 0.64, 95% CI [0.46, 0.83]) [ 60 ]. Placebo effect size in RLS was large when measured via rating scales ( g  = 1.41, 95% CI [1.25, 1.56]), but small ( g  = 0.02 to 0.24) in RCTs using objective outcomes [ 68 ]. In autism, placebo effect sizes were small (SMC ranged 0.23 to 0.36) [ 63 ]. Similarly, placebo effect size was small in OCD ( d  = 0.32, 95% CI [0.22, 0.41]), although larger in children and adolescents ( d  = 0.45, 95% CI [0.35, 0.56]) compared with adults ( d  = 0.27, 95% CI [0.15, 0.38]) [ 66 ]. Placebo effect size was large in AUD ( g  = 0.90, 95% CI [0.70, 1.09]) [ 61 ], small in primary insomnia ( g ranged 0.25 to 0.43) [ 67 ], and medium in intellectual disability related to genetic causes ( g  = 0.47, 95% CI [0.18, 0.76]) [ 65 ].

Our second objective was to examine the correlates of increased placebo response. We included 14 meta-analyses that reported correlates of placebo effect size or response rate through correlation analysis or meta-regression [ 38 , 51 , 53 , 54 , 56 , 57 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 66 , 68 ]. The key correlates extracted from these studies are summarized in Table  2 .

Several variables were consistently identified across meta-analyses. Increased number of trial sites was a positive correlate of increased placebo response in MDD [ 51 , 54 ], schizophrenia spectrum disorders [ 59 ], and autism spectrum disorders [ 63 ]. Similarly, increased sample size was positively associated with placebo effect size in schizophrenia spectrum disorders [ 59 ], OCD [ 66 ], and panic disorder [ 56 ]. Later publication or study year was associated with greater placebo response in anxiety disorders [ 56 , 57 ], schizophrenia spectrum disorders [ 38 ], AUD [ 61 ], and OCD [ 66 ] but not in MDD [ 51 ], and with reduced placebo response in ADHD [ 62 ]. Younger age was associated with increased placebo responses in schizophrenia spectrum disorders [ 38 , 59 ] and OCD [ 66 ]. Increased baseline illness severity was associated with increased placebo response in schizophrenia spectrum disorders [ 38 ], ADHD [ 62 ], and AUD [ 61 ]. Increased trial or follow-up duration was positively associated with increased placebo response in MDD [ 51 ], but negatively associated with placebo response in schizophrenia spectrum disorders [ 38 , 60 ] and OCD [ 66 ]. Finally, the effect size of active treatment was positively associated with increased placebo response in neurostimulation trials for MDD [ 53 ], bipolar depression [ 64 ], autistic spectrum disorders [ 63 ], and ADHD [ 62 ].

There were also some variables associated with increased placebo response in single disorders only. Flexible dosing, rather than fixed dosing, was associated with increased placebo response in MDD [ 51 ]. Increased illness duration was associated with reduced placebo response in schizophrenia spectrum disorders [ 38 ]. In RCTs for negative symptoms of schizophrenia, a higher number of active treatment arms was associated with increased placebo response [ 60 ]. A number of treatment administrations was a positive correlate of increased placebo response in patients with AUD [ 61 ]. A low risk of bias in selective reporting was associated with increased placebo response in ADHD [ 62 ]. Finally, a low risk of bias in allocation concealment was associated with increased placebo response in autism [ 63 ].

To our knowledge, this is the first overarching synthesis of the literature exploring the placebo response in RCTs of biological treatments across a broad range of mental disorders. We found that placebo responses were present and detectable across mental disorders. Further, the placebo effect size across these disorders varied between small and large (see Fig.  3 ). Additionally, several variables appeared to be associated with increased placebo effect size or response rate across a number of disorders, while others were reported for individual disorders only.

CI confidence interval, MDD major depressive disorder, GAD generalized anxiety disorder, SAD social anxiety disorder, OCD obsessive-compulsive disorder, g Hedges’ g, d Cohen’s d, SMC standardized mean change.

Our umbrella review distinguishes itself from a recent publication on placebo mechanisms across medical conditions [ 69 ]. Only four systematic reviews of research in mental disorders were included in that recent review [ 69 ], none of which were eligible for inclusion in our umbrella review, as we focus specifically on RCTs in mental disorders. Thus, our current umbrella review synthesizes different literature and is complementary [ 69 ].

We found substantial variation in placebo effect sizes across mental disorders. In GAD, SAD, MDD, AUD, and RLS (for subjective outcomes), placebo effects were large (>0.9), while they were small (approximately 0.3) in OCD, primary insomnia, autism, RLS (for objective outcomes), and schizophrenia spectrum disorders. It is noteworthy that placebo effect size/response rate correlated with active treatment effect size/response rate in many disorders (MDD, bipolar depression, ADHD, and autism). Nonetheless, where reported, active treatment was always superior. This possibly suggests an underlying ‘treatment responsiveness’ of these disorders that can vary in size. Perhaps, the natural history of a disorder is an important factor in ‘responsiveness’, i.e., disorders in which there is greater natural fluctuation in severity will show larger placebo (and active treatment) effect sizes. Supporting this hypothesis, increased trial duration predicted a larger placebo effect size in MDD, a disorder in which the natural course includes improvement [ 31 , 51 , 70 ]. Conversely, in schizophrenia spectrum disorders where improvement (particularly of negative symptoms) is less likely [ 71 ], increased trial and illness duration predicted a smaller placebo effect size [ 38 , 60 ]. However, previous meta-analyses suggest that natural improvement, for example, measured via waiting list control, does not fully account for the placebo effect in depression and anxiety disorders [ 72 , 73 ]. Statistical artifact, therefore, does not seem to fully explain the variation in effect size.

Non-specific treatment mechanisms are likely an additional source of the observed placebo effect. For example, those with treatment-resistant illness might have reduced expectations regarding treatment. This assumption is supported by the subgroup analysis reported by Razza and colleagues showing sham neuromodulation efficacy reduced as the number of previous failed antidepressant trials increased [ 53 ]. Another factor to consider is the outcome measure chosen. For example, the placebo effect size in panic disorder was smaller when calculated with objective or self-report measures compared with clinician-rated measures [ 56 ]. A similar finding was reported in ADHD trials [ 62 ]. Why placebo effect sizes would differ with clinician-rated versus self-rated scales is unclear. This might result from ‘demand characteristics’ (i.e., cues that suggest to a patient how they ‘should’ respond), or unblinding of the rater, or a combination of the two [ 74 , 75 ].

Several correlates of increased placebo response were reported in included meta-analyses. These included a larger sample size, more study sites, a later publication year (but with an opposite finding for ADHD), younger age, and increased baseline illness severity. This might reflect changes in clinical trial methods over time, the potential for increased ‘noise’ in the data with larger samples or more study sites, and, more speculatively, variables associated with increased volatility in symptoms [ 39 , 51 , 76 ]. A more extensive discussion regarding the potential reasons these variables might correlate with, or predict, placebo response is included in the eDiscussion. Although some correlates of increased placebo response were identified, perhaps more pertinently, it is unknown whether these also predict the separation between active treatment and placebo in most mental disorders. Three included meta-analyses did show that as placebo response increases, the likelihood of drug-placebo separation decreases [ 38 , 62 , 64 ]. This suggests correlates of placebo effect size are also correlates of trial success or failure, but this hypothesis needs explicit testing. In addition, few of the meta-analyses we included explored whether correlates of placebo response differed from correlates of active treatment response. For example, in clinical trials for gambling disorder, response to active treatment was predicted by weeks spent in the trial and by baseline severity, while response to placebo was predicted by baseline depressive and anxiety symptoms [ 77 ]. Furthermore, there is evidence that industry sponsorship is a specific correlate of reduced drug-placebo separation in schizophrenia spectrum disorders [ 78 ]. The largest meta-analysis that we included (conducted by Scott et al. [ 50 ]) did not explore correlates of increased placebo response through meta-regression analysis; rather, it was designed specifically to assess the impact of the use of placebo run-in periods in antidepressant trials. The authors found that use of a placebo run-in was associated with reduced placebo response. However, this effect did not enhance sensitivity to detect medication efficacy versus control groups, as trials with placebo run-in periods were also associated with a reduced medication response. Similar effects of placebo run-in were seen in univariate (but not multivariable) models in ADHD, where placebo run-in reduced placebo effect size in youth, but did not affect drug vs placebo difference [ 62 ]. Further work should be undertaken to ascertain whether trial-level correlates (including the use of placebo run-in) differentially explain active treatment or placebo response and whether controlling for these can improve drug-placebo separation.

Our results should be considered in the light of several possible limitations. First, as in any umbrella review, we were limited by the quality of the meta-analyses we included. Our AMSTAR-2 ratings suggest that confidence in the conclusions of most included meta-analyses should be critically low or low. Indeed, several meta-analyses did not assess for publication bias or for bias in included RCTs. This is relevant, as the risk of bias in selective reporting was highlighted as potentially being associated with placebo effect size in ADHD [ 62 ], and might therefore be relevant in other mental disorders. Second, our results are potentially vulnerable to biases or unmeasured confounders present in the included meta-analyses. Third, we attempted to prevent overlap and duplication of information by including only the meta-analyses with the most information. This might, however, have resulted in some data not being included in our synthesis. Fourth, an exploration of the potential clinical relevance of the placebo effect sizes reported here was outside the scope of the current review but should be considered an important question for future research. Finally, the meta-analyses we included encompassed RCTs with different levels of blinding (double-blind, single-blind). Although the majority of trials were likely double-blind, it is possible that different levels of blinding could have influenced placebo effect sizes through effects on expectations. Future analyses of placebo effects and their correlates should either focus on double-blind trials or compare results across levels of blinding. Related to this, the included meta-analyses pooled phase 2 and phase 3 trials (the latter of which will usually follow positive phase 2 trials), which might result in different expectation biases. Therefore, placebo effects should be compared between phase 2 and phase 3 trials in the future.

In this umbrella review, we found placebo effect sizes varied substantially across mental disorders. The sources of this variation remain unknown and require further study. Some variables were correlates of increased placebo response across mental disorders, including larger sample size, higher number of study sites, later publication year (opposite for ADHD), younger age, and increased baseline illness severity. There was also evidence that clinician-rated outcomes were associated with larger placebo effect sizes than self-rated or objective outcomes. We additionally identified important gaps in the literature, with no eligible systematic reviews identified in stress-related disorders, eating disorders, behavioural addictions, or bipolar mania. In relation to these disorders, some analyses have been published but they have not been included in systematic reviews/meta-analyses (e.g. analyses of individual patient data pooled across RCTs in acute mania [ 79 ] or gambling disorder [ 77 , 80 ]) and therefore were not eligible for inclusion here. We also focused on placebo response in RCTs of pharmacotherapies and neurostimulation interventions for mental disorders. We did not include placebo effects in psychosocial interventions, but such an analysis would also be valuable. Future studies should address these gaps in the literature and furthermore should compare findings in placebo arms with active treatment arms, both regarding treatment effect size and its correlates. Gaining additional insights into the placebo response may improve our ability to separate active treatment effects from placebo effects, thus paving the way for potentially effective new treatments for mental disorders.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available in the Open Science Framework repository, https://osf.io/fxvn4/ .

Evers AWM, Colloca L, Blease C, Annoni M, Atlas LY, Benedetti F, et al. Implications of placebo and nocebo effects for clinical practice: Expert Consensus. Psychother Psychosom. 2018;87:204–10.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

McQueen D, Cohen S, John-Smith PS, Rampes H. Rethinking placebo in psychiatry: the range of placebo effects. Adv Psychiatr Treat. 2013;19:162–70.

Article   Google Scholar  

Beecher HK. The powerful placebo. J Am Med Assoc. 1955;159:1602–6.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Harris I. When the placebo effect is not an effect. Acta Orthop. 2021;92:501–2.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Landin R, DeBrota DJ, DeVries TA, Potter WZ, Demitrack MA. The impact of Restrictive Entry Criterion during the placebo lead-in period. Biometrics. 2000;56:271–8.

Jones BDM, Razza LB, Weissman CR, Karbi J, Vine T, Mulsant LS, et al. Magnitude of the Placebo response across treatment modalities used for treatment-resistant depression in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4:e2125531.

Miller FG, Rosenstein DL. The nature and power of the placebo effect. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:331–5.

Ashar YK, Chang LJ, Wager TD. Brain mechanisms of the Placebo effect: an affective appraisal account. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2017;13:73–98.

Ernst E, Resch KL. Concept of true and perceived placebo effects. BMJ. 1995;311:551–3.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

De La Fuente-Fernandez R. Expectation and Dopamine release: mechanism of the Placebo effect in Parkinson’s disease. Science. 2001;293:1164–6.

Benedetti F, Carlino E, Pollo A. How Placebos change the patient’s brain. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2011;36:339–54.

Goebel MU, Trebst AE, Steiner J, Xie YF, Exton MS, Frede S, et al. Behavioral conditioning of immunosuppression is possible in humans. FASEB J. 2002;16:1869–73.

Albring A, Wendt L, Benson S, Witzke O, Kribben A, Engler H, et al. Placebo effects on the immune response in humans: the role of learning and expectation. PloS One. 2012;7:e49477.

Lidstone SC, Schulzer M, Dinelle K, Mak E, Sossi V, Ruth TJ, et al. Effects of expectation on placebo-induced Dopamine release in Parkinson disease. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2010;67:857–65.

Amanzio M, Benedetti F. Neuropharmacological dissection of placebo analgesia: expectation-activated opioid systems versus conditioning-activated specific subsystems. J Neurosci. 1999;19:484–94.

Amanzio M, Pollo A, Maggi G, Benedetti F. Response variability to analgesics: a role for non-specific activation of endogenous opioids. Pain. 2001;90:205–15.

Huneke NTM, Aslan IH, Fagan H, Phillips N, Tanna R, Cortese S, et al. Functional neuroimaging correlates of placebo response in patients with depressive or anxiety disorders: A systematic review. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2022;25:433–47.

Vase L, Riley JL, Price DD. A comparison of placebo effects in clinical analgesic trials versus studies of placebo analgesia. Pain. 2002;99:443–52.

Solmi M, Croatto G, Piva G, Rosson S, Fusar-Poli P, Rubio JM, et al. Efficacy and acceptability of psychosocial interventions in schizophrenia: systematic overview and quality appraisal of the meta-analytic evidence. Mol Psychiatry. 2023;28:354–68.

Monteleone AM, Pellegrino F, Croatto G, Carfagno M, Hilbert A, Treasure J, et al. Treatment of eating disorders: A systematic meta-review of meta-analyses and network meta-analyses. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2022;142:104857.

Rosson S, de Filippis R, Croatto G, Collantoni E, Pallottino S, Guinart D, et al. Brain stimulation and other biological non-pharmacological interventions in mental disorders: An umbrella review. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2022;139:104743.

Correll CU, Cortese S, Croatto G, Monaco F, Krinitski D, Arrondo G, et al. Efficacy and acceptability of pharmacological, psychosocial, and brain stimulation interventions in children and adolescents with mental disorders: an umbrella review. World Psychiatry. 2021;20:244–75.

Gaynes BN, Warden D, Trivedi MH, Wisniewski SR, Fava M, Rush AJ. What did STAR*D teach us? Results from a large-scale, practical, clinical trial for patients with depression. Psychiatr Serv. 2009;60:1439–45.

Stone MB, Yaseen ZS, Miller BJ, Richardville K, Kalaria SN, Kirsch I. Response to acute monotherapy for major depressive disorder in randomized, placebo controlled trials submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration: individual participant data analysis. BMJ. 2022;378:e067606.

Hendriks SM, Spijker J, Licht CMM, Hardeveld F, de Graaf R, Batelaan NM, et al. Long-term disability in anxiety disorders. BMC Psychiatry. 2016;16:248.

Dragioti E, Solmi M, Favaro A, Fusar-Poli P, Dazzan P, Thompson T, et al. Association of antidepressant use with adverse health outcomes: a systematic umbrella review. JAMA Psychiatry. 2019;76:1241–55.

Croatto G, Vancampfort D, Miola A, Olivola M, Fiedorowicz JG, Firth J, et al. The impact of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions on physical health outcomes in people with mood disorders across the lifespan: An umbrella review of the evidence from randomised controlled trials. Mol Psychiatry. 2023;28:369–90.

Papola D, Ostuzzi G, Gastaldon C, Morgano GP, Dragioti E, Carvalho AF, et al. Antipsychotic use and risk of life-threatening medical events: umbrella review of observational studies. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2019;140:227–43.

Linden M. How to define, find and classify side effects in psychotherapy: from unwanted events to adverse treatment reactions. Clin Psychol Psychother. 2013;20:286–96.

Reynolds GP, Kirk SL. Metabolic side effects of antipsychotic drug treatment – pharmacological mechanisms. Pharmacol Ther. 2010;125:169–79.

Cuijpers P, Karyotaki E, Weitz E, Andersson G, Hollon SD, van Straten A. The effects of psychotherapies for major depression in adults on remission, recovery and improvement: A meta-analysis. J Affect Disord. 2014;159:118–26.

Bloom DE, Cafiero E, Jané-Llopis E, Abrahams-Gessel S, Bloom LR, Fathima S, et al. The global economic burden of noncommunicable diseases. PGDA Work Pap. (2012).

Vos T, Lim SS, Abbafati C, Abbas KM, Abbasi M, Abbasifard M, et al. Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet. 2020;396:1204–22.

Whiteford HA, Degenhardt L, Rehm J, Baxter AJ, Ferrari AJ, Erskine HE, et al. Global burden of disease attributable to mental and substance use disorders: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. The Lancet. 2013;382:1575–86.

Huneke NTM, van der Wee N, Garner M, Baldwin DS. Why we need more research into the placebo response in psychiatry. Psychol Med. 2020;50:2317–23.

Huneke NTM. Is superiority to placebo the most appropriate measure of efficacy in trials of novel psychotropic medications? Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2022;62:7–9.

Khan A, Brown WA. Antidepressants versus placebo in major depression: An overview. World Psychiatry. 2015;14:294–300.

Agid O, Siu CO, Potkin SG, Kapur S, Watsky E, Vanderburg D, et al. Meta-regression analysis of placebo response in antipsychotic trials, 1970–2010. Am J Psychiatry. 2013;170:1335–44.

Leucht S, Leucht C, Huhn M, Chaimani A, Mavridis D, Helfer B, et al. Sixty years of placebo-controlled antipsychotic drug trials in acute schizophrenia: systematic review, bayesian meta-analysis, and meta-regression of efficacy predictors. Am J Psychiatry. 2017;174:927–42.

Enck P, Bingel U, Schedlowski M, Rief W. The placebo response in medicine: minimize, maximize or personalize? Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2013;12:191–204.

Correll CU, Solmi M, Cortese S, Fava M, Højlund M, Kraemer HC, et al. The future of psychopharmacology: a critical appraisal of ongoing phase 2/3 trials, and of some current trends aiming to de-risk trial programmes of novel agents. World Psychiatry. 2023;22:48–74.

Stahl SM, Greenberg GD. Placebo response rate is ruining drug development in psychiatry: why is this happening and what can we do about it? Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2019;139:105–7.

Nikolakopoulou A, Chaimani A, Furukawa TA, Papakonstantinou T, Rücker G, Schwarzer G. When does the placebo effect have an impact on network meta-analysis results? BMJ Evid-Based Med. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112197 .

Huneke NTM, Amin J, Baldwin DS, Chamberlain SR, Correll CU, Garner M, et al. Placebo effects in mental health disorders: protocol for an umbrella review. BMJ Open. 2023;13:e073946.

Gauld C, Lopez R, Morin CM, Maquet J, Mcgonigal A, Geoffroy P-A, et al. Why do sleep disorders belong to mental disorder classifications? A network analysis of the “Sleep-Wake Disorders” section of the DSM-5. J Psychiatr Res. 2021;142:153–9.

Köhler-Forsberg O, Stiglbauer V, Brasanac J, Chae WR, Wagener F, Zimbalski K, et al. Efficacy and safety of antidepressants in patients with comorbid depression and medical diseases: an umbrella systematic review and meta-Analysis. JAMA Psychiatry. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2023.2983 .

Belbasis L, Bellou V, Ioannidis JPA. Conducting umbrella reviews. BMJ Med. 2022;1:e000071.

Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; (1988).

Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008.

Scott AJ, Sharpe L, Quinn V, Colagiuri B. Association of Single-blind Placebo Run-in Periods With the Placebo Response in Randomized Clinical Trials of Antidepressants: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry. 2022;79:42.

Furukawa TA, Cipriani A, Atkinson LZ, Leucht S, Ogawa Y, Takeshima N, et al. Placebo response rates in antidepressant trials: a systematic review of published and unpublished double-blind randomised controlled studies. Lancet Psychiatry. 2016;3:1059–66.

Scott F, Hampsey E, Gnanapragasam S, Carter B, Marwood L, Taylor RW, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of augmentation and combination treatments for early-stage treatment-resistant depression. J Psychopharmacol. 2023;37:268–78.

Razza LB, Moffa AH, Moreno ML, Carvalho AF, Padberg F, Fregni F, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis on placebo response to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for depression trials. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2018;81:105–13.

Meister R, Abbas M, Antel J, Peters T, Pan Y, Bingel U, et al. Placebo response rates and potential modifiers in double-blind randomized controlled trials of second and newer generation antidepressants for major depressive disorder in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020;29:253–73.

Locher C, Koechlin H, Zion SR, Werner C, Pine DS, Kirsch I, et al. Efficacy and safety of selective Serotonin reuptake inhibitors, Serotonin-Norepinephrine Reuptake inhibitors, and placebo for common psychiatric disorders among children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Jama Psychiatry. 2017;74:1011–20.

Ahmadzad-Asl M, Davoudi F, Mohamadi S, Hadi F, Nejadghaderi SA, Mirbehbahani SH, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the placebo effect in panic disorder: Implications for research and clinical practice. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2022;56:1130–41.

Bandelow B, Reitt M, Röver C, Michaelis S, Görlich Y, Wedekind D. Efficacy of treatments for anxiety disorders: a meta-analysis. Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 2015;30:183–92.

Pinquart M, Duberstein PR. Treatment of anxiety disorders in older adults: a meta-analytic comparison of behavioral and pharmacological interventions. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2007;15:639–51.

Leucht S, Chaimani A, Leucht C, Huhn M, Mavridis D, Helfer B, et al. 60 years of placebo-controlled antipsychotic drug trials in acute schizophrenia: Meta-regression of predictors of placebo response. Schizophr Res. 2018;201:315–23.

Czobor P, Kakuszi B, Bitter I. Placebo response in trials of negative symptoms in Schizophrenia: A critical reassessment of the evidence. Schizophr Bull. 2022;48:1228–40.

Del Re AC, Maisel N, Blodgett J, Wilbourne P, Finney J. Placebo group improvement in trials of pharmacotherapies for alcohol use disorders: a multivariate meta-analysis examining change over time. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2013;33:649.

Faraone SV, Newcorn JH, Cipriani A, Brandeis D, Kaiser A, Hohmann S, et al. Placebo and nocebo responses in randomised, controlled trials of medications for ADHD: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Mol Psychiatry. 2022;27:212–9.

Siafis S, Çıray O, Schneider-Thoma J, Bighelli I, Krause M, Rodolico A, et al. Placebo response in pharmacological and dietary supplement trials of autism spectrum disorder (ASD): systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Mol Autism. 2020;11:66.

Iovieno N, Nierenberg AA, Parkin SR, Hyung Kim DJ, Walker RS, Fava M, et al. Relationship between placebo response rate and clinical trial outcome in bipolar depression. J Psychiatr Res. 2016;74:38–44.

Curie A, Yang K, Kirsch I, Gollub RL, des Portes V, Kaptchuk TJ, et al. Placebo responses in genetically determined intellectual disability: a meta-analysis. PloS One. 2015;10:e0133316.

Mohamadi S, Ahmadzad-Asl M, Nejadghaderi SA, Jabbarinejad R, Mirbehbahani SH, Sinyor M, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the placebo effect and its correlates in obsessive compulsive disorder. Can J Psychiatry. 2023;68:479–94.

Winkler A, Rief W. Effect of placebo conditions on polysomnographic parameters in primary insomnia: a meta-analysis. Sleep. 2015;38:925–31.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Silva MA, Duarte GS, Camara R, Rodrigues FB, Fernandes RM, Abreu D, et al. Placebo and nocebo responses in restless legs syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurology. 2017;88:2216–24.

Frisaldi E, Shaibani A, Benedetti F, Pagnini F. Placebo and nocebo effects and mechanisms associated with pharmacological interventions: an umbrella review. BMJ Open. 2023;13:e077243.

Cuijpers P, Stringaris A, Wolpert M. Treatment outcomes for depression: challenges and opportunities. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020;7:925–7.

Bromet EJ, Fennig S. Epidemiology and natural history of schizophrenia. Biol Psychiatry. 1999;46:871–81.

Rutherford BR, Mori S, Sneed JR, Pimontel MA, Roose SP. Contribution of spontaneous improvement to placebo response in depression: A meta-analytic review. J Psychiatr Res. 2012;46:697–702.

Fernández-López R, Riquelme-Gallego B, Bueno-Cavanillas A, Khan KS. Influence of placebo effect in mental disorders research: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Clin Invest. 2022;52:e13762.

Goodwin GM, Croal M, Marwood L, Malievskaia E. Unblinding and demand characteristics in the treatment of depression. J Affect Disord. 2023;328:1–5.

Coles NA, Gaertner L, Frohlich B, Larsen JT, Basnight-Brown DM. Fact or artifact? Demand characteristics and participants’ beliefs can moderate, but do not fully account for, the effects of facial feedback on emotional experience. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2023;124:287–310.

Weimer K, Colloca L, Enck P. Placebo eff ects in psychiatry: mediators and moderators. Lancet Psychiatry. 2015;2:246–57.

Huneke NTM, Chamberlain SR, Baldwin DS, Grant JE. Diverse predictors of treatment response to active medication and placebo in gambling disorder. J Psychiatr Res. 2021;144:96–101.

Leucht S, Chaimani A, Mavridis D, Leucht C, Huhn M, Helfer B, et al. Disconnection of drug-response and placebo-response in acute-phase antipsychotic drug trials on schizophrenia? Meta-regression analysis. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2019;44:1955–66.

Welten CCM, Koeter MWJ, Wohlfarth T, Storosum JG, van den Brink W, Gispen-de Wied CC, et al. Placebo response in antipsychotic trials of patients with acute mania. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2015;25:1018–26.

Grant JE, Chamberlain SR. The placebo effect and its clinical associations in gambling disorder. Ann Clin Psychiatry. 2017;29:167.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Dr Nathan TM Huneke is an NIHR Academic Clinical Lecturer. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR, NHS, or the UK Department of Health and Social Care. For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission.

Author contributors

NTMH, JA, DSB, SRC, CUC, MG, CMH, RH, ODH, JMAS, MS, and SCo conceptualized the study. NTMH, AB, VB, LE, CJG, OKF, LM, CR, SS, and SCo contributed to data collection, data curation, or data analysis. NTMH, MS, and SCo wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors had access to the raw data. All authors reviewed and edited the manuscript and had final responsibility for the decision to submit it for publication.

Author information

These authors contributed equally: Marco Solmi, Samuele Cortese.

Authors and Affiliations

Clinical and Experimental Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK

Nathan T. M. Huneke, Jay Amin, David S. Baldwin, Samuel R. Chamberlain, Matthew Garner, Catherine M. Hill, Ruihua Hou, Konstantinos Ioannidis, Julia M. A. Sinclair & Samuele Cortese

Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK

Nathan T. M. Huneke, Jay Amin, David S. Baldwin, Samuel R. Chamberlain, Konstantinos Ioannidis & Satneet Singh

University Department of Psychiatry and Mental Health, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

David S. Baldwin

School of Psychology, University of Nottingham Malaysia, Semenyih, Malaysia

Alessio Bellato

Centre for Innovation in Mental Health, School of Psychology, Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK

Alessio Bellato, Valerie Brandt, Matthew Garner, Corentin J. Gosling, Claire Reed, Marco Solmi & Samuele Cortese

Clinic of Psychiatry, Social Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Hannover Medical School, Hanover, Germany

Valerie Brandt

Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany

Christoph U. Correll

Department of Psychiatry, Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, NY, USA

Department of Psychiatry and Molecular Medicine, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, NY, USA

Center for Psychiatric Neuroscience, Feinstein Institute for Medical Research, Manhasset, NY, USA

Faculty of Education and Psychology, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain

Luis Eudave

School of Psychology, Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK

Matthew Garner

Université Paris Nanterre, DysCo Lab, F-92000, Nanterre, France

Corentin J. Gosling

Université de Paris, Laboratoire de Psychopathologie et Processus de Santé, F-92100, Boulogne-Billancourt, France

Department of Sleep Medicine, Southampton Children’s Hospital, Southampton, UK

Catherine M. Hill

Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, UK

Oliver D. Howes

H Lundbeck A/s, Iveco House, Watford, UK

Institute of Clinical Sciences (ICS), Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK

Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

Ole Köhler-Forsberg

Psychosis Research Unit, Aarhus University Hospital–Psychiatry, Aarhus, Denmark

Department of Translational Biomedicine and Neuroscience (DIBRAIN), University of Studies of Bari “Aldo Moro”, Bari, Italy

Lucia Marzulli

Department of Psychiatry, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada

Marco Solmi

Department of Mental Health, Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada

Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI) Clinical Epidemiology Program, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada

School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada

Solent NHS Trust, Southampton, UK

Samuele Cortese

DiMePRe-J-Department of Precision and Regenerative Medicine-Jonic Area, University “Aldo Moro”, Bari, Italy

Hassenfeld Children’s Hospital at NYU Langone, New York University Child Study Center, New York, NY, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nathan T. M. Huneke .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

DSB is President of the British Association for Psychopharmacology, Editor of the Human Psychopharmacology journal (for which he receives an editor’s honorarium), and has received royalties from UpToDate. CMH has acted on an expert advisory board for Neurim Pharmaceuticals. ODH is a part-time employee and stockholder of Lundbeck A/s. He has received investigator-initiated research funding from and/or participated in advisory/speaker meetings organized by Angellini, Autifony, Biogen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Heptares, Global Medical Education, Invicro, Jansenn, Lundbeck, Neurocrine, Otsuka, Sunovion, Recordati, Roche and Viatris/Mylan. ODH has a patent for the use of dopaminergic imaging. All other authors declare no competing interests. MS has received honoraria/has been a consultant for Angelini, Lundbeck, and Otsuka. SCo has received honoraria from non-profit associations (BAP, ACAMH, CADDRA) for educational activities and an honorarium from Medice. KI has received honoraria from Elsevier for editorial work. SRC receives honoraria from Elsevier for associate editor roles at comprehensive psychiatry and NBR journals. CUC has been a consultant and/or advisor to or has received honoraria from: AbbVie, Acadia, Adock Ingram, Alkermes, Allergan, Angelini, Aristo, Biogen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Cardio Diagnostics, Cerevel, CNX Therapeutics, Compass Pathways, Darnitsa, Denovo, Gedeon Richter, Hikma, Holmusk, IntraCellular Therapies, Jamjoom Pharma, Janssen/J&J, Karuna, LB Pharma, Lundbeck, MedAvante-ProPhase, MedInCell, Merck, Mindpax, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Mylan, Neurocrine, Neurelis, Newron, Noven, Novo Nordisk, Otsuka, Pharmabrain, PPD Biotech, Recordati, Relmada, Reviva, Rovi, Sage, Seqirus, SK Life Science, Sumitomo Pharma America, Sunovion, Sun Pharma, Supernus, Takeda, Teva, Tolmar, Vertex, and Viatris. He provided expert testimony for Janssen and Otsuka. He served on a Data Safety Monitoring Board for Compass Pathways, Denovo, Lundbeck, Relmada, Reviva, Rovi, Supernus, and Teva. He has received grant support from Janssen and Takeda. He received royalties from UpToDate and is also a stock option holder of Cardio Diagnostics, Kuleon Biosciences, LB Pharma, Mindpax, and Quantic.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

41380_2024_2638_moesm1_esm.docx.

PLACEBO EFFECTS IN RANDOMIZED TRIALS OF PHARMACOLOGICAL AND NEUROSTIMULATION INTERVENTIONS FOR MENTAL DISORDERS: AN UMBRELLA REVIEW SUPPLEMENTARY APPENDIX

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Huneke, N.T.M., Amin, J., Baldwin, D.S. et al. Placebo effects in randomized trials of pharmacological and neurostimulation interventions for mental disorders: An umbrella review. Mol Psychiatry (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-024-02638-x

Download citation

Received : 01 February 2024

Revised : 17 June 2024

Accepted : 19 June 2024

Published : 24 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-024-02638-x

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

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

Research Terms

Ai generator.

Research terms are specific words or phrases used in academic writing to describe the research process, methodologies, and findings. These include concepts like hypothesis , variables, sample size, literature review, and data analysis. Understanding these terms is crucial for interpreting research studies and effectively communicating ideas. Mastery of research terms enhances clarity in academic discourse, whether in a research project proposal , a qualitative research report , or the description of research methodology.

What are terms in research?

Terms in research refer to the specific words, phrases, and concepts used within a study to define its scope, methodology , and focus. These terms ensure clarity and precision, allowing researchers to communicate ideas and findings effectively. Clear definitions facilitate a shared understanding and maintain the integrity and replicability of research.

Examples of Research Terms

• Hypothesis : A proposed explanation for a phenomenon, to be tested through research.
• Variable : Any factor or element that can be changed and measured in research.
• Literature Review : A comprehensive survey of existing research and publications on a specific topic.
• Methodology : The systematic plan and approach used to conduct research.
• Data Collection : The process of gathering information for analysis in research.
• Sample : A subset of a population selected for observation and analysis.
• Control Group : A group in an experiment that does not receive the treatment, used for comparison.
• Validity : The extent to which a research study measures what it intends to measure.
• Reliability : The consistency of a research study or measuring test.
• Abstract : A brief summary of a research study’s aims, methods, results, and conclusions.
• Population : The entire group of individuals or instances about whom the research is concerned.
• Ethics : Moral principles that govern a researcher’s conduct and the conduct of the research.
• Bias : A systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome over others.
• Pilot Study : A small-scale preliminary study conducted to evaluate feasibility, time, cost, risk, and adverse events.
• Peer Review : A process by which a research study is evaluated by experts in the same field before publication.
• Quantitative Research : Research that relies on numerical data and statistical methods.
• Qualitative Research : Research that relies on non-numerical data, such as interviews, observations, and textual analysis.
• Case Study : An in-depth study of a particular case, individual, group, or event.
• Longitudinal Study : Research that follows subjects over a long period to observe changes and developments.
• Cross-sectional Study : Research that analyzes data from a population at a specific point in time.
• Independent Variable : The variable that is manipulated to observe its effect on the dependent variable.
• Dependent Variable : The variable being tested and measured in an experiment.
• Confounding Variable : An outside influence that affects the dependent and independent variables, causing a spurious association.
• Operational Definition : A clear, precise, and measurable definition of a variable for the purposes of a study.
• Statistical Significance : The likelihood that a result or relationship is caused by something other than mere chance.
• Random Sample : A sample that fairly represents a population because each member has an equal chance of inclusion.
• Correlation : A measure of the relationship between two variables.
• Experimental Group : The group in an experiment that receives the treatment.
• Theoretical Framework : A structure that guides research by providing a clear perspective and basis for the study.
• Meta-analysis : A statistical technique that combines the results of multiple studies to determine overall trends.

Research Terms List

• Sampling Bias
• Control Variable
• Research Design
• Data Analysis
• Primary Data
• Secondary Data
• Theoretical Sampling
• Purposive Sampling
• Snowball Sampling
• Cluster Sampling
• Stratified Sampling
• Questionnaire
• Focus Group
• Field Study
• Experimental Design
• Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT)
• Ethnography
• Grounded Theory
• Content Analysis
• Descriptive Research
• Explanatory Research
• Exploratory Research
• Mixed Methods
• Triangulation
• Hypothesis Testing
• Null Hypothesis
• Alternative Hypothesis
• Research Proposal

5 Common Research Terminologies

• Hypothesis : A testable prediction about the relationship between two or more variables.
• Variable : An element, feature, or factor that can be changed and measured in research.

Confusing Terms in Research

• Reliability : The consistency of a research study or measuring test over time.
• Independent Variable : The variable that is manipulated to observe its effect.
• Dependent Variable : The variable being tested and measured, which is affected by the independent variable.
• Random Assignment : Assigning participants to experimental and control groups by chance to minimize pre-existing differences.
• Descriptive Research : Research that aims to describe characteristics of a population or phenomenon.
• Explanatory Research : Research that seeks to explain the reasons behind a phenomenon or relationship.

Key Research Terms

1. abstract.

• A brief summary of the research paper, outlining the main points, purpose, methods, results, and conclusions.

2. Hypothesis

• A testable statement or prediction about the relationship between two or more variables.

3. Variable

• An element, feature, or factor that can be changed and measured in research. Includes independent, dependent, and control variables.

4. Literature Review

• A comprehensive survey of existing research and publications relevant to the research topic.

5. Methodology

• The systematic plan for conducting research, including the methods, techniques, and procedures used to collect and analyze data.

6. Qualitative Research

• Research that focuses on understanding phenomena through non-numerical data such as interviews, observations, and texts.

7. Quantitative Research

• Research that focuses on quantifying data and analyzing it statistically to draw conclusions.

8. Sampling

• The process of selecting a subset of individuals from a population to represent the whole group in research.

9. Data Collection

• The process of gathering information from various sources to answer research questions.

10. Data Analysis

• The process of examining, cleaning, transforming, and modeling data to discover useful information, draw conclusions, and support decision-making.

Terms Synonymous to Research

• Investigation
• Examination
• Exploration
• Observation

FAQ’s

What is a variable in research.

A variable is any characteristic, number, or quantity that can be measured or quantified in research.

What is the difference between qualitative and quantitative research?

Qualitative research explores concepts and experiences in-depth, while quantitative research involves measuring and analyzing numerical data.

What is a literature review?

A literature review summarizes existing research on a topic, identifying trends, gaps, and key findings.

What is a sample in research?

A sample is a subset of a population selected for study to represent the entire group.

What is a hypothesis?

A hypothesis is a testable prediction or educated guess about the relationship between two or more variables in a study.

What is data collection?

Data collection involves gathering information from various sources to address a research question or hypothesis.

What is an independent variable?

An independent variable is the variable that is manipulated or changed in an experiment to observe its effect.

What is a dependent variable?

A dependent variable is the variable being tested and measured in an experiment, affected by the independent variable.

What is a control group?

A control group is a group in an experiment that does not receive the treatment, used for comparison against the experimental group.

What is a research methodology?

Research methodology is the systematic plan for conducting research, including methods for data collection and analysis.

Text prompt

• Instructive
• Professional

10 Examples of Public speaking

20 Examples of Gas lighting

Literature review on gender diversity in top management teams of companies and its relationship with firm performance and audit quality

• Original Article
• Published: 19 June 2024

Cite this article

• Maria Fátima Ribeiro Borges 1 ,
• Graça Maria do Carmo Azevedo 1 &
• Jonas Oliveira   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5374-1062 2  

10 Accesses

Explore all metrics

This paper aims to review the literature on gender diversity on top management teams and its impact on firm’s performance and audit quality. Over the period of 1997–2023 a total of 125 published articles were identified. Main findings reveal that literature on gender diversity continues to be contradictory, inconsistent and inconclusive regarding its impacts on firm’s performance and audit quality, highlighting the need to intensify research on this field to validate empirically those relationships. The literature review informs researchers on other audiences about the main characteristics of the literature on gender diversity and identifies several research gaps in the area.

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

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

The effects of boardroom gender diversity on corporate performance: empirical evidence from a sample of European listed companies

Do Gender Quotas Lead to Gender Equality?

Gender diversity in boardroom and its impact on firm performance.

Abdullah, S.N., and K.N.I.K. Ismail. 2016. Women directors, family ownership and earnings management in Malaysia. Asian Review of Accounting 24 (4): 525–550.

Article   Google Scholar  

Adams, R.B. 2016. Women on boards: The superheroes of tomorrow. The Leadership Quaterly 27 (3): 371–386.

Adams, R., and D. Ferreira. 2009. Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. Journal of Financial Economics 94 (2): 291–309.

Adusei, M. 2019. Board gender diversity and the technical efficiency of microfinance institutions: Does size matter? International Review of Economics and Finance 64: 393–411.

Ahern, K.R., and A.K. Dittmar. 2012. The changing of the boards: The impact on firm valuation of mandated female board representation. Quartely Journal of Economics 127 (1): 137–197.

Ali, M., Y.L. Ng, and C.T. Kulik. 2014. Board age and gender diversity: A test of competing linear and curvilinear predictions. Journal of Business Ethics 125 (3): 497–514.

Alvarado, N.R., P.D. Fuentes, and J. Laffarga. 2017. Does board gender diversity influence financial performance? Evidence from Spain. Journal of Business Ethics 141 (2): 337–350.

Alves, S. 2023a. Gender diversity on corporate boards and earnings management: Evidence for European Union listed firms. Cogent Business & Management 10 (1): 2193138.

Alves, S. 2023b. Do female directors affect accounting conservatism in European Union. Cogent Business & Management 10 (2): 2219088.

Ameen, E.C., D.M. Guffey, and J.J. McMillan. 1996. Gender differences in determining the ethical sensitivity of future accounting professionals. Journal of Business Ethics 15 (5): 591–597.

Anh, L.H.T., and N.V. Khuong. 2022. Gender diversity and earnings management behaviours in an emerging market: A comparison between regression analysis and FSQCA. Cogent Business & Management 9 (1): 2101243.

Antle, R., E. Gordon, G. Narayanamoorthy, and L. Zhou. 2006. The joint determination of audit fees, nonaudit fees, and abnormal accruals. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 27 (3): 235–266.

Arun, T.G., Y.E. Almahrog, and Z.A. Aribi. 2015. Female directors and earnings management: evidence from UK companies. International Review of Financial Analysis 39: 137–146.

Ashbaugh, H., R. LaFond, and B.W. Mayhew. 2003. Do non-audit services compromise auditor independence? Further Evidence. Accounting Review 78 (3): 611–639.

Baghdadi, G.A., Md. Safiullah, and M.L.M. Heyden. 2023. Do gender diverse boards enhance managerial ability? Journal of Corporate Finance 79: 102364.

Bantel, K. 1993. Strategic clarity in banking: Role of top management-team demography. Psychological Reports 73 (3 Suppl.): 1187–1203.

Barua, A., L.F. Davidson, D.V. Rama, and S. Thiruvadi. 2010. CFO gender and accruals quality. Accounting Horizons 24 (1): 25–39.

Bebchuk, L.A., and M.S. Weisbach. 2010. The state of corporate governance research. Review of Financial Studies 23 (3): 939–961.

Becker, G. 1964. Human capital. A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bennouri, M., T. Chtioui, H. Nagati, and M. Nekhili. 2018. Female board directorship and firm performance: What really matters? Journal of Banking and Finance 88: 267–291.

Bernardi, R.A., and D.F. Arnold. 1997. An examination of moral development within public accounting by gender, staff level, and firm. Contemporary Accounting Research 14 (4): 653–668.

Bernile, G., V. Bhagwat, and S. Yonker. 2018. Board diversity, firm risk, and corporate policies. Journal of Financial Economics 127 (3): 588–612.

Böhren, O., and R. Ström. 2010. Governance and politics: Regulating independence and diversity in the board room. Journal of Business Finance e Accounting 37 (9–10): 1281–1308.

Borghesi, R., K. Chang, and J. Mehran. 2016. Simultaneous board and CEO diversity: Does it increase firm value? Applied Economics Letters 23 (1): 23–26.

Brannon, L. (2017). Gender: psychological perspectives . Seventh Edition, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, New York and London

Bruckmümller, S., and N. Branscombe. 2010. The glass-cliff: When and why women are selected as leaders in crisis contexts. British Journal of Social Psychology 49 (3): 433–451.

Bui, A.T., C.V. Nguyen, T.P. Pham, and D.T. Phung. 2019. Female leadership and borrowing constraints: Evidence from an emerging economy. International Review of Financial Analysis 81: 101332.

Buniami, S., N.H. Johari, N.R.A. Radham, and F.H.A. Rauf. 2012. Board diversity and discretionary accruals of the top 100 Malaysia corporate governance (MCG) index company. African Journal of Business Management 6 (29): 8496–8503.

Google Scholar  

Burgess, Z., and P. Tharenou. 2002. Women board directors: Characteristics of the few. Journal of Business Ethics 37 (1): 39–49.

Burke, R. 2000. Company Size, board size and the numbers of women corporate directors. In Women on Corporate Boards of Directors , ed. R. Burke and M. Mattis, 157–167. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Cabrera-Fernández, A., R. Martínez-Jiménez, and M. Hernández-Ortiz. 2016. Participação das mulheres nos conselhos de administração: Uma revisão da literatura. Revista Internacional De Género e Empreendedorismo 8 (1): 69–89.

Cadinu, M., A. Maass, A. Rosabianca, and J. Kiesner. 2005. Why do women underperform under stereotype threat? Evidence for the role of negative thinking. Psychologial Science 16 (7): 572–578.

Cahan, S.F., and J. Sun. 2015. The effect of audit experience on audit fees and audit quality. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance 30 (1): 78–100.

Campbell, K., and A. Mínguez-Vera. 2008. Gender diversity in the boardroom and firm financial performance. Journal of Business Ethics 83 (3): 435–451.

Campbell, K., and A. Mínguez-Vera. 2010. Female board appointments and firm valuation: Short and long term effects. Journal of Management & Governance 14 (1): 37–59.

Canil, J., S. Karpavicius, and C. Yu. 2019. Are shareholders gender neutral? Evidence from say to pay. Journal of Corporate Finance 58: 169–186.

Caramanis, C., and C. Lennox. 2008. Audit effort and earnings management. Journal of Accounting and Economics 45 (1): 116–138.

Carmo, C., S. Alves, and B. Quaresma. 2022. Women on boards in Portuguese listed companies: Does gender diversity influence financial performance. Sustainability 14 (10): 6186.

Carter, D.A., B.J. Simkins, and G.W. Simpson. 2003. Corporate governance, board diversity, and firm value. The Financial Review 38 (1): 33–53.

Carter, D.A., B.J. Simkins, F. D’Souza, and W.G. Simpson. 2007. The diversity of corporate boards committees and financial performance. SSRN 20: 1–30.

Chappel, L., and J.E. Humphrey. 2014. Does board gender diversity have a financial impact? Evidence using stock portfolio performance. Journal of Business Ethics 122 (4): 709–723.

Charles, M., and K. Bradley. 2009. Indulging our gendered selves ? Sex segregation by field of study in 44 countries. American Journal of Sociology 114 (4): 924–976.

Chen, H., J. Chen, G. Lobo, and Y. Wang. 2011. Effects of audit quality on earnings management and cost of equity capital: Evidence from China. Contemporary Accounting Research 28 (3): 892–925.

Chen, J., W.S. Leung, and M. Goergen. 2017. The impact of board gender composition on dividend payouts. Journal of Corporate Finance 43: 86–105.

Chen, C.W., N.K. Sutton, B. Yi, and Q. Zheng. 2023. The connection between gender diversity and firm performance: Evidence from Taiwan. International Review of Financial Analysis 89: 102763.

Chia, R., J. Moore, K. Lam, C.J. Chuang, and B.S. Cheng. 1994. Cultural differences in gender role attitudes between Chinese and American students. Sex Roles 31 (1–2): 23–30.

Chiang, H.T., and S.L. Lin. 2012. Auditor’s industry specialization and disclosure quality of IAS No. 39-Related Accounts. Journal of Applied Finance and Banking 2 (2): 59–98.

Chung, H., and S. Kallapur. 2003. Client importance, nonaudit services, and abnormal accruals. The Accounting Review 78 (4): 931–955.

Conyon, M.J., and L. He. 2017. Firm performance and boardroom gender diversity: A quantile regression approach. Journal of Business Research 79: 198–211.

Cullinan, C.P., L. Mahoney, and P. Roush. 2019. Directors & corporate social responsibility: Joint consideration of director gender and the director’s role. Social and Environmental Accountability Journal 39 (2): 100–123.

Cumming, D., T.Y. Leung, and O. Rui. 2015. Gender diversity and securities fraud. Academy of Management Journal 58 (5): 1572–1593.

Damak, T.S. 2018. Gender diverse board and earnings management: Evidence from French listed companies. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 9 (3): 289–312.

Dechow, P., R. Sloan, and A. Sweeney. 1996. Causes and consequences of earnings manipulation: An analysis of firms subject to enforcement actions by the SEC. Contemporary Accounting Research 13 (1): 1–36.

Dechow, P., W. Ge, C. Larson, and R. Sloan. 2010. Predicting material accounting misstatements. Contemporary Accounting Research 28 (1): 17–82.

Dezso, C.L., and D.G. Ross. 2012. Does female representation in top management improve firm performance? A panel data investigation. Strategic Management Journal 33 (9): 1072–1089.

Doldor, E., S. Vinnicombe, M. Gaughan, and R. Sealy. 2012. Gender diversity on boards: the appointment processand the role of executive search firms. Equality and Human rights Comission Research Report Series, International Centre for Women Leaders, Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield Univerisity.

Dunn, K., and B. Mayhew. 2004. Audit firm industry specialization and client disclosure quality. Review of Accounting Studies 9 (1): 35–58.

Duong, L., and J. Evans. 2016. Gender differences in compensation and earning management: evidence from Australian CFOs. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal 40 (Part A): 17–35.

Dwyer, S., O.C. Richard, and K. Chadwick. 2003. Gender diversity in management and firm performance: The influence of growth orientation and organizational culture. Journal of Business Research 56 (12): 1009–1019.

Eagly, A.H., and L.L. Carli. 2015. Women and the labyrinth of leadership. In Contemporary Issues in Leadership , ed. W.E. Rosenbach, R.L. Taylor, and M.A. Youndt. New York: Routledge.

Earley, P.C., and E. Mosalowski. 2000. Creating hybrid team cultures: An empirical test of transnational team functioning. Academy of Management Journal 43 (1): 26–49.

Eckel, C.C., and S.C. Fullbrunn. 2015. Thar she blows? Gender, competition, and bubbles in experimental asset markets. American Econonomic Review 105 (2): 906–920.

Erhardt, N.L., J.D. Werbel, and C.B. Shrader. 2003. Board of director diversity and firm financial performance. Corporate Governance: An International Review 11 (2): 102–111.

Ettredge, M., E.E. Fuerherm, and C. Li. 2014. Fee pressure and audit quality. Accounting, Organizations and Society 39 (4): 247–263.

Faccio, M., M.T. Marchica, and R. Mura. 2016. CEO gender, corporate risk-taking, and the efficiency of capital allocation. Journal of Corporate Finance 39: 193–209.

Fama, F., and M. Jensen. 1983. Agency problems and residual claims. Journal of Law and Economics 26 (2): 288–307.

Fan, Y., Y. Jiang, X. Zhang, and Y. Zhou. 2019. Women on boards and bank earnings management: From zero to hero. Journal of Banking and Finance 107: 1–20.

Farag, H., and C. Mallin. 2017. Board diversity and financial fragility: Evidence from European banks. International Review of Financial Analysis 49: 98–112.

Farrel, K.A., and P.L. Hersch. 2005. Additions to corporate boards: The effect of gender. Journal of Corporate Finance 11 (1–2): 85–106.

Francis, J. 2011. A framework for understanding and researching audit quality. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 30 (2): 125–152.

Francis, J.R., and B. Ke. 2006. Disclosure of fees paid to auditors and the market valuation of earnings surprises. Review of Accounting Studies 11 (4): 495–523.

Francis, J.R., and M.D. Yu. 2009. Big4 Office size and Audit Quality. Accounting Review 84 (5): 1521–1552.

Francis, J.R., I. Khurana, and R. Pereira. 2005. Disclosure incentives and effects on cost of capital around the World. The Accounting Review 80 (4): 1125–1162.

Francis, B., I. Hasan, Q. Wu, and M. Yan. 2014. Are female CFOs less tax aggressive? Evidence from tax aggressiveness. The Journal of the American Taxation Association 36 (2): 171–202.

Francis, B., I. Hasan, J.C. Park, and Q. Wu. 2015. Gender differences in financial reporting decisión making: Evidence from accounting conservatism. Contemporary Accounting Research 32 (3): 1285–1318.

Francis, J.R. (2023). What exactly do we mean by audit quality? Accounting in Europe , in press.

Gallego-Álvarez, I., I. García-Sánchez, and L. Rodríguez-Dominguez. 2010. The influence of gender diversity on corporate performance. Spanish Accounting Review 13 (1): 53–88.

García-Sánchez, I.M., J. Martínez-Ferrero, and E. García-Meca. 2017. Gender diversity, financial expertise and its effects on accounting quality. Management Decision 55 (2): 347–382.

Gavious, I., E. Segev, and R. Yosef. 2012. Female directors and earnings management in high-technology firms. Pacific Accounting Review 24 (1): 4–32.

Girardone, C., S. Kokas, and G. Wood. 2021. Diversity and women in finance: Challenges and future perspectives. Journal of Corporate Finance 71: 101906.

Gonçalves, T., C. Gaio, and T. Santos. 2019. Women on the board: Do they manage earnings? Empirical evidence from European listed firms. Revista Brasileira De Gestao De Negocios 21 (3): 582–597.

Green, C.P., and S. Homroy. 2018. Female directors, board committees and firm performance. European Economic Review 102: 19–38.

Gul, F.A., S.Y.K. Fung, and B. Jaggi. 2009. Earnings quality: Some evidence on the role of auditor tenure and auditors’ industry expertise. Journal of Accounting and Economics 47 (3): 265–287.

Gul, F., B. Srinidhi, and A. Ng. 2011. Does board gender diversity improve the informativeness of stock prices? Journal of Accounting Economics 51 (3): 314–338.

Gul, F.A., B. Srinidhi, and J. Tsui, (2008). Board diversity and the demand for higher audit effort, SSRN Working Paper.

Gull, A.A., M. Nekhili, H. Nagati, and T. Chtioui. 2018. Beyond gender diversity: How specific attributes of female directors affect earnings management. British Accounting Review 50 (3): 255–274.

Hambrick, D.C., and A. Pettigrew. 2001. Upper echelons: Donald Hambrick on executives and strategy. Academy of Management Perspectives 15 (3): 36–47.

Hambrick, D., T. Cho, and M. Chen. 1996. The influence of top management team heterogeneity on firm’s competitive moves. Administrative Science Quaterly 41 (4): 659–685.

Harakeh, M., W. El-Gammal, and G. Matar. 2019. Female directors, earnings management, and CEO incentive compensation: UK evidence. Research in International Business and Finance 50: 153–170.

Hardies, K., and R. Khalifa. 2018. Gender is not “a dummy variable”: Discussion of current gender research in accounting. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management 15 (3): 385–407.

Hardies, K., D. Breesch, and J. Branson. 2011. Male and female auditors’ overconfidence. Managerial Auditing Journal 27 (1): 105–118.

Hardies, K., D. Breesch, and J. Branson. 2015. The female audit fee premium. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 34 (4): 171–195.

Harjoto, M., I. Indrarini Laksmana, and R. Lee. 2015. The impact of demographic characteristics of CEOs and directors on audit fees and audit delay. Managerial Auditing Journal 30 (8/9): 963–997.

Harris, O., J.B. Karl, and E. Lawrence. 2019. CEO compensation and earnings management: Does gender really matters? Journal of Business Research 98 (January): 1–14.

Haslam, S.A., M.K. Ryan, C. Kulich, G. Trojanowski, and C. Atkins. 2010. Investing with prejudice: The relationship between women’s presence on company boards and objective and subjective measures of company performance. British Journal of Management 21 (2): 484–497.

He, J., and Z. Huang. 2011. Board informal hierarchy and firm financial performance. Exploring a tacit structure guiding boardroom interactions. Academy of Management Journal 54 (6): 1119–1139.

Hillman, A., and T. Dalziel. 2003. Boards of directors and firm performance: Integrating agency and resource dependence perspectives. Academy of Management Review 28 (3): 383–396.

Hillman, A., A. Cannella Jr., and R. Paetzhold. 2000. The resource dependence role of corporate directors: Strategic adaption of board composition in response to environmental change. Journal of Management Studies 37 (2): 235–255.

Hillman, A.J., C. Shropshire, and A.A. Cannella. 2007. Organizational predictors of women on corporate boards. Academy of Management Journal 50 (4): 941–952.

Ho, S.M., A. Li, K. Tam, and F. Zhang. 2015. CEO gender, ethical leadership, and accounting conservatism. Journal of Business Ethics 127 (2): 351–370.

Hoang, T.C., and I.S. Abeysekerae Ma. 2018. Board diversity and corporate social disclosure: Evidence from Vietnam. Journal of Business Ethics 151 (4): 833–852.

Hoang, T.C., T.C. Hoang, I. Abeysekera, and S. Ma. 2017. The effect of board diversity on earnings quality: An empirical study of listed firms in Vietnam. Australian Accounting Review 27 (2): 146–163.

Hoitash, R., A. Markelevich, and C.A. Barragato. 2007. Auditor fees and audit quality. Managerial Auditing Journal 22 (8): 761–786.

Hrazdil, K., D.A. Simunic, S. Spector, and N. Suwanyangyuan. 2023. Top executive gender diversity and financial reporting quality. Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics 19 (2): 100363.

Huang, J., and D.J. Kisgen. 2013. Gender and corporate finance: Are male executives over- confident relative to female executives? Journal of Financial Economics 108 (3): 822–839.

Huang, T.C., H. Huang, and C. Lee. 2014. Corporate executive’s gender and audit fees. Managerial Auditing Journal 29 (6): 527–547.

Isidro, H., and M. Sobral. 2015. The effects of women on corporate boards on firm value, financial performance, and ethical and social compliance. Journal of Business Ethics 132 (1): 1–19.

Ittonen, K., and E. Peni. 2012. Auditor’s gender and audit fees. International Journal of Auditing 16 (1): 1–18.

Ittonen, K., J. Miettinen, and S. Vähämaa. 2010. Does female representation on audit committees affect audit fees? Quarterly Journal of Finance and Accounting 49 (3/4): 113–139.

Ittonen, K., E. Vähämaa, and S. Vähämaa. 2013. Female auditors and accruals quality. Accounting Horizons 27 (2): 205–228.

Jensen, M.C. 1993. The modern industrial revolution, exit, and the failure on internal control systems. Journal of Finance 48 (3): 831–880.

Jensen, M., and W. Meckling. 1976. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics 3 (4): 305–360.

Joecks, J., K. Pull, and K. Vetter. 2013. Gender diversity in the boardroom and firm performance: Whct exactly constitutes a “critical mass”? Journal of Business Ethics 118 (1): 61–72.

Johnson, S.G., K. Schnatterly, and A.D. Hill. 2013. Board composition beyond inde- pendence social capital, human capital, and demographics. Journal of Management 39 (1): 232–262.

Jurkus, A.F., J.C. Park, and L.S. Woodard. 2011. Women in top management and agency costs. Journal of Business Research 64 (2): 180–186.

Kanter, R. 1977. Men and women of the corporation . New York: Basic Books.

Kaplan, S., K. Pany, J. Samuels, and J. Zhang. 2009. An examinationof the association between gender and reporting intentions for fraudulent financial reporting. Journal of Business Ethics 87 (1): 15–30.

Kent, R.L., and S.E. Moss. 1994. Effects of sex and gender role on leader emergence. Academy of Management Journal 37 (5): 1335–1360.

Khan, W.A., and J.P. Vieito. 2013. CEO gender and firm performance. Journal of Economics and Business 67: 55–66.

Khaw, K.L., J. Liao, D. Tripe, and U. Wongchoti. 2016. Gender diversity, State control, and corporate risk-taking: Evidence from China. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal 39: 141–158.

Khlif, H., and I. Achek. 2017. Gender in accounting research: A review. Managerial Auditing Journal 32 (6): 627–655.

Knight, D., C.L. Pearce, K.G. Smith, J.D. Olian, H.P. Sims, K.A. Smith, and P. Flood. 1999. Top management team diversity, group process, and strategic consensus. Strategic Management Journal 20 (5): 445–465.

Kolev, G.I. 2012. Underperformance by female CEOs: A more powerful test. Economic Letters 117 (2): 436–440.

Konrad, A.M., V. Kramer, and S. Erkut. 2008. Critical mass: The impact of three or more women on corporate boards. Organizational Dynamics 37 (2): 145–164.

Kouaib, S.P., and A. Almulhim. 2019. Earnings manipulations and boards diversity: The moderating role of audit. The Journal of High Technology Management Research 30 (2): 100356.

Kreitz, P.A. 2008. Best practices for managing organizational diversity. Journal of Academic Librarianship 34 (2): 101–120.

Krishnan, H.A., and D. Park. 2005. A few good women - on top management teams. Journal of Business Research 58 (12): 1712–1720.

Krishnan, G.V., and L.M. Parsons. 2008. Getting to the bottom line: An exploration of gender and earnings quality. Journal of Business Ethics 78 (1/2): 65–76.

Kwon, S.Y., Y. Lim, and R. Simnett. 2014. The effect of mandatory audit firm rotation on audit quality and audit fees: empirical evidence from the Korean audit market. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 33 (4): 167–195.

Kyaw, K., M. Olugbode, and B. Petracci. 2015. Does gender diverse board mean less earnings management? Finance Research Letters 14: 135–141.

Lakhal, F., A. Aguiar, N. Lakhal, and A. Malek. 2015. Do women on boards and in top management reduce earnings management? Evidence in France. Journal of Applied Business Research 31 (3): 1107–1118.

Lam, K.C., P.B. McGuiness, and J.P. Vieito. 2013. CEO gender, executive compensation and firm performance in Chinese-listed enterprises. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal 21 (1): 1136–1159.

Lara, J.M.G., B.G. Osma, A. Mora, and M. Scapin. 2017. The monitoring role of female directors over accounting quality. Journal of Corporate Finance 45: 651–668.

Lara, J.M.G., J. Penalva, and M. Scapin. 2022. Financial reporting quality effects of imposing (gender) quotas on boards of directors. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 41 (2): 106921.

Lawrence, E.R., and M. Raithatha. 2023. Gender bias, board diversity, and firm value: Evidence from a natural experiment. Journal of Corporate Finance 78: 102349.

Lawrence, M., M. Minutti-Meza, and P. Zhang. 2011. Can Big 4 versus Non-Big 4 differences in audit-quality proxies be attributed to client characteristics? The Accounting Review 86 (1): 259–286.

Lee, I.H., and M.R. Marvel. 2014. Revisiting the entrepreneur gender-performance relationship: A firm perspective. Small Business Economics 42: 769–786.

Lenard, M.J., B. Yu, E.A. York, and S. Wu. 2014. Impact of female directorship on firm risk. Managerial Finance 40 (8): 787–803.

Levi, M., K. Li, and F. Zhang. 2014. Director gender and mergers and acquisitions. Journal of Corporate Finance 28: 185–200.

Li, Y., and Y. Zeng. 2019. The impact of top executive gender on asset prices: Evidence from stock price crash risk. Journal of Corporate Finance 58: 528–550.

Li, J., R. Falls, and J. Lin. 2005. The relation between earnings management and audit quality. Journal of Accounting and Finance Research 13 (1): 1–11.

Li, X., E.T. Than, R. Ahmed, M. Ishaque, and T.L.D. Huynh. 2023. Gender diversity of boards and executives on real earnings management in the bull or bear period: Empirical evidence from China. International Journal of Finance & Economics 28 (3): 2753–2771.

Lin, J., and M. Hwang. 2010. Audit quality, corporate governance, and earnings management: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Auditing 14 (1): 57–77.

Liu, Y., Z. Wei, and F. Xie. 2014. Do women directors improve firm performance in China? Journal of Corporate Finance 28: 169–184.

Liu, Y., Z. Wei, and F. Xie. 2016. CFO gender and earnings management: Evidence from China. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 46 (4): 881–905.

Lobo, G., and Y. Zhao. 2013. Relation between audit effort and financial report misstatements: Evidence from quarterly and annual restatements re-statements. The Accounting Review 88 (4): 1–37.

Low, D.C.M., H. Roberts, and R.H. Whiting. 2015. Board diversity and firm performance: empirical evidence from Hong Kong, South Korea. Malasya and Singapore. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal 35 (Part A): 381–401.

Lückerath-Rovers, M. 2013. Women on boards and firm performance. Journal of Management and Governance 17: 491–509.

Luo, J.H., Y. Xiang, and Z. Huang. 2017. Female directors and real activities manipulation: Evidence from China. China Journal of Accounting Research 10 (2): 141–166.

Mahadeo, J.D., T. Soobaroyen, and V.O. Hanuman. 2012. Board composition and dinancial performance: Unconvering the effects of diversity in an emerging economy. Journal of Business Ethics 105 (3): 375–388.

Mansi, S.A., W.F. Maxwell, and D.P. Miller. 2004. Does auditor quality and tenure matter to investors? Evidence from the bond market. Journal of Accounting Research 42 (4): 755–793.

Matsa, D., and A. Miller. 2011. Chipping away at the glass ceiling: Gender spillovers in corporate leadership. American Econonomic Review 101 (3): 635–639.

Matsa, D.A., and A.R. Miller. 2013. A female style in corporate leadship? Evidence from quotas. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 5 (3): 136–169.

Maznevski, M.L. 1994. Understanding our differences: Performance in decision-making groups with diverse members. Human Relations 47 (5): 531–552.

Miller, T., and C.M. Triana. 2009. Demographic diversity in the boardroom: Mediators of the board diversity–firm performance relationship. Journal of Management Studies 46 (5): 755–786.

Milliken, F.J., and I.L. Martins. 1996. Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Journal 21 (2): 402–433.

Mnif, Y., and I. Cherif. 2020. Female board directorship and earnings management. Pacific Accounting Review 33 (1): 114–141.

Montenegro, T., and F. Bras. 2015. Audit quality: Does gender composition of audit firms matter? Spanish Journal of Finance and Accounting 44 (3): 264–297.

Moscovici, S., and C. Faucheux. 1972. Social influence, conformity bias and the study of active minorities. In Advances in experimental social psychology , ed. L. Berkowitz, 149–202. New York: Academic Press.

Myers, J.N., L.A. Myers, and T.C. Omer. 2003. Exploring the term of the auditor-client relationship and the quality of earnings: A case for mandatory auditor rotation? The Accounting Review 78 (3): 779–799.

Na, K., and J. Hong. 2017. CEO gender and earnings management. Journal of Applied Business Research 33 (2): 297–308.

Nadeem, M., T. Suleman, and A. Ahmed. 2019. Women on boards, firm risk and the profitability nexus: Does gender diversity moderate the risk and return relationship? International Review of Economics and Finance 64: 427–442.

Neidermeyer, P., T. Tuten, and A. Neidermeyer. 2003. Gender differences in auditors’ attitudes towards lowballing: Implications for future practice. Women in Management Review 18 (8): 406–413.

Nemeth, C. 1986. Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review 93 (1): 23–32.

Nguyen, T., S. Locke, and K. Reddy. 2015. Does boardroom gender diversity matter? Evidence from a transitional economy. International Review of Financial Analysis 37: 184–202.

Nguyen, T.H.H., C.G. Ntim, and J.K. Malagila. 2020. Women on corporate boards and corporate financial and non-financial performance: A systematic literature review and future research agenda. International Review of Financial Analysis 71: 101554.

Nielsen, S., and M. Huse. 2010. The contribution of women on boards of directors: Going beyond the surface. Corporate Governance: An International Review 18 (2): 136–148.

Niskanen, J., J. Karjalainen, M. Niskanen, and J. Karjalainen. 2011. Auditor gender and corporate earnings management behavior in private Finnish firms. Managerial Auditing Journal 26 (9): 778–793.

Nissim, D. (2022). Earnings quality. SSRN, March 1.

O’Brien, L.T., and C.S. Crandall. 2003. Stereotype threat and arousal: Effects on women’s math performance. Personality and Social Psycholology Bulletin 29 (6): 782–789.

Orazalin, N. 2020. Board gender diversity, corporate governance and earnings management: Evidence from an emerging market. Gender in Management: An International Journal 35 (1): 37–60.

Panzer, L., and S. Müller. 2015. Earnings quality and gender diversity on German supervisory boards: An empirical analysis. Problems and Perspectives in Management 13 (4): 9–18.

Parker, J., M. Dao, H. Huang, and Y. Yan. 2015. Disclosing material weakness in internal controls: Does the gender of audit committee members matter? Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics 24 (3/4): 407–420.

Peni, E. 2014. CEO and Chairperson characteristics and firm performance. Journal of Management e Governance 18 (1): 185–205.

Peni, E., and S. e Vahamaa. 2010. Female executives and earnings management. Managerial Finance 36 (7): 629–645.

Perryman, A.A., G.D. Fernando, and A. Tripathy. 2016. Do gender differences persist? An examination of gender diversity on firm performance, risk and executive compensation. Journal of Business Research 69 (2): 579–586.

Pfeffer, J., and G. Salacik. 1978. The external control o organizations: A resource dependence perspective . New York: Harper e Row.

Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations . Marshfield (MA), Pitman.

Post, C., and K. Byron. 2015. Women on boards and firm financial performance: A meta analysis. Academy of Management Journal 58 (5): 1546–1571.

Price, C.R. 2012. Gender, competition, and managerial decisions. Management Sciences 58 (1): 114–122.

Raddant, M., and H. Takashashi. 2022. Interdependenciesof female board member appointments. International Review of Financial Analysis 81: 102080.

Rao, K., and C. Tilt. 2016. Board diversity and CSR reporting: An Australian study. Meditari Accountancy Research 24 (2): 182–210.

Reddy, S., and A.M. Jadhav. 2019. Gender diversity in boardrooms – a literature review. Cogent Economics & Finance 7 (1): 1644703.

Reichelt, K.J., and D. Wang. 2010. National and office-specific measures of auditor industry expertise and effects on audit quality. Journal of Accounting Research 48 (3): 647–686.

Ridgeway, C.L. 2001. Sex, status, and leadership. Journal of Social Issues 57 (4): 637–655.

Rietz, A.D., and M. Henrekson. 2000. Testing the female underperformance hypothesis. Small Business Economics 14: 1–10.

Roberson, L., and C.T. Kulik. 2007. Stereotype threat at work. Academy of Management Perspectives 21 (2): 24–40.

Rose, C. 2007. Does female board representation influence firm performance? The Danish evidence. Corporate Governance: An International Review 15 (2): 404–413.

Ryan, M.K., and S.A. Haslam. 2005. The glass-cliff: Evidence that women are over-represented in precarious leadership positions. British Journal of Management 16 (2): 81–90.

Schwartz-Ziv, M. 2017. Gender and board activeness: The role of a critical mass. Journal of Financial Quantitative Analysis 52 (2): 751–780.

Schwartz-Ziv, M. (2013). Does the gender of directors matter? SSRN, May 2.

Shaukat, A., Y. Qiu, and G. Trojanowski. 2016. Board attributes, corporate social responsibility strategy, and corporate environmental and social performance. Journal of Business Ethics 135 (3): 569–585.

Shrader, C.B., V.B. Blackburn, and P. Iles. 1997. Women in management and firm financial performance: An exploratory study. Journal of Managerial Issues 9 (3): 355–372.

Sial, M.S., X.V. Vo, L. Al-Haddad, and T.N. Trang. 2019. Impact of female director son the board and foreign institutional investors and eranings manipulation of Chinese listed companies. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration 11 (3): 288–300.

Siciliano, J. 1996. The relationship of board member diversity to organizational performance. Journal of Business Ethics 15 (12): 1313–1321.

Simons, T., and L. Pelled. 1999. Understanding executive diversity: More than meets the eye. Human Resource Planning 22 (2): 49–51.

Singh, V., S. Terjesen, and S. Vinnicombe. 2008. Newly appointed directors in the boardroom: How do women and men differ. European Management Journal 26 (1): 48–58.

Smith, N., V. Smith, and M. Venter. 2006. Do women in top management affect firm performance? A panel study of 2.500 Danish firms. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 55 (7): 569–593.

Srinidhi, B., F.A. Gul, and J. Tsui. 2011. Female directors and earnings quality. Contemporary Accounting Research 28 (5): 1610–1644.

Steele, C.M., and J. Aronson. 1995. Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholology 69 (5): 797–811.

Sun, R., and G. Zou. 2021. Political connection, CEO gender, and firm performance. Journal of Corporate Finance 71: 101918.

Sun, J., G. Liu, and G. Lan. 2011. Does female directorship on independent audit committees constrain earnings management? Journal of Business Ethics 99 (3): 369–382.

Tanford, S., and S. Penrod. 1984. Social influence model: A formal integration of research on majority and minority influence processes. Psychological Bulletin 95 (2): 189–225.

Teodósio, J., E. Vieira, and M. Madaleno. 2021. Gender diversity and corporate risk-taking: A literature review. Managerial Finance 47 (7): 1038–1073.

Teodósio, J., E. Vieira, and M. Madaleno. 2022. Gender diversity and financial risk: a bibliometric analysis. In Handbook of Research on New Challenges and Global Outlooks in Financial Risk Management , ed. M. Madaleno, E. Vieira, and N. Barbuta-Misu. IGI Global.

Terjesen, S., R. Sealy, and V. Singh. 2009. Women director son corporate boards: A review and research agenda. Corporate Governance: An International Review 17 (3): 320–337.

Terjesen, S., E.B. Couto, and P.M. Francisco. 2016. Does the presence of independent and female directors impact firm performance? A multi-country study of board diversity. Journal of Management and Governance 20 (3): 447–483.

Thiruvadi, S., and H. Huang. 2011. Audit committee gender differences and earnings management. Gender in Management: An International Journal 26 (7): 483–498.

Torchia, M., A. Calabrò, and M. Huse. 2011. Women directors on corporate boards: From tokenism to critical mass. Journal of Business Ethics 102 (2): 299–317.

Treichler, C. (1995). Diversity of board members and organizational performance: An integrative prespective. Corporate Governance: An International Review 3 (4): 189–200.

Vahamaa, E. 2017. Female executives and corporate governance. Managerial Finance 43 (10): 1056–1072.

Vieira, E., M. Madaleno, and J. Lobão. 2022. Gender diversity in leadership: A bibliometric analysis and future research directions. International Journal of Financial Studies 10 (3): 53.

Waweru, N.M., and N.P. Prot. 2018. Corporate governance compliance and accrual earnings management in Eastern Africa: Evidence from Kenya and Tanzania. Managerial Auditing Journal 33 (2): 171–191.

Westphal, J., and L. Milton. 2000. How experience and network ties affect the influence of demographic minorities on corporate boards. Administrative Science Quarterly 45 (2): 366–398.

Wilson, N., and A. Altanlar. 2011. The survival of newly incorporated companies and the impact of founding director characteristics . Credit Management Research Centre: University of Leeds - Division of Accounting and Finance.

Book   Google Scholar  

Xu, X., W. Li, Y. Li, and X. Liu. 2019. Female CFOs and corporate cash holdings: Precautionary motive or agency motive. International Review of Economics and Finance 63: 434–454.

Ye, K., R. Zhang, and Z. Rezaee. 2010. Does top executive gender diversity affects earnings quality? A large sample analysis of Chinese listed firms. Advances in Accounting 26 (1): 47–54.

Ye, D., J. Deng, Y. Liu, S.H. Szewczyk, and X. Chen. 2019. Does board gender diversity increase dividend payouts? Analysis of global evidence. Journal of Corporate Finance 58: 1–26.

Zalata, A.M., V. Tauringana, and I. Tingbani. 2018. Audit committee financial expertise, gender, and earnings management: does gender of the financial expert matter? International Review of Financial Analysis 55 (March 2017): 170–183.

Zalata, A.M., C.G. Ntim, G.E. Aboud, and E. Gyapong. 2019a. Female CEOs and core earnings quality: New evidence on the ethics versus risk-aversion puzzle. Journal of Business Ethics 160 (2): 515–534.

Zalata, A.M., C.G. Ntim, T. Choudhry, A. Hassanein, and H. Elzahar. 2019b. Female directors and managerial opportunism: Monitoring versus advisory female directors. Leadership Quaterly 30 (5): 101309.

Zalata, A.M., C.G. Ntim, M.H. Alsohagy, and J. Malagila. 2022. Gender diversity and earnings management: The case of female directors with financial background. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 58 (1): 101–136.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Higher Institute of Accountancy and Administration, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal

Maria Fátima Ribeiro Borges & Graça Maria do Carmo Azevedo

Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, (ISCTE-IUL), Avenida das Forças Armadas, 1649-026, Lisbon, Portugal

Jonas Oliveira

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Maria Fátima Ribeiro Borges: Conceptualization; methodology; writing – original draft preparation. Graça Maria do Carmo Azevedo: Supervision, writing-reviewing and editing. Jonas Oliveira: Writing-reviewing and editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonas Oliveira .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest, declaration of generative ai in scientific writing:.

Statement: During the preparation of this work the authors did use any generative AI in scientific writing.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Borges, M.F.R., Azevedo, G.M.d.C. & Oliveira, J. Literature review on gender diversity in top management teams of companies and its relationship with firm performance and audit quality. Int J Discl Gov (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41310-024-00248-1

Download citation

Received : 19 January 2024

Accepted : 21 May 2024

Published : 19 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41310-024-00248-1

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Gender diversity
• Performance
• Audit quality

JEL classification

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research