what are the types of literature review

Literature Review: Types of literature reviews

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

Types of literature reviews

The type of literature review you write will depend on your discipline and whether you are a researcher writing your PhD, publishing a study in a journal or completing an assessment task in your undergraduate study.

A literature review for a subject in an undergraduate degree will not be as comprehensive as the literature review required for a PhD thesis.

An undergraduate literature review may be in the form of an annotated bibliography or a narrative review of a small selection of literature, for example ten relevant articles. If you are asked to write a literature review, and you are an undergraduate student, be guided by your subject coordinator or lecturer.

The common types of literature reviews will be explained in the pages of this section.

• Narrative or traditional literature reviews
• Critically Appraised Topic (CAT)
• Scoping reviews
• Annotated bibliographies

These are not the only types of reviews of literature that can be conducted. Often the term "review" and "literature" can be confusing and used in the wrong context. Grant and Booth (2009) attempt to clear up this confusion by discussing 14 review types and the associated methodology, and advantages and disadvantages associated with each review.

Grant, M. J. and Booth, A. (2009), A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies . Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26 , 91–108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

What's the difference between reviews?

Researchers, academics, and librarians all use various terms to describe different types of literature reviews, and there is often inconsistency in the ways the types are discussed. Here are a couple of simple explanations.

• The image below describes common review types in terms of speed, detail, risk of bias, and comprehensiveness:

"Schematic of the main differences between the types of literature review" by Brennan, M. L., Arlt, S. P., Belshaw, Z., Buckley, L., Corah, L., Doit, H., Fajt, V. R., Grindlay, D., Moberly, H. K., Morrow, L. D., Stavisky, J., & White, C. (2020). Critically Appraised Topics (CATs) in veterinary medicine: Applying evidence in clinical practice. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 7 , 314. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.00314 is licensed under CC BY 3.0

• The table below lists four of the most common types of review , as adapted from a widely used typology of fourteen types of reviews (Grant & Booth, 2009).  

Grant, M.J. & Booth, A. (2009).  A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26 (2), 91-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

See also the Library's  Literature Review guide.

Critical Appraised Topic (CAT)

For information on conducting a Critically Appraised Topic or CAT

Callander, J., Anstey, A. V., Ingram, J. R., Limpens, J., Flohr, C., & Spuls, P. I. (2017).  How to write a Critically Appraised Topic: evidence to underpin routine clinical practice.  British Journal of Dermatology (1951), 177(4), 1007-1013. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.15873 

Books on Literature Reviews

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Traditional or narrative literature reviews >>
• Last Updated: Jan 16, 2024 1:39 PM
• URL: https://libguides.csu.edu.au/review

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

• Locations and Hours
• UCLA Library
• Research Guides
• Biomedical Library Guides

Systematic Reviews

• Types of Literature Reviews

What Makes a Systematic Review Different from Other Types of Reviews?

• Planning Your Systematic Review
• Database Searching
• Creating the Search
• Search Filters & Hedges
• Grey Literature
• Managing & Appraising Results
• Further Resources

Reproduced from Grant, M. J. and Booth, A. (2009), A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26: 91–108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Planning Your Systematic Review >>
• Last Updated: Mar 1, 2024 10:55 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.ucla.edu/systematicreviews

• 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

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

AI for Meta Analysis — A Comprehensive Guide

Cybersecurity in Higher Education: Safeguarding Students and Faculty Data

How To Write An Argumentative Essay

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

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 April 2, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, what is your plagiarism score.

Types of Literature Review

There are many types of literature review. The choice of a specific type depends on your research approach and design. The following types of literature review are the most popular in business studies:

Narrative literature review , also referred to as traditional literature review, critiques literature and summarizes the body of a literature. Narrative review also draws conclusions about the topic and identifies gaps or inconsistencies in a body of knowledge. You need to have a sufficiently focused research question to conduct a narrative literature review

Systematic literature review requires more rigorous and well-defined approach compared to most other types of literature review. Systematic literature review is comprehensive and details the timeframe within which the literature was selected. Systematic literature review can be divided into two categories: meta-analysis and meta-synthesis.

When you conduct meta-analysis you take findings from several studies on the same subject and analyze these using standardized statistical procedures. In meta-analysis patterns and relationships are detected and conclusions are drawn. Meta-analysis is associated with deductive research approach.

Meta-synthesis, on the other hand, is based on non-statistical techniques. This technique integrates, evaluates and interprets findings of multiple qualitative research studies. Meta-synthesis literature review is conducted usually when following inductive research approach.

Scoping literature review , as implied by its name is used to identify the scope or coverage of a body of literature on a given topic. It has been noted that “scoping reviews are useful for examining emerging evidence when it is still unclear what other, more specific questions can be posed and valuably addressed by a more precise systematic review.” [1] The main difference between systematic and scoping types of literature review is that, systematic literature review is conducted to find answer to more specific research questions, whereas scoping literature review is conducted to explore more general research question.

Argumentative literature review , as the name implies, examines literature selectively in order to support or refute an argument, deeply imbedded assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the literature. It should be noted that a potential for bias is a major shortcoming associated with argumentative literature review.

Integrative literature review reviews , critiques, and synthesizes secondary data about research topic in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. If your research does not involve primary data collection and data analysis, then using integrative literature review will be your only option.

Theoretical literature review focuses on a pool of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena. Theoretical literature reviews play an instrumental role in establishing what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested.

At the earlier parts of the literature review chapter, you need to specify the type of your literature review your chose and justify your choice. Your choice of a specific type of literature review should be based upon your research area, research problem and research methods.  Also, you can briefly discuss other most popular types of literature review mentioned above, to illustrate your awareness of them.

[1] Munn, A. et. al. (2018) “Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach” BMC Medical Research Methodology

  John Dudovskiy

Encyclopedia of Evidence in Pharmaceutical Public Health and Health Services Research in Pharmacy pp 1–15 Cite as

Methodological Approaches to Literature Review

• Dennis Thomas 2 ,
• Elida Zairina 3 &
• Johnson George 4  
• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 09 May 2023

442 Accesses

The literature review can serve various functions in the contexts of education and research. It aids in identifying knowledge gaps, informing research methodology, and developing a theoretical framework during the planning stages of a research study or project, as well as reporting of review findings in the context of the existing literature. This chapter discusses the methodological approaches to conducting a literature review and offers an overview of different types of reviews. There are various types of reviews, including narrative reviews, scoping reviews, and systematic reviews with reporting strategies such as meta-analysis and meta-synthesis. Review authors should consider the scope of the literature review when selecting a type and method. Being focused is essential for a successful review; however, this must be balanced against the relevance of the review to a broad audience.

• Literature review
• Systematic review
• Meta-analysis
• Scoping review
• Research methodology

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

Akobeng AK. Principles of evidence based medicine. Arch Dis Child. 2005;90(8):837–40.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Alharbi A, Stevenson M. Refining Boolean queries to identify relevant studies for systematic review updates. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020;27(11):1658–66.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.

Article   Google Scholar  

Aromataris E MZE. JBI manual for evidence synthesis. 2020.

Google Scholar  

Aromataris E, Pearson A. The systematic review: an overview. Am J Nurs. 2014;114(3):53–8.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Aromataris E, Riitano D. Constructing a search strategy and searching for evidence. A guide to the literature search for a systematic review. Am J Nurs. 2014;114(5):49–56.

Babineau J. Product review: covidence (systematic review software). J Canad Health Libr Assoc Canada. 2014;35(2):68–71.

Baker JD. The purpose, process, and methods of writing a literature review. AORN J. 2016;103(3):265–9.

Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med. 2010;7(9):e1000326.

Bramer WM, Rethlefsen ML, Kleijnen J, Franco OH. Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):1–12.

Brown D. A review of the PubMed PICO tool: using evidence-based practice in health education. Health Promot Pract. 2020;21(4):496–8.

Cargo M, Harris J, Pantoja T, et al. Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series – paper 4: methods for assessing evidence on intervention implementation. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:59–69.

Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126(5):376–80.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Counsell C. Formulating questions and locating primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(5):380–7.

Cummings SR, Browner WS, Hulley SB. Conceiving the research question and developing the study plan. In: Cummings SR, Browner WS, Hulley SB, editors. Designing Clinical Research: An Epidemiological Approach. 4th ed. Philadelphia (PA): P Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007. p. 14–22.

Eriksen MB, Frandsen TF. The impact of patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) as a search strategy tool on literature search quality: a systematic review. JMLA. 2018;106(4):420.

Ferrari R. Writing narrative style literature reviews. Medical Writing. 2015;24(4):230–5.

Flemming K, Booth A, Hannes K, Cargo M, Noyes J. Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series – paper 6: reporting guidelines for qualitative, implementation, and process evaluation evidence syntheses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:79–85.

Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inf Libr J. 2009;26(2):91–108.

Green BN, Johnson CD, Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. J Chiropr Med. 2006;5(3):101–17.

Gregory AT, Denniss AR. An introduction to writing narrative and systematic reviews; tasks, tips and traps for aspiring authors. Heart Lung Circ. 2018;27(7):893–8.

Harden A, Thomas J, Cargo M, et al. Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series – paper 5: methods for integrating qualitative and implementation evidence within intervention effectiveness reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:70–8.

Harris JL, Booth A, Cargo M, et al. Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series – paper 2: methods for question formulation, searching, and protocol development for qualitative evidence synthesis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:39–48.

Higgins J, Thomas J. In: Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3, updated February 2022). Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.: Cochrane; 2022.

International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO). Available from https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ .

Khan KS, Kunz R, Kleijnen J, Antes G. Five steps to conducting a systematic review. J R Soc Med. 2003;96(3):118–21.

Landhuis E. Scientific literature: information overload. Nature. 2016;535(7612):457–8.

Lockwood C, Porritt K, Munn Z, Rittenmeyer L, Salmond S, Bjerrum M, Loveday H, Carrier J, Stannard D. Chapter 2: Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI; 2020. Available from https://synthesismanual.jbi.global . https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-03 .

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Lorenzetti DL, Topfer L-A, Dennett L, Clement F. Value of databases other than medline for rapid health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30(2):173–8.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, the PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for (SR) and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;6:264–9.

Mulrow CD. Systematic reviews: rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ. 1994;309(6954):597–9.

Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):143.

Munthe-Kaas HM, Glenton C, Booth A, Noyes J, Lewin S. Systematic mapping of existing tools to appraise methodological strengths and limitations of qualitative research: first stage in the development of the CAMELOT tool. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):1–13.

Murphy CM. Writing an effective review article. J Med Toxicol. 2012;8(2):89–90.

NHMRC. Guidelines for guidelines: assessing risk of bias. Available at https://nhmrc.gov.au/guidelinesforguidelines/develop/assessing-risk-bias . Last published 29 August 2019. Accessed 29 Aug 2022.

Noyes J, Booth A, Cargo M, et al. Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series – paper 1: introduction. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018b;97:35–8.

Noyes J, Booth A, Flemming K, et al. Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series – paper 3: methods for assessing methodological limitations, data extraction and synthesis, and confidence in synthesized qualitative findings. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018a;97:49–58.

Noyes J, Booth A, Moore G, Flemming K, Tunçalp Ö, Shakibazadeh E. Synthesising quantitative and qualitative evidence to inform guidelines on complex interventions: clarifying the purposes, designs and outlining some methods. BMJ Glob Health. 2019;4(Suppl 1):e000893.

Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Healthcare. 2015;13(3):141–6.

Polanin JR, Pigott TD, Espelage DL, Grotpeter JK. Best practice guidelines for abstract screening large-evidence systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Res Synth Methods. 2019;10(3):330–42.

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7(1):1–7.

Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. Brit Med J. 2017;358

Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. Br Med J. 2016;355

Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008–12.

Tawfik GM, Dila KAS, Mohamed MYF, et al. A step by step guide for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis with simulation data. Trop Med Health. 2019;47(1):1–9.

The Critical Appraisal Program. Critical appraisal skills program. Available at https://casp-uk.net/ . 2022. Accessed 29 Aug 2022.

The University of Melbourne. Writing a literature review in Research Techniques 2022. Available at https://students.unimelb.edu.au/academic-skills/explore-our-resources/research-techniques/reviewing-the-literature . Accessed 29 Aug 2022.

The Writing Center University of Winconsin-Madison. Learn how to write a literature review in The Writer’s Handbook – Academic Professional Writing. 2022. Available at https://writing.wisc.edu/handbook/assignments/reviewofliterature/ . Accessed 29 Aug 2022.

Thompson SG, Sharp SJ. Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. Stat Med. 1999;18(20):2693–708.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16(1):15.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.

Yoneoka D, Henmi M. Clinical heterogeneity in random-effect meta-analysis: between-study boundary estimate problem. Stat Med. 2019;38(21):4131–45.

Yuan Y, Hunt RH. Systematic reviews: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104(5):1086–92.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre of Excellence in Treatable Traits, College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, University of Newcastle, Hunter Medical Research Institute Asthma and Breathing Programme, Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Dennis Thomas

Department of Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmacy, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia

Elida Zairina

Centre for Medicine Use and Safety, Monash Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Parkville, VIC, Australia

Johnson George

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johnson George .

Section Editor information

College of Pharmacy, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar

Derek Charles Stewart

Department of Pharmacy, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, United Kingdom

Zaheer-Ud-Din Babar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Thomas, D., Zairina, E., George, J. (2023). Methodological Approaches to Literature Review. In: Encyclopedia of Evidence in Pharmaceutical Public Health and Health Services Research in Pharmacy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50247-8_57-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50247-8_57-1

Received : 22 February 2023

Accepted : 22 February 2023

Published : 09 May 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-50247-8

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-50247-8

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Biomedicine and Life Sciences Reference Module Biomedical and Life Sciences

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Literature Reviews

• Types of reviews
• Getting started

Types of reviews and examples

Choosing a review type.

• 1. Define your research question
• 2. Plan your search
• 3. Search the literature
• 4. Organize your results
• 5. Synthesize your findings
• 6. Write the review
• 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

• Meta-analysis
• Systematized

Definition:

"A term used to describe a conventional overview of the literature, particularly when contrasted with a systematic review (Booth et al., 2012, p. 265).

Characteristics:

• Provides examination of recent or current literature on a wide range of subjects
• Varying levels of completeness / comprehensiveness, non-standardized methodology
• May or may not include comprehensive searching, quality assessment or critical appraisal

Mitchell, L. E., & Zajchowski, C. A. (2022). The history of air quality in Utah: A narrative review.  Sustainability ,  14 (15), 9653.  doi.org/10.3390/su14159653

Booth, A., Papaioannou, D., & Sutton, A. (2012). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

"An assessment of what is already known about a policy or practice issue...using systematic review methods to search and critically appraise existing research" (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 100).

• Assessment of what is already known about an issue
• Similar to a systematic review but within a time-constrained setting
• Typically employs methodological shortcuts, increasing risk of introducing bias, includes basic level of quality assessment
• Best suited for issues needing quick decisions and solutions (i.e., policy recommendations)

Learn more about the method:

Khangura, S., Konnyu, K., Cushman, R., Grimshaw, J., & Moher, D. (2012). Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach.  Systematic reviews, 1 (1), 1-9.  https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-10

Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries. (2021). Rapid Review Protocol .

Quarmby, S., Santos, G., & Mathias, M. (2019). Air quality strategies and technologies: A rapid review of the international evidence.  Sustainability, 11 (10), 2757.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102757

Grant, M.J. & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of the 14 review types and associated methodologies.  Health Information & Libraries Journal , 26(2), 91-108. https://www.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

Developed and refined by the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre), this review "map[s] out and categorize[s] existing literature on a particular topic, identifying gaps in research literature from which to commission further reviews and/or primary research" (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 97).

Although mapping reviews are sometimes called scoping reviews, the key difference is that mapping reviews focus on a review question, rather than a topic

Mapping reviews are "best used where a clear target for a more focused evidence product has not yet been identified" (Booth, 2016, p. 14)

Mapping review searches are often quick and are intended to provide a broad overview

Mapping reviews can take different approaches in what types of literature is focused on in the search

Cooper I. D. (2016). What is a "mapping study?".  Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA ,  104 (1), 76–78. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.1.013

Miake-Lye, I. M., Hempel, S., Shanman, R., & Shekelle, P. G. (2016). What is an evidence map? A systematic review of published evidence maps and their definitions, methods, and products.  Systematic reviews, 5 (1), 1-21.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0204-x

Tainio, M., Andersen, Z. J., Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., Hu, L., De Nazelle, A., An, R., ... & de Sá, T. H. (2021). Air pollution, physical activity and health: A mapping review of the evidence.  Environment international ,  147 , 105954.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.105954

Booth, A. (2016). EVIDENT Guidance for Reviewing the Evidence: a compendium of methodological literature and websites . ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1562.9842 . 

Grant, M.J. & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of the 14 review types and associated methodologies.  Health Information & Libraries Journal , 26(2), 91-108.  https://www.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

"A type of review that has as its primary objective the identification of the size and quality of research in a topic area in order to inform subsequent review" (Booth et al., 2012, p. 269).

• Main purpose is to map out and categorize existing literature, identify gaps in literature—great for informing policy-making
• Search comprehensiveness determined by time/scope constraints, could take longer than a systematic review
• No formal quality assessment or critical appraisal

Learn more about the methods :

Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005) Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework.  International Journal of Social Research Methodology ,  8 (1), 19-32.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616

Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O’Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science: IS, 5, 69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69

Example : 

Rahman, A., Sarkar, A., Yadav, O. P., Achari, G., & Slobodnik, J. (2021). Potential human health risks due to environmental exposure to nano-and microplastics and knowledge gaps: A scoping review.  Science of the Total Environment, 757 , 143872.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143872

A review that "[compiles] evidence from multiple...reviews into one accessible and usable document" (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 103). While originally intended to be a compilation of Cochrane reviews, it now generally refers to any kind of evidence synthesis.

• Compiles evidence from multiple reviews into one document
• Often defines a broader question than is typical of a traditional systematic review

Choi, G. J., & Kang, H. (2022). The umbrella review: a useful strategy in the rain of evidence.  The Korean Journal of Pain ,  35 (2), 127–128.  https://doi.org/10.3344/kjp.2022.35.2.127

Aromataris, E., Fernandez, R., Godfrey, C. M., Holly, C., Khalil, H., & Tungpunkom, P. (2015). Summarizing systematic reviews: Methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare , 13(3), 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000055

Rojas-Rueda, D., Morales-Zamora, E., Alsufyani, W. A., Herbst, C. H., Al Balawi, S. M., Alsukait, R., & Alomran, M. (2021). Environmental risk factors and health: An umbrella review of meta-analyses.  International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Dealth ,  18 (2), 704.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18020704

A meta-analysis is a "technique that statistically combines the results of quantitative studies to provide a more precise effect of the result" (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 98).

• Statistical technique for combining results of quantitative studies to provide more precise effect of results
• Aims for exhaustive, comprehensive searching
• Quality assessment may determine inclusion/exclusion criteria
• May be conducted independently or as part of a systematic review

Berman, N. G., & Parker, R. A. (2002). Meta-analysis: Neither quick nor easy. BMC Medical Research Methodology , 2(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-2-10

Hites R. A. (2004). Polybrominated diphenyl ethers in the environment and in people: a meta-analysis of concentrations.  Environmental Science & Technology ,  38 (4), 945–956.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es035082g

A systematic review "seeks to systematically search for, appraise, and [synthesize] research evidence, often adhering to the guidelines on the conduct of a review" provided by discipline-specific organizations, such as the Cochrane Collaboration (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 102).

• Aims to compile and synthesize all known knowledge on a given topic
• Adheres to strict guidelines, protocols, and frameworks
• Time-intensive and often takes months to a year or more to complete
• The most commonly referred to type of evidence synthesis. Sometimes confused as a blanket term for other types of reviews

Gascon, M., Triguero-Mas, M., Martínez, D., Dadvand, P., Forns, J., Plasència, A., & Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J. (2015). Mental health benefits of long-term exposure to residential green and blue spaces: a systematic review.  International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health ,  12 (4), 4354–4379.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120404354

"Systematized reviews attempt to include one or more elements of the systematic review process while stopping short of claiming that the resultant output is a systematic review" (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 102). When a systematic review approach is adapted to produce a more manageable scope, while still retaining the rigor of a systematic review such as risk of bias assessment and the use of a protocol, this is often referred to as a  structured review  (Huelin et al., 2015).

• Typically conducted by postgraduate or graduate students
• Often assigned by instructors to students who don't have the resources to conduct a full systematic review

Salvo, G., Lashewicz, B. M., Doyle-Baker, P. K., & McCormack, G. R. (2018). Neighbourhood built environment influences on physical activity among adults: A systematized review of qualitative evidence.  International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health ,  15 (5), 897.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15050897

Huelin, R., Iheanacho, I., Payne, K., & Sandman, K. (2015). What’s in a name? Systematic and non-systematic literature reviews, and why the distinction matters. https://www.evidera.com/resource/whats-in-a-name-systematic-and-non-systematic-literature-reviews-and-why-the-distinction-matters/

• Review Decision Tree - Cornell University For more information, check out Cornell's review methodology decision tree.
• LitR-Ex.com - Eight literature review methodologies Learn more about 8 different review types (incl. Systematic Reviews and Scoping Reviews) with practical tips about strengths and weaknesses of different methods.
• << Previous: Getting started
• Next: 1. Define your research question >>
• Last Updated: Apr 3, 2024 12:40 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.duke.edu/lit-reviews

Services for...

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

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

• Chester Fritz Library
• Library of the Health Sciences
• Thormodsgard Law Library

Literature Reviews

• Get started

Literature Reviews within a Scholarly Work

Literature reviews as a scholarly work.

• Finding Literature Reviews
• Your Literature Search
• Library Books
• How to Videos
• Communicating & Citing Research
• Bibliography

Literature reviews summarize and analyze what has been written on a particular topic and identify gaps or disagreements in the scholarly work on that topic.

Within a scholarly work, the literature review situates the current work within the larger scholarly conversation and emphasizes how that particular scholarly work contributes to the conversation on the topic. The literature review portion may be as brief as a few paragraphs focusing on a narrow topic area.

When writing this type of literature review, it's helpful to start by identifying sources most relevant to your research question. A citation tracking database such as Web of Science can also help you locate seminal articles on a topic and find out who has more recently cited them. See "Your Literature Search" for more details.

A literature review may itself be a scholarly publication and provide an analysis of what has been written on a particular topic without contributing original research. These types of literature reviews can serve to help keep people updated on a field as well as helping scholars choose a research topic to fill gaps in the knowledge on that topic. Common types include:

Systematic Review

Systematic literature reviews follow specific procedures in some ways similar to setting up an experiment to ensure that future scholars can replicate the same steps. They are also helpful for evaluating data published over multiple studies. Thus, these are common in the medical field and may be used by healthcare providers to help guide diagnosis and treatment decisions. Cochrane Reviews are one example of this type of literature review.

Semi-Systematic Review

When a systematic review is not feasible, a semi-systematic review can help synthesize research on a topic or how a topic has been studied in different fields (Snyder 2019). Rather than focusing on quantitative data, this review type identifies themes, theoretical perspectives, and other qualitative information related to the topic. These types of reviews can be particularly helpful for a historical topic overview, for developing a theoretical model, and for creating a research agenda for a field (Snyder 2019). As with systematic reviews, a search strategy must be developed before conducting the review.

Integrative Review

An integrative review is less systematic and can be helpful for developing a theoretical model or to reconceptualize a topic. As Synder (2019) notes, " This type of review often re quires a more creative collection of data, as the purpose is usually not to cover all articles ever published on the topic but rather to combine perspectives and insights from di ff erent fi elds or research traditions" (p. 336).

Source: Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research. 104. 333-339. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039

• << Previous: Get started
• Next: Finding Literature Reviews >>
• Last Updated: Dec 5, 2023 8:31 PM
• URL: https://libguides.und.edu/literature-reviews

• 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

Systematic Reviews: Types of literature review, methods, & resources

• Types of literature review, methods, & resources
• Protocol and registration
• Search strategy
• Medical Literature Databases to search
• Study selection and appraisal
• Data Extraction/Coding/Study characteristics/Results
• Reporting the quality/risk of bias
• Manage citations using RefWorks This link opens in a new window
• GW Box file storage for PDF's This link opens in a new window

Analytical reviews

GUIDELINES FOR HOW TO CARRY OUT AN ANALYTICAL REVIEW OF QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH

Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) network. (Tracking and listing over 550 reporting guidelines for various different study types including Randomised trials, Systematic reviews, Study protocols, Diagnostic/prognostic studies, Case reports, Clinical practice guidelines, Animal pre-clinical studies, etc). http://www.equator-network.org/resource-centre/library-of-health-research-reporting/

When comparing therapies :

PRISMA (Guideline on how to perform and write-up a systematic review and/or meta-analysis of the outcomes reported in multiple clinical trials of therapeutic interventions. PRISMA  replaces the previous QUORUM statement guidelines ):  Liberati, A,, Altman, D,, Moher, D, et al. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.  Plos Medicine, 6 (7):e1000100. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 

When comparing diagnostic methods :

Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM). CLAIM is modeled after the STARD guideline and has been extended to address applications of AI in medical imaging that include classification, image reconstruction, text analysis, and workflow optimization. The elements described here should be viewed as a “best practice” to guide authors in presenting their research. Reported in Mongan, J., Moy, L., & Kahn, C. E., Jr (2020). Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM): A Guide for Authors and Reviewers.  Radiology. Artificial intelligence ,  2 (2), e200029. https://doi.org/10.1148/ryai.2020200029

STAndards for the Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy studies (STARD) Statement. (Reporting guidelines for writing up a study comparing the accuracy of competing diagnostic methods)  http://www.stard-statement.org/

When evaluating clinical practice guidelines :

AGREE Research Trust (ART) (2013).  Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE-II) . (A 23-item instrument for as sessing th e quality of Clinical Practice Guidelines. Used internationally for evaluating or deciding which guidelines could be recommended for use in practice or to inform health policy decisions.)

National Guideline Clearinghouse Extent of Adherence to Trustworthy Standards (NEATS) Instrument (2019). (A 15-item instrument using scales of 1-5 to evaluate a guideline's adherence to the Institute of Medicine's standard for trustworthy guidelines. It has good external validity among guideline developers and good interrater reliability across trained reviewers.)

When reviewing genetics studies

Human genetics review reporting guidelines.  Little J, Higgins JPT (eds.). The HuGENet™ HuGE Review Handbook, version 1.0 . 

When you need to re-analyze individual participant data

If you wish to collect, check, and re-analyze individual participant data (IPD) from clinical trials addressing a particular research question, you should follow the  PRISMA-IPD  guidelines as reported in  Stewart, L.A., Clarke, M., Rovers, M., et al. (2015). Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Individual Participant Data: The PRISMA-IPD Statement. JAMA, 313(16):1657-1665. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.3656 .

When comparing Randomized studies involving animals, livestock, or food:

O’Connor AM, et al. (2010).  The REFLECT statement: methods and processes of creating reporting guidelines for randomized controlled trials for livestock and food safety by modifying the CONSORT statement.  Zoonoses Public Health. 57(2):95-104. Epub 2010/01/15. doi: 10.1111/j.1863-2378.2009.01311.x. PubMed PMID: 20070653.

Sargeant JM, et al. (2010).  The REFLECT Statement: Reporting Guidelines for Randomized Controlled Trials in Livestock and Food Safety: Explanation and Elaboration.  Zoonoses Public Health. 57(2):105-36. Epub 2010/01/15. doi: JVB1312 [pii] 10.1111/j.1863-2378.2009.01312.x. PubMed PMID: 20070652.

GUIDELINES FOR HOW TO WRITE UP FOR PUBLICATION THE RESULTS OF ONE QUANTITATIVE CLINICAL TRIAL

When reporting the results of a Randomized Controlled Trial :

Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement. (2010 reporting guideline for writing up a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial).  http://www.consort-statement.org . Since updated in 2022, see Butcher, M. A., et al. (2022). Guidelines for Reporting Outcomes in Trial Reports: The CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 Extension . JAMA : the Journal of the American Medical Association, 328(22), 2252–2264. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.21022

Kilkenny, C., Browne, W. J., Cuthill, I. C., Emerson, M., & Altman, D. G. (2010). Improving bioscience research reporting: The ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biology, 8(6), e1000412–e1000412. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000412 (A 20-item checklist, following the CONSORT approach, listing the information that published articles reporting research using animals should include, such as the number and specific characteristics of animals used; details of housing and husbandry; and the experimental, statistical, and analytical methods used to reduce bias.)

Narrative reviews

GUIDELINES  FOR HOW TO CARRY OUT  A  NARRATIVE REVIEW / QUALITATIVE RESEARCH /  OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES

Campbell, M. (2020). Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline. BMJ, 368. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6890  (guideline on how to analyse evidence for a narrative review, to provide a recommendation based on heterogenous study types).

Community Preventive Services Task Force (2021).  The Methods Manual for Community Guide Systematic Reviews . (Public Health Prevention systematic review guidelines)

Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) network. (Tracking and listing over 550 reporting guidelines for various different study types including Observational studies, Qualitative research, Quality improvement studies, and Economic evaluations). http://www.equator-network.org/resource-centre/library-of-health-research-reporting/

Cochrane Qualitative & Implementation Methods Group. (2019). Training resources. Retrieved from  https://methods.cochrane.org/qi/training-resources . (Training materials for how to do a meta-synthesis, or qualitative evidence synthesis). 

Cornell University Library (2019). Planning worksheet for structured literature reviews. Retrieved 4/8/22 from  https://osf.io/tnfm7/  (offers a framework for a narrative literature review).

Green, B. N., Johnson, C. D., & Adams, A. (2006).  Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade . Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 5(3): 101-117. DOI: 10.1016/ S0899-3467 (07)60142-6.  This is a very good article about what to take into consideration when writing any type of narrative review.

When reviewing observational studies/qualitative research :

STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement. (Reporting guidelines for various types of health sciences observational studies).  http://www.strobe-statement.org 

Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE)  http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=192614

RATS Qualitative research systematic review guidelines.  https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/qualitative-research-review-guidelines-rats/

Methods/Guidance

Right Review , this decision support website provides an algorithm to help reviewers choose a review methodology from among 41 knowledge synthesis methods.

The Systematic Review Toolbox , an online catalogue of tools that support various tasks within the systematic review and wider evidence synthesis process. Maintained by the UK University of York Health Economics Consortium, Newcastle University NIHR Innovation Observatory, and University of Sheffield School of Health and Related Research.

Institute of Medicine. (2011).  Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews . Washington, DC: National Academies  (Systematic review guidelines from the Health and Medicine Division (HMD) of the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (formerly called the Institute of Medicine)).

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2022).  Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly work in Medical Journals . Guidance on how to prepare a manuscript for submission to a Medical journal.

Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions (International Cochrane Collaboration systematic review guidelines). The various Cochrane review groups comporise around 30,000 physicians around the world working in the disciplines on reviews of interventions with very detailed methods for verifying the validity of the research methods and analysis performed in screened-in Randmized Controlled Clinical Trials. Typically published Cochrane Reviews are the most exhaustive review of the evidence of effectiveness of a particular drug or intervention, and include a statistical meta-analysis. Similar to practice guidelines, Cochrane reviews are periodically revised and updated.

Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Manual of Evidence Synthesis . (International systematic review guidelines). Based at the University of Adelaide, South Australia, and collaborating with around 80 academic and medical entities around the world. Unlike Cochrane Reviews that strictly focus on efficacy of interventions, JBI offers a broader, inclusive approach to evidence, to accommodate a range of diverse questions and study designs. The JBI manual provides guidance on how to analyse and include both quantitative and qualitative research.

Cochrane Methods Support Unit, webinar recordings on methodological support questions 

Cochrane Qualitative & Implementation Methods Group. (2019). Training resources. Retrieved from https://methods.cochrane.org/qi/training-resources . (How to do a meta-synthesis, or qualitative evidence synthesis). 

Center for Reviews and Dissemination (University of York, England) (2009).  Systematic Reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking systematic reviews in health care . (British systematic review guidelines). 

Agency for Health Research & Quality (AHRQ) (2013). Methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews . (U.S. comparative effectiveness review guidelines)

Hunter, K. E., et al. (2022). Searching clinical trials registers: guide for systematic reviewers.  BMJ (Clinical research ed.) ,  377 , e068791. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2021-068791

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI).  The PCORI Methodology Report . (A 47-item methodology checklist for U.S. patient-centered outcomes research. Established under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, PCORI funds the development of guidance on the comparative effectivess of clinical healthcare, similar to the UK National Institute for Clinical Evidence but without reporting cost-effectiveness QALY metrics). 

Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) (2019). Grey Matters: a practical tool for searching health-related grey literature. Retrieved from https://www.cadth.ca/resources/finding-evidence/grey-matters . A checklist of N American & international online databases and websites you can use to search for unpublished reports, posters, and policy briefs, on topics including general medicine and nursing, public and mental health, health technology assessment, drug and device regulatory, approvals, warnings, and advisories.

Hempel, S., Xenakis, L., & Danz, M. (2016). Systematic Reviews for Occupational Safety and Health Questions: Resources for Evidence Synthesis. Retrieved 8/15/16 from http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1463.html . NIOSH guidelines for how to carry out a systematic review in the occupational safety and health domain.

A good source for reporting guidelines is the  NLM's  Research Reporting Guidelines and Initiatives .

Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). (An international group of academics/clinicians working to promote a common approach to grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.) 

Phillips, B., Ball, C., Sackett, D., et al. (2009). Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine: Levels of Evidence. Retrieved 3/20/17 from https://www.cebm.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/CEBM-Levels-of-Evidence-2.1.pdf . (Another commonly used criteria for grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations, developed in part by EBM guru David Sackett.) 

Systematic Reviews for Animals & Food  (guidelines including the REFLECT statement for carrying out a systematic review on animal health, animal welfare, food safety, livestock, and agriculture)

Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies . Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x. (Describes 14 different types of literature and systematic review, useful for thinking at the outset about what sort of literature review you want to do.)

Sutton, A., Clowes, M., Preston, L., & Booth, A. (2019). Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements . Health information and libraries journal, 36(3), 202–222. doi:10.1111/hir.12276  (An updated look at different types of literature review, expands on the Grant & Booth 2009 article listed above).

Garrard, J. (2007).  Health Sciences Literature Review Made Easy: The Matrix Method  (2nd Ed.).   Sudbury, MA:  Jones & Bartlett Publishers. (Textbook of health sciences literature search methods).

Zilberberg, M. (2012).  Between the lines: Finding the truth in medical literature . Goshen, MA: Evimed Research Press. (Concise book on foundational concepts of evidence-based medicine).

Lang, T. (2009). The Value of Systematic Reviews as Research Activities in Medical Education . In: Lang, T. How to write, publish, & present in the health sciences : a guide for clinicians & laboratory researchers. Philadelphia : American College of Physicians.  (This book chapter has a helpful bibliography on systematic review and meta-analysis methods)

Brown, S., Martin, E., Garcia, T., Winter, M., García, A., Brown, A., Cuevas H.,  & Sumlin, L. (2013). Managing complex research datasets using electronic tools: a meta-analysis exemplar . Computers, Informatics, Nursing: CIN, 31(6), 257-265. doi:10.1097/NXN.0b013e318295e69c. (This article advocates for the programming of electronic fillable forms in Adobe Acrobat Pro to feed data into Excel or SPSS for analysis, and to use cloud based file sharing systems such as Blackboard, RefWorks, or EverNote to facilitate sharing knowledge about the decision-making process and keep data secure. Of particular note are the flowchart describing this process, and their example screening form used for the initial screening of abstracts).

Brown, S., Upchurch, S., & Acton, G. (2003). A framework for developing a coding scheme for meta-analysis . Western Journal Of Nursing Research, 25(2), 205-222. (This article describes the process of how to design a coded data extraction form and codebook, Table 1 is an example of a coded data extraction form that can then be used to program a fillable form in Adobe Acrobat or Microsoft Access).

