research with literature review

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved September 18, 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.

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.

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

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

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

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

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

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

Correct my document today

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 18 September 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

Libraries | Research Guides

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

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

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

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

• Next: Planning the Review >>
• Last Updated: Jul 8, 2024 11:22 AM
• URL: https://libguides.northwestern.edu/literaturereviews

How To Write An A-Grade Literature Review

3 straightforward steps (with examples) + free template.

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

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

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

Overview: The Literature Review Process

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

But first, the “why”…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Step 1: Find the relevant literature

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

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

Method 1 – Google Scholar Scrubbing

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

Method 2 – University Database Scrounging

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

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

Method 3 – Journal Article Snowballing

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

Method 4 – Dissertation Scavenging

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

• Open Access Theses & Dissertations
• Stanford SearchWorks

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

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

Need a helping hand?

Step 2: Log, catalogue and synthesise

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

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

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

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

I’ll discuss each of these below:

2.1 – Log the reference information

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

2.2 – Build an organised catalogue

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

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

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

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

2.3 – Digest and synthesise

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

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

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

Step 3: Outline and write it up!

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

3.1 – Draw up your outline

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

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

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

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

PS – check out our free literature review chapter template…

3.2 – Get writing

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

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

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

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

Literature Review Example

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

Let’s Recap

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

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

Psst… there’s more!

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

38 Comments

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

This is awesome!

I wish I come across GradCoach earlier enough.

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

Thank you for this good job.

Keep it up!

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

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

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

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

Thank you Gradcoach.

Really agreed. Admirable effort

thank you for this beautiful well explained recap.

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

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

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

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

It is timely

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

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

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

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

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

This is super helpful thank you very much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, Stephanie 🙂

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

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

thank you so much.

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

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

Thank you excellent piece of work and great mentoring

Thanks, it was useful

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

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

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

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

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

Very timely.

I appreciate.

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

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

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

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

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

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

What are Literature Reviews?

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

Goals of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

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

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of a Good Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

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

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

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

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

II.  Development of the Literature Review

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

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

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

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

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

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

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

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

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

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

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

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

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

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

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

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

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: Sep 17, 2024 10:59 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

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

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CAREER FEATURE
• 04 December 2020
• Correction 09 December 2020

How to write a superb literature review

Andy Tay is a freelance writer based in Singapore.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Literature reviews are important resources for scientists. They provide historical context for a field while offering opinions on its future trajectory. Creating them can provide inspiration for one’s own research, as well as some practice in writing. But few scientists are trained in how to write a review — or in what constitutes an excellent one. Even picking the appropriate software to use can be an involved decision (see ‘Tools and techniques’). So Nature asked editors and working scientists with well-cited reviews for their tips.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

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

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03422-x

Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Updates & Corrections

Correction 09 December 2020 : An earlier version of the tables in this article included some incorrect details about the programs Zotero, Endnote and Manubot. These have now been corrected.

Hsing, I.-M., Xu, Y. & Zhao, W. Electroanalysis 19 , 755–768 (2007).

Article   Google Scholar  

Ledesma, H. A. et al. Nature Nanotechnol. 14 , 645–657 (2019).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Brahlek, M., Koirala, N., Bansal, N. & Oh, S. Solid State Commun. 215–216 , 54–62 (2015).

Choi, Y. & Lee, S. Y. Nature Rev. Chem . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41570-020-00221-w (2020).

Download references

Related Articles

• Research management

Science-policy advisers shape programmes that solve real-world problems

Career Feature 18 SEP 24

Can AI be used to assess research quality?

Nature Index 18 SEP 24

The grassroots organizations continuing the fight for Ukrainian science

Career Feature 11 SEP 24

The human costs of the research-assessment culture

Career Feature 09 SEP 24

Why I’m committed to breaking the bias in large language models

Career Guide 04 SEP 24

Binning out-of-date chemicals? Somebody think about the carbon!

Correspondence 27 AUG 24

Rise of ChatGPT and other tools raises major questions for research

My identity was stolen by a predatory conference

Correspondence 17 SEP 24

Faculty Positions in Center of Bioelectronic Medicine, School of Life Sciences, Westlake University

SLS invites applications for multiple tenure-track/tenured faculty positions at all academic ranks.

Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

School of Life Sciences, Westlake University

Faculty Positions, Aging and Neurodegeneration, Westlake Laboratory of Life Sciences and Biomedicine

Applicants with expertise in aging and neurodegeneration and related areas are particularly encouraged to apply.

Westlake Laboratory of Life Sciences and Biomedicine (WLLSB)

Faculty Positions in Chemical Biology, Westlake University

We are seeking outstanding scientists to lead vigorous independent research programs focusing on all aspects of chemical biology including...

Faculty Positions at the Center for Machine Learning Research (CMLR), Peking University

CMLR's goal is to advance machine learning-related research across a wide range of disciplines.

