what is appraisal of literature review

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Indian J Anaesth
• v.60(9); 2016 Sep

Critical appraisal of published literature

Goneppanavar umesh.

Department of Anaesthesia, Dharwad Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences, Dharwad, Karnataka, India

John George Karippacheril

1 Department of Anaesthesiology, Universal Hospital, Abu Dhabi, UAE

Rahul Magazine

2 Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal University, Manipal, Karnataka, India

With a large output of medical literature coming out every year, it is impossible for readers to read every article. Critical appraisal of scientific literature is an important skill to be mastered not only by academic medical professionals but also by those involved in clinical practice. Before incorporating changes into the management of their patients, a thorough evaluation of the current or published literature is an important step in clinical practice. It is necessary for assessing the published literature for its scientific validity and generalizability to the specific patient community and reader's work environment. Simple steps have been provided by Consolidated Standard for Reporting Trial statements, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network and several other resources which if implemented may help the reader to avoid reading flawed literature and prevent the incorporation of biased or untrustworthy information into our practice.

INTRODUCTION

Critical appraisal

‘ The process of carefully and systematically examining research to judge its trustworthiness, and its value and relevance in a particular context ’ -Burls A[ 1 ]

The objective of medical literature is to provide unbiased, accurate medical information, backed by robust scientific evidence that could aid and enhance patient care. With the ever increasing load of scientific literature (more than 12,000 new articles added every week to the MEDLINE database),[ 2 ] keeping abreast of the current literature can be arduous. Critical appraisal of literature may help distinguish between useful and flawed studies. Although substantial resources of peer-reviewed literature are available, flawed studies may abound in unreliable sources. Flawed studies if used to guide clinical decisions may end up with no benefit or at worse result in significant harm. Readers can, thus, make informed decisions by critically evaluating medical literature.

STEPS TO CRITICALLY EVALUATE AN ARTICLE

Initial evaluation of an article published in literature should be based on certain core questions. These may include querying what could be the key learning points in the article, about its clinical relevance, if the study has a robust methodology, if the results are reproducible and could there be any bias or conflict of interest [ Table 1 ]. If there are serious doubts regarding any of these steps, the reader could skip the article at this stage itself.

Core questions for initial evaluation of a scientific article

Introduction, methods, results and discussion pattern of scientific literature

Introduction.

Evaluate if the need (as dearth of studies on the topic in scientific literature) and the purpose of the study (attempting to find answers to one of the important unanswered queries of clinical relevance) are properly explained with scientific rationale. If the research objective and hypothesis were not clearly defined or the findings of the study are different from the objectives (chance findings), the study outcomes become questionable.

A good working scientific hypothesis backed by a strong methodology is the stepping stone for carrying out a meaningful research. The groups to be involved and the study end points should be determined prior to starting the study. Strong methodology depends on several aspects that must be properly addressed and evaluated [ Table 2 ]. The methodology for statistical analysis including tests for distribution pattern of study data, level of significance and sample size calculation should be clearly defined in the methods section. Data that violate the assumption of normal distribution pattern must be analysed with non-parametric statistical tests. Inadequate sample size can lead to false-negative results or beta error (aide-memoire: beta error is blindness). Setting a higher level of significance, especially when performing multiple comparisons, can lead to false-positive results or alpha error (aide-memoire: alpha error is hallucination). A confidence interval when used in the study methodology provides information on the direction and strength of the effect, in contrast to P values alone, from which the magnitude, direction or comparison of relative risk between groups cannot be inferred. P value simply accepts or rejects the null hypothesis, therefore it must be reported in conjunction with confidence intervals.[ 6 ] An important guideline for evaluating and reporting randomised controlled trials, mandatory for publication in several international medical journals, is the Consolidated Standard for Reporting Trial (CONSORT) statement.[ 7 ] Other scientific societies such as the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network have devised checklists that may aid in the critical evaluation of articles depending on the type of study methodology.[ 8 , 9 ]

Appraisal elements for robust evaluation of study methodology

The results section should only report the findings of the study, without attempting to reason them out. The total number of participants with the number of those excluded, dropped out or withdrawn from the study should be analysed. Failure to do so may lead to underestimation or overestimation of results.[ 10 ] A summary flowchart containing enrolment data could be created as per the CONSORT statement.[ 5 ] Actual values including the mean with standard deviation/error or median with interquartile range should be reported. Evaluate for completeness – all the variables in the study methodology should be analysed using appropriate statistical tests. Ensure that findings stated in the results are the same in other areas of the article – abstract, tables and figures. Appropriate tables and graphs should be used to provide the results of the study. Assess if the results of the study can be generalised and are useful to our workplace or patient population.

Although significant positive results from the study are more likely to be accepted for publication (publication bias), remember that high rates of falsely inflated results are demonstrated in studies that had flawed methodology (due to improper or lack of appropriate randomisation, allocation concealment, blinding and/or assessing outcomes through statistical modeling). Further, the publication bias towards studies with positive outcome leads to scientific distortions in the body of scientific knowledge.[ 11 , 12 ]

Discussion and conclusion

The discussion is used to account for or reason out the outcomes of the study, including dropouts and any change in methodology, to comment on the external validity of the study and to discuss its limitations. The authors should report their findings in comparison with that previously published in literature, if the study results added new information to the current literature, if it could alter patient management and if the findings need larger studies for further evaluation or confirmation. When concluding, the interpretation should be consistent with the actual findings. Evaluate if the questions in the study hypothesis were adequately addressed and if the conclusions were justified by the actual data. Authors should also provide limitations of their study and constructive suggestions for future research.

Readers may find useful resources on how to constructively read the published literature at the following resources:

• Consolidated Standard for Reporting Trial 2010 for randomised trials – http://www.consort-statement.org
• Sign checklists – http://www.sign.ac.uk/methodology/checklists.html
• BMJ series of articles – http://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-readers/publications/how-read-paper
• Equator network for health research – http://www.equator-network.org
• Strobe statement for observational studies – http://www.strobe-statement.org/index.php?id=strobe-home
• Care for case reports – http://www.care-statement.org
• PRISMA statement for meta-analytical studies and systematic reviews: http://www.prisma-statement.org
• Agree – http://www.agreetrust.org
• CASP – http://www.casp-uk.net
• http://www.delfini.org .

Critical appraisal of scientific literature is an important skill to be mastered not just by academic medical professionals but also by those involved in clinical practice. Before incorporating changes in the management of their patients, a thorough evaluation of the current or published literature is a necessary step in practicing evidence-based medicine.

Financial support and sponsorship

Conflicts of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest.

Conducting a Literature Review

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

Appraise Your Research Articles

The structure of a literature review should include the following :

• An overview of the subject, issue, or theory under consideration, along with the objectives of the literature review,
• Division of works under review into themes or categories [e.g. works that support a particular position, those against, and those offering alternative approaches entirely],
• An explanation of how each work is similar to and how it varies from the others,
• Conclusions as to which pieces are best considered in their argument, are most convincing of their opinions, and make the greatest contribution to the understanding and development of their area of research.

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

• Provenance  -- what are the author's credentials? Are the author's arguments supported by evidence [e.g. primary historical material, case studies, narratives, statistics, recent scientific findings]?
• Methodology  -- were the techniques used to identify, gather, and analyze the data appropriate to addressing the research problem? Was the sample size appropriate? Were the results effectively interpreted and reported?
• Objectivity  -- is the author's perspective even-handed or prejudicial? Is contrary data considered or is certain pertinent information ignored to prove the author's point?
• Persuasiveness  -- which of the author's theses are most convincing or least convincing?
• Value  -- are the author's arguments and conclusions convincing? Does the work ultimately contribute in any significant way to an understanding of the subject?

Reviewing the Literature

While conducting a review of the literature, maximize the time you devote to writing this part of your paper by thinking broadly about what you should be looking for and evaluating. Review not just what the articles are saying, but how are they saying it.

Some questions to ask:

• How are they organizing their ideas?
• What methods have they used to study the problem?
• What theories have been used to explain, predict, or understand their research problem?
• What sources have they cited to support their conclusions?
• How have they used non-textual elements [e.g., charts, graphs, figures, etc.] to illustrate key points?
• When you begin to write your literature review section, you'll be glad you dug deeper into how the research was designed and constructed because it establishes a means for developing more substantial analysis and interpretation of the research problem.

Tools for Critical Appraisal

Now, that you have found articles based on your research question you can appraise the quality of those articles. These are resources you can use to appraise different study designs.

Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (Oxford)

University of Glasgow

"AFP uses the Strength-of-Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT), to label key recommendations in clinical review articles."

• SORT: Rating the Strength of Evidence    American Family Physician and other family medicine journals use the Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) system for rating bodies of evidence for key clinical recommendations.

• The Interprofessional Health Sciences Library
• 123 Metro Boulevard
• Nutley, NJ 07110
• [email protected]
• Visiting Campus
• News and Events
• Parents and Families
• Web Accessibility
• Career Center
• Public Safety
• Accountability
• Privacy Statements
• Report a Problem
• Login to LibApps

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

7.3 Critically Appraising the Literature

Now that you know the parts of a paper, we will discuss how to critically appraise a paper. Critical appraisal refers to the process of carefully and methodically reviewing research to determine its credibility, usefulness, and applicability in a certain context. 6 It is an essential element of evidence-based practice. As stated earlier, you want to ensure that what you read in the literature is trustworthy before considering applying the findings in practice. The key things to consider include the study’s results, if the results match the conclusion (validity) and if the findings will help you in practice (applicability). A stepwise approach to reading and analysing the paper is a good way to highlight important points in the paper. While there are numerous checklists for critical appraisal, we have provided a simple guide for critical appraisal of quantitative and qualitative studies. The guides were adapted from Epidemiology by Petra Buttner (2015) and How to Read a Paper [ the basics of evidence-based medicine and healthcare (2019);  papers that go beyond numbers- qualitative research (1997)] by Trisha Greenhalgh to aid your review of the papers. 5,7,8

A guide to reading scientific articles – Quantitative studies

What is the title of the study?

• Does the title clearly describe the study focus?
• Does it contain details about the population and the study design?

What was the purpose of the study (why was it performed)?

• Identify the research question
• Identify the exposure and outcome

What was the study design?

• Was the design appropriate for the study?

Describe the study population (sample).

• What was the sample size?
• How were participants recruited?
• Where did the research take place?
• Who was included, and who was excluded?
• Are there any potential sources of bias related to the choice of the sample?

What were data collection methods used?

• How were the exposure and outcome variables were measured
• How was data collected- instruments or equipment? Were the tools appropriate?
• Is there evidence of random selection as opposed to systematic or self-selection?
• How was bias minimised or avoided?

For experimental studies

•  How were subjects assigned to treatment or intervention: randomly or by some other method?
•  What control groups were included (placebo, untreated controls, both or neither)
•  How were the treatments compared?
•  Were there dropouts or loss to follow-up?
•  Were the outcomes or effects measured objectively?

For observational studies

• Was the data collection process adequate (including questionnaire design and pre-testing)?
• What techniques were used to handle non-response and/or incomplete data?
•  If a cohort study, was the follow-up rate sufficiently high?
•  If a case-control study, are the controls appropriate and adequately matched?

How was the data analysed?

• Is the statistical analysis appropriate, and is it presented in sufficient detail?

What are the findings?

• What are the main findings of the study? Pay specific attention to the presented text and tables in relation to the study’s main findings .
• Are the numbers consistent? Is the entire sample accounted for?

Experimental study

•  Do the authors find a difference between the treatment and control groups?
•  Are the results statistically significant? If there is a statistically significant difference, is it enough of a difference to be clinically significant?

Observational study

•  Did the authors find a difference between exposed and control groups or cases and controls?
•  Is there a statistically significant difference between groups?
•  Could the results be of public health significance, even though the difference is not statistically significant? (This may highlight the need for a larger study).
• Are the results likely to be affected by confounding? Why or why not?
• What (if any) variables are identified as potential confounders in the study?
• How is confounding dealt with in this study?
• Are there any potential confounders that the authors have not taken into account? What might the likely impact be on the results?

Summing it up

Activity 7.2a

Read the following article:

Chen X, Jiang X, Huang X, He H, Zheng J: Association between probiotic yogurt intake and gestational diabetes mellitus: a case-control study. Iran J Public Health. 2019, 48:1248-1256.

Let’s conduct a critical appraisal of this article.

A guide to reading scientific articles – Qualitative studies

What is the research question?

Was a qualitative approach appropriate?

• Identify the study design and if it was appropriate for the research question.

How were the setting and the subjects selected?

• What sampling strategy was used?
• Where was the study conducted?

Was the sampling strategy appropriate for the approach?

• Consider the qualitative approach used and decide if the sampling strategy or technique is appropriate

What was the researcher’s position, and has this been taken into account?

• Consider the researcher’s background, gender, knowledge, personal experience and relationship with participants

What were the data collection methods?

• How was data collected? What technique was used?

How were data analysed, and how were these checked?

• How did the authors analyse the data? Was this stated?
• Did two or more researchers conduct the analysis independently, and were the outcomes compared (double coding)?
• Did the researchers come to a consensus, and how were disagreements handled?

Are the results credible?

• Does the result answer the research question?
• Are themes presented with quotes and do they relate to the research question or aim?

Are the conclusions justified by the results?

• Have the findings been discussed in relation to existing theory and previous research?
• How well does the interpretation of the findings fit well with what is already known?

Are the findings transferable to other settings?

• Can the findings be applied to other settings? Consider the sample.

Activity 7.2b

Wallisch A, Little L, Pope E, Dunn W. Parent Perspectives of an Occupational Therapy Telehealth Intervention. Int J Telerehabil. 2019 Jun 12;11(1):15-22. doi: 10.5195/ijt.2019.6274. PMID: 31341543; PMCID: PMC6597151.

Let’s conduct a critical appraisal of this article

Now that you know how to critically appraise both quantitative and qualitative papers, it is also important to note that numerous critical appraisal tools exist. Some have different sub-tools for different study designs, while others are designed to be used for multiple study designs. These tools aid the critical appraisal process as they contain different questions to prompt the reader while assessing the study’s quality. 9 Examples of tools commonly used in health professions are listed below in Table 7.2. Please note that this list is not exhaustive, as numerous appraisal tools exist. You can use any of these tools to appraise the quality of an article before choosing to use their findings to inform your own research or to change practice.

Table 7.2 Critical appraisal tools

An Introduction to Research Methods for Undergraduate Health Profession Students Copyright © 2023 by Faith Alele and Bunmi Malau-Aduli is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

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
• Published: 08 April 2022

How to appraise the literature: basic principles for the busy clinician - part 1: randomised controlled trials

• Aslam Alkadhimi 1 ,
• Samuel Reeves 2 &
• Andrew T. DiBiase 3  

British Dental Journal volume  232 ,  pages 475–481 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

827 Accesses

1 Citations

2 Altmetric

Metrics details

Critical appraisal is the process of carefully, judiciously and systematically examining research to adjudicate its trustworthiness and its value and relevance in clinical practice. The first part of this two-part series will discuss the principles of critically appraising randomised controlled trials. The second part will discuss the principles of critically appraising systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Evidence-based dentistry (EBD) is the integration of the dentist's clinical expertise, the patient's needs and preferences and the most current, clinically relevant evidence. Critical appraisal of the literature is an invaluable and indispensable skill that dentists should possess to help them deliver EBD.

This article seeks to act as a refresher and guide for generalists, specialists and the wider readership, so that they can efficiently and confidently appraise research - specifically, randomised controlled trials - that may be pertinent to their daily clinical practice.

Evidence-based dentistry is discussed.

Efficient techniques for critically appraising randomised controlled trials are described.

Important methodological and statistical considerations are explicated.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 24 print issues and online access

251,40 € per year

only 10,48 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on Springer Link
• Instant access to full article PDF

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Causal machine learning for predicting treatment outcomes

Microbiota in health and diseases

Interviews in the social sciences

Burls A. What is critical appraisal? 2014. Available at http://www.whatisseries.co.uk/whatiscritical-appraisal/ (accessed April 2021).

Hong B, Plugge E. Critical appraisal skills teaching in UK dental schools. Br Dent J 2017; 222: 209-213.

Isham A, Bettiol S, Hoang H, Crocombe L. A Systematic Literature Review of the Information-Seeking Behaviour of Dentists in Developed Countries. J Dent Educ 2016; 80: 569-577.

Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. CASP Checklist. Available at https://casp-uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/CASP-Randomised-Controlled-Trial-Checklist-2018.pdf (accessed April 2021).

Schulz K F, Altman D G, Moher D, CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann Int Med 2010; 152 : 726-732.

Sterne J A C, Savović J, Page M J et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019; DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l4898.

Petrou S, Grey A. Economic evaluation alongside randomised controlled trials: design, conduct, analysis, and reporting. BMJ 2011; DOI: 10.1136/bmj.d1548.

Black W C. The CE plane: a graphic representation of cost-effectiveness. Med Decis Making 1990; 10: 212-214.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Senior Registrar in Orthodontics, The Royal London Hospital Barts Health NHS Trust and East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

Aslam Alkadhimi

Dental Core Trainee, East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust, UK

Samuel Reeves

Consultant Orthodontist, East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust, UK

Andrew T. DiBiase

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Aslam Alkadhimi contributed to conceptualisation, literature search, original draft preparation and drafting and critically revising the manuscript; Samuel Reeves contributed to original draft preparation and editing; and Andrew DiBiase contributed to supervision, draft editing and critically revising the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aslam Alkadhimi .

Ethics declarations

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval and consent to participate did not apply to this study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Alkadhimi, A., Reeves, S. & DiBiase, A. How to appraise the literature: basic principles for the busy clinician - part 1: randomised controlled trials. Br Dent J 232 , 475–481 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-022-4096-y

Download citation

Received : 31 January 2021

Accepted : 25 April 2021

Published : 08 April 2022

Issue Date : 08 April 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-022-4096-y

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

Quality Appraisal

• First Online: 18 February 2020

Cite this chapter

• Ruth Remington 3  

4558 Accesses

6 Citations

The appraisal of the quality of literature included in an integrative review is an essential step to promote rigor and improve reporting of the review. The diversity of literature that can be included in an integrative review requires a variety of appraisal methods. There are many critical appraisal tools available to highlight different criteria. The reviewer should be mindful of what is relevant for their review when selecting an appraisal method. Transparency and consistency of the appraisal methods used will enhance the rigor of the integrative review. This chapter offers guidance on critically appraising literature in an integrative review.

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

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Adams J, Hillier-Brown FC, Moore HJ, Lake AA, Araujo Soares V, White M et al (2016a) Searching and synthesizing ‘grey literature’ and ‘grey information’ in public health: critical reflections on three case studies. Syst Rev 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0337-y

Adams RJ, Smart P, Huff AS (2016b) Shades of Grey: guidelines for working with the grey literature in systematic reviews for management and organizational studies. Int J Manag Rev 19:432–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12102

Article   Google Scholar  

American Psychological Association (2010) Publication manual of the American Psychological Association, 6th edn. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC

Google Scholar  

Aromataris E, Munn Z (eds) (2017) Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer’s Manual. The Joanna Briggs Institute. https://reviewersmanual.joannabriggs.org/

Benzies KM, Shahirose P, Hayden A, Serrett K (2006) State of the evidence reviews: advantages and challenges of including grey literature. Worldviews Evid-Based Nurs 3:55–61

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Buccheri RK, Sharifi C (2017) Critical appraisal tools and reporting guidelines for evidence-based practice. Worldviews Evid-Based Nurs 14:463–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12258

Campbell M, Egan M, Lorenc T, Bond L, Popham F, Fenton C et al (2014) Considering methodological options for reviews of theory: illustrated by a review of theories. Syst Rev 3:114–125. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-3-114

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Cooper HM (1989) Integrating research: a guide for literature reviews, 2nd edn. Sage, Newbury Park, CA

Coryn CLS (2007) The holy trinity of methodological rigor: a skeptical view. J Multi Discip Eval 4:26–31

Crowe M, Sheppard L (2011) A review of critical appraisal tools show they lack rigor: alternative tool structure is proposed. J Clin Epidemiol 64:80–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.008

Dwyer PA, Revell SMH (2015) Preparing students for the emotional challenges of nursing: an integrative review. J Nurs Educ 54:7–12. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20141224-06

Evans D (2007) Overview of methods. In: Webb C, Roe B (eds) Reviewing research evidence for nursing practice: in systematic reviews. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, pp 137–148

Ganong LH (1987) Integrative reviews of nursing research. Res Nurs Health 10:1–11

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Garside R (2014) Should we appraise the quality of qualitative research reports for systematic reviews, and if so, how? Innovation 27:67–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2013.777270

Harder T, Takla A, Rehfuess E, Sanchez-Vivar A, Matysiak-Klose D, Eckmanns T et al (2014) Evidence-based decision-making in infectious diseases epidemiology, prevention and control: matching research questions to study designs and quality appraisal tools. BMC Med Res Methodol 14:69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-69

Hawker S, Payne S, Kerr C, Hardey M, Powell J (2002) Appraising the evidence: reviewing disparate data systematically. Qual Health Res 12:1284–1299. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973230223851

Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD et al (2011) The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. BMJ 343:d5928. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928

Jackson GB (1980) Methods for integrative reviews. Rev Educ Res 50:438–460

Katrak P, Bialocerkowski AE, Massy-Westropp N, Kumar VS, Grimmer KA (2004) A systematic review of the content of critical appraisal tools. BMC Med Res Methodol 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-4-22

Melnyk BM, Fineout-Overholt E (2014) Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare, 3rd edn. Wolters Kluwer, Philadelphia

Mhaskar R, Emmanuel P, Nishra S, Patel S, Eknath N, Kumar A (2009) Critical appraisal skills are essential to informed decision-making. Indian J Sex Transm Dis AIDS 30:112–119. https://doi.org/10.4103/2589-0557.62770

Mi M (2017) Evaluating study selection and critical appraisal. In: Foster MJ, Jewell ST (eds) Assembling the pieces of a systematic review: a guide for librarians. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD, pp 125–145

Pace R, Pluye P, Gartlett G, Macaulay AC, Salsberg J, Jagosh J et al (2012) Testing the reliability and efficiency of the pilot Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for systematic mixed studies review. Int J Nur Stud 49:47–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.07.002

Paez A (2017) Gray literature: an important resource in systematic reviews. J Evid Based Med 10:233–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/jebm.12265

Polkki T, Kanste O, Kaariainen M, Elo S, Kyngas H (2013) The methodological quality of systematic reviews published in high-impact nursing journals: a review of the literature. J Clin Nurs 23:315–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12132

Quigley JM, Thompson JC, Halfpenny NJ, Scott DA (2019) Critical appraisal of nonrandomized studies-a review of recommended and commonly used tools. J Eval Clin Pract 25:44–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.12889

Salmond SW (2012) Critical appraisal. In: Holly C, Salmond SW, Saimbert MK (eds) In comprehensive systematic review for advanced nursing practice. Springer, New York, pp 147–162

Sanderson S, Tatt ID, Higgins JPT (2007) Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography. Int J Epidemol 36:666–676. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dym018

Song F, Hooper L, Loke YK (2013) Publication bias: what is it? How do we measure it? How do we avoid it? Open Access J Clin Trials 3:71–81. https://doi.org/10.2147/OAJCT.S34419

Toronto CE, Quinn B, Remington R, (2018) Characteristics of reviews published in nursing literature: a methodological review. ANS Adv Nurs Sci 41(1):30–40. https://doi.org/10.1097/ANS.0000000000000180

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D et al (2018) PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 169:467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850

Walker LO, Avant KC (2019) Strategies for theory construction in nursing, 6th edn. Pearson, New York

Whittemore R (2005) Combining evidence in nursing research: methods and implications. Nurs Res 54:56–62

Whittemore R (2007) Rigour in integrative reviews. In: Webb C, Roe B (eds) Reviewing research evidence for nursing practice: in systematic reviews. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, pp 149–156

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Williams V, Boylan A, Nunan D (2019) Critical appraisal of qualitative research: necessity, partialities and the issue of bias. BMJ Evid Based Med. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2018-111132

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Nursing, Framingham State University, Framingham, MA, USA

Ruth Remington

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

School of Nursing, Curry College, Milton, MA, USA

Coleen E. Toronto

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Remington, R. (2020). Quality Appraisal. In: Toronto, C., Remington, R. (eds) A Step-by-Step Guide to Conducting an Integrative Review. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37504-1_4

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37504-1_4

Published : 18 February 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-37503-4

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-37504-1

eBook Packages : Medicine Medicine (R0)

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Best Practice for Literature Searching

• Literature Search Best Practice
• What is literature searching?
• What are literature reviews?
• Hierarchies of evidence
• 1. Managing references
• 2. Defining your research question
• 3. Where to search
• 4. Search strategy
• 5. Screening results
• 6. Paper acquisition
• 7. Critical appraisal
• Further resources
• Training opportunities and videos
• Join FSTA student advisory board This link opens in a new window
• Chinese This link opens in a new window
• Italian This link opens in a new window
• Persian This link opens in a new window
• Portuguese This link opens in a new window
• Spanish This link opens in a new window

Deciding what to include in your review through critical appraisal

Once you have narrowed down your pool of results, it's time to begin critically appraising your articles.  Using a checklist helps you scrutinise articles in a consistent, structured way.  

Questions to consider include: 

• Are the aims of the study clearly stated?
• Is the study design suitable for the aims?
• Are the measurements and methods used clearly described?
• Are the correct measurement tools used?
• Are the statistical methods described?
• Was the sample size adequate? 
• Are the methods overall described in enough detail that you could replicate the study?
• Does the discussion overall reflect the results?
• Who funded this study?
• What are the specific limitations of what can be concluded from the study?

Working through the questions will help you identify the strengths and weakness of each article, and also identify points to draw on when you write about the literature. 

• DOWNLOAD THE CRITICAL APPRAISAL CHECKLIST

Additional critical appraisal checklists

REFLECT provides a  checklist for evaluating randomized control trials in livestock and food safety. 

CASP provides  checklists  for critical appraisal of studies related to health.

JBI provides checklists for critical appraisal of studies related to health.

Documenting critical appraisal decisions

As you closely examine full articles, you will be making judgements about why to include  or exclude  each study from your review.  Documenting your reasoning will help you reassure yourself and demonstrate to others that you have been systematic and unbiased in your appr aisal decisions.

Keeping track of what you have excluded, and why, will be very helpful if you must defend your work—for instance, if your literature review is part of a dissertation or thesis. 

Pulling all the literature you will include in your review into a single chart is a good way to begin to synthesise the literature. 

• DOWNLOAD THE FULL TEXT SCREENING CHART

Best practice!

BEST PRACTICE RECOMMENDATION :  If you include any direct quotes in your chart (or in any notes) be sure to use quotation marks so that you don’t later mistake the words for your own.

BEST PRACTICE RECOMMENDATION: The more carefully you record each of the steps of your process, the more easily reproducible it will be. This is especially important for research abstracts and articles found in conference proceedings.

• << Previous: 6. Paper acquisition
• Next: Further resources >>
• Last Updated: Sep 15, 2023 2:17 PM
• URL: https://ifis.libguides.com/literature_search_best_practice

Literature Review: Evaluating sources and critical appraisal of literature

• Traditional or narrative literature reviews
• Scoping Reviews
• Systematic literature reviews
• Annotated bibliography
• Keeping up to date with literature
• Finding a thesis
• Evaluating sources and critical appraisal of literature
• Managing and analysing your literature
• Further reading and resources

Evaluating literature

While you are searching for relevant information about your topic you will need to think about the accuracy of the information, whether the information is from a reputable source, whether it is objective and current. The basic criteria for assessing information and questions you might want to think about are listed below. 

Accuracy        

• Is the information reliable?
• Is the information error-free?
• Is the information based on proven facts?
• Can the information be verified against other reliable sources?

Authority       

• Who is the author?
• Does he or she have the qualifications to speak/write on that topic?
• Is the author affiliated with a reputable university or organization in this subject field?
• Is the source peer reviewed or refereed?

Objectivity      

• What is the intended purpose of the information?
• Is the information fact or opinion?
• Is the information biased?

Currency        

• When was the information published?
• Is the information current or out-dated?
• Does currency matter in this topic?

Coverage        

• Does the information covered meet your information needs?
• Does it provide basic or in depth coverage

Further Reading:

Critical appraisal or critiquing the literature

Reading critically

The Sage Research Methods Online database (SRMO) is a good source of full text electronic Books, chapters, and articles on a range of research methodologies.  It includes a wide range of items in relation to literature review processes, and importantly how to read critically.

Goodwyn, A. & Stables, A. W. (2004). Learning to Read Critically: Learning to read critically in language and literacy : SAGE Publications Ltd doi: 10.4135/9781849209410

Quinton, S. & Smallbone, T. (2006). How to read critically . In Sage Study Skills: Postgraduate research in business (pp. 81-96). : SAGE Publications Ltd doi: 10.4135/9781849209564.n6

• << Previous: Finding a thesis
• Next: Managing and analysing your literature >>
• Last Updated: Apr 10, 2024 5:05 PM
• URL: https://libguides.csu.edu.au/review

Charles Sturt University is an Australian University, TEQSA Provider Identification: PRV12018. CRICOS Provider: 00005F.

Critical Appraisal of Research Articles: Home

• Systematic Reviews
• Clinical Practice Guidelines
• Qualitative Studies

Other Useful Guides

• Evidence-Based Medicine

Online Resources

Need additional resources for critical appraisal? 

• Centre for Evidence Based Medicine
• Joanna Briggs Institute 
• Critical Appraisals Skills Programme (CASP) 

Which study design answers which questions best?

Etiology, Causation, Harm

Cohort study > Case control > Case Series > Cross sectional study

  Diagnostic Testing

Prospective, blind comparison to the gold standard

  Prognosis

Cohort study > Case control > Case series

Therapy, Prevention

Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) > Cohort > Case Control

What is Critical Appraisal?

"Critical appraisal is the process of systematically examining research evidence to assess its validity, results, and relevance before using it to inform a decision."

Hill, A. Spittlehouse, C. What is Critical Appraisal? What is...? series . Retrieved from http://www.whatisseries.co.uk/whatis/pdfs/What_is_crit_appr.pdf

Types of Studies

Please see our tutorial, Study Design 101 .

Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT)

A clinical trial involving one or more new treatments and at least one control treatment with specified outcome measures for evaluating the intervention.  The treatment may be a drug, device, or procedure. Controls are either placebo or an active treatment that is currently considered the "gold standard".  If patients are randomized via mathmatical techniques then the trial is designated as a randomized controlled trial.

Cohort Study

In cohort studies, groups of individuals, who are initially free of disease, are classified according to exposure or non-exposure to a risk factor and followed over time to determine the incidence of an outcome of interest.  In a prospective cohort study, the exposure information for the study subjects is collected at the start of the study and the new cases of disease are identified from that point on.  In a retrospective cohort study, the exposure status was measured in the past and disease identification has already begun. 

Case-control Study

Studies that start by identifying persons with and without a disease of interest (cases and controls, respectively) and then look back in time to find differences in exposure to risk factors. 

Cross-sectional Study

Studies in which the presence or absence of disease or other health-related variables are determined in each member of a population at one particular time. 

Meta-analysis

A quantitative method of combining the results of independent studies, which are drawn from the published literature, and synthesizing summaries and conclusions.

Systematic Review

A review which endeavors to consider all published and unpublished material on a specific question.  Studies that are judged methodologically sound are then combined quantitatively or qualitatively depending on their similarity.

Subject Guide

• Next: Therapy >>

• Last Updated: Mar 1, 2024 11:56 AM
• URL: https://guides.himmelfarb.gwu.edu/CriticalAppraisal

• Himmelfarb Intranet
• Privacy Notice
• Terms of Use
• GW is committed to digital accessibility. If you experience a barrier that affects your ability to access content on this page, let us know via the Accessibility Feedback Form .
• Himmelfarb Health Sciences Library
• 2300 Eye St., NW, Washington, DC 20037
• Phone: (202) 994-2850
• [email protected]
• https://himmelfarb.gwu.edu

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.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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 22 April 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.

Systematic Reviews: Appraising the Literature

• Protocols & Methods
• Data Management
• Literature Review
• Appraising the Literature

After conducting a comprehensive literature review, and obtaining the research, you need to evaluate your studies.  To learn more about this process, see the library's guide to Appraisal on our Evidence-Based Practice Guide.

• << Previous: Literature Review
• Last Updated: Nov 29, 2023 2:44 PM
• URL: https://lib.dmu.edu/su/systematicreview

Phone: 515-271-1537 Email: [email protected]

Libraries | Research Guides

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

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

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

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

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

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: 
• 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  

• 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. 
• 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. 
• 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. 
• 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. 
• 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. 
• 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. 

How to write a good literature review

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. 

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. 

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 literature review is an ongoing process, and it may be necessary to revisit and update it as your research progresses. 

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 
• Life Sciences Papers: 9 Tips for Authors Writing in Biological Sciences
• What is an Argumentative Essay? How to Write It (With Examples)

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, measuring academic success: definition & strategies for excellence, what is academic writing: tips for students, why traditional editorial process needs an upgrade, paperpal’s new ai research finder empowers authors to..., what is hedging in academic writing  , how to use ai to enhance your college..., ai + human expertise – a paradigm shift..., how to use paperpal to generate emails &..., ai in education: it’s time to change the..., is it ethical to use ai-generated abstracts without....

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

• What is a literature review?
• Steps in the Literature Review Process
• Define your research question
• Determine inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Choose databases and search
• Review Results
• Synthesize Results
• Analyze Results
• Librarian Support

What is a Literature Review?

A literature or narrative review is a comprehensive review and analysis of the published literature on a specific topic or research question. The literature that is reviewed contains: books, articles, academic articles, conference proceedings, association papers, and dissertations. It contains the most pertinent studies and points to important past and current research and practices. It provides background and context, and shows how your research will contribute to the field. 

A literature review should: 

• Provide a comprehensive and updated review of the literature;
• Explain why this review has taken place;
• Articulate a position or hypothesis;
• Acknowledge and account for conflicting and corroborating points of view

From  S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

A literature review can be written as an introduction to a study to:

• Demonstrate how a study fills a gap in research
• Compare a study with other research that's been done

Or it can be a separate work (a research article on its own) which:

• Organizes or describes a topic
• Describes variables within a particular issue/problem

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

• It's a snapshot in time. Unlike other reviews, this one has beginning, a middle and an end. There may be future developments that could make your work less relevant.
• It may be too focused. Some niche studies may miss the bigger picture.
• It can be difficult to be comprehensive. There is no way to make sure all the literature on a topic was considered.
• It is easy to be biased if you stick to top tier journals. There may be other places where people are publishing exemplary research. Look to open access publications and conferences to reflect a more inclusive collection. Also, make sure to include opposing views (and not just supporting evidence).

Source: Grant, Maria J., and Andrew Booth. “A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies.” Health Information & Libraries Journal, vol. 26, no. 2, June 2009, pp. 91–108. Wiley Online Library, doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.

Meryl Brodsky : Communication and Information Studies

Hannah Chapman Tripp : Biology, Neuroscience

Carolyn Cunningham : Human Development & Family Sciences, Psychology, Sociology

Larayne Dallas : Engineering

Janelle Hedstrom : Special Education, Curriculum & Instruction, Ed Leadership & Policy ​

Susan Macicak : Linguistics

Imelda Vetter : Dell Medical School

For help in other subject areas, please see the guide to library specialists by subject .

Periodically, UT Libraries runs a workshop covering the basics and library support for literature reviews. While we try to offer these once per academic year, we find providing the recording to be helpful to community members who have missed the session. Following is the most recent recording of the workshop, Conducting a Literature Review. To view the recording, a UT login is required.

• October 26, 2022 recording
• Last Updated: Oct 26, 2022 2:49 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• Write for Us
• BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

You are here

• Volume 24, Issue 2
• Five tips for developing useful literature summary tables for writing review articles
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0157-5319 Ahtisham Younas 1 , 2 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7839-8130 Parveen Ali 3 , 4
• 1 Memorial University of Newfoundland , St John's , Newfoundland , Canada
• 2 Swat College of Nursing , Pakistan
• 3 School of Nursing and Midwifery , University of Sheffield , Sheffield , South Yorkshire , UK
• 4 Sheffield University Interpersonal Violence Research Group , Sheffield University , Sheffield , UK
• Correspondence to Ahtisham Younas, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St John's, NL A1C 5C4, Canada; ay6133{at}mun.ca

https://doi.org/10.1136/ebnurs-2021-103417

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Introduction

Literature reviews offer a critical synthesis of empirical and theoretical literature to assess the strength of evidence, develop guidelines for practice and policymaking, and identify areas for future research. 1 It is often essential and usually the first task in any research endeavour, particularly in masters or doctoral level education. For effective data extraction and rigorous synthesis in reviews, the use of literature summary tables is of utmost importance. A literature summary table provides a synopsis of an included article. It succinctly presents its purpose, methods, findings and other relevant information pertinent to the review. The aim of developing these literature summary tables is to provide the reader with the information at one glance. Since there are multiple types of reviews (eg, systematic, integrative, scoping, critical and mixed methods) with distinct purposes and techniques, 2 there could be various approaches for developing literature summary tables making it a complex task specialty for the novice researchers or reviewers. Here, we offer five tips for authors of the review articles, relevant to all types of reviews, for creating useful and relevant literature summary tables. We also provide examples from our published reviews to illustrate how useful literature summary tables can be developed and what sort of information should be provided.

Tip 1: provide detailed information about frameworks and methods

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Tabular literature summaries from a scoping review. Source: Rasheed et al . 3

The provision of information about conceptual and theoretical frameworks and methods is useful for several reasons. First, in quantitative (reviews synthesising the results of quantitative studies) and mixed reviews (reviews synthesising the results of both qualitative and quantitative studies to address a mixed review question), it allows the readers to assess the congruence of the core findings and methods with the adapted framework and tested assumptions. In qualitative reviews (reviews synthesising results of qualitative studies), this information is beneficial for readers to recognise the underlying philosophical and paradigmatic stance of the authors of the included articles. For example, imagine the authors of an article, included in a review, used phenomenological inquiry for their research. In that case, the review authors and the readers of the review need to know what kind of (transcendental or hermeneutic) philosophical stance guided the inquiry. Review authors should, therefore, include the philosophical stance in their literature summary for the particular article. Second, information about frameworks and methods enables review authors and readers to judge the quality of the research, which allows for discerning the strengths and limitations of the article. For example, if authors of an included article intended to develop a new scale and test its psychometric properties. To achieve this aim, they used a convenience sample of 150 participants and performed exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the same sample. Such an approach would indicate a flawed methodology because EFA and CFA should not be conducted on the same sample. The review authors must include this information in their summary table. Omitting this information from a summary could lead to the inclusion of a flawed article in the review, thereby jeopardising the review’s rigour.

Tip 2: include strengths and limitations for each article

Critical appraisal of individual articles included in a review is crucial for increasing the rigour of the review. Despite using various templates for critical appraisal, authors often do not provide detailed information about each reviewed article’s strengths and limitations. Merely noting the quality score based on standardised critical appraisal templates is not adequate because the readers should be able to identify the reasons for assigning a weak or moderate rating. Many recent critical appraisal checklists (eg, Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool) discourage review authors from assigning a quality score and recommend noting the main strengths and limitations of included studies. It is also vital that methodological and conceptual limitations and strengths of the articles included in the review are provided because not all review articles include empirical research papers. Rather some review synthesises the theoretical aspects of articles. Providing information about conceptual limitations is also important for readers to judge the quality of foundations of the research. For example, if you included a mixed-methods study in the review, reporting the methodological and conceptual limitations about ‘integration’ is critical for evaluating the study’s strength. Suppose the authors only collected qualitative and quantitative data and did not state the intent and timing of integration. In that case, the strength of the study is weak. Integration only occurred at the levels of data collection. However, integration may not have occurred at the analysis, interpretation and reporting levels.

Tip 3: write conceptual contribution of each reviewed article

While reading and evaluating review papers, we have observed that many review authors only provide core results of the article included in a review and do not explain the conceptual contribution offered by the included article. We refer to conceptual contribution as a description of how the article’s key results contribute towards the development of potential codes, themes or subthemes, or emerging patterns that are reported as the review findings. For example, the authors of a review article noted that one of the research articles included in their review demonstrated the usefulness of case studies and reflective logs as strategies for fostering compassion in nursing students. The conceptual contribution of this research article could be that experiential learning is one way to teach compassion to nursing students, as supported by case studies and reflective logs. This conceptual contribution of the article should be mentioned in the literature summary table. Delineating each reviewed article’s conceptual contribution is particularly beneficial in qualitative reviews, mixed-methods reviews, and critical reviews that often focus on developing models and describing or explaining various phenomena. Figure 2 offers an example of a literature summary table. 4

Tabular literature summaries from a critical review. Source: Younas and Maddigan. 4

Tip 4: compose potential themes from each article during summary writing

While developing literature summary tables, many authors use themes or subthemes reported in the given articles as the key results of their own review. Such an approach prevents the review authors from understanding the article’s conceptual contribution, developing rigorous synthesis and drawing reasonable interpretations of results from an individual article. Ultimately, it affects the generation of novel review findings. For example, one of the articles about women’s healthcare-seeking behaviours in developing countries reported a theme ‘social-cultural determinants of health as precursors of delays’. Instead of using this theme as one of the review findings, the reviewers should read and interpret beyond the given description in an article, compare and contrast themes, findings from one article with findings and themes from another article to find similarities and differences and to understand and explain bigger picture for their readers. Therefore, while developing literature summary tables, think twice before using the predeveloped themes. Including your themes in the summary tables (see figure 1 ) demonstrates to the readers that a robust method of data extraction and synthesis has been followed.

Tip 5: create your personalised template for literature summaries

Often templates are available for data extraction and development of literature summary tables. The available templates may be in the form of a table, chart or a structured framework that extracts some essential information about every article. The commonly used information may include authors, purpose, methods, key results and quality scores. While extracting all relevant information is important, such templates should be tailored to meet the needs of the individuals’ review. For example, for a review about the effectiveness of healthcare interventions, a literature summary table must include information about the intervention, its type, content timing, duration, setting, effectiveness, negative consequences, and receivers and implementers’ experiences of its usage. Similarly, literature summary tables for articles included in a meta-synthesis must include information about the participants’ characteristics, research context and conceptual contribution of each reviewed article so as to help the reader make an informed decision about the usefulness or lack of usefulness of the individual article in the review and the whole review.

In conclusion, narrative or systematic reviews are almost always conducted as a part of any educational project (thesis or dissertation) or academic or clinical research. Literature reviews are the foundation of research on a given topic. Robust and high-quality reviews play an instrumental role in guiding research, practice and policymaking. However, the quality of reviews is also contingent on rigorous data extraction and synthesis, which require developing literature summaries. We have outlined five tips that could enhance the quality of the data extraction and synthesis process by developing useful literature summaries.

• Aromataris E ,
• Rasheed SP ,

Twitter @Ahtisham04, @parveenazamali

Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interests None declared.

Patient consent for publication Not required.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

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

Write and Cite

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

Harvard University Digital Accessibility Policy

Advertisement

Supported by

An Appraisal

Helen Vendler Believed Poetry Matters

She devoted her life to showing us how and why.

• Share full article

By A.O. Scott

Defenses of poetry by modern poets tend to accentuate the negative. “ I too, dislike it ,” says Marianne Moore, taking for granted that you feel the same way. “ Poetry makes nothing happen ,” W.H. Auden admits. “A mug’s game,” T.S. Eliot calls it. William Carlos Williams observes that “ it is difficult to get the news from poems .” The bad news about poetry is that it’s obscure, difficult, marginal — a trivial pursuit in a culture preoccupied with other fancies.

The good news is that nobody told Helen Vendler. Vendler, who died this week at 90 , was an admired professor and a tireless, sometimes combative critic. In both those roles she was, above all, a reader of poems. Not an ideal reader (every writer knows there’s no such thing), but an exemplary everyday reader. She read poetry because she liked it, because it stirred her to thought and feeling, because she believed it mattered in the world.

“To know that someone out there is writing down your century, your generation, your language, your life,” she wrote in The New York Times Book Review in 1972 , “makes you long for news of yourself, for those authentic tidings of invisible things, as Wordsworth called them, that only come in the interpretation of life voiced by poetry.” This was by way of saluting James Merrill as “one of our indispensable poets,” but Vendler was also making a case for the indispensability of poetry itself, in the most direct and personal terms. Poetry matters insofar as it matters to you.

If it does — if, like me, you have spent at least some of your life over the past half century or so looking at poems — you are likely to find yourself in Vendler’s debt. And also, sometimes, in what can feel like a personal quarrel with her.

She was such a ubiquitous presence — the go-to poetry reviewer for serious, nonspecialist publications like The New York Review of Books, The Atlantic, The New Yorker and this one — and wrote with such calm, rigorous authority, that some resentment was inevitable. The breadth of her knowledge was formidable, but her taste could seem narrow, her enthusiasm a form of establishment-friendly gatekeeping.

She upheld a canon of the English lyric, of first-person poems grounded in strong feeling, passed down from Shakespeare and George Herbert (she wrote books about both) through the Romantics to moderns like Yeats, Auden and, above all, Wallace Stevens. Many of the contemporary poets she praised, like Merrill and Robert Lowell, could be assimilated to that lineage. She was suspicious of more experimental or avant-garde tendencies, and skeptical of poetry overtly political or overly personal. Her criticism, too, avoided the theoretical leaps and sweeping cultural statements that animated literary discourse in and out of the academy.

But if poetry is worth anything, it is worth getting mad about, and it’s hardly Vendler’s fault that she was a more exacting, better read, and, finally, more generous reader of poetry than most of her critics. (Including this one: The first review I ever published was of two of her books; I remember being awe-struck and impatient, and finally outmatched.)

All of that matters much less now. Reviewing Lowell’s sonnets of the late 1960s and early ’70s, Vendler wrote that “the subjects of these poems will eventually become extinct, like all other natural species devoured by time, but the indelible mark of their impression on a single sensibility will remain.” This is true of her own criticism, which will last alongside the poems she cared about and provide future readers with a path back to them.

And also to the bedrock of her own inexhaustible faith in an art form that is perpetually maligned, ignored and misunderstood. A succinct statement of that belief comes from Wallace Stevens, the poet Vendler loved most and wrote about best. I suspect she would not mind giving him the last word.

The poem refreshes life so that we share, For a moment, the first idea … It satisfies Belief in an immaculate beginning And sends us, winged by an unconscious will, To an immaculate end.

A.O. Scott is a critic at large for The Times’s Book Review, writing about literature and ideas. He joined The Times in 2000 and was a film critic until early 2023. More about A.O. Scott

Explore More in Books

Want to know about the best books to read and the latest news start here..

How did fan culture take over? And why is it so scary? Justin Taylor’s novel “Reboot” examines the convergence of entertainment , online arcana and conspiracy theory.

Jamaica Kincaid and Kara Walker unearth botany’s buried history  to figure out how our gardens grow.

A new photo book reorients dusty notions of a classic American pastime with  a stunning visual celebration of black rodeo.

Two hundred years after his death, this Romantic poet is still worth reading . Here’s what made Lord Byron so great.

Harvard’s recent decision to remove the binding of a notorious volume  in its library has thrown fresh light on a shadowy corner of the rare book world.

Bus stations. Traffic stops. Beaches. There’s no telling where you’ll find the next story based in Accra, Ghana’s capital . Peace Adzo Medie shares some of her favorites.

Each week, top authors and critics join the Book Review’s podcast to talk about the latest news in the literary world. Listen here .