Elamin, M. B., Flynn, D. N., Bassler, D., Briel, M., Alonso-Coello, P., Karanicolas, P., & ... Montori, V. M. (2009). Choice of data extraction tools for systematic reviews depends on resources and review complexity .  Journal Of Clinical Epidemiology ,  62 (5), 506-510. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.016  (This article offers advice on how to decide what tools to use to extract data for analytical systematic reviews).

Riegelman R.   Studying a Study and Testing a Test: Reading Evidence-based Health Research , 6th Edition.  Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2012. (Textbook of quantitative statistical methods used in health sciences research).

Rathbone, J., Hoffmann, T., & Glasziou, P. (2015). Faster title and abstract screening? Evaluating Abstrackr, a semi-automated online screening program for systematic reviewers. Systematic Reviews, 480. doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0067-6

Guyatt, G., Rennie, D., Meade, M., & Cook, D. (2015). Users' guides to the medical literature (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Education Medical.  (This is a foundational textbook on evidence-based medicine and of particular use to the reviewer who wants to learn about the different types of published research article e.g. "what is a case report?" and to understand what types of study design best answer what types of clinical question).

Glanville, J., Duffy, S., Mccool, R., & Varley, D. (2014). Searching ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to inform systematic reviews: what are the optimal search approaches? Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 102(3), 177–183. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.102.3.007

Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z., & Elmagarmid, A. (2016). Rayyan a web and mobile app for systematic reviews.  Systematic Reviews, 5 : 210, DOI: 10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4. http://rdcu.be/nzDM

Kwon Y, Lemieux M, McTavish J, Wathen N. (2015). Identifying and removing duplicate records from systematic review searches. J Med Libr Assoc. 103 (4): 184-8. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.103.4.004. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26512216

Bramer WM, Giustini D, de Jonge GB, Holland L, Bekhuis T. (2016). De-duplication of database search results for systematic reviews in EndNote. J Med Libr Assoc. 104 (3):240-3. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.104.3.014. Erratum in: J Med Libr Assoc. 2017 Jan;105(1):111. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27366130

McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:40–46. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021 . PRESS is a guideline with a checklist for librarians to critically appraise the search strategy for a systematic review literature search.

Clark, JM, Sanders, S, Carter, M, Honeyman, D, Cleo, G, Auld, Y, Booth, D, Condron, P, Dalais, C, Bateup, S, Linthwaite, B, May, N, Munn, J, Ramsay, L, Rickett, K, Rutter, C, Smith, A, Sondergeld, P, Wallin, M, Jones, M & Beller, E 2020, 'Improving the translation of search strategies using the Polyglot Search Translator: a randomized controlled trial',  Journal of the Medical Library Association , vol. 108, no. 2, pp. 195-207.

Journal articles describing systematic review methods can be searched for in PubMed using this search string in the PubMed search box: sysrev_methods [sb] . 

Software tools for systematic reviews

• Covidence GW in 2019 has bought a subscription to this Cloud based tool for facilitating screening decisions, used by the Cochrane Collaboration. Register for an account.
• NVIVO for analysis of qualitative research NVIVO is used for coding interview data to identify common themes emerging from interviews with several participants. GW faculty, staff, and students may download NVIVO software.
• RedCAP RedCAP is software that can be used to create survey forms for research or data collection or data extraction. It has very detailed functionality to enable data exchange with Electronic Health Record Systems, and to integrate with study workflow such as scheduling follow up reminders for study participants.
• SRDR tool from AHRQ Free, web-based and has a training environment, tutorials, and example templates of systematic review data extraction forms
• RevMan 5 RevMan 5 is the desktop version of the software used by Cochrane systematic review teams. RevMan 5 is free for academic use and can be downloaded and configured to run as stand alone software that does not connect with the Cochrane server if you follow the instructions at https://training.cochrane.org/online-learning/core-software-cochrane-reviews/revman/revman-5-download/non-cochrane-reviews
• Rayyan Free, web-based tool for collecting and screening citations. It has options to screen with multiple people, masking each other.
• GradePro Free, web application to create, manage and share summaries of research evidence (called Evidence Profiles and Summary of Findings Tables) for reviews or guidelines, uses the GRADE criteria to evaluate each paper under review.
• DistillerSR Needs subscription. Create coded data extraction forms from templates.
• EPPI Reviewer Needs subscription. Like DistillerSR, tool for text mining, data clustering, classification and term extraction
• SUMARI Needs subscription. Qualitative data analysis.
• Dedoose Needs subscription. Qualitative data analysis, similar to NVIVO in that it can be used to code interview transcripts, identify word co-occurence, cloud based.
• Meta-analysis software for statistical analysis of data for quantitative reviews SPSS, SAS, and STATA are popular analytical statistical software that include macros for carrying out meta-analysis. Himmelfarb has SPSS on some 3rd floor computers, and GW affiliates may download SAS to your own laptop from the Division of IT website. To perform mathematical analysis of big data sets there are statistical analysis software libraries in the R programming language available through GitHub and RStudio, but this requires advanced knowledge of the R and Python computer languages and data wrangling/cleaning.
• PRISMA 2020 flow diagram generator The PRISMA Statement website has a page listing example flow diagram templates and a link to software for creating PRISMA 2020 flow diagrams using R software.

GW researchers may want to consider using Refworks to manage citations, and GW Box to store the full text PDF's of review articles. You can also use online survey forms such as Qualtrics, RedCAP, or Survey Monkey, to design and create your own coded fillable forms, and export the data to Excel or one of the qualitative analytical software tools listed above.

Forest Plot Generators

• RevMan 5 the desktop version of the software used by Cochrane systematic review teams. RevMan 5 is free for academic use and can be downloaded and configured to run as stand alone software that does not connect with the Cochrane server if you follow the instructions at https://training.cochrane.org/online-learning/core-software-cochrane-reviews/revman/revman-5-download/non-cochrane-reviews.
• Meta-Essentials a free set of workbooks designed for Microsoft Excel that, based on your input, automatically produce meta-analyses including Forest Plots. Produced for Erasmus University Rotterdam joint research institute.
• Neyeloff, Fuchs & Moreira Another set of Excel worksheets and instructions to generate a Forest Plot. Published as Neyeloff, J.L., Fuchs, S.C. & Moreira, L.B. Meta-analyses and Forest plots using a microsoft excel spreadsheet: step-by-step guide focusing on descriptive data analysis. BMC Res Notes 5, 52 (2012). https://doi-org.proxygw.wrlc.org/10.1186/1756-0500-5-52
• For R programmers instructions are at https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/forestplot/vignettes/forestplot.html and you can download the R code package from https://github.com/gforge/forestplot
• << Previous: Home
• Next: Protocol and registration >>

• Last Updated: Mar 21, 2024 11:08 AM
• URL: https://guides.himmelfarb.gwu.edu/systematic_review

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

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the parts of a lit review?

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

Introduction:

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

Conclusion:

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

How should I organize my lit review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Lau F, Kuziemsky C, editors. Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. Victoria (BC): University of Victoria; 2017 Feb 27.

Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet].

Chapter 9 methods for literature reviews.

Guy Paré and Spyros Kitsiou .

9.1. Introduction

Literature reviews play a critical role in scholarship because science remains, first and foremost, a cumulative endeavour ( vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). As in any academic discipline, rigorous knowledge syntheses are becoming indispensable in keeping up with an exponentially growing eHealth literature, assisting practitioners, academics, and graduate students in finding, evaluating, and synthesizing the contents of many empirical and conceptual papers. Among other methods, literature reviews are essential for: (a) identifying what has been written on a subject or topic; (b) determining the extent to which a specific research area reveals any interpretable trends or patterns; (c) aggregating empirical findings related to a narrow research question to support evidence-based practice; (d) generating new frameworks and theories; and (e) identifying topics or questions requiring more investigation ( Paré, Trudel, Jaana, & Kitsiou, 2015 ).

Literature reviews can take two major forms. The most prevalent one is the “literature review” or “background” section within a journal paper or a chapter in a graduate thesis. This section synthesizes the extant literature and usually identifies the gaps in knowledge that the empirical study addresses ( Sylvester, Tate, & Johnstone, 2013 ). It may also provide a theoretical foundation for the proposed study, substantiate the presence of the research problem, justify the research as one that contributes something new to the cumulated knowledge, or validate the methods and approaches for the proposed study ( Hart, 1998 ; Levy & Ellis, 2006 ).

The second form of literature review, which is the focus of this chapter, constitutes an original and valuable work of research in and of itself ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Rather than providing a base for a researcher’s own work, it creates a solid starting point for all members of the community interested in a particular area or topic ( Mulrow, 1987 ). The so-called “review article” is a journal-length paper which has an overarching purpose to synthesize the literature in a field, without collecting or analyzing any primary data ( Green, Johnson, & Adams, 2006 ).

When appropriately conducted, review articles represent powerful information sources for practitioners looking for state-of-the art evidence to guide their decision-making and work practices ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Further, high-quality reviews become frequently cited pieces of work which researchers seek out as a first clear outline of the literature when undertaking empirical studies ( Cooper, 1988 ; Rowe, 2014 ). Scholars who track and gauge the impact of articles have found that review papers are cited and downloaded more often than any other type of published article ( Cronin, Ryan, & Coughlan, 2008 ; Montori, Wilczynski, Morgan, Haynes, & Hedges, 2003 ; Patsopoulos, Analatos, & Ioannidis, 2005 ). The reason for their popularity may be the fact that reading the review enables one to have an overview, if not a detailed knowledge of the area in question, as well as references to the most useful primary sources ( Cronin et al., 2008 ). Although they are not easy to conduct, the commitment to complete a review article provides a tremendous service to one’s academic community ( Paré et al., 2015 ; Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). Most, if not all, peer-reviewed journals in the fields of medical informatics publish review articles of some type.

The main objectives of this chapter are fourfold: (a) to provide an overview of the major steps and activities involved in conducting a stand-alone literature review; (b) to describe and contrast the different types of review articles that can contribute to the eHealth knowledge base; (c) to illustrate each review type with one or two examples from the eHealth literature; and (d) to provide a series of recommendations for prospective authors of review articles in this domain.

9.2. Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps

As explained in Templier and Paré (2015) , there are six generic steps involved in conducting a review article:

• formulating the research question(s) and objective(s),
• searching the extant literature,
• screening for inclusion,
• assessing the quality of primary studies,
• extracting data, and
• analyzing data.

Although these steps are presented here in sequential order, one must keep in mind that the review process can be iterative and that many activities can be initiated during the planning stage and later refined during subsequent phases ( Finfgeld-Connett & Johnson, 2013 ; Kitchenham & Charters, 2007 ).

Formulating the research question(s) and objective(s): As a first step, members of the review team must appropriately justify the need for the review itself ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ), identify the review’s main objective(s) ( Okoli & Schabram, 2010 ), and define the concepts or variables at the heart of their synthesis ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ; Webster & Watson, 2002 ). Importantly, they also need to articulate the research question(s) they propose to investigate ( Kitchenham & Charters, 2007 ). In this regard, we concur with Jesson, Matheson, and Lacey (2011) that clearly articulated research questions are key ingredients that guide the entire review methodology; they underscore the type of information that is needed, inform the search for and selection of relevant literature, and guide or orient the subsequent analysis. Searching the extant literature: The next step consists of searching the literature and making decisions about the suitability of material to be considered in the review ( Cooper, 1988 ). There exist three main coverage strategies. First, exhaustive coverage means an effort is made to be as comprehensive as possible in order to ensure that all relevant studies, published and unpublished, are included in the review and, thus, conclusions are based on this all-inclusive knowledge base. The second type of coverage consists of presenting materials that are representative of most other works in a given field or area. Often authors who adopt this strategy will search for relevant articles in a small number of top-tier journals in a field ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In the third strategy, the review team concentrates on prior works that have been central or pivotal to a particular topic. This may include empirical studies or conceptual papers that initiated a line of investigation, changed how problems or questions were framed, introduced new methods or concepts, or engendered important debate ( Cooper, 1988 ). Screening for inclusion: The following step consists of evaluating the applicability of the material identified in the preceding step ( Levy & Ellis, 2006 ; vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). Once a group of potential studies has been identified, members of the review team must screen them to determine their relevance ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). A set of predetermined rules provides a basis for including or excluding certain studies. This exercise requires a significant investment on the part of researchers, who must ensure enhanced objectivity and avoid biases or mistakes. As discussed later in this chapter, for certain types of reviews there must be at least two independent reviewers involved in the screening process and a procedure to resolve disagreements must also be in place ( Liberati et al., 2009 ; Shea et al., 2009 ). Assessing the quality of primary studies: In addition to screening material for inclusion, members of the review team may need to assess the scientific quality of the selected studies, that is, appraise the rigour of the research design and methods. Such formal assessment, which is usually conducted independently by at least two coders, helps members of the review team refine which studies to include in the final sample, determine whether or not the differences in quality may affect their conclusions, or guide how they analyze the data and interpret the findings ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). Ascribing quality scores to each primary study or considering through domain-based evaluations which study components have or have not been designed and executed appropriately makes it possible to reflect on the extent to which the selected study addresses possible biases and maximizes validity ( Shea et al., 2009 ). Extracting data: The following step involves gathering or extracting applicable information from each primary study included in the sample and deciding what is relevant to the problem of interest ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ). Indeed, the type of data that should be recorded mainly depends on the initial research questions ( Okoli & Schabram, 2010 ). However, important information may also be gathered about how, when, where and by whom the primary study was conducted, the research design and methods, or qualitative/quantitative results ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ). Analyzing and synthesizing data : As a final step, members of the review team must collate, summarize, aggregate, organize, and compare the evidence extracted from the included studies. The extracted data must be presented in a meaningful way that suggests a new contribution to the extant literature ( Jesson et al., 2011 ). Webster and Watson (2002) warn researchers that literature reviews should be much more than lists of papers and should provide a coherent lens to make sense of extant knowledge on a given topic. There exist several methods and techniques for synthesizing quantitative (e.g., frequency analysis, meta-analysis) and qualitative (e.g., grounded theory, narrative analysis, meta-ethnography) evidence ( Dixon-Woods, Agarwal, Jones, Young, & Sutton, 2005 ; Thomas & Harden, 2008 ).

9.3. Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations

EHealth researchers have at their disposal a number of approaches and methods for making sense out of existing literature, all with the purpose of casting current research findings into historical contexts or explaining contradictions that might exist among a set of primary research studies conducted on a particular topic. Our classification scheme is largely inspired from Paré and colleagues’ (2015) typology. Below we present and illustrate those review types that we feel are central to the growth and development of the eHealth domain.

9.3.1. Narrative Reviews

The narrative review is the “traditional” way of reviewing the extant literature and is skewed towards a qualitative interpretation of prior knowledge ( Sylvester et al., 2013 ). Put simply, a narrative review attempts to summarize or synthesize what has been written on a particular topic but does not seek generalization or cumulative knowledge from what is reviewed ( Davies, 2000 ; Green et al., 2006 ). Instead, the review team often undertakes the task of accumulating and synthesizing the literature to demonstrate the value of a particular point of view ( Baumeister & Leary, 1997 ). As such, reviewers may selectively ignore or limit the attention paid to certain studies in order to make a point. In this rather unsystematic approach, the selection of information from primary articles is subjective, lacks explicit criteria for inclusion and can lead to biased interpretations or inferences ( Green et al., 2006 ). There are several narrative reviews in the particular eHealth domain, as in all fields, which follow such an unstructured approach ( Silva et al., 2015 ; Paul et al., 2015 ).

Despite these criticisms, this type of review can be very useful in gathering together a volume of literature in a specific subject area and synthesizing it. As mentioned above, its primary purpose is to provide the reader with a comprehensive background for understanding current knowledge and highlighting the significance of new research ( Cronin et al., 2008 ). Faculty like to use narrative reviews in the classroom because they are often more up to date than textbooks, provide a single source for students to reference, and expose students to peer-reviewed literature ( Green et al., 2006 ). For researchers, narrative reviews can inspire research ideas by identifying gaps or inconsistencies in a body of knowledge, thus helping researchers to determine research questions or formulate hypotheses. Importantly, narrative reviews can also be used as educational articles to bring practitioners up to date with certain topics of issues ( Green et al., 2006 ).

Recently, there have been several efforts to introduce more rigour in narrative reviews that will elucidate common pitfalls and bring changes into their publication standards. Information systems researchers, among others, have contributed to advancing knowledge on how to structure a “traditional” review. For instance, Levy and Ellis (2006) proposed a generic framework for conducting such reviews. Their model follows the systematic data processing approach comprised of three steps, namely: (a) literature search and screening; (b) data extraction and analysis; and (c) writing the literature review. They provide detailed and very helpful instructions on how to conduct each step of the review process. As another methodological contribution, vom Brocke et al. (2009) offered a series of guidelines for conducting literature reviews, with a particular focus on how to search and extract the relevant body of knowledge. Last, Bandara, Miskon, and Fielt (2011) proposed a structured, predefined and tool-supported method to identify primary studies within a feasible scope, extract relevant content from identified articles, synthesize and analyze the findings, and effectively write and present the results of the literature review. We highly recommend that prospective authors of narrative reviews consult these useful sources before embarking on their work.

Darlow and Wen (2015) provide a good example of a highly structured narrative review in the eHealth field. These authors synthesized published articles that describe the development process of mobile health ( m-health ) interventions for patients’ cancer care self-management. As in most narrative reviews, the scope of the research questions being investigated is broad: (a) how development of these systems are carried out; (b) which methods are used to investigate these systems; and (c) what conclusions can be drawn as a result of the development of these systems. To provide clear answers to these questions, a literature search was conducted on six electronic databases and Google Scholar . The search was performed using several terms and free text words, combining them in an appropriate manner. Four inclusion and three exclusion criteria were utilized during the screening process. Both authors independently reviewed each of the identified articles to determine eligibility and extract study information. A flow diagram shows the number of studies identified, screened, and included or excluded at each stage of study selection. In terms of contributions, this review provides a series of practical recommendations for m-health intervention development.

9.3.2. Descriptive or Mapping Reviews

The primary goal of a descriptive review is to determine the extent to which a body of knowledge in a particular research topic reveals any interpretable pattern or trend with respect to pre-existing propositions, theories, methodologies or findings ( King & He, 2005 ; Paré et al., 2015 ). In contrast with narrative reviews, descriptive reviews follow a systematic and transparent procedure, including searching, screening and classifying studies ( Petersen, Vakkalanka, & Kuzniarz, 2015 ). Indeed, structured search methods are used to form a representative sample of a larger group of published works ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Further, authors of descriptive reviews extract from each study certain characteristics of interest, such as publication year, research methods, data collection techniques, and direction or strength of research outcomes (e.g., positive, negative, or non-significant) in the form of frequency analysis to produce quantitative results ( Sylvester et al., 2013 ). In essence, each study included in a descriptive review is treated as the unit of analysis and the published literature as a whole provides a database from which the authors attempt to identify any interpretable trends or draw overall conclusions about the merits of existing conceptualizations, propositions, methods or findings ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In doing so, a descriptive review may claim that its findings represent the state of the art in a particular domain ( King & He, 2005 ).

In the fields of health sciences and medical informatics, reviews that focus on examining the range, nature and evolution of a topic area are described by Anderson, Allen, Peckham, and Goodwin (2008) as mapping reviews . Like descriptive reviews, the research questions are generic and usually relate to publication patterns and trends. There is no preconceived plan to systematically review all of the literature although this can be done. Instead, researchers often present studies that are representative of most works published in a particular area and they consider a specific time frame to be mapped.

An example of this approach in the eHealth domain is offered by DeShazo, Lavallie, and Wolf (2009). The purpose of this descriptive or mapping review was to characterize publication trends in the medical informatics literature over a 20-year period (1987 to 2006). To achieve this ambitious objective, the authors performed a bibliometric analysis of medical informatics citations indexed in medline using publication trends, journal frequencies, impact factors, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) term frequencies, and characteristics of citations. Findings revealed that there were over 77,000 medical informatics articles published during the covered period in numerous journals and that the average annual growth rate was 12%. The MeSH term analysis also suggested a strong interdisciplinary trend. Finally, average impact scores increased over time with two notable growth periods. Overall, patterns in research outputs that seem to characterize the historic trends and current components of the field of medical informatics suggest it may be a maturing discipline (DeShazo et al., 2009).

9.3.3. Scoping Reviews

Scoping reviews attempt to provide an initial indication of the potential size and nature of the extant literature on an emergent topic (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Daudt, van Mossel, & Scott, 2013 ; Levac, Colquhoun, & O’Brien, 2010). A scoping review may be conducted to examine the extent, range and nature of research activities in a particular area, determine the value of undertaking a full systematic review (discussed next), or identify research gaps in the extant literature ( Paré et al., 2015 ). In line with their main objective, scoping reviews usually conclude with the presentation of a detailed research agenda for future works along with potential implications for both practice and research.

Unlike narrative and descriptive reviews, the whole point of scoping the field is to be as comprehensive as possible, including grey literature (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). Inclusion and exclusion criteria must be established to help researchers eliminate studies that are not aligned with the research questions. It is also recommended that at least two independent coders review abstracts yielded from the search strategy and then the full articles for study selection ( Daudt et al., 2013 ). The synthesized evidence from content or thematic analysis is relatively easy to present in tabular form (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Thomas & Harden, 2008 ).

One of the most highly cited scoping reviews in the eHealth domain was published by Archer, Fevrier-Thomas, Lokker, McKibbon, and Straus (2011) . These authors reviewed the existing literature on personal health record ( phr ) systems including design, functionality, implementation, applications, outcomes, and benefits. Seven databases were searched from 1985 to March 2010. Several search terms relating to phr s were used during this process. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts to determine inclusion status. A second screen of full-text articles, again by two independent members of the research team, ensured that the studies described phr s. All in all, 130 articles met the criteria and their data were extracted manually into a database. The authors concluded that although there is a large amount of survey, observational, cohort/panel, and anecdotal evidence of phr benefits and satisfaction for patients, more research is needed to evaluate the results of phr implementations. Their in-depth analysis of the literature signalled that there is little solid evidence from randomized controlled trials or other studies through the use of phr s. Hence, they suggested that more research is needed that addresses the current lack of understanding of optimal functionality and usability of these systems, and how they can play a beneficial role in supporting patient self-management ( Archer et al., 2011 ).

9.3.4. Forms of Aggregative Reviews

Healthcare providers, practitioners, and policy-makers are nowadays overwhelmed with large volumes of information, including research-based evidence from numerous clinical trials and evaluation studies, assessing the effectiveness of health information technologies and interventions ( Ammenwerth & de Keizer, 2004 ; Deshazo et al., 2009 ). It is unrealistic to expect that all these disparate actors will have the time, skills, and necessary resources to identify the available evidence in the area of their expertise and consider it when making decisions. Systematic reviews that involve the rigorous application of scientific strategies aimed at limiting subjectivity and bias (i.e., systematic and random errors) can respond to this challenge.

Systematic reviews attempt to aggregate, appraise, and synthesize in a single source all empirical evidence that meet a set of previously specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a clearly formulated and often narrow research question on a particular topic of interest to support evidence-based practice ( Liberati et al., 2009 ). They adhere closely to explicit scientific principles ( Liberati et al., 2009 ) and rigorous methodological guidelines (Higgins & Green, 2008) aimed at reducing random and systematic errors that can lead to deviations from the truth in results or inferences. The use of explicit methods allows systematic reviews to aggregate a large body of research evidence, assess whether effects or relationships are in the same direction and of the same general magnitude, explain possible inconsistencies between study results, and determine the strength of the overall evidence for every outcome of interest based on the quality of included studies and the general consistency among them ( Cook, Mulrow, & Haynes, 1997 ). The main procedures of a systematic review involve:

• Formulating a review question and developing a search strategy based on explicit inclusion criteria for the identification of eligible studies (usually described in the context of a detailed review protocol).
• Searching for eligible studies using multiple databases and information sources, including grey literature sources, without any language restrictions.
• Selecting studies, extracting data, and assessing risk of bias in a duplicate manner using two independent reviewers to avoid random or systematic errors in the process.
• Analyzing data using quantitative or qualitative methods.
• Presenting results in summary of findings tables.
• Interpreting results and drawing conclusions.

Many systematic reviews, but not all, use statistical methods to combine the results of independent studies into a single quantitative estimate or summary effect size. Known as meta-analyses , these reviews use specific data extraction and statistical techniques (e.g., network, frequentist, or Bayesian meta-analyses) to calculate from each study by outcome of interest an effect size along with a confidence interval that reflects the degree of uncertainty behind the point estimate of effect ( Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009 ; Deeks, Higgins, & Altman, 2008 ). Subsequently, they use fixed or random-effects analysis models to combine the results of the included studies, assess statistical heterogeneity, and calculate a weighted average of the effect estimates from the different studies, taking into account their sample sizes. The summary effect size is a value that reflects the average magnitude of the intervention effect for a particular outcome of interest or, more generally, the strength of a relationship between two variables across all studies included in the systematic review. By statistically combining data from multiple studies, meta-analyses can create more precise and reliable estimates of intervention effects than those derived from individual studies alone, when these are examined independently as discrete sources of information.

The review by Gurol-Urganci, de Jongh, Vodopivec-Jamsek, Atun, and Car (2013) on the effects of mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments is an illustrative example of a high-quality systematic review with meta-analysis. Missed appointments are a major cause of inefficiency in healthcare delivery with substantial monetary costs to health systems. These authors sought to assess whether mobile phone-based appointment reminders delivered through Short Message Service ( sms ) or Multimedia Messaging Service ( mms ) are effective in improving rates of patient attendance and reducing overall costs. To this end, they conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases using highly sensitive search strategies without language or publication-type restrictions to identify all rct s that are eligible for inclusion. In order to minimize the risk of omitting eligible studies not captured by the original search, they supplemented all electronic searches with manual screening of trial registers and references contained in the included studies. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were performed inde­­pen­dently by two coders using standardized methods to ensure consistency and to eliminate potential errors. Findings from eight rct s involving 6,615 participants were pooled into meta-analyses to calculate the magnitude of effects that mobile text message reminders have on the rate of attendance at healthcare appointments compared to no reminders and phone call reminders.

Meta-analyses are regarded as powerful tools for deriving meaningful conclusions. However, there are situations in which it is neither reasonable nor appropriate to pool studies together using meta-analytic methods simply because there is extensive clinical heterogeneity between the included studies or variation in measurement tools, comparisons, or outcomes of interest. In these cases, systematic reviews can use qualitative synthesis methods such as vote counting, content analysis, classification schemes and tabulations, as an alternative approach to narratively synthesize the results of the independent studies included in the review. This form of review is known as qualitative systematic review.

A rigorous example of one such review in the eHealth domain is presented by Mickan, Atherton, Roberts, Heneghan, and Tilson (2014) on the use of handheld computers by healthcare professionals and their impact on access to information and clinical decision-making. In line with the methodological guide­lines for systematic reviews, these authors: (a) developed and registered with prospero ( www.crd.york.ac.uk/ prospero / ) an a priori review protocol; (b) conducted comprehensive searches for eligible studies using multiple databases and other supplementary strategies (e.g., forward searches); and (c) subsequently carried out study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments in a duplicate manner to eliminate potential errors in the review process. Heterogeneity between the included studies in terms of reported outcomes and measures precluded the use of meta-analytic methods. To this end, the authors resorted to using narrative analysis and synthesis to describe the effectiveness of handheld computers on accessing information for clinical knowledge, adherence to safety and clinical quality guidelines, and diagnostic decision-making.

In recent years, the number of systematic reviews in the field of health informatics has increased considerably. Systematic reviews with discordant findings can cause great confusion and make it difficult for decision-makers to interpret the review-level evidence ( Moher, 2013 ). Therefore, there is a growing need for appraisal and synthesis of prior systematic reviews to ensure that decision-making is constantly informed by the best available accumulated evidence. Umbrella reviews , also known as overviews of systematic reviews, are tertiary types of evidence synthesis that aim to accomplish this; that is, they aim to compare and contrast findings from multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses ( Becker & Oxman, 2008 ). Umbrella reviews generally adhere to the same principles and rigorous methodological guidelines used in systematic reviews. However, the unit of analysis in umbrella reviews is the systematic review rather than the primary study ( Becker & Oxman, 2008 ). Unlike systematic reviews that have a narrow focus of inquiry, umbrella reviews focus on broader research topics for which there are several potential interventions ( Smith, Devane, Begley, & Clarke, 2011 ). A recent umbrella review on the effects of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with heart failure critically appraised, compared, and synthesized evidence from 15 systematic reviews to investigate which types of home telemonitoring technologies and forms of interventions are more effective in reducing mortality and hospital admissions ( Kitsiou, Paré, & Jaana, 2015 ).

9.3.5. Realist Reviews

Realist reviews are theory-driven interpretative reviews developed to inform, enhance, or supplement conventional systematic reviews by making sense of heterogeneous evidence about complex interventions applied in diverse contexts in a way that informs policy decision-making ( Greenhalgh, Wong, Westhorp, & Pawson, 2011 ). They originated from criticisms of positivist systematic reviews which centre on their “simplistic” underlying assumptions ( Oates, 2011 ). As explained above, systematic reviews seek to identify causation. Such logic is appropriate for fields like medicine and education where findings of randomized controlled trials can be aggregated to see whether a new treatment or intervention does improve outcomes. However, many argue that it is not possible to establish such direct causal links between interventions and outcomes in fields such as social policy, management, and information systems where for any intervention there is unlikely to be a regular or consistent outcome ( Oates, 2011 ; Pawson, 2006 ; Rousseau, Manning, & Denyer, 2008 ).

To circumvent these limitations, Pawson, Greenhalgh, Harvey, and Walshe (2005) have proposed a new approach for synthesizing knowledge that seeks to unpack the mechanism of how “complex interventions” work in particular contexts. The basic research question — what works? — which is usually associated with systematic reviews changes to: what is it about this intervention that works, for whom, in what circumstances, in what respects and why? Realist reviews have no particular preference for either quantitative or qualitative evidence. As a theory-building approach, a realist review usually starts by articulating likely underlying mechanisms and then scrutinizes available evidence to find out whether and where these mechanisms are applicable ( Shepperd et al., 2009 ). Primary studies found in the extant literature are viewed as case studies which can test and modify the initial theories ( Rousseau et al., 2008 ).

The main objective pursued in the realist review conducted by Otte-Trojel, de Bont, Rundall, and van de Klundert (2014) was to examine how patient portals contribute to health service delivery and patient outcomes. The specific goals were to investigate how outcomes are produced and, most importantly, how variations in outcomes can be explained. The research team started with an exploratory review of background documents and research studies to identify ways in which patient portals may contribute to health service delivery and patient outcomes. The authors identified six main ways which represent “educated guesses” to be tested against the data in the evaluation studies. These studies were identified through a formal and systematic search in four databases between 2003 and 2013. Two members of the research team selected the articles using a pre-established list of inclusion and exclusion criteria and following a two-step procedure. The authors then extracted data from the selected articles and created several tables, one for each outcome category. They organized information to bring forward those mechanisms where patient portals contribute to outcomes and the variation in outcomes across different contexts.

9.3.6. Critical Reviews

Lastly, critical reviews aim to provide a critical evaluation and interpretive analysis of existing literature on a particular topic of interest to reveal strengths, weaknesses, contradictions, controversies, inconsistencies, and/or other important issues with respect to theories, hypotheses, research methods or results ( Baumeister & Leary, 1997 ; Kirkevold, 1997 ). Unlike other review types, critical reviews attempt to take a reflective account of the research that has been done in a particular area of interest, and assess its credibility by using appraisal instruments or critical interpretive methods. In this way, critical reviews attempt to constructively inform other scholars about the weaknesses of prior research and strengthen knowledge development by giving focus and direction to studies for further improvement ( Kirkevold, 1997 ).

Kitsiou, Paré, and Jaana (2013) provide an example of a critical review that assessed the methodological quality of prior systematic reviews of home telemonitoring studies for chronic patients. The authors conducted a comprehensive search on multiple databases to identify eligible reviews and subsequently used a validated instrument to conduct an in-depth quality appraisal. Results indicate that the majority of systematic reviews in this particular area suffer from important methodological flaws and biases that impair their internal validity and limit their usefulness for clinical and decision-making purposes. To this end, they provide a number of recommendations to strengthen knowledge development towards improving the design and execution of future reviews on home telemonitoring.

9.4. Summary

Table 9.1 outlines the main types of literature reviews that were described in the previous sub-sections and summarizes the main characteristics that distinguish one review type from another. It also includes key references to methodological guidelines and useful sources that can be used by eHealth scholars and researchers for planning and developing reviews.

Typology of Literature Reviews (adapted from Paré et al., 2015).

As shown in Table 9.1 , each review type addresses different kinds of research questions or objectives, which subsequently define and dictate the methods and approaches that need to be used to achieve the overarching goal(s) of the review. For example, in the case of narrative reviews, there is greater flexibility in searching and synthesizing articles ( Green et al., 2006 ). Researchers are often relatively free to use a diversity of approaches to search, identify, and select relevant scientific articles, describe their operational characteristics, present how the individual studies fit together, and formulate conclusions. On the other hand, systematic reviews are characterized by their high level of systematicity, rigour, and use of explicit methods, based on an “a priori” review plan that aims to minimize bias in the analysis and synthesis process (Higgins & Green, 2008). Some reviews are exploratory in nature (e.g., scoping/mapping reviews), whereas others may be conducted to discover patterns (e.g., descriptive reviews) or involve a synthesis approach that may include the critical analysis of prior research ( Paré et al., 2015 ). Hence, in order to select the most appropriate type of review, it is critical to know before embarking on a review project, why the research synthesis is conducted and what type of methods are best aligned with the pursued goals.

9.5. Concluding Remarks

In light of the increased use of evidence-based practice and research generating stronger evidence ( Grady et al., 2011 ; Lyden et al., 2013 ), review articles have become essential tools for summarizing, synthesizing, integrating or critically appraising prior knowledge in the eHealth field. As mentioned earlier, when rigorously conducted review articles represent powerful information sources for eHealth scholars and practitioners looking for state-of-the-art evidence. The typology of literature reviews we used herein will allow eHealth researchers, graduate students and practitioners to gain a better understanding of the similarities and differences between review types.

We must stress that this classification scheme does not privilege any specific type of review as being of higher quality than another ( Paré et al., 2015 ). As explained above, each type of review has its own strengths and limitations. Having said that, we realize that the methodological rigour of any review — be it qualitative, quantitative or mixed — is a critical aspect that should be considered seriously by prospective authors. In the present context, the notion of rigour refers to the reliability and validity of the review process described in section 9.2. For one thing, reliability is related to the reproducibility of the review process and steps, which is facilitated by a comprehensive documentation of the literature search process, extraction, coding and analysis performed in the review. Whether the search is comprehensive or not, whether it involves a methodical approach for data extraction and synthesis or not, it is important that the review documents in an explicit and transparent manner the steps and approach that were used in the process of its development. Next, validity characterizes the degree to which the review process was conducted appropriately. It goes beyond documentation and reflects decisions related to the selection of the sources, the search terms used, the period of time covered, the articles selected in the search, and the application of backward and forward searches ( vom Brocke et al., 2009 ). In short, the rigour of any review article is reflected by the explicitness of its methods (i.e., transparency) and the soundness of the approach used. We refer those interested in the concepts of rigour and quality to the work of Templier and Paré (2015) which offers a detailed set of methodological guidelines for conducting and evaluating various types of review articles.

To conclude, our main objective in this chapter was to demystify the various types of literature reviews that are central to the continuous development of the eHealth field. It is our hope that our descriptive account will serve as a valuable source for those conducting, evaluating or using reviews in this important and growing domain.