Beijing, China

Center for Machine Learning Research (CMLR), Peking University

Faculty Positions at Huairou campus of Peking University

The Beijing Laser Accelerator Innovation Center at Peking University invites applications for Applied Physics faculty, including tenured positions.

Peking University (PKU)

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

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

The Sheridan Libraries

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

What Will You Do Differently?

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

Professor, this one's for you .

Introduction

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

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

• Next: Evaluate >>
• Last Updated: Jul 30, 2024 1:42 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.jhu.edu/lit-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: Jun 20, 2024 9:08 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

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

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

Table of Contents

What is the purpose of literature review , a. habitat loss and species extinction: , b. range shifts and phenological changes: , c. ocean acidification and coral reefs: , d. adaptive strategies and conservation efforts: .

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

Frequently asked questions 

What is a literature review .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature review example 

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

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to write a good literature review 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conducting a literature review 

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

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:  

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

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:  

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

Select Databases for Searches:  

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

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:  

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

Review the Literature:  

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

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:  

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

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

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?  

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

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 

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

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

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

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

Related Reads:

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

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

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

Research Methods

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

Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

A literature review is important because it:

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

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

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

Not an essay 

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

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

A literature review serves several purposes. For example, it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Systematic review or meta-analysis?

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

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

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

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

Not all systematic reviews contain meta-analysis. 

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

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

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

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

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

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

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

What is a Literature Review?

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

A literature review should: 

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

From  S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

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

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

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

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

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

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

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

Librarian Assistance

For help, please contact the librarian for your subject area.  We have a guide to library specialists by subject .

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

Literature Reviews

What this handout is about.

This handout will explain what literature reviews are and offer insights into the form and construction of literature reviews in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences.

Introduction

OK. You’ve got to write a literature review. You dust off a novel and a book of poetry, settle down in your chair, and get ready to issue a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” as you leaf through the pages. “Literature review” done. Right?

Wrong! The “literature” of a literature review refers to any collection of materials on a topic, not necessarily the great literary texts of the world. “Literature” could be anything from a set of government pamphlets on British colonial methods in Africa to scholarly articles on the treatment of a torn ACL. And a review does not necessarily mean that your reader wants you to give your personal opinion on whether or not you liked these sources.

What is a literature review, then?

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

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

But how is a literature review different from an academic research paper?

The main focus of an academic research paper is to develop a new argument, and a research paper is likely to contain a literature review as one of its parts. In a research paper, you use the literature as a foundation and as support for a new insight that you contribute. The focus of a literature review, however, is to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of others without adding new contributions.

Why do we write literature reviews?

Literature reviews provide you with a handy guide to a particular topic. If you have limited time to conduct research, literature reviews can give you an overview or act as a stepping stone. For professionals, they are useful reports that keep them up to date with what is current in the field. For scholars, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the writer in his or her field. Literature reviews also provide a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. Comprehensive knowledge of the literature of the field is essential to most research papers.

Who writes these things, anyway?

Literature reviews are written occasionally in the humanities, but mostly in the sciences and social sciences; in experiment and lab reports, they constitute a section of the paper. Sometimes a literature review is written as a paper in itself.

Let’s get to it! What should I do before writing the literature review?

If your assignment is not very specific, seek clarification from your instructor:

• Roughly how many sources should you include?
• What types of sources (books, journal articles, websites)?
• Should you summarize, synthesize, or critique your sources by discussing a common theme or issue?
• Should you evaluate your sources?
• Should you provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history?

Find models

Look for other literature reviews in your area of interest or in the discipline and read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or ways to organize your final review. You can simply put the word “review” in your search engine along with your other topic terms to find articles of this type on the Internet or in an electronic database. The bibliography or reference section of sources you’ve already read are also excellent entry points into your own research.

Narrow your topic

There are hundreds or even thousands of articles and books on most areas of study. The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to get a good survey of the material. Your instructor will probably not expect you to read everything that’s out there on the topic, but you’ll make your job easier if you first limit your scope.

Keep in mind that UNC Libraries have research guides and to databases relevant to many fields of study. You can reach out to the subject librarian for a consultation: https://library.unc.edu/support/consultations/ .

And don’t forget to tap into your professor’s (or other professors’) knowledge in the field. Ask your professor questions such as: “If you had to read only one book from the 90’s on topic X, what would it be?” Questions such as this help you to find and determine quickly the most seminal pieces in the field.

Consider whether your sources are current

Some disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. In the sciences, for instance, treatments for medical problems are constantly changing according to the latest studies. Information even two years old could be obsolete. However, if you are writing a review in the humanities, history, or social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be what is needed, because what is important is how perspectives have changed through the years or within a certain time period. Try sorting through some 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 consider what is currently of interest to scholars in this field and what is not.

Strategies for writing the literature review

Find a focus.

