discuss literature review and review of studies

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

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

Try for free

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved September 3, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

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

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

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

What is a literature review?

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

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

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

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

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

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

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

2. Decide on the scope of your review

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

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

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

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

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

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

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

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

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

Tips: 

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

• UConn Library
• Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide
• Introduction

Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide — Introduction

• Getting Started
• How to Pick a Topic
• Strategies to Find Sources
• Evaluating Sources & Lit. Reviews
• Tips for Writing Literature Reviews
• Writing Literature Review: Useful Sites
• Citation Resources
• Other Academic Writings

What are Literature Reviews?

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

Goals of Literature Reviews

What are the goals of creating a Literature Review?  A literature could be written to accomplish different aims:

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

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

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

• A research paper assigned in a course
• A thesis or dissertation
• A grant proposal
• An article intended for publication in a journal

All these instances require you to collect what has been written about your research topic so that you can demonstrate how your own research sheds new light on the topic.

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

Narrative review: The purpose of this type of review is to describe the current state of the research on a specific topic/research and to offer a critical analysis of the literature reviewed. Studies are grouped by research/theoretical categories, and themes and trends, strengths and weakness, and gaps are identified. The review ends with a conclusion section which summarizes the findings regarding the state of the research of the specific study, the gaps identify and if applicable, explains how the author's research will address gaps identify in the review and expand the knowledge on the topic reviewed.

• Example : Predictors and Outcomes of U.S. Quality Maternity Leave: A Review and Conceptual Framework:  10.1177/08948453211037398  

Systematic review : "The authors of a systematic review use a specific procedure to search the research literature, select the studies to include in their review, and critically evaluate the studies they find." (p. 139). Nelson, L. K. (2013). Research in Communication Sciences and Disorders . Plural Publishing.

• Example : The effect of leave policies on increasing fertility: a systematic review:  10.1057/s41599-022-01270-w

Meta-analysis : "Meta-analysis is a method of reviewing research findings in a quantitative fashion by transforming the data from individual studies into what is called an effect size and then pooling and analyzing this information. The basic goal in meta-analysis is to explain why different outcomes have occurred in different studies." (p. 197). Roberts, M. C., & Ilardi, S. S. (2003). Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology . Blackwell Publishing.

• Example : Employment Instability and Fertility in Europe: A Meta-Analysis:  10.1215/00703370-9164737

Meta-synthesis : "Qualitative meta-synthesis is a type of qualitative study that uses as data the findings from other qualitative studies linked by the same or related topic." (p.312). Zimmer, L. (2006). Qualitative meta-synthesis: A question of dialoguing with texts .  Journal of Advanced Nursing , 53 (3), 311-318.

• Example : Women’s perspectives on career successes and barriers: A qualitative meta-synthesis:  10.1177/05390184221113735

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

• UConn Health subject guide on systematic reviews Explanation of the different review types used in health sciences literature as well as tools to help you find the right review type
• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: How to Pick a Topic >>
• Last Updated: Sep 21, 2022 2:16 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uconn.edu/literaturereview

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• 5. The Literature Review
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

A literature review surveys prior research published in books, scholarly articles, and any other sources relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, and by so doing, provides a description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works in relation to the research problem being investigated. Literature reviews are designed to provide an overview of sources you have used in researching a particular topic and to demonstrate to your readers how your research fits within existing scholarship about the topic.

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . Fourth edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2014.

Importance of a Good Literature Review

A literature review may consist of simply a summary of key sources, but in the social sciences, a literature review usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis, often within specific conceptual categories . A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information in a way that informs how you are planning to investigate a research problem. The analytical features of a literature review might:

• Give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations,
• Trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates,
• Depending on the situation, evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant research, or
• Usually in the conclusion of a literature review, identify where gaps exist in how a problem has been researched to date.

Given this, the purpose of a literature review is to:

• Place each work in the context of its contribution to understanding the research problem being studied.
• Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration.
• Identify new ways to interpret prior research.
• Reveal any gaps that exist in the literature.
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies.
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort.
• Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research.
• Locate your own research within the context of existing literature [very important].

Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2011; Knopf, Jeffrey W. "Doing a Literature Review." PS: Political Science and Politics 39 (January 2006): 127-132; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012.

Types of Literature Reviews

It is important to think of knowledge in a given field as consisting of three layers. First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish. Second are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the primary studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally among scholars that become part of the body of epistemological traditions within the field.

In composing a literature review, it is important to note that it is often this third layer of knowledge that is cited as "true" even though it often has only a loose relationship to the primary studies and secondary literature reviews. Given this, while literature reviews are designed to provide an overview and synthesis of pertinent sources you have explored, there are a number of approaches you could adopt depending upon the type of analysis underpinning your study.

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

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

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

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

Systematic Review This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. The goal is to deliberately document, critically evaluate, and summarize scientifically all of the research about a clearly defined research problem . Typically it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as "To what extent does A contribute to B?" This type of literature review is primarily applied to examining prior research studies in clinical medicine and allied health fields, but it is increasingly being used in the social sciences.

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

NOTE: Most often the literature review will incorporate some combination of types. For example, a review that examines literature supporting or refuting an argument, assumption, or philosophical problem related to the research problem will also need to include writing supported by sources that establish the history of these arguments in the literature.

Baumeister, Roy F. and Mark R. Leary. "Writing Narrative Literature Reviews."  Review of General Psychology 1 (September 1997): 311-320; Mark R. Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Kennedy, Mary M. "Defining a Literature." Educational Researcher 36 (April 2007): 139-147; Petticrew, Mark and Helen Roberts. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide . Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2006; Torracro, Richard. "Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples." Human Resource Development Review 4 (September 2005): 356-367; Rocco, Tonette S. and Maria S. Plakhotnik. "Literature Reviews, Conceptual Frameworks, and Theoretical Frameworks: Terms, Functions, and Distinctions." Human Ressource Development Review 8 (March 2008): 120-130; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

The structure of a literature review should include the following in support of understanding the research problem :

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

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

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

II.  Development of the Literature Review

Four Basic Stages of Writing 1.  Problem formulation -- which topic or field is being examined and what are its component issues? 2.  Literature search -- finding materials relevant to the subject being explored. 3.  Data evaluation -- determining which literature makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the topic. 4.  Analysis and interpretation -- discussing the findings and conclusions of pertinent literature.

Consider the following issues before writing the literature review: Clarify If your assignment is not specific about what form your literature review should take, seek clarification from your professor by asking these questions: 1.  Roughly how many sources would be appropriate to include? 2.  What types of sources should I review (books, journal articles, websites; scholarly versus popular sources)? 3.  Should I summarize, synthesize, or critique sources by discussing a common theme or issue? 4.  Should I evaluate the sources in any way beyond evaluating how they relate to understanding the research problem? 5.  Should I provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history? Find Models Use the exercise of reviewing the literature to examine how authors in your discipline or area of interest have composed their literature review sections. Read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or to identify ways to organize your final review. The bibliography or reference section of sources you've already read, such as required readings in the course syllabus, are also excellent entry points into your own research. Narrow the Topic The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to obtain a good survey of relevant resources. Your professor will probably not expect you to read everything that's available about the topic, but you'll make the act of reviewing easier if you first limit scope of the research problem. A good strategy is to begin by searching the USC Libraries Catalog for recent books about the topic and review the table of contents for chapters that focuses on specific issues. You can also review the indexes of books to find references to specific issues that can serve as the focus of your research. For example, a book surveying the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may include a chapter on the role Egypt has played in mediating the conflict, or look in the index for the pages where Egypt is mentioned in the text. Consider Whether Your Sources are Current Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. This is particularly true in disciplines in medicine and the sciences where research conducted becomes obsolete very quickly as new discoveries are made. However, when writing a review in the social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be required. In other words, a complete understanding the research problem requires you to deliberately examine how knowledge and perspectives have changed over time. Sort through other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to explore what is considered by scholars to be a "hot topic" and what is not.

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

Chronology of Events If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials according to when they were published. This approach should only be followed if a clear path of research building on previous research can be identified and that these trends follow a clear chronological order of development. For example, a literature review that focuses on continuing research about the emergence of German economic power after the fall of the Soviet Union. By Publication Order your sources by publication chronology, then, only if the order demonstrates a more important trend. For instance, you could order a review of literature on environmental studies of brown fields if the progression revealed, for example, a change in the soil collection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies. Thematic [“conceptual categories”] A thematic literature review is the most common approach to summarizing prior research in the social and behavioral sciences. Thematic reviews are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time, although the progression of time may still be incorporated into a thematic review. For example, a review of the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics could focus on the development of online political satire. While the study focuses on one topic, the Internet’s impact on American presidential politics, it would still be organized chronologically reflecting technological developments in media. The difference in this example between a "chronological" and a "thematic" approach is what is emphasized the most: themes related to the role of the Internet in presidential politics. Note that more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point being made. Methodological A methodological approach focuses on the methods utilized by the researcher. For the Internet in American presidential politics project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of American presidents on American, British, and French websites. Or the review might focus on the fundraising impact of the Internet on a particular political party. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed.

Other Sections of Your Literature Review Once you've decided on the organizational method for your literature review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out because they arise from your organizational strategy. In other words, a chronological review would have subsections for each vital time period; a thematic review would have subtopics based upon factors that relate to the theme or issue. However, sometimes you may need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. However, only include what is necessary for the reader to locate your study within the larger scholarship about the research problem.

Here are examples of other sections, usually in the form of a single paragraph, you may need to include depending on the type of review you write:

• Current Situation : Information necessary to understand the current topic or focus of the literature review.
• Sources Used : Describes the methods and resources [e.g., databases] you used to identify the literature you reviewed.
• History : The chronological progression of the field, the research literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
• Selection Methods : Criteria you used to select (and perhaps exclude) sources in your literature review. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed [i.e., scholarly] sources.
• Standards : Description of the way in which you present your information.
• Questions for Further Research : What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

Once you've settled on how to organize your literature review, you're ready to write each section. When writing your review, keep in mind these issues.

Use Evidence A literature review section is, in this sense, just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence [citations] that demonstrates that what you are saying is valid. Be Selective Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the research problem, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological. Related items that provide additional information, but that are not key to understanding the research problem, can be included in a list of further readings . Use Quotes Sparingly Some short quotes are appropriate if you want to emphasize a point, or if what an author stated cannot be easily paraphrased. Sometimes you may need to quote certain terminology that was coined by the author, is not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. Do not use extensive quotes as a substitute for using your own words in reviewing the literature. Summarize and Synthesize Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each thematic paragraph as well as throughout the review. Recapitulate important features of a research study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study's significance and relating it to your own work and the work of others. Keep Your Own Voice While the literature review presents others' ideas, your voice [the writer's] should remain front and center. For example, weave references to other sources into what you are writing but maintain your own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with your own ideas and wording. Use Caution When Paraphrasing When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author's information or opinions accurately and in your own words. Even when paraphrasing an author’s work, you still must provide a citation to that work.

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

These are the most common mistakes made in reviewing social science research literature.

• Sources in your literature review do not clearly relate to the research problem;
• You do not take sufficient time to define and identify the most relevant sources to use in the literature review related to the research problem;
• Relies exclusively on secondary analytical sources rather than including relevant primary research studies or data;
• Uncritically accepts another researcher's findings and interpretations as valid, rather than examining critically all aspects of the research design and analysis;
• Does not describe the search procedures that were used in identifying the literature to review;
• Reports isolated statistical results rather than synthesizing them in chi-squared or meta-analytic methods; and,
• Only includes research that validates assumptions and does not consider contrary findings and alternative interpretations found in the literature.

Cook, Kathleen E. and Elise Murowchick. “Do Literature Review Skills Transfer from One Course to Another?” Psychology Learning and Teaching 13 (March 2014): 3-11; Fink, Arlene. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005; Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998; Jesson, Jill. Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques . London: SAGE, 2011; Literature Review Handout. Online Writing Center. Liberty University; Literature Reviews. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2016; Ridley, Diana. The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students . 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2012; Randolph, Justus J. “A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review." Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation. vol. 14, June 2009; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016; Taylor, Dena. The Literature Review: A Few Tips On Conducting It. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Writing a Literature Review. Academic Skills Centre. University of Canberra.

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

Thinking interdisciplinarily about a research problem can be a rewarding exercise in applying new ideas, theories, or concepts to an old problem. For example, what might cultural anthropologists say about the continuing conflict in the Middle East? In what ways might geographers view the need for better distribution of social service agencies in large cities than how social workers might study the issue? You don’t want to substitute a thorough review of core research literature in your discipline for studies conducted in other fields of study. However, particularly in the social sciences, thinking about research problems from multiple vectors is a key strategy for finding new solutions to a problem or gaining a new perspective. Consult with a librarian about identifying research databases in other disciplines; almost every field of study has at least one comprehensive database devoted to indexing its research literature.

Frodeman, Robert. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity . New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

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

• How are they organizing their ideas?
• What methods have they used to study the problem?
• What theories have been used to explain, predict, or understand their research problem?
• What sources have they cited to support their conclusions?
• How have they used non-textual elements [e.g., charts, graphs, figures, etc.] to illustrate key points?

When you begin to write your literature review section, you'll be glad you dug deeper into how the research was designed and constructed because it establishes a means for developing more substantial analysis and interpretation of the research problem.

Hart, Chris. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1 998.

Yet Another Writing Tip

When Do I Know I Can Stop Looking and Move On?

Here are several strategies you can utilize to assess whether you've thoroughly reviewed the literature:

• Look for repeating patterns in the research findings . If the same thing is being said, just by different people, then this likely demonstrates that the research problem has hit a conceptual dead end. At this point consider: Does your study extend current research?  Does it forge a new path? Or, does is merely add more of the same thing being said?
• Look at sources the authors cite to in their work . If you begin to see the same researchers cited again and again, then this is often an indication that no new ideas have been generated to address the research problem.
• Search Google Scholar to identify who has subsequently cited leading scholars already identified in your literature review [see next sub-tab]. This is called citation tracking and there are a number of sources that can help you identify who has cited whom, particularly scholars from outside of your discipline. Here again, if the same authors are being cited again and again, this may indicate no new literature has been written on the topic.

Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. and Rebecca Frels. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 2016; Sutton, Anthea. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2016.

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: Sep 4, 2024 9:40 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

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 3 September 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.

Literature Reviews

• Tools & Visualizations
• Literature Review Examples
• Videos, Books & Links

Business & Econ Librarian

Click to Chat with a Librarian

Text: (571) 248-7542

What is a literature review?

A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area. Often part of the introduction to an essay, research report or thesis, the literature review is literally a "re" view or "look again" at what has already been written about the topic, wherein the author analyzes a segment of a published body of knowledge through summary, classification, and comparison of prior research studies, reviews of literature, and theoretical articles. Literature reviews provide the reader with a bibliographic history of the scholarly research in any given field of study. As such,  as new information becomes available, literature reviews grow in length or become focused on one specific aspect of the topic.

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

A literature review is NOT:

• An annotated bibliography – a list of citations to books, articles and documents that includes a brief description and evaluation for each citation. The annotations inform the reader of the relevance, accuracy and quality of the sources cited.
• A literary review – a critical discussion of the merits and weaknesses of a literary work.
• A book review – a critical discussion of the merits and weaknesses of a particular book.
• Teaching Information Literacy Reframed: 50+ Framework-Based Exercises for Creating Information-Literate Learners
• The UNC Writing Center – Literature Reviews
• The UW-Madison Writing Center: The Writer’s Handbook – Academic and Professional Writing – Learn How to Write a Literature Review

What is the difference between a literature review and a research paper?

The focus of a literature review is to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of others without adding new contributions, whereas academic research papers present and develop new arguments that build upon the previously available body of literature.

How do I write a literature review?

There are many resources that offer step-by-step guidance for writing a literature review, and you can find some of them under Other Resources in the menu to the left. Writing the Literature Review: A Practical Guide suggests these steps:

• Chose a review topic and develop a research question
• Locate and organize research sources
• Select, analyze and annotate sources
• Evaluate research articles and other documents
• Structure and organize the literature review
• Develop arguments and supporting claims
• Synthesize and interpret the literature
• Put it all together

What is the purpose of writing a literature review?

Literature reviews serve as a guide to a particular topic: professionals can use literature reviews to keep current on their field; scholars can determine credibility of the writer in his or her field by analyzing the literature review.

As a writer, you will use the literature review to:

• See what has, and what has not, been investigated about your topic
• Identify data sources that other researches have used
• Learn how others in the field have defined and measured key concepts
• Establish context, or background, for the argument explored in the rest of a paper
• Explain what the strengths and weaknesses of that knowledge and ideas might be
• Contribute to the field by moving research forward
• To keep the writer/reader up to date with current developments in a particular field of study
• Develop alternative research projects
• Put your work in perspective
• Demonstrate your understanding and your ability to critically evaluate research in the field
• Provide evidence that may support your own findings
• Next: Tools & Visualizations >>
• Last Updated: Jul 30, 2024 3:43 PM
• URL: https://subjectguides.library.american.edu/literaturereview

Research Methods

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

Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

A literature review is important because it:

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

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

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

Not an essay 

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

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

A literature review serves several purposes. For example, it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Systematic review or meta-analysis?

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

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

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

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

Not all systematic reviews contain meta-analysis. 

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

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

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

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

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

• Library Homepage

Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide: Literature Reviews?

• Literature Reviews?
• Strategies to Finding Sources
• Keeping up with Research!
• Evaluating Sources & Literature Reviews
• Organizing for Writing
• Writing Literature Review
• Other Academic Writings

What is a Literature Review?

So, what is a literature review .

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

• Citation: "The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting it"

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

Each field has a particular way to do reviews for academic research literature. In the social sciences and humanities the most common are:

• Narrative Reviews: The purpose of this type of review is to describe the current state of the research on a specific research topic and to offer a critical analysis of the literature reviewed. Studies are grouped by research/theoretical categories, and themes and trends, strengths and weaknesses, and gaps are identified. The review ends with a conclusion section that summarizes the findings regarding the state of the research of the specific study, the gaps identify and if applicable, explains how the author's research will address gaps identify in the review and expand the knowledge on the topic reviewed.
• Book review essays/ Historiographical review essays : A type of literature review typical in History and related fields, e.g., Latin American studies. For example, the Latin American Research Review explains that the purpose of this type of review is to “(1) to familiarize readers with the subject, approach, arguments, and conclusions found in a group of books whose common focus is a historical period; a country or region within Latin America; or a practice, development, or issue of interest to specialists and others; (2) to locate these books within current scholarship, critical methodologies, and approaches; and (3) to probe the relation of these new books to previous work on the subject, especially canonical texts. Unlike individual book reviews, the cluster reviews found in LARR seek to address the state of the field or discipline and not solely the works at issue.” - LARR

What are the Goals of Creating a Literature Review?

• To develop a theory or evaluate an existing theory
• To summarize the historical or existing state of a research topic
• Identify a problem in a field of research 
• Baumeister, R.F. & Leary, M.R. (1997). "Writing narrative literature reviews," Review of General Psychology , 1(3), 311-320.

When do you need to write a Literature Review?

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

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

Where I can find examples of Literature Reviews?

Note:  In the humanities, even if they don't use the term "literature review", they may have a dedicated  chapter that reviewed the "critical bibliography" or they incorporated that review in the introduction or first chapter of the dissertation, book, or article.

• UCSB electronic theses and dissertations In partnership with the Graduate Division, the UC Santa Barbara Library is making available theses and dissertations produced by UCSB students. Currently included in ADRL are theses and dissertations that were originally filed electronically, starting in 2011. In future phases of ADRL, all theses and dissertations created by UCSB students may be digitized and made available.

Where to Find Standalone Literature Reviews

Literature reviews are also written as standalone articles as a way to survey a particular research topic in-depth. This type of literature review looks at a topic from a historical perspective to see how the understanding of the topic has changed over time. 

• Find e-Journals for Standalone Literature Reviews The best way to get familiar with and to learn how to write literature reviews is by reading them. You can use our Journal Search option to find journals that specialize in publishing literature reviews from major disciplines like anthropology, sociology, etc. Usually these titles are called, "Annual Review of [discipline name] OR [Discipline name] Review. This option works best if you know the title of the publication you are looking for. Below are some examples of these journals! more... less... Journal Search can be found by hovering over the link for Research on the library website.

Social Sciences

• Annual Review of Anthropology
• Annual Review of Political Science
• Annual Review of Sociology
• Ethnic Studies Review

Hard science and health sciences:

• Annual Review of Biomedical Data Science
• Annual Review of Materials Science
• Systematic Review From journal site: "The journal Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct, and reporting of systematic reviews" in the health sciences.
• << Previous: Overview
• Next: Strategies to Finding Sources >>
• Last Updated: Mar 5, 2024 11:44 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.ucsb.edu/litreview

Literature Reviews

• 6. Write the review
• Getting started
• Types of reviews
• 1. Define your research question
• 2. Plan your search
• 3. Search the literature
• 4. Organize your results
• 5. Synthesize your findings
• Artificial intelligence (AI) tools
• Thompson Writing Studio This link opens in a new window
• Need to write a systematic review? This link opens in a new window

Contact a Librarian

Ask a Librarian

Organize your review according to the following structure:

• Provide a concise overview of your primary thesis and the studies you explore in your review.
• Present the subject of your review
• Outline the key points you will address in the review
• Use your thesis to frame your paper
• Explain the significance of reviewing the literature in your chosen topic area (e.g., to find research gaps? Or to update your field on the current literature?)
• Consider dividing it into sections, particularly if examining multiple methodologies
• Examine the literature thoroughly and systematically, maintaining organization — don't just paraphrase researchers, add your own interpretation and discuss the significance of the papers you found)
• Reiterate your thesis
• Summarize your key findings 
• Ensure proper formatting of your references (stick to a single citation style — be consistent!)
• Use a citation manager, such as Zotero or EndNote, for easy formatting!

Check out UNC's guide on literature reviews, especially the section " Organizing the Body ."

• << Previous: 5. Synthesize your findings
• Next: Artificial intelligence (AI) tools >>
• Last Updated: Aug 29, 2024 11:40 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.duke.edu/litreviews

Services for...

• Faculty & Instructors
• Graduate Students
• Undergraduate Students
• International Students
• Patrons with Disabilities

• Harmful Language Statement
• Re-use & Attribution / Privacy
• Support the Libraries

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

Steps in the literature review process.

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

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

Videos Tutorials about Literature Reviews

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

Recommended Reading

• Last Updated: Aug 26, 2024 5:59 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/literaturereviews

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
• PLoS Comput Biol
• v.9(7); 2013 Jul

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

1 Centre for Functional and Evolutionary Ecology (CEFE), CNRS, Montpellier, France

2 Centre for Biodiversity Synthesis and Analysis (CESAB), FRB, Aix-en-Provence, France

Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications [1] . For example, compared to 1991, in 2008 three, eight, and forty times more papers were indexed in Web of Science on malaria, obesity, and biodiversity, respectively [2] . Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every single new paper relevant to their interests [3] . Thus, it is both advantageous and necessary to rely on regular summaries of the recent literature. Although recognition for scientists mainly comes from primary research, timely literature reviews can lead to new synthetic insights and are often widely read [4] . For such summaries to be useful, however, they need to be compiled in a professional way [5] .

When starting from scratch, reviewing the literature can require a titanic amount of work. That is why researchers who have spent their career working on a certain research issue are in a perfect position to review that literature. Some graduate schools are now offering courses in reviewing the literature, given that most research students start their project by producing an overview of what has already been done on their research issue [6] . However, it is likely that most scientists have not thought in detail about how to approach and carry out a literature review.

Reviewing the literature requires the ability to juggle multiple tasks, from finding and evaluating relevant material to synthesising information from various sources, from critical thinking to paraphrasing, evaluating, and citation skills [7] . In this contribution, I share ten simple rules I learned working on about 25 literature reviews as a PhD and postdoctoral student. Ideas and insights also come from discussions with coauthors and colleagues, as well as feedback from reviewers and editors.

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

How to choose which topic to review? There are so many issues in contemporary science that you could spend a lifetime of attending conferences and reading the literature just pondering what to review. On the one hand, if you take several years to choose, several other people may have had the same idea in the meantime. On the other hand, only a well-considered topic is likely to lead to a brilliant literature review [8] . The topic must at least be:

• interesting to you (ideally, you should have come across a series of recent papers related to your line of work that call for a critical summary),
• an important aspect of the field (so that many readers will be interested in the review and there will be enough material to write it), and
• a well-defined issue (otherwise you could potentially include thousands of publications, which would make the review unhelpful).

Ideas for potential reviews may come from papers providing lists of key research questions to be answered [9] , but also from serendipitous moments during desultory reading and discussions. In addition to choosing your topic, you should also select a target audience. In many cases, the topic (e.g., web services in computational biology) will automatically define an audience (e.g., computational biologists), but that same topic may also be of interest to neighbouring fields (e.g., computer science, biology, etc.).

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

After having chosen your topic and audience, start by checking the literature and downloading relevant papers. Five pieces of advice here:

• keep track of the search items you use (so that your search can be replicated [10] ),
• keep a list of papers whose pdfs you cannot access immediately (so as to retrieve them later with alternative strategies),
• use a paper management system (e.g., Mendeley, Papers, Qiqqa, Sente),
• define early in the process some criteria for exclusion of irrelevant papers (these criteria can then be described in the review to help define its scope), and
• do not just look for research papers in the area you wish to review, but also seek previous reviews.

The chances are high that someone will already have published a literature review ( Figure 1 ), if not exactly on the issue you are planning to tackle, at least on a related topic. If there are already a few or several reviews of the literature on your issue, my advice is not to give up, but to carry on with your own literature review,

The bottom-right situation (many literature reviews but few research papers) is not just a theoretical situation; it applies, for example, to the study of the impacts of climate change on plant diseases, where there appear to be more literature reviews than research studies [33] .

• discussing in your review the approaches, limitations, and conclusions of past reviews,
• trying to find a new angle that has not been covered adequately in the previous reviews, and
• incorporating new material that has inevitably accumulated since their appearance.

When searching the literature for pertinent papers and reviews, the usual rules apply:

• be thorough,
• use different keywords and database sources (e.g., DBLP, Google Scholar, ISI Proceedings, JSTOR Search, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science), and
• look at who has cited past relevant papers and book chapters.

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

If you read the papers first, and only afterwards start writing the review, you will need a very good memory to remember who wrote what, and what your impressions and associations were while reading each single paper. My advice is, while reading, to start writing down interesting pieces of information, insights about how to organize the review, and thoughts on what to write. This way, by the time you have read the literature you selected, you will already have a rough draft of the review.

Of course, this draft will still need much rewriting, restructuring, and rethinking to obtain a text with a coherent argument [11] , but you will have avoided the danger posed by staring at a blank document. Be careful when taking notes to use quotation marks if you are provisionally copying verbatim from the literature. It is advisable then to reformulate such quotes with your own words in the final draft. It is important to be careful in noting the references already at this stage, so as to avoid misattributions. Using referencing software from the very beginning of your endeavour will save you time.

Rule 4: Choose the Type of Review You Wish to Write

After having taken notes while reading the literature, you will have a rough idea of the amount of material available for the review. This is probably a good time to decide whether to go for a mini- or a full review. Some journals are now favouring the publication of rather short reviews focusing on the last few years, with a limit on the number of words and citations. A mini-review is not necessarily a minor review: it may well attract more attention from busy readers, although it will inevitably simplify some issues and leave out some relevant material due to space limitations. A full review will have the advantage of more freedom to cover in detail the complexities of a particular scientific development, but may then be left in the pile of the very important papers “to be read” by readers with little time to spare for major monographs.

There is probably a continuum between mini- and full reviews. The same point applies to the dichotomy of descriptive vs. integrative reviews. While descriptive reviews focus on the methodology, findings, and interpretation of each reviewed study, integrative reviews attempt to find common ideas and concepts from the reviewed material [12] . A similar distinction exists between narrative and systematic reviews: while narrative reviews are qualitative, systematic reviews attempt to test a hypothesis based on the published evidence, which is gathered using a predefined protocol to reduce bias [13] , [14] . When systematic reviews analyse quantitative results in a quantitative way, they become meta-analyses. The choice between different review types will have to be made on a case-by-case basis, depending not just on the nature of the material found and the preferences of the target journal(s), but also on the time available to write the review and the number of coauthors [15] .

Rule 5: Keep the Review Focused, but Make It of Broad Interest

Whether your plan is to write a mini- or a full review, it is good advice to keep it focused 16 , 17 . Including material just for the sake of it can easily lead to reviews that are trying to do too many things at once. The need to keep a review focused can be problematic for interdisciplinary reviews, where the aim is to bridge the gap between fields [18] . If you are writing a review on, for example, how epidemiological approaches are used in modelling the spread of ideas, you may be inclined to include material from both parent fields, epidemiology and the study of cultural diffusion. This may be necessary to some extent, but in this case a focused review would only deal in detail with those studies at the interface between epidemiology and the spread of ideas.

While focus is an important feature of a successful review, this requirement has to be balanced with the need to make the review relevant to a broad audience. This square may be circled by discussing the wider implications of the reviewed topic for other disciplines.

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

Reviewing the literature is not stamp collecting. A good review does not just summarize the literature, but discusses it critically, identifies methodological problems, and points out research gaps [19] . After having read a review of the literature, a reader should have a rough idea of:

• the major achievements in the reviewed field,
• the main areas of debate, and
• the outstanding research questions.

It is challenging to achieve a successful review on all these fronts. A solution can be to involve a set of complementary coauthors: some people are excellent at mapping what has been achieved, some others are very good at identifying dark clouds on the horizon, and some have instead a knack at predicting where solutions are going to come from. If your journal club has exactly this sort of team, then you should definitely write a review of the literature! In addition to critical thinking, a literature review needs consistency, for example in the choice of passive vs. active voice and present vs. past tense.

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

Like a well-baked cake, a good review has a number of telling features: it is worth the reader's time, timely, systematic, well written, focused, and critical. It also needs a good structure. With reviews, the usual subdivision of research papers into introduction, methods, results, and discussion does not work or is rarely used. However, a general introduction of the context and, toward the end, a recapitulation of the main points covered and take-home messages make sense also in the case of reviews. For systematic reviews, there is a trend towards including information about how the literature was searched (database, keywords, time limits) [20] .

How can you organize the flow of the main body of the review so that the reader will be drawn into and guided through it? It is generally helpful to draw a conceptual scheme of the review, e.g., with mind-mapping techniques. Such diagrams can help recognize a logical way to order and link the various sections of a review [21] . This is the case not just at the writing stage, but also for readers if the diagram is included in the review as a figure. A careful selection of diagrams and figures relevant to the reviewed topic can be very helpful to structure the text too [22] .

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

Reviews of the literature are normally peer-reviewed in the same way as research papers, and rightly so [23] . As a rule, incorporating feedback from reviewers greatly helps improve a review draft. Having read the review with a fresh mind, reviewers may spot inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and ambiguities that had not been noticed by the writers due to rereading the typescript too many times. It is however advisable to reread the draft one more time before submission, as a last-minute correction of typos, leaps, and muddled sentences may enable the reviewers to focus on providing advice on the content rather than the form.

Feedback is vital to writing a good review, and should be sought from a variety of colleagues, so as to obtain a diversity of views on the draft. This may lead in some cases to conflicting views on the merits of the paper, and on how to improve it, but such a situation is better than the absence of feedback. A diversity of feedback perspectives on a literature review can help identify where the consensus view stands in the landscape of the current scientific understanding of an issue [24] .

Rule 9: Include Your Own Relevant Research, but Be Objective

In many cases, reviewers of the literature will have published studies relevant to the review they are writing. This could create a conflict of interest: how can reviewers report objectively on their own work [25] ? Some scientists may be overly enthusiastic about what they have published, and thus risk giving too much importance to their own findings in the review. However, bias could also occur in the other direction: some scientists may be unduly dismissive of their own achievements, so that they will tend to downplay their contribution (if any) to a field when reviewing it.

In general, a review of the literature should neither be a public relations brochure nor an exercise in competitive self-denial. If a reviewer is up to the job of producing a well-organized and methodical review, which flows well and provides a service to the readership, then it should be possible to be objective in reviewing one's own relevant findings. In reviews written by multiple authors, this may be achieved by assigning the review of the results of a coauthor to different coauthors.

Rule 10: Be Up-to-Date, but Do Not Forget Older Studies

Given the progressive acceleration in the publication of scientific papers, today's reviews of the literature need awareness not just of the overall direction and achievements of a field of inquiry, but also of the latest studies, so as not to become out-of-date before they have been published. Ideally, a literature review should not identify as a major research gap an issue that has just been addressed in a series of papers in press (the same applies, of course, to older, overlooked studies (“sleeping beauties” [26] )). This implies that literature reviewers would do well to keep an eye on electronic lists of papers in press, given that it can take months before these appear in scientific databases. Some reviews declare that they have scanned the literature up to a certain point in time, but given that peer review can be a rather lengthy process, a full search for newly appeared literature at the revision stage may be worthwhile. Assessing the contribution of papers that have just appeared is particularly challenging, because there is little perspective with which to gauge their significance and impact on further research and society.

Inevitably, new papers on the reviewed topic (including independently written literature reviews) will appear from all quarters after the review has been published, so that there may soon be the need for an updated review. But this is the nature of science [27] – [32] . I wish everybody good luck with writing a review of the literature.

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to M. Barbosa, K. Dehnen-Schmutz, T. Döring, D. Fontaneto, M. Garbelotto, O. Holdenrieder, M. Jeger, D. Lonsdale, A. MacLeod, P. Mills, M. Moslonka-Lefebvre, G. Stancanelli, P. Weisberg, and X. Xu for insights and discussions, and to P. Bourne, T. Matoni, and D. Smith for helpful comments on a previous draft.

Funding Statement

This work was funded by the French Foundation for Research on Biodiversity (FRB) through its Centre for Synthesis and Analysis of Biodiversity data (CESAB), as part of the NETSEED research project. The funders had no role in the preparation of the manuscript.

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

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

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

Help is Just a Click Away

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

Go to LibAnswers

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

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

What are the goals of creating a Literature Review?

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

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

When do you need to write a Literature Review?

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

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

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

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

• Narrative Review: The purpose of this type of review is to describe the current state of the research on a specific topic/research and to offer a critical analysis of the literature reviewed. Studies are grouped by research/theoretical categories, and themes and trends, strengths and weakness, and gaps are identified. The review ends with a conclusion section which summarizes the findings regarding the state of the research of the specific study, the gaps identify and if applicable, explains how the author's research will address gaps identify in the review and expand the knowledge on the topic reviewed.
• Book review essays/ Historiographical review essays : This is a type of review that focus on a small set of research books on a particular topic " to locate these books within current scholarship, critical methodologies, and approaches" in the field. - LARR
• Systematic review : "The authors of a systematic review use a specific procedure to search the research literature, select the studies to include in their review, and critically evaluate the studies they find." (p. 139). Nelson, L.K. (2013). Research in Communication Sciences and Disorders . San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing.
• Meta-analysis : "Meta-analysis is a method of reviewing research findings in a quantitative fashion by transforming the data from individual studies into what is called an effect size and then pooling and analyzing this information. The basic goal in meta-analysis is to explain why different outcomes have occurred in different studies." (p. 197). Roberts, M.C. & Ilardi, S.S. (2003). Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology . Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
• Meta-synthesis : "Qualitative meta-synthesis is a type of qualitative study that uses as data the findings from other qualitative studies linked by the same or related topic." (p.312). Zimmer, L. (2006). "Qualitative meta-synthesis: A question of dialoguing with texts," Journal of Advanced Nursing , 53(3), 311-318.

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

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

The Library, Technological University of the Shannon: Midwest

Research Process :: Step by Step

• Introduction
• Select Topic
• Identify Keywords
• Background Information
• Develop Research Questions
• Refine Topic
• Search Strategy
• Popular Databases
• Evaluate Sources
• Types of Periodicals
• Reading Scholarly Articles
• Primary & Secondary Sources
• Organize / Take Notes
• Writing & Grammar Resources
• Annotated Bibliography
• Literature Review
• Citation Styles
• Paraphrasing
• Privacy / Confidentiality
• Research Process
• Selecting Your Topic
• Identifying Keywords
• Gathering Background Info
• Evaluating Sources

Organize the literature review into sections that present themes or identify trends, including relevant theory. You are not trying to list all the material published, but to synthesize and evaluate it according to the guiding concept of your thesis or research question.  

What is a literature review?

A literature review is an account of what has been published on a topic by accredited scholars and researchers. Occasionally you will be asked to write one as a separate assignment, but more often it is part of the introduction to an essay, research report, or thesis. In writing the literature review, your purpose is to convey to your reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. As a piece of writing, the literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (e.g., your research objective, the problem or issue you are discussing, or your argumentative thesis). It is not just a descriptive list of the material available, or a set of summaries

A literature review must do these things:

• be organized around and related directly to the thesis or research question you are developing
• synthesize results into a summary of what is and is not known
• identify areas of controversy in the literature
• formulate questions that need further research

Ask yourself questions like these:

• What is the specific thesis, problem, or research question that my literature review helps to define?
• What type of literature review am I conducting? Am I looking at issues of theory? methodology? policy? quantitative research (e.g. on the effectiveness of a new procedure)? qualitative research (e.g., studies of loneliness among migrant workers)?
• What is the scope of my literature review? What types of publications am I using (e.g., journals, books, government documents, popular media)? What discipline am I working in (e.g., nursing psychology, sociology, medicine)?
• How good was my information seeking? Has my search been wide enough to ensure I've found all the relevant material? Has it been narrow enough to exclude irrelevant material? Is the number of sources I've used appropriate for the length of my paper?
• Have I critically analyzed the literature I use? Do I follow through a set of concepts and questions, comparing items to each other in the ways they deal with them? Instead of just listing and summarizing items, do I assess them, discussing strengths and weaknesses?
• Have I cited and discussed studies contrary to my perspective?
• Will the reader find my literature review relevant, appropriate, and useful?

Ask yourself questions like these about each book or article you include:

• Has the author formulated a problem/issue?
• Is it clearly defined? Is its significance (scope, severity, relevance) clearly established?
• Could the problem have been approached more effectively from another perspective?
• What is the author's research orientation (e.g., interpretive, critical science, combination)?
• What is the author's theoretical framework (e.g., psychological, developmental, feminist)?
• What is the relationship between the theoretical and research perspectives?
• Has the author evaluated the literature relevant to the problem/issue? Does the author include literature taking positions she or he does not agree with?
• In a research study, how good are the basic components of the study design (e.g., population, intervention, outcome)? How accurate and valid are the measurements? Is the analysis of the data accurate and relevant to the research question? Are the conclusions validly based upon the data and analysis?
• In material written for a popular readership, does the author use appeals to emotion, one-sided examples, or rhetorically-charged language and tone? Is there an objective basis to the reasoning, or is the author merely "proving" what he or she already believes?
• How does the author structure the argument? Can you "deconstruct" the flow of the argument to see whether or where it breaks down logically (e.g., in establishing cause-effect relationships)?
• In what ways does this book or article contribute to our understanding of the problem under study, and in what ways is it useful for practice? What are the strengths and limitations?
• How does this book or article relate to the specific thesis or question I am developing?

Text written by Dena Taylor, Health Sciences Writing Centre, University of Toronto

http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/specific-types-of-writing/literature-review

• << Previous: Annotated Bibliography
• Next: Step 5: Cite Sources >>
• Last Updated: Jun 13, 2024 4:27 PM
• URL: https://libguides.uta.edu/researchprocess

University of Texas Arlington Libraries 702 Planetarium Place · Arlington, TX 76019 · 817-272-3000

• Internet Privacy
• Accessibility
• Problems with a guide? Contact Us.

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: .

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

Frequently asked questions 

What is a literature review .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature review example 

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

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:  

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

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. 

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. 

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. 

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

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

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. 

Write and Cite as yo u go with Paperpal Research. Start now for free!

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

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

Conducting a literature review 

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

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:  

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

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:  

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

Select Databases for Searches:  

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

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:  

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

Review the Literature:  

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

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:  

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

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

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?  

Paperpal, an AI writing assistant, integrates powerful academic search capabilities within its writing platform. With the Research | Cite feature, you get 100% factual insights, with citations backed by 250M+ verified research articles, directly within your writing interface. It also allows you auto-cite references in 10,000+ styles and save relevant references in your Citation Library. By eliminating the need to switch tabs to find answers to all your research questions, Paperpal saves time and helps you stay focused on your writing.   

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

• Ask a question: Get started with a new document on paperpal.com. Click on the “Research | Cite” feature and type your question in plain English. Paperpal will scour over 250 million research articles, including conference papers and preprints, to provide you with accurate insights and citations. 

• Review and Save: Paperpal summarizes the information, while citing sources and listing relevant reads. You can quickly scan the results to identify relevant references and save these directly to your built-in citations library for later access. 
• Cite with Confidence: Paperpal makes it easy to incorporate relevant citations and references in 10,000+ styles into your writing, ensuring your arguments are well-supported by credible sources. This translates to a polished, well-researched literature review. 

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

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 a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 22+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.  

Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.  

Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!  

Related Reads:

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

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

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

What Is A Literature Review?

A plain-language explainer (with examples).

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

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

Literature Review 101

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

What is a literature review?

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

Reviewing the literature

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

The literature review chapter

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

What’s the purpose of a literature review?

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

Purpose #1 – Demonstrate your topic knowledge

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

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

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

Purpose #3 – Lay the foundation for your conceptual framework

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

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

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

Purpose #4 – To inform your methodology

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

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

How do I find articles for my literature review?

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

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

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

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

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

Need a helping hand?

How should I structure my literature review?

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

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

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

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

Example of a literature review

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

Wrapping Up

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

Psst… there’s more!

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

16 Comments

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

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

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

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

Timothy T. Chol [email protected]

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

This was so useful. Thank you so much.

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

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

Great Brief Explanation, thanks

So helpful to me as a student

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

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

Well-presented overview of the literature!

This was brilliant. So clear. Thank you

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

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

Types of Literature Review — A Guide for Researchers

Table of Contents

Researchers often face challenges when choosing the appropriate type of literature review for their study. Regardless of the type of research design and the topic of a research problem , they encounter numerous queries, including:

What is the right type of literature review my study demands?

• How do we gather the data?
• How to conduct one?
• How reliable are the review findings?
• How do we employ them in our research? And the list goes on.

If you’re also dealing with such a hefty questionnaire, this article is of help. Read through this piece of guide to get an exhaustive understanding of the different types of literature reviews and their step-by-step methodologies along with a dash of pros and cons discussed.

Heading from scratch!

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review provides a comprehensive overview of existing knowledge on a particular topic, which is quintessential to any research project. Researchers employ various literature reviews based on their research goals and methodologies. The review process involves assembling, critically evaluating, and synthesizing existing scientific publications relevant to the research question at hand. It serves multiple purposes, including identifying gaps in existing literature, providing theoretical background, and supporting the rationale for a research study.

What is the importance of a Literature review in research?

Literature review in research serves several key purposes, including:

• Background of the study: Provides proper context for the research. It helps researchers understand the historical development, theoretical perspectives, and key debates related to their research topic.
• Identification of research gaps: By reviewing existing literature, researchers can identify gaps or inconsistencies in knowledge, paving the way for new research questions and hypotheses relevant to their study.
• Theoretical framework development: Facilitates the development of theoretical frameworks by cultivating diverse perspectives and empirical findings. It helps researchers refine their conceptualizations and theoretical models.
• Methodological guidance: Offers methodological guidance by highlighting the documented research methods and techniques used in previous studies. It assists researchers in selecting appropriate research designs, data collection methods, and analytical tools.
• Quality assurance and upholding academic integrity: Conducting a thorough literature review demonstrates the rigor and scholarly integrity of the research. It ensures that researchers are aware of relevant studies and can accurately attribute ideas and findings to their original sources.

Types of Literature Review

Literature review plays a crucial role in guiding the research process , from providing the background of the study to research dissemination and contributing to the synthesis of the latest theoretical literature review findings in academia.

However, not all types of literature reviews are the same; they vary in terms of methodology, approach, and purpose. Let's have a look at the various types of literature reviews to gain a deeper understanding of their applications.

1. Narrative Literature Review

A narrative literature review, also known as a traditional literature review, involves analyzing and summarizing existing literature without adhering to a structured methodology. It typically provides a descriptive overview of key concepts, theories, and relevant findings of the research topic.

Unlike other types of literature reviews, narrative reviews reinforce a more traditional approach, emphasizing the interpretation and discussion of the research findings rather than strict adherence to methodological review criteria. It helps researchers explore diverse perspectives and insights based on the research topic and acts as preliminary work for further investigation.

Steps to Conduct a Narrative Literature Review

Source:- https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Steps-of-writing-a-narrative-review_fig1_354466408

Define the research question or topic:

The first step in conducting a narrative literature review is to clearly define the research question or topic of interest. Defining the scope and purpose of the review includes — What specific aspect of the topic do you want to explore? What are the main objectives of the research? Refine your research question based on the specific area you want to explore.

Conduct a thorough literature search

Once the research question is defined, you can conduct a comprehensive literature search. Explore and use relevant databases and search engines like SciSpace Discover to identify credible and pertinent, scholarly articles and publications.

Select relevant studies

Before choosing the right set of studies, it’s vital to determine inclusion (studies that should possess the required factors) and exclusion criteria for the literature and then carefully select papers. For example — Which studies or sources will be included based on relevance, quality, and publication date?

*Important (applies to all the reviews): Inclusion criteria are the factors a study must include (For example: Include only peer-reviewed articles published between 2022-2023, etc.). Exclusion criteria are the factors that wouldn’t be required for your search strategy (Example: exclude irrelevant papers, preprints, written in non-English, etc.)

Critically analyze the literature

Once the relevant studies are shortlisted, evaluate the methodology, findings, and limitations of each source and jot down key themes, patterns, and contradictions. You can use efficient AI tools to conduct a thorough literature review and analyze all the required information.

Synthesize and integrate the findings

Now, you can weave together the reviewed studies, underscoring significant findings such that new frameworks, contrasting viewpoints, and identifying knowledge gaps.

Discussion and conclusion

This is an important step before crafting a narrative review — summarize the main findings of the review and discuss their implications in the relevant field. For example — What are the practical implications for practitioners? What are the directions for future research for them?

Write a cohesive narrative review

Organize the review into coherent sections and structure your review logically, guiding the reader through the research landscape and offering valuable insights. Use clear and concise language to convey key points effectively.

Structure of Narrative Literature Review

A well-structured, narrative analysis or literature review typically includes the following components:

• Introduction: Provides an overview of the topic, objectives of the study, and rationale for the review.
• Background: Highlights relevant background information and establish the context for the review.
• Main Body: Indexes the literature into thematic sections or categories, discussing key findings, methodologies, and theoretical frameworks.
• Discussion: Analyze and synthesize the findings of the reviewed studies, stressing similarities, differences, and any gaps in the literature.
• Conclusion: Summarizes the main findings of the review, identifies implications for future research, and offers concluding remarks.

Pros and Cons of Narrative Literature Review

• Flexibility in methodology and doesn’t necessarily rely on structured methodologies
• Follows traditional approach and provides valuable and contextualized insights
• Suitable for exploring complex or interdisciplinary topics. For example — Climate change and human health, Cybersecurity and privacy in the digital age, and more
• Subjectivity in data selection and interpretation
• Potential for bias in the review process
• Lack of rigor compared to systematic reviews

Example of Well-Executed Narrative Literature Reviews

Paper title:  Examining Moral Injury in Clinical Practice: A Narrative Literature Review

Source: SciSpace

You can also chat with the papers using SciSpace ChatPDF to get a thorough understanding of the research papers.

While narrative reviews offer flexibility, academic integrity remains paramount. So, ensure proper citation of all sources and maintain a transparent and factual approach throughout your critical narrative review, itself.

2. Systematic Review

A systematic literature review is one of the comprehensive types of literature review that follows a structured approach to assembling, analyzing, and synthesizing existing research relevant to a particular topic or question. It involves clearly defined criteria for exploring and choosing studies, as well as rigorous methods for evaluating the quality of relevant studies.

It plays a prominent role in evidence-based practice and decision-making across various domains, including healthcare, social sciences, education, health sciences, and more. By systematically investigating available literature, researchers can identify gaps in knowledge, evaluate the strength of evidence, and report future research directions.

Steps to Conduct Systematic Reviews

Source:- https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Steps-of-Systematic-Literature-Review_fig1_321422320

Here are the key steps involved in conducting a systematic literature review

Formulate a clear and focused research question

Clearly define the research question or objective of the review. It helps to centralize the literature search strategy and determine inclusion criteria for relevant studies.

Develop a thorough literature search strategy

Design a comprehensive search strategy to identify relevant studies. It involves scrutinizing scientific databases and all relevant articles in journals. Plus, seek suggestions from domain experts and review reference lists of relevant review articles.

Screening and selecting studies

Employ predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria to systematically screen the identified studies. This screening process also typically involves multiple reviewers independently assessing the eligibility of each study.

Data extraction

Extract key information from selected studies using standardized forms or protocols. It includes study characteristics, methods, results, and conclusions.

Critical appraisal

Evaluate the methodological quality and potential biases of included studies. Various tools (BMC medical research methodology) and criteria can be implemented for critical evaluation depending on the study design and research quetions .

Data synthesis

Analyze and synthesize review findings from individual studies to draw encompassing conclusions or identify overarching patterns and explore heterogeneity among studies.

Interpretation and conclusion

Interpret the findings about the research question, considering the strengths and limitations of the research evidence. Draw conclusions and implications for further research.

The final step — Report writing

Craft a detailed report of the systematic literature review adhering to the established guidelines of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). This ensures transparency and reproducibility of the review process.

By following these steps, a systematic literature review aims to provide a comprehensive and unbiased summary of existing evidence, help make informed decisions, and advance knowledge in the respective domain or field.

Structure of a systematic literature review

A well-structured systematic literature review typically consists of the following sections:

• Introduction: Provides background information on the research topic, outlines the review objectives, and enunciates the scope of the study.
• Methodology: Describes the literature search strategy, selection criteria, data extraction process, and other methods used for data synthesis, extraction, or other data analysis..
• Results: Presents the review findings, including a summary of the incorporated studies and their key findings.
• Discussion: Interprets the findings in light of the review objectives, discusses their implications, and identifies limitations or promising areas for future research.
• Conclusion: Summarizes the main review findings and provides suggestions based on the evidence presented in depth meta analysis.

*Important (applies to all the reviews): Remember, the specific structure of your literature review may vary depending on your topic, research question, and intended audience. However, adhering to a clear and logical hierarchy ensures your review effectively analyses and synthesizes knowledge and contributes valuable insights for readers.

Pros and Cons of Systematic Literature Review

• Adopts rigorous and transparent methodology
• Minimizes bias and enhances the reliability of the study
• Provides evidence-based insights
• Time and resource-intensive
• High dependency on the quality of available literature (literature research strategy should be accurate)
• Potential for publication bias

Example of Well-Executed Systematic Literature Review

Paper title: Systematic Reviews: Understanding the Best Evidence For Clinical Decision-making in Health Care: Pros and Cons.

Read this detailed article on how to use AI tools to conduct a systematic review for your research!

3. Scoping Literature Review

A scoping literature review is a methodological review type of literature review that adopts an iterative approach to systematically map the existing literature on a particular topic or research area. It involves identifying, selecting, and synthesizing relevant papers to provide an overview of the size and scope of available evidence. Scoping reviews are broader in scope and include a diverse range of study designs and methodologies especially focused on health services research.

The main purpose of a scoping literature review is to examine the extent, range, and nature of existing studies on a topic, thereby identifying gaps in research, inconsistencies, and areas for further investigation. Additionally, scoping reviews can help researchers identify suitable methodologies and formulate clinical recommendations. They also act as the frameworks for future systematic reviews or primary research studies.

Scoping reviews are primarily focused on —

• Emerging or evolving topics — where the research landscape is still growing or budding. Example — Whole Systems Approaches to Diet and Healthy Weight: A Scoping Review of Reviews .
• Broad and complex topics : With a vast amount of existing literature.
• Scenarios where a systematic review is not feasible: Due to limited resources or time constraints.

Steps to Conduct a Scoping Literature Review

While Scoping reviews are not as rigorous as systematic reviews, however, they still follow a structured approach. Here are the steps:

Identify the research question: Define the broad topic you want to explore.

Identify Relevant Studies: Conduct a comprehensive search of relevant literature using appropriate databases, keywords, and search strategies.

Select studies to be included in the review: Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, determine the appropriate studies to be included in the review.

Data extraction and charting : Extract relevant information from selected studies, such as year, author, main results, study characteristics, key findings, and methodological approaches.  However, it varies depending on the research question.

Collate, summarize, and report the results: Analyze and summarize the extracted data to identify key themes and trends. Then, present the findings of the scoping review in a clear and structured manner, following established guidelines and frameworks .

Structure of a Scoping Literature Review

A scoping literature review typically follows a structured format similar to a systematic review. It includes the following sections:

• Introduction: Introduce the research topic and objectives of the review, providing the historical context, and rationale for the study.
• Methods : Describe the methods used to conduct the review, including search strategies, study selection criteria, and data extraction procedures.
• Results: Present the findings of the review, including key themes, concepts, and patterns identified in the literature review.
• Discussion: Examine the implications of the findings, including strengths, limitations, and areas for further examination.
• Conclusion: Recapitulate the main findings of the review and their implications for future research, policy, or practice.

Pros and Cons of Scoping Literature Review

• Provides a comprehensive overview of existing literature
• Helps to identify gaps and areas for further research
• Suitable for exploring broad or complex research questions
• Doesn’t provide the depth of analysis offered by systematic reviews
• Subject to researcher bias in study selection and data extraction
• Requires careful consideration of literature search strategies and inclusion criteria to ensure comprehensiveness and validity.

In short, a scoping review helps map the literature on developing or emerging topics and identifying gaps. It might be considered as a step before conducting another type of review, such as a systematic review. Basically, acts as a precursor for other literature reviews.

Example of a Well-Executed Scoping Literature Review

Paper title: Health Chatbots in Africa Literature: A Scoping Review

Check out the key differences between Systematic and Scoping reviews — Evaluating literature review: systematic vs. scoping reviews

4. Integrative Literature Review

Integrative Literature Review (ILR) is a type of literature review that proposes a distinctive way to analyze and synthesize existing literature on a specific topic, providing a thorough understanding of research and identifying potential gaps for future research.

Unlike a systematic review, which emphasizes quantitative studies and follows strict inclusion criteria, an ILR embraces a more pliable approach. It works beyond simply summarizing findings — it critically analyzes, integrates, and interprets research from various methodologies (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods) to provide a deeper understanding of the research landscape. ILRs provide a holistic and systematic overview of existing research, integrating findings from various methodologies. ILRs are ideal for exploring intricate research issues, examining manifold perspectives, and developing new research questions.

Steps to Conduct an Integrative Literature Review

• Identify the research question: Clearly define the research question or topic of interest as formulating a clear and focused research question is critical to leading the entire review process.
• Literature search strategy: Employ systematic search techniques to locate relevant literature across various databases and sources.
• Evaluate the quality of the included studies : Critically assess the methodology, rigor, and validity of each study by applying inclusion and exclusion criteria to filter and select studies aligned with the research objectives.
• Data Extraction: Extract relevant data from selected studies using a structured approach.
• Synthesize the findings : Thoroughly analyze the selected literature, identify key themes, and synthesize findings to derive noteworthy insights.
• Critical appraisal: Critically evaluate the quality and validity of qualitative research and included studies by using BMC medical research methodology.
• Interpret and present your findings: Discuss the purpose and implications of your analysis, spotlighting key insights and limitations. Organize and present the findings coherently and systematically.

Structure of an Integrative Literature Review

• Introduction : Provide an overview of the research topic and the purpose of the integrative review.
• Methods: Describe the opted literature search strategy, selection criteria, and data extraction process.
• Results: Present the synthesized findings, including key themes, patterns, and contradictions.
• Discussion: Interpret the findings about the research question, emphasizing implications for theory, practice, and prospective research.
• Conclusion: Summarize the main findings, limitations, and contributions of the integrative review.

Pros and Cons of Integrative Literature Review

• Informs evidence-based practice and policy to the relevant stakeholders of the research.
• Contributes to theory development and methodological advancement, especially in the healthcare arena.
• Integrates diverse perspectives and findings
• Time-consuming process due to the extensive literature search and synthesis
• Requires advanced analytical and critical thinking skills
• Potential for bias in study selection and interpretation
• The quality of included studies may vary, affecting the validity of the review

Example of Integrative Literature Reviews

Paper Title: An Integrative Literature Review: The Dual Impact of Technological Tools on Health and Technostress Among Older Workers

5. Rapid Literature Review

A Rapid Literature Review (RLR) is the fastest type of literature review which makes use of a streamlined approach for synthesizing literature summaries, offering a quicker and more focused alternative to traditional systematic reviews. Despite employing identical research methods, it often simplifies or omits specific steps to expedite the process. It allows researchers to gain valuable insights into current research trends and identify key findings within a shorter timeframe, often ranging from a few days to a few weeks — unlike traditional literature reviews, which may take months or even years to complete.

When to Consider a Rapid Literature Review?

• When time impediments demand a swift summary of existing research
• For emerging topics where the latest literature requires quick evaluation
• To report pilot studies or preliminary research before embarking on a comprehensive systematic review

Steps to Conduct a Rapid Literature Review

• Define the research question or topic of interest. A well-defined question guides the search process and helps researchers focus on relevant studies.
• Determine key databases and sources of relevant literature to ensure comprehensive coverage.
• Develop literature search strategies using appropriate keywords and filters to fetch a pool of potential scientific articles.
• Screen search results based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria.
• Extract and summarize relevant information from the above-preferred studies.
• Synthesize findings to identify key themes, patterns, or gaps in the literature.
• Prepare a concise report or a summary of the RLR findings.

Structure of a Rapid Literature Review

An effective structure of an RLR typically includes the following sections:

• Introduction: Briefly introduce the research topic and objectives of the RLR.
• Methodology: Describe the search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and data extraction process.
• Results: Present a summary of the findings, including key themes or patterns identified.
• Discussion: Interpret the findings, discuss implications, and highlight any limitations or areas for further research
• Conclusion: Summarize the key findings and their implications for practice or future research

Pros and Cons of Rapid Literature Review

• RLRs can be completed quickly, authorizing timely decision-making
• RLRs are a cost-effective approach since they require fewer resources compared to traditional literature reviews
• Offers great accessibility as RLRs provide prompt access to synthesized evidence for stakeholders
• RLRs are flexible as they can be easily adapted for various research contexts and objectives
• RLR reports are limited and restricted, not as in-depth as systematic reviews, and do not provide comprehensive coverage of the literature compared to traditional reviews.
• Susceptible to bias because of the expedited nature of RLRs. It would increase the chance of overlooking relevant studies or biases in the selection process.
• Due to time constraints, RLR findings might not be robust enough as compared to systematic reviews.

Example of a Well-Executed Rapid Literature Review

Paper Title: What Is the Impact of ChatGPT on Education? A Rapid Review of the Literature

A Summary of Literature Review Types

Tools and Resources for Conducting Different Types of Literature Reviews

Online scientific databases.

Platforms such as SciSpace , PubMed , Scopus , Elsevier , and Web of Science provide access to a vast array of scholarly literature, facilitating the search and data retrieval process.

Reference management software

Tools like SciSpace Citation Generator , EndNote, Zotero , and Mendeley assist researchers in organizing, annotating, and citing relevant literature, streamlining the review process altogether.

Automate Literature Review with AI tools

Automate the literature review process by using tools like SciSpace literature review which helps you compare and contrast multiple papers all on one screen in an easy-to-read matrix format. You can effortlessly analyze and interpret the review findings tailored to your study. It also supports the review in 75+ languages, making it more manageable even for non-English speakers.

Goes without saying — literature review plays a pivotal role in academic research to identify the current trends and provide insights to pave the way for future research endeavors. Different types of literature review has their own strengths and limitations, making them suitable for different research designs and contexts. Whether conducting a narrative review, systematic review, scoping review, integrative review, or rapid literature review, researchers must cautiously consider the objectives, resources, and the nature of the research topic.

If you’re currently working on a literature review and still adopting a manual and traditional approach, switch to the automated AI literature review workspace and transform your traditional literature review into a rapid one by extracting all the latest and relevant data for your research!

There you go!

Frequently Asked Questions

Narrative reviews give a general overview of a topic based on the author's knowledge. They may lack clear criteria and can be biased. On the other hand, systematic reviews aim to answer specific research questions by following strict methods. They're thorough but time-consuming.

A systematic review collects and analyzes existing research to provide an overview of a topic, while a meta-analysis statistically combines data from multiple studies to draw conclusions about the overall effect of an intervention or relationship between variables.

A systematic review thoroughly analyzes existing research on a specific topic using strict methods. In contrast, a scoping review offers a broader overview of the literature without evaluating individual studies in depth.

A systematic review thoroughly examines existing research using a rigorous process, while a rapid review provides a quicker summary of evidence, often by simplifying some of the systematic review steps to meet shorter timelines.

A systematic review carefully examines many studies on a single topic using specific guidelines. Conversely, an integrative review blends various types of research to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.

You might also like

This ChatGPT Alternative Will Change How You Read PDFs Forever!

Smallpdf vs SciSpace: Which ChatPDF is Right for You?

Adobe PDF Reader vs. SciSpace ChatPDF — Best Chat PDF Tools

Literature Reviews

• What is a Literature Review?
• Steps for Creating a Literature Review
• Providing Evidence / Critical Analysis
• Challenges when writing a Literature Review
• Systematic Literature Reviews

Developing a Literature Review

1. Purpose and Scope

To help you develop a literature review, gather information on existing research, sub-topics, relevant research, and overlaps. Note initial thoughts on the topic - a mind map or list might be helpful - and avoid unfocused reading, collecting irrelevant content.  A literature review serves to place your research within the context of existing knowledge. It demonstrates your understanding of the field and identifies gaps that your research aims to fill. This helps in justifying the relevance and necessity of your study.

To avoid over-reading, set a target word count for each section and limit reading time. Plan backwards from the deadline and move on to other parts of the investigation. Read major texts and explore up-to-date research. Check reference lists and citation indexes for common standard texts. Be guided by research questions and refocus on your topic when needed. Stop reading if you find similar viewpoints or if you're going off topic.

You can use a "Synthesis Matrix" to keep track of your reading notes. This concept map helps you to provide a summary of the literature and its connections is produced as a result of this study. Utilizing referencing software like RefWorks to obtain citations, you can construct the framework for composing your literature evaluation.

2. Source Selection

Focus on searching for academically authoritative texts such as academic books, journals, research reports, and government publications. These sources are critical for ensuring the credibility and reliability of your review. 

• Academic Books: Provide comprehensive coverage of a topic.
• Journal Articles: Offer the most up-to-date research and are essential for a literature review.
• Research Reports: Detailed accounts of specific research projects.
• Government Publications: Official documents that provide reliable data and insights.

3. Thematic Analysis

Instead of merely summarizing sources, identify and discuss key themes that emerge from the literature. This involves interpreting and evaluating how different authors have tackled similar issues and how their findings relate to your research.

4. Critical Evaluation

Adopt a critical attitude towards the sources you review. Scrutinize, question, and dissect the material to ensure that your review is not just descriptive but analytical. This helps in highlighting the significance of various sources and their relevance to your research.

Each work's critical assessment should take into account:

Provenance:  What qualifications does the author have? Are the author's claims backed up by proof, such as first-hand accounts from history, case studies, stories, statistics, and current scientific discoveries? Methodology:  Were the strategies employed to locate, collect, and evaluate the data suitable for tackling the study question? Was the sample size suitable? Were the findings properly reported and interpreted? Objectivity : Is the author's viewpoint impartial or biased? Does the author's thesis get supported by evidence that refutes it, or does it ignore certain important facts? Persuasiveness:  Which of the author's arguments is the strongest or weakest in terms of persuasiveness? Value:  Are the author's claims and deductions believable? Does the study ultimately advance our understanding of the issue in any meaningful way?

5. Categorization

Organize your literature review by grouping sources into categories based on themes, relevance to research questions, theoretical paradigms, or chronology. This helps in presenting your findings in a structured manner.

6. Source Validity

Ensure that the sources you include are valid and reliable. Classic texts may retain their authority over time, but for fields that evolve rapidly, prioritize the most recent research. Always check the credibility of the authors and the impact of their work in the field.

7. Synthesis and Findings

Synthesize the information from various sources to draw conclusions about the current state of knowledge. Identify trends, controversies, and gaps in the literature. Relate your findings to your research questions and suggest future directions for research.

Practical Tips

• Use a variety of sources, including online databases, university libraries, and reference lists from relevant articles. This ensures a comprehensive coverage of the literature.
• Avoid listing sources without analysis. Use tables, bulk citations, and footnotes to manage references efficiently and make your review more readable.
• Writing a literature review is an ongoing process. Start writing early and revise as you read more. This iterative process helps in refining your arguments and identifying additional sources as needed.  

Brown University Library (2024) Organizing and Creating Information. Available at: https://libguides.brown.edu/organize/litreview (Accessed: 30 July 2024).

Pacheco-Vega, R. (2016) Synthesizing different bodies of work in your literature review: The Conceptual Synthesis Excel Dump (CSED) technique . Available at: http://www.raulpacheco.org/2016/06/synthesizing-different-bodies-of-work-in-your-literature-review-the-conceptual-synthesis-excel-dump-technique/ (Accessed: 30 July 2024).

Study Advice at the University of Reading (2024) Literature reviews . Available at: https://libguides.reading.ac.uk/literaturereview/developing (Accessed: 31 July 2024).

Further Reading

Frameworks for creating answerable (re)search questions  How to Guide

Literature Searching How to Guide

• << Previous: Steps for Creating a Literature Review
• Next: Providing Evidence / Critical Analysis >>
• Last Updated: Sep 4, 2024 11:43 AM
• URL: https://library.lsbu.ac.uk/literaturereviews

Assessing Scientific Inquiry: A Systematic Literature Review of Tasks, Tools and Techniques

• Theoretical Studies
• Open access
• Published: 04 September 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• De Van Vo   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8515-0221 1 &
• Geraldine Mooney Simmie   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5026-4261 1  

While national curricula in science education highlight the importance of inquiry-based learning, assessing students’ capabilities in scientific inquiry remains a subject of debate. Our study explored the construction, developmental trends and validation techniques in relation to assessing scientific inquiry using a systematic literature review from 2000 to 2024. We used PRISMA guidelines in combination with bibliometric and Epistemic Network Analyses. Sixty-three studies were selected, across all education sectors and with a majority of studies in secondary education. Results showed that assessing scientific inquiry has been considered around the world, with a growing number (37.0%) involving global researcher networks focusing on novel modelling approaches and simulation performance in digital-based environments. Although there was modest variation between the frameworks, studies were mainly concerned with cognitive processes and psychological characteristics and were reified from wider ethical, affective, intersectional and socio-cultural considerations. Four core categories (formulating questions/hypotheses, designing experiments, analysing data, and drawing conclusions) were most often used with nine specific components (formulate questions formulate prediction/hypotheses, set experiment, vary independent variable, measure dependent variable, control confounding variables, describe data, interpret data, reach reasonable conclusion). There was evidence of transitioning from traditional to online modes, facilitated by interactive simulations, but the independent tests and performance assessments, in both multiple-choice and open-ended formats remained the most frequently used approach with a greater emphasis on context than heretofore. The findings will be especially useful for science teachers, researchers and policy decision makers with an active interest in assessing capabilities in scientific inquiry.

Explore related subjects

• Artificial Intelligence

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

In contemporary times as more information and knowledge are created in a shorter timeline, the need for scientific literacy and inquiry-based capabilities beyond nature of science is increasing, especially in relation to the pressing needs of the wider world (Erduran, 2014 ). This is a growing concern, in relation to the future survival of humanity and sustainability of the planet for the reconceptualization of science education for epistemic justice and the foregrounding of intersectionality (Wallace et al., 2022 ). At the same time, policymakers and employers demand 21st century skills and inquiry-oriented approaches that include creativity, critical thinking, collaboration, communication and digital competencies (Binkley et al., 2012 ; Chu et al., 2017 ; Voogt & Roblin, 2012 ). Rather than teaching extensive content knowledge, there is a policy imperative to teach skills, dispositions, literacies and inquiry-oriented competencies. Mastery of capabilities, such as inquiry-oriented learning has therefore become a core outcome of national science education curricula globally (Baur et al., 2022 ).

Inquiry orientations are continuously emphasized in science education by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) operating in more than forty countries globally (OECD, 2015 , 2017 ) in the US (National Research Council [NRC], 2000 ), in Europe (European Commission and Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, 2015 ), and in nation states, such as in Ireland with the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA, 2015 ).

The policy imperative for inquiry-oriented activities in science classrooms prompts a growing interest in assessing students’ scientific inquiry capabilities. While scientific inquiry is a well-established research area in science education (Fukuda et al., 2022 ), assessing students’ scientific inquiry capabilities is a growing topic of research, innovation and consideration.

There is a growing demand for innovative assessments that aim to either enhance or replace traditional summative methods. These assessments should focus on creating customized, student-centered formative tasks, tools, and techniques that capture both the final products and the processes used to achieve them (Hattie & Timperley, 2007 ). Many researchers argue that traditional models, originally designed to measure content knowledge, are no longer adequate for assessing competencies. Griffin et al. ( 2012 ) argued that traditional methods lack the ability to measure the higher-order skills, dispositions, and knowledge requirements of collaborative learning. Instead, it is asserted that modes of formative assessment can provide teachers and students with diagnostic information in order to continually adapt instruction and to foster a pedagogical cycle of learning (Kruit et al., 2018 ; Voogt & Roblin, 2012 ).

In this study, we systematically examined the construction, developmental trends and validation tasks, tools and techniques used in assessing students’ scientific inquiry capabilities in educational settings. We combined a systematic literature review from 2000 to 2024, using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines with Bibliometric (Diodato & Gellatly, 2013 ) and Epistemic Network Analyses (ENA) (Shaffer et al., 2016 ). Our aim was to illuminate current global trends, possibilities and challenges in relation to the assessment of scientific inquiry and to suggest potential spaces for future research. Our study was guided by the following three research questions:

RQ1: To what extent is research on assessment of scientific inquiry in educational contexts found in the international literature?

RQ2: What are the predominant components, tasks, tools, and techniques used to assess scientific inquiry?

RQ3: What are the trends and developments in the assessment of scientific inquiry?

We structured the paper as follows. First, we briefly interrogate current conceptualisations of inquiry-based learning and scientific inquiry as an important background to the study. Second, we justify our selected methodology, the use of a systematic literature review with bibliometric and ENA analyses. Third, we present the results from each research question in turn. Finally, we discuss the changing shape of this research domain and the implications for the future of science education.

Conceptualizations of Scientific Inquiry

Here we first explore the construct of inquiry-based learning in science education before considering something of the global policy imperatives underway in this regard.

Inquiry-based Approach in Science Education

In science education, two visions of scientific literacy are discussed: Vision I emphasizes scientific content and propositional knowledge, while Vision II focuses on engaging students with real-world applications of science knowledge (Roberts, 2007 ; Roberts & Bybee, 2014 ). Achieving the scientific literacy mentioned in Vision II literacy is a key challenge for 21st-century science education, shifting towards enabling individuals to apply scientific concepts in everyday life rather than solely producing ‘mini-scientists’ (Roberts & Bybee, 2014 ). Balancing these visions is crucial to meeting diverse student needs and enhancing understanding science-in-context in today’s highly scientific world (Roberts & Bybee, 2014 ). Scientific inquiry is considered fundamental to scientific literacy, encompassing practices and epistemology, with a growing focus on the meaning, application and contexts of real world inquiry (Schwartz et al., 2023 ).

An inquiry-orientation therefore provides a pedagogical approach in which students learn by actively using scientific methods to reason and generate explanations in relation to design, data and evidence (Anderson, 2002 ; Stender et al., 2018 ). Neumann et al. ( 2011 ) considered the Nature of Science and Scientific Inquiry as separate domains for inquiry-orientations including for analysing data, identifying and controlling variables, and forming logical cause-and‐effect relationships. Wenning ( 2007 ) proposed a detailed rubric for developing proficiency in scientific inquiry, that included identifying a problem to be investigated, doing background research, using induction, formulating a hypothesis, incorporating logic and evidence, using deduction, generating a prediction, designing experimental procedures to test the prediction, conducting a scientific experiment, observing or simulating a test or model, collecting data, organizing, and analysing data accurately and precisely, applying statistical methods to support conclusions and communicating results. Moreover, Turner et al. ( 2018 ) grouped sixteen of the activities into three components of inquiry for secondary school students in science and math classrooms, namely working with hypotheses (i.e., generation of hypotheses/predictions, designing procedures), communication in inquiry (i.e., interpreting outcomes, asking questions), hands-on inquiry (i.e., recording data, visualising data).

Pedaste et al. ( 2015 ) conceptualised an inquiry-based learning framework of four phases based on their review of thirty-two studies: orientation , conceptualization , investigation , and conclusion . The orientation phase stimulates interest and curiosity, involves background research and results in the writing of a problem statement or topic by the teacher and/or students. Conceptualization involves formulating theory-based questions as predictions or hypotheses. The investigation phase turns curiosity into action through exploration, experimentation, data gathering and interpretation. In the conclusion phase, learners address their original research questions and consider whether these questions are answered, supported or refuted.

The studies showed that the inquiry-orientation enhanced comprehension (Marshall et al., 2017 ), fostered an appreciation of the nature of scientific knowledge (Dogan et al., 2024 ), improved students’ achievement in both scientific practices and conceptual knowledge (Marshall et al., 2017 ). Inquiry-based approach was found to positively impact student engagement and motivation while the hands-on experimental skills made learning science more enjoyable (Ramnarain, 2014 ). Inquiry activities make learning visible and help to integrate scientific reasoning skills for the social construction of knowledge (Stender et al., 2018 ).

Global Policy Imperatives in Relation to Scientific Inquiry

The US National Science Education Standards presented by the National Research Council (NRC, 1996 ) defined inquiry is “a multifaceted activity that involves making observations; posing questions; examining books and other sources of information to see what is already known; planning investigations; reviewing what is already known in light of experimental evidence; using tools to gather, analyze, and interpret data; proposing answers, explanations, and predictions; and communicating the results” (p. 23). Scientific inquiry encompasses the various methods scientists use to investigate the natural world and formulate explanations grounded in evidence from their research. It also involves students’ activities where they gain knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts and learn about the processes which scientists use to explore the natural world.

Later NRC standards (2000, 2006) elaborated such proficiency as identifying a scientific question, designing and conducting an investigation, using appropriate tools to collect and analyse data, and developing evidence-based explanations. The US framework for K-12 science education (NRC, 2012 ) focused on a few core ideas and concepts, integrating them with the practices needed for scientific inquiry and engineering design. The emphasis appeared to have shifted from “inquiry” to “scientific practices” as a basis of the framework (Rönnebeck et al., 2016 ). It listed eight components of scientific and engineering practices, including asking questions, developing and using models, planning and carrying out investigations, analyzing and interpreting data, using mathematics and computational thinking, constructing explanations, engaging in argument from evidence, obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information (NRC, 2012 ). The eight practices intentionally intersect and connect with others rather than stand-alone (NRC, 2012 ; Rönnebeck et al., 2016 ).

The Twenty First Century Science program (2006) in England emphasized a broad qualitative understanding of significant “whole explanations” and placed a strong focus on Ideas about Science . It also prioritized developing the understanding and skills needed to critically evaluate scientific information encountered in everyday life. This initiative focuses on a foundational course aimed at fostering scientific literacy among all students. It emphasized equipping students with the knowledge and skills needed to critically evaluate scientific information encountered in daily life​. This connects science to real-world contexts and applications, and the big ideas of science rather than isolated facts​ (Millar, 2006 ).

The 2015 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) specified a number of essential science inquiry competencies in three key areas: explaining phenomena scientifically, interpreting data and evidence scientifically, and evaluating and designing scientific inquiry (OECD, 2017 ). The explaining phenomena dimension involves students being able to identify, provide, and assess explanations for a variety of natural and technological phenomena. The interpreting dimension means that students can describe and evaluate scientific investigations and suggest methods for scientifically addressing questions. The designing dimension refers to students who can analyse and assess claims and arguments presented in various forms and draw accurate scientific conclusions (OECD, 2017 ).

In the 21st-century vision for science education in Europe, involving citizens as active participants in inquiry-oriented learning was essential (European Commission and Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, 2015 ). The scientific inquiry involves students identifying research problems and finding solutions that apply science to everyday life. Inquiry-based science education engages students in problem-based learning, hands-on experiments, self-regulated learning, and collaborative discussion, fostering a deep understanding of science and awareness of the practical applications of scientific concepts.

In summary, global policy imperatives focus on enhancing the cognitive processes and psychological characteristics of scientific inquiry and its application in real-world contexts. This approach consistently emphasizes inquiry as fundamental to teaching and learning science, although the focus has varied over time between Vision I and Vision II in relation to scientific literacy and science education.

Methodology

For the systematic literature review, we used the PRISMA methodology (Moher et al., 2009 ) in order to assemble an evidence base of relevant studies. This was further supported by Bibliometric analysis (Diodato & Gellatly, 2013 ) and ENA analysis (Shaffer et al., 2016 ). Bibliometric analysis is a quantitative method used to evaluate various aspects of academic publications within a specified field of study. It involves the application of mathematical and statistical tools to analyse patterns, and impact within a defined body of literature. It is a powerful tool for analysing the knowledge framework and structure in a specific research area (Diodato & Gellatly, 2013 ). Meanwhile, ENA is an analytical method to describe individual (group) framework patterns through quantitative analysis of data by examining the structure of the co-occurrence or connections in coded data (Shaffer et al., 2016 ). ENA can be used to compare units of analysis in terms of their plotted point positions, individual networks, mean plotted point positions, and mean networks, which average the connection weights across individual networks. This approach has been applied in several fields, including educational research (Ruis & Lee, 2021 ).

A comprehensive examination of extant literature was undertaken using the PRISMA-framework stages, with a specific focus on empirical research. The criterion for article selection was predicated on the utilization of a testing instrument for assessment of scientific inquiry. The inclusion criteria were threefold. Firstly, empirical studies that assessed the information retrieval abilities of students - qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods - were considered. Secondly, the selected studies were required to incorporate scientific inquiry assessment tasks for K-12 science education. Thirdly, the chosen articles were limited to those originally published in the English language and within a timeline from 2000 to 2024 (09/06/2024).

We conducted a systematic search for academic papers in electronic databases as presented in Fig. 1 , employing specific search terms in the title, keywords, and abstract sections: (“inquiry” OR “scientific inquiry” OR “science inquiry” OR “investigation skill”) AND (“assessment” OR “testing” OR “measurement” OR “computer-based assessment”) AND NOT (“review”). The review used two scientific databases: Scopus and Web of Science (WoS). The results in Scopus and WoS suggested 2228 and 1532 references respectively through the first search strategy. After merging the two datasets based on articles’ DOIs indices, as well as following the removal of duplicate entries, we reached 589 articles. We continued to check the titles and abstracts of the remaining articles for pre-selection purposes based on our predefined inclusion criteria. The process led to the identification of 263 papers for further consideration. In this stage, the authors further discussed and agreed on the inclusion criteria, content relevance, methodological quality, and methodological relevance for the selection of papers. We also facilitated discussions among raters to build consensus on ambiguous cases. Finally, we ended up with sixty-three articles selected for our dataset. Then, the data were manually entered one by one, coded and documented for final selection.

Flowchart of the inclusion and exclusion process following PRISMA guidelines

To server our research questions, we collected information from the selected articles as a dataset for thematic analysis in the PRISMA framework. This information included: (1) year of publication, (2) age groups of the participants (categorized into four age groups: 5–10 years, 11–15 ages and 16–18 ages, (3) study context, (4) components of scientific inquiry, (5) instruments/tests, and (6) technique/validation approaches. (Readers can access full raw data at https://osf.io/5bt82 ).

For bibliometric analysis, the data of the selected articles was exported from the Scopus platform. It involved common bibliographical information such authors, title, year, DOI, affiliation, abstract, keyword and reference. We used bibliometric analysis via R software version 4.2.3 (R Core Team, 2023 ) with shiny (Chang et al., 2023 ) and bibliometrix package (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017 ).

To facilitate for ENA analysis, we coded the data regarding components of scientific inquiry, based on existing frameworks (Table 1 ). The analyses were employed via ENA Web Tool (Marquart et al., 2018 ).

The results are presented here in relation to the key research questions. First, we present surface characteristics that provide a general overview of empirical studies on assessing scientific inquiry worldwide. Then, we explore the components, constructs, and techniques most often used in these assessments across the empirical studies with specific illustrative examples highlighted. Finally, we review the results to identify trends and developments in the assessment of scientific inquiry over time.

Studies on Measuring Scientific Inquiry in School Contexts Worldwide

The 63 selected articles comprised a total of 189 authors, with only four single-author articles (Kind, 2013 ; Mutlu, 2020 ; Sarıoğlu, 2023 ; Teig, 2024 ). Bibliometric analysis showed 3194 references cited, while international co-author index and co-author per article was 17.46% and 3.62, respectively. There were 21 papers published from 2000 to 2012. This number more than doubled to 42 articles from 2013 to 2024. The articles were published in 29 journals, with the core source recognized for the International Journal of Science Education ( IJSE) (11 articles) and the Journal of Research in Science Teaching (JRST) (10 articles), followed by the International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education ( IJSME) (7 articles), and the Research in Science and Technological Education (RSTE) (3 articles). Figure 2 depicts the cumulative articles of the core sources’ production during the period from 2000 to 2024. The graph shows the major journals contributing to this field of study (IJSE, JRST and IJSME), and the noticeable growth curve in the last decade.

The cumulative occurrence of articles in key journals published over time

The findings showed that the 63 articles have a global reach, with study contexts spanning 19 different countries and territories. Notably, a high proportion of studies (23 articles, 36.5%) come from the United States, followed by Taiwan (9 articles, 14.3%), Turkey (5 articles, 7.9%), and Germany (4 articles, 6.3%), while Israel and China each contributed 3 studies (4.8%). The distribution indicates that assessing scientific inquiry is a relatively attractive area of research in science education at a global level.

Regarding affiliation contribution, Fig. 3 shows that five universities emerge as the significant contributors to this collection of publications. Among these institutions, two are located in the US: The University of California (UC) and the Caltech Precollege Science Initiative (CAPSI). UC has remained consistently active in the field since 2002, while CAPSI’s involvement has stagnated since 2005. Humboldt University in Berlin (HU-Berlin) began contributing in 2012. Meanwhile, the National Taiwan Normal University (NTNU) has been actively contributing since 2013, with a sharp increase in activity. Beijing Normal University (BNU) entered the research landscape later, but has shown a steady increase in contributions recently. It is noted that the contributions refer to the frequency distribution of affiliations of all co-authors for each paper (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017 ).

Top 5 of the research institution contribution over time

With respect to collaboration network in the research field, Fig. 4 represents collaborative patterns among researchers in selected articles, covering author and country levels. Based on the studies selected, the analysis identified 11 distinct research networks, illustrated in Fig. 4 a, that present as networks with a significant number of researchers. For instance, in the networks, we can find research groups such as the ones led by Wu, Linn, and Gobert. Furthermore, Fig. 4 b shows that the United States play a pivotal role in leading out international collaborations within the field of scientific inquiry assessment.

Collaboration networks of researchers identified in the articles selected

The cumulative participant count involved in all the studies totalled 50,470 individuals, encompassing educational levels from primary to high schools. Participant categorization was contingent upon respective age group, with a predominant focus on students at age range of 11–15 years. Notably, more than half of the studies (36 studies, accounting for 57.1%) were centred on participants in this age range. Following closely, another significant portion, comprising 23 studies (36.5%), targeted students in the 16-18-year students. It was noted that there are seven studies assessing students, covering two age range groups.

Task, Tests and Techniques of Assessing Scientific Inquiry

Components (facets) for assessing scientific inquiry.

In empirical studies selected, various assessment frameworks were introduced to evaluate scientific inquiry, each incorporating a diverse range of specific components. Zachos et al. ( 2000 ) considered scientific inquiry as multi-aspects of competence related to human cognitive characteristics. They employed hands-on performance assessment tasks, Floating and Sinking and the Period of Oscillation of a Pendulum, to assess students’ inquiry abilities within specific components: linking theory with evidence, formulating hypotheses, maintaining records, using appropriate or innovative laboratory materials, identifying cause-and-effect relationships, controlling experiments, and applying parsimony in drawing conclusions.

Cuevas and colleages ( 2005 ) developed contextual problem tasks to assess inquiry in five components: questioning, planning, implementing, concluding, and reporting. Their assessment task described a story about a child named Marie, who was trying to determine if the size of a container’s opening would influence the rate at which water evaporated. Students were asked to formulate a question reflecting the problem Marie was trying to solve, develop a hypothesis, design an investigation, list the materials needed, describe how to record results, and explain how to draw a conclusion. The framework were referred in a study by Turkan and Liu ( 2012 ) and later utilized in a study by Yang et al. ( 2016 ), where science inquiry was defined as comprising seven aspects of identifying a research question, formulating a hypothesis, designing an experimental procedure, planning necessary equipment and materials, collecting data and evidence, drawing evidence-based conclusions, and constructing conceptual understanding.

Other studies described inquiry as process skills (Kipnis & Hofstein, 2008 ), science process skills (Feyzíoglu, 2012 ; Temiz et al., 2006 ) and scientific process skills (Tosun, 2019 ). For example, Temiz et al. ( 2006 ) developed an instrument aimed to measure the development of 12 science process skills: formulating hypotheses, observing, manipulating materials, measuring, identifying and controlling variables, recording the data, demonstrating the ability to use numbers in space and time relationships, classifying, using the data to create models, predicting, interpreting data, and inferring information or solutions to problems. Meanwhile, an inquiry process framework of Kipnis and Hofstein ( 2008 ) included identifying problems, formulating hypotheses, designing an experiment, gathering and analysing data, and drawing conclusions about scientific problems and phenomena.

Furthermore, based on the previous studies (Gobert et al., 2013 ; Liu et al., 2008 ; Pine et al., 2006 ; Quellmalz et al., 2012 ; Zachos et al., 2000 ), Kuo et al., ( 2015 ) defined an inquiry proficiency framework to integrate cognitive skills with scientific knowledge during student participation in activities akin to scientific discovery. The framework emphasized four fundamental abilities as core components including questioning (e.g., asking and identifying questions), experimenting (e.g., identifying variables and planning experimental procedures), analysing (e.g., identifying relevant data and transforming data), and explaining (e.g., making a claim and using evidence). Their scenario-based tasks were created within a web-based application, covering four content areas (Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and Earth Science) across four inquiry abilities (Wu et al., 2015 ). Chi et al. ( 2019 ) defined scientific inquiry as the ability to integrate science knowledge and skills to identify scientific questions design and conduct investigation, analyse and interpret information and generate evidence-based explanations. A hands-on performance assessment instrument for measuring student scientific inquiry competences in the science lab was developed based on this framework (see a sample task in Fig. 5 a).

PISA 2015 developed the framework to assess 15-year-old students’ scientific inquiry competency of explaining phenomena, designing inquiry, interpreting data (OECD, 2017 ). Some empirical studies (e.g., Intasoi et al., 2020 ; Lin & Shie, 2024 ) developed assessment framework based on the framework to assess scientific inquiry competence of students. For example, Lin and Shie ( 2024 ) developed a PISA-type test to assess Grade 9 students’ scientific competence and knowledge related to curriculum and daily-life contexts (e.g., trolley motion, camping, household electricity, driving speed, etc.).

In the line, Arnold et al. ( 2018 ) referred to scientific inquiry as the competence to emphasize the cognitive aspects of the ability to use problem-solving procedures. Scientific competence was defined as the ability to understand, conduct, and critically evaluate scientific experiments on causal relationships, addressing problems and phenomena in the natural world. Three key sub-competences of experimentation were identified: generating hypotheses, designing experiments, and analysing data. Each sub-competence included five specific components. For instance, the sub-competence of generating hypotheses covered the ability to define the investigative problem, identify the relationship between dependent and independent variables to generate testable hypotheses or predictions and justify them, as well as propose different independent variables or alternative predictions. Zheng et al. ( 2022 ) categorized inquiry into eight components, highlighting information processing and reflective evaluation, echoed in study by Mutlu ( 2020 ).

In other approaches, Nowak et al. ( 2013 ) developed a model for assessing students’ inquiry ability, which had two dimensions: scientific reasoning (including question and hypothesis, plan and performance, and analysis and reflection) and inquiry methods (comprising modelling, experimenting, observing, comparing, and arranging). Together, these dimensions form a 9-cell matrix. Based on the theoretical structure, they developed a test instrument to assess students’ scientific inquiry (see sample item in Fig. 5 b). Meanwhile, Pedaste and colleages ( 2021 ) developed a science inquiry test for primary students based on the four-stage inquiry-based learning framework by Pedaste et al. ( 2015 ). The test encompassed the essential skills aligned with the four stages of the inquiry-based learning framework. These included analytical skills, which are primarily required in the Orientation, Conceptualization, and Investigation phases; planning skills, mainly needed in the Investigation phase; and interpretation skills, primarily needed in the Conclusion and Discussion phases.

Samples of the item/task for assessing scientific inquiry

A virtual experimentation environment developed by McElhaney and Linn ( 2011 ) simulated the experimentation activities of Airbags. These activities illustrated the interaction between the airbag and the driver during a head-on collision, using the steering wheel as a point of reference. Referred the existing studies (e.g., Kind, 2013 ; Liu et al., 2008 ; Pine et al., 2006 ), a simulation-based test developed by Wu et al. ( 2014 ) focused on two types of abilities: experimental and explaining. Experimental ability involved three sub-abilities: identifying and choosing variables, planning an experiment and selecting appropriate measurements, while explaining ability covered three sub-abilities: making a claim, using evidence, and evaluating alternative explanations. They designed four simulation tasks, namely Camera, Viscosity, Buoyancy and Flypaper. For example, the Flypaper task simulated a farm context in which students investigated which colour of flypaper could catch the most fruit flies. They were asked to propose hypotheses related to the decrease in flies according to the given chart, conduct appropriate experiments to measure the effect of the flypaper colour, investigate which colour of flypaper is best for catching fruit flies, and decide on alternative explanations based on the data evidence.

In the vein, Sui et al. ( 2024 ) designed an animation-based web application allow students conduct a scientific inquiry on atmospheric chemistry with animation experiments to understand the climate change and atmospheric chemistry. The scientific inquiry was defined with three core abilities: data analytic, control of variables and scientific reasoning. The digital game-based inquiry, BioScientist (Bónus et al., 2024 ) involved series of tasks, which focused on inquiry skills focusing on design of experiment, identification and control of variables, interpretation of data, and conclusion. For instance, a simulation provided some relevant variables, students need to manipulate the first one and then second variables to generate the data set. Based on the data-based evidence, they selected the answer and draw reasonable conclusions.

In summary, what becomes clear is that the mainstream framing of the construct of scientific inquiry was categorised as lists of specific components of competence. The frameworks for assessing scientific inquiry in technology-rich environments share many similarities with those used in traditional settings. In this view, it may summarise scientific competence into four main sub-competencies and their respective components (facets) based on the existing frameworks, as shown in Table 1 .

The Frequent Usage of the Components in Assessing Scientific Inquiry

In this section, we employed ENA to quantitatively visualize the usage frequency of yed ENA to quantitatively visualize the usage frequency of individual components and their co-usage with others in the selected empirical studies. Figure 6  illustrates the frequency of usage (represented by the size of the nodes) and the degree of co-usage of the components (represented by the width of the lines) across the reviewed studies.

In general, it appears that the nine facets were most often used to assess scientific inquiry, including formulate prediction or hypotheses (FP), formulate questions (FQ), set experiment (DS), vary independent variable (DV), measure dependent variable (DM), control confounding variables (DC), describe data (AD), interpret data (AI), and reach reasonable conclusion (CR). Other components were frequently used in inquiry tasks, including identify independent variable (FI), Identify dependent variable (FD), using appropriate method (AU) and evaluate methods (CE).

The pattern of components of scientific inquiry competence in selected studies simulated in the ENA model

Foundation Frameworks for Scientific Inquiry Assessment

To explore foundational frameworks for scientific inquiry assessment, we employed the Bibliometric analyses via the co-citation networks prevalent in the studies selected. The findings as depicted in Fig. 7 showed that US science education standards (NRC, 1996 ) stood out as the most frequently cited, followed by NRC texts A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas” (2012) and “Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning” (NRC, 2000 ). Other texts were often cited such as: “The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school” (Zimmerman, 2007 ) and “Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States” (2013). It is clear that the 1996 NRC standards were prominently featured in the discussion, while the 2012 framework was referred to more frequently than the actual standards, particularly in terms of citations in the reviewed studies.

The co-citation networks found in the studies reviewed

Constructs, Formats and Techniques Approaches in Assessing Scientific Inquiry

Generally, three types of tests emerged within the realm of scientific inquiry assessment: hands-on performance assessment, a battery of independent tests (paper battery), and digital-based battery tests (online battery) and simulation performance assessment. The analysis revealed that paper battery (41.1%) and on-line battery tests (39.7%) were the most widely applied construct, followed by and simulation performance assessment (37.0%). Hands-on performance (17.6%) still continues to hold its place in the field. The findings also suggest that, regardless of the mode of assessment, multiple-choice (71.4%) and open-ended (69.8%) formats are consistently prevalent. Notably, several studies (44.5%) used a combination of multiple-choice and open-ended formats.

Assessment of Scientific Inquiry in Traditional Environment

Performance assessments represent a groundwork approach to measuring students’ capabilities in scientific investigation, conceptualization, and problem-solving within authentic contexts. Researchers explored various dimensions of hands-on performance assessments, designing tasks that authentically mirror the scientific process. For example, Zachos et al. ( 2000 ) developed performance tasks mirroring scientific inquiry processes, assessing concepts, data collection, and conclusion drawing. Pine et al. ( 2006 ) emphasized inquiry skills like planning and data interpretation. Emden and Sumfleth ( 2016 ) assessed students’ ability in generating ideas, planning experiments, and drawing conclusions through hands-on inquiry tasks. They used video analysis in combined with paper-pencil free response reports to measure performance.

Traditional assessments tend to rely on standardized tests, featuring multiple-choice items aligned with policy-led standards. These tests, often administered in a paper-and-pencil format, measure students’ proficiency levels in comparison with peers. Without the need for advanced technology, they covered a wide range of content and question types, including multiple-choice, short answer, and essays (Fig. 8 ). The majority of studies employed such a battery of independent tests to assess one or more components of scientific inquiry (e.g., Arnold et al., 2018 ; Kaberman & Dori, 2009 ; Kazeni et al., 2018 ; Lin & Shie, 2024 ; Nowak et al., 2013 ; Schwichow et al., 2016 ; Vo et al., 2023 ; Van Vo & Csapó, 2021 ). There were a significant positive correlations between the paper-and-pencil tests and performance assessment tasks (e.g., Kruit et al., 2018 ). Table 2 presents an excerpt from the summarised table of the studies selected (See more Supplemental material at https://osf.io/5bt82 ).

Samples of item/task assessing scientific inquiry in paper-based modality. a A sample item in requiring interpretation [source from Kruit et al. ( 2018 )]. b A sample of a task for assessing inquiry [source from Temiz et al. ( 2006 )]

Assessment of Scientific Inquiry in Digital Based Environments

From 2012 onwards, studies started to increasingly use advanced technologies in digital-based environments in their assessment of scientific inquiry. Studies (e.g., Gobert et al., 2013 ; Kuo et al., 2015 ; Quellmalz et al., 2012 ; Sui et al., 2024 ) started to use innovative tools and methodologies to construct assessment platforms that more accurately captured the nuanced complexities of scientific inquiry. These include dynamic simulations with web-based applications like (Quellmalz et al., 2012 , 2013 ), Inquiry Intelligent Tutoring System (Inq-ITS) (Gobert et al., 2013 ), 3D-game simulation (Hickey et al., 2009 ; Ketelhut et al., 2013 ), PISA 2015 (e.g., OECD, 2017 ; Teig et al., 2020 ) (see Fig. 9 ) and scenario-based tasks integrating multimedia elements (Kuo et al., 2015 ). For example, Inq-ITS is an online intelligent tutoring and assessment platform designed for physics, life science, and earth science. It aims to automatically evaluate scientific inquiry skills in real-time through interactive microworld simulations.

Simulation-based tools like Simulation-based assessment of scientific inquiry abilities (Wu et al., 2014 ; Wu & Wu, 2020 ) can effectively assess abilities in explaining and other relevant components. Immersive virtual settings and automated content scoring engines offered efficient evaluation methods (Baker et al., 2016 ; Liu et al., 2016 ; Scalise & Clarke-Midura, 2018 ; Sui et al., 2024 ) and were potential for formative assessment (Hickey et al., 2009 ). The digital game-based inquiry, i.e., BioScientist (Bónus et al., 2024 ), Quest Atlantis (Hickey et al., 2009 ), allowed students to engage with a series of tasks, which focused on inquiry skills using simulation in which students interacted with suitable elements during the inquiry process. Table 3 illustrates an excerpt regarding components, tools and techniques in digital-based scientific inquiry assessment (See Supplemental material at https://osf.io/5bt82 ).

A screenshot of item 3 of Task 1 from the PISA 2015 item from the Running in Hot Weather unit [Source from OECD ( 2015 )]

Techniques for Developing and Validating Scientific Inquiry Assessment

Most studies referred to the American Education Research Association (AERA, 1999 ) for developing and validating scientific inquiry assessment tasks. This included defining the assessment framework, designing tasks and items, scoring rubrics, and conducting a pilot test (Arnold et al., 2018 ; Kuo et al., 2015 ; Lin & Shie, 2024 ; Lin et al., 2016 ; Nowak et al., 2013 ; Schwichow et al., 2016 ; Vo & Csapó, 2023 ).

Numerous methods and techniques were employed for scoring proficiency in assessing scientific inquiry. Full credit was applied to correct answers in multiple-choice tests and partial credit to score open-ended questions (Arnold et al., 2018 ; Kaberman & Dori, 2009 ; OECD, 2017 ; Sui et al., 2024 ; Teig et al., 2020 ). Interestingly, a high percentage of studies, as much as 36.8%, utilized a 3-point scale rubric in their assessments or evaluations (Intasoi et al., 2020 ). Log-file techniques were increasingly popular for assessing scientific inquiry in recent studies (Baker et al., 2016 ; McElhaney & Linn, 2011 ; Teig, 2024 ; Teig et al., 2020 ). Data-mining algorithms enhanced assessment accuracy (Gobert et al., 2015 ). Virtual Performance Assessments allowed to record a log data (Baker et al., 2016 ), containing students’ actions (e.g., clicks, double clicks, slider movements, drag and drop, changes in the text area) along with the timestamp for each action. Different actions and their timings were combined to reveal behavioural indicators, such as number of actions, number of trials, time before the first action, response time for each item, and total time for each unit. The process of assessment development and validation was found to be based on a construct modelling approach (Brown & Wilson, 2011 ; Kuo et al., 2015 ).

For validation approaches, the face validity of the test instrument was established based on faculty and student feedback (Kuo et al., 2015 ) or expert judgments (Šmida et al., 2024 ; Vo & Csapó, 2023 ; Wu et al., 2014 ). Construct validity focused on the test score as a measure of the psychological properties of the instrument. For validity analysis, most studies applied Rasch measurement model (Arnold et al., 2018 ; Chi et al., 2019 ; Intasoi et al., 2020 ; Kuo et al., 2015 ; Lin & Shie, 2024 ; Liu et al., 2008 ; Nowak et al., 2013 ; Pedaste et al., 2021 ; Quellmalz et al., 2013 ; Scalise & Clarke-Midura, 2018 ; Schwichow et al., 2016 ; Vo & Csapó, 2023 ; Wu et al., 2015 ), followed by factor analyses (Feyzíoglu, 2012 ; Lou et al., 2015 ; Pedaste et al., 2021 ; Samarapungavan et al., 2009 ; Šmida et al., 2024 ; Tosun, 2019 ). Predictive or criterion-related validity was used to demonstrate that the test scores are dependent on other variables, tests, or outcome criteria. In assessment of scientific inquiry, predictive validity referred to some standard tests, such as Lawson’s Classroom Test of Scientific Inquiry (e.g., Kuo et al., 2015 ; Wu et al., 2014 ), Louisiana Educational Assessment Program (e.g., Lou et al., 2015 ), General cognitive ability (e.g., Dori et al., 2018 ; Kruit et al., 2018 ) and science grades in school (Pedaste et al., 2021 ).

Most popular software employed for data analysis including the R (Sui et al., 2024 ; Van Vo & Csapó, 2021 ), ConQuest (Kuo et al., 2015 ; Lin & Shie, 2024 ; Nowak et al., 2013 ; Seeratan et al., 2020 ; Vo & Csapó, 2021 ), SPSS (Bónus et al., 2024 ; Temiz et al., 2006 ) and Winsteps (Arnold et al., 2018 ; Chi et al., 2019 ; Pedaste et al., 2021 ), and LISREL (Tosun, 2019 ).

Developmental Trend in Assessing Scientific Inquiry

The objective here was to investigate the evolving trends and patterns of scientific inquiry employed within the studies over time. The articles were sub-divided into two distinct temporal spans − 2000–2012 and 2013–2024. Figure 10 visualizes patterns of components of scientific inquiry competence which were used the studies in the 2000–2012 period (Fig. 10 a), the 2013–2024 period (Fig. 10 b) and a comparison of that between the two periods (Fig. 10 c). The graph of comparison was calculated by subtracting the weight of each connection in one network from the corresponding connections in another.

The results revealed that some main components, i.e., measure dependent variable (DM), reach reasonable conclusion (CR), identify independent variable (FI), set experiment (DS), control confounding variables (DC), vary independent variable (DV), identify dependent variable (FD), and formulate prediction (FP), were often used consistently over time. However, components such as using appropriate method (AU), evaluate methods (CE), defining task time (DT), defining replication (DR), and recognizing limitations (CL) demonstrated a heightened prevalence in the later period, indicating a heightened emphasis on these aspects of assessing scientific inquiry. Conversely, when examining the earlier period (2000–2012), components like identify independent variable (FI) and justify question / hypothesis (FJ) exhibited a more noticeable frequency of application.

Patterns of facets of scientific inquiry competence in selected studies simulated in the ENA model

To streamline the understanding of these tests in the scientific inquiry tasks, we employed co-occurrence networks adapted in Bibliometric analysis. The analysis revealed that battery independent tests and performance assessment are most frequently used with multiple-choice and open-ended constructs. However, the trend is toward the online and simulation ones with new techniques of log-file tracking and scaffolding (Figure 11 a).

When it comes to emphasizing vision in science education, empirical evidence has shown that the design of inquiry tests incorporated both the content of pure science, vision I scientific literacy, and the science-in-context applications related to science, vision II scientific literacy. This ensures a balanced evaluation that covers fundamental scientific principles as well as their real-world applications. However, it is noteworthy that recent studies have shown a growing preference for assessing scientific inquiry within science-in-context (Figure 11 b).

Trend of types and formats in assessing scientific inquiry. a Co-occurrence networks depicting types, formats and “vision” emphasis. b Types, formats and “vision” emphasis over time

Discussion and Conclusions

The paper utilized the PRISMA guideline for systematic review in combination with bibliometric analyses for reviewing scientific research literature to draw together a detailed overview of research on assessing scientific inquiry abilities in global educational settings.

Our review of the problem of assessing scientific inquiry allowed us illuminate this rapidly changing area of research. In the last two decades, while research on curriculum reforms in science inquiry-orientations have proceeded apace, research on digital modes of assessing scientific inquiry have only recently started to make an impact. Our analysis of sixty-three studies showed that scientific inquiry has been emphasized, integrated, and assessed in the settings of science education around the world. The bulk of this research, started in the US, was brought to global significance through the influence of transnational policy decision-makers, such as the OECD and mainly US-led networks of researchers. The US researchers published several academic papers in the earliest part of the timeline studied, and their findings remain today as foundational citations. This research was quickly followed by new networks forming from Germany, Turkey, Taiwan and China. Co-citation networks revealed that the US National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996 ) remains as a foundational reference, even though the 2012 document should have had nearly equal significance. Surprisingly, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) benchmarks were not cited as frequently in the case.

Over two decades, performance assessments and batteries of independent tests, employing both multiple-choice and open-ended formats, continue to be widely used for assessing scientific inquiry. Hands-on performance assessment remains one of the main modes of assessing competence in scientific inquiry. Moreover, a traditional written test can be easily administered, reliably scored, and is familiar to students, but falls short in effectively capturing the dynamics of real-life inquiry and may be significantly influenced by reading proficiency (Kruit et al., 2018 ). Besides, hands-on performance assessment is not efficient for large-scale assessments (Kuo et al., 2015 ). Therefore, there is a growing emphasis on developing authentic tests. These tests, which may include manipulatives, are considered to provide a more comprehensive assessment of students’ capability in conducting scientific inquiry through multiple formats (e.g., open-constructed, multiple-choice, multiple-true-false, short closed-constructed).

Our analysis showed that original components like formulating questions or hypotheses, designing experiments, analysing data, and drawing conclusions were consistently used for assessing scientific inquiry capabilities over time. However, certain sub-components, such as formulating prediction or hypotheses , formulating questions , setting experiment , varying independent variable , measuring dependent variable , controlling confounding variables , describing data , interpreting data , and reaching reasonable conclusions , were the most frequently used competences in the selected studies. Meanwhile, facets like specifying test time , defining replication , and recognizing limitations were shown to have an increasing prevalence in the last decade. This trend signals a possible enhanced emphasis on these facets or sub-components of scientific inquiry, particularly in digital-based environments. The growing focus on these areas may reflect the advancements in technology that allow for more precise measurement and analysis, thereby promoting a more rigorous approach to scientific inquiry.

In the last decade, online battery tests and simulation performance assessments have gained increasing popularity. These studies reflect the design and enactment of innovative assessments using advanced technology, such as Web-based Inquiry Science Environments (McElhaney & Linn, 2011 ), SimScientists (Quellmalz et al., 2012 , 2013 ), iSA–Earth Science (Lou et al., 2015 ), Multimedia-based assessment of scientific inquiry abilities (Kuo et al., 2015 ; Wu et al., 2015 ), Inq-ITS system (Inquiry Intelligent Tutoring System (Gobert et al., 2013 , 2015 ), Virtual Performance Assessments (Baker et al., 2016 ), Dynamic visualization to design animation-based activities (Sui et al., 2024 ).

In terms of emphasizing vision in science education, empirical evidence demonstrated that the design of inquiry tests included pure science content (vision I) and science-in-context considerations (vision II). However, recent studies increasingly preferred assessing scientific inquiry within real-world contexts. This trend reflects an understanding of the importance of students being able to apply scientific concepts to real-world problems, thus preparing them for the complex, interdisciplinary challenges they are likely to face in their futures. By focusing on context, these studies aim to enhance students’ ability to think critically and engage with science in a way that is relevant to their everyday lives and broader community issues. These are also partly reflected in alignment with national and international frameworks.

Implications

The paper not only identifies various aspects of studies and research within a specific field of assessing inquiry competence, but also provides systematic rationales related to the construction of the tools, tasks and techniques used to assess scientific inquiry capabilities in educational settings. This is valuable for science teachers as they create inquiry-oriented tasks in their classrooms. Additionally, new researchers can gain an overview of the research teams working in this area.

The foreseeable trend may be that the move towards dynamic and interactive inquiry assessments enables researchers to examine not just the accuracy of students’ responses (product data) but also the procedures and actions they employ to arrive at responses (process data) (Teig, 2024 ). Multi-faceted aspects of scientific inquiry can be observed during assessment tasks. Beside traditional components in formulating questions or hypotheses , designing experiments , analysing data , and drawing conclusions , some new aspects like task time , replication and recognizing limitations seem to more consider as they become measurable in technology-rich environment. Therefore, log-file analysis will be more popular approach in the field.

The development of scientific inquiry assessments should be considered as a multifaceted process of construct modelling. The combination of multiple validity approaches is encouraged in development of the assessment of scientific inquiry. Psychometric analysis through Rasch model is often employed in validating and scaling student performance. Alternative approaches to deal with log-file records are still in the early pioneering stages of development (e.g., Baker et al., 2016 ; McElhaney & Linn, 2011 ; Teig, 2024 ; Teig et al., 2020 ). An automated scoring engine demonstrated a promising approach to scoring constructed-response in assessment of inquiry ability (Liu et al., 2016 ). This opens a potential space for upcoming new research in this field with application of artificial intelligence.

The review illuminates the evolving landscape of scientific inquiry assessment development and validation, emphasizing the importance of a comprehensive and flexible approach to meet the diverse needs of educational and research settings. However, tackling such novel tasks necessitated not only an understanding of scientific inquiry assessment but also sophisticated technology and its corresponding infrastructures. For example, simulation tasks addressing complex real-world problems, such as climate change, water shortages, and global food security, necessitate the collaboration of various relevant stakeholders. It is crucial for research and educational technology institutions to play supportive roles for science teachers. More robust and published research on scientist-led K-12 outreach is essential for enhancing comprehension among scientists and K-12 stakeholders regarding the optimal practices and challenges associated with outreach initiatives (Abramowitz et al., 2024 ).

Science teachers were encouraged to integrate both pure science content and science-in-context applications into their teaching and assessment (Roberts & Bybee, 2014 ). This will involve teachers’ designing inquiry-based activities that apply scientific principles to real-world problems, helping students develop higher-order critical thinking skills and preparing them for future interdisciplinary challenges. Emphasizing real-world applications of scientific inquiry can help to make science education more relevant and engaging for students.

Moreover, the adoption of combined approaches to the literature review, integrating bibliometric and ENA analyses with systematic review PRISMA guidelines, demonstrates a meticulous and systematic approach to data synthesis. Beyond its immediate application here, this research design may serve as a model for future research endeavours, contributing to the advancement of novel methodologies.

Limitation of the Review

The review conducted here was limited to 63 empirical studies published in SCOPUS/WoS data between 2000 and 2024 and in English. It may not cover the full range of academic documents that are made available in other academic databases, potentially missing significant studies published in different languages or within other research repositories.

The nature of psychological issues is often controversial, and our suggested framework for assessing scientific inquiry competence is merely one of several approaches presented in the literature. Different scholars proposed various models, each with its own strengths and limitations, reflecting the ongoing debate and complexity within this field. Furthermore, the selection of articles was conducted and scored by the authors, which introduces the possibility of certain biases. These biases may stem from subjective interpretations, or unintentional preferences, potentially influencing the overall findings.

The application of advanced technology is sophisticated and diverse; we have highlighted only a few features without covering all aspects of digital-based assessment. Therefore, generalizations from the study need to be approached with caution. However, the study provides valuable insights into the fast-globalizing landscape of assessing scientific inquiry and will be of interest to researchers, educators, teachers in science education and those with an interest in grappling with similar problems of assessment.

Abramowitz, B., Ennes, M., Kester, B., & Antonenko, P. (2024). Scientist-school STEM partnerships through outreach in the USA: A systematic review. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-024-10445-7

American Education Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing . American Psychological Association. https://www.aera.net/Portals/38/1999Standards_revised.pdf

Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13 (1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015171124982

Article   Google Scholar  

Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics , 11 (4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007

Arnold, J. C., Boone, W. J., Kremer, K., & Mayer, J. (2018). Assessment of competencies in scientific inquiry through the application of Rasch measurement techniques. Education Sciences , 8 (4), 184. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8040184

Baker, R. S., Clarke-Midura, J., & Ocumpaugh, J. (2016). Towards general models of effective science inquiry in virtual performance assessments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , 32 (3), 267–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12128

Baur, A., Baumgartner-hirscher, N., Lehtinen, A., Neudecker, C., Nieminen, P., Papaevripidou, M., Rohrmann, S., Schiffl, I., Schuknecht, M., Virtbauer, L., & Xenofontos, N. (Eds.). (2022). Differentiation in inquiry-based learning: A differentiation tool with a focus on experimentation . Heidelberg, University of Education.

Google Scholar  

Beaumont-Walters, Y., & Soyibo, K. (2001). An analysis of high school students’ performance on five integrated science process skills. Research in Science & Technological Education , 19 (2), 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140120087687

Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-ricci, M., & Rumble, M. (2012). Defining twenty-first century skills. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.),  Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century skills (pp.17–66). Springer Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2324-5

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Bónus, L., Antal, E., & Korom, E. (2024). Digital game-based inquiry learning to improve eighth graders’ inquiry skills in Biology. Journal of Science Education and Technology , 33 , 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-024-10096-x

Brown, N. J. S., & Wilson, M. (2011). A model of cognition: The missing cornerstone of assessment. Educational Psychology Review, 23 (2), 221–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9161-z

Chang, W., Cheng, J., Allaire, J., Sievert, C., Schloerke, B., Xie, Y., Allen, J., McPherson, J., Dipert, A., & Borges, B. (2023). shiny: Web application framework for R (R package version 1.8.0). https://cran.r-project.org/package=shiny

Chi, S., Wang, Z., & Liu, X. (2019). Investigating disciplinary context effect on student scientific inquiry competence. International Journal of Science Education , 41 (18), 2736–2764. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1697837

Chu, S. K. W., Reynolds, R. B., Tavares, N. J., Notari, M., & Lee, C. W. Y. (2017). 21st century skills development through inquiry-based learning: From theory to practice . Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2481-8

Clark, D., & Linn, M. C. (2009). Designing for knowledge integration: The impact of instructional time. Journal of Education , 189 (1–2), 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022057409189001-210

Cuevas, P., Lee, O., Hart, J., & Deaktor, R. (2005). Improving science inquiry with elementary students of diverse backgrounds. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 42 (3), 337–357. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20053

Diodato, V. P., & Gellatly, P. (2013). Dictionary of bibliometrics . Routledge.

Book   Google Scholar  

Dogan, O. K., Han-Tosunoglu, C., Arslan, N., Cakir, M., & Irez, S. (2024). Middle school graduates’ understandings of scientific inquiry and its relation to academic achievement. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 22 (1), 143–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-023-10365-y

Dori, Y. J., Zohar, A., Fischer-Shachor, D., Kohan-Mass, J., & Carmi, M. (2018). Gender-fair assessment of young gifted students’ scientific thinking skills. International Journal of Science Education , 40 (6), 595–620. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1431419

Emden, M., & Sumfleth, E. (2016). Assessing students’ experimentation processes in guided inquiry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education , 14 (1), 29–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9564-7

Erduran, S. (2014). Beyond nature of science: The case for reconceptualising Science for science education. Science Education International , 25 (1), 95–111. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1022972

European Commission and Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. (2015). Science education for responsible citizenship: Report to the European Commission of the expert group on science education . Publications Office. https://doi.org/10.2777/12626

Feyzíoglu, B. (2012). Developing a science process skills test for secondary students: Validity and reliability study. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practices , 12 , 1899–1906. https://xlink.rsc.org/?DOI=C8RP00071A

Fukuda, M., Hajian, S., Jain, M., Liu, A. L., Obaid, T., Nesbit, J. C., & Winne, P. H. (2022). Scientific inquiry learning with a simulation: Providing within-task guidance tailored to learners’ understanding and inquiry skill. International Journal of Science Education , 44 (6), 1021–1043. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2062799

Gobert, J. D., Pedro, S., Raziuddin, M., J., & Baker, R. S. (2013). From log files to assessment metrics: Measuring students’ science inquiry skills using educational data mining. Journal of the Learning Sciences , 22 (4), 521–563. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2013.837391

Gobert, J. D., Kim, Y. J., Sao Pedro, M. A., Kennedy, M., & Betts, C. G. (2015). Using educational data mining to assess students’ skills at designing and conducting experiments within a complex systems microworld. Thinking Skills and Creativity , 18 , 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2015.04.008

Griffin, P., McGaw, B., & Care, E. (Eds.). (2012).  Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills . Springer Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2324-5

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research , 77 (1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487

Hickey, D. T., Ingram-Goble, A. A., & Jameson, E. M. (2009). Designing assessments and assessing designs in virtual educational environments. Journal of Science Education and Technology , 18 (2), 187–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-9143-1

Intasoi, S., Junpeng, P., Tang, K. N., Ketchatturat, J., Zhang, Y., & Wilson, M. (2020). Developing an assessment framework of multidimensional scientific competencies. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE) , 9 (4), 963–970. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v9i4.20542

Kaberman, Z., & Dori, Y. J. (2009). Question posing, inquiry, and modeling skills of Chemistry students in the case-based computerized laboratory environment. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education , 7 (3), 597–625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-007-9118-3

Kazeni, M., Baloyi, E., & Gaigher, E. (2018). Effectiveness of individual and group investigations in developing integrated science inquiry skills. South African Journal of Education , 38 (3), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v38n3a1549

Ketelhut, D., Nelson, B., Schifter, C., & Kim, Y. (2013). Improving science assessments by situating them in a virtual environment. Education Sciences , 3 (2), 172–192. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci3020172

Kind, P. M. (2013). Establishing assessment scales using a novel disciplinary rationale for scientific reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 50 (5), 530–560. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21086

Kipnis, M., & Hofstein, A. (2008). The inquiry laboratory as a source for development of metacognitive skills. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education , 6 (3), 601–627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-007-9066-y

Kruit, P. M., Oostdam, R. J., van den Berg, E., & Schuitema, J. A. (2018). Assessing students’ ability in performing scientific inquiry: Instruments for measuring science skills in primary education. Research in Science and Technological Education , 36 (4), 413–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2017.1421530

Kuo, C. Y., Wu, H. K., Jen, T. H., & Hsu, Y. S. (2015). Development and validation of a multimedia-based assessment of scientific inquiry abilities. International Journal of Science Education , 37 (14), 2326–2357. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1078521

Lin, S. F., & Shie, W. C. (2024). A cooperative model of development and validation of a curriculum-based scientific competence test. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education , 22 (3), 491–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-023-10366-x

Lin, S. W., Liu, Y., Chen, S. F., Wang, J. R., & Kao, H. L. (2015). Development of a computer-based measure of listening comprehension of science talk. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education , 13 (6), 1469–1486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9559-4

Lin, S. W., Liu, Y., Chen, S. F., Wang, J. R., & Kao, H. L. (2016). Elementary school students’ science talk ability in inquiry-oriented settings in Taiwan: Test development, verification, and performance benchmarks. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education , 14 (7), 1199–1214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9663-0

Liu, O. L., Lee, H. S., Hofstetter, C., & Linn, M. (2008). Assessing knowledge integration in science: Construct, measures, and evidence. Educational Assessment , 13 (1), 33–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627190801968224

Liu, O. L., Rios, J. A., Heilman, M., Gerard, L., & Linn, M. C. (2016). Validation of automated scoring of science assessments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 53 (2), 215–233. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21299

Lou, Y., Blanchard, P., & Kennedy, E. (2015). Development and validation of a science inquiry skills assessment. Journal of Geoscience Education , 63 (1), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.5408/14-028.1

Marquart, C. L., Hinojosa, C., Swiecki, Z., Eagan, B., & Shaffer, D. W. (2018). Epistemic network analysis (Version 1.7.0) [Software] .

Marshall, J. C., Smart, J. B., & Alston, D. M. (2017). Inquiry-based instruction: A possible solution to improving student learning of both science concepts and scientific practices. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education , 15 (5), 777–796. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9718-x

McElhaney, K. W., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Investigations of a complex, realistic task: Intentional, unsystematic, and exhaustive experimenters. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 48 (7), 745–770. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20423

Millar, R. (2006). Twenty First Century Science: Insights from the design and implementation of a scientific literacy approach in school science. International Journal of Science Education , 28 (13), 1499–1521. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600718344

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology , 62 (10), 1006–1012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005

Mutlu, A. (2020). Evaluation of students’ scientific process skills through reflective worksheets in the inquiry-based learning environments. Reflective Practice , 21 (2), 271–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2020.1736999

National Council for Curriculum and Assessment [NCCA]. (2015). Junior cycle science: Curriculum specification. Author.

National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). National Science education standards. National committee for science education standards and assessment . National Academies.

National Research Council [NRC]. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning . National Academies.

National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas . National Academies. https://smile.oregonstate.edu/sites/smile.oregonstate.edu/files/a_framework_for_k-12_science_education.pdf

Neumann, I., Neumann, K., & Nehm, R. (2011). Evaluating instrument quality in science education: Rasch-based analyses of a nature of science test. International Journal of Science Education , 33 (10), 1373–1405. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.511297

Nowak, K. H., Nehring, A., Tiemann, R., & Upmeier, A. (2013). Assessing students’ abilities in processes of scientific inquiry in biology using a paper-and-pencil test. Journal of Biological Education , 47 (3), 182–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2013.822747

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD]. (2017). PISA 2015 assessment and analytical framework . Author. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264281820-en

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD]. (2015). Try PISA 2015 test questions . Author. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/test/pisa2015/#d.en.537240

Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, E. T., Manoli, C. C., Zacharia, Z. C., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review , 14 , 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003

Pedaste, M., Baucal, A., & Reisenbuk, E. (2021). Towards a science inquiry test in primary education: Development of items and scales. International Journal of STEM Education , 8 (1), Article 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00278-z

Pine, J., Aschbacher, P., Roth, E., Jones, M., McPhee, C., Martin, C., Phelps, S., Kyle, T., & Foley, B. (2006). Fifth graders’ science inquiry abilities: A comparative study of students in hands-on and textbook curricula. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 43 (5), 467–484. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20140

Quellmalz, E. S., Timms, M. J., Silberglitt, M. D., & Buckley, B. C. (2012). Science assessments for all: Integrating science simulations into balanced state science assessment systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 49 (3), 363–393. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21005

Quellmalz, E. S., Davenport, J. L., Timms, M. J., DeBoer, G. E., Jordan, K. A., Huang, C. W., & Buckley, B. C. (2013). Next-generation environments for assessing and promoting complex science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology , 105 (4), 1100–1114. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032220

R Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing . R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org/

Ramnarain, U. D. (2014). Teachers ’ perceptions of inquiry-based learning in urban, suburban, township and rural high schools : The context-speci fi city of science curriculum implementation in South Africa. Teaching and Teacher Education , 38 , 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.11.003

Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Routledge.

Roberts, D. A., & Bybee, R. W. (2014). Scientific literacy, science literacy, and science education. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. 2, pp. 559–572). Routledge.

Rönnebeck, S., Bernholt, S., & Ropohl, M. (2016). Searching for a common ground – A literature review of empirical research on scientific inquiry activities. Studies in Science Education , 52 (2), 161–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2016.1206351

Ruis, A. R., & Lee, S. B. (Eds.). (2021). Advances in quantitative ethnography (Vol. 1312). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67788-6

Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Li, M., Tsai, S. P., & Schneider, J. (2010). Testing one premise of scientific inquiry in science classrooms: Examining students’ scientific explanations and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 47 (5), 583–608. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20356

Samarapungavan, A., Mantzicopoulos, P., Patrick, H., & French, B. (2009). The development and validation of the science learning assessment (SLA): A measure of kindergarten science learning. Journal of Advanced Academics , 20 (3), 502–535. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X0902000306

Sarıoğlu, S. (2023). Development of Online science process skills test for 8th grade pupils. Journal of Turkish Science Education , 20 (3), 418–432. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2023.024

Scalise, K., & Clarke-Midura, J. (2018). The many faces of scientific inquiry: Effectively measuring what students do and not only what they say. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 55 (10), 1469–1496. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21464

Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, J. S., & Enderle, P. J. (2023). Scientific inquiry literacy: The missing link on the continuum from science literacy to scientific literacy. In N. G. Lederman, D. L. Zeidler, & J. S. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 749–782). Routledge.

Schwichow, M., Christoph, S., Boone, W. J., & Härtig, H. (2016). The impact of sub-skills and item content on students’ skills with regard to the control-of-variables strategy. International Journal of Science Education , 38 (2), 216–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1137651

Seeratan, K. L., McElhaney, K. W., Mislevy, J., McGhee, R., Conger, D., & Long, M. C. (2020). Measuring students’ ability to engage in scientific inquiry: A new instrument to assess data analysis, explanation, and argumentation. Educational Assessment , 25 (2), 112–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2020.1756253

Shaffer, D., williamson, Collier, W., & Ruis, A. R. (2016). A tutorial on epistemic network analysis: Analyzing the structure of connections in cognitive, cocial, and interaction data. Journal of Learning Analytics , 3 (3), 9–45. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2016.33.3

Shahali, E. H. M., & Halim, L. (2010). Development and validation of a test of integrated science process skills. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences , 9 , 142–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.127

Šmida, D., Čipková, E., & Fuchs, M. (2024). Developing the test of inquiry skills: Measuring the level of inquiry skills among pupils in Slovakia. International Journal of Science Education , 46 (1), 73–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2023.2219811

Stender, A., Schwichow, M., Zimmerman, C., & Härtig, H. (2018). Making inquiry-based science learning visible: The influence of CVS and cognitive skills on content knowledge learning in guided inquiry. International Journal of Science Education , 40 (15), 1812–1831. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1504346

Sui, C., Hsiao, S., Yeh, S., Zhao, P., Chang, C., & Lin, J. (2024). Do they have inquiry skill profiles? Exploring high school students’ scientific inquiry in an animation-based activity. Science Education, 108 (2), 467–494. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21844

Teig, N. (2024). Uncovering student strategies for solving scientific snquiry tasks: Insights from student process data in PISA. Research in Science Education , 54 , 205–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-023-10134-5

Teig, N., Scherer, R., & Kjærnsli, M. (2020). Identifying patterns of students’ performance on simulated inquiry tasks using PISA 2015 log-file data. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 57 (9), 1400–1429. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21657

Temiz, B. K., Taşar, M. F., & Tan, M. (2006). Development and validation of a test of integrated science process skills. International Education Journal , 7 (7), 1007–1027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.127

Tosun, C. (2019). Scientific process skills test development within the topic Matter and its nature and the predictive effect of different variables on 7th and 8th grade students’ scientific process skill levels. Chemistry Education Research and Practice , 20 (1), 160–174. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8RP00071A

Toth, E. E., Suthers, D. D., & Lesgold, A. M. (2002). Mapping to know: The effects of representational guidance and reflective assessment on scientific inquiry. Science Education , 86 (2), 264–286. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10004

Turkan, S., & Liu, O. L. (2012). Differential performance by English language learners on an inquiry-based science assessment. International Journal of Science Education , 34 (15), 2343–2369. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.705046

Turner, R. C., Keiffer, E. A., & Salamo, G. J. (2018). Observing inquiry-based learning environments using the scholastic inquiry observation instrument. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education , 16 (8), 1455–1478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9843-1

Van Vo, D., & Csapó, B. (2021). Development of scientific reasoning test measuring control of variables strategy in physics for high school students: evidence of validity and latent predictors of item difficulty. International Journal of Science Education, 43 (13), 2185–2205. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1957515

Vo, D. V., & Csapó, B. (2023). Exploring inductive reasoning, scientific reasoning and science motivation, and their role in predicting STEM achievement across grade levels. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 21 (8), 2375–2398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-022-10349-4

Vo, D. V., Csapó, B., & Greiff, S. (2023). Development of the control of variables strategy in physics among secondary school students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 49, 101371. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TSC.2023.101371

Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21stcentury competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies , 44 (3), 299–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2012.668938

Wallace, M. F. G., Bazzul, J., Higgins, M., & Tolbert, S. (Eds.). (2022). Reimagining science education in the Anthropocene . Palgrave Macmillan.

Wenning, C. J. (2007). Assessing inquiry skills as a component of scientific literacy. Journal of Physics Teacher Education Online , 4 (2), 21–24.

Wu, P. H., & Wu, H. K. (2020). Constructing a model of engagement in scientific inquiry: Investigating relationships between inquiry-related curiosity, dimensions of engagement, and inquiry abilities. Instructional Science , 48 (1), 79–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-020-09503-8

Wu, P. H., Wu, H. K., & Hsu, Y. S. (2014). Establishing the criterion-related, construct, and content validities of a simulation-based sssessment of inquiry abilities. International Journal of Science Education , 36 (10), 1630–1650. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.871660

Wu, H. K., Kuo, C. Y., Jen, T. H., & Hsu, Y. S. (2015). What makes an item more difficult? Effects of modality and type of visual information in a computer-based assessment of scientific inquiry abilities. Computers & Education , 85 , 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.01.007

Yang, K. K., Lin, S. F., Hong, Z. R., & Lin, H. (2016). Exploring the assessment of and relationship between elementary students’ scientific creativity and science inquiry. Creativity Research Journal , 28 (1), 16–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2016.1125270

Zachos, P., Hick, T. L., Doane, W. E. J., & Sargent, C. (2000). Setting theoretical and empirical foundations for assessing scientific inquiry and discovery in educational programs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 37 (9), 938–962. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200011)37:9<938::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-S

Zheng, Y., Yu, S., Zhang, M., Wang, J., Yang, X., Zheng, S., & Ping, X. (2022). Research on performance assessment of students’ inquiry skills in China’s elementary schools: A video analysis of Beijing discovering science around us. Research in Science & Technological Education . https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2022.2126973

Zimmerman, C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review, 27 (2), 172–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2006.12.001

Download references

Open Access funding provided by the IReL Consortium. This research was supported by the Irish Research Council under grant number: GOIPD/2023/148.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

EPI•STEM National Research Centre for STEM Education, School of Education, University of Limerick, Castletroy, Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland

De Van Vo & Geraldine Mooney Simmie

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to De Van Vo .

Ethics declarations

Declarations of originality.

This manuscript has not been published elsewhere and is not under consideration by another journal.

Conflict of interest

The authors have stated no potential conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Vo, D.V., Simmie, G. Assessing Scientific Inquiry: A Systematic Literature Review of Tasks, Tools and Techniques. Int J of Sci and Math Educ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-024-10498-8

Download citation

Received : 28 February 2024

Accepted : 17 August 2024

Published : 04 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-024-10498-8

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

• Scientific Inquiry
• Science Education
• Systematic Literature Review
• Epistemic Network Analysis
• Bibliometrix
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

What is a Living Literature Review?

Table of contents.

The number of academic papers doubles every 12 years. This wealth of new knowledge is exciting, but the pace of growth makes keeping up with the latest developments increasingly difficult.

One response to this challenge is “living literature reviews”. At Open Phil, we define a living literature review as a continuously updated online collection of accessible articles that synthesize academic research on a specific topic. These reviews are primarily written by a single expert who is responsible for its quality and accuracy.

Living literature reviews aim to be accessible to readers unfamiliar with a field while maintaining rigor. Unlike news articles that often focus on single, sensational studies, these reviews provide a broader perspective, synthesizing findings from multiple sources. They differ from traditional academic literature reviews by avoiding paywalls, dense jargon, and lengthy formats that pose barriers to non-specialists. Moreover, because they don’t assume familiarity with the assumptions of a field, living literature reviews aim to describe how conclusions were reached, not just what the conclusions are. This transparency allows readers to better understand the research methodology and form their own judgment on the strength of the findings.

Living literature reviews also help readers assess a field by relying on a single individual to provide a consistent voice, perspective, and expert curatorial taste. While these individuals collaborate with other experts in their fields, having one consistent author allows readers to gauge how much they trust the author’s judgment over time.

Finally, living literature reviews leverage digital platforms for hosting and distribution. Websites allow for post-publication corrections and updates, enabling a level of currency that traditional print reviews can’t match. Complementing these, email newsletters and podcasts extend the reach and convenience of learning about academic research.

By making research accessible to a broader audience, living literature reviews can facilitate interdisciplinary connections and inform policy work. They offer insights into work happening in adjacent fields, potentially inspiring collaborations and novel research directions.

Open Philanthropy supports several living literature reviews:

• New Things Under the Sun by Matt Clancy: social science research on science and innovation
• Existential Crunch by Florian Jehn: academic literature on societal collapse
• Some Are Useful by Tom Gebhart: how AI and machine learning are used in different parts of science
• Good Questions Review by Paul Kellner: the relationship between academic research and policy impact

We are now seeking pre-proposals from individuals to write living literature reviews . We are particularly interested in reviews on neglected topics relevant to policymaking. Ideal candidates will have a PhD or equivalent expertise in their proposed area. Our support typically allows authors to dedicate a quarter to a third of their time to the project.

If you’re interested in launching your own living literature review, we encourage you to reach out. For more information on how to submit a pre-proposal, please contact [email protected] .

Privacy Overview

• Subscriptions
• Advanced search

Advanced Search

A systematic literature review of the clinical and socioeconomic burden of bronchiectasis

• Find this author on Google Scholar
• Find this author on PubMed
• Search for this author on this site
• For correspondence: [email protected]
• ORCID record for Marcus A. Mall
• ORCID record for Michal Shteinberg
• ORCID record for Sanjay H. Chotirmall
• Figures & Data
• Info & Metrics

Background The overall burden of bronchiectasis on patients and healthcare systems has not been comprehensively described. Here, we present the findings of a systematic literature review that assessed the clinical and socioeconomic burden of bronchiectasis with subanalyses by aetiology (PROSPERO registration: CRD42023404162).

Methods Embase, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library were searched for publications relating to bronchiectasis disease burden (December 2017–December 2022). Journal articles and congress abstracts reporting on observational studies, randomised controlled trials and registry studies were included. Editorials, narrative reviews and systematic literature reviews were included to identify primary studies. PRISMA guidelines were followed.

Results 1585 unique publications were identified, of which 587 full texts were screened and 149 were included. A further 189 citations were included from reference lists of editorials and reviews, resulting in 338 total publications. Commonly reported symptoms and complications included dyspnoea, cough, wheezing, sputum production, haemoptysis and exacerbations. Disease severity across several indices and increased mortality compared with the general population was reported. Bronchiectasis impacted quality of life across several patient-reported outcomes, with patients experiencing fatigue, anxiety and depression. Healthcare resource utilisation was considerable and substantial medical costs related to hospitalisations, treatments and emergency department and outpatient visits were accrued. Indirect costs included sick pay and lost income.

Conclusions Bronchiectasis causes significant clinical and socioeconomic burden. Disease-modifying therapies that reduce symptoms, improve quality of life and reduce both healthcare resource utilisation and overall costs are needed. Further systematic analyses of specific aetiologies and paediatric disease may provide more insight into unmet therapeutic needs.

• Shareable abstract

Bronchiectasis imposes a significant clinical and socioeconomic burden on patients, their families and employers, and on healthcare systems. Therapies that reduce symptoms, improve quality of life and reduce resource use and overall costs are needed. https://bit.ly/4bPCHlp

• Introduction

Bronchiectasis is a heterogeneous chronic respiratory disease clinically characterised by chronic cough, excessive sputum production and recurrent pulmonary exacerbations [ 1 ], and radiologically characterised by the abnormal widening of the bronchi [ 2 ]. Bronchiectasis is associated with several genetic, autoimmune, airway and infectious disorders [ 3 ]. Regardless of the underlying cause, the defining features of bronchiectasis are chronic airway inflammation and infection, regionally impaired mucociliary clearance, mucus hypersecretion and mucus obstruction, as well as progressive structural lung damage [ 4 , 5 ]. These features perpetuate one another in a “vicious vortex” leading to a decline in lung function, pulmonary exacerbations and associated morbidity, mortality and worsened quality of life [ 4 , 5 ]. Bronchiectasis can be further categorised into several infective and inflammatory endotypes and is associated with multiple comorbidities and underlying aetiologies [ 6 ].

Bronchiectasis has been described as an emerging global epidemic [ 7 ], with prevalence and incidence rates increasing worldwide [ 8 – 12 ]. The prevalence of bronchiectasis, as well as of the individual aetiologies, varies widely across geographic regions [ 13 ]. In Europe, the reported prevalence ranges from 39.1 (females) and 33.3 (males) cases per 100 000 inhabitants in Spain and 68 (females) and 65 (males) cases per 100 000 inhabitants in Germany, to as high as 566 cases (females) and 486 cases (males) per 100 000 inhabitants in the UK [ 10 – 12 ]. In the US, the average overall prevalence was reported to be 139 cases per 100 000 [ 14 ], in Israel, the prevalence was reported to be 234 cases per 100 000 [ 15 ], and in China the prevalence was reported to be 174 per 100 000 [ 8 ]. Studies show that bronchiectasis prevalence increases with age [ 14 ]. This may increase the socioeconomic impact of bronchiectasis on countries with disproportionately higher number of older citizens. Large registry studies in patients with bronchiectasis have been published from the US (Bronchiectasis Research Registry) [ 16 ], Europe and Israel (European Multicentre Bronchiectasis Audit and Research Collaboration (EMBARC)); the largest and most comprehensive report available to date) [ 17 ], India (EMBARC-India) [ 18 , 19 ], Korea (Korean Multicentre Bronchiectasis Audit and Research Collaboration) [ 20 ] and Australia (Australian Bronchiectasis Registry) [ 21 ].

Although there are currently no approved disease-modifying therapies for bronchiectasis [ 4 ], comprehensive clinical care recommendations for the management of patients with bronchiectasis have been published [ 22 , 23 ]. However, the burden that bronchiectasis imposes on patients and their families, as well as on healthcare systems, payers and employers, remains poorly understood. No review to date has used a systematic method to evaluate the overall disease burden of bronchiectasis. This is the first systematic literature review aimed at investigating and synthesising the clinical and socioeconomic burden of bronchiectasis. A better understanding of the overarching burden of bronchiectasis, both overall and by individual aetiologies and associated diseases, will highlight the need for new therapies and assist healthcare systems in planning care and required resources.

The protocol of this systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (reference number: CRD42023404162).

Search strategy

This systematic literature review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [ 24 ]. Embase, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies related to the clinical and socioeconomic burden of bronchiectasis (noncystic fibrosis bronchiectasis (NCFBE) and cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis (CFBE)) using the search terms available in supplementary table S1 . Articles written in English and published over a 5-year period (December 2017–December 2022) were included.

Selection criteria

The following article types reporting on prospective and retrospective observational studies, registry studies and randomised controlled trials (only baseline data extracted) were included: journal articles, preprints, research letters, conference proceedings, conference papers, conference abstracts, meeting abstracts and meeting posters. Reviews, literature reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, as well as editorials, commentaries, letters and letters to the editor, were included for the purpose of identifying primary studies. A manual search of references cited in selected articles was performed and references were only included if they were published within the 5 years prior to the primary article being published.

Screening and data extraction

A reviewer screened all titles and abstracts to identify publications for full-text review. These publications then underwent full-text screening by the same reviewer for potential inclusion. A second reviewer independently verified the results of both the title/abstract screen and the full-text screen. Any discrepancies were resolved by a third independent reviewer. Data relating to aetiology, symptoms, disease severity, exacerbations, lung function, infection, comorbidities, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), exercise capacity, mortality, impact on family and caregivers, healthcare resource utilisation (HCRU), treatment burden, medical costs, and indirect impacts and costs, as well as data relating to the patient population, study design, sample size and country/countries of origin, were extracted from the final set of publications into a standardised Excel spreadsheet by one reviewer. Studies were grouped based on the burden measure, and aggregate data (range of reported values) were summarised in table or figure format. For the economic burden section, costs extracted from studies reporting in currencies other than the euros were converted to euros based on the average exchange rate for the year in which the study was conducted.

Data from patients with specific bronchiectasis aetiologies and in children (age limits varied from study to study and included upper age limits of 15, 18, 19 and 20 years) were reported separately, where available. As literature relating to NCFBE and CFBE is generally distinct, any data related to CFBE are reported separately in the tables and text. We conducted subanalyses of key disease burden indicators, in which we extracted data from multicentre studies or those with a sample size >1000 subjects, to try to identify estimates from the most representative datasets. These data from larger and multicentre studies are reported in square brackets in tables 1 – 3 and supplementary tables S2–S7 , where available.

• View inline

Prevalence and severity of bronchiectasis symptoms overall, in children, during exacerbations and in individual bronchiectasis aetiologies

Patient-reported outcome scores in patients with bronchiectasis overall and in individual bronchiectasis aetiologies

Healthcare resource utilisation (HCRU) in patients with bronchiectasis overall and in individual bronchiectasis aetiologies

Given the nature of the data included in this systematic literature review (that is, a broad range of patient clinical and socioeconomic characteristics rather than the outcome(s) of an intervention), in addition to the broad range of study types included, meta-analyses to statistically combine data of similar studies were not deemed appropriate and therefore not performed.

Summary of included studies

A total of 1834 citations were retrieved from the Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases, of which 1585 unique citations were identified. Abstract/title screening led to the inclusion of 587 citations for full-text screening. Following full-text screening, 149 primary citations and 110 literature reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses as well as editorials and letters to the editor remained. From the reference lists of these 110 citations, a further 189 primary citations were identified. These articles were only included if 1) the primary articles contained data relating to the burden of bronchiectasis and 2) the primary articles were published within the 5 years prior to the original article's publication date. In total, 338 publications were considered eligible and included in this review ( supplementary figure S1 ). This included 279 journal articles, 46 congress abstracts and 13 letters to the editor or scientific/research letters. The results are summarised in the sections below. For the results from individual studies, including a description of the patient population, study design, sample size and country/countries of origin, please see the supplemental Excel file .

The most frequently reported aetiologies included post-infectious, genetic (primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD), alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency (AATD) and cystic fibrosis (CF)), airway diseases (COPD and asthma), allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA), aspiration and reflux-related, immunodeficiency and autoimmune aetiologies ( supplementary figure S2 ). However, in up to 80.7% of adult cases and 53.3% of paediatric cases, the aetiology was not determined (referred to as “idiopathic bronchiectasis”) ( supplementary figure S2 ). When limited to larger or multicentre studies, the frequency of idiopathic bronchiectasis ranged from 11.5 to 66.0% in adults and from 16.5 to 29.4% in children. Further details and additional aetiologies can be seen in the supplemental Excel file .

Clinical burden

Symptom burden and severity.

Commonly reported symptoms in patients with bronchiectasis included cough, sputum production, dyspnoea, wheezing and haemoptysis, with these symptoms more prevalent in adults compared with children ( table 1 ). Other reported symptoms included chest discomfort, pain or tightness (both generally and during an exacerbation), fever and weight loss in both adults and children, and fatigue, tiredness or asthenia, appetite loss, and sweating in adults. In children, respiratory distress, hypoxia during an exacerbation, sneezing, nasal and ear discharge, thriving poorly including poor growth and weight loss, exercise intolerance, malaise, night sweats, abdominal pain, recurrent vomiting, and diarrhoea were reported ( supplemental Excel file ). Classic bronchiectasis symptoms such as sputum production (range of patients reporting sputum production across all studies: 22.0–92.7%) and cough (range of patients reporting cough across all studies: 24.0–98.5%) were not universally reported ( table 1 ).

In a study comparing bronchiectasis (excluding CFBE) in different age groups (younger adults (18–65 years), older adults (66–75 years) and elderly adults (≥76 years) [ 63 ]), no significant differences across age groups were reported for the presence of cough (younger adults: 73.9%; older adults: 72.8%; elderly adults: 72.9%; p=0.90), sputum production (younger adults: 57.8%; older adults: 63.8%; elderly adults: 6.0%; p=0.16) or haemoptysis (younger adults: 16.5%; older adults: 19.3%; elderly adults: 16.3%; p=0.47).

Disease severity

Disease severity was reported according to several measures including the bronchiectasis severity index (BSI), the forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1 ), Age, Chronic Colonisation, Extension, Dyspnoea (FACED) score and the Exacerbations-FACED (E-FACED) score, all of which are known to be associated with future exacerbations, hospitalisations and mortality ( supplementary table S2 and the supplemental Excel file ). Up to 78.7, 41.8 and 40.8% of patients with bronchiectasis reported severe disease according to the BSI, FACED score and E-FACED score, respectively ( supplementary table S2 ). In most studies, severity scores were greater among people with bronchiectasis secondary to COPD or post-tuberculosis (TB) than idiopathic bronchiectasis ( supplementary table S2 ). No data relating to disease severity were reported for CFBE specifically.

Exacerbations

The number of exacerbations experienced by patients with bronchiectasis in the previous year, per year and during follow-up are presented in figure 1 . For further details, please see the supplemental Excel file . Two studies reported exacerbation length in patients with bronchiectasis; this ranged from 11 to 16 days (both small studies; sample sizes of 191 and 32, respectively) [ 25 , 64 ]. A study in children with NCFBE reported a median of one exacerbation in the previous year. Additionally, the same study reported that 31.1% of children with bronchiectasis experienced ≥3 exacerbations per year [ 65 ].

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Range of bronchiectasis exacerbations in the previous year, per year and in the first and second years of follow-up. # : Two studies reported significant differences in the number of exacerbations experienced in the previous year across individual aetiologies. Study 1 [ 90 ]: Patients with idiopathic bronchiectasis had significantly fewer exacerbations in the previous year compared with other aetiologies (primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD), COPD and post-infectious) (p<0.021). Study 2 [ 33 ]: significant difference between post-tuberculosis (TB) bronchiectasis (mean: 2.8) and other aetiologies excluding idiopathic bronchiectasis (mean: 1.7) (p<0.05).

Lung function

Reduced lung function was reported across several different measures in adults and children with bronchiectasis overall, including FEV 1 (absolute values and % predicted), forced vital capacity (FVC; absolute values and % pred) and lung clearance index (adults only) ( supplementary table S3 and the supplemental Excel file ). In most studies, lung function was lowest among people with post-TB bronchiectasis and bronchiectasis secondary to COPD or PCD ( supplementary table S2 ). Additional measures of lung function are detailed in the supplemental Excel file . Lung clearance index, considered more sensitive than spirometry to early airway damage, was elevated in two studies in adults with bronchiectasis, with a range of 9.0–12.8 (normal: 6–7 or less) [ 66 , 67 ].

In a study comparing bronchiectasis (people with CFBE excluded) in different age groups, elderly adults (≥76 years) had significantly lower FEV 1 % pred (median: 67) compared with both younger (18–65 years; median: 78) and older adults (66–75 years; median: 75) (p<0.017 for both comparisons) [ 63 ]. FVC % pred was found to be significantly lower in elderly adults (mean: 65) compared with both younger adults (median: 78) and older adults (median: 75) (p<0.017 for both comparisons) [ 63 ].

Chronic infection with at least one pathogen was reported in 22.3–79.6% of patients with bronchiectasis, although each study defined chronic infection differently (number of studies: 20). When limited to larger or multicentre studies, chronic infection with at least one pathogen was reported in 10.7–54.5% of patients with bronchiectasis (number of studies: 12). In two studies in NCFBE, significant differences in the proportion of patients chronically infected with at least one pathogen were reported across aetiologies (p<0.001 for both studies) [ 68 , 69 ]. Patients with post-infectious (other than TB) bronchiectasis (34.9%) [ 68 ] and patients with PCD-related bronchiectasis (68.3%) [ 69 ] had the highest prevalence of chronic infection.

The most commonly reported bacterial and fungal pathogens are shown in supplementary table S4 . The two most common bacterial pathogens were Pseudomonas ( P .) aeruginosa and Haemophilus ( H. ) influenzae . In several studies, more patients with PCD, TB and COPD as the aetiology of their bronchiectasis reported infection with P. aeruginosa . Additionally, in one study, significantly more children with CFBE had P. aeruginosa infection compared with children with NCFBE [ 70 ]. Further details and additional pathogens are reported in the supplemental Excel file .

Diversity of the sputum microbiome was assessed in two studies. In the first study in people with bronchiectasis (people with CFBE excluded), reduced microbiome alpha diversity (defined as the relative abundance of microbial species within a sample), particularly associated with Pseudomonas or Proteobacteria dominance, was associated with greater disease severity, increased frequency and severity of exacerbations, and a higher risk of mortality [ 71 ]. In the second study (unknown whether people with CFBE were excluded), a lower Shannon–Wiener diversity index (a measure of species diversity, with lower scores indicating lower diversity) score was associated with multiple markers of disease severity, including a higher BSI score (p=0.0003) and more frequent exacerbations (p=0.008) [ 72 ].

In a study comparing bronchiectasis (people with CFBE excluded) in different age groups (younger adults: 18–65 years; older adults: 66–75 years; elderly adults: ≥76 years) [ 63 ], chronic infection with H. influenzae was reported in 18.3% of younger adults, 12.8% of older adults and 8.8% of elderly adults, and chronic infection with Streptococcus ( Str. ) pneumoniae was reported in 5.3% of younger adults, 2.8% of older adults and 1.3% of elderly adults. For both of the above, the prevalence was significantly higher in younger adults compared with elderly adults (p<0.017 for both comparisons). However, no significant differences across age groups were reported for P. aeruginosa , Moraxella catarrhalis or Staphylococcus ( Sta .) aureus chronic infection.

P. aeruginosa infection was significantly associated with reduced FEV 1 [ 73 ], more severe disease [ 74 ], more frequent exacerbations [ 35 , 49 , 75 , 76 ], increased hospital admissions, reduced quality of life based on St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and increased and 4-year mortality [ 49 , 76 ]. Additionally, in a study reporting healthcare use and costs in the US between 2007–2013, healthcare costs and hospitalisation costs were found to be increased in patients infected with P. aeruginosa ($56 499 and $41 972 more than patients not infected with P. aeruginosa , respectively) [ 77 ]. In the same study, HCRU was also higher in patients infected with P. aeruginosa (fivefold increase in the number of hospitalisations and 84% more emergency department (ED) visits compared with patients not infected with P. aeruginosa ) [ 77 ].

Comorbidities

The most frequently reported comorbidities included cardiovascular (including heart failure, cerebrovascular disease and hypertension), respiratory (including asthma, COPD and sinusitis), metabolic (including diabetes and dyslipidaemia), malignancy (including haematological and solid malignancies), bone and joint-related (including osteoporosis and rheumatological disease), neurological (including anxiety and depression), renal, hepatic, and gastrointestinal comorbidities ( supplementary table S5 ). No data relating to comorbidities were reported for CFBE specifically. For further details and additional comorbidities, please see the supplemental Excel file .

In a study comparing bronchiectasis (people with CFBE excluded) in different age groups (younger adults: 18–65 years; older adults: 66–75 years; elderly adults: ≥76 years), younger adults had a significantly lower prevalence of diabetes compared with older adults, a significantly lower prevalence of stroke compared with elderly adults and a significantly lower prevalence of heart failure, solid tumours and renal failure compared with both older and elderly adults (p<0.0017 for all comparisons). Additionally, the prevalence of COPD was significantly lower in both younger and older adults compared with elderly adults (p<0.017) [ 63 ]. In studies reporting in children with bronchiectasis, the prevalence of comorbid asthma ranged from 22.2 to 25.8% [ 65 , 78 ] and the prevalence of sinusitis was reported to be 12.7% in a single study [ 79 ].

Charlson comorbidity index (CCI)

CCI scores can range from 0 to 37, with higher scores indicating a decreased estimate of 10-year survival. In this review, CCI scores ranged from 0.7 to 6.6 in studies reporting means (number of studies: 7). In one study, adults with bronchiectasis (people with CFBE excluded) who experienced ≥2 exacerbations per year were found to have significantly higher CCI scores (3.3) compared with patients who experienced less than two exacerbations per year (2.2) (p=0.001) [ 35 ]. In another study in adults with bronchiectasis (people with CFBE excluded), CCI scores increased significantly with increasing disease severity, with patients with mild (FACED score of 0–2), moderate (FACED score of 3–4) and severe (FACED score of 5–7) bronchiectasis reporting mean CCI scores of 3.9, 5.7 and 6.3, respectively [ 80 ]. No CCI scores were reported for CFBE specifically.

Prevalence of comorbidities in patients with bronchiectasis compared with control individuals

Several studies reported a higher prevalence of cardiovascular comorbidities. such as heart failure [ 81 ], stroke [ 82 , 83 ] and hypertension [ 82 – 84 ] in patients with bronchiectasis compared with a matched general population or healthy controls. Conversely, several additional studies reported no significant differences [ 81 , 85 , 86 ]. Two large studies reported an increased prevalence of diabetes in patients with bronchiectasis compared with nonbronchiectasis control groups [ 83 , 84 ]; however, three additional smaller studies reported no significant differences [ 81 , 82 , 86 ]. The prevalence of gastro–oesophageal reflux disease was found to be significantly higher in patients with bronchiectasis compared with matched nonbronchiectasis controls in one study [ 87 ], but no significant difference was reported in a second study [ 85 ]. Both anxiety and depression were found to be significantly more prevalent in patients with bronchiectasis compared with matched healthy controls in one study [ 55 ]. Lastly, two large studies reported an increased prevalence of asthma [ 84 , 87 ] and five studies reported a significantly higher prevalence of COPD [ 81 , 82 , 84 , 85 , 87 ] in patients with bronchiectasis compared with matched nonbronchiectasis controls or the general population. A smaller study reported conflicting evidence whereby no significant difference in the prevalence of asthma in patients with bronchiectasis compared with matched controls was reported [ 85 ].

Socioeconomic burden

Patient-reported outcomes.

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL), fatigue, anxiety and depression were reported across several PRO measures and domains. The most frequently reported PROs are discussed in further detail in the sections below ( table 2 ). Further details and additional PROs can be seen in the supplemental Excel file .

In a study comparing bronchiectasis (people with CFBE excluded) in different age groups (younger adults: 18–65 years; older adults: 66–75 years; elderly adults: ≥76 years), the median SGRQ total score was significantly higher in elderly adults (50.8) compared with younger adults (36.1), indicating a higher degree of limitation (p=0.017) [ 63 ].

In a study that reported Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ) scores in men and women with bronchiectasis (people with CFBE excluded) separately, women had significantly lower LCQ total scores (14.9) when compared with men (17.5) (p=0.006), indicating worse quality of life [ 88 ]. Additionally, women had significantly lower scores across all three LCQ domains (p=0.014, p=0.005 and p=0.011 for physical, psychological and social domains, respectively) [ 88 ].

Exercise capacity

Exercise capacity in patients with bronchiectasis was reported using walking tests namely the 6-minute walk test (6MWT) and the incremental shuttle walk test (ISWT) ( supplementary table S6 ). The 6MWT data from patients with bronchiectasis generally fell within the normal range for healthy people; however, the ISWT data was below the normal range for healthy people ( supplementary table S6 ). Studies also reported on daily physical activity, daily sedentary time and number of steps per day in patients with bronchiectasis, and in children specifically ( supplementary table S6 ). No data relating to disease severity were reported for CFBE specifically. Further details can be seen in the supplemental Excel file .

Exercise capacity in patients with bronchiectasis compared with control individuals

In one study, the ISWT distance was reported to be significantly lower in patients with NCFBE compared with healthy controls (592.6 m versus 882.9 m; difference of ∼290 m; p<0.001) [ 89 ]. Additionally, patients with bronchiectasis spent significantly less time on activities of moderate and vigorous intensity compared with healthy controls (p=0.030 and 0.044, respectively) [ 89 ]. Lastly, a study reported that patients with NCFBE had a significantly lower step count per day compared with healthy controls (p<0.001) [ 89 ].

Mortality rate during study period

Mortality ranged from 0.24 to 67.6%; however, it should be noted that the study duration differed across studies. When limited to larger or multicentre studies, the mortality rate ranged from 0.24 to 28.1%. One study reported more deaths in patients with NCFBE (9.1%; 5.9-year mean follow-up period) compared with patients without bronchiectasis (0.8%; 5.4-year mean follow-up period) [ 84 ]. In one study, significantly more patients with COPD-related bronchiectasis died (37.5%) compared with other aetiologies (19.0%) (3.4-year mean follow-up period; p<0.001). After adjusting for several factors, multivariate analysis showed that the diagnosis of COPD as the primary cause of bronchiectasis increased the risk of death by 1.77 compared with the patients with other aetiologies [ 41 ]. Similarly, in another study, COPD-associated bronchiectasis was associated with higher mortality (55%) in multivariate analysis as compared with other aetiologies (rheumatic disease: 20%; post-infectious: 16%; idiopathic: 14%; ABPA: 13%; immunodeficiency: 11%) (hazard ratio 2.12, 95% CI 1.04–4.30; p=0.038; 5.2-year median follow-up period) [ 90 ].

Mortality rates by year

The 1-, 2-, 3-, 4- and 5-year mortality rates in patients with bronchiectasis (people with CFBE excluded, unless unspecified) ranged from 0.0 to 12.3%, 0.0 to 13.0%, 0.0 to 21.0%, 5.5 to 39.1% and 12.4 to 53.0%, respectively (number of studies: 9, 4, 7, 1 and 4, respectively). When limited to larger or multicentre studies, the 1-, 2-, 3- and 5-year mortality rates ranges were 0.4–7.9%, 3.9–13.0%, 3.7–21.0% and 12.4–53.0% (no 4-year mortality data from larger or multicentre studies). No data relating to mortality rates were reported for CFBE specifically.

Two studies reported mortality rate by bronchiectasis aetiology (people with CFBE excluded). In the first study, no significant difference in the 4-year mortality rate was reported across aetiologies (p=0.7; inflammatory bowel disease: 14.3%; post-TB: 13.4%; rheumatoid arthritis: 11.4%; idiopathic or post-infectious: 10.1%; ABPA: 6.1%; other aetiologies: 6.1%) [ 49 ]. In the second study, patients with post-TB bronchiectasis had a significantly higher 5-year mortality rate (30.0%) compared with patients with idiopathic bronchiectasis (18.0%) and other aetiologies (10.0%) (p<0.05 for both comparisons) [ 32 ].

In-hospital and intensive care unit mortality

In-hospital mortality ranged from 2.9 to 59.3% in patients with bronchiectasis (people with CFBE excluded, unless unspecified) hospitalised for an exacerbation or for other reasons (number of studies: 7). When limited to larger or multicentre studies, in-hospital mortality rate was reported in only one study (33.0%). One study reported mortality in bronchiectasis patients admitted to a tertiary care centre according to aetiology; in-hospital mortality was highest in patients with post-pneumonia bronchiectasis (15.8%), followed by patients with idiopathic (7.1%) and post-TB (2.6%) bronchiectasis. No deaths were reported in patients with COPD, ABPA or PCD aetiologies [ 42 ]. Intensive care unit mortality was reported in two studies and ranged from 24.6 to 36.1% [ 62 , 91 ]. No data relating to mortality rates were reported for CFBE specifically.

Impact on family and caregivers

Only two studies discussed the impact that having a child with bronchiectasis has on parents/caregivers. In the first study, parents of children with bronchiectasis (not specified whether children with CFBE were excluded) were more anxious and more depressed according to both the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Centre of Epidemiological Studies depression scale, compared with parents of children without any respiratory conditions (both p<0.001; sample size of 29 participants) [ 53 ]. In the second study, parents or carers of children with bronchiectasis (multicentre study with a sample size of 141 participants; children with CFBE excluded) were asked to vote for their top five greatest concerns or worries; the most common worries or concerns that were voted for by over 15% of parents were “impact on his/her adult life in the future, long-term effects, normal life” (29.8%), “ongoing declining health” (25.5%), “the cough” (24.8%), “impact on his/her life now as a child (play, development)” (24.1%), “lack of sleep/being tired” (24.1%), “concerns over aspects of antibiotic use” (22.7%), “missing school or daycare” (17.7%) and “breathing difficulties/shortness of breath” (16.3%) [ 92 ].

HCRU in terms of hospitalisations, ED visits, outpatient visits and length of stay overall and by bronchiectasis aetiology are reported in table 3 . No data relating to HCRU were reported for CFBE specifically.

In a study in children with bronchiectasis (children with CFBE excluded), 30.0% of children were hospitalised at least once in the previous year [ 65 ]. The median number of hospitalisations per year was 0 (interquartile range: 0–1) [ 65 ]. In another study, the mean length of hospital stay for children with bronchiectasis was 6.7 days (standard deviation: 4.8 days) [ 93 ]. In a study comparing bronchiectasis (people with CFBE excluded) in different age groups, significantly more elderly adults (≥76 years; 26.0%) were hospitalised at least once during the first year of follow-up compared with younger adults (18–65 years; 17.0%) and older adults (66–75 years; 17.0%) (p<0.017 for both comparisons) [ 63 ]. Additionally, length of stay was found to be significantly longer in male patients (mean: 17.6 days) compared with female patients (mean: 12.5 days) (p=0.03) [ 94 ].

HCRU in patients with bronchiectasis compared with control individuals

Length of stay was found to be 38% higher in patients with bronchiectasis (mean: 15.4 days; people with CFBE excluded) compared with patients with any other respiratory illness (mean: 9.6 days) (p<0.001) [ 94 ]. In a study reporting on HCRU in patients with bronchiectasis (people with CFBE excluded) over a 3-year period (Germany; 2012–2015) [ 85 ], a mean of 24.7 outpatient appointments per patient were reported; there was no significant difference in the number of outpatient appointments between patients with bronchiectasis and matched controls (patients without bronchiectasis matched by age, sex and distribution, and level of comorbidities) (mean: 23.4) (p=0.12). When assessing specific outpatient appointments over the 3-year period, patients with bronchiectasis attended a mean of 9.2 general practitioner appointments, 2.9 radiology appointments, 2.5 chest physician appointments and 0.8 cardiologist appointments. Patients with bronchiectasis had significantly fewer general practitioner appointments compared with matched controls (mean: 9.8) (p=0.002); however, they had significantly more radiology appointments (mean for matched controls: 2.3) and chest physician appointments (mean for matched controls: 1.4) compared with matched controls (p<0.001 for both comparisons).

Hospital admission rates

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the crude hospital admission rate in 2013 was 88.4 (95% CI 74.0–105.6) per 100 000 person-years [ 91 ]. In New Zealand (2008–2013), the crude and adjusted hospital admission rates were 25.7 and 20.4 per 100 000 population, respectively [ 95 ]. Lastly, in Australia and New Zealand (2004–2008) the hospital admission rate ranged from 0.7 to 2.9 per person-year [ 96 ]. In all of the abovementioned studies, people with CFBE were excluded.

Treatment burden

In two studies, the percentage of patients with bronchiectasis receiving any respiratory medication at baseline ranged from 60.8 to 85.7% [ 97 , 98 ]. Additionally, in a study comparing healthcare costs in patients with bronchiectasis before and after confirmation of P. aeruginosa infection, mean pharmacy visits in the year preceding diagnosis were reported to be 23.2; this increased significantly by 56.5% to 36.2 in the year post-diagnosis (p<0.0001) [ 99 ]. In another study, patients with bronchiectasis were prescribed a mean of 12 medications for bronchiectasis and other comorbidities [ 100 ]. In all of the abovementioned studies, people with CFBE were excluded. The most frequently reported respiratory treatments can be seen in supplementary table S7 . These included antibiotics (including macrolides), corticosteroids, bronchodilators, mucolytics and oxygen. No treatment data were reported for CFBE specifically. Other respiratory treatments included saline, anticholinergics and leukotriene receptor antagonists ( supplemental Excel file ).

In studies reporting in children with bronchiectasis, 23.9% of children were receiving any bronchodilator at baseline [ 101 ], 9.0–21.7% of children were receiving inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) at baseline [ 101 , 102 ], 4.3% of children were receiving oral corticosteroids at baseline [ 101 ] and 12.1% of children were receiving long-term oxygen therapy [ 103 ].

Medical and nonmedical indirect impacts and costs

Medical costs for bronchiectasis included overall costs, hospitalisation costs, ED visits and outpatient visit costs and costs of treatment; indirect impacts and costs included sick leave and sick pay, missed work and income loss for caregivers, and missed school or childcare for children ( table 4 and the supplemental Excel file ). People with CFBE were excluded from all of the studies in table 4 below. In studies reporting in currencies other than the €, costs were converted to € based on the average exchange rate for the year in which the study was conducted.

Bronchiectasis-related medical costs and indirect impacts and costs (individual studies)

No review to date has systematically evaluated the overall disease burden of bronchiectasis. Here, we present the first systematic literature review that comprehensively describes the clinical and socioeconomic burden of bronchiectasis overall and across individual aetiologies and associated diseases. A total of 338 publications were included in the final analysis. Together, the results indicate that the burden of clinically significant bronchiectasis on patients and their families, as well as on healthcare systems, is substantial, highlighting the urgent need for new disease-modifying therapies for bronchiectasis.

Bronchiectasis is associated with genetic, autoimmune, airway and infectious disorders. However, in many patients with bronchiectasis, an underlying aetiology cannot be identified (idiopathic bronchiectasis) [ 1 , 3 , 4 ]. This is supported by the results of this systematic literature review, in which up to 80.7% of patients were reported to have idiopathic bronchiectasis. The results are in line with those reported in a systematic literature review of bronchiectasis aetiology conducted by G ao et al. [ 13 ] (studies from Asia, Europe, North and South America, Africa and Oceania included) in which an idiopathic aetiology was reported in approximately 45% of patients with bronchiectasis, with a range of 5–82%. The maximum of 80.7% of patients with idiopathic bronchiectasis identified by this systematic literature review is much higher than in the recent report on the disease characteristics of the EMBARC where idiopathic bronchiectasis was the most common aetiology and reported in only ∼38% of patients with bronchiectasis [ 17 ]. This highlights the importance of sample size and geographic variation (80.7% reported from a single-country study with a small sample size versus ∼38% reported from a continent-wide study with a large sample size). Nevertheless, identifying the underlying aetiology is a recommendation of bronchiectasis guidelines as this can considerably alter the clinical management and prognosis [ 23 , 110 ]. Specific therapeutic interventions may be required for specific aetiologies, such as ICS for people with asthma-related bronchiectasis, antifungal treatment for those with ABPA-associated bronchiectasis and immunoglobulin replacement therapy for those with common variable immunodeficiency-related bronchiectasis [ 23 , 111 ]. Indeed, an observational study has shown that identification of the underlying aetiology affected management in 37% of people with bronchiectasis [ 112 ]. Future studies to determine the impact of identifying the underlying aetiology on management and prognosis are needed to fully understand its importance.

Patients with bronchiectasis experienced a significant symptom burden, with dyspnoea, cough, wheezing, sputum production and haemoptysis reported most commonly. These symptoms were also reported in children with bronchiectasis at slightly lower frequencies. Dealing with bronchiectasis symptoms are some of the greatest concerns from a patient's perspective. In a study assessing the aspects of bronchiectasis that patients found most difficult to deal with, sputum, dyspnoea and cough were the first, fifth and sixth most common answers, respectively [ 113 ]. Some aetiologies were reported to have a higher prevalence of certain symptoms. For example, in single studies, patients with PCD-related bronchiectasis were found to have a significantly higher prevalence of cough and wheezing [ 39 ], patients with COPD-related bronchiectasis were found to have a significantly higher prevalence of sputum production [ 41 ], and patients with post-TB bronchiectasis were found to have a higher prevalence of haemoptysis [ 30 ] compared with other aetiologies. Together, these results highlight the need for novel treatments that reduce the symptom burden of bronchiectasis. They also highlight the importance of teaching patients to perform and adhere to regular nonpharmacological interventions, such as airway clearance using physiotherapy techniques, which have been shown to improve cough-related health status and chronic sputum production [ 110 ]. Future studies assessing when airway clearance techniques should be started, and which ones are the most effective, are a research priority [ 113 ].

The burden of exacerbations in patients with bronchiectasis was high, with patients experiencing three or more exacerbations in the previous year (up to 73.6%), per year (up to 55.6%) or in the first year of follow-up (up to 32.4%). Few studies reported significant differences between aetiologies. Importantly, exacerbations are the second-most concerning aspect of bronchiectasis from the patient's perspective [ 113 ]. Patients with frequent exacerbations have more frequent hospitalisations and increased 5-year mortality [ 114 ] and exacerbations are also associated with poorer quality of life [ 114 , 115 ]. Therefore, prevention of exacerbations is of great importance in the management of bronchiectasis [ 116 ]. The exact cause of exacerbations in bronchiectasis (believed to be multifactorial) is not fully understood due a lack of mechanistic studies [ 116 ]. Future studies into the causes and risk factors for exacerbations [ 113 ] may lead to improvements in their prevention.

Many patients with bronchiectasis, including children, experienced chronic infections with bacterial pathogens such as P. aeruginosa , H. influenzae , Sta. aureus and Str. pneumoniae as well as non-tuberculous mycobacteria. Importantly, P. aeruginosa infection was significantly associated with more severe disease, reduced lung function and quality of life, and increased exacerbations, hospital admission, morality, HCRU and healthcare costs. Due to the clear and consistent association between P. aeruginosa and poor outcomes, patients with chronic P. aeruginosa colonisation should be considered to be at a higher risk of bronchiectasis-related complications [ 110 ]. Additionally, regular sputum microbiology screening should be performed in people with clinically significant bronchiectasis to detect new isolation of P. aeruginosa [ 110 ]; in which case, patients should be offered eradication antibiotic treatment [ 23 ]. Eradication of P. aeruginosa is not only of clinical importance, but also of economic importance due to the associated HCRU and healthcare costs. As such, a better understanding of the key factors leading to P. aeruginosa infection is a priority for future research [ 113 ].

Bronchiectasis markedly impacted HRQoL across several PROs including the SGRQ, Quality of Life–Bronchiectasis score, LCQ, COPD Assessment Test and Bronchiectasis Health Questionnaire. In children with bronchiectasis, significantly lower quality of life (according to the Paediatric Quality of Life Inventory score) compared with age-matched controls was reported [ 53 ]. The majority of studies reporting HRQoL in individual aetiologies and associated diseases either reported in a single aetiology, did not perform any statistical analyses to compare aetiologies, or reported no significant differences across aetiologies. Patients also experienced mild-to-moderate anxiety and depression according to the HADS-Anxiety, HADS-Depression and 9-question Patient Health Questionnaire scores, with very limited data reported in individual aetiologies. When compared with healthy controls, anxiety and depression were found to be significantly more prevalent in patients with bronchiectasis [ 55 ]. Additionally, exercise capacity was reduced, with patients with bronchiectasis reported to spend significantly less time on activities of moderate and vigorous intensity and have a significantly lower step count per day compared with healthy controls [ 89 ]. Improvements in anxiety, depression and exercise capacity are important priorities for people with bronchiectasis; in a study assessing the aspects of bronchiectasis that patients found most difficult to manage, “not feeling fit for daily activities”, anxiety and depression were the fourth, eighth and ninth most common answers, respectively [ 113 ].

The studies relating to HCRU and costs in this review were heterogeneous in terms of methodology, time period, country and currency, making them challenging to compare. Nevertheless, this study found that HCRU was substantial, with patients reporting a maximum of 1.3 hospitalisation, 1.3 ED and 21.0 outpatient visits per year. Length of stay was found to be significantly longer in patients with bronchiectasis compared with patients with any other respiratory illness in one study [ 91 ]. In another study, patients with bronchiectasis reported significantly more specialist appointments (radiologist appointments and chest physician appointments) compared with matched controls [ 85 ]. Patients with bronchiectasis also experienced a significant treatment burden, with up to 36.4, 58.0 and 83.0% of patients receiving long-term inhaled antibiotics, oral antibiotics and macrolides, respectively, up to 80.4% receiving long-term ICS and up to 61.7% and 81.4% receiving long-term long-acting muscarinic antagonists and long-acting beta agonists, respectively. Wide ranges of treatment use were reported in this study, which may reflect geographic variation in treatment patterns. Heterogeneous treatment patterns across Europe were observed in the EMBARC registry data with generally higher medication use in the UK and Northern/Western Europe and lower medication use in Eastern Europe (inhaled antibiotics: 1.8–8.9%; macrolides: 0.9–24.4%; ICS: 37.2–58.5%; long-acting beta agonists: 42.7–52.8%; long-acting muscarinic antagonists: 26.5–29.8%) [ 17 ]. Similarly, data from the Indian bronchiectasis registry indicate that the treatment of bronchiectasis in India is also diverse [ 19 ]. Furthermore, in a comparison of the European and Indian registry data, both long-term oral and inhaled antibiotics were more commonly used in Europe compared with India [ 19 ].

Cost varied widely across studies. However, patients, payers and healthcare systems generally accrued substantial medical costs due to hospitalisations, ED visits, outpatient visits, hospital-in-the-home and treatment-related costs. Other medical costs incurred included physiotherapy and outpatient remedies (including breathing or drainage techniques), outpatient medical aids (including nebulisers and respiration therapy equipment) and the cost of attending convalescence centres. Only one study compared the medical costs in patients with bronchiectasis and matched controls (age, sex and comorbidities) and found that patients with bronchiectasis had significantly higher total direct medical expenditure, hospitalisation costs, treatment costs for certain medications and costs associated with outpatient remedies and medical aids [ 85 ]. Bronchiectasis was also associated with indirect impacts and costs, including sick leave, sick pay and income lost due to absenteeism and missed work, and lost wages for caregivers of patients with bronchiectasis. Children with bronchiectasis also reported absenteeism from school or childcare.

Our findings regarding HRCU and costs in bronchiectasis are mirrored by a recent systematic literature review by R oberts et al . [ 117 ] estimating the annual economic burden of bronchiectasis in adults and children over the 2001–2022 time period. R oberts et al . [ 117 ] found that annual total healthcare costs per adult patient ranged from €3027 to €69 817 (costs were converted from USD to € based on the average exchange rate in 2021), predominantly driven by hospitalisation costs. Likewise, we report annual costs per patient ranging from €218 to €51 033, with annual hospital costs ranging from €1215 to €27 612 (adults and children included) ( table 4 ). Further, R oberts et al . [ 117 ] reports a mean annual hospitalisation rate ranging from 0.11 to 2.9, which is similar to our finding of 0.03–1.3 hospitalisations per year ( table 3 ). With regard to outpatient visits, R oberts et al . [ 117 ] reports a mean annual outpatient respiratory physician attendance ranging from 0.83 to 6.8 visits, whereas we report a maximum of 21 visits per year ( table 3 ). It should be noted, however, that our value is not restricted to visits to a respiratory physician. With regard to indirect annual costs per adult patient, R oberts et al . [ 117 ] reports a loss of income because of illness of €1109–€2451 (costs were converted from USD to € based on the average exchange rate in 2021), whereas we report a figure of ∼€1410 ( table 4 ). Finally, burden on children is similarly reported by us and R oberts et al . [ 117 ], with children missing 12 days of school per year per child ( table 4 ).

Limitations of this review and the existing literature

Due to the nature of this systematic literature review, no formal statistical analyses or formal risk of bias assessments were performed.

Several limitations within the existing literature were identified. Firstly, the vast majority of studies reported patients with NCFBE overall, with limited availability of literature reporting on individual aetiologies and associated disease. Furthermore, where this literature was available, it was limited to a handful of individual aetiologies and associated diseases, and in many of these studies, no statistical analyses to compare different aetiologies and associated disease were performed. Additionally, the methods used to determine aetiologies within individual studies may have differed. Literature on NCFBE and CFBE has traditionally been very distinct; as such, most of the studies included in this review have excluded people with CF. As the general term “CF lung disease” was not included in our search string in order to limit the number of hits, limited data on CFBE are included in this review. Bronchiectasis remains largely under-recognised and underdiagnosed, thus limiting the availability of literature. There is a particular knowledge gap with respect to paediatric NCFBE; however, initiatives such as the Children's Bronchiectasis Education Advocacy and Research Network (Child-BEAR-Net) ( www.improvebe.org ) are aiming to create multinational registries for paediatric bronchiectasis.

There were variations in the amount of literature available for the individual burdens. While there was more literature available on the clinical burden of bronchiectasis, economic data (related to both medical costs and indirect costs) and data on the impact of bronchiectasis on families and caregivers, were limited. Additionally, cost comparisons across studies and populations were difficult due to differences in cost definitions, currencies and healthcare systems.

Sample sizes of the studies included in this systematic literature review varied greatly, with the majority of studies reporting on a small number of participants. Furthermore, many of the studies were single-centre studies, thus limiting the ability to make generalisations about the larger bronchiectasis population, and cross-sectional, thus limiting the ability to assess the clinical and socioeconomic burden of bronchiectasis over a patient's lifetime. Furthermore, there may be potential sex/gender bias in reporting that has not been considered in this systematic literature review.

Finally, for many of the reported outcomes, data varied greatly across studies, with wide estimates for the frequency of different aetiologies and comorbidities as well as disease characteristics such as exacerbations and healthcare costs noted. This reflects the heterogeneity of both the study designs (including sample size and inclusion and exclusion criteria) and the study populations themselves. Additionally, the use of non-standardised terms across articles posed a limitation for data synthesis. Systematic collection of standardised data across multiple centres, with standardised inclusion and exclusion criteria such as that being applied in international registries, is likely to provide more accurate estimates than those derived from small single-centre studies.

• Conclusions

Collectively, the evidence identified and presented in this systematic literature review show that bronchiectasis imposes a significant clinical and socioeconomic burden on patients and their families and employers, as well as on healthcare systems. Disease-modifying therapies that reduce symptoms, improve quality of life, and reduce both HCRU and overall costs are urgently needed. Further systematic analyses of the disease burden of specific bronchiectasis aetiologies and associated disease (particularly PCD-, COPD- and post-TB-associated bronchiectasis, which appear to impose a greater burden in some aspects) and paediatric bronchiectasis (the majority of data included in this study were obtained from adults) may provide more insight into the unmet therapeutic needs for these specific patient populations.

Questions for future research

Further research into the clinical and socioeconomic burden of bronchiectasis for individual aetiologies and associated diseases is required.

• Supplementary material

Supplementary Material

Please note: supplementary material is not edited by the Editorial Office, and is uploaded as it has been supplied by the author.

Supplementary figures and tables ERR-0049-2024.SUPPLEMENT

Supplementary Excel file ERR-0049-2024.SUPPLEMENT

• Acknowledgements

Laura Cottino, PhD, of Nucleus Global, provided writing, editorial support, and formatting assistance, which was contracted and funded by Boehringer Ingelheim.

Provenance: Submitted article, peer reviewed.

Conflict of interest: The authors meet criteria for authorship as recommended by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). J.D. Chalmers has received research grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead Sciences, Grifols, Novartis, Insmed and Trudell, and received consultancy or speaker fees from Antabio, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Insmed, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Trudell and Zambon. M.A. Mall reports research grants paid to their institution from the German Research Foundation (DFG), German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF), German Innovation Fund, Vertex Pharmaceuticals and Boehringer Ingelheim; consultancy fees from AbbVie, Antabio, Arrowhead, Boehringer Ingelheim, Enterprise Therapeutics, Kither Biotec, Prieris, Recode, Santhera, Splisense and Vertex Pharmaceuticals; speaker fees from Vertex Pharmaceuticals; and travel support from Boehringer Ingelheim and Vertex Pharmaceuticals. M.A. Mall also reports advisory board participation for AbbVie, Antabio, Arrowhead, Boehringer Ingelheim, Enterprise Therapeutics, Kither Biotec, Pari and Vertex Pharmaceuticals and is a fellow of ERS (unpaid). P.J. McShane is an advisory board member for Boehringer Ingelheim's Airleaf trial and Insmed's Aspen trial. P.J. McShane is also a principal investigator for clinical trials with the following pharmaceutical companies: Insmed: Aspen, 416; Boehringer Ingelheim: Airleaf; Paratek: oral omadacycline; AN2 Therapeutics: epetraborole; Renovian: ARINA-1; Redhill; Spero; and Armata. K.G. Nielsen reports advisory board membership for Boehringer Ingelheim. M. Shteinberg reports having received research grants from Novartis, Trudell Pharma and GlaxoSmithKline; travel grants from Novartis, Actelion, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline and Rafa; speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Insmed, Teva, Novartis, Kamada and Sanofi; and advisory fees (including steering committee membership) from GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, Kamada, Syncrony Medical, Zambon and Vertex Pharmaceuticals. M. Shteinberg also reports data and safety monitoring board participation for Bonus Therapeutics, Israel and is an ERS Task Force member on bronchiectasis guideline development. S.D. Sullivan has participated in advisory boards for Boehringer Ingelheim and has research grants from Pfizer, Bayer and GlaxoSmithKline. S.H. Chotirmall is on advisory boards for CSL Behring, Boehringer Ingelheim and Pneumagen Ltd, served on a data and safety monitoring board for Inovio Pharmaceuticals Inc., and has received personal fees from AstraZeneca and Chiesi Farmaceutici.

Support statement: This systematic literature review was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH. The authors did not receive payment related to the development of the manuscript. Boehringer Ingelheim was given the opportunity to review the manuscript for medical and scientific accuracy as well as intellectual property considerations. Funding information for this article has been deposited with the Crossref Funder Registry .

• Received March 8, 2024.
• Accepted June 4, 2024.
• Copyright ©The authors 2024

This version is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence 4.0.

• Murray MP ,
• Chalmers JD ,
• Aliberti S ,
• McShane PJ ,
• Naureckas ET ,
• Tino G , et al.
• Martins M ,
• Chalmers JD
• Chotirmall SH ,
• Sun X , et al.
• Curtis JR , et al.
• Monteagudo M ,
• Rodríguez-Blanco T ,
• Barrecheguren M , et al.
• Millett ERC ,
• Joshi M , et al.
• Ringshausen FC ,
• de Roux A ,
• Diel R , et al.
• Liu S-X , et al.
• Weycker D ,
• Hansen GL ,
• Shteinberg M ,
• Adir Y , et al.
• Aksamit TR ,
• O'Donnell AE ,
• Barker A , et al.
• Polverino E ,
• Crichton ML , et al.
• Talwar D , et al.
• Chalmers JD , et al.
• Visser SK ,
• Fox GJ , et al.
• Sullivan AL ,
• Goeminne PC ,
• McDonnell MJ , et al.
• Liberati A ,
• Altman DG ,
• Tetzlaff J , et al.
• Scioscia G ,
• Alcaraz-Serrano V , et al.
• Bilotta M ,
• Bartoli ML , et al.
• Rosales-Mayor E ,
• Benegas M , et al.
• Mackay IM ,
• Sloots TP , et al.
• Alcaraz-Serrano V ,
• Gimeno-Santos E ,
• Scioscia G , et al.
• Al-Harbi A ,
• Al-Ghamdi M ,
• Khan M , et al.
• de Gracia J ,
• Giron R , et al.
• Sunjaya A ,
• Reddel H , et al.
• Raguer L , et al.
• Martinez-Garcia MÁ ,
• Athanazio R ,
• Gramblicka G , et al.
• Ailiyaer Y ,
• Zhang Y , et al.
• Stockley R ,
• De Soyza A ,
• Gunawardena K , et al.
• de la Rosa Carrillo D ,
• Navarro Rolon A ,
• Girón Moreno RM , et al.
• de la Rosa D ,
• Martínez-Garcia M-A ,
• Giron RM , et al.
• Sharif S , et al.
• Pottier H ,
• Marquette CH , et al.
• Nagelschmitz J ,
• Kirsten A , et al.
• Artaraz A ,
• Crichton ML ,
• Finch S , et al.
• Aksamit T ,
• Bandel TJ , et al.
• Liu R , et al.
• Olveira C ,
• Olveira G ,
• Gaspar I , et al.
• Goeminne P ,
• Aliberti S , et al.
• Chalmers J ,
• Dimakou K , et al.
• Mitchelmore P ,
• Rademacher J , et al.
• Loebinger M ,
• Menendez R , et al.
• Bennett K , et al.
• Barker RE , et al.
• Zhu YN , et al.
• Yong SJ , et al.
• Inal-Ince D ,
• Cakmak A , et al.
• Araújo AS ,
• Figueiredo MR ,
• Lomonaco I , et al.
• Navas-Bueno B ,
• Casas-Maldonado F ,
• Padilla-Galo A , et al.
• Li T , et al.
• Gatheral T ,
• Sansom B , et al.
• Leem AY , et al.
• Bellelli G ,
• Sotgiu G , et al.
• Patel ARC ,
• Singh R , et al.
• Stroil-Salama E ,
• Morgan L , et al.
• Bradley JM ,
• Bradbury I , et al.
• Lo CY , et al.
• Padilla A ,
• Martínez-García M-Á , et al.
• Dicker AJ ,
• Lonergan M ,
• Keir HR , et al.
• Crichton M ,
• Cassidy A , et al.
• de Boer S ,
• Fergusson W , et al.
• Goeminne PC , et al.
• Suarez-Cuartin G ,
• Rodrigo-Troyano A , et al.
• Abo-Leyah H , et al.
• Blanchette CM ,
• Stone G , et al.
• Grimwood K ,
• Ware RS , et al.
• Kim HY , et al.
• Martínez-Garcia MA ,
• Olveira C , et al.
• Lin CS , et al.
• Navaratnam V ,
• Millett ER ,
• Hurst JR , et al.
• Kim JM , et al.
• Rabe KF , et al.
• Wang LY , et al.
• Schwartz BS ,
• Al-Sayouri SA ,
• Pollak JS , et al.
• Girón Moreno RM ,
• Sánchez Azofra A ,
• Aldave Orzaiz B , et al.
• Sonbahar-Ulu H , et al.
• Nawrot TS ,
• Ruttens D , et al.
• Muirhead CR ,
• Hubbard RB , et al.
• Marchant JM ,
• Roberts J , et al.
• Lovie-Toon YG ,
• Byrnes CA , et al.
• Costa JdC ,
• Blackall SR ,
• King P , et al.
• Jiang N , et al.
• Jayaram L ,
• Karalus N , et al.
• McCullough AR ,
• Tunney MM ,
• Stuart Elborn J , et al.
• Joschtel B ,
• Gomersall SR ,
• Tweedy S , et al.
• Pizzutto SJ ,
• Bauert P , et al.
• Nam H , et al.
• Navarro-Rolon A ,
• Rosa-Carrillo D ,
• Esquinas C , et al.
• Seifer FD ,
• Ji Y , et al.
• McPhail SM ,
• Hurley F , et al.
• McCallum GB ,
• Singleton RJ ,
• Redding GJ , et al.
• Contarini M ,
• Shoemark A ,
• Ozerovitch L ,
• Masefield S ,
• Polverino E , et al.
• Filonenko A , et al.
• Xu G , et al.
• Roberts JM ,
• Kularatna S , et al.

• Table of Contents
• Index by author

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Citation Manager Formats

• EndNote (tagged)
• EndNote 8 (xml)
• RefWorks Tagged
• Ref Manager

• Tweet Widget
• Facebook Like
• Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

• Recreating chronic respiratory infections in vitro
• Procedural and sampling techniques for cryobiopsy in ILD
• Pathogenesis-driven treatment of primary pulmonary alveolar proteinosis

Related Articles