• Ammenwerth E., de Keizer N. An inventory of evaluation studies of information technology in health care. Trends in evaluation research, 1982-2002. International Journal of Medical Informatics. 2004; 44 (1):44–56. [ PubMed : 15778794 ]
• Anderson S., Allen P., Peckham S., Goodwin N. Asking the right questions: scoping studies in the commissioning of research on the organisation and delivery of health services. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2008; 6 (7):1–12. [ PMC free article : PMC2500008 ] [ PubMed : 18613961 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Archer N., Fevrier-Thomas U., Lokker C., McKibbon K. A., Straus S.E. Personal health records: a scoping review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association. 2011; 18 (4):515–522. [ PMC free article : PMC3128401 ] [ PubMed : 21672914 ]
• Arksey H., O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2005; 8 (1):19–32.
• A systematic, tool-supported method for conducting literature reviews in information systems. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Information Systems ( ecis 2011); June 9 to 11; Helsinki, Finland. 2011.
• Baumeister R. F., Leary M.R. Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology. 1997; 1 (3):311–320.
• Becker L. A., Oxman A.D. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Overviews of reviews; pp. 607–631.
• Borenstein M., Hedges L., Higgins J., Rothstein H. Introduction to meta-analysis. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2009.
• Cook D. J., Mulrow C. D., Haynes B. Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1997; 126 (5):376–380. [ PubMed : 9054282 ]
• Cooper H., Hedges L.V. In: The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. 2nd ed. Cooper H., Hedges L. V., Valentine J. C., editors. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2009. Research synthesis as a scientific process; pp. 3–17.
• Cooper H. M. Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in Society. 1988; 1 (1):104–126.
• Cronin P., Ryan F., Coughlan M. Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach. British Journal of Nursing. 2008; 17 (1):38–43. [ PubMed : 18399395 ]
• Darlow S., Wen K.Y. Development testing of mobile health interventions for cancer patient self-management: A review. Health Informatics Journal. 2015 (online before print). [ PubMed : 25916831 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Daudt H. M., van Mossel C., Scott S.J. Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2013; 13 :48. [ PMC free article : PMC3614526 ] [ PubMed : 23522333 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Davies P. The relevance of systematic reviews to educational policy and practice. Oxford Review of Education. 2000; 26 (3-4):365–378.
• Deeks J. J., Higgins J. P. T., Altman D.G. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Hoboken, nj : John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses; pp. 243–296.
• Deshazo J. P., Lavallie D. L., Wolf F.M. Publication trends in the medical informatics literature: 20 years of “Medical Informatics” in mesh . bmc Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2009; 9 :7. [ PMC free article : PMC2652453 ] [ PubMed : 19159472 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dixon-Woods M., Agarwal S., Jones D., Young B., Sutton A. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy. 2005; 10 (1):45–53. [ PubMed : 15667704 ]
• Finfgeld-Connett D., Johnson E.D. Literature search strategies for conducting knowledge-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2013; 69 (1):194–204. [ PMC free article : PMC3424349 ] [ PubMed : 22591030 ]
• Grady B., Myers K. M., Nelson E. L., Belz N., Bennett L., Carnahan L. … Guidelines Working Group. Evidence-based practice for telemental health. Telemedicine Journal and E Health. 2011; 17 (2):131–148. [ PubMed : 21385026 ]
• Green B. N., Johnson C. D., Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine. 2006; 5 (3):101–117. [ PMC free article : PMC2647067 ] [ PubMed : 19674681 ]
• Greenhalgh T., Wong G., Westhorp G., Pawson R. Protocol–realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis: evolving standards ( rameses ). bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2011; 11 :115. [ PMC free article : PMC3173389 ] [ PubMed : 21843376 ]
• Gurol-Urganci I., de Jongh T., Vodopivec-Jamsek V., Atun R., Car J. Mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments. Cochrane Database System Review. 2013; 12 cd 007458. [ PMC free article : PMC6485985 ] [ PubMed : 24310741 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hart C. Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination. London: SAGE Publications; 1998.
• Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: Cochrane book series. Hoboken, nj : Wiley-Blackwell; 2008.
• Jesson J., Matheson L., Lacey F.M. Doing your literature review: traditional and systematic techniques. Los Angeles & London: SAGE Publications; 2011.
• King W. R., He J. Understanding the role and methods of meta-analysis in IS research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2005; 16 :1.
• Kirkevold M. Integrative nursing research — an important strategy to further the development of nursing science and nursing practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 1997; 25 (5):977–984. [ PubMed : 9147203 ]
• Kitchenham B., Charters S. ebse Technical Report Version 2.3. Keele & Durham. uk : Keele University & University of Durham; 2007. Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering.
• Kitsiou S., Paré G., Jaana M. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with chronic diseases: a critical assessment of their methodological quality. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2013; 15 (7):e150. [ PMC free article : PMC3785977 ] [ PubMed : 23880072 ]
• Kitsiou S., Paré G., Jaana M. Effects of home telemonitoring interventions on patients with chronic heart failure: an overview of systematic reviews. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2015; 17 (3):e63. [ PMC free article : PMC4376138 ] [ PubMed : 25768664 ]
• Levac D., Colquhoun H., O’Brien K. K. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation Science. 2010; 5 (1):69. [ PMC free article : PMC2954944 ] [ PubMed : 20854677 ]
• Levy Y., Ellis T.J. A systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in support of information systems research. Informing Science. 2006; 9 :181–211.
• Liberati A., Altman D. G., Tetzlaff J., Mulrow C., Gøtzsche P. C., Ioannidis J. P. A. et al. Moher D. The prisma statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2009; 151 (4):W-65. [ PubMed : 19622512 ]
• Lyden J. R., Zickmund S. L., Bhargava T. D., Bryce C. L., Conroy M. B., Fischer G. S. et al. McTigue K. M. Implementing health information technology in a patient-centered manner: Patient experiences with an online evidence-based lifestyle intervention. Journal for Healthcare Quality. 2013; 35 (5):47–57. [ PubMed : 24004039 ]
• Mickan S., Atherton H., Roberts N. W., Heneghan C., Tilson J.K. Use of handheld computers in clinical practice: a systematic review. bmc Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2014; 14 :56. [ PMC free article : PMC4099138 ] [ PubMed : 24998515 ]
• Moher D. The problem of duplicate systematic reviews. British Medical Journal. 2013; 347 (5040) [ PubMed : 23945367 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Montori V. M., Wilczynski N. L., Morgan D., Haynes R. B., Hedges T. Systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of location and citation counts. bmc Medicine. 2003; 1 :2. [ PMC free article : PMC281591 ] [ PubMed : 14633274 ]
• Mulrow C. D. The medical review article: state of the science. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1987; 106 (3):485–488. [ PubMed : 3813259 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Evidence-based information systems: A decade later. Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems ; 2011. Retrieved from http://aisel ​.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent ​.cgi?article ​=1221&context ​=ecis2011 .
• Okoli C., Schabram K. A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of information systems research. ssrn Electronic Journal. 2010
• Otte-Trojel T., de Bont A., Rundall T. G., van de Klundert J. How outcomes are achieved through patient portals: a realist review. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association. 2014; 21 (4):751–757. [ PMC free article : PMC4078283 ] [ PubMed : 24503882 ]
• Paré G., Trudel M.-C., Jaana M., Kitsiou S. Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management. 2015; 52 (2):183–199.
• Patsopoulos N. A., Analatos A. A., Ioannidis J.P. A. Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2005; 293 (19):2362–2366. [ PubMed : 15900006 ]
• Paul M. M., Greene C. M., Newton-Dame R., Thorpe L. E., Perlman S. E., McVeigh K. H., Gourevitch M.N. The state of population health surveillance using electronic health records: A narrative review. Population Health Management. 2015; 18 (3):209–216. [ PubMed : 25608033 ]
• Pawson R. Evidence-based policy: a realist perspective. London: SAGE Publications; 2006.
• Pawson R., Greenhalgh T., Harvey G., Walshe K. Realist review—a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy. 2005; 10 (Suppl 1):21–34. [ PubMed : 16053581 ]
• Petersen K., Vakkalanka S., Kuzniarz L. Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update. Information and Software Technology. 2015; 64 :1–18.
• Petticrew M., Roberts H. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malden, ma : Blackwell Publishing Co; 2006.
• Rousseau D. M., Manning J., Denyer D. Evidence in management and organizational science: Assembling the field’s full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses. The Academy of Management Annals. 2008; 2 (1):475–515.
• Rowe F. What literature review is not: diversity, boundaries and recommendations. European Journal of Information Systems. 2014; 23 (3):241–255.
• Shea B. J., Hamel C., Wells G. A., Bouter L. M., Kristjansson E., Grimshaw J. et al. Boers M. amstar is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2009; 62 (10):1013–1020. [ PubMed : 19230606 ]
• Shepperd S., Lewin S., Straus S., Clarke M., Eccles M. P., Fitzpatrick R. et al. Sheikh A. Can we systematically review studies that evaluate complex interventions? PLoS Medicine. 2009; 6 (8):e1000086. [ PMC free article : PMC2717209 ] [ PubMed : 19668360 ]
• Silva B. M., Rodrigues J. J., de la Torre Díez I., López-Coronado M., Saleem K. Mobile-health: A review of current state in 2015. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2015; 56 :265–272. [ PubMed : 26071682 ]
• Smith V., Devane D., Begley C., Clarke M. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2011; 11 (1):15. [ PMC free article : PMC3039637 ] [ PubMed : 21291558 ]
• Sylvester A., Tate M., Johnstone D. Beyond synthesis: re-presenting heterogeneous research literature. Behaviour & Information Technology. 2013; 32 (12):1199–1215.
• Templier M., Paré G. A framework for guiding and evaluating literature reviews. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2015; 37 (6):112–137.
• Thomas J., Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. bmc Medical Research Methodology. 2008; 8 (1):45. [ PMC free article : PMC2478656 ] [ PubMed : 18616818 ]
• Reconstructing the giant: on the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Information Systems ( ecis 2009); Verona, Italy. 2009.
• Webster J., Watson R.T. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. Management Information Systems Quarterly. 2002; 26 (2):11.
• Whitlock E. P., Lin J. S., Chou R., Shekelle P., Robinson K.A. Using existing systematic reviews in complex systematic reviews. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2008; 148 (10):776–782. [ PubMed : 18490690 ]

This publication is licensed under a Creative Commons License, Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0): see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

• Cite this Page Paré G, Kitsiou S. Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews. In: Lau F, Kuziemsky C, editors. Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. Victoria (BC): University of Victoria; 2017 Feb 27.
• PDF version of this title (4.5M)
• Disable Glossary Links

In this Page

• Introduction
• Overview of the Literature Review Process and Steps
• Types of Review Articles and Brief Illustrations
• Concluding Remarks

Related information

• PMC PubMed Central citations
• PubMed Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

• Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews - Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Ev... Chapter 9 Methods for Literature Reviews - Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

Literature Review: Types of Literature Reviews

• Literature Review
• Purpose of a Literature Review
• Work in Progress
• Compiling & Writing
• Books, Articles, & Web Pages

Types of Literature Reviews

• Departmental Differences
• Citation Styles & Plagiarism
• Know the Difference! Systematic Review vs. Literature Review

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, opinions, and interpretations that are shared informally that become part of the lore of 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 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 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.

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, phenomenon emerged in the literature, then tracing its evolution within the scholarship of a discipline. The purpose is to place research in a historical context to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments and 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 analyze 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, phenomenon. 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 is from The Literature Review created by Dr. Robert Larabee USC

• << Previous: Books, Articles, & Web Pages
• Next: Departmental Differences >>
• Last Updated: Oct 19, 2023 12:07 PM
• URL: https://uscupstate.libguides.com/Literature_Review

ON YOUR 1ST ORDER

Different Types of Literature Review: Which One Fits Your Research?

By Laura Brown on 13th October 2023

You might not have heard that there are multiple kinds of literature review. However, with the progress in your academic career you will learn these classifications and may need to use different types of them. However, there is nothing to worry if you aren’t aware of them now, as here we are going to discuss this topic in detail.

There are approximately 14 types of literature review on the basis of their specific objectives, methodologies, and the way they approach and analyse existing literature in academic research. Of those 14, there are 4 major types. But before we delve into the details of each one of them and how they are useful in academics, let’s first understand the basics of literature review.

What is Literature Review?

A literature review is a critical and systematic summary and evaluation of existing research. It is an essential component of academic and research work, providing an overview of the current state of knowledge in a particular field.

In easy words, a literature review is like making a big, organised summary of all the important research and smart books or articles about a particular topic or question. It’s something scholars and researchers do, and it helps everyone see what we already know about that topic. It’s kind of like taking a snapshot of what we understand right now in a certain field.

It serves with some specific purpose in the research.

• Provides a comprehensive understanding of existing research on a topic.
• Identifies gaps, trends, and inconsistencies in the literature.
• Contextualise your own research within the broader academic discourse.
• Supports the development of theoretical frameworks or research hypotheses.

4 Major Types Of Literature Review

The four major types include, Narrative Review, Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Scoping Review. These are known as the major ones because they’re like the “go-to” methods for researchers in academic and research circles. Think of them as the classic tools in the researcher’s toolbox. They’ve earned their reputation because they have a unique style for literature review introduction , clear steps and specific qualities that make them super handy for different research needs.

1. Narrative Review

Narrative reviews present a well-structured narrative that reads like a cohesive story, providing a comprehensive overview of a specific topic. These reviews often incorporate historical context and offer a broad understanding of the subject matter, making them valuable for researchers looking to establish a foundational understanding of their area of interest. They are particularly useful when a historical perspective or a broad context is necessary to comprehend the current state of knowledge in a field.

2. Systematic Review

Systematic reviews are renowned for their methodological rigour. They involve a meticulously structured process that includes the systematic selection of relevant studies, comprehensive data extraction, and a critical synthesis of their findings. This systematic approach is designed to minimise bias and subjectivity, making systematic reviews highly reliable and objective. They are considered the gold standard for evidence-based research as they provide a clear and rigorous assessment of the available evidence on a specific research question.

3. Meta Analysis

Meta analysis is a powerful method for researchers who prefer a quantitative and statistical perspective. It involves the statistical synthesis of data from various studies, allowing researchers to draw more precise and generalisable conclusions by combining data from multiple sources. Meta analyses are especially valuable when the aim is to quantitatively measure the effect size or impact of a particular intervention, treatment, or phenomenon.

4. Scoping Review

Scoping reviews are invaluable tools, especially for researchers in the early stages of exploring a topic. These reviews aim to map the existing literature, identifying gaps and helping clarify research questions. Scoping reviews provide a panoramic view of the available research, which is particularly useful when researchers are embarking on exploratory studies or trying to understand the breadth and depth of a subject before conducting more focused research.

Different Types Of Literature review In Research

There are some more approaches to conduct literature review. Let’s explore these classifications quickly.

5. Critical Review

Critical reviews provide an in-depth evaluation of existing literature, scrutinising sources for their strengths, weaknesses, and relevance. They offer a critical perspective, often highlighting gaps in the research and areas for further investigation.

6. Theoretical Review

Theoretical reviews are centred around exploring and analysing the theoretical frameworks, concepts, and models present in the literature. They aim to contribute to the development and refinement of theoretical perspectives within a specific field.

7. Integrative Review

Integrative reviews synthesise a diverse range of studies, drawing connections between various research findings to create a comprehensive understanding of a topic. These reviews often bridge gaps between different perspectives and provide a holistic overview.

8. Historical Review

Historical reviews focus on the evolution of a topic over time, tracing its development through past research, events, and scholarly contributions. They offer valuable context for understanding the current state of research.

9. Methodological Review

Among the different kinds of literature reviews, methodological reviews delve into the research methods and methodologies employed in existing studies. Researchers assess these approaches for their effectiveness, validity, and relevance to the research question at hand.

10. Cross-Disciplinary Review

Cross-disciplinary reviews explore a topic from multiple academic disciplines, emphasising the diversity of perspectives and insights that each discipline brings. They are particularly useful for interdisciplinary research projects and uncovering connections between seemingly unrelated fields.

11. Descriptive Review

Descriptive reviews provide an organised summary of existing literature without extensive analysis. They offer a straightforward overview of key findings, research methods, and themes present in the reviewed studies.

12. Rapid Review

Rapid reviews expedite the literature review process, focusing on summarising relevant studies quickly. They are often used for time-sensitive projects where efficiency is a priority, without sacrificing quality.

13. Conceptual Review

Conceptual reviews concentrate on clarifying and developing theoretical concepts within a specific field. They address ambiguities or inconsistencies in existing theories, aiming to refine and expand conceptual frameworks.

14. Library Research

Library research reviews rely primarily on library and archival resources to gather and synthesise information. They are often employed in historical or archive-based research projects, utilising library collections and historical documents for in-depth analysis.

Each type of literature review serves distinct purposes and comes with its own set of strengths and weaknesses, allowing researchers to choose the one that best suits their research objectives and questions.

Choosing the Ideal Literature Review Approach in Academics

In order to conduct your research in the right manner, it is important that you choose the correct type of review for your literature. Here are 8 amazing tips we have sorted for you in regard to literature review help so that you can select the best-suited type for your research.

• Clarify Your Research Goals: Begin by defining your research objectives and what you aim to achieve with the literature review. Are you looking to summarise existing knowledge, identify gaps, or analyse specific data?
• Understand Different Review Types: Familiarise yourself with different kinds of literature reviews, including systematic reviews, narrative reviews, meta-analyses, scoping reviews, and integrative reviews. Each serves a different purpose.
• Consider Available Resources: Assess the resources at your disposal, including time, access to databases, and the volume of literature on your topic. Some review types may be more resource-intensive than others.
• Alignment with Research Question: Ensure that the chosen review type aligns with your research question or hypothesis. Some types are better suited for answering specific research questions than others.
• Scope and Depth: Determine the scope and depth of your review. For a broad overview, a narrative review might be suitable, while a systematic review is ideal for an in-depth analysis.
• Consult with Advisors: Seek guidance from your academic advisors or mentors. They can provide valuable insights into which review type best fits your research goals and resources.
• Consider Research Field Standards: Different academic fields have established standards and preferences for different forms of literature review. Familiarise yourself with what is common and accepted in your field.
• Pilot Review: Consider conducting a small-scale pilot review of the literature to test the feasibility and suitability of your chosen review type before committing to a larger project.

Bonus Tip: Crafting an Effective Literature Review

Now, since you have learned all the literature review types and have understood which one to prefer, here are some bonus tips for you to structure a literature review of a dissertation .

• Clearly Define Your Research Question: Start with a well-defined and focused research question to guide your literature review.
• Thorough Search Strategy: Develop a comprehensive search strategy to ensure you capture all relevant literature.
• Critical Evaluation: Assess the quality and credibility of the sources you include in your review.
• Synthesise and Organise: Summarise the key findings and organise the literature into themes or categories.
• Maintain a Systematic Approach: If conducting a systematic review, adhere to a predefined methodology and reporting guidelines.
• Engage in Continuous Review: Regularly update your literature review to incorporate new research and maintain relevance.

Some Useful Tools And Resources For You

Effective literature reviews demand a range of tools and resources to streamline the process.

• Reference management software like EndNote, Zotero, and Mendeley helps organise, store, and cite sources, saving time and ensuring accuracy.
• Academic databases such as PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science provide access to a vast array of scholarly articles, with advanced search and citation tracking features.
• Research guides from universities and libraries offer tips and templates for structuring reviews.
• Research networks like ResearchGate and Academia.edu facilitate collaboration and access to publications. Literature review templates and research workshops provide additional support.

Some Common Mistakes To Avoid

Avoid these common mistakes when crafting literature reviews.

• Unclear research objectives result in unfocused reviews, so start with well-defined questions.
• Biased source selection can compromise objectivity, so include diverse perspectives.
• Never miss on referencing; proper citation and referencing are essential for academic integrity.
• Don’t overlook older literature, which provides foundational insights.
• Be mindful of scope creep, where the review drifts from the research question; stay disciplined to maintain focus and relevance.

While Summing Up On Various Types Of Literature Review

As we conclude this classification of fourteen distinct approaches to conduct literature reviews, it’s clear that the world of research offers a multitude of avenues for understanding, analysing, and contributing to existing knowledge.

Whether you’re a seasoned scholar or a student beginning your academic journey, the choice of review type should align with your research objectives and the nature of your topic. The versatility of these approaches empowers you to tailor your review to the demands of your project.

Remember, your research endeavours have the potential to shape the future of knowledge, so choose wisely and dive into the world of literature reviews with confidence and purpose. Happy reviewing!

Laura Brown, a senior content writer who writes actionable blogs at Crowd Writer.

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples

Literature Review – Types Writing Guide and Examples

Table of Contents

Literature Review

Definition:

A literature review is a comprehensive and critical analysis of the existing literature on a particular topic or research question. It involves identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing relevant literature, including scholarly articles, books, and other sources, to provide a summary and critical assessment of what is known about the topic.

Types of Literature Review

Types of Literature Review are as follows:

• Narrative literature review : This type of review involves a comprehensive summary and critical analysis of the available literature on a particular topic or research question. It is often used as an introductory section of a research paper.
• Systematic literature review: This is a rigorous and structured review that follows a pre-defined protocol to identify, evaluate, and synthesize all relevant studies on a specific research question. It is often used in evidence-based practice and systematic reviews.
• Meta-analysis: This is a quantitative review that uses statistical methods to combine data from multiple studies to derive a summary effect size. It provides a more precise estimate of the overall effect than any individual study.
• Scoping review: This is a preliminary review that aims to map the existing literature on a broad topic area to identify research gaps and areas for further investigation.
• Critical literature review : This type of review evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of the existing literature on a particular topic or research question. It aims to provide a critical analysis of the literature and identify areas where further research is needed.
• Conceptual literature review: This review synthesizes and integrates theories and concepts from multiple sources to provide a new perspective on a particular topic. It aims to provide a theoretical framework for understanding a particular research question.
• Rapid literature review: This is a quick review that provides a snapshot of the current state of knowledge on a specific research question or topic. It is often used when time and resources are limited.
• Thematic literature review : This review identifies and analyzes common themes and patterns across a body of literature on a particular topic. It aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the literature and identify key themes and concepts.
• Realist literature review: This review is often used in social science research and aims to identify how and why certain interventions work in certain contexts. It takes into account the context and complexities of real-world situations.
• State-of-the-art literature review : This type of review provides an overview of the current state of knowledge in a particular field, highlighting the most recent and relevant research. It is often used in fields where knowledge is rapidly evolving, such as technology or medicine.
• Integrative literature review: This type of review synthesizes and integrates findings from multiple studies on a particular topic to identify patterns, themes, and gaps in the literature. It aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the current state of knowledge on a particular topic.
• Umbrella literature review : This review is used to provide a broad overview of a large and diverse body of literature on a particular topic. It aims to identify common themes and patterns across different areas of research.
• Historical literature review: This type of review examines the historical development of research on a particular topic or research question. It aims to provide a historical context for understanding the current state of knowledge on a particular topic.
• Problem-oriented literature review : This review focuses on a specific problem or issue and examines the literature to identify potential solutions or interventions. It aims to provide practical recommendations for addressing a particular problem or issue.
• Mixed-methods literature review : This type of review combines quantitative and qualitative methods to synthesize and analyze the available literature on a particular topic. It aims to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the research question by combining different types of evidence.

Parts of Literature Review

Parts of a literature review are as follows:

Introduction

The introduction of a literature review typically provides background information on the research topic and why it is important. It outlines the objectives of the review, the research question or hypothesis, and the scope of the review.

Literature Search

This section outlines the search strategy and databases used to identify relevant literature. The search terms used, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and any limitations of the search are described.

Literature Analysis

The literature analysis is the main body of the literature review. This section summarizes and synthesizes the literature that is relevant to the research question or hypothesis. The review should be organized thematically, chronologically, or by methodology, depending on the research objectives.

Critical Evaluation

Critical evaluation involves assessing the quality and validity of the literature. This includes evaluating the reliability and validity of the studies reviewed, the methodology used, and the strength of the evidence.

The conclusion of the literature review should summarize the main findings, identify any gaps in the literature, and suggest areas for future research. It should also reiterate the importance of the research question or hypothesis and the contribution of the literature review to the overall research project.

The references list includes all the sources cited in the literature review, and follows a specific referencing style (e.g., APA, MLA, Harvard).

How to write Literature Review

Here are some steps to follow when writing a literature review:

• Define your research question or topic : Before starting your literature review, it is essential to define your research question or topic. This will help you identify relevant literature and determine the scope of your review.
• Conduct a comprehensive search: Use databases and search engines to find relevant literature. Look for peer-reviewed articles, books, and other academic sources that are relevant to your research question or topic.
• Evaluate the sources: Once you have found potential sources, evaluate them critically to determine their relevance, credibility, and quality. Look for recent publications, reputable authors, and reliable sources of data and evidence.
• Organize your sources: Group the sources by theme, method, or research question. This will help you identify similarities and differences among the literature, and provide a structure for your literature review.
• Analyze and synthesize the literature : Analyze each source in depth, identifying the key findings, methodologies, and conclusions. Then, synthesize the information from the sources, identifying patterns and themes in the literature.
• Write the literature review : Start with an introduction that provides an overview of the topic and the purpose of the literature review. Then, organize the literature according to your chosen structure, and analyze and synthesize the sources. Finally, provide a conclusion that summarizes the key findings of the literature review, identifies gaps in knowledge, and suggests areas for future research.
• Edit and proofread: Once you have written your literature review, edit and proofread it carefully to ensure that it is well-organized, clear, and concise.

Examples of Literature Review

Here’s an example of how a literature review can be conducted for a thesis on the topic of “ The Impact of Social Media on Teenagers’ Mental Health”:

• Start by identifying the key terms related to your research topic. In this case, the key terms are “social media,” “teenagers,” and “mental health.”
• Use academic databases like Google Scholar, JSTOR, or PubMed to search for relevant articles, books, and other publications. Use these keywords in your search to narrow down your results.
• Evaluate the sources you find to determine if they are relevant to your research question. You may want to consider the publication date, author’s credentials, and the journal or book publisher.
• Begin reading and taking notes on each source, paying attention to key findings, methodologies used, and any gaps in the research.
• Organize your findings into themes or categories. For example, you might categorize your sources into those that examine the impact of social media on self-esteem, those that explore the effects of cyberbullying, and those that investigate the relationship between social media use and depression.
• Synthesize your findings by summarizing the key themes and highlighting any gaps or inconsistencies in the research. Identify areas where further research is needed.
• Use your literature review to inform your research questions and hypotheses for your thesis.

For example, after conducting a literature review on the impact of social media on teenagers’ mental health, a thesis might look like this:

“Using a mixed-methods approach, this study aims to investigate the relationship between social media use and mental health outcomes in teenagers. Specifically, the study will examine the effects of cyberbullying, social comparison, and excessive social media use on self-esteem, anxiety, and depression. Through an analysis of survey data and qualitative interviews with teenagers, the study will provide insight into the complex relationship between social media use and mental health outcomes, and identify strategies for promoting positive mental health outcomes in young people.”

Reference: Smith, J., Jones, M., & Lee, S. (2019). The effects of social media use on adolescent mental health: A systematic review. Journal of Adolescent Health, 65(2), 154-165. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.03.024

Reference Example: Author, A. A., Author, B. B., & Author, C. C. (Year). Title of article. Title of Journal, volume number(issue number), page range. doi:0000000/000000000000 or URL

Applications of Literature Review

some applications of literature review in different fields:

• Social Sciences: In social sciences, literature reviews are used to identify gaps in existing research, to develop research questions, and to provide a theoretical framework for research. Literature reviews are commonly used in fields such as sociology, psychology, anthropology, and political science.
• Natural Sciences: In natural sciences, literature reviews are used to summarize and evaluate the current state of knowledge in a particular field or subfield. Literature reviews can help researchers identify areas where more research is needed and provide insights into the latest developments in a particular field. Fields such as biology, chemistry, and physics commonly use literature reviews.
• Health Sciences: In health sciences, literature reviews are used to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments, identify best practices, and determine areas where more research is needed. Literature reviews are commonly used in fields such as medicine, nursing, and public health.
• Humanities: In humanities, literature reviews are used to identify gaps in existing knowledge, develop new interpretations of texts or cultural artifacts, and provide a theoretical framework for research. Literature reviews are commonly used in fields such as history, literary studies, and philosophy.

Role of Literature Review in Research

Here are some applications of literature review in research:

• Identifying Research Gaps : Literature review helps researchers identify gaps in existing research and literature related to their research question. This allows them to develop new research questions and hypotheses to fill those gaps.
• Developing Theoretical Framework: Literature review helps researchers develop a theoretical framework for their research. By analyzing and synthesizing existing literature, researchers can identify the key concepts, theories, and models that are relevant to their research.
• Selecting Research Methods : Literature review helps researchers select appropriate research methods and techniques based on previous research. It also helps researchers to identify potential biases or limitations of certain methods and techniques.
• Data Collection and Analysis: Literature review helps researchers in data collection and analysis by providing a foundation for the development of data collection instruments and methods. It also helps researchers to identify relevant data sources and identify potential data analysis techniques.
• Communicating Results: Literature review helps researchers to communicate their results effectively by providing a context for their research. It also helps to justify the significance of their findings in relation to existing research and literature.

Purpose of Literature Review

Some of the specific purposes of a literature review are as follows:

• To provide context: A literature review helps to provide context for your research by situating it within the broader body of literature on the topic.
• To identify gaps and inconsistencies: A literature review helps to identify areas where further research is needed or where there are inconsistencies in the existing literature.
• To synthesize information: A literature review helps to synthesize the information from multiple sources and present a coherent and comprehensive picture of the current state of knowledge on the topic.
• To identify key concepts and theories : A literature review helps to identify key concepts and theories that are relevant to your research question and provide a theoretical framework for your study.
• To inform research design: A literature review can inform the design of your research study by identifying appropriate research methods, data sources, and research questions.

Characteristics of Literature Review

Some Characteristics of Literature Review are as follows:

• Identifying gaps in knowledge: A literature review helps to identify gaps in the existing knowledge and research on a specific topic or research question. By analyzing and synthesizing the literature, you can identify areas where further research is needed and where new insights can be gained.
• Establishing the significance of your research: A literature review helps to establish the significance of your own research by placing it in the context of existing research. By demonstrating the relevance of your research to the existing literature, you can establish its importance and value.
• Informing research design and methodology : A literature review helps to inform research design and methodology by identifying the most appropriate research methods, techniques, and instruments. By reviewing the literature, you can identify the strengths and limitations of different research methods and techniques, and select the most appropriate ones for your own research.
• Supporting arguments and claims: A literature review provides evidence to support arguments and claims made in academic writing. By citing and analyzing the literature, you can provide a solid foundation for your own arguments and claims.
• I dentifying potential collaborators and mentors: A literature review can help identify potential collaborators and mentors by identifying researchers and practitioners who are working on related topics or using similar methods. By building relationships with these individuals, you can gain valuable insights and support for your own research and practice.
• Keeping up-to-date with the latest research : A literature review helps to keep you up-to-date with the latest research on a specific topic or research question. By regularly reviewing the literature, you can stay informed about the latest findings and developments in your field.

Advantages of Literature Review

There are several advantages to conducting a literature review as part of a research project, including:

• Establishing the significance of the research : A literature review helps to establish the significance of the research by demonstrating the gap or problem in the existing literature that the study aims to address.
• Identifying key concepts and theories: A literature review can help to identify key concepts and theories that are relevant to the research question, and provide a theoretical framework for the study.
• Supporting the research methodology : A literature review can inform the research methodology by identifying appropriate research methods, data sources, and research questions.
• Providing a comprehensive overview of the literature : A literature review provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge on a topic, allowing the researcher to identify key themes, debates, and areas of agreement or disagreement.
• Identifying potential research questions: A literature review can help to identify potential research questions and areas for further investigation.
• Avoiding duplication of research: A literature review can help to avoid duplication of research by identifying what has already been done on a topic, and what remains to be done.
• Enhancing the credibility of the research : A literature review helps to enhance the credibility of the research by demonstrating the researcher’s knowledge of the existing literature and their ability to situate their research within a broader context.

Limitations of Literature Review

Limitations of Literature Review are as follows:

• Limited scope : Literature reviews can only cover the existing literature on a particular topic, which may be limited in scope or depth.
• Publication bias : Literature reviews may be influenced by publication bias, which occurs when researchers are more likely to publish positive results than negative ones. This can lead to an incomplete or biased picture of the literature.
• Quality of sources : The quality of the literature reviewed can vary widely, and not all sources may be reliable or valid.
• Time-limited: Literature reviews can become quickly outdated as new research is published, making it difficult to keep up with the latest developments in a field.
• Subjective interpretation : Literature reviews can be subjective, and the interpretation of the findings can vary depending on the researcher’s perspective or bias.
• Lack of original data : Literature reviews do not generate new data, but rather rely on the analysis of existing studies.
• Risk of plagiarism: It is important to ensure that literature reviews do not inadvertently contain plagiarism, which can occur when researchers use the work of others without proper attribution.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Institutional Review Board – Application Sample...

Evaluating Research – Process, Examples and...

• 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
• 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: Apr 5, 2024 1:38 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

• University of Wisconsin–Madison
• University of Wisconsin-Madison
• Research Guides
• Evidence Synthesis, Systematic Review Services
• Literature Review Types, Taxonomies

Evidence Synthesis, Systematic Review Services : Literature Review Types, Taxonomies

• Develop a Protocol
• Develop Your Research Question
• Select Databases
• Select Gray Literature Sources
• Write a Search Strategy
• Manage Your Search Process
• Register Your Protocol
• Citation Management
• Article Screening
• Risk of Bias Assessment
• Synthesize, Map, or Describe the Results
• Find Guidance by Discipline
• Manage Your Research Data
• Browse Evidence Portals by Discipline
• Additional Resources

Choosing a Literature Review Methodology

Growing interest in evidence-based practice has driven an increase in review methodologies. Your choice of review methodology (or literature review type) will be informed by the intent (purpose, function) of your research project and the time and resources of your team. 

• Decision Tree (What Type of Review is Right for You?) Developed by Cornell University Library staff, this "decision-tree" guides the user to a handful of review guides given time and intent.

Types of Evidence Synthesis*

Critical Review - Aims to demonstrate writer has extensively researched literature and critically evaluated its quality. Goes beyond mere description to include degree of analysis and conceptual innovation. Typically results in hypothesis or model.

Mapping Review (Systematic Map) - Map out and categorize existing literature from which to commission further reviews and/or primary research by identifying gaps in research literature.

Meta-Analysis - Technique that statistically combines the results of quantitative studies to provide a more precise effect of the results.

Mixed Studies Review (Mixed Methods Review) - Refers to any combination of methods where one significant component is a literature review (usually systematic). Within a review context it refers to a combination of review approaches for example combining quantitative with qualitative research or outcome with process studies.

Narrative (Literature) Review - Generic term: published materials that provide examination of recent or current literature. Can cover wide range of subjects at various levels of completeness and comprehensiveness.

Overview - Generic term: summary of the [medical] literature that attempts to survey the literature and describe its characteristics.

Qualitative Systematic Review or Qualitative Evidence Synthesis - Method for integrating or comparing the findings from qualitative studies. It looks for ‘themes’ or ‘constructs’ that lie in or across individual qualitative studies.

Rapid Review - Assessment of what is already known about a policy or practice issue, by using systematic review methods to search and critically appraise existing research.

Scoping Review or Evidence Map - Preliminary assessment of potential size and scope of available research literature. Aims to identify nature and extent of research.

State-of-the-art Review - Tend to address more current matters in contrast to other combined retrospective and current approaches. May offer new perspectives on issue or point out area for further research.

Systematic Review - Seeks to systematically search for, appraise and synthesis research evidence, often adhering to guidelines on the conduct of a review. (An emerging subset includes Living Reviews or Living Systematic Reviews - A [review or] systematic review which is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available.)

Systematic Search and Review - Combines strengths of critical review with a comprehensive search process. Typically addresses broad questions to produce ‘best evidence synthesis.’

Umbrella Review - Specifically refers to review compiling evidence from multiple reviews into one accessible and usable document. Focuses on broad condition or problem for which there are competing interventions and highlights reviews that address these interventions and their results.

*These definitions are in Grant & Booth's "A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies."

Literature Review Types/Typologies, Taxonomies

Grant, M. J., and A. Booth. "A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies."  Health Information and Libraries Journal  26.2 (2009): 91-108.  DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x  Link

Munn, Zachary, et al. “Systematic Review or Scoping Review? Guidance for Authors When Choosing between a Systematic or Scoping Review Approach.” BMC Medical Research Methodology , vol. 18, no. 1, Nov. 2018, p. 143. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x. Link

Sutton, A., et al. "Meeting the Review Family: Exploring Review Types and Associated Information Retrieval Requirements."  Health Information and Libraries Journal  36.3 (2019): 202-22.  DOI: 10.1111/hir.12276  Link

• << Previous: Home
• Next: The Systematic Review Process >>
• Last Updated: Apr 4, 2024 1:46 PM
• URL: https://researchguides.library.wisc.edu/literature_review

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

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

What is a literature review?

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

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

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

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

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

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

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

2. Decide on the scope of your review

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

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

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

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

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

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

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

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

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

Tips: 

• Review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
• Create a matrix of the studies for easy analysis, and synthesis, across all of the studies.
• << Previous: Recommended Books
• Last Updated: Jan 4, 2024 10:52 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

Types of Literature Reviews

Barry Mauer and John Venecek

Strategies for Getting Started

Composition guidelines, how to locate reviews by discipline.

We also provide the following activities:

Types of Literature Reviews [Refresher]

The previous page provided an introduction to literature reviews and guidelines for determining the scope and purpose of your review. Next, we take a look at the different types of literature reviews and why a researcher might select one type over another.

A literature review helps your reader understand the relationship of your research project to the work of other scholars. It covers the existing knowledge about a problem, and allows you to show the relevance/significance of your contribution to the discussion. Your reader may or may not have read scholarly literature about the theories, methodologies, and literary works you are discussing. But they want to know that you have read it and have thought about it. Your literature review provides not only a summary of the existing scholarship for readers; it also offers your perspective on it.

In general, literature reviews occur in the first half of a research paper, after the introduction. The literature review familiarizes your reader with the relevant scholarly discussion that has occurred to this time, and in the second half of your paper, you introduce your contribution to the discussion.

Not all humanities research projects contain literature reviews, but many do. Keep in mind that the type of literature review you choose (see list below) pertains to the secondary research – other scholarly sources – and not to the primary literary work. For instance, a literature review about Kate Chopin’s writing will be your thoughts about the scholarship on Chopin and not about Chopin’s text itself. You are summarizing what you see in the scholarly literature about Chopin’s writing. The literature review puts you in the position of authority not just on Chopin’s writing but on the scholarship about her writing. You are seeking to understand what scholars have said about her work. Scholars might belong to different schools of thought (psychoanalytic, feminist, Marxist, etc.). They might make different arguments about Chopin. They might use different methodological approaches. 

If your research involves two or more theories, such as psychology and genre studies, you may need to create multiple literature reviews, one for each theory or methodology. If the theories overlap with each other significantly (i.e., Marxism and Cultural Studies), you may combine them. Your literature review need not include everything about the subject area – you would need to write a book to cover a single theory – but only those concepts and methods that are most relevant to your research problem.

Factors to Consider When Developing Your Literature Review

• Determine the Scope : How broad or narrow should your literature review be? You may want to focus on recent scholarship only, or on a particular school of thought in the literature. Your scope is determined by your purpose; what is it you aim to achieve with your research?
• Establish Criteria : We discussed the importance of defining the purpose and scope of your review on the previous page, but it’s worth reviewing here as well. This step will help you establish important criteria and focus your searching. For example, how many sources will you need? What types of sources (primary, secondary, statistics, media)? Is currency important? Do you know who the prominent authors or theorists are in your subject area? Take some time to map out these or other important factors before you begin searching journals and databases.
• Consider Your Audience : Unlike a work cited page or an annotated bibliography, both of which are lists of sources, a literature review is essayistic and can be considered a precursor to your final paper. Therefore, it should be written in your own voice, and it should be geared toward a specific audience. Considering audience during this early stage will help focus your final paper as well.
• Find Models : We’ll discuss the different types of literature reviews and how to locate examples in the section below. However, even if you’re undecided about what type of review will work best for you, you may want to review some example literature reviews to get a sense of what they look like before you begin your own.

One piece of advice before starting: look for existing literature reviews on your area of scholarship. You can build on the work that other scholars have put into reviewing the scholarly literature. There’s no need to completely “reinvent the wheel” if some of the work is already done.

Scholars sometimes publish “stand-alone” literature reviews that are not part of a larger work; such literature reviews are valuable contributions to the field, as they summarize the state of knowledge for other scholars.

Maria J. Grant and Andrew Booth’s “A Typology of Reviews” identifies 14 distinct types of literature reviews. Further, the UCLA library created a chart to complement the article and for easy comparison of those 14 types of reviews. This section provides a brief summary of the most common literature reviews. For a more complete analysis, please see the full article and the chart .

To choose the most appropriate structure, put yourself in your reader’s shoes and think through their need for information. The literature review is about providing context for your contribution. How much context do people need? Keep it to the minimum necessary; compressing a lot of information into a small amount of text is a must.

These structures are not meant to be straightjackets but tools to help you organize your research. If you find that the tool is working, then keep using it. If not, switch tools or modify the one you are using. Keep in mind that the types of literature reviews are just different ways of organizing information. So, you can discuss literary trends without organizing your review of secondary literature by trend; your discussion can be organized by theory or theme, for examples. In our literature reviews, we are not recounting other scholars’ arguments at length but merely providing key concepts so we can summarize the discussion so far and position our own claims. You don’t have to adhere strictly to one structure or another. They are just organizing tools that help you manage your material (and help your reader make sense of it).

Types of Reviews

• Traditional or narrative reviews : This approach will generate a comprehensive, critical analysis of the published research on your topic. However, rather than merely compiling as many sources as possible, use this approach to establish a theoretical framework for your paper, establish trends, and identify gaps in the research. This process should bring your research question into clearer focus and help define a thesis that you will argue for in your paper. This is perhaps the most common and general type of literature review. The examples listed below are all designed to serve a more specific purpose.
• Argumentative : The purpose of an argumentative literature review is to select sources for the purpose of supporting or refuting a specific claim. While this type of review can help the author make a strong case for or against an issue, they can also be prone to claims of bias. Later in this textbook, we will read about the distinction between warranted and unwarranted bias . One is ok and the other is not.
• Chronological : A chronological review is used when the author wants to demonstrate the progression of how a theory, methodology, or issue has progressed over time. This method is most effective when there is a clear chronological path to the research about a specific historical event or trend as opposed to a more recursive theoretical concept.
• By trend : This is similar to the chronological approach except it focuses on clearly-defined trends rather than date ranges. This would be most appropriate if you want to illustrate changing perspectives or attitudes about a given issue when specific date ranges are less important than the ebb and flow of the trend.
• Thematic : In this type of literature review, the author will select specific themes that he or she feels are important to understanding a larger topic or concept. Then, the author will organize the sources around those themes, which are often based on relevance or importance. The value of this method is that the process of organizing the review by theme is similar to constructing an argument. This can help the author see how resources connect to each other and determine how as well as why specific sources support their thesis.
• Theoretical : The goal of this type of review is to examine how theory has shaped the research on a given topic. It establishes existing theoretical models, their connections, and how extensively they have been developed in the published research. For example, Jada applied critical race theory to her analysis of Sonny’s Blues , but she might also consider conducting a more comprehensive review of other theoretical frameworks such as feminism, Marxism, or postmodernism. Doing so could provide insight into alternate readings, and help her identify theoretical gaps such as unexplored or under-developed approaches to Baldwin’s work.
• Methodological : The approach focuses on the various methodologies used by researchers in a specific area rather than an analysis of their findings. In this case, you would create a framework of approaches to data collection related to your topic or research question. This is perhaps more common in education or the social and hard sciences where published research often includes a methods section, but it is sometimes appropriate for the digital humanities as well.
• Scoping : The aim of a scoping review is to provide a comprehensive overview or map of the published research or evidence related to a research question. This might be considered a prelude to a systematic review that would take the scoping review one step further toward answering a clearly defined research question. See below for more details.
• Systematic : The systematic review is most appropriate when you have a clearly-defined research question and have established criteria for the types of sources you need. In this way, the systematic review is less exploratory than other types of reviews. Rather, it is comprehensive, strategic, and focused on answering a specific research question. For this reason, the systematic review is more common in the health and social sciences, where comprehensiveness is more important. Literature reviews in the Humanities are not usually exhaustive but tend to show only the most representative or salient developments in the scholarship.
• Meta-analysis : Does your research deal with statistics or large amounts of data? If so, then a meta-analysis might be best for you rather than providing a critical review, the meta-analysis will summarize and synthesize the results of numerous studies that involve statistics or data to provide a more comprehensive picture than would be possible from just one study.

An argumentative literature review presents and takes sides in scholarly arguments about the literary work. It makes arguments about other scholars’ work. It does not necessarily involve a claim that the literary work is itself making an argument. Likewise, a chronological literature review presents the scholarly literature in chronological order.

You don’t need to keep strictly to one type. Scholars often combine features from various types of literature reviews. A sample review that combines the follow types –

• Argumentative
• Theoretical
• Methodological

– is the excellent work of Eiranen, Reetta, Mari Hatavara, Ville Kivimäki, Maria Mäkelä & Raisa Maria Toivo (2022) “ Narrative and Experience: Interdisciplinary Methodologies between History and Narratology , ” Scandinavian Journal of History , 47:1, 1-15

When writing your literature review, please follow these pointers:

• Conduct systematic searches
• Use Evidence
• Be Selective
• Use Quotes Sparingly
• Summarize & Synthesize
• Use Caution when Paraphrasing
• Use Your Own Voice

Advice from James Mason University’s “Literature Reviews: An Overview”

A note on synthesizing : Don’t make the common mistake of summarizing individual studies or articles one after the other. The goal is to synthesize — that is, to make observations about groups of studies. Synthesis often uses language like this:

• Much of the literature on [topic x ] focuses on [major themes].
• In recent years, researchers have begun investigating [facets a , b , and c ] of [topic x ].
• The studies in this review of [topic x ] confirm / suggest / call into question / support [idea / practice / finding / method / theory / guideline y ].
• In the reviewed studies [variable x ] was generally associated with higher / lower rates of [outcome y ].
• A limitation of some / most / all of these studies is [ y ].

Please see this sample annotated literature review  from James Mason University.

Structure of a literature review [1]

• Problematization: The 2 to 3 pages of problematization are a distinct, iterative, step. It may take doing such a statement a few times before moving forward to writing the actual paper.
• Search: Write down your keyword sets, your updated keyword sets, and databases. It is perfectly within a reviewer’s rights to ask for these details.
• Summary: Really getting to know major themes requires some annotation of articles. You want to identify core papers and themes and write about them. This helps you really learn the material. [ChatGPT or Wikipedia are no substitute for deep engagement with a paper.]
• Argument: Either outline or create a slide deck that help you express the arguments in your paper. Read them out loud. Have friends look at them. Present them. [Every literature review has an argument. If not, it’s a summary. A summary does not merit publication in a top outlet.]
• Unpacking: Once you’ve nailed the short pitch, unpack the full argument. [ a) Take time in each major section to map out a) the argument, b) the supporting evidence, and the takeaway. b) Take those major sections, reconcile them, make sure they don’t overlap, then move on to writing. c) Sketch out the paper’s sections, tables, figures, and appendices.]
• Writing: Writing is the easy part. You can always put words to the screen. [Revising and improving is hard. Make time to write every day. Improving requires feedback. Find a writing partner to give feedback. Create your tables and figures. Write to them. Make sure the words in the paper align to the visuals.]
• Communicate: When the paper is done, go back and create a paper presentation. [I do this for the papers that I’m most serious about. The act of storyboarding helps me sort out the small pieces of the story that don’t fit together. If I really want it to succeed, I present it. The act of presenting helps me get it right. My best papers sometimes take seven or eight presentations to get it right. Then I return to the paper and fine tune it. Only then, does it have a shot at a top outlet.]

Literature reviews can be published as part of a scholarly article, often after the introduction and sometimes with a header, but they can also be published as a standalone essay. To find examples of what reviews look like in your discipline, choose an appropriate subject database (such as MLA for literary criticism) and conduct a keyword search with the term “Literature Review” added in quotes:

Not only do these examples demonstrate how to structure different types of literature reviews, but some offer insights into trends and directions for future research. In the next section, we’ll take a closer look at some reading strategies to help guide you through this process.

Since scholars already have produced literature reviews on various scholarly conversations, you don’t always need to “reinvent the wheel” (start a literature review from nothing). You can find a published literature review and update it or amend it; scholars do that all the time. However, you must properly cite work you incorporate from others.

• What types of literature review will you be using for your paper? Why did you make this selection over others? If you haven’t made a selection yet, which types are you considering?
• What specific challenges do you face in following a literature review structure?
• If there are any elements of your assignment that need clarification, please list them.
• What was the most important lesson you learned from this page? What point was confusing or difficult to understand?
• Richard West, Brigham Young University, amended by Jason Thatcher, Temple University - https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jason-thatcher-0329764_academicwriting-topten2023-activity-7146507675021766656-BB0O ↵

Types of Literature Reviews Copyright © 2021 by Barry Mauer and John Venecek is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Library Guides
• Literature Reviews
• Choosing a Type of Review

Literature Reviews: Choosing a Type of Review

Selecting a review type.

You'll want to think about the kind of review you are doing. Is it a selective or comprehensive review? Is the review part of a larger work or a stand-alone work ?

For example, if you're writing the Literature Review section of a journal article, that's a selective review which is part of a larger work. Alternatively, if you're writing a review article, that's a comprehensive review which is a stand-alone work. Thinking about this will help you develop the scope of the review.

Defining the Scope of Your Review

This exercise will help define the scope of your Literature Review, setting the boundaries for which literature to include and which to exclude.

A FEW GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS WHEN DEFINING SCOPE

• Which populations to investigate — this can include gender, age, socio-economic status, race, geographic location, etc., if the research area includes humans.
• What years to include — if researching the legalization of medicinal cannabis, you might only look at the previous 20 years; but if researching dolphin mating practices, you might extend many more decades.
• Which subject areas — if researching artificial intelligence, subject areas could be computer science, robotics, or health sciences
• How many sources  — a selective review for a class assignment might only need ten, while a comprehensive review for a dissertation might include hundreds. There is no one right answer.
• There will be many other considerations that are more specific to your topic. 

Most databases will allow you to limit years and subject areas, so look for those tools while searching. See the Searching Tips tab for information on how use these tools.

Four Common Types of Reviews

Literature review.

• Often used as a generic term to describe any type of review
• More precise definition:  Published materials that provide an examination of published literature . Can cover wide range of subjects at various levels of comprehensiveness.
• Identifies gaps in research, explains importance of topic, hypothesizes future work, etc.
• Usually written as part of a larger work like a journal article or dissertation

SCOPING REVIEW

• Conducted to address broad research questions with the goal of understanding the extent of research that has been conducted.
• Provides a preliminary assessment of the potential size and scope of available research literature. It aims to identify the nature and extent of research evidence (usually including ongoing research) 
• Doesn't assess the quality of the literature gathered (i.e. presence of literature on a topic shouldn’t be conflated w/ the quality of that literature)

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

• Common in the health sciences
• Goal: collect all literature that meets specific criteria (methodology, population, treatment, etc.) and then appraise its quality and synthesize it
• Follows strict protocol for literature collection, appraisal and synthesis
• Typically performed by research teams 
• Takes 12-18 months to complete
• Often written as a stand alone work

META-ANALYSIS

• Goes one step further than a systematic review by statistically combining the results of quantitative studies to provide a more precise effect of the results. 
• Evidence Synthesis Guide Learn more about Systematic Reviews, Scoping Reviews, Rapid Reviews, Umbrella Reviews, Meta-Analyses

Attribution

Thanks to Librarian Jamie Niehof at the University of Michigan for providing permission to reuse and remix this Literature Reviews guide.

Evidence Synthesis Guide

• Evidence Synthesis Guide Learn more about Systematic Reviews, Scoping Reviews, Rapid Reviews, Umbrella Reviews, and Meta-Analyses

Which Review is Right for You?

The  Right Review tool  has questions about your lit review process and plans. It offers a qualitative and quantitative option. At completion, you are given a lit review type recommendation.

More Review Types

This article by Sutton & Booth (2019) explores 48 distinct types of Literature Reviews:

• Last Updated: Apr 4, 2024 4:51 PM
• URL: https://info.library.okstate.edu/literaturereviews

Literature Review

• What is a Literature Review?

Types of Literature Review

• Tips for Conducting a Literature Review
• Developing a Search Strategy
• Tips for Writing your Literature Review
• Video Tutorial

Searching for Information

The Library Catalogue is good place to start looking for information. 

Many of the resources described here can be found in the Library. Follow the link below to begin your search

Tu Dublin Library Catalogue

Types of literature review

Below is a brief overview of some popular types of literature review.  Your choice of review type will depend upon a number of different factors including the purpose of the review, subject area, and the research question. 

• Argumentative Reviews  involve using selective information to support one side of an argument.  This type of review can also be used to refute an argument or an established point of view. It is worth noting that bias can be a feature of this type of review.
• Historical Reviews  identify and trace how things were done in the past, mapping changes in theory, processes, etc. It also places research within historical context.
• Integrative Reviews  bring new perspective to an existing body of literature. This involves critically evaluating and synthesising secondary data to create new perspectives.  This type of review can be used when the researcher is not collecting or analysing their own data (primary data).
•  Mapping Reviews are similar to a scoping review (see below) but focus on a specific question not a topic.
•  Methodological Reviews examine how research was conducted.  This type of review often involves reviewing the entire research design process, from philosophy to methodology, data collection methods and data analysis. 
• Narrative Reviews  involve summarising and critically evaluating information within a body of knowledge.  It allows researchers to draw conclusions and to identify gaps within the literature.  You will need to have a clearly defined research question in order to undertake a narrative review. 
• Scoping Reviews provide a "preliminary assessment of potential size and scope of available research literature.  [The] aim is to identify the nature and extent of research evidence (usually including ongoing research).”  Grant & Booth  “A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies”.  Health Information & Libraries Journal.  May, 2009.
• Systematic Reviews involve doing an exhaustive review of a topic with the purpose of answering a question or solving a problem. Systematic reviews are conducted according to a strict selection and evaluation criteria. These reviews seek to identify relationships and patterns from which conclusions can be drawn.
• Theoretical Reviews  attempt to identify existing theories or highlight a lack of adequate theory within a subject area. This type of review can also examine how well a particular theory has been tested.
• << Previous: What is a Literature Review?
• Next: Tips for Conducting a Literature Review >>
• Last Updated: Feb 12, 2024 1:43 PM
• URL: https://tudublin.libguides.com/Literature_Review

Literature Reviews

• Getting Started

Selecting a Review Type

Defining the scope of your review, four common types of reviews.

• Developing a Research Question
• Searching the Literature
• Searching Tips
• ChatGPT [beta]
• Documenting your Search
• Using Citation Managers
• Concept Mapping
• Writing the Review
• Further Resources

More Review Types

This article by Sutton & Booth (2019) explores 48 distinct types of Literature Reviews:

Which Review is Right for You?

The  Right Review tool  has questions about your lit review process and plans. It offers a qualitative and quantitative option. At completion, you are given a lit review type recommendation.

You'll want to think about the kind of review you are doing. Is it a selective or comprehensive review? Is the review part of a larger work or a stand-alone work ?

For example, if you're writing the Literature Review section of a journal article, that's a selective review which is part of a larger work. Alternatively, if you're writing a review article, that's a comprehensive review which is a stand-alone work. Thinking about this will help you develop the scope of the review.

This exercise will help define the scope of your Literature Review, setting the boundaries for which literature to include and which to exclude.

A FEW GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS WHEN DEFINING SCOPE

• Which populations to investigate — this can include gender, age, socio-economic status, race, geographic location, etc., if the research area includes humans.
• What years to include — if researching the legalization of medicinal cannabis, you might only look at the previous 20 years; but if researching dolphin mating practices, you might extend many more decades.
• Which subject areas — if researching artificial intelligence, subject areas could be computer science, robotics, or health sciences
• How many sources  — a selective review for a class assignment might only need ten, while a comprehensive review for a dissertation might include hundreds. There is no one right answer.
• There will be many other considerations that are more specific to your topic. 

Most databases will allow you to limit years and subject areas, so look for those tools while searching. See the Searching Tips tab for information on how use these tools.

LITERATURE REVIEW

• Often used as a generic term to describe any type of review
• More precise definition:  Published materials that provide an examination of published literature . Can cover wide range of subjects at various levels of comprehensiveness.
• Identifies gaps in research, explains importance of topic, hypothesizes future work, etc.
• Usually written as part of a larger work like a journal article or dissertation

SCOPING REVIEW

• Conducted to address broad research questions with the goal of understanding the extent of research that has been conducted.
• Provides a preliminary assessment of the potential size and scope of available research literature. It aims to identify the nature and extent of research evidence (usually including ongoing research) 
• Doesn't assess the quality of the literature gathered (i.e. presence of literature on a topic shouldn’t be conflated w/ the quality of that literature)

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

• Common in the health sciences ( Taubman Health Sciences Library guide to Systematic Reviews )
• Goal: collect all literature that meets specific criteria (methodology, population, treatment, etc.) and then appraise its quality and synthesize it
• Follows strict protocol for literature collection, appraisal and synthesis
• Typically performed by research teams 
• Takes 12-18 months to complete
• Often written as a stand alone work

META-ANALYSIS

• Goes one step further than a systematic review by statistically combining the results of quantitative studies to provide a more precise effect of the results. 
• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: Developing a Research Question >>
• Last Updated: Feb 29, 2024 10:31 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.umich.edu/litreview

Log in using your username and password

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

You are here

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

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

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

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

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

Introduction

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

Tip 1: provide detailed information about frameworks and methods

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

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

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

Tip 2: include strengths and limitations for each article

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

Tip 3: write conceptual contribution of each reviewed article

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

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

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

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

Tip 5: create your personalised template for literature summaries

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

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

• Aromataris E ,
• Rasheed SP ,

Twitter @Ahtisham04, @parveenazamali

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

Competing interests None declared.

Patient consent for publication Not required.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

• University of Texas Libraries
• UT Libraries

Systematic Reviews & Evidence Synthesis Methods

Types of reviews.

• Formulate Question
• Find Existing Reviews & Protocols
• Register a Protocol
• Searching Systematically
• Supplementary Searching
• Managing Results
• Deduplication
• Critical Appraisal
• Glossary of terms
• Librarian Support
• Video tutorials This link opens in a new window
• Systematic Review & Evidence Synthesis Boot Camp

Not sure what type of review you want to conduct?

There are many types of reviews ---  narrative reviews ,  scoping reviews , systematic reviews, integrative reviews, umbrella reviews, rapid reviews and others --- and it's not always straightforward to choose which type of review to conduct. These Review Navigator tools (see below) ask a series of questions to guide you through the various kinds of reviews and to help you determine the best choice for your research needs.

• Which review is right for you? (Univ. of Manitoba)
• What type of review is right for you? (Cornell)
• Review Ready Reckoner - Assessment Tool (RRRsAT)
• A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. by Grant & Booth
• Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements | Health Info Libr J, 2019

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

• Last Updated: Feb 27, 2024 12:53 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/systematicreviews

• Open access
• Published: 10 January 2024

A scoping review of theories, models and frameworks used or proposed to evaluate knowledge mobilization strategies

• Saliha Ziam   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8892-9572 1 ,
• Sèverine Lanoue 2 ,
• Esther McSween-Cadieux 2 ,
• Mathieu-Joël Gervais 3 ,
• Julie Lane 2 , 4 ,
• Dina Gaid 5 ,
• Laura Justine Chouinard 1 ,
• Christian Dagenais 6 ,
• Valéry Ridde 7 , 8 ,
• Emmanuelle Jean 9 ,
• France Charles Fleury 10 ,
• Quan Nha Hong 5 &
• Ollivier Prigent 2  

Health Research Policy and Systems volume  22 , Article number:  8 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

2338 Accesses

6 Altmetric

Metrics details

Evaluating knowledge mobilization strategies (KMb) presents challenges for organizations seeking to understand their impact to improve KMb effectiveness. Moreover, the large number of theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) available can be confusing for users. Therefore, the purpose of this scoping review was to identify and describe the characteristics of TMFs that have been used or proposed in the literature to evaluate KMb strategies.

A scoping review methodology was used. Articles were identified through searches in electronic databases, previous reviews and reference lists of included articles. Titles, abstracts and full texts were screened in duplicate. Data were charted using a piloted data charting form. Data extracted included study characteristics, KMb characteristics, and TMFs used or proposed for KMb evaluation. An adapted version of Nilsen (Implement Sci 10:53, 2015) taxonomy and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy (Powell et al. in Implement Sci 10:21, 2015) guided data synthesis.

Of the 4763 search results, 505 were retrieved, and 88 articles were eligible for review. These consisted of 40 theoretical articles (45.5%), 44 empirical studies (50.0%) and four protocols (4.5%). The majority were published after 2010 ( n  = 70, 79.5%) and were health related ( n  = 71, 80.7%). Half of the studied KMb strategies were implemented in only four countries: Canada, Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom ( n  = 42, 47.7%). One-third used existing TMFs ( n  = 28, 31.8%). According to the adapted Nilsen taxonomy, process models ( n  = 34, 38.6%) and evaluation frameworks ( n  = 28, 31.8%) were the two most frequent types of TMFs used or proposed to evaluate KMb. According to the ERIC taxonomy, activities to “train and educate stakeholders” ( n  = 46, 52.3%) were the most common, followed by activities to “develop stakeholder interrelationships” ( n  = 23, 26.1%). Analysis of the TMFs identified revealed relevant factors of interest for the evaluation of KMb strategies, classified into four dimensions: context, process, effects and impacts.

Conclusions

This scoping review provides an overview of the many KMb TMFs used or proposed. The results provide insight into potential dimensions and components to be considered when assessing KMb strategies.

Peer Review reports

Contribution to the literature

The evaluation of KMb strategies is a critical dimension of the KMb process that is still poorly documented and warrants researchers’ attention.

Our review identified the most common theories, models and frameworks (TMFs) proposed or used to assess KMb strategies and the main components to consider when evaluating a KMb strategy.

By developing an integrative reference framework, this work contributes to improving organizations’ capacity to evaluate their KMb initiatives.

It is widely recognized that research evidence has the potential to inform, guide, and improve practices, decisions, and policies [ 1 ]. Unfortunately, for diverse reasons, the best available evidence is still too seldom taken into account and used [ 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 ]. The field of research on knowledge mobilization (KMb) has been growing rapidly since the early 2000s [ 2 , 3 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 ]. Its purpose is to better understand how to effectively promote and support evidence use.

Knowledge mobilization is one of many terms and concepts developed over recent decades to describe processes, strategies, and actions to bridge the gap between research and practice. Other common terms often paired interchangeably with the term “knowledge” are “translation”, “transfer”, “exchange”, “sharing” and “dissemination”, among others. [ 12 , 13 ]. Some are more closely linked than others to specific fields or jurisdictions. For this study, we adopted the term knowledge mobilization (KMb) because it conveys the notions of complexity and multidirectional exchanges that characterize research-to-action processes. We used it as an umbrella concept that encompasses the efforts made to translate knowledge into concrete actions and beneficial impacts on populations [ 1 ]. Moreover, the term KMb is also used by research funding agencies in Canada to emphasize the medium- and long-term effects that research knowledge or research results can have on potential users [ 1 , 14 ].

KMb represents all processes from knowledge creation to action and includes all strategies implemented to facilitate these processes [ 14 ]. A KMb strategy is understood as a coordinated set of activities to support evidence use, such as dissemination activities to reach target audiences (for example, educational materials, practical guides, decision support tools) or activities to facilitate knowledge application in a specific context and support professional behaviour change (for example, community of practice, educational meetings, audits and feedback, reminders, deliberative dialogues) [ 15 ]. A KMb process may vary in intensity, complexity or actor engagement depending on the nature of the research knowledge and the needs and preferences of evidence users [ 7 ].

KMb is considered a complex process, in that numerous factors can facilitate or hinder its implementation and subsequent evidence use. The past two decades have seen the emergence of a deeper understanding of these factors [ 2 , 3 , 16 ]. These may be related to the knowledge mobilized (for example, relevance, reliability, clarity, costs), the individuals involved in the KMb process (for example, openness to change, values, time available, resources), the KMB strategies (for example, fit with stakeholder needs and preferences, regular interactions, trust relationships, timing), and organizational and political contexts (for example, culture of evidence use, leadership, resources) [ 2 , 6 , 17 , 18 ]. However, more studies are needed to understand which factors are more important in which contexts, and to evaluate the effects of KMb strategies.

On this last point, while essential, it is often very complex to study KMb impacts empirically to demonstrate the effectiveness of KMb strategies [ 19 , 20 , 21 ]. Partly for this reason, high-quality studies that evaluate process, mechanisms and effects of KMb strategies are still relatively rare [ 2 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 ]. As a result, knowledge about the effectiveness of different KMb strategies remains limited [ 10 , 17 , 19 , 23 , 26 , 27 , 28 ] and their development cannot be totally evidence informed [ 3 , 19 , 20 , 23 , 29 , 30 ], which may seem incompatible with the core values and principles of KMb.

The growing interest in KMb has led to an impressive proliferation of conceptual propositions, such as theories, models and frameworks (TMF) [ 2 , 3 , 9 , 11 , 12 , 31 , 32 ]. Many deplore the fact that these are poorly used [ 11 , 30 , 33 ] and insist on the need to test, refine and integrate existing ones [ 3 , 31 , 34 ]. Indeed, the conceptual and theoretical development of the field has outpaced its empirical development. This proliferation appears to have created confusion among certain users, such as organizations that need to evaluate their KMb strategies. Besides implementing and funding KMb strategies, knowledge organizations such as granting agencies, governments and public organizations, universities and health authorities are often required to demonstrate the impact of their strategies [ 21 , 35 , 36 ]. Yet this can be a significant challenge [ 20 , 23 , 29 ]. They may have difficulty knowing which TMFs to choose, in what context and how to use them effectively in their evaluation process [ 12 , 37 ].

Indeed, the evaluation of KMb strategies is still relatively poorly documented, with respect to the phases of their development and implementation. Our aim in this scoping review is to clarify, conceptually and methodologically, this crucial dimension of the KMb process. This would help organizations gain access to evidence-based, operational and easy-to-use evaluation toolkits for assessing the impacts of their KMb strategies.

To survey the available knowledge on evaluation practices for KMb strategies, we conducted a scoping review. According to Munn et al. [ 38 ], a scoping review is indicated to identify the types of available evidence and knowledge gaps, to clarify concepts in the literature and to identify key characteristics or factors related to a concept. This review methodology also allows for the inclusion of a diversity of publications, regardless of their nature or research design, to produce the most comprehensive evidence mapping possible [ 39 ]. The objective of the scoping review was to identify and describe the characteristics of theories, models and frameworks (TMFs) used or proposed to evaluate KMb strategies. The specific research questions were:

What TMFs to evaluate KMb strategies exist in the literature?

What KMb strategies do they evaluate (that is types of KMb objectives, activities, target audiences)?

What dimensions and components are included in these TMFs?

This scoping review was conducted based on the five steps outlined by Arksey and O’Malley [ 39 ]: (1) formulating the research questions; (2) identifying relevant studies; (3) selecting relevant studies; (4) extracting and charting data; and (5) analysing, collating, summarizing and presenting the data. Throughout the process, researchers and knowledge users (KMb practitioners) were involved in decisions regarding the research question, search strategy, selection criteria for studies and categories for data charting. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines [ 40 ]. No protocol was registered for this review.

Search strategy and information sources

The search strategy was developed, piloted and refined in consultation with our team’s librarian. Search terms included controlled vocabulary and keywords related to three main concepts: (1) knowledge mobilization (for example [knowledge or evidence or research] and transfer, translation, diffusion, dissemination, mobilization, implementation science, exchange, sharing, use, uptake, evidence-based practice, research-based evidence), (2) evaluation (for example, evaluat*, measur*, impact, outcome, assess, apprais*, indicator) and (3) TMF (for example, framework*, model*, method*, guide*, theor*). See Additional file 1 for the search terms and strategies used in the electronic searches.

The following databases were searched from January 2000 to August 2023: MEDLINE (Ovid), PsycInfo (Ovid), ERIC (ProQuest), Sociological Abstracts (ProQuest), Dissertations & Theses (Proquest), Érudit and Cairn. These databases were chosen to identify relevant references in the health, education and social fields. Several search strategies were tested by the librarian to optimize the retrieval of citations known to the investigators and to increase the likelihood that all relevant studies would be retrieved. We also searched reference lists of included articles and previous systematic reviews [ 11 , 12 , 15 , 41 ].

Eligibility criteria

A publication was considered eligible if it (1) presented or used a theory, model, or framework (TMF), (2) described dimensions or specific components to consider in the evaluation of KMb strategies, (3) presented or discussed KMb strategies or activities (any initiatives to improve evidence use), and (4) proposed outcomes that might result directly or indirectly from the KMb strategies. Studies were excluded from analysis if they (1) presented a TMF to assess the impact of research without mentioning KMb strategies or an intervention not related to KMb and (2) presented evaluation dimensions or components that could not be generalized. We considered publications in English or French. All types of articles and study designs were eligible, including study protocols.

Study selection

The results of the literature search were imported into Covidence, which the review team used for screening. After duplicate articles were removed, the titles and abstracts were screened independently by two of the three reviewers (EMC, MJG, GL). Publications identified as potentially relevant were retrieved in full text and screened independently by three reviewers (EMC, MJG, GL). Discrepancies regarding the inclusion of any publication were resolved through discussion and consensus among reviewers. The principal investigator (SZ) validated the final selection of articles.

Data synthesis

A data charting form was developed in Microsoft Excel and piloted by the research team. Data extracted included study characteristics (authors, authors’ country of affiliation, year, journal, discipline, article type, study setting, study aim), KMb strategies of interest, KMb objectives, KMb target audiences and TMFs used or proposed for KMb evaluation (existing or new TMF, specific dimensions or components of TMF and so on). Data were extracted by a single reviewer (SL, JC or OP) and validated by a second reviewer (SZ). Disagreements were discussed between reviewers and resolved by consensus. No quality appraisal of included studies was conducted, as this is optional in scoping reviews and the purpose was only to describe the content of identified TMFs [ 42 ].

Data analysis and presentation of results

Data were summarized according to study characteristics, KMb strategy characteristics (activities, objectives, target audiences), types of TMFs, and dimensions or components to consider for KMb evaluation. Disagreements during the process were discussed and resolved through consensus (SL, DG, SZ). A KMb strategy might have one or more objectives and include one or more activities. Thus, the objectives and activities of the KMb strategies extracted from the selected studies were summarized based on existing categorizations. The categorization of KMb objectives was inspired by Gervais et al. [ 15 ] and Farkas et al. [ 43 ] (Table  1 ).

The KMb activities were categorized according to the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy [ 44 ]. The activities were first classified according to the full taxonomy and then grouped into the nine categories proposed by Waltz et al. [ 45 ] (Table  2 ).

The TMFs were categorized according to the categories of theoretical approaches described by Nilsen [ 32 ]: process models, evaluation frameworks, determinant frameworks and classic theories (Table  3 ). The category “implementation theories” originally described by Nilsen [ 32 ] was not used because we did not identify any article that fit this category. We also added a category named “logic models” due to the nature of the identified TMFs. Logic models are often used in theory-driven evaluation approaches and are usually developed to show the links among inputs (resources), activities and outputs (outcomes and short-, medium- and long-term effects) [ 46 ].

Finally, the content extracted from the TMFs was analysed using mainly an inductive method. This method allows, among other things, to develop a reference framework or a model from the emerging categories that are evident in the text data [ 50 ].

The classification of concepts is the result of multiple readings and interpretations. The concepts associated with each dimension of the framework were classified according to their meaning. Similar concepts were grouped together to form components. These grouped components were then associated with the subdimensions and main dimensions of the framework.

Search results

The searches yielded 4763 articles. Of those, 4258 were excluded during the title and abstract screening. Of the 505 full-text articles, we retained 88 in our final sample. The results of the search and selection processes (PRISMA flowchart) are summarized in Fig.  1 .

PRISMA flowchart summarizing search strategy and selection results [ 40 ]

Publication characteristics

Most articles were published after 2010 ( n  = 70, 79.5%), with an average of 5 articles per year between 2010 and 2023 compared with an average of 2.1 articles per year between 2001 and 2009; there were no eligible articles from 2000. The search was conducted in August 2023, and only five articles were published in these 7 months of the year. Table 4 presents the main characteristics of the selected articles. A full list of the included articles with their main characteristics is presented in Additional file 2 .

The number of theoretical and empirical articles was relatively similar. Among the theoretical articles, 19 descriptive articles (21.6%) were aimed at describing a KMb strategy, a KMb infrastructure or a TMF related to a specific programme or context; 18 articles (20.5%) synthesized knowledge to propose a TMF (new or revised); and three articles conducted systematic reviews (3.4%).

The empirical articles category included studies with different methodological approaches (quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods). We will not report the details of the methodologies used, as this would result in a long list with few occurrences. The empirical articles can be divided into three categories: (1) studies that evaluated a TMF related to KMb ( n  = 16, 18.2%), (2) studies that evaluated a KMb strategy ( n  = 21, 23.9%) and (3) studies that evaluated both a KMb strategy and a TMF ( n  = 7, 8.0%).

Most articles were related to healthcare ( n  = 71, 80.7%). This field of study was divided into three subdomains. The healthcare and social services articles usually described or assessed a KMb strategy targeting health professionals’ practices in a variety of fields (for example, occupational therapy, dentistry, mental health, pharmacology, gerontology, nursing and so on). The health policy and systems articles usually described or assessed KMb strategies targeting decision-making processes, decision-makers or public health interventions and policies. The continuing education articles assessed training programmes for health professionals aimed at increasing knowledge and skills in a specific field. The articles in the general field described or discussed TMFs and KMb strategies that could be applied to multiple disciplines or contexts. Finally, the articles in the education field described or assessed a KMb strategy targeting education professionals.

Almost half of the articles ( n  = 42, 47.7%) studied KMB strategies implemented in only four countries: Canada, Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom. Countries in South America, the Caribbean, Africa, Asia, the Middle East, China and Europe were underrepresented ( n  = 8, 9.1%). The remaining 34 articles (38.6%) did not specify an implementation context and were mostly theoretical articles. Regarding the authors’ countries of affiliation, Canada, the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom were again the most represented countries, featuring in 85% of the articles ( n  = 75).

What theories, models or frameworks exist in the literature to evaluate KMb strategies?

Several articles proposed a new TMF ( n  = 37, 42.0%), and some articles proposed a logic model specifically developed to evaluate their KMb strategy ( n  = 17, 19.3%). One-third of the articles used existing TMFs ( n  = 28, 31.8%). A few articles only referred to existing TMFs but did not use them to guide a KMb strategy evaluation ( n  = 6, 8.5%).

The identified TMFs were then categorized according to their theoretical approaches (adapted from Nilsen, [ 32 ]) (Table  5 ). Five articles used or proposed more than one TMF, and three TMFs could be classified in two categories. Several articles proposed or used a process model ( n  = 34, 38.6%) or an evaluation framework ( n  = 28, 31.8%); these were the two most frequently identified types of TMFs. Fewer articles proposed or used a logic model ( n  = 17, 19.3%), a determinant framework ( n  = 12, 13.6%) or a classic theory ( n  = 7, 8.0%). The TMFs most often identified in the articles were the RE-AIM framework ( n  = 5, 5.7%), the Knowledge-to-Action framework [ 9 ] ( n  = 4, 4.5%), the Theory of Planned Behavior [ 51 ] ( n  = 3, 3.4%) and the Expanded Outcomes framework for planning and assessing continuing medical education [ 52 ] ( n  = 3, 3.4%). In total, we identified 87 different TMFs in the 88 articles. Only nine TMFS were retrieved in more than one article.

What KMb strategies do the TMFs evaluate (activities, objectives, target audience)?

Thirty-eight articles reported using more than one activity in their KMb strategy. According to the ERIC compilation, “Train and educate stakeholders” activities were the most common, followed by “Develop stakeholder interrelationships” and “Use evaluative and iterative strategies”. Table 6 presents the various types of activities and the number of articles that referred to each.

Of the 88 articles analysed, 18 (20.4%) did not specify a KMb objective. The remaining articles proposed one or more KMb strategy objectives. Specifically, 39 (36.4%) articles had one objective, 15 (17.0%) had two, three (3.4%) had three, and 13 (14.8%) had four or five. Table 7 presents the different types of objectives and the number of times they were identified.

The target audiences for KMb strategies were clearly specified in half of the articles ( n  = 44, 50.0%). Generally, these were empirical articles that targeted specific professionals ( n  = 36, 40.9%) or decision-makers ( n  = 8, 9.1%). Just under one-third of the articles identified a broad target audience (for example, professionals and managers in the health system, a health organization) ( n  = 26, 29.5%). Finally, 18 articles (20.4%) did not specify a target audience for KMb; these were most often theoretical articles.

What are the dimensions and components included in TMFs for evaluating KMb strategies?

The analysis of the identified TMFs revealed many factors of interest relevant for the evaluation of KMb strategies. These specific components were inductively classified into four main dimensions: context, process, effects and impacts (Fig.  2 ). The context dimension refers to the assessment of the conditions in place when the KMb strategy is implemented. These include both the external (that is, sociopolitical, economic, environmental and cultural characteristics) and internal environments (that is, characteristics of organizations, individuals and stakeholder partnerships). These factors are understood to influence the selection and tailoring of a KMb strategy. The process dimension refers to the assessment of the planning, levels and mechanisms of implementation, as well as to the characteristics of the KMb strategy implemented. The effects dimension refers to the assessment of outcomes following the KMb strategy implementation. The potential effects vary depending on the strategy’s objectives and can be either the immediate results of the KMb strategy or short-, medium- and long-term outcomes. The conceptual gradation of effects was generally represented in a similar way in the TMFs analysed, but the temporality of effects could vary. A medium-term outcome in one study could be understood as a long-term outcome in another. However, the majority of authors group these effects into three categories (Gervais et al. 2016: p. 6): (1) short-term effects, measured by success of KMb strategy measured by success of KMb strategy (number of people reached, satisfaction, participation and so on); (2) medium-term effects linked to changes in individual attitude and the use of knowledge; and (3) the long-term effects that result from achieving the KMb objective (for example, improved practices and services, changed collective behaviour, sustainable use of knowledge).

The main evaluation dimensions that emerged from the TMFs analysed

Finally, the impacts dimension refers to the ultimate effects of KMb products or interventions on end users, as measured by the organization (Phipps et al. [ 36 ], p. 34). The evaluation of these ultimate effects can be measured by the integration of a promising practice into organizational routines, by the effects on service users or by the effects on the health and well-being of communities and society in general.

This gradation shows the importance of measuring effects at different points in time, to take account of the time they take to appear and their evolving nature (Gervais et al., 2016: p. 6).

Most of the articles presented the dimensions that should be evaluated, whereas the empirical articles presented the dimensions but also used them in practice to evaluate a KMb strategy. Only five articles (5.7%) did not mention specific dimensions that could be classified.

Table 8 presents both the number of articles that presented dimensions to be evaluated and the number of articles that evaluated them in practice. These results showed that the effects dimension was both the most often named and the most evaluated in practice. The other three dimensions (context, process, impacts), while quite often mentioned as relevant to assess, were less often evaluated in practice. For example, only five articles (5.7%) reported having assessed the impacts dimension.

As previously mentioned, the components relevant for the evaluation of KMb strategies were extracted from the identified TMFs. Table 9 presents these components, which represent the more specific factors of interest for assessing context, process, effects and impacts.

Although often overlooked, the evaluation of KMb strategies is an essential step in guiding organizations seeking to determine whether the expected outcomes of their initiatives are being realized. Evaluation not only allows organizations to make adjustments if the initiatives are not producing the expected results, but also helps them to justify their funding of such initiatives. Evaluation is also essential if the KMb science is to truly inform KMb practice, such that the strategies developed are based on empirical data [ 30 ]. To make KMb evaluation more feasible, evaluation must be promoted and practices improved.

This scoping review meets the first objective of our project, which was to provide an overview of reference frameworks used or proposed for evaluating KM strategies, and to propose a preliminary version of a reference framework for evaluating KM strategies. Several key findings emerged from this scoping review:

Proliferation of theories, models and frameworks, but few frequently used

We are seeing a proliferation of TMFs in KMb and closely related fields [ 132 , 133 ]. Thus, the results of this scoping review support the argument that the conceptual and theoretical development of the field is outpacing its empirical development. Most of the reviewed articles (42.0%) proposed a new TMF rather than using existing ones. Furthermore, we identified relatively few empirical studies (50.0%) that focused on the evaluation of KMb strategies. Consequently, the TMFs used were poorly consolidated, which does not provide a solid empirical foundation to guide the evaluation of KMb strategies. Also, not all the TMFs proposed in the articles were specifically developed for evaluation; some were focused on KMb implementation processes. These may still provide elements to consider for evaluation, although they were not designed to propose specific indicators.

A scoping review published in 2018 identified 596 studies using 159 different KMb TMFs, 95 of which had been used only once [ 11 ]. Many authors reported that these are rarely reused and validated [ 11 , 30 , 33 ] and that it is important to test, refine and integrate existing ones [ 3 , 31 , 34 , 133 ]. A clear, collective and consistent use of existing TMFs is recommended and necessary to advance KMb science and closely related fields [ 12 , 31 ]. The systematic review by Strifler et al. [ 11 ] highlights the diversity of available TMFs and the difficulty users may experience when choosing TMFs to guide their KMb initiatives or evaluation process. Future work should focus on the development of tools to better support users of TMFs, especially those working in organizations. By consolidating a large number of TMFs, the results of this scoping review contribute to these efforts.

The importance of improving evaluation practices for complex multifaceted KMb strategies

Another noteworthy finding was the emphasis on the evaluation of strategies focused on education and professional training for practice improvement (52.3%). Relatively few of the reviewed articles looked at, for example, the evaluation of KMb strategies aimed at informing or influencing decision-making (13.6%), or KMb strategies targeting decision-makers (9.1%). These results reaffirm the importance of conducting more large-scale evaluations of complex and multifaceted KMb strategies. These involve a greater degree of interaction and engagement, are composed of networks of multiple actors, mobilize diverse sources of knowledge and have simultaneous multilevel objectives [ 19 , 134 ].

The fact that some KMb strategies are complex interventions implemented in complex contexts [ 134 ] presents a significant and recurring challenge to their evaluation. Methodological designs, approaches and tools are often ill-suited to capture the short-, medium- and long-term outcomes of KMb strategies, as well as to identify the mechanisms by which these outcomes were produced in a specific context. It is also difficult to link concrete changes in practice and decision-making to tangible longer-term impacts at the population level. Moreover, these impacts can take years to be achieved [ 36 ] and can be influenced by several other factors in addition to KMb efforts [ 2 , 19 , 24 ]. Comprehensive, dynamic and flexible evaluation approaches [ 135 , 136 , 137 ] using mixed methods [ 20 ] appear necessary to understand why, for whom, how, when and in what context KMb strategies achieve their objectives [ 2 , 21 , 25 ]. For instance, realist evaluation, which belongs to theory-based evaluation, may be an approach that addresses issues of causality without sacrificing complexity [ 134 , 138 , 139 ]. This evaluation approach aims to identify the underlying generative mechanisms that can explain how the outcomes were generated and what characteristics of the context affected, or not, those mechanisms. This approach is used to test and refine theory about how interventions with a similar logic of action actually work [ 139 ].

Large heterogeneity of methodologies used in empirical studies

Despite the growth of the KMb field, a recurring issue is the relatively limited number of high-quality studies that evaluate KMb outcomes and impacts. This observation is shared by many of the authors of our scoping articles [ 2 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 ]. Only a limited number of empirical articles met the selection criteria ( n  = 44/88) in this scoping review. Synthesizing these studies is challenging due to the diversity of research designs used and the large number of potential evaluation components identified. In addition, most of the identified studies used TMFs and measurement tools that were not validated [ 20 , 29 ] and that were specifically developed for their study [ 16 , 25 , 140 ]. Moreover, these studies did not describe the methods used to justify their choice of evaluation dimensions and components [ 25 ], which greatly hinders the ability to draw inferences and develop generalizable theories through replication in similar studies [ 110 , 140 , 141 , 142 , 143 ]. The lack of a widely used evaluation approach across the field is therefore an important issue [ 16 , 20 ] also highlighted by this scoping review.

Our aim in this review was not to identify specific indicators or measurement tools (for example, questionnaires) for assessing KMb strategies, but rather to describe dimensions and component of TMFs used for KMb evaluation. However, a recent scoping review [ 144 ] looked at measurement tools and revealed that only two general potential tools have been identified to assess KMb activities in any sector or organization: the Level of Knowledge Use Survey (LOKUS) [ 145 ] and the Knowledge Uptake and Utilization Tool (KUUT) [ 95 ]. The authors also assert the importance of developing standardized tools and evaluation processes to facilitate comparison of KMb activities’ outcomes across organizations [ 144 ].

Lack of description and reporting of KMb strategies and evaluation

Another important finding from this review was the sparsity of descriptions of KMb strategies in the published articles. In general, the authors provided little information on the operationalization of their KMb strategies (for example, objectives, target audiences, details of activities implemented, implementation context, expected effects). The KMb strategy objectives and the implemented activities should be carefully selected and empirically, theoretically or pragmatically justified before the evaluation components and specific indicators can be determined [ 146 ].

To improve consistency in the field and to contribute to the development of KMb science, many authors reported the need to better describe and report KMb strategies and their context [ 8 , 54 , 146 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 150 ]. KMb strategies are often inconsistently labelled across studies, poorly described and rarely justified theoretically [ 146 , 150 , 151 ]. It was not possible in this scoping review to associate the evaluation components to be used with the objectives and types of KMb strategies, as too much information was missing in the articles. Over the past 10 years, several guidelines have been proposed to improve the reporting of interventions such as KMb strategies: the “Workgroup for Intervention Development and Evaluation Research (WIDER) recommendations checklist” [ 147 ], the “Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI)” [ 150 ] and the “Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR)” [ 152 ]. These guidelines should be used more often to enhance the reporting of KMb strategies and help advance the field [ 153 ].

Implications for future research

This scoping review provides an overview of potential factors of interest for assessing the context, process, effects and impacts of a KMb strategy. It also proposes a preliminary inventory of potential dimensions and components to consider when planning the evaluation of a KMb strategy. Given the broad spectrum of factors of interest identified across studies, not all of them can be assessed in every context. Rather, they should be targeted according to the objectives of the evaluation, the nature of the KMb strategy and the resources available to conduct the evaluation. Thus, this inventory should not be understood as a prescriptive, normative and exhaustive framework, but rather as a toolbox to identify the most relevant factors to include in the evaluation of a given KMB strategy, and to address a need often expressed by organizations wishing to evaluate their KMb efforts.

Additional work is needed to validate and operationalize these dimensions, to identify relevant measurement tools related to the different components and to see how this inventory could support KMb evaluation practices in organizations.

This scoping review is the first stage of a larger research project aimed at improving organizations’ capacity to evaluate their KMb initiatives by developing an integrative, interdisciplinary and easy-to-use reference framework. In the second phase of the project, the relevance and clarity of the evaluation dimensions identified in the scoping review will be validated through a Delphi study with KMb specialists and researchers. The enriched framework will then be pilot tested in two organizations carrying out and evaluating KMb strategies, to adapt the framework to their needs and to further clarify how the dimensions can be measured in practice. In this third phase, guidance will be provided to help organizations adopt the framework and its support kit. The aim of the project is to go beyond proposing a theoretical framework, and to help build organizations’ capacity to evaluate KT strategies by proposing tools adapted to their realities.

Review limitations

Some limitations of this scoping review should be acknowledged. First, given the numerous different terms used to describe and conceptualize the science of using evidence, it is possible that our search strategy did not capture all relevant publications. However, to limit this risk, we manually searched the reference lists of the selected articles. Second, the literature search was limited to articles published in English or French, and the articles were mostly from high-income countries (for example, North America); therefore, the application of the identified concepts in this scoping review to other contexts should be further explored.

In addition, the search strategy focused on scientific publications to assess progress made in the field of knowledge mobilization strategy evaluation. The grey literature was not examined. It should be considered in future research to complete the overview of evaluation needs in the field of knowledge mobilization.

Finally, the paucity of information in the articles sometimes made it difficult to classify the TMFs according to the taxonomies [ 32 , 44 ], which may have led to possible misinterpretation. However, to limit the risk of errors, the categorization was performed by two reviewers and validated by a third in cases of uncertainty.

Given the increasing demand from organizations for the evaluation of KMb strategies, along with the poorly consolidated KMb research field, a scoping review was needed to identify the range, nature and extent of the literature. This scoping review enabled us to synthesize the breadth of the literature, provide an overview of the many theories, models and frameworks used, and identify and categorize the potential dimensions and components to consider when evaluating KMb initiatives. This scoping review is part of a larger research project, in which the next steps will be to validate the integrative framework and develop a support kit to facilitate its use by organizations involved in KMb.

Availability of data and materials

The dataset supporting the conclusions of this article is included within the article and its additional files.

Abbreviations

• Knowledge mobilization
• Theories, models, and frameworks

Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. Guidelines for Effective Knowledge Mobilization. 2019. https://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/funding-financement/policies-politiques/knowledge_mobilisation-mobilisation_des_connaissances-eng.aspx Accessed 28 Dec 2022.

Boaz A, Davies H, Fraser A, Nutley S. What works now? evidence-informed policy and practice. Bristol: Policy press; 2019.

Book   Google Scholar  

Curran JA, Grimshaw JM, Hayden JA, Campbell B. Knowledge translation research: the science of moving research into policy and practice. J Contin Educ Heal Prof. 2011;31(3):174–80.

Article   Google Scholar  

Global Commission on Evidence. The Evidence Commission report: A wake-up call and path forward for decision-makers, evidence intermediaries, and impact-oriented evidence producers. McMaster University; 2022 p. 144. https://www.mcmasterforum.org/networks/evidence-commission/report/english

Morris ZS, Wooding S, Grant J. The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research. J R Soc Med. 2011;104(12):510–20.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Orton L, Lloyd-Williams F, Taylor-Robinson D, O’Flaherty M, Capewell S. The use of research evidence in public health decision making processes: systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(7): e21704.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Straus SE, Tetroe J, Graham ID, editors. Knowledge translation in health care: moving from evidence to practice. 2nd ed. Chichester, West Sussex ; Hoboken, NJ: Wiley/BMJ Books; 2013, 406

Barwick M, Dubrowski R, Petricca K. Knowledge translation: The rise of implementation. 2020; https://ktdrr.org/products/kt-implementation/KT-Implementation-508.pdf

Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, Straus SE, Tetroe J, Caswell W, et al. Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? J Continuing Educ Health Professions. 2006;26(1):13–24.

Grimshaw JM, Eccles MP, Lavis JN, Hill SJ, Squires JE. Knowledge translation of research findings. Implement Sci. 2012;7(1):50.

Strifler L, Cardoso R, McGowan J, Cogo E, Nincic V, Khan PA, et al. Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge translation theories, models, and frameworks with limited use. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;100:92–102.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Esmail R, Hanson HM, Holroyd-Leduc J, Brown S, Strifler L, Straus SE, et al. A scoping review of full-spectrum knowledge translation theories, models, and frameworks. Implement Sci. 2020;15(1):11.

McKibbon KA, Lokker C, Wilczynski NL, Ciliska D, Dobbins M, Davis DA, et al. A cross-sectional study of the number and frequency of terms used to refer to knowledge translation in a body of health literature in 2006: a Tower of Babel? Implement Sci. 2010;5(1):16.

Fonds de recherche du Québec. Stratégie de mobilisation des connaissances 2014–2017. 2014. https://frq.gouv.qc.ca/en/mobilization-of-knowledge/ . Accessed 28 Dec 2022.

Gervais MJ, Souffez K, Ziam S. Quel impact avons-nous ? Vers l’élaboration d’un cadre pour rendre visibles les retombées du transfert des connaissances. TUC Revue francophone de recherche sur le transfert et l’utilisation des connaissances. 2016;1(2):21.

Google Scholar  

Williams NJ, Beidas RS. Annual research review: the state of implementation science in child psychology and psychiatry: a review and suggestions to advance the field. J Child Psychol Psychiatr. 2019;60(4):430–50.

Mitton C, Adair CE, Mckenzie E, Patten SB, Perry BW. Knowledge transfer and exchange: review and synthesis of the literature. Milbank Q. 2007;85(4):729–68.

Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J. A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):2.

Fazey I, Bunse L, Msika J, Pinke M, Preedy K, Evely AC, et al. Evaluating knowledge exchange in interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder research. Glob Environ Chang. 2014;25:204–20.

Gervais MJ, Marion C, Dagenais C, Chiocchio F, Houlfort N. Dealing with the complexity of evaluating knowledge transfer strategies: guiding principles for developing valid instruments. Res Eval. 2016;25(1):62–9.

Reed MS, Bryce R, Machen R. Pathways to policy impact: a new approach for planning and evidencing research impact. Evid policy. 2018;14(3):431–58.

Kim C, Wilcher R, Petruney T, Krueger K, Wynne L, Zan T. A research utilisation framework for informing global health and development policies and programmes. Health Res Policy Sys. 2018;16(1):9.

Langer L, Tripney J, Gough D University of London, Social Science Research Unit, Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre. The science of using science: researching the use of research evidence in decision-making. 2016.

Rajić A, Young I, McEwen SA. Improving the utilization of research knowledge in agri-food public health: a mixed-method review of knowledge translation and transfer. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2013;10(5):397–412.

Scarlett J, Forsberg BC, Biermann O, Kuchenmüller T, El-Khatib Z. Indicators to evaluate organisational knowledge brokers: a scoping review. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020;18(1):93.

Bornbaum CC, Kornas K, Peirson L, Rosella LC. Exploring the function and effectiveness of knowledge brokers as facilitators of knowledge translation in health-related settings: a systematic review and thematic analysis. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):162.

Sarkies MN, Bowles KA, Skinner EH, Haas R, Lane H, Haines TP. The effectiveness of research implementation strategies for promoting evidence-informed policy and management decisions in healthcare: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):132.

Scott SD, Albrecht L, O’Leary K, Ball GD, Hartling L, Hofmeyer A, et al. Systematic review of knowledge translation strategies in the allied health professions. Implement Sci. 2012;7(1):70.

Dagenais C, Malo M, Robert É, Ouimet M, Berthelette D, Ridde V. Knowledge transfer on complex social interventions in public health: a scoping study. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(12): e80233.

Davies HT, Powell AE, Nutley SM. Mobilising knowledge to improve UK health care: learning from other countries and other sectors – a multimethod mapping study. Health Serv Deliv Res. 2015;3(27):1–190.

Damschroder LJ. Clarity out of chaos: use of theory in implementation research. Psychiatry Res. 2020;283: 112461.

Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):53.

Ellen ME, Panisset U, Araujo de Carvalho I, Goodwin J, Beard J. A knowledge translation framework on ageing and health. Health Policy. 2017;121(3):282–91.

Wensing M, Bosch M, Grol R. Developing and selecting interventions for translating knowledge to action. CMAJ. 2010;182(2):E85–8.

Bennet A, Bennet D, Fafard K, Fonda M, Lomond T, Messier L, et al. Knowledge mobilization in the social sciences and humanities: moving from research to action. Frost: MQI Press; 2007.

Phipps D, Cummins J, Pepler D, Craig W, Cardinal S. The Co-produced Pathway to Impact Describes Knowledge Mobilization Processes. JCES. 2016;9(1). https://jces.ua.edu/articles/258 . Accessed 17 Nov 2022.

Birken SA, Rohweder CL, Powell BJ, Shea CM, Scott J, Leeman J, et al. T-CaST: an implementation theory comparison and selection tool. Implement Sci. 2018;13(1):143.

Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):143.

Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.

Moullin JC, Sabater-Hernandez D, Fernandez-Llimos F, Benrimoj SI. A systematic review of implementation frameworks of innovations in healthcare and resulting generic implementation framework. Health Res Policy Syst. 2015;13(101170481):16.

Pham MT, Rajić A, Greig JD, Sargeant JM, Papadopoulos A, McEwen SA. A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res Synthesis Methods. 2014;5(4):371–85.

Farkas M, Jette AM, Tennstedt S, Haley SM, Quinn V. Knowledge dissemination and utilization in gerontology: an organizing framework. Gerontologist. 2003;43:47–56.

Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ, Damschroder LJ, Smith JL, Matthieu MM, et al. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):21.

Waltz TJ, Powell BJ, Matthieu MM, Damschroder LJ, Chinman MJ, Smith JL, et al. Use of concept mapping to characterize relationships among implementation strategies and assess their feasibility and importance: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):109.

Smith JD, Li DH, Rafferty MR. The implementation research logic model: a method for planning, executing, reporting, and synthesizing implementation projects. Implement Sci. 2020;15(1):84.

Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. 1999;89(9):1322–7.

Kitson A, Harvey G, McCormack B. Enabling the implementation of evidence based practice: a conceptual framework. Qual Health Care. 1998;7:149–58.

Sketris IS, Carter N, Traynor RL, Watts D, Kelly K, following contributing members of the CNODES Knowledge Translation Team: Pierre Ernst JG Brenda Hemmelgarn, Colleen Metge, Michael Paterson, Robert Platt W and Gary Teare. Building a framework for the evaluation of knowledge translation for the Canadian Network for Observational Drug Effect Studies. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2020;29 Suppl 1(d0r, 9208369):8–25.

Thomas DR. A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. Am J Eval. 2006;27(2):237–46.

Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50(2):179–211.

Moore DE, Green JS, Gallis HA. Achieving desired results and improved outcomes: integrating planning and assessment throughout learning activities. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2009;29(1):1–15.

Tschida JE, Drahota A. Fidelity to the ACT SMART Toolkit: an instrumental case study of implementation strategy fidelity. Implement Sci Commun. 2023;4(1):52.

Colquhoun H, Leeman J, Michie S, Lokker C, Bragge P, Hempel S, et al. Towards a common terminology: a simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies. Implement Sci. 2014;9(1):781.

Bertone MP, Meessen B, Clarysse G, Hercot D, Kelley A, Kafando Y, et al. Assessing communities of practice in health policy: a conceptual framework as a first step towards empirical research. Health Res Policy Sys. 2013;11(1):39.

Gagliardi AR, Legare F, Brouwers MC, Webster F, Wiljer D, Badley E, et al. Protocol: developing a conceptual framework of patient mediated knowledge translation, systematic review using a realist approach. Implement Sci. 2011;6(101258411):25.

Sargeant J, Borduas F, Sales A, Klein D, Lynn B, Stenerson H. CPD and KT: models used and opportunities for synergy. J Contin Educ Heal Prof. 2011;31(3):167–73.

Stetler CB, Ritchie J, Rycroft-Malone J, Schultz A, Charns M. Improving quality of care through routine, successful implementation of evidence-based practice at the bedside: an organizational case study protocol using the Pettigrew and Whipp model of strategic change. Implement Sci. 2007;2(101258411):3.

Kok MO, Schuit AJ. Contribution mapping: a method for mapping the contribution of research to enhance its impact. Health Res Policy Syst. 2012;10(101170481):21.

Dadich A. From bench to bedside: methods that help clinicians use evidence-based practice. Aust Psychol. 2010;45(3):197–211.

Brown P, Bahri P. Engagement’ of patients and healthcare professionals in regulatory pharmacovigilance: establishing a conceptual and methodological framework. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2019;75(9):1181–92.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Dobbins M, Ciliska D, Cockerill R, Barnsley J, DiCenso A. A framework for the dissemination and utilization of research for health-care policy and practice. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs Presents Arch Online J Knowl Synthesis Nurs. 2002;9(1):149–60.

Gagliardi AR, Brouwers MC, Bhattacharyya OK. The guideline implementability research and application network (GIRAnet): an international collaborative to support knowledge exchange: study protocol. Implement Sci. 2012;7(101258411):26.

Brooks SP, Zimmermann GL, Lang M, Scott SD, Thomson D, Wilkes G, et al. A framework to guide storytelling as a knowledge translation intervention for health-promoting behaviour change. Implement sci commun. 2022;3(1):35.

Cullen L, Hanrahan K, Edmonds SW, Reisinger HS, Wagner M. Iowa implementation for sustainability framework. Implement Sci. 2022;17(1):1.

Labbé D, Mahmood A, Miller WC, Mortenson WB. Examining the impact of knowledge mobilization strategies to inform urban stakeholders on accessibility: a mixed-methods study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(5):1561.

Straus SE, Tetroe J, Graham ID, Zwarenstein M, Bhattacharyya O, Shepperd S. Monitoring use of knowledge and evaluating outcomes. Can Med Assoc J. 2010;182(2):E94–8.

Bennett S, Whitehead M, Eames S, Fleming J, Low S, Caldwell E. Building capacity for knowledge translation in occupational therapy: learning through participatory action research. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16(1):257.

Brown C, Rogers S. Measuring the effectiveness of knowledge creation as a means of facilitating evidence-informed practice in early years settings in one London Borough. Lond Rev Educ. 2014;12(3):245–60.

Talbott E, De Los RA, Kearns DM, Mancilla-Martinez J, Wang M. Evidence-based assessment in special education research: advancing the use of evidence in assessment tools and empirical processes. Except Child. 2023;89(4):467–87.

Rosella LC, Bornbaum C, Kornas K, Lebenbaum M, Peirson L, Fransoo R, et al. Evaluating the process and outcomes of a knowledge translation approach to supporting use of the Diabetes Population Risk Tool (DPoRT) in public health practice. Canadian J Program Eval. 2018;33(1):21–48.

Couineau AL, Forbes D. Using predictive models of behavior change to promote evidence-based treatment for PTSD. Psychol Trauma Theory Res Pract Policy. 2011;3(3):266–75.

Dufault M. Testing a collaborative research utilization model to translate best practices in pain management. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2004;1:S26-32.

Beckett K, Farr M, Kothari A, Wye L, le May A. Embracing complexity and uncertainty to create impact: exploring the processes and transformative potential of co-produced research through development of a social impact model. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018;16(1):118.

Kramer DM, Wells RP, Carlan N, Aversa T, Bigelow PP, Dixon SM, et al. Did you have an impact? A theory-based method for planning and evaluating knowledge-transfer and exchange activities in occupational health and safety. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2013;19(1):41–62.

Duhamel F, Dupuis F, Turcotte A, Martinez AM, Goudreau J. Integrating the illness beliefs model in clinical practice: a family systems nursing knowledge utilization model. J FAM NURS. 2015;21(2):322–48.

Wimpenny P, Johnson N, Walter I, Wilkinson JE. Tracing and identifying the impact of evidence-use of a modified pipeline model. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2008;5(1):3–12.

Ward V, Smith S, House A, Hamer S. Exploring knowledge exchange: a useful framework for practice and policy. Soc Sci Med. 2012;74(3):297–304.

Grooten L, Vrijhoef HJM, Alhambra-Borras T, Whitehouse D, Devroey D. The transfer of knowledge on integrated care among five European regions: a qualitative multi-method study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(1):11.

Stetler CB. Updating the Stetler Model of research utilization to facilitate evidence-based practice. Nurs Outlook. 2001;49(6):272–9.

Ward V. Why, whose, what and how? A framework for knowledge mobilisers. Evid Policy J Res Debate Pract. 2017;13(3):477–97.

Levin RF, Fineout-Overholt E, Melnyk BM, Barnes M, Vetter MJ. Fostering evidence-based practice to improve nurse and cost outcomes in a community health setting: a pilot test of the advancing research and clinical practice through close collaboration model. Nurs Adm Q. 2011;35(1):21–33.

Currie M, King G, Rosenbaum P, Law M, Kertoy M, Specht J. A model of impacts of research partnerships in health and social services. Eval Program Plann. 2005;28(4):400–12.

Richard L, Chiocchio F, Essiembre H, Tremblay MC, Lamy G, Champagne F, et al. Communities of practice as a professional and organizational development strategy in local public health organizations in Quebec, Canada: an evaluation model. Healthc Policy. 2014;9(3):26–39.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Rycroft-Malone J, Wilkinson J, Burton CR, Harvey G, McCormack B, Graham I, et al. Collaborative action around implementation in collaborations for leadership in applied health research and care: towards a programme theory. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2013;18(3 Suppl):13–26.

Gagliardi AR, Fraser N, Wright FC, Lemieux-Charles L, Davis D. Fostering knowledge exchange between researchers and decision-makers: exploring the effectiveness of a mixed-methods approach. Health Policy. 2008;86(1):53–63.

Paquette-Warren J, Harris SB, Naqshbandi Hayward M, Tompkins JW. Case study of evaluations that go beyond clinical outcomes to assess quality improvement diabetes programmes using the Diabetes Evaluation Framework for Innovative National Evaluations (DEFINE). J Eval Clin Pract. 2016;22(5):644–52.

Paquette-Warren J, Tyler M, Fournie M, Harris SB. The diabetes evaluation framework for innovative national evaluations (DEFINE): construct and content validation using a modified Delphi method. Can J diabetes. 2017;41(3):281–96.

Abbot ML, Lee KK, Rossiter MJ. Evaluating the effectiveness and functionality of professional learning communities in adult ESL Programs. TESL Canada J. 2018;35(2):1–25.

Ho K, Bloch R, Gondocz T, Laprise R, Perrier L, Ryan D, et al. Technology-enabled knowledge translation: frameworks to promote research and practice. J Contin Educ Heal Prof. 2004;24(2):90–9.

Yu X, Hu D, Li N, Xiao Y. Comprehensive evaluation on teachers’ knowledge sharing behavior based on the improved TOPSIS method. Comput Intell Neurosci. 2022;2022(101279357):2563210.

Arora S, Kalishman SG, Thornton KA, Komaromy MS, Katzman JG, Struminger BB, et al. Project ECHO: a telementoring network model for continuing professional development. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2017;37(4):239–44.

Smidt A, Balandin S, Sigafoos J, Reed VA. The Kirkpatrick model: a useful tool for evaluating training outcomes. J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2009;34(3):266–74.

Jeffs L, Sidani S, Rose D, Espin S, Smith O, Martin K, et al. Using theory and evidence to drive measurement of patient, nurse and organizational outcomes of professional nursing practice. Int J Nurs Pract. 2013;19(2):141–8.

Skinner K. Developing a tool to measure knowledge exchange outcomes. Can J Program Eval. 2007;22(1):49–75.

Lavis J, Ross S, McLeod C, Gildiner A. Measuring the impact of health research. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2003;8(3):165–70.

Boyko JA, Lavis JN, Abelson J, Dobbins M, Carter N. Deliberative dialogues as a mechanism for knowledge translation and exchange in health systems decision-making. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75(11):1938–45.

Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011;38(2):65–76.

Gainforth HL, Latimer-Cheung AE, Athanasopoulos P, Martin Ginis KA. Examining the feasibility and effectiveness of a community-based organization implementing an event-based knowledge mobilization initiative to promote physical activity guidelines for people with spinal cord injury among support personnel. Health Promot Pract. 2015;16(1):55–62.

Glasgow RE, Harden SM, Gaglio B, Rabin B, Smith ML, Porter GC, et al. RE-AIM planning and evaluation framework: adapting to new science and practice with a 20-year review. Front Public Health. 2019. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00064 .

Shelton RC, Chambers DA, Glasgow RE. An extension of RE-AIM to enhance sustainability: addressing dynamic context and promoting health equity over time. Front Public Health. 2020;8(101616579):134.

Bender BG, Simmons B, Konkoly N, Liu AH. The asthma toolkit bootcamp to improve rural primary care for pediatric asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2021;9(8):3091-3097.e1.

de la Garza Iga FJ, Mejia Alvarez M, Cockroft JD, Rabin J, Cordon A, Elias Rodas DM, et al. Using the project ECHO TM model to teach mental health topics in rural Guatemala: an implementation science-guided evaluation. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2023;69(8):2031–41.

Alkin M, Taut S. Unbundling evaluation use. Stud Educ Eval. 2003;29(1):1–12.

Varallyay NI, Langlois EV, Tran N, Elias V, Reveiz L. Health system decision-makers at the helm of implementation research: development of a framework to evaluate the processes and effectiveness of embedded approaches. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020;18(1):64.

McCabe KE, Wallace A, Crosland A. A model for collaborative working to facilitate knowledge mobilisation in public health. Evid Policy. 2015;11(4):559–76.

Gonzales R, Handley MA, Ackerman S, O’sullivan PS. A framework for training health professionals in implementation and dissemination science. Acad Med. 2012;87(3):271–8.

Edgar L, Herbert R, Lambert S, MacDonald JA, Dubois S, Latimer M. The joint venture model of knowledge utilization: a guide for change in nursing. Nurs Leadersh. 2006;9(2):41–55.

Stetler CB, Damschroder LJ, Helfrich CD, Hagedorn HJ. A Guide for applying a revised version of the PARIHS framework for implementation. Implement Sci. 2011;6(101258411):99.

Brennan SE, Cumpston M, Misso ML, McDonald S, Murphy MJ, Green SE. Design and formative evaluation of the policy liaison initiative: a long-term knowledge translation strategy to encourage and support the use of cochrane systematic reviews for informing. Evid Policy. 2016;12(1):25–52.

Hinchcliff R, Senserrick T, Travaglia J, Greenfield D, Ivers R. The enhanced knowledge translation and exchange framework for road safety: a brief report on its development and potential impacts. Inj Prev. 2017;23(2):114–7.

Ye J, Woods D, Bannon J, Bilaver L, Kricke G, McHugh M, et al. Identifying contextual factors and strategies for practice facilitation in primary care quality improvement using an informatics-driven model: framework development and mixed methods case study. JMIR Hum Factors. 2022;9(2): e32174.

Brangan J, Quinn S, Spirtos M. Impact of an evidence-based practice course on occupational therapist’s confidence levels and goals. Occup Ther Health Care. 2015;29(1):27–38.

Bonetti D, Johnston M, Pitts NB, Deery C, Ricketts I, Tilley C, et al. Knowledge may not be the best target for strategies to influence evidence-based practice: using psychological models to understand RCT effects. Int J Behav Med. 2009;16(3):287–93.

Buckley LL, Goering P, Parikh SV, Butterill D, Foo EKH. Applying a “stages of change” model to enhance a traditional evaluation of a research transfer course. J Eval Clin Pract. 2003;9(4):385–90.

Boyko JA, Lavis JN, Dobbins M, Souza NM. Reliability of a tool for measuring theory of planned behaviour constructs for use in evaluating research use in policymaking. Health Res Policy Syst. 2011;24(9):29.

Imani-Nasab MH, Yazdizadeh B, Salehi M, Seyedin H, Majdzadeh R. Validity and reliability of the Evidence Utilisation in Policymaking Measurement Tool (EUPMT). Health Res Policy Syst. 2017;15(1):66.

Dwan KM, McInnes P, Mazumdar S. Measuring the success of facilitated engagement between knowledge producers and users: a validated scale. Evid Policy. 2015;11(2):239–52.

Haynes A, Rowbotham S, Grunseit A, Bohn-Goldbaum E, Slaytor E, Wilson A, et al. Knowledge mobilisation in practice: an evaluation of the Australian Prevention Partnership Centre. Health Res Policy Sys. 2020;18(1):13.

Haines M, Brown B, Craig J, D’Este C, Elliott E, Klineberg E, et al. Determinants of successful clinical networks: the conceptual framework and study protocol. Implement Sci. 2012;7(101258411):16.

Ko LK, Jang SH, Friedman DB, Glanz K, Leeman J, Hannon PA, et al. An application of the science impact framework to the cancer prevention and control research network from 2014–2018. Prev Med. 2019;12: 105821.

Leeman J, Sommers J, Vu M, Jernigan J, Payne G, Thompson D, et al. An evaluation framework for obesity prevention policy interventions. Prev Chronic Dis. 2012;9(101205018):E120.

Pettman TL, Armstrong R, Waters E, Allender S, Love P, Gill T, et al. Evaluation of a knowledge translation and exchange platform to advance non-communicable disease prevention. Evid Policy. 2016;12(1):109–26.

Yearwood AC. Applying a logical theory of change for strengthening research uptake in policy: a case study of the Evidence Informed Decision Making Network of the Caribbean. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2018;42: e91.

Thomson D, Brooks S, Nuspl M, Hartling L. Programme theory development and formative evaluation of a provincial knowledge translation unit. Health Res Policy Syst. 2019;17(1):40.

Garad R, Kozica-Olenski S, Teede HJ. Evaluation of a center of research excellence in polycystic ovary syndrome as a large-scale collaborative research translation initiative, including evaluating translation of guideline impact. Semin Reprod Med. 2018;36(1):42–9.

Reddy S, Wakerman J, Westhorp G, Herring S. Evaluating impact of clinical guidelines using a realist evaluation framework. J Eval Clin Pract. 2015;21(6):1114–20.

Van Eerd D, Moser C, Saunders R. A research impact model for work and health. Am J Ind Med. 2021;64(1):3–12.

Yip O, Huber E, Stenz S, Zullig LL, Zeller A, De Geest SM, et al. A contextual analysis and logic model for integrated care for frail older adults living at home: The INSPIRE Project. Int J Integr Care. 2021;21(2):9.

Guo R, Bain BA, Willer J. Application of a logic model to an evidence-based practice training program for speech-language pathologists and audiologists. J Allied Health. 2011;40(1):e23–8.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

McDonald S, Turner T, Chamberlain C, Lumbiganon P, Thinkhamrop J, Festin MR, et al. Building capacity for evidence generation, synthesis and implementation to improve the care of mothers and babies in South East Asia: methods and design of the SEA-ORCHID Project using a logical framework approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10(100968545):61.

Tabak RG, Khoong EC, Chambers DA, Brownson RC. Bridging research and practice: models for dissemination and implementation research. Am J Prev Med. 2012;43(3):337–50.

Wensing M, Grol R. Knowledge translation in health: how implementation science could contribute more. BMC Med. 2019;17(1):88.

Kreindler SA. Advancing the evaluation of integrated knowledge translation. Health Res Policy Sys. 2018;16(1):104.

Best A, Holmes B. Systems thinking, knowledge and action: towards better models and methods. Evid Policy. 2010;6(2):145–59.

van Mil HGJ, Foegeding EA, Windhab EJ, Perrot N, van der Linden E. A complex system approach to address world challenges in food and agriculture. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2014;40(1):20–32.

Wehrens R. Beyond two communities – from research utilization and knowledge translation to co-production? Public Health. 2014;128(6):545–51.

Ridde V, Pérez D, Robert E. Using implementation science theories and frameworks in global health. BMJ Glob Health. 2020;5(4): e002269.

Salter KL, Kothari A. Using realist evaluation to open the black box of knowledge translation: a state-of-the-art review. Implement Sci. 2014;9(1):115.

Van Eerd D, Cole D, Keown K, Irvin E, Kramer D, Gibson B, et al. Report on knowledge transfer and exchange practices: A systematic review of the quality and types of instruments used to assess KTE implementation and impact. Toronto: Institute for Work & Health; 2011 p. 130. https://www.iwh.on.ca/sites/iwh/files/iwh/reports/iwh_sys_review_kte_evaluation_tools_2011_rev.pdf

Dobbins M, Robeson P, Ciliska D, Hanna S, Cameron R, O’Mara L, et al. A description of a knowledge broker role implemented as part of a randomized controlled trial evaluating three knowledge translation strategies. Implement Sci. 2009;4(1):23.

Rychetnik L, Bauman A, Laws R, King L, Rissel C, Nutbeam D, et al. Translating research for evidence-based public health: key concepts and future directions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012;66(12):1187–92.

Weiner BJ, Lewis CC, Stanick C, Powell BJ, Dorsey CN, Clary AS, et al. Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):108.

Bhawra J, Skinner K. Examination of tools associated with the evaluation of knowledge uptake and utilization: a scoping review. Eval Program Plann. 2020;83: 101875.

Lane JP, Stone VI, Nobrega A, Tomita M. Level Of Knowledge Use Survey (LOKUS): a validated instrument for tracking knowledge uptake and use. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2015;217:106–10.

Proctor EK, Powell BJ, McMillen JC. Implementation strategies: recommendations for specifying and reporting. Implement Sci. 2013;8(1):139.

Albrecht L, Archibald M, Arseneau D, Scott SD. Development of a checklist to assess the quality of reporting of knowledge translation interventions using the Workgroup for Intervention Development and Evaluation Research (WIDER) recommendations. Implement Sci. 2013;8(1):52.

Bragge P, Grimshaw JM, Lokker C, Colquhoun H, Albrecht L, Baron J, et al. AIMD - a validated, simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17(1):38.

Kastner M, Makarski J, Hayden L, Lai Y, Chan J, Treister V, et al. Improving KT tools and products: development and evaluation of a framework for creating optimized, Knowledge-activated Tools (KaT). Implement Sci Commun. 2020;1(1):47.

Pinnock H, Barwick M, Carpenter CR, Eldridge S, Grandes G, Griffiths CJ, et al. Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) Statement. BMJ. 2017;6(356): i6795.

Lokker C, McKibbon KA, Colquhoun H, Hempel S. A scoping review of classification schemes of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into practice in healthcare. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):27.

Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ. 2014;7(348): g1687.

Wilson PM, Sales A, Wensing M, Aarons GA, Flottorp S, Glidewell L, et al. Enhancing the reporting of implementation research. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):13.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Julie Desnoyers for designing and implementing the search strategy, Gabrielle Legendre for her contribution in the screening phase and Karine Souffez and Caroline Tessier for their input during the project.

This project was supported by an Insight Grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) and by the Équipe RENARD (FRQ-SC). The funding bodies had no role in the conduct of this scoping review.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Business Administration, Université TÉLUQ, Montreal, Canada

Saliha Ziam & Laura Justine Chouinard

Department of School and Social Adaptation Studies, Faculty of Education, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada

Sèverine Lanoue, Esther McSween-Cadieux, Julie Lane & Ollivier Prigent

Department of Psychology, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montreal, Canada

Mathieu-Joël Gervais

Centre RBC d’expertise Universitaire en Santé Mentale, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada

School of Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada

Dina Gaid & Quan Nha Hong

Department of Psychology, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada

Christian Dagenais

Université Paris Cité, IRD (Institute for Research on Sustainable Development, CEPED, Paris, France

Valéry Ridde

Institute of Health and Development (ISED), Cheikh Anta Diop University, Dakar, Senegal

Public Health Intelligence and Knowledge Translation Division, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Canada

Emmanuelle Jean

Coordinator of the Interregional Consortium of Knowledge in Health and Social Services (InterS4), Rimouski, Canada

France Charles Fleury

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

SZ, MJG, EMC, JL, CD, EJ, KS, VR and CT were involved in developing and designing the scoping review. EMC, MJG and GL (collaborator) screened articles in duplicate. SL, DG, LJC and OP extracted data from the included articles. SL and DG synthesized the data. SL, SZ and EMC drafted the manuscript. SZ led the project, supervised and assisted the research team at every stage, and secured the funding. All authors provided substantive feedback and approved the manuscript prior to submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Saliha Ziam .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1..

Keywords and search strategy.

Additional file 2.

Summary of included articles.

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/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Ziam, S., Lanoue, S., McSween-Cadieux, E. et al. A scoping review of theories, models and frameworks used or proposed to evaluate knowledge mobilization strategies. Health Res Policy Sys 22 , 8 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-023-01090-7

Download citation

Received : 16 June 2023

Accepted : 07 December 2023

Published : 10 January 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-023-01090-7

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

• Knowledge translation
• Scoping review

Health Research Policy and Systems

ISSN: 1478-4505

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Open access
• Published: 12 December 2023

Examining the role of community resilience and social capital on mental health in public health emergency and disaster response: a scoping review

• C. E. Hall 1 , 2 ,
• H. Wehling 1 ,
• J. Stansfield 3 ,
• J. South 3 ,
• S. K. Brooks 2 ,
• N. Greenberg 2 , 4 ,
• R. Amlôt 1 &
• D. Weston 1  

BMC Public Health volume  23 , Article number:  2482 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

1772 Accesses

21 Altmetric

Metrics details

The ability of the public to remain psychologically resilient in the face of public health emergencies and disasters (such as the COVID-19 pandemic) is a key factor in the effectiveness of a national response to such events. Community resilience and social capital are often perceived as beneficial and ensuring that a community is socially and psychologically resilient may aid emergency response and recovery. This review presents a synthesis of literature which answers the following research questions: How are community resilience and social capital quantified in research?; What is the impact of community resilience on mental wellbeing?; What is the impact of infectious disease outbreaks, disasters and emergencies on community resilience and social capital?; and, What types of interventions enhance community resilience and social capital?

A scoping review procedure was followed. Searches were run across Medline, PsycInfo, and EMBASE, with search terms covering both community resilience and social capital, public health emergencies, and mental health. 26 papers met the inclusion criteria.

The majority of retained papers originated in the USA, used a survey methodology to collect data, and involved a natural disaster. There was no common method for measuring community resilience or social capital. The association between community resilience and social capital with mental health was regarded as positive in most cases. However, we found that community resilience, and social capital, were initially negatively impacted by public health emergencies and enhanced by social group activities.

Several key recommendations are proposed based on the outcomes from the review, which include: the need for a standardised and validated approach to measuring both community resilience and social capital; that there should be enhanced effort to improve preparedness to public health emergencies in communities by gauging current levels of community resilience and social capital; that community resilience and social capital should be bolstered if areas are at risk of disasters or public health emergencies; the need to ensure that suitable short-term support is provided to communities with high resilience in the immediate aftermath of a public health emergency or disaster; the importance of conducting robust evaluation of community resilience initiatives deployed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Peer Review reports

For the general population, public health emergencies and disasters (e.g., natural disasters; infectious disease outbreaks; Chemical, Biological, Radiological or Nuclear incidents) can give rise to a plethora of negative outcomes relating to both health (e.g. increased mental health problems [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]) and the economy (e.g., increased unemployment and decreased levels of tourism [ 4 , 5 , 6 ]). COVID-19 is a current, and ongoing, example of a public health emergency which has affected over 421 million individuals worldwide [ 7 ]. The long term implications of COVID-19 are not yet known, but there are likely to be repercussions for physical health, mental health, and other non-health related outcomes for a substantial time to come [ 8 , 9 ]. As a result, it is critical to establish methods which may inform approaches to alleviate the longer-term negative consequences that are likely to emerge in the aftermath of both COVID-19 and any future public health emergency.

The definition of resilience often differs within the literature, but ultimately resilience is considered a dynamic process of adaptation. It is related to processes and capabilities at the individual, community and system level that result in good health and social outcomes, in spite of negative events, serious threats and hazards [ 10 ]. Furthermore, Ziglio [ 10 ] refers to four key types of resilience capacity: adaptive, the ability to withstand and adjust to unfavourable conditions and shocks; absorptive, the ability to withstand but also to recover and manage using available assets and skills; anticipatory, the ability to predict and minimize vulnerability; and transformative, transformative change so that systems better cope with new conditions.

There is no one settled definition of community resilience (CR). However, it generally relates to the ability of a community to withstand, adapt and permit growth in adverse circumstances due to social structures, networks and interdependencies within the community [ 11 ]. Social capital (SC) is considered a major determinant of CR [ 12 , 13 ], and reflects strength of a social network, community reciprocity, and trust in people and institutions [ 14 ]. These aspects of community are usually conceptualised primarily as protective factors that enable communities to cope and adapt collectively to threats. SC is often broken down into further categories [ 15 ], for example: cognitive SC (i.e. perceptions of community relations, such as trust, mutual help and attachment) and structural SC (i.e. what actually happens within the community, such as participation, socialising) [ 16 ]; or, bonding SC (i.e. connections among individuals who are emotionally close, and result in bonds to a particular group [ 17 ]) and bridging SC (i.e. acquaintances or individuals loosely connected that span different social groups [ 18 ]). Generally, CR is perceived to be primarily beneficial for multiple reasons (e.g. increased social support [ 18 , 19 ], protection of mental health [ 20 , 21 ]), and strengthening community resilience is a stated health goal of the World Health Organisation [ 22 ] when aiming to alleviate health inequalities and protect wellbeing. This is also reflected by organisations such as Public Health England (now split into the UK Health Security Agency and the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities) [ 23 ] and more recently, CR has been targeted through the endorsement of Community Champions (who are volunteers trained to support and to help improve health and wellbeing. Community Champions also reflect their local communities in terms of population demographics for example age, ethnicity and gender) as part of the COVID-19 response in the UK (e.g. [ 24 , 25 ]).

Despite the vested interest in bolstering communities, the research base establishing: how to understand and measure CR and SC; the effect of CR and SC, both during and following a public health emergency (such as the COVID-19 pandemic); and which types of CR or SC are the most effective to engage, is relatively small. Given the importance of ensuring resilience against, and swift recovery from, public health emergencies, it is critically important to establish and understand the evidence base for these approaches. As a result, the current review sought to answer the following research questions: (1) How are CR and SC quantified in research?; (2) What is the impact of community resilience on mental wellbeing?; (3) What is the impact of infectious disease outbreaks, disasters and emergencies on community resilience and social capital?; and, (4) What types of interventions enhance community resilience and social capital?

By collating research in order to answer these research questions, the authors have been able to propose several key recommendations that could be used to both enhance and evaluate CR and SC effectively to facilitate the long-term recovery from COVID-19, and also to inform the use of CR and SC in any future public health disasters and emergencies.

A scoping review methodology was followed due to the ease of summarising literature on a given topic for policy makers and practitioners [ 26 ], and is detailed in the following sections.

Identification of relevant studies

An initial search strategy was developed by authors CH and DW and included terms which related to: CR and SC, given the absence of a consistent definition of CR, and the link between CR and SC, the review focuses on both CR and SC to identify as much relevant literature as possible (adapted for purpose from Annex 1: [ 27 ], as well as through consultation with review commissioners); public health emergencies and disasters [ 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 ], and psychological wellbeing and recovery (derived a priori from literature). To ensure a focus on both public health and psychological research, the final search was carried across Medline, PsycInfo, and EMBASE using OVID. The final search took place on the 18th of May 2020, the search strategy used for all three databases can be found in Supplementary file 1 .

Selection criteria

The inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed alongside the search strategy. Initially the criteria were relatively inclusive and were subject to iterative development to reflect the authors’ familiarisation with the literature. For example, the decision was taken to exclude research which focused exclusively on social support and did not mention communities as an initial title/abstract search suggested that the majority of this literature did not meet the requirements of our research question.

The full and final inclusion and exclusion criteria used can be found in Supplementary file 2 . In summary, authors decided to focus on the general population (i.e., non-specialist, e.g. non-healthcare worker or government official) to allow the review to remain community focused. The research must also have assessed the impact of CR and/or SC on mental health and wellbeing, resilience, and recovery during and following public health emergencies and infectious disease outbreaks which affect communities (to ensure the research is relevant to the review aims), have conducted primary research, and have a full text available or provided by the first author when contacted.

Charting the data

All papers were first title and abstract screened by CH or DW. Papers then were full text reviewed by CH to ensure each paper met the required eligibility criteria, if unsure about a paper it was also full text reviewed by DW. All papers that were retained post full-text review were subjected to a standardised data extraction procedure. A table was made for the purpose of extracting the following data: title, authors, origin, year of publication, study design, aim, disaster type, sample size and characteristics, variables examined, results, restrictions/limitations, and recommendations. Supplementary file 3 details the charting the data process.

Analytical method

Data was synthesised using a Framework approach [ 32 ], a common method for analysing qualitative research. This method was chosen as it was originally used for large-scale social policy research [ 33 ] as it seeks to identify: what works, for whom, in what conditions, and why [ 34 ]. This approach is also useful for identifying commonalities and differences in qualitative data and potential relationships between different parts of the data [ 33 ]. An a priori framework was established by CH and DW. Extracted data was synthesised in relation to each research question, and the process was iterative to ensure maximum saturation using the available data.

Study selection

The final search strategy yielded 3584 records. Following the removal of duplicates, 2191 records remained and were included in title and abstract screening. A PRISMA flow diagram is presented in Fig.  1 .

PRISMA flow diagram

At the title and abstract screening stage, the process became more iterative as the inclusion criteria were developed and refined. For the first iteration of screening, CH or DW sorted all records into ‘include,’ ‘exclude,’ and ‘unsure’. All ‘unsure’ papers were re-assessed by CH, and a random selection of ~ 20% of these were also assessed by DW. Where there was disagreement between authors the records were retained, and full text screened. The remaining papers were reviewed by CH, and all records were categorised into ‘include’ and ‘exclude’. Following full-text screening, 26 papers were retained for use in the review.

Study characteristics

This section of the review addresses study characteristics of those which met the inclusion criteria, which comprises: date of publication, country of origin, study design, study location, disaster, and variables examined.

Date of publication

Publication dates across the 26 papers spanned from 2008 to 2020 (see Fig.  2 ). The number of papers published was relatively low and consistent across this timescale (i.e. 1–2 per year, except 2010 and 2013 when none were published) up until 2017 where the number of papers peaked at 5. From 2017 to 2020 there were 15 papers published in total. The amount of papers published in recent years suggests a shift in research and interest towards CR and SC in a disaster/ public health emergency context.

Graph to show retained papers date of publication

Country of origin

The locations of the first authors’ institutes at the time of publication were extracted to provide a geographical spread of the retained papers. The majority originated from the USA [ 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 ], followed by China [ 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 ], Japan [ 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 ], Australia [ 51 , 52 , 53 ], The Netherlands [ 54 , 55 ], New Zealand [ 56 ], Peru [ 57 ], Iran [ 58 ], Austria [ 59 ], and Croatia [ 60 ].

There were multiple methodological approaches carried out across retained papers. The most common formats included surveys or questionnaires [ 36 , 37 , 38 , 42 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 57 , 59 ], followed by interviews [ 39 , 40 , 43 , 51 , 52 , 60 ]. Four papers used both surveys and interviews [ 35 , 41 , 45 , 58 ], and two papers conducted data analysis (one using open access data from a Social Survey [ 44 ] and one using a Primary Health Organisations Register [ 56 ]).

Study location

The majority of the studies were carried out in Japan [ 36 , 42 , 44 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 ], followed by the USA [ 35 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 ], China [ 43 , 45 , 46 , 53 ], Australia [ 51 , 52 ], and the UK [ 54 , 55 ]. The remaining studies were carried out in Croatia [ 60 ], Peru [ 57 ], Austria [ 59 ], New Zealand [ 56 ] and Iran [ 58 ].

Multiple different types of disaster were researched across the retained papers. Earthquakes were the most common type of disaster examined [ 45 , 47 , 49 , 50 , 53 , 56 , 57 , 58 ], followed by research which assessed the impact of two disastrous events which had happened in the same area (e.g. Hurricane Katrina and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in Mississippi, and the Great East Japan earthquake and Tsunami; [ 36 , 37 , 38 , 42 , 44 , 48 ]). Other disaster types included: flooding [ 51 , 54 , 55 , 59 , 60 ], hurricanes [ 35 , 39 , 41 ], infectious disease outbreaks [ 43 , 46 ], oil spillage [ 40 ], and drought [ 52 ].

Variables of interest examined

Across the 26 retained papers: eight referred to examining the impact of SC [ 35 , 37 , 39 , 41 , 46 , 49 , 55 , 60 ]; eight examined the impact of cognitive and structural SC as separate entities [ 40 , 42 , 45 , 48 , 50 , 54 , 57 , 59 ]; one examined bridging and bonding SC as separate entities [ 58 ]; two examined the impact of CR [ 38 , 56 ]; and two employed a qualitative methodology but drew findings in relation to bonding and bridging SC, and SC generally [ 51 , 52 ]. Additionally, five papers examined the impact of the following variables: ‘community social cohesion’ [ 36 ], ‘neighbourhood connectedness’ [ 44 ], ‘social support at the community level’ [ 47 ], ‘community connectedness’ [ 43 ] and ‘sense of community’ [ 53 ]. Table  1 provides additional details on this.

How is CR and SC measured or quantified in research?

The measures used to examine CR and SC are presented Table  1 . It is apparent that there is no uniformity in how SC or CR is measured across the research. Multiple measures are used throughout the retained studies, and nearly all are unique. Additionally, SC was examined at multiple different levels (e.g. cognitive and structural, bonding and bridging), and in multiple different forms (e.g. community connectedness, community cohesion).

What is the association between CR and SC on mental wellbeing?

To best compare research, the following section reports on CR, and facets of SC separately. Please see Supplementary file 4  for additional information on retained papers methods of measuring mental wellbeing.

• Community resilience

CR relates to the ability of a community to withstand, adapt and permit growth in adverse circumstances due to social structures, networks and interdependencies within the community [ 11 ].

The impact of CR on mental wellbeing was consistently positive. For example, research indicated that there was a positive association between CR and number of common mental health (i.e. anxiety and mood) treatments post-disaster [ 56 ]. Similarly, other research suggests that CR is positively related to psychological resilience, which is inversely related to depressive symptoms) [ 37 ]. The same research also concluded that CR is protective of psychological resilience and is therefore protective of depressive symptoms [ 37 ].

• Social capital

SC reflects the strength of a social network, community reciprocity, and trust in people and institutions [ 14 ]. These aspects of community are usually conceptualised primarily as protective factors that enable communities to cope and adapt collectively to threats.

There were inconsistencies across research which examined the impact of abstract SC (i.e. not refined into bonding/bridging or structural/cognitive) on mental wellbeing. However, for the majority of cases, research deems SC to be beneficial. For example, research has concluded that, SC is protective against post-traumatic stress disorder [ 55 ], anxiety [ 46 ], psychological distress [ 50 ], and stress [ 46 ]. Additionally, SC has been found to facilitate post-traumatic growth [ 38 ], and also to be useful to be drawn upon in times of stress [ 52 ], both of which could be protective of mental health. Similarly, research has also found that emotional recovery following a disaster is more difficult for those who report to have low levels of SC [ 51 ].

Conversely, however, research has also concluded that when other situational factors (e.g. personal resources) were controlled for, a positive relationship between community resources and life satisfaction was no longer significant [ 60 ]. Furthermore, some research has concluded that a high level of SC can result in a community facing greater stress immediately post disaster. Indeed, one retained paper found that high levels of SC correlate with higher levels of post-traumatic stress immediately following a disaster [ 39 ]. However, in the later stages following a disaster, this relationship can reverse, with SC subsequently providing an aid to recovery [ 41 ]. By way of explanation, some researchers have suggested that communities with stronger SC carry the greatest load in terms of helping others (i.e. family, friends and neighbours) as well as themselves immediately following the disaster, but then as time passes the communities recover at a faster rate as they are able to rely on their social networks for support [ 41 ].

Cognitive and structural social capital

Cognitive SC refers to perceptions of community relations, such as trust, mutual help and attachment, and structural SC refers to what actually happens within the community, such as participation, socialising [ 16 ].

Cognitive SC has been found to be protective [ 49 ] against PTSD [ 54 , 57 ], depression [ 40 , 54 ]) mild mood disorder; [ 48 ]), anxiety [ 48 , 54 ] and increase self-efficacy [ 59 ].

For structural SC, research is again inconsistent. On the one hand, structural SC has been found to: increase perceived self-efficacy, be protective of depression [ 40 ], buffer the impact of housing damage on cognitive decline [ 42 ] and provide support during disasters and over the recovery period [ 59 ]. However, on the other hand, it has been found to have no association with PTSD [ 54 , 57 ] or depression, and is also associated with a higher prevalence of anxiety [ 54 ]. Similarly, it is also suggested by additional research that structural SC can harm women’s mental health, either due to the pressure of expectations to help and support others or feelings of isolation [ 49 ].

Bonding and bridging social capital

Bonding SC refers to connections among individuals who are emotionally close, and result in bonds to a particular group [ 17 ], and bridging SC refers to acquaintances or individuals loosely connected that span different social groups [ 18 ].

One research study concluded that both bonding and bridging SC were protective against post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms [ 58 ]. Bridging capital was deemed to be around twice as effective in buffering against post-traumatic stress disorder than bonding SC [ 58 ].

Other community variables

Community social cohesion was significantly associated with a lower risk of post-traumatic stress disorder symptom development [ 35 ], and this was apparent even whilst controlling for depressive symptoms at baseline and disaster impact variables (e.g. loss of family member or housing damage) [ 36 ]. Similarly, sense of community, community connectedness, social support at the community level and neighbourhood connectedness all provided protective benefits for a range of mental health, wellbeing and recovery variables, including: depression [ 53 ], subjective wellbeing (in older adults only) [ 43 ], psychological distress [ 47 ], happiness [ 44 ] and life satisfaction [ 53 ].

Research has also concluded that community level social support is protective against mild mood and anxiety disorder, but only for individuals who have had no previous disaster experience [ 48 ]. Additionally, a study which separated SC into social cohesion and social participation concluded that at a community level, social cohesion is protective against depression [ 49 ] whereas social participation at community level is associated with an increased risk of depression amongst women [ 49 ].

What is the impact of Infectious disease outbreaks / disasters and emergencies on community resilience?

From a cross-sectional perspective, research has indicated that disasters and emergencies can have a negative effect on certain types of SC. Specifically, cognitive SC has been found to be impacted by disaster impact, whereas structural SC has gone unaffected [ 45 ]. Disaster impact has also been shown to have a negative effect on community relationships more generally [ 52 ].

Additionally, of the eight studies which collected data at multiple time points [ 35 , 36 , 41 , 42 , 47 , 49 , 56 , 60 ], three reported the effect of a disaster on the level of SC within a community [ 40 , 42 , 49 ]. All three of these studies concluded that disasters may have a negative impact on the levels of SC within a community. The first study found that the Deepwater Horizon oil spill had a negative effect on SC and social support, and this in turn explained an overall increase in the levels of depression within the community [ 40 ]. A possible explanation for the negative effect lays in ‘corrosive communities’, known for increased social conflict and reduced social support, that are sometimes created following oil spills [ 40 ]. It is proposed that corrosive communities often emerge due to a loss of natural resources that bring social groups together (e.g., for recreational activities), as well as social disparity (e.g., due to unequal distribution of economic impact) becoming apparent in the community following disaster [ 40 ]. The second study found that SC (in the form of social cohesion, informal socialising and social participation) decreased after the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan; it was suggested that this change correlated with incidence of cognitive decline [ 42 ]. However, the third study reported more mixed effects based on physical circumstances of the communities’ natural environment: Following an earthquake, those who lived in mountainous areas with an initial high level of pre-community SC saw a decrease in SC post disaster [ 49 ]. However, communities in flat areas (which were home to younger residents and had a higher population density) saw an increase in SC [ 49 ]. It was proposed that this difference could be due to the need for those who lived in mountainous areas to seek prolonged refuge due to subsequent landslides [ 49 ].

What types of intervention enhance CR and SC and protect survivors?

There were mixed effects across the 26 retained papers when examining the effect of CR and SC on mental wellbeing. However, there is evidence that an increase in SC [ 56 , 57 ], with a focus on cognitive SC [ 57 ], namely by: building social networks [ 45 , 51 , 53 ], enhancing feelings of social cohesion [ 35 , 36 ] and promoting a sense of community [ 53 ], can result in an increase in CR and potentially protect survivors’ wellbeing and mental health following a disaster. An increase in SC may also aid in decreasing the need for individual psychological interventions in the aftermath of a disaster [ 55 ]. As a result, recommendations and suggested methods to bolster CR and SC from the retained papers have been extracted and separated into general methods, preparedness and policy level implementation.

General methods

Suggested methods to build SC included organising recreational activity-based groups [ 44 ] to broaden [ 51 , 53 ] and preserve current social networks [ 42 ], introducing initiatives to increase social cohesion and trust [ 51 ], and volunteering to increase the number of social ties between residents [ 59 ]. Research also notes that it is important to take a ‘no one left behind approach’ when organising recreational and social community events, as failure to do so could induce feelings of isolation for some members of the community [ 49 ]. Furthermore, gender differences should also be considered as research indicates that males and females may react differently to community level SC (as evidence suggests males are instead more impacted by individual level SC; in comparison to women who have larger and more diverse social networks [ 49 ]). Therefore, interventions which aim to raise community level social participation, with the aim of expanding social connections and gaining support, may be beneficial [ 42 , 47 ].

Preparedness

In order to prepare for disasters, it may be beneficial to introduce community-targeted methods or interventions to increase levels of SC and CR as these may aid in ameliorating the consequences of a public health emergency or disaster [ 57 ]. To indicate which communities have low levels of SC, one study suggests implementing a 3-item scale of social cohesion to map areas and target interventions [ 42 ].

It is important to consider that communities with a high level of SC may have a lower level of risk perception, due to the established connections and supportive network they have with those around them [ 61 ]. However, for the purpose of preparedness, this is not ideal as perception of risk is a key factor when seeking to encourage behavioural adherence. This could be overcome by introducing communication strategies which emphasise the necessity of social support, but also highlights the need for additional measures to reduce residual risk [ 59 ]. Furthermore, support in the form of financial assistance to foster current community initiatives may prove beneficial to rural areas, for example through the use of an asset-based community development framework [ 52 ].

Policy level

At a policy level, the included papers suggest a range of ways that CR and SC could be bolstered and used. These include: providing financial support for community initiatives and collective coping strategies, (e.g. using asset-based community development [ 52 ]); ensuring policies for long-term recovery focus on community sustainable development (e.g. community festival and community centre activities) [ 44 ]; and development of a network amongst cooperative corporations formed for reconstruction and to organise self-help recovery sessions among residents of adjacent areas [ 58 ].

This scoping review sought to synthesise literature concerning the role of SC and CR during public health emergencies and disasters. Specifically, in this review we have examined: the methods used to measure CR and SC; the impact of CR and SC on mental wellbeing during disasters and emergencies; the impact of disasters and emergencies on CR and SC; and the types of interventions which can be used to enhance CR. To do this, data was extracted from 26 peer-reviewed journal articles. From this synthesis, several key themes have been identified, which can be used to develop guidelines and recommendations for deploying CR and SC in a public health emergency or disaster context. These key themes and resulting recommendations are summarised below.

Firstly, this review established that there is no consistent or standardised approach to measuring CR or SC within the general population. This finding is consistent with a review conducted by the World Health Organization which concludes that despite there being a number of frameworks that contain indicators across different determinants of health, there is a lack of consensus on priority areas for measurement and no widely accepted indicator [ 27 ]. As a result, there are many measures of CR and SC apparent within the literature (e.g., [ 62 , 63 ]), an example of a developed and validated measure is provided by Sherrieb, Norris and Galea [ 64 ]. Similarly, the definitions of CR and SC differ widely between researchers, which created a barrier to comparing and summarising information. Therefore, future research could seek to compare various interpretations of CR and to identify any overlapping concepts. However, a previous systemic review conducted by Patel et al. (2017) concludes that there are nine core elements of CR (local knowledge, community networks and relationships, communication, health, governance and leadership, resources, economic investment, preparedness, and mental outlook), with 19 further sub-elements therein [ 30 ]. Therefore, as CR is a multi-dimensional construct, the implications from the findings are that multiple aspects of social infrastructure may need to be considered.

Secondly, our synthesis of research concerning the role of CR and SC for ensuring mental health and wellbeing during, or following, a public health emergency or disaster revealed mixed effects. Much of the research indicates either a generally protective effect on mental health and wellbeing, or no effect; however, the literature demonstrates some potential for a high level of CR/SC to backfire and result in a negative effect for populations during, or following, a public health emergency or disaster. Considered together, our synthesis indicates that cognitive SC is the only facet of SC which was perceived as universally protective across all retained papers. This is consistent with a systematic review which also concludes that: (a) community level cognitive SC is associated with a lower risk of common mental disorders, while; (b) community level structural SC had inconsistent effects [ 65 ].

Further examination of additional data extracted from studies which found that CR/SC had a negative effect on mental health and wellbeing revealed no commonalities that might explain these effects (Please see Supplementary file 5 for additional information)

One potential explanation may come from a retained paper which found that high levels of SC result in an increase in stress level immediately post disaster [ 41 ]. This was suggested to be due to individuals having greater burdens due to wishing to help and support their wide networks as well as themselves. However, as time passes the levels of SC allow the community to come together and recover at a faster rate [ 41 ]. As this was the only retained paper which produced this finding, it would be beneficial for future research to examine boundary conditions for the positive effects of CR/SC; that is, to explore circumstances under which CR/SC may be more likely to put communities at greater risk. This further research should also include additional longitudinal research to validate the conclusions drawn by [ 41 ] as resilience is a dynamic process of adaption.

Thirdly, disasters and emergencies were generally found to have a negative effect on levels of SC. One retained paper found a mixed effect of SC in relation to an earthquake, however this paper separated participants by area in which they lived (i.e., mountainous vs. flat), which explains this inconsistent effect [ 49 ]. Dangerous areas (i.e. mountainous) saw a decrease in community SC in comparison to safer areas following the earthquake (an effect the authors attributed to the need to seek prolonged refuge), whereas participants from the safer areas (which are home to younger residents with a higher population density) saw an increase in SC [ 49 ]. This is consistent with the idea that being able to participate socially is a key element of SC [ 12 ]. Overall, however, this was the only retained paper which produced a variable finding in relation to the effect of disaster on levels of CR/SC.

Finally, research identified through our synthesis promotes the idea of bolstering SC (particularly cognitive SC) and cohesion in communities likely to be affected by disaster to improve levels of CR. This finding provides further understanding of the relationship between CR and SC; an association that has been reported in various articles seeking to provide conceptual frameworks (e.g., [ 66 , 67 ]) as well as indicator/measurement frameworks [ 27 ]. Therefore, this could be done by creating and promoting initiatives which foster SC and create bonds within the community. Papers included in the current review suggest that recreational-based activity groups and volunteering are potential methods for fostering SC and creating community bonds [ 44 , 51 , 59 ]. Similarly, further research demonstrates that feelings of social cohesion are enhanced by general social activities (e.g. fairs and parades [ 18 ]). Also, actively encouraging activities, programs and interventions which enhance connectedness and SC have been reported to be desirable to increase CR [ 68 ]. This suggestion is supported by a recent scoping review of literature [ 67 ] examined community champion approaches for the COVID-19 pandemic response and recovery and established that creating and promoting SC focused initiatives within the community during pandemic response is highly beneficial [ 67 ]. In terms of preparedness, research states that it may be beneficial for levels of SC and CR in communities at risk to be assessed, to allow targeted interventions where the population may be at most risk following an incident [ 42 , 44 ]. Additionally, from a more critical perspective, we acknowledge that ‘resilience’ can often be perceived as a focus on individual capacity to adapt to adversity rather than changing or mitigating the causes of adverse conditions [ 69 , 70 ]. Therefore, CR requires an integrated system approach across individual, community and structural levels [ 17 ]. Also, it is important that community members are engaged in defining and agreeing how community resilience is measured [ 27 ] rather than it being imposed by system leads or decision-makers.

In the aftermath of the pandemic, is it expected that there will be long-term repercussions both from an economic [ 8 ] and a mental health perspective [ 71 ]. Furthermore, the findings from this review suggest that although those in areas with high levels of SC may be negatively affected in the acute stage, as time passes, they have potential to rebound at a faster rate than those with lower levels of SC. Ongoing evaluation of the effectiveness of current initiatives as the COVID-19 pandemic progresses into a recovery phase will be invaluable for supplementing the evidence base identified through this review.

• Recommendations

As a result of this review, a number of recommendations are suggested for policy and practice during public health emergencies and recovery.

Future research should seek to establish a standardised and validated approach to measuring and defining CR and SC within communities. There are ongoing efforts in this area, for example [ 72 ]. Additionally, community members should be involved in the process of defining how CR is measured.

There should be an enhanced effort to improve preparedness for public health emergencies and disasters in local communities by gauging current levels of SC and CR within communities using a standardised measure. This approach could support specific targeting of populations with low levels of CR/SC in case of a disaster or public health emergency, whilst also allowing for consideration of support for those with high levels of CR (as these populations can be heavily impacted initially following a disaster). By distinguishing levels of SC and CR, tailored community-centred approaches could be implemented, such as those listed in a guide released by PHE in 2015 [ 73 ].

CR and SC (specifically cognitive SC) should be bolstered if communities are at risk of experiencing a disaster or public health emergency. This can be achieved by using interventions which aim to increase a sense of community and create new social ties (e.g., recreational group activities, volunteering). Additionally, when aiming to achieve this, it is important to be mindful of the risk of increased levels of CR/SC to backfire, as well as seeking to advocate an integrated system approach across individual, community and structural levels.

It is necessary to be aware that although communities with high existing levels of resilience / SC may experience short-term negative consequences following a disaster, over time these communities might be able to recover at a faster rate. It is therefore important to ensure that suitable short-term support is provided to these communities in the immediate aftermath of a public health emergency or disaster.

Robust evaluation of the community resilience initiatives deployed during the COVID-19 pandemic response is essential to inform the evidence base concerning the effectiveness of CR/ SC. These evaluations should continue through the response phase and into the recovery phase to help develop our understanding of the long-term consequences of such interventions.

Limitations

Despite this review being the first in this specific topic area, there are limitations that must be considered. Firstly, it is necessary to note that communities are generally highly diverse and the term ‘community’ in academic literature is a subject of much debate (see: [ 74 ]), therefore this must be considered when comparing and collating research involving communities. Additionally, the measures of CR and SC differ substantially across research, including across the 26 retained papers used in the current review. This makes the act of comparing and collating research findings very difficult. This issue is highlighted as a key outcome from this review, and suggestions for how to overcome this in future research are provided. Additionally, we acknowledge that there will be a relationship between CR & SC even where studies measure only at individual or community level. A review [ 75 ] on articulating a hypothesis of the link to health inequalities suggests that wider structural determinants of health need to be accounted for. Secondly, despite the final search strategy encompassing terms for both CR and SC, only one retained paper directly measured CR; thus, making the research findings more relevant to SC. Future research could seek to focus on CR to allow for a comparison of findings. Thirdly, the review was conducted early in the COVID-19 pandemic and so does not include more recent publications focusing on resilience specifically in the context of COVID-19. Regardless of this fact, the synthesis of, and recommendations drawn from, the reviewed studies are agnostic to time and specific incident and contain critical elements necessary to address as the pandemic moves from response to recovery. Further research should review the effectiveness of specific interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic for collation in a subsequent update to this current paper. Fourthly, the current review synthesises findings from countries with individualistic and collectivistic cultures, which may account for some variation in the findings. Lastly, despite choosing a scoping review method for ease of synthesising a wide literature base for use by public health emergency researchers in a relatively tight timeframe, there are disadvantages of a scoping review approach to consider: (1) quality appraisal of retained studies was not carried out; (2) due to the broad nature of a scoping review, more refined and targeted reviews of literature (e.g., systematic reviews) may be able to provide more detailed research outcomes. Therefore, future research should seek to use alternative methods (e.g., empirical research, systematic reviews of literature) to add to the evidence base on CR and SC impact and use in public health practice.

This review sought to establish: (1) How CR and SC are quantified in research?; (2) The impact of community resilience on mental wellbeing?; (3) The impact of infectious disease outbreaks, disasters and emergencies on community resilience and social capital?; and, (4) What types of interventions enhance community resilience and social capital?. The chosen search strategy yielded 26 relevant papers from which we were able extract information relating to the aims of this review.

Results from the review revealed that CR and SC are not measured consistently across research. The impact of CR / SC on mental health and wellbeing during emergencies and disasters is mixed (with some potential for backlash), however the literature does identify cognitive SC as particularly protective. Although only a small number of papers compared CR or SC before and after a disaster, the findings were relatively consistent: SC or CR is negatively impacted by a disaster. Methods suggested to bolster SC in communities were centred around social activities, such as recreational group activities and volunteering. Recommendations for both research and practice (with a particular focus on the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic) are also presented.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Social Capital

Zortea TC, Brenna CT, Joyce M, McClelland H, Tippett M, Tran MM, et al. The impact of infectious disease-related public health emergencies on suicide, suicidal behavior, and suicidal thoughts. Crisis. 2020;42(6):474–87.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Davis JR, Wilson S, Brock-Martin A, Glover S, Svendsen ER. The impact of disasters on populations with health and health care disparities. Disaster Med Pub Health Prep. 2010;4(1):30.

Article   Google Scholar  

Francescutti LH, Sauve M, Prasad AS. Natural disasters and healthcare: lessons to be learned. Healthc Manage Forum. 2017;30(1):53–5.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Jones L, Palumbo D, Brown D. Coronavirus: How the pandemic has changed the world economy. BBC News; 2021. Accessible at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51706225 .

Below R, Wallemacq P. Annual disaster statistical review 2017. Brussels: CRED, Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters; 2018.

Google Scholar  

Qiu W, Chu C, Mao A, Wu J. The impacts on health, society, and economy of SARS and H7N9 outbreaks in China: a case comparison study. J Environ Public Health. 2018;2018:2710185.

Worldometer. COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic. 2021.

Harari D, Keep M. Coronavirus: economic impact house of commons library. Briefing Paper (Number 8866); 2021. Accessible at: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8866/ .

Nabavi N. Covid-19: pandemic will cast a long shadow on mental health, warns England’s CMO. BMJ. 2021;373:n1655.

Ziglio E. Strengthening resilience: a priority shared by health 2020 and the sustainable development goals. No. WHO/EURO: 2017-6509-46275-66939. World Health Organization; Regional Office for Europe; 2017.

Asadzadeh A, Kotter T, Salehi P, Birkmann J. Operationalizing a concept: the systematic review of composite indicator building for measuring community disaster resilience. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2017;25:147.

Sherrieb K, Norris F, Galea S. Measuring capacities for community resilience. Soc Indicators Res. 2010;99(2):227.

Poortinga W. Community resilience and health: the role of bonding, bridging, and linking aspects of social capital. Health Place. 2011;18(2):286–95.

Ferlander S. The importance of different forms of social capital for health. Acta Sociol. 2007;50(2):115–28.

Nakagawa Y, Shaw R. Social capital: a missing link to disaster recovery. Int J Mass Emerge Disasters. 2004;22(1):5–34.

Grootaert C, Narayan D, Jones VN, Woolcock M. Measuring social capital: an integrated questionnaire. Washington, DC: World Bank Working Paper, No. 18; 2004.

Adler PS, Kwon SW. Social capital: prospects for a new concept. Acad Manage Rev. 2002;27(1):17–40.

Aldrich DP, Meyer MA. Social capital and community resilience. Am Behav Sci. 2015;59(2):254–69.

Rodriguez-Llanes JM, Vos F, Guha-Sapir D. Measuring psychological resilience to disasters: are evidence-based indicators an achievable goal? Environ Health. 2013;12(1):115.

De Silva MJ, McKenzie K, Harpham T, Huttly SR. Social capital and mental Illness: a systematic review. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005;59(8):619–27.

Bonanno GA, Galea S, Bucciarelli A, Vlahov D. Psychological resilience after disaster: New York City in the aftermath of the september 11th terrorist attack. Psychol Sci. 2006;17(3):181.

World Health Organization. Health 2020: a European policy framework and strategy for the 21st century. World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe; 2013.

Public Health England. Community-Centred Public Health: Taking a Whole System Approach. 2020.

SPI-B. The role of Community Champion networks to increase engagement in the context of COVID19: Evidence and best practice. 2021.

Public Health England. Community champions: A rapid scoping review of community champion approaches for the pandemic response and recovery. 2021.

Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.

World Health Organisation. WHO health evidence network synthesis report: what quantitative and qualitative methods have been developed to measure health-related community resilience at a national and local level. 2018.

Hall C, Williams N, Gauntlett L, Carter H, Amlôt R, Peterson L et al. Findings from systematic review of public perceptions and responses. PROACTIVE EU. Deliverable 1.1. 2019. Accessible at: https://proactive-h2020.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/PROACTIVE_20210312_D1.1_V5_PHE_Systematic-Review-of-Public-Perceptions-and-Responses_revised.pdf .

Weston D, Ip A, Amlôt R. Examining the application of behaviour change theories in the context of Infectious disease outbreaks and emergency response: a review of reviews. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):1483.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   CAS   Google Scholar  

Patel SS, Rogers MB, Amlôt R, Rubin GJ. What do we mean by ‘community resilience’? A systematic literature review of how it is defined in the literature. PLoS Curr. 2017;9:ecurrents.dis.db775aff25efc5ac4f0660ad9c9f7db2.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Brooks SK, Weston D, Wessely S, Greenberg N. Effectiveness and acceptability of brief psychoeducational interventions after potentially traumatic events: a systematic review. Eur J Psychotraumatology. 2021;12(1):1923110.

Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, Walshe K. Realist review-a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10(1_suppl):21–34.

Gale NK, Heath G, Cameron E, Rashid S, Redwood S. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:1–8.

Bearman M, Dawson P. Qualitative synthesis and systematic review in health professions education. Med Educ. 2013;47(3):252–60.

Heid AR, Pruchno R, Cartwright FP, Wilson-Genderson M. Exposure to Hurricane Sandy, neighborhood collective efficacy, and post-traumatic stress symptoms in older adults. Aging Ment Health. 2017;21(7):742–50.

Hikichi H, Aida J, Tsuboya T, Kondo K, Kawachi I. Can community social cohesion prevent posttraumatic stress disorder in the aftermath of a disaster? A natural experiment from the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake and tsunami. Am J Epidemiol. 2016;183(10):902–10.

Lee J, Blackmon BJ, Cochran DM, Kar B, Rehner TA, Gunnell MS. Community resilience, psychological resilience, and depressive symptoms: an examination of the Mississippi Gulf Coast 10 years after Hurricane Katrina and 5 years after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Disaster med. 2018;12(2):241–8.

Lee J, Blackmon BJ, Lee JY, Cochran DM Jr, Rehner TA. An exploration of posttraumatic growth, loneliness, depression, resilience, and social capital among survivors of Hurricane Katrina and the deepwater Horizon oil spill. J Community Psychol. 2019;47(2):356–70.

Lowe SR, Sampson L, Gruebner O, Galea S. Psychological resilience after Hurricane Sandy: the influence of individual- and community-level factors on mental health after a large-scale natural disaster. PLoS One. 2015;10(5):e0125761.

Rung AL, Gaston S, Robinson WT, Trapido EJ, Peters ES. Untangling the disaster-depression knot: the role of social ties after deepwater Horizon. Soc Sci Med. 2017;177:19–26.

Weil F, Lee MR, Shihadeh ES. The burdens of social capital: how socially-involved people dealt with stress after Hurricane Katrina. Soc Sci Res. 2012;41(1):110–9.

Hikichi H, Aida J, Matsuyama Y, Tsuboya T, Kondo K, Kawachi I. Community-level social capital and cognitive decline after a Natural Disaster: a natural experiment from the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. Soc Sci Med. 2018;257:111981.

Lau AL, Chi I, Cummins RA, Lee TM, Chou KL, Chung LW. The SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) pandemic in Hong Kong: effects on the subjective wellbeing of elderly and younger people. Aging Ment Health. 2008;12(6):746–60.

Sun Y, Yan T. The use of public health indicators to assess individual happiness in post-disaster recovery. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(21):4101.

Wong H, Huang Y, Fu Y, Zhang Y. Impacts of structural social capital and cognitive social capital on the psychological status of survivors of the yaan Earthquake. Appl Res Qual Life. 2018;14:1411–33.

Xiao H, Zhang Y, Kong D, Li S, Yang N. Social capital and sleep quality in individuals who self-isolated for 14 days during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in January 2020 in China. Med Sci Monit. 2020;26:e923921.

PubMed   PubMed Central   CAS   Google Scholar  

Matsuyama Y, Aida J, Hase A, Sato Y, Koyama S, Tsuboya T, et al. Do community- and individual-level social relationships contribute to the mental health of disaster survivors? A multilevel prospective study after the great East Japan earthquake. Soc Sci Med. 2016;151:187–95.

Ozaki A, Horiuchi S, Kobayashi Y, Inoue M, Aida J, Leppold C, Yamaoka K. Beneficial roles of social support for mental health vary in the Japanese population depending on disaster experience: a nationwide cross-sectional study. Tohoku J Exp Med. 2018;246(4):213–23.

Sato K, Amemiya A, Haseda M, Takagi D, Kanamori M, Kondo K, et al. Post-disaster changes in Social Capital and Mental Health: a natural experiment from the 2016 Kumamoto Earthquake. Am J Epidemiol. 2020;189(9):910–21.

Tsuchiya N, Nakaya N, Nakamura T, Narita A, Kogure M, Aida J, Tsuji I, Hozawa A, Tomita H. Impact of social capital on psychological distress and interaction with house destruction and displacement after the great East Japan earthquake of 2011. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2017;71(1):52–60.

Brockie L, Miller E. Understanding older adults’ resilience during the Brisbane floods: social capital, life experience, and optimism. Disaster Med Pub Health Prep. 2017;11(1):72–9.

Caldwell K, Boyd CP. Coping and resilience in farming families affected by drought. Rural Remote Health. 2009;9(2):1088.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Huang Y, Tan NT, Liu J. Support, sense of community, and psychological status in the survivors of the Yaan earthquake. J Community Psychol. 2016;44(7):919–36.

Wind T, Fordham M, Komproe H. Social capital and post-disaster mental health. Glob Health Action. 2011;4(1):6351.

Wind T, Komproe IH. The mechanisms that associate community social capital with post-disaster mental health: a multilevel model. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75(9):1715–20.

Hogg D, Kingham S, Wilson TM, Ardagh M. The effects of spatially varying earthquake impacts on mood and anxiety symptom treatments among long-term Christchurch residents following the 2010/11 Canterbury Earthquakes, New Zealand. Health Place. 2016;41:78–88.

Flores EC, Carnero AM, Bayer AM. Social capital and chronic post-traumatic stress disorder among survivors of the 2007 earthquake in Pisco, Peru. Soc Sci Med. 2014;101:9–17.

Rafiey H, Alipour F, LeBeau R, Salimi Y, Ahmadi S. Exploring the buffering role of social capital in the development of posttraumatic stress symptoms among Iranian earthquake survivors. Psychol Trauma. 2019;14(6):1040–6.

Babcicky P, Seebauer S. The two faces of social capital in private Flood mitigation: opposing effects on risk perception, self-efficacy and coping capacity. J Risk Res. 2017;20(8):1017–37.

Bakic H, Ajdukovic D. Stability and change post-disaster: dynamic relations between individual, interpersonal and community resources and psychosocial functioning. Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2019;10(1):1614821.

Rogers RW. A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J Psychol. 1975;91(1):93–114.

Lindberg K, Swearingen T. A reflective thrive-oriented community resilience scale. Am J Community Psychol. 2020;65(3–4):467–78.

Leykin D, Lahad M, Cohen O, Goldberg A, Aharonson-Daniel L. Conjoint community resiliency assessment measure-28/10 items (CCRAM28 and CCRAM10): a self-report tool for assessing community resilience. Am J Community Psychol. 2013;52:313–23.

Sherrieb K, Norris FH, Galea S. Measuring capacities for community resilience. Soc Indic Res. 2010;99:227–47.

Ehsan AM, De Silva MJ. Social capital and common mental disorder: a systematic review. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2015;69(10):1021–8.

Pfefferbaum B, Van Horn RL, Pfefferbaum RL. A conceptual framework to enhance community resilience using social capital. Clin Soc Work J. 2017;45(2):102–10.

Carmen E, Fazey I, Ross H, Bedinger M, Smith FM, Prager K, et al. Building community resilience in a context of climate change: the role of social capital. Ambio. 2022;51(6):1371–87.

Humbert C, Joseph J. Introduction: the politics of resilience: problematising current approaches. Resilience. 2019;7(3):215–23.

Tanner T, Bahadur A, Moench M. Challenges for resilience policy and practice. Working paper: 519. 2017.

Vadivel R, Shoib S, El Halabi S, El Hayek S, Essam L, Bytyçi DG. Mental health in the post-COVID-19 era: challenges and the way forward. Gen Psychiatry. 2021;34(1):e100424.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Pryor M. Social Capital Harmonised Standard. London: Government Statistical Service. 2021. Accessible at: https://gss.civilservice.gov.uk/policystore/social-capital/ .

Public Health England NE. A guide to community-centred approaches for health and wellbeing. 2015.

Hawe P. Capturing the meaning of ‘community’ in community intervention evaluation: some contributions from community psychology. Health Promot Int. 1994;9(3):199–210.

Uphoff EP, Pickett KE, Cabieses B, Small N, Wright J. A systematic review of the relationships between social capital and socioeconomic inequalities in health: a contribution to understanding the psychosocial pathway of health inequalities. Int J Equity Health. 2013;12:1–12.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

This study was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Emergency Preparedness and Response, a partnership between Public Health England, King’s College London and the University of East Anglia. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR, Public Health England, the UK Health Security Agency or the Department of Health and Social Care [Grant number: NIHR20008900]. Part of this work has been funded by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, Department of Health and Social Care, as part of a Collaborative Agreement with Leeds Beckett University.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Behavioural Science and Insights Unit, Evaluation & Translation Directorate, Science Group, UK Health Security Agency, Porton Down, Salisbury, SP4 0JG, UK

C. E. Hall, H. Wehling, R. Amlôt & D. Weston

Health Protection Research Unit, Institute of Psychology, Psychiatry and Neuroscience, King’s College London, 10 Cutcombe Road, London, SE5 9RJ, UK

C. E. Hall, S. K. Brooks & N. Greenberg

School of Health and Community Studies, Leeds Beckett University, Portland Building, PD519, Portland Place, Leeds, LS1 3HE, UK

J. Stansfield & J. South

King’s Centre for Military Health Research, Institute of Psychology, Psychiatry and Neuroscience, King’s College London, 10 Cutcombe Road, London, SE5 9RJ, UK

N. Greenberg

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

DW, JSo and JSt had the main idea for the review. The search strategy and eligibility criteria were devised by CH, DW, JSo and JSt. CH conducted the database searches. CH and DW conducted duplicate, title and abstract and full text screening in accordance with inclusion criteria. CH conducted data extraction, CH and DW carried out the analysis and drafted the initial manuscript. All authors provided critical revision of intellectual content. All authors approved the final manuscript.

Authors’ information

Corresponding author.

Correspondence to D. Weston .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1., additional file 2., additional file 3., additional file 4., additional file 5., 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/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Hall, C.E., Wehling, H., Stansfield, J. et al. Examining the role of community resilience and social capital on mental health in public health emergency and disaster response: a scoping review. BMC Public Health 23 , 2482 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-17242-x

Download citation

Received : 04 April 2022

Accepted : 16 November 2023

Published : 12 December 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-17242-x

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Mental health
• Community cohesion
• Public health emergency

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 04 April 2024

Status epilepticus in patients with brain tumors and metastases: A multicenter cohort study of 208 patients and literature review

• Johanna K. Rickel 1 , 2 ,
• Daria Zeeb 3 , 4 , 20 ,
• Susanne Knake 2 , 3 ,
• Hans Urban 5 , 20 ,
• Jürgen Konczalla 6 , 20 ,
• Katharina J. Weber 7 , 8 , 9 , 20 ,
• Pia S. Zeiner 5 , 7 , 8 , 20 ,
• Axel Pagenstecher 10 , 20 ,
• Elke Hattingen 11 , 20 ,
• André Kemmling 12 , 20 ,
• Emmanouil Fokas 7 , 13 , 20 ,
• Sebastian Adeberg 14 , 15 , 20 ,
• Robert Wolff 16 , 20 ,
• Martin Sebastian 17 , 20 ,
• Tillmann Rusch 18 , 20 ,
• Michael W. Ronellenfitsch 5 , 7 , 8 , 20 ,
• Katja Menzler 3 ,
• Lena Habermehl 3 ,
• Leona Möller 3 ,
• Marcus Czabanka 6 , 20 ,
• Christopher Nimsky 4 , 20 ,
• Lars Timmermann 3 ,
• Christian Grefkes 1 ,
• Joachim P. Steinbach 5 , 7 , 8 , 20 ,
• Felix Rosenow 1 , 2 ,
• Leena Kämppi 1 , 19   na1 &
• Adam Strzelczyk   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6288-9915 1 , 2 , 3   na1  

Neurological Research and Practice volume  6 , Article number:  19 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

56 Accesses

Metrics details

Brain tumors and metastases account for approximately 10% of all status epilepticus (SE) cases. This study described the clinical characteristics, treatment, and short- and long-term outcomes of this population.

This retrospective, multi-center cohort study analyzed all brain tumor patients treated for SE at the university hospitals of Frankfurt and Marburg between 2011 and 2017.

The 208 patients (mean 61.5 ± 14.7 years of age; 51% male) presented with adult-type diffuse gliomas (55.8%), metastatic entities (25.5%), intracranial extradural tumors (14.4%), or other tumors (4.3%). The radiological criteria for tumor progression were evidenced in 128 (61.5%) patients, while 57 (27.4%) were newly diagnosed with tumor at admission and 113 (54.3%) had refractory SE. The mean hospital length of stay (LOS) was 14.8 days (median 12.0, range 1–57), 171 (82.2%) patients required intensive care (mean LOS 8.9 days, median 5, range 1–46), and 44 (21.2%) were administered mechanical ventilation. All patients exhibited significant functional status decline (modified Rankin Scale) post-SE at discharge (p < 0.001). Mortality at discharge was 17.3% (n = 36), with the greatest occurring in patients with metastatic disease (26.4%, p = 0.031) and those that met the radiological criteria for tumor progression (25%, p < 0.001). Long-term mortality at one year (65.9%) was highest in those diagnosed with adult-type diffuse gliomas (68.1%) and metastatic disease (79.2%). Refractory status epilepticus cases showed lower survival rates than non-refractory SE patients (log-rank p = 0.02) and those with signs of tumor progression (log-rank p = 0.001).

Conclusions

SE occurrence contributed to a decline in functional status in all cases, regardless of tumor type, tumor progression status, and SE refractoriness, while long-term mortality was increased in those with malignant tumor entities, tumor progressions, and refractory SE. SE prevention may preserve functional status and improve survival in individuals with brain tumors.

Introduction

Epilepsy is a frequent symptom of patients with brain tumors, which are strong risk factors for seizures (relative risk = 40) [ 1 ] despite representing only 4% of all epilepsy etiologies [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. In addition, greater than one-third of patients with brain tumors develop epilepsy [ 4 , 5 ]. Seizures are the presenting clinical signs of tumors in 30–50% of patients, and an additional 10–30% exhibit epilepsy later in the disease course, often in association with neurosurgical procedures or disease progression [ 1 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 ]. The prevalence of epilepsy varies greatly according to tumor type and location and appears to be inversely proportional to tumor grade, with reported frequencies approximating 100% in non-malignant dysembryoblastic neuroepithelial tumors, 29–49% in high-grade gliomas, 20–35% in metastases, and 10% in primary central nervous system (CNS) lymphomas [ 6 , 9 ].

Status epilepticus (SE) is one of the most common neurological emergencies [ 10 ], which according to the latest definition proposed by the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE), is a condition resulting from either the activation of abnormal mechanisms that prolong seizures or the failure of mechanisms that terminate seizure activity. SE can lead to cell damage, neuronal death, neuronal injury, or alteration of neuronal networks, depending on seizure type. Therefore, prompt seizure termination and prevention of recurrence is crucial in these cases [ 11 , 12 , 13 ].

The reported proportion of patients with SE that is attributable to brain tumors is 3–12% [ 10 , 14 ]. However, limited information is available that specifically evaluates SE in this population [ 15 ]. Although seizures generally occur in low-grade malignancies and early disease stages, SE is more commonly found in high-grade tumors and later stages, suggesting a potentially distinct pathophysiological mechanism [ 9 , 16 ]. A systematic review reported a higher short-term mortality in tumor-related SE cases compared to SE patients with other etiologies, although that study provided insufficient data to assess differences in treatment response, long-term mortality, or morbidity [ 15 ]. Two independent reviews indicated that tumor-associated SE (TASE) had a distinct clinical profile and stressed the need for prospective multi-center studies [ 9 , 15 ].

The aim of this study was to use a large multi-center cohort to systematically describe the clinical characteristics, treatment, and short- and long-term outcomes of patients presenting with SE secondary to primary brain tumors and brain metastases.

Material and methods

Study design and setting.

This retrospective, multicenter cohort study was conducted at the university hospitals of Frankfurt and Marburg between January 2011 and December 2017. Both hospitals offered a full range of neurological care services with expertise in epileptology, neurooncology, and intensive care medicine. Frankfurt University Hospital serves primarily an urban area[ 17 ], while its Marburg counterpart possesses a neurological department that services the city and surrounding rural areas, managing a population of more than 500,000. Due to its representative population structure, the area surrounding Marburg has been used for a population-based estimate of the incidence of SE in Germany [ 18 ].

This study included all adult patients (aged 18 or older) admitted to hospital due to non-anoxic SE with brain tumors or metastases. Only the first episode of SE during the study period was analyzed. Patient records were reviewed and data were collected using standardized study forms and ascertained by the study coordinator (AS) and one independent researcher at each site (SK, FR). The study was approved by local ethics committees and adhered to the STROBE guidelines [ 19 ].

Definition of SE

Following the latest definition and classification of SE published by the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) task force in 2015, all tonic–clonic seizures lasting > 5 min and focal seizures with impaired consciousness lasting > 10 min were considered SE events [ 11 ]. Refractory status epilepticus (RSE) is defined as recurrent seizure activity after two appropriately selected and dosed antiseizure medications (ASMs), which include a benzodiazepine. Super‐refractory status epilepticus (SRSE) is an SE that continues or recurs ≥ 24 h after the initiation of treatment with anesthetic drugs and includes cases in which seizure control is attained after induction of anesthesia but recurs once the anesthetic agent is tapered off [ 10 , 20 , 21 , 22 ]. Nonconvulsive SE (NCSE) is defined according to the Salzburg criteria [ 23 ].

Definition of measures

The patients were divided into four subgroups based on tumor category: adult-type diffuse gliomas, including glioblastomas and other CNS WHO Grade 2–4 gliomas; intracranial extradural tumors, including meningiomas and other benign extradural tumors; metastatic entities, including solid metastases and leptomeningeal metastatic diseases; and other tumors, such as CNS lymphomas. The latter group was not included in the analysis at the subgroup level due to the small number and heterogeneity of the cases. In addition, patients were separated into two groups based on the presence of progression signs. Those who displayed the neuroradiological criteria for tumor growth, tumor recurrence, increased perifocal edema, or imaging changes (i.e., pseudoprogression) due to radiation therapy and/or systemic chemotherapy were classified into the group with tumor progression signs.

Data regarding patient and SE characteristics, as well as the treatment during the SE, tumor treatment prior to the SE, and patient outcomes, were collected. Comorbidities of the patients were scored using the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) [ 24 ]. The functional status of the patients was determined using a modified Rankin scale (mRS) at admission and discharge (0–2 = good functional status, 3–5 = poor functional status, 6 = deceased) [ 25 ]. SE severity was evaluated using the SE severity score (STESS) [ 26 ] and the level of refractoriness (non-refractory = NRSE, refractory = RSE, super-refractory = SRSE). The short-term outcomes of the patients were defined using mortality, functional status (mRS), and destination at hospital discharge, while long-term outcomes were considered as mortality within one-year post-discharge.

Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 28.0. Descriptive data are presented as minimum, maximum, median, mean ± standard deviation (SD), range, and percentage values. Univariable comparisons of proportions were calculated using Pearson's chi-squared test. The Mann–Whitney U test was applied for comparisons of variables of ordinal or non-normally distributed data. Long-term outcomes were depicted using Kaplan–Meier survival curves, and the log-rank test was performed for comparisons between the subgroups. Two-sided p-values of less than 0.05 were considered to be significant in all statistical analyses.

During the study period, 208 patients presenting with SE due to a brain tumor or metastasis were identified. The mean age was 61.5 ± 14.7 years (median 63 years; range 23–89 years) and 106 patients (51%) were male. Adult-type diffuse gliomas formed the largest subgroup with 116 (55.8%) patients, with glioblastoma as the most common tumor type (n = 85, 40.9%), followed by intracranial extradural tumors (30 cases, 14.4%) and metastatic entities (53 cases, 25.5%). Details regarding tumor entities are presented in Table  1 , and localization data are listed in Additional file 1 : Table S1. At admission, 128 (61.5%) patients presented with the neuroradiological criteria for tumor progression, while the remaining 80 (38.5%) had no signs of progression in the imaging.

Clinical characteristics of the SE patients

Table 2 shows the patient characteristics, SE characteristics, and patient outcomes for all individuals, as well as the univariate subgroup analysis according to tumor category and tumor progression signs at admission.

Patient characteristics

Patients with intracranial extradural tumors were significantly older than those in other tumor categories. The sex distribution showed higher proportions of female patients with intracranial extradural tumors (n = 23, 76.6%) and male patients with adult-type diffuse gliomas (n = 72, 62%). High comorbidity loads (CCI ≥ 6), were detected in 63 (30.3%) patients, most of whom had metastatic entities (n = 53, 84.1%), whereas patients in the other tumor subgroups generally had significantly lower CCI scores (2–5). The majority of patients (n = 127, 61.1%) had a previous history of seizures, and this finding was more pronounced among patients with no signs of tumor progression (n = 58, 72.5%) or adult-type diffuse gliomas (n = 83, 71.6%) at admission. In contrast, SE was often the first epileptic manifestation in patients with metastatic entities compared with those in other categories. The mRS before the SE showed no significant differences between the subgroups.

SE characteristics

A favorable STESS score of 0–3 points was present in 176 (84.6%) patients at admission, and this fraction was significantly lower in intracranial extradural tumor patients (n = 18, 60%), who tended to exhibit lower proportions of NRSE cases (n = 10, 33.3% vs. all patients n = 95, 45.7%) and higher proportions of SRSE cases (n = 5, 16.7% vs. all patients n = 19, 9.1%). Tumor progression signs (n = 128, 61.5%) were common in patients with metastatic entities (n = 41, 77.4%) and less prevalent in those with intracranial extradural tumors (n = 9, 30%). Brain tumors were newly diagnosed at SE admission in 57 patients (27.4%) and more frequently in patients with metastatic entities (n = 23, 43.3%) and tumors with radiological progression (n = 53, 41.4%) than those with adult-type diffuse gliomas (n = 22, 19%) and tumors without radiological progression (n = 4, 5%). The time between tumor diagnosis and SE averaged 2.3 ± 4.4 years (median 0.5, range 0–24.5 years), with the shortest time interval occurring for the metastatic entities (mean 0.6 ± 0.9, median 0.2, range 0–4.5 years) and the longest for the intracranial extradural tumor group (mean 5.3 ± 7.1, median 2.1, range 0–21.2 years).

On admission, 61 (29.3%) patients were receiving ongoing tumor-specific therapy and 53 (25.5%) experienced the SE within six months of completing radiation therapy. Patients with adult-type diffuse gliomas had significantly more ongoing treatment (n = 44, 37.9%) and radiation therapy in the six-month period (n = 43, 37.1%) than those in the other groups; details are presented in Table  3 . None of the patients with intracranial extradural tumors had ongoing therapy or radiation therapy close to the time of the SE event.

At admission, 64 (30.8%) patients were on dexamethasone, and this number increased to 101 (48.6%) at discharge. Patients with intracranial extradural tumors showed the lowest level of dexamethasone therapy (admission n = 2, 6.7%, discharge n = 3, 10%). In addition, patients without progression signs were more often receiving dexamethasone therapy at the time of admission (n = 27, 33.8%) than patients with progression signs (n = 37, 28.9%), but as expected, the increase in usage was more clear among patients with progression signs at discharge (with n = 71, 55.5% vs. without n = 30, 37.5%).

Prior to SE onset, 126 (60.6%) patients used an average of 1.6 ± 0.8 (median 1, range 1–5) ASMs, with the greatest usage by patients with adult-type diffuse gliomas (n = 84, 72.4%) compared to the other two tumor categories. During the SE period, the average number of treatment steps with an ASM was 3.6 ± 2.2 (median 3, range 1–10), and patients were discharged with an increased mean number of ASMs (2.2 ± 1.1, median 2, range 1–5, p < 0.001); a detailed description of the treatment steps is presented in Additional file 1 : Table S2.

The mean length of stay (LOS) in hospital was 14.8 ± 11.5 days (median 12, range 1–57 days). Of all patients, 171 (82.2%) were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) or intermediate care (IMC) department and 44 (21.2%) required mechanical ventilation. The mean LOS in the ICU/IMC was 8.9 ± 9.8 days (median 5, range 1–46), while patients with intracranial extradural tumors had hospital (17.3 ± 11.7, median 15, range 3–45 days) and ICU/IMC (12.2 ± 8.8, median 11, range 1–31 days) stays that were significantly longer and required mechanical ventilation more often than patients from both other tumor categories. Treatments or administered therapies were limited during the SE event in 36 (17.3%) patients, with less limitations for those with intracranial extradural tumors (n = 2, 6.7%); however, significantly reduced levels of therapy were noted in patients with signs of tumor progression (n = 29, 22.7%). The detailed information on inpatient stay, medications, and tumor treatments of the SE patients is presented in Table  3 .

In total, 61 (29.4%) patients were discharged with good functional status (mRS 0–2), 111 (53.3%) had poor functional status (mRS 3–5), and 36 (17.3%) patients were deceased. The functional status at discharge did not differ significantly between the tumor categories; however, a clear difference was observed depending on the presence of the radiological criteria of tumor progression, with only 28 (21.9%) of the patients with progression presenting with good functional outcomes compared to 33 (41.3%) of those without progression. A clear shift to a poorer functional status at discharge compared to that at admission was significant for all patients (p < 0.001) and all subgroups (tumor category, progression signs, and refractoriness; all p-values < 0.001). The mRS distribution of the subgroups is shown in Fig.  1 . The mortality at discharge was higher among patients with metastatic entities (n = 14, 26.4%) than those with adult-type diffuse gliomas, and higher among patients with progression signs (n = 32, 25%) than those without (n = 4, 5%) these signs.

Functional status of all patients measured by modified Rankin Scale before and after SE ( A ) stratified by tumor progression signs ( B ), tumor category ( C ), and SE refractoriness ( D )

The long-term patient survival at one year is depicted using Kaplan–Meier curves in Fig.  2 . Survival among patients with intracranial extradural tumors was higher than that for patients with adult-type diffuse gliomas (log-rank p-value 0.002) and metastatic entities (log-rank p-value < 0.001) (Fig.  2 a). There was no difference between the results for the latter two groups (log-rank p-value 0.059). Figure  2 b shows the survival of patients with meningiomas, glioblastomas, and solid metastases. Patients with signs of tumor progression had significantly poorer survival rates than those without signs of progression (log-rank p-value < 0.001) (Fig.  2 c). Refractoriness is depicted in Fig.  2 d, whereby patients with NRSE showed better survival rates than patients with RSE (SRSE not included, log-rank p-value 0.020), while no statistical difference was identified between NRSE and SRSE patients (log-rank p-value 0.512) or between RSE and SRSE patients (log-rank p-value 0.066). There was no difference between those with a previous history of epilepsy or SE compared to those with new-onset SE (log-rank p-value 0.456, Kaplan-Meier curves not shown).

Long-term outcomes depicted by Kaplan-Maier curves stratified by tumor category ( A , B ), tumor progression signs ( C ), and SE refractoriness ( D )

This retrospective, multicenter study described the clinical characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of 208 SE patients with brain tumors and metastases using the largest identified cohort published to date. The results indicated that the SE event caused a clear decline in the functional status (mRS) of the patients, which was independent of tumor type, radiological progression, and SE refractory level. Less than half of the patients survived for a year after the SE event, and considerable mortality was observed among the patients with nonmalignant intracranial extradural tumors. The SRSE cases presented better survival rates than those of the less refractory cases at one year after SE. The definition of SRSE requires anesthesia and only patients with a better outcome are likely to be considered for anesthesia. In principle, refractoriness could also be defined according to the duration of SE and number of therapies; this is currently being discussed and researched [ 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 ].

The existing literature regarding SE in patients with brain tumors is scarce [ 9 , 15 ], despite brain tumors presenting a high risk for the development of SE and accounting for approximately 10% of all SE cases [ 10 , 32 ]. A limited number of studies have focused on this specific patient group, and the majority of these were retrospective, involved only a single center, and consisted of small patient cohorts. Our literature review identified seven original studies [ 14 , 16 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 ] and two reviews [ 9 , 15 ], the details of which are presented in Table  4 . These studies indicated that SE patients with brain tumors averaged 55–68 years of age and mainly included males. The data from the present cohort were concordant with those of the previous studies, although the sex distribution differed significantly between tumor categories, as patients with adult-type diffuse gliomas were more likely to be male, while those from other groups were more often female. In addition, patients with intracranial extradural tumors were significantly older than the patients from the other groups.

Adult-type diffuse gliomas and intracranial extradural tumors accounted for the vast majority of primary brain tumors in this study (70.2%), while 29.9% of the patients had metastatic entities or other tumors. The proportion of adult-type diffuse gliomas (55.8%) was comparable with the results of previously reported SE cohorts that indicated 41.5–65.7% for malignant brain tumors or gliomas (high-grade and low-grade gliomas) [ 18 , 34 , 37 ]. Similarly, the intracranial extradural tumor (14.4%) and metastatic entity (25.5%) percentages corroborated those of previous studies, which reported 14.3–25% of benign brain tumors/meningiomas and 26.8%–34.4% of metastatic tumors [ 16 , 34 , 37 ]. These findings were expected, as a higher frequency of seizures and SE events occurs among patients with primary brain tumors compared to those with metastasis [ 5 , 16 ] and a higher risk of SE is associated with increasing WHO grades [ 9 , 14 , 36 , 38 ].

Arik et al. conducted a systematic review that considered SE outcomes and found that SE events caused by brain tumors have higher in-hospital mortalities than non-anoxic SE caused by other factors (17.2% vs. 6%) [ 15 ]. Goonawardena et al. compared tumor-associated SE (TASE) to SE in the general population and tumor-associated epilepsy (TAE) in a systematic review and found that the 30-day mortality of TASE ranged between 12 and 50%, which was similar to or higher than the mortality percentage of the general population [ 9 ]. In the present cohort, the overall mortality at discharge (17.3%) and at 30 days (24%) was comparable to the 30 days mortality range estimated by Goonawardena et al. [ 9 ] and the 17.1% in-hospital mortality identified in a prospective cohort of 82 patients published by Vilaseca-Jolonch et al. [ 34 ]

Our data showed that the highest in-hospital mortality rate occurred among patients with metastatic entities (26.4%) and that this value was significantly higher than that of patients with adult-type diffuse gliomas. Higher short-term mortalities and poorer outcomes in patients with brain metastases compared those with to primary brain tumors are consistent with the current literature [ 16 , 34 , 37 ]. High-grade gliomas have shown greater 30-day mortality rates (20%) than low-grade gliomas with no mortality [ 36 ]. In our cohort, patients with adult-type diffuse gliomas had an in-hospital mortality rate of 13%; however, a clear increase in mortality (up to 70%) was noticed during the first year after discharge. In particular, the survival of glioblastoma patients was similar to that of metastatic entity patients at one year and distinctively lower than that of patients with other types of glioma or meningioma. In this regard, the long-term mortality of TASE has been related to the natural prognosis of tumor types [ 14 ].

Radiological progression was present in the majority of SE patients in the cohort (61%). Previous literature regarding the occurrence of SE concomitant with progression is inconsistent, as no difference was observed between patients with stable tumors and those with tumor progression in terms of the occurrence of SE in the study by Knudsen-Baas et al. [ 36 ], although the occurrence of TASE has been associated with tumor progression [ 9 ]. Progressing brain lesions and tumor recurrences are associated with a risk of mortality within 2 months of the SE [ 37 ]. Similarly, tumor progression at the onset of SE has been associated with long-term mortality, with up to 73.3% of the patients dying due to tumor progression during the median 10.5-month follow-up period [ 34 ]. These associations were confirmed in our cohort. Radiological signs of CNS-related tumor progression at admission were most prevalent in patients with metastatic entities and least evident in those with intracranial extradural tumors, which could partly explain the poor outcomes of the former group. Dexamethasone use at admission was more frequent among patients without signs of progression but naturally increased among patients showing signs of progression, which accounts for the significant difference between the groups.

Giovannini et al. identified no increases in mortality or morbidity after a TASE episode among glioma patients [ 14 ]. Another study reported that 30% of patients acquired new neurological deficits after glioma-associated SE; however, this finding was suggested to be related to tumor progression as an etiology of SE [ 36 ]. Our study showed a statistically significant decline in the functional status of all patients during the SE treatment period. SRSE showed the largest overall decline, which is in line with the results of other studies [ 39 ]. In addition, patients with intracranial extradural tumors experienced a clear decline in functional status. The pre-SE functional status did not differ between the subgroups; however, the status at discharge was significantly poorer in patients with signs of tumor progression compared to those without progression signs.

Previous studies have reported tumor-associated SE refractoriness ranging from 12 to 57.9% [ 9 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 ]. Reviews have indicated that TASE tends to be more responsive than SE to first- and second-line ASMs in the general population, with refractoriness evident in only 12–18% of cases [ 9 ]. Furthermore, TASE appears to have a shorter duration than SE in the general population (153 min vs. 174 min) [ 15 ]. The present study showed a markedly high proportion of refractoriness (54.3%), which is comparable with the 52.5% refractoriness level found in another cohort study [ 34 ]. In addition, refractoriness was not related to tumor category or the signs of progression, which corroborates the results of a previous study [ 36 ]. Although SRSE has been associated with poor prognoses in SE patients, the SRSE cases identified here showed better outcomes than those of the less refractory cases at one year [ 29 , 40 , 41 ]. This result could be partly explained by the variation in SE treatment approaches based on the overall prognosis of the patients; thus, patients with better tumor prognoses might be offered more therapy options, such as intubation and anesthesia treatment, whereas patients with poorer overall prognoses are more likely to be administered ASM treatment without the use of anesthesia. This study showed that therapy limitations were more common in patients with signs of tumor progression.

The majority of patients in this study had a previous history of seizures (61.1%), whereas other cohorts showed slightly lower proportions (35–56.3%) [ 14 , 16 , 34 , 35 , 36 ]. This result was more prominent in patients with adult-type diffuse gliomas and those without progression signs. A new brain tumor diagnosis was made in every fourth patient at admission. The lowest percentage (15.8%, range 15.8–54%) of newly diagnosed tumors at SE onset reported in the literature occurred in a study focusing on SE in patients with brain metastasis, while our study determined that a new tumor was usually diagnosed in patients with metastatic entities or signs of progression. The overall time between tumor diagnoses and SE (2.3 years) was considerably longer than the 60 days to 4 months reported in other studies [ 14 , 35 ]. The longest interval was found among patients with intracranial extradural tumors and the shortest was identified among those with metastatic entities and tumors with progression signs. Our findings confirm the overall supposition that SE occurs later in the disease course or prior to tumor progression [ 9 , 42 ].

The median LOS in hospital (12 days) was comparable to that of TASE patients in another study (9 days) [ 34 ]. However, the LOS value was in the upper range of the reported median of 5–14 days among general SE patients [ 29 , 41 , 43 , 44 ]. The present study is the first identified report that determined the ICU LOS in the patient group (median 5 days), which was revealed to be slightly higher than the LOS for general SE patients (3 days) [ 29 ]. Similar to the 22% reported by Marcuse, 21.2% of the patients required mechanical ventilation [ 37 ].

Finally, intracranial extradural tumors were the predominant tumors in all categories studied. The associated patients differed significantly from those with adult-type diffuse gliomas, as they presented more frequently with SRSE, required additional mechanical ventilation, and endured longer ICU stays. In addition, intracranial extradural tumor patients showed less frequent tumor progression signs than patients with other tumors and were administered less dexamethasone treatments than adult-type diffuse glioma patients. However, the decline in the functional status of these patients was clear during the SE and the mortality at one year reached 36.7%. The older age of these patients may partly explain the poor outcomes; however, the direct effect of SE and related treatments cannot be discounted.

Limitations

This study is limited by its retrospective design. However, the multicenter approach covering a study period of over seven years and the considerable amount of material reviewed increase the reliability of the results.

Direct comparisons of the results with prior studies were compromised by the heterogeneity in study design and differences in tumor categorization. The recent increase in the biomolecular understanding of brain tumors has changed the field, but since this retrospective study aimed for a comprehensive cohort, gliomas were included that were diagnosed according to former WHO CNS tumor classification guidelines. Causes of death were not assessed; therefore, it was not possible to differentiate whether patients died as a direct consequence of SE, related complications, or withdrawal of care. Furthermore, we provided only descriptive data on different tumor therapies such as neurosurgery, radiation, and chemo- and immunotherapies, and further studies with each tumor entity are required to determine the correlations among different therapies and their benefits or risks related to seizure and SE occurrence [ 45 ]. In addition, future studies focusing on specific tumor entities should address the resection extent of diffuse gliomas and metastatic burden in patients with metastatic tumors.

SE occurrence in patients with brain tumors contributes significantly to an immediate decline in functional status, regardless of the type of tumor (malignant or non-malignant), presence or absence of tumor progression, and refractoriness of the SE episode. Therefore, effective prevention of SE events is imperative for preserving and maintaining functional status in individuals with brain tumors.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Herman, S. T. (2002). Epilepsy after brain insult: Targeting epileptogenesis. Neurology, 59 (9 Suppl 5), S21–S26. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.59.9_suppl_5.s21

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Olafsson, E., Ludvigsson, P., Hesdorffer, D., Kjartansson, O., Hauser, W. A., & Gudmundsson, G. (2005). Incidence of unprovoked seizures and epilepsy in Iceland and assessment of the epilepsy syndrome classification: A prospective study. The Lancet Neurology., 4 (10), 627–634. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1474-4422(05)70172-1

Seidel, S., Wehner, T., Miller, D., Wellmer, J., Schlegel, U., & Gronheit, W. (2022). Brain tumor related epilepsy: Pathophysiological approaches and rational management of antiseizure medication. Neurological Research and Practice., 4 (1), 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42466-022-00205-9

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Hauser, W. A., Annegers, J. F., & Kurland, L. T. (1993). Incidence of epilepsy and unprovoked seizures in Rochester, Minnesota: 1935–1984. Epilepsia, 34 (3), 453–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-1157.1993.tb02586.x

Article   PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

van Breemen, M. S., Wilms, E. B., & Vecht, C. J. (2007). Epilepsy in patients with brain tumours: Epidemiology, mechanisms, and management. The Lancet Neurology., 6 (5), 421–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(07)70103-5

Glantz, M. J., Cole, B. F., Forsyth, P. A., Recht, L. D., Wen, P. Y., Chamberlain, M. C., et al. (2000). Practice parameter: Anticonvulsant prophylaxis in patients with newly diagnosed brain tumors. Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology, 54 (10), 1886–1893. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.54.10.1886

Maschio, M. (2012). Brain tumor-related epilepsy. Current Neuropharmacology, 10 (2), 124–133. https://doi.org/10.2174/157015912800604470

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   CAS   Google Scholar  

Rossetti, A. O., & Stupp, R. (2010). Epilepsy in brain tumor patients. Current Opinion in Neurology., 23 (6), 603–609. https://doi.org/10.1097/WCO.0b013e32833e996c

Goonawardena, J., Marshman, L. A., & Drummond, K. J. (2015). Brain tumour-associated status epilepticus. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience, 22 (1), 29–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2014.03.038

Betjemann, J. P., & Lowenstein, D. H. (2015). Status epilepticus in adults. The Lancet Neurology., 14 (6), 615–624. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(15)00042-3

Trinka, E., Cock, H., Hesdorffer, D., Rossetti, A. O., Scheffer, I. E., Shinnar, S., et al. (2015). A definition and classification of status epilepticus–report of the ILAE task force on classification of status Epilepticus. Epilepsia, 56 (10), 1515–1523. https://doi.org/10.1111/epi.13121

Kamppi, L., Mustonen, H., Kotisaari, K., & Soinila, S. (2018). The essence of the first 25 h in the treatment of generalized convulsive status epilepticus. Seizure., 55 , 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seizure.2017.12.007

Bauer, K., Rosenow, F., Knake, S., Willems, L. M., Kamppi, L., & Strzelczyk, A. (2023). Clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with recurrent status epilepticus episodes. Neurological Research and Practice, 5 (1), 34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42466-023-00261-9

Giovannini, G., Pasini, F., Orlandi, N., Mirandola, L., & Meletti, S. (2019). Tumor-associated status epilepticus in patients with glioma: Clinical characteristics and outcomes. Epilepsy & Behavior., 101 (Pt B), 106370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yebeh.2019.06.014

Article   Google Scholar  

Arik, Y., Leijten, F. S., Seute, T., Robe, P. A., & Snijders, T. J. (2014). Prognosis and therapy of tumor-related versus non-tumor-related status epilepticus: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Neurology., 14 , 152. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2377-14-152

Cavaliere, R., Farace, E., & Schiff, D. (2006). Clinical implications of status epilepticus in patients with neoplasms. Archives of Neurology., 63 (12), 1746–1749. https://doi.org/10.1001/archneur.63.12.1746

Purwien, L., Schubert-Bast, S., Kieslich, M., Ronellenfitsch, M. W., Merker, M., Czabanka, M., et al. (2023). Trends and differences in status epilepticus treatment of children and adults over 10 years: A comparative study of medical records (2012–2021) from a University Hospital in Germany. CNS Drugs, 37 (11), 993–1008. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40263-023-01049-w

Knake, S., Rosenow, F., Vescovi, M., Oertel, W. H., Mueller, H. H., Wirbatz, A., et al. (2001). Incidence of status epilepticus in adults in Germany: A prospective, population-based study. Epilepsia, 42 (6), 714–718. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1528-1157.2001.01101.x

von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gotzsche, P. C., Vandenbroucke, J. P., et al. (2007). The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet, 370 (9596), 1453–1457. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61602-X

Ferlisi, M., & Shorvon, S. (2012). The outcome of therapies in refractory and super-refractory convulsive status epilepticus and recommendations for therapy. Brain, 135 (Pt 8), 2314–2328. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/aws091

Shorvon, S., & Ferlisi, M. (2011). The treatment of super-refractory status epilepticus: A critical review of available therapies and a clinical treatment protocol. Brain, 134 (Pt 10), 2802–2818.

Malter, M. P., & Neuneier, J. (2022). Super-refractory status epilepticus in adults. Neurological Research and Practice, 4 (1), 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42466-022-00199-4

Leitinger, M., Trinka, E., Gardella, E., Rohracher, A., Kalss, G., Qerama, E., et al. (2016). Diagnostic accuracy of the Salzburg EEG criteria for non-convulsive status epilepticus: A retrospective study. The Lancet Neurology., 15 (10), 1054–1062. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(16)30137-5

Charlson, M. E., Pompei, P., Ales, K. L., & MacKenzie, C. R. (1987). A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: Development and validation. Journal of Chronic Diseases., 40 (5), 373–383.

Banks, J. L., & Marotta, C. A. (2007). Outcomes validity and reliability of the modified Rankin scale: Implications for stroke clinical trials: A literature review and synthesis. Stroke, 38 (3), 1091–1096. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000258355.23810.c6

Rossetti, A. O., Logroscino, G., Milligan, T. A., Michaelides, C., Ruffieux, C., & Bromfield, E. B. (2008). Status Epilepticus Severity Score (STESS): A tool to orient early treatment strategy. Journal of Neurology., 255 (10), 1561–1566. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-008-0989-1

Beuchat, I., Rosenow, F., Kellinghaus, C., Trinka, E., Unterberger, I., Ruegg, S., et al. (2022). Refractory status epilepticus: Risk factors and analysis of intubation in the multicenter SENSE registry. Neurology, 99 (16), e1824–e1834. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000201099

Cornwall, C. D., Kroigard, T., Kristensen, J. S. S., Callesen, H. E., & Beier, C. P. (2023). Outcomes and treatment approaches for super-refractory status epilepticus: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Neurology., 80 (9), 959–968. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2023.2407

Guterman, E. L., Betjemann, J. P., Aimetti, A., Li, J. W., Wang, Z., Yin, D., et al. (2021). Association between treatment progression, disease refractoriness, and burden of illness among hospitalized patients with status epilepticus. JAMA Neurology., 78 (5), 588–595. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2021.0520

Beuchat, I., Novy, J., Rosenow, F., Kellinghaus, C., Ruegg, S., Tilz, C., et al. (2024). Staged treatment response in status epilepticus: Lessons from the SENSE registry. Epilepsia ,  65(2), 338-349. https://doi.org/10.1111/epi.17817

Lattanzi, S., & Meletti, S. (2024). Refractory status epilepticus: Is there room for grading refractoriness? Epilepsia , 65(2), 527-528. https://doi.org/10.1111/epi.17836

Rossetti, A. O., Hurwitz, S., Logroscino, G., & Bromfield, E. B. (2006). Prognosis of status epilepticus: Role of aetiology, age, and consciousness impairment at presentation. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 77 (5), 611–615. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.2005.080887

Kaneoka, A., Fujimoto, S. H., Tamura, K., Inaji, M., & Maehara, T. (2023). Nonconvulsive status epilepticus characteristics in glioma patients: A retrospective study. Discover Oncology, 14 (1), 30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12672-023-00632-3

Vilaseca-Jolonch, A., Abraira, L., Quintana, M., Sueiras, M., Thonon, V., Toledo, M., et al. (2020). Tumor-associated status epilepticus: A prospective cohort in a tertiary hospital. Epilepsy & Behavior., 111 , 107291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yebeh.2020.107291

Fox, J., Ajinkya, S., Greenblatt, A., Houston, P., Lekoubou, A., Lindhorst, S., et al. (2019). Clinical characteristics, EEG findings and implications of status epilepticus in patients with brain metastases. Journal of the Neurological Sciences, 407 , 116538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2019.116538

Knudsen-Baas, K. M., Power, K. N., Engelsen, B. A., Hegrestad, S. E., Gilhus, N. E., & Storstein, A. M. (2016). Status epilepticus secondary to glioma. Seizure., 40 , 76–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seizure.2016.06.013

Marcuse, L. V., Lancman, G., Demopoulos, A., & Fields, M. (2014). Nonconvulsive status epilepticus in patients with brain tumors. Seizure., 23 (7), 542–547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seizure.2014.04.003

Rosati, A., Tomassini, A., Pollo, B., Ambrosi, C., Schwarz, A., Padovani, A., et al. (2009). Epilepsy in cerebral glioma: Timing of appearance and histological correlations. Journal of Neuro-oncology, 93 (3), 395–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-009-9796-5

Kortland, L. M., Knake, S., von Podewils, F., Rosenow, F., & Strzelczyk, A. (2017). Socioeconomic outcome and quality of life in adults after status epilepticus: A multicenter, longitudinal, matched case-control analysis from Germany. Frontiers in Neurology., 8 , 507. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2017.00507

Roberg, L. E., Monsson, O., Kristensen, S. B., Dahl, S. M., Ulvin, L. B., Heuser, K., et al. (2022). Prediction of long-term survival after status epilepticus using the ACD score. JAMA Neurology., 79 (6), 604–613. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2022.0609

Strzelczyk, A., Ansorge, S., Hapfelmeier, J., Bonthapally, V., Erder, M. H., & Rosenow, F. (2017). Costs, length of stay, and mortality of super-refractory status epilepticus: A population-based study from Germany. Epilepsia, 58 (9), 1533–1541. https://doi.org/10.1111/epi.13837

Brauchitsch, S., Strzelczyk, A., Rosenow, F., Neuhaus, E., Dubinski, D., Steinbach, J.P., Voss M. (2022) High end-of-life incidence of seizures and status epilepticus in patients with primary and secondary brain tumors. Journal of Neuro-Oncology , 160 (2), 277–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-022-04133-1

Kortland, L. M., Alfter, A., Bahr, O., Carl, B., Dodel, R., Freiman, T. M., et al. (2016). Costs and cost-driving factors for acute treatment of adults with status epilepticus: A multicenter cohort study from Germany. Epilepsia, 57 (12), 2056–2066. https://doi.org/10.1111/epi.13584

Mevius, A., Joeres, L., Gille, P., Molzan, M., Foskett, N., Wilke, T., et al. (2023). Epidemiology, real-world treatment and mortality of patients with status epilepticus in Germany: Insights from a large healthcare database. Brain Commun., 5 (3), fcad145. https://doi.org/10.1093/braincomms/fcad145

Urban, H., Willems, L. M., Ronellenfitsch, M. W., Rosenow, F., Steinbach, J. P., & Strzelczyk, A. (2020). Increased occurrence of status epilepticus in patients with brain metastases and checkpoint inhibition. Oncoimmunology., 9 (1), 1851517. https://doi.org/10.1080/2162402X.2020.1851517

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the study teams at both participating epilepsy centers. This data analysis was supported by the State of Hessen with a LOEWE grant to the CePTER Consortium ( https://www.uni-frankfurt.de/67689811 ). Leena Kämppi received research funding from STIFTUNG MICHAEL. Pia S. Zeiner and Katharina J. Weber received funding from the Mildred Scheel Career Center Frankfurt (Deutsche Krebshilfe).

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. This study was supported by a LOEWE Grant from the State of Hessen for the Center for Personalized Translational Epilepsy Research (CePTER), Goethe-University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Author information

Leena Kämppi and Adam Strzelczyk have contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

Epilepsy Center Frankfurt Rhine-Main, Department of Neurology, Goethe-University and University Hospital Frankfurt, Schleusenweg 2-16, 60528, Frankfurt, Germany

Johanna K. Rickel, Christian Grefkes, Felix Rosenow, Leena Kämppi & Adam Strzelczyk

Center for Personalized Translational Epilepsy Research (CePTER), Goethe-University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany

Johanna K. Rickel, Susanne Knake, Felix Rosenow & Adam Strzelczyk

Department of Neurology and Epilepsy Center Hessen, Philipps-University Marburg, Marburg, Germany

Daria Zeeb, Susanne Knake, Katja Menzler, Lena Habermehl, Leona Möller, Lars Timmermann & Adam Strzelczyk

Department of Neurosurgery, Philipps-University Marburg, Marburg, Germany

Daria Zeeb & Christopher Nimsky

Dr Senckenberg Institute of Neurooncology, University Hospital and Goethe-University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany

Hans Urban, Pia S. Zeiner, Michael W. Ronellenfitsch & Joachim P. Steinbach

Department of Neurosurgery, Goethe-University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany

Jürgen Konczalla & Marcus Czabanka

Frankturt Cancer Institute (FCI), Goethe-University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany

Katharina J. Weber, Pia S. Zeiner, Emmanouil Fokas, Michael W. Ronellenfitsch & Joachim P. Steinbach

German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg, Germany and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Frankfurt/Mainz, Frankfurt, Germany

Katharina J. Weber, Pia S. Zeiner, Michael W. Ronellenfitsch & Joachim P. Steinbach

Institute of Neurology (Edinger-Institute), Goethe-University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany

Katharina J. Weber

Institute of Neuropathology, Philipps-University Marburg, Marburg, Germany

Axel Pagenstecher

Institute of Neuroradiology, Goethe-University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany

Elke Hattingen

Department of Neuroradiology, Philipps-University Marburg, Marburg, Germany

André Kemmling

Department of Radiotherapy and Oncology, Goethe-University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany

Emmanouil Fokas

Department of Radiation Oncology, UKGM Marburg, Marburg, Germany

Sebastian Adeberg

Marburg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (MIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, UKGM Marburg, Marburg, Germany

Gamma Knife Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany

Robert Wolff

Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine II, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany

Martin Sebastian

Department of Hematology, Oncology & Immunology, Philipps-University Marburg, Marburg, Germany

Tillmann Rusch

Epilepsia Helsinki, European Reference Network EpiCARE, Department of Neurology, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

Leena Kämppi

University Cancer Center (UCT) Frankfurt-Marburg, Frankfurt, Marburg, Germany

Daria Zeeb, Hans Urban, Jürgen Konczalla, Katharina J. Weber, Pia S. Zeiner, Axel Pagenstecher, Elke Hattingen, André Kemmling, Emmanouil Fokas, Sebastian Adeberg, Robert Wolff, Martin Sebastian, Tillmann Rusch, Michael W. Ronellenfitsch, Marcus Czabanka, Christopher Nimsky & Joachim P. Steinbach

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

JR, DZ, SK, HU; JK, KW, PZ, AP, EH, AK, EF, SA, RW, MS, TR, MWR, KM, LH, LM, MC, CN, LT, CG, JS, FR, and AS participated in the recruitment of patients and data collection. AS supervised the study. JR, DZ, LK, and AS performed the statistical analysis and created the charts and figures. All authors drafted the article, discussed the results, contributed to the final manuscript, and approved the final manuscript for publication.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adam Strzelczyk .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent for publication.

We confirm that we have read the Journal’s position on issues involved in ethical publication and affirm that this report is consistent with those guidelines. The underlying study received ethics approval.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

S. Knake has received support from Angelini Pharma, Bial, Desitin Arzneimittel, Eisai, Epilog, Jazz (GW) Pharmaceuticals, Merck Serono and UCB (Zogenix) Pharma in the form of speaker honoraria; M.W. Ronellenfitsch has received support in the form of a research grant from UCB and an honorarium for advisory board participation from Alexion; L. Habermehl has received support from Jazz Pharma, Zogenix, and Angelini pharma in the form of reimbursed travelling expenses and training costs; S. Adeberg has received support from, Accuray Inc., AstraZeneca GmbH, Bristol Myers Squibb GmbH & Co., MSD, Novocure GmbH, Merck KGaA, and Fakultät Heidelberg in the form of honoraria /travel reimbursements; research cooperations with Novocure GmbH, and scientific advisory compensation from Accuray Inc., Sanofi Genzyme, Novartis, and Novocure GmbH; M. Sebastian has received support in the form of an institutional grant from AstraZeneca of the United Kingdom, travel grants from Takeda and Pfizer of Germany, and consulting fees and honoraria for lectures from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Lilly, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen, Takeda, Johnson, Merck-Serono, GlaxoSmithKline, and Daiichi; Ch. Nimsky has received support as a scientific consultant for Brainlab and speaker honoraria from B. Braun, BK medical, and Brainlab. L. Timmermann has received support in the form of occasional consultation payments from Boston Scientific and speaker’s honoraria for symposia sponsored by Boston Scientific, AbbVIE, Novartis, Neuraxpharm, Teva, the Movement Disorders Society, and DIAPLAN. The institution of L.T., and not L.T. personally, received funding from Boston Scientific, the German Research Foundation, the German Ministry of Education and Research, the Otto-Loewi-Foundation, and the Deutsche Parkinson Vereinigung. Neither L.T. nor any member of his family holds stocks, stock options, patents, or financial interests in any of the above-mentioned companies or their competitors. L. Timmermann serves as the president of the German Neurological Society without payment or income. C. Grefkes reports that he is part of the editorial board of Neurological Research and Practice. J.P. Steinbach has received support in the form of honoraria for lectures, as well as advisory board participation compensation, consulting fees, and travel grants from Abbvie, Roche, Boehringer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Medac, Mundipharma, or UCB; F. Rosenow has received support in the form of personal fees and non-financial support from UCB Pharma; personal fees from Angelini Pharma, Desitin Pharma, Eisai GMBH, Jazz Pharma, LMU Munich, Medilearn India, and Roche Pharma; and research grants from the German Research Foundation (DFG), BMBF—ERAPerMed Programme, European Union (FP7), Hessisches Ministerium für Wissenschaft und Kunst (LOEWE-Programme), Hessisches Ministerium für Soziales und Integration Detlev-Wrobel-Fonds for Epilepsy Research Frankfurt, Reiss-Stiftung, Dr. Senckenbergische-Stiftung, Ernst Max von Grunelius-Stiftung, Chaja Foundation, Dr. Schär Deutschland GmbH, Vitaflo Deutschland GmbH, Nutricia Milupa GmbH, and Desitin Pharma, outside of the submitted work; FR reports that he is part of the editorial board of Neurological Research and Practice. L. Kämppi has received support in the form of speaker honoraria from UCB and Merck and Eisai, congress/travel support from UCB and Angelini Pharma, and personal grants from the Michael Foundation, Finnish Neurology Association, and HUS Neurocenter; A. Strzelczyk has received support from Angelini Pharma, Biocodex, Desitin Arzneimittel, Eisai, Jazz (GW) Pharmaceuticals, Marinus Pharma, Precisis, Takeda, UCB (Zogenix) Pharma, and UNEEG Medical in the form of personal fees and grants. AS reports that he is part of the editorial board of Neurological Research and Practice. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1. table s1..

Tumor localization;  Table S2. Treatment characteristics with antiseizure medications (ASMs) and anesthetics.

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Rickel, J.K., Zeeb, D., Knake, S. et al. Status epilepticus in patients with brain tumors and metastases: A multicenter cohort study of 208 patients and literature review. Neurol. Res. Pract. 6 , 19 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s42466-024-00314-7

Download citation

Received : 05 February 2024

Accepted : 13 February 2024

Published : 04 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s42466-024-00314-7

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

• Glioblastoma
• Astrocytoma

Neurological Research and Practice

ISSN: 2524-3489

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]