A literature review, like a term paper, is usually organized around ideas, not the sources themselves as an annotated bibliography would be organized. This means that you will not just simply list your sources and go into detail about each one of them, one at a time. No. As you read widely but selectively in your topic area, consider instead what themes or issues connect your sources together. Do they present one or different solutions? Is there an aspect of the field that is missing? How well do they present the material and do they portray it according to an appropriate theory? Do they reveal a trend in the field? A raging debate? Pick one of these themes to focus the organization of your review.

Convey it to your reader

A literature review may not have a traditional thesis statement (one that makes an argument), but you do need to tell readers what to expect. Try writing a simple statement that lets the reader know what is your main organizing principle. Here are a couple of examples:

The current trend in treatment for congestive heart failure combines surgery and medicine. More and more cultural studies scholars are accepting popular media as a subject worthy of academic consideration.

Consider organization

You’ve got a focus, and you’ve stated it clearly and directly. Now what is the most effective way of presenting the information? What are the most important topics, subtopics, etc., that your review needs to include? And in what order should you present them? Develop an organization for your review at both a global and local level:

First, cover the basic categories

Just like most academic papers, literature reviews also must contain at least three basic elements: an introduction or background information section; the body of the review containing the discussion of sources; and, finally, a conclusion and/or recommendations section to end the paper. The following provides a brief description of the content of each:

• Introduction: Gives a quick idea of the topic of the literature review, such as the central theme or organizational pattern.
• Body: Contains your discussion of sources and is organized either chronologically, thematically, or methodologically (see below for more information on each).
• Conclusions/Recommendations: Discuss what you have drawn from reviewing literature so far. Where might the discussion proceed?

Organizing the body

Once you have the basic categories in place, then you must consider how you will present the sources themselves within the body of your paper. Create an organizational method to focus this section even further.

To help you come up with an overall organizational framework for your review, consider the following scenario:

You’ve decided to focus your literature review on materials dealing with sperm whales. This is because you’ve just finished reading Moby Dick, and you wonder if that whale’s portrayal is really real. You start with some articles about the physiology of sperm whales in biology journals written in the 1980’s. But these articles refer to some British biological studies performed on whales in the early 18th century. So you check those out. Then you look up a book written in 1968 with information on how sperm whales have been portrayed in other forms of art, such as in Alaskan poetry, in French painting, or on whale bone, as the whale hunters in the late 19th century used to do. This makes you wonder about American whaling methods during the time portrayed in Moby Dick, so you find some academic articles published in the last five years on how accurately Herman Melville portrayed the whaling scene in his novel.

Now consider some typical ways of organizing the sources into a review:

• Chronological: If your review follows the chronological method, you could write about the materials above according to when they were published. For instance, first you would talk about the British biological studies of the 18th century, then about Moby Dick, published in 1851, then the book on sperm whales in other art (1968), and finally the biology articles (1980s) and the recent articles on American whaling of the 19th century. But there is relatively no continuity among subjects here. And notice that even though the sources on sperm whales in other art and on American whaling are written recently, they are about other subjects/objects that were created much earlier. Thus, the review loses its chronological focus.
• 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 biological studies of sperm whales if the progression revealed a change in dissection practices of the researchers who wrote and/or conducted the studies.
• By trend: A better way to organize the above sources chronologically is to examine the sources under another trend, such as the history of whaling. Then your review would have subsections according to eras within this period. For instance, the review might examine whaling from pre-1600-1699, 1700-1799, and 1800-1899. Under this method, you would combine the recent studies on American whaling in the 19th century with Moby Dick itself in the 1800-1899 category, even though the authors wrote a century apart.
• Thematic: Thematic reviews of literature are organized around a topic or issue, rather than the progression of time. However, progression of time may still be an important factor in a thematic review. For instance, the sperm whale review could focus on the development of the harpoon for whale hunting. While the study focuses on one topic, harpoon technology, it will still be organized chronologically. The only difference here between a “chronological” and a “thematic” approach is what is emphasized the most: the development of the harpoon or the harpoon technology.But more authentic thematic reviews tend to break away from chronological order. For instance, a thematic review of material on sperm whales might examine how they are portrayed as “evil” in cultural documents. The subsections might include how they are personified, how their proportions are exaggerated, and their behaviors misunderstood. A review organized in this manner would shift between time periods within each section according to the point made.
• Methodological: A methodological approach differs from the two above in that the focusing factor usually does not have to do with the content of the material. Instead, it focuses on the “methods” of the researcher or writer. For the sperm whale project, one methodological approach would be to look at cultural differences between the portrayal of whales in American, British, and French art work. Or the review might focus on the economic impact of whaling on a community. A methodological scope will influence either the types of documents in the review or the way in which these documents are discussed. Once you’ve decided on the organizational method for the body of the review, the sections you need to include in the paper should be easy to figure out. They should arise out of 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.

Sometimes, though, you might 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. Put in only what is necessary. Here are a few other sections you might want to consider:

• Current Situation: Information necessary to understand the topic or focus of the literature review.
• History: The chronological progression of the field, the literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.
• Methods and/or Standards: The criteria you used to select the sources in your literature review or the way in which you present your information. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed articles and journals.

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?

Begin composing

Once you’ve settled on a general pattern of organization, you’re ready to write each section. There are a few guidelines you should follow during the writing stage as well. Here is a sample paragraph from a literature review about sexism and language to illuminate the following discussion:

However, other studies have shown that even gender-neutral antecedents are more likely to produce masculine images than feminine ones (Gastil, 1990). Hamilton (1988) asked students to complete sentences that required them to fill in pronouns that agreed with gender-neutral antecedents such as “writer,” “pedestrian,” and “persons.” The students were asked to describe any image they had when writing the sentence. Hamilton found that people imagined 3.3 men to each woman in the masculine “generic” condition and 1.5 men per woman in the unbiased condition. Thus, while ambient sexism accounted for some of the masculine bias, sexist language amplified the effect. (Source: Erika Falk and Jordan Mills, “Why Sexist Language Affects Persuasion: The Role of Homophily, Intended Audience, and Offense,” Women and Language19:2).

Use evidence

In the example above, the writers refer to several other sources when making their point. A literature review in this sense is just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence to show 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 review’s focus, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological.

Use quotes sparingly

Falk and Mills do not use any direct quotes. That is because the survey nature of the literature review does not allow for in-depth discussion or detailed quotes from the text. Some short quotes here and there are okay, though, if you want to emphasize a point, or if what the author said just cannot be rewritten in your own words. Notice that Falk and Mills do quote certain terms that were coined by the author, not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. But if you find yourself wanting to put in more quotes, check with your instructor.

Summarize and synthesize

Remember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each paragraph as well as throughout the review. The authors here recapitulate important features of Hamilton’s study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study’s significance and relating it to their own work.

Keep your own voice

While the literature review presents others’ ideas, your voice (the writer’s) should remain front and center. Notice that Falk and Mills weave references to other sources into their own text, but they still maintain their own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with their own ideas and their own words. The sources support what Falk and Mills are saying.

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. In the preceding example, Falk and Mills either directly refer in the text to the author of their source, such as Hamilton, or they provide ample notation in the text when the ideas they are mentioning are not their own, for example, Gastil’s. For more information, please see our handout on plagiarism .

Revise, revise, revise

Draft in hand? Now you’re ready to revise. Spending a lot of time revising is a wise idea, because your main objective is to present the material, not the argument. So check over your review again to make sure it follows the assignment and/or your outline. Then, just as you would for most other academic forms of writing, rewrite or rework the language of your review so that you’ve presented your information in the most concise manner possible. Be sure to use terminology familiar to your audience; get rid of unnecessary jargon or slang. Finally, double check that you’ve documented your sources and formatted the review appropriately for your discipline. For tips on the revising and editing process, see our handout on revising drafts .

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Anson, Chris M., and Robert A. Schwegler. 2010. The Longman Handbook for Writers and Readers , 6th ed. New York: Longman.

Jones, Robert, Patrick Bizzaro, and Cynthia Selfe. 1997. The Harcourt Brace Guide to Writing in the Disciplines . New York: Harcourt Brace.

Lamb, Sandra E. 1998. How to Write It: A Complete Guide to Everything You’ll Ever Write . Berkeley: Ten Speed Press.

Rosen, Leonard J., and Laurence Behrens. 2003. The Allyn & Bacon Handbook , 5th ed. New York: Longman.

Troyka, Lynn Quittman, and Doug Hesse. 2016. Simon and Schuster Handbook for Writers , 11th ed. London: Pearson.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

•   [email protected]

Writing and Presenting Guide

Writing literature reviews, what is a literature review.

"A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area, and sometimes information in a particular subject area within a certain time period. A literature review can be just a simple summary of the sources, but it usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis. A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information. It might give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations. Or it might trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates. And depending on the situation, the literature review may evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant." Source: The Writing Center at UNC-Chapel Hill. (2013). Literature Reviews. Retrieved from https://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/literature-reviews/ This link opens in a new window

Need help writing a literature review?

Check out these resources:

Helpful Books from the Library

Helpful Web Resources

• Literature Reviews (UNC Writing Center) This link opens in a new window
• Learn How to Write a Review of Literature (The Writing Center at the Univ. of Wisconsin) This link opens in
• The Literature Review (Univ. of Toronto) This link opens in a new window
• Write a Literature Review (University Library at Univ. Of California Santa Cruz) This link opens in a new wi
• Literature Reviews (Ithaca) This link opens in a new window
• << Previous: Writing Papers
• Next: APA Annotated Bibliography >>

• Privacy Policy

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

Significance of the Study – Examples and Writing...

Purpose of Research – Objectives and Applications

Research Recommendations – Examples and Writing...

Limitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Survey Instruments – List and Their Uses

Tables in Research Paper – Types, Creating Guide...

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

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• PLoS Comput Biol
• v.9(7); 2013 Jul

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

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

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

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

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

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

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

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

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

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

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

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgments

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

Funding Statement

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

• University Libraries
• Research Guides
• Top Resources for Literature Review

END 350: Top Resources for Literature Review

• Library Basics
• Statistics/Data
• Maps & GIS
• Reading, Writing, & Presentation Skills
• EndNote/Citations

Ebook Resources

• Gale eBooks (formerly Gale Virtual Reference Library) This link opens in a new window Full-text entries from encyclopedias and reference works published by Gale Group More Info Full-Text UB ONLY
• Knovel E-Books: Science and Engineering This link opens in a new window Full-text of a thousand science and engineering handbooks with a focus on books containing numeric data. More Info Partial Full-Text UB ONLY
• Taylor & Francis eBooks This link opens in a new window Provides full-text access to books published by Taylor & Francis, including CRC Press, Routledge, and others. More Info Partial Full-Text UB ONLY
• Wiley Online Library This link opens in a new window Multi-disciplinary database that includes full-text journal articles and some full-text reference sources. More Info Full-Text UB ONLY

Dissertations & Theses

• Proquest Dissertations & Theses @ SUNY Buffalo This link opens in a new window Provides title, author, and subject access to University at Buffalo dissertations submitted to ProQuest's Dissertations & Theses database. More Info Full-Text UB ONLY
• ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global This link opens in a new window Comprehensive North American and significant international coverage of graduate works, often providing full-text documents from 1997 on. More Info Partial Full-Text UB ONLY

Map Resources

• Digital Sanborn Maps - New York This link opens in a new window Electronic access to Sanborn fire insurance maps for New York State from 1867-1970. More Info Data UB ONLY
• Fire Insurance Maps online This link opens in a new window Fire Insurance Maps online (FIMo) is an online subscription service that provides access to historical map collection. More Info Full-Text UB ONLY
• PolicyMap This link opens in a new window Web-based data and mapping tool for United States demographics. More Info UB ONLY

Streaming media

• Environmental Studies (Gale In Context) This link opens in a new window Coverage of environmental research, issues, policy, and decision-making in the form of full text journal articles, news stories, interactive maps, statistical data, refereed case studies, podcasts, and more. More Info Full-Text UB ONLY
• JoVE Unlimited This link opens in a new window A peer reviewed video journal and science education platform. More Info Streaming Media UB ONLY
• Kanopy Streaming Service This link opens in a new window Videos from major educational film producers. More Info Streaming Media UB ONLY
• Swank Digital Campus This link opens in a new window Swank Motion Pictures is the nontheatrical distributor for the majority of the major Hollywood studios. More Info Streaming Media UB ONLY

Top Resources

• Academic Search Complete This link opens in a new window Comprehensive scholarly, multi-disciplinary full-text database. More Info Full-Text UB ONLY
• Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals This link opens in a new window Architecture-related research. More Info Partial Full-Text UB ONLY
• Business Source Complete This link opens in a new window Business-related research and information. More Info Partial Full-Text UB ONLY
• CIAO This link opens in a new window International affairs-related research. More Info Partial Full-Text UB ONLY
• Compendex (Engineering Index) This link opens in a new window Engineering & applied science-related research. More Info Partial Full-Text UB ONLY
• EconLit This link opens in a new window Economics-related research. More Info Partial Full-Text UB ONLY
• Environment Complete This link opens in a new window Deep coverage in environmental studies. More Info Partial Full-Text UB ONLY
• GreenFILE This link opens in a new window Covers all aspects of human impact on the environment. More Info Partial Full-Text UB ONLY
• JSTOR This link opens in a new window Full-text of the most important journals in the social sciences, humanities, general sciences as well as in the fields of mathematics, botany & ecology. More Info Full-Text UB ONLY
• MEDLINE with Full Text via EBSCO This link opens in a new window The U.S. National Library of Medicine® (NLM) premier bibliographic database that contains more than 23 million references to journal articles in life sciences with a concentration on biomedicine. More Info More Info Partial Full-Text UB ONLY
• Political Science Database This link opens in a new window Provides access to over 450 major political science and international relations journals. More Info Partial Full-Text UB ONLY
• TRID Database This link opens in a new window Transportation-related research. More Info PUBLIC
• Urban History Bibliography This link opens in a new window A bibliography of publications in urban history, including both books and periodicals. More Info UB ONLY
• Wall Street Journal This link opens in a new window A leading newspaper in business and finance. More Info UB ONLY
• Web of Science This link opens in a new window One-pass searching of Web of Science citation indexes, BIOSIS Citation Index, Derwent Innovations Index, MEDLINE and more. More Info Partial Full-Text UB ONLY

Policy Resources

• CQ Press Library This link opens in a new window Covers public policy issues & U.S. Congress news & analysis. More Info Full-Text UB ONLY
• Policy File Index This link opens in a new window Search and access reports from more than 300 think tanks and research organizations. More Info Partial Full-Text UB ONLY
• Access World News This link opens in a new window Provides the fulltext of many USA and international newspapers. More Info Full-Text UB ONLY
• AP Images This link opens in a new window Thousands of photos, graphics, sound bites & AP wire stories. More Info UB ONLY
• Buffalo News Collection This link opens in a new window Full-text searchable access to the Buffalo News from 1880 to the present day. More Info Full-Text UB ONLY
• Business First of Buffalo This link opens in a new window Provides coverage of business, finance, and economic topics. More Info Full-Text UB ONLY
• Ethnic NewsWatch This link opens in a new window American ethnic press. More Info Full-Text UB ONLY
• Newspaper Source Plus This link opens in a new window Full-text newspapers, newswires, TV/radio transcripts. More Info Full-Text UB ONLY
• New York Times Academic Pass for UB Users This link opens in a new window Digital access to NYTimes.com (1851-present). Account set up and activation required. More Info Full-Text UB ONLY

Statistical Resources

• Neighborhood Change Database 2010 This link opens in a new window Provides electronic access to U.S. Census data from 1970-2010, with data normalized to 2010 Census tracts. For use with statistics and GIS applications. More Info Data UB ONLY
• Social Explorer This link opens in a new window Demographic information about the United States including historical data back to 1790. More Info Data UB ONLY
• Statista This link opens in a new window A global business data platform providing insights and facts across industries and countries. More Info Full-Text UB ONLY

Case Studies

• Rudy Bruner Award Collection
• << Previous: Library Basics
• Next: Statistics/Data >>

A systematic literature review of predictive analytics methods for early diagnosis of neonatal sepsis

• Open access
• Published: 19 September 2024
• Volume 21 , article number  96 , ( 2024 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• K. V. K. L. Narasimha Rao 1   na1 ,
• Pradeep Kumar Dadabada 1   na1 &
• Sanjita Jaipuria 2   na1  

Neonatal sepsis is a severe medical condition that contributes significantly to neonatal mortality. However, early diagnosis and treatment can help manage the condition effectively. Predictive analytics can assist neonatal sepsis diagnosis and treatment and offer a reassuring solution. This study presents a systematic literature review of various predictive analytics methods for neonatal sepsis diagnosis and treatment. It thoroughly reviews 16 studies between 2014 and 2024, including retrospective and prospective data and utilizing various predictive modeling techniques, such as Machine Learning (ML) and Deep Learning (DL). The review unveils that the Predictive analytics models can rapidly detect early and late-onset neonatal sepsis. This detection aids clinicians in decision-making and improves healthcare management for neonates, especially in low-resource settings. This study lays the groundwork for utilizing advanced analytics technologies to address challenges in this domain. It inspires further research in innovative and unexplored methods for neonatal sepsis diagnosis.

Explore related subjects

• Artificial Intelligence
• Medical Imaging

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Neonatal infections are responsible for 25% of infant deaths globally and 10% of deaths in children under 5 years old. In developing countries, they account for 99% of the world’s mortality due to bacterial infections [ 1 ]. Due to the uneven distribution of health services between urban and rural areas, developing countries such as India face a high Neonatal Mortality Rate (refer to Table 1 for abbreviations used in this paper) of 22 [ 2 ] and the highest number of neonatal deaths within the first 24 h of life [ 3 ]. Specifically, the rural NMR is twice the urban NMR [ 4 ]. India contributes to one-fifth of global live births and over a quarter of neonatal deaths [ 4 ]. In 2013 alone, nearly 0.75 million neonates died in India, which is the highest in the world [ 4 ]. Significantly, 70% of all infant deaths and over 50% of deaths in children under five occur in the neonatal period. Deaths within the first week of the neonatal period alone account for 45% of infant mortality [ 4 ]. Neonatal sepsis, along with antibiotic resistance, kills more than 0.6 million babies annually in India [ 5 , 6 ]. The United Nations SDG for NMR is 12 [ 7 ]. However, India faces significant challenges due to limited infrastructure and resources, which result in delays in diagnosing and treating neonates. This difficulty is further intensified because one or two clinical parameters cannot diagnose neonatal sepsis.

Neonatal sepsis is the presence of symptoms of sepsis in the neonatal period combined with bacteriological isolation of an infectious agent from blood or CSF [ 8 ] and the radiographic evidence of pneumonia [ 9 ]. About one million newborn babies across the world die due to neonatal infections during the neonatal period (from 0 to 28 days of birth) [ 1 ]. Neonatal sepsis includes serious infections, such as bacteremia, pneumonia, and meningitis in newborn babies. It is manifested in various forms, including very early-onset sepsis, the sepsis that occurs within the first three days of life; EOS the sepsis occurring within the first week; and finally, LOS occurring after the first week of life till the end of the neonatal period (28 days of life) [ 10 ]. The neonatal period carries the highest daily risk of mortality in the first four weeks than any other period and is 30-fold higher than the post-neonatal period from month one of birth to 59 months of age [ 4 ].

Neonatal sepsis can be managed by early diagnosis and treatment [ 8 ]. The study established that 90% of the babies sampled had more than one-factor causing sepsis. The critical challenge therefore in the diagnosis of neonatal sepsis arise from the nonspecific nature of symptoms, making both diagnosis and treatment difficult. A blood culture test, the current gold standard of diagnosis, takes more than 2 days to generate results [ 11 , 12 ]. Blood culture tests are, at times, inadequate, tend to throw up false negatives, and have not always demonstrated complete accuracy [ 13 ]. Moreover, in the absence of specific laboratory tests for neonatal sepsis, and the inherent protean nature of the non-specific symptoms, accurate clinical diagnosis of neonatal sepsis continues to remain a challenge [ 9 , 14 ] with delays in diagnosis and treatment as common issues [ 15 ] across the globe. Blood culture test continues to be a gold standard even though its sensitivity is challenged by 18% false negative rates [ 15 , 16 ]. Additionally, the volume of blood obtained from a neonate is more often less than 0.5 ml while the recommended range to detect bacteria is between 0.5 and 1.0 ml [ 13 ]. To determine the volume of blood necessary for conducting culture tests among babies, it is essential to know the detection systems sensitivity, and the probability of locating at least one microorganism in the collected blood culture sample. Sampling small volumes of blood to spot low-density bacteraemia or fungemia could run into a risk of not finding an organism in the culture bottle [ 13 ]. Also, in critically ill babies or very low birth weight babies, it is very hard to draw 1 ml blood sample and the low volume of the sample is usually inadequate to diagnose neonatal sepsis [ 16 , 17 ]. Especially in preterm babies, it is hard to make a suspicion of infection, as a result of which antibiotic usage is common and even leads to higher rates of mortality and morbidity when administered during the first seven days among new-borns [ 18 ]. Failure to quickly diagnose neonatal sepsis, primarily due to its indefinite sign and symptoms, makes the disease more lethal and destructive. Blood culture test, the only method for confirmatory diagnosis of neonatal sepsis, has however not been effectively addressing issues around neonatal morbidity and mortality, leading to a practice of rampant of empirical antibiotics [ 15 ] which in turn is contributing to yet another global health crisis, AMR.

According to [ 19 ], antibiotic resistance arises because of mutations in microbes and resulting selection pressure due to antibiotic use which offers a competitive advantage for mutated strains. Especially in LMICs, antibiotic use has gone up due to rising incomes, growing rates of hospitalization, and increasing prevalence of hospital infections [ 19 ]. NICUs in LMICs report between 15.2 and 62.0 infections per 1000 patient days and are up to nine times more than that in the USA which averages at about 6.9 infections per 1000 patient-days [ 16 , 19 ]. In [ 16 ] state that for every culture-positive sepsis result, on average, 11–23 infants in developed countries receive antibiotic treatment leading to antibiotic resistance and a rise in healthcare costs. On many occasions, despite negative blood cultures for 98% of patients, 47% of very low birth weight infants continued to receive antibiotics [ 16 ]. A review titled Antimicrobial Resistance: Tackling a crisis for the health and wealth of nations commissioned by the government of the United Kingdom and published in 2014 reported that an estimated 10 million people could die because of AMR by 2050 [ 20 , 21 ]. A study published in the Lancet [ 21 ], which performed a comprehensive review of the burden of AMR across 204 countries, 23 bacterial pathogens, and 88 drug combinations, reports that the magnitude of AMR, especially that caused by bacterial pathogens surpasses that of malaria or HIV. According to the Lancet study, one critical way to address this growing problem is to increase the quality of data collection, especially in low-income settings where surveillance is weak and data is sparse which could pave the way for addressing this global health crisis and guide policymaking. Research has also demonstrated that continuous use of sepsis screens is indeed effective in reducing antibiotic usage among neonates [ 22 ].

In developing countries like India, resistance to WHO recommended treatment regimens of antibiotics like ampicillin and gentamicin among pathogens causing neonatal infections in the first 28 days of their life is highly prevalent. A high proportion of these isolates, especially 71% Klebsiella spp and 50% E-coli are found to be resistant to gentamicin, which is the first line of treatment for neonatal infections [ 19 ]. Other harmful pathogens like Enterobacteriaceae and Acinetobacter spp causing neonatal infections are also associated with high antibiotic resistance and high mortality in neonatal nurseries [ 19 ]. In high-income countries, the culture-positive to culture-negative sepsis ratio ranges from 1:6 to 1:16 [ 23 ]. This ratio is likely skewed towards culture-negative sepsis in South Asia. Additionally, the pathogen profile in South Asia is observed to be different from that in high-income countries. In South Asia, Gram-negative pathogens (>60%) are dominant, while group B streptococci are low, which typically have a high incidence in high-income countries. The predominance of Gram-negative pathogens in South Asia indicates that the transition from Gram-Negative to Gram-positive organisms such as group B streptococci, that occurred about five to six decades ago in developed countries, is largely attributed to improved aseptic routines, including hand hygiene in neonatal intensive care units.

This disparity in pathogen profile across geographies requires localized algorithms in developing countries’ context rather than deploying the ones built in the developed country’s context since they will only render themselves ineffective in aiding health professionals, clearly demonstrating that ‘one size fits all’ is not the perfect solution in healthcare. Researchers have therefore indicated towards criticality in the requirement of the development of novel technology-based approaches for fast prediction of neonatal sepsis [ 11 ] that could perform diagnosis as effectively or more.

Predictive analytics methods have attracted researchers’ attention for their ability to diagnose neonatal sepsis early. They used statistical methods [ 8 ], Machine learning (ML) [ 15 ], and Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) [ 24 ] to aid in predicting the onset of sepsis in neonates. Predictive analytics has generated significant interest in healthcare because of its potential to transform economies, especially in primary health services [ 25 ]. Acknowledged as a non-medical intervention, predictive analytics promises to address health crises, build preparedness for next-generation epidemics, and aid in resilient recoveries during global health emergencies or calamities [ 26 ]. EHR alerts and CDSS all under the “classic” predictive analytics category [ 25 ], which, in recent times, has seen a significant rise in budgetary allocations.

Predictive analytics use data to build algorithms capable of deriving insights, mimicking intelligent human decision-making processes, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of decision-making processes [ 27 ]. Predictive analytics in healthcare broadly refers to ML, a subset of AI, and DL based on ANNs is a subset of ML. An example of a widespread use case of predictive analytics in healthcare is predicting patients at risk of developing certain conditions, estimating the likelihood of unexpected transfers to ICUs or emergency departments, and forecasting unplanned hospitalization expenses, among other scenarios [ 25 ].

While the health sector has pioneered predictive analytics [ 28 ], its adoption in health management focusing on neonatal sepsis detection has been uneven globally [ 27 ]. As a consequence, the predictive analytics adoption curve traverses a non-linear trajectory owing to diverse stages of innovation in several countries, resulting in varied success rates amidst the unaddressed challenges around their respective legal, regulatory, ethical, and cultural factors [ 29 ]. Thus, the current study fills the gap in predictive analytics literature in early predicting neonatal sepsis by providing a pathway to improve its early diagnosis and screening and address related antibiotic resistance. It also builds upon theory to foster world-class research in predictive analytics applications.

Therefore, following a rigorous scientific research design, this study endeavors to holistically assimilate knowledge concerning prediction analytics models for early diagnosis of Neonatal Sepsis in the healthcare sector in the context of developing countries. A systematic literature review is considered a reliable method to synthesize the literature and is deemed appropriate to assimilate the fragmented literature to determine the current state of the art [ 30 ] literature.

The objectives of the current review are as follows:

To systematically review predictive analytics methods used for the early diagnosis of neonatal sepsis (see Sect.  2 and Sect.  3 ).

To identify gaps in the current research efforts toward building advanced predictive analytics methods for neonatal sepsis diagnosis (see Sect.  4 ). The review is up-to-date and explores different dimensions of neonatal sepsis diagnosis in the context of the nature of the disease (EOS/LOS), country of study, performance analysis of different predictive analytics methods, and reviews of prominent studies on the implementation of predictive analytics methods in neonatal sepsis diagnosis by different researchers. This review will benefit researchers in the domain of neonatal sepsis diagnosis and predictive analytics, providing an in-depth understanding of the different predictive analytics methods used for early diagnosis of neonatal sepsis.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Sect.  2 presents the method used for systematic literature review. Later, Sect.  3 presents the results obtained and their discussion of key findings, strengths, and limitations. Section  4 presents the gaps in the literature and future directions for further research. Finally, the paper is concluded with acknowledgements.

The four-step process outlined in the PRISMA guidelines [ 31 ] was used to create a rigorous and repeatable review, as recommended by [ 32 ]. The search protocol is classified into three phases:

2.1 Phase1: Planning the review

Articles were searched from Scopus, PubMed, Google Scholar, etc. An exhaustive search using boolean operators with a combination of “OR” and “AND” was used along with the following keywords- “Neonatal Sepsis” AND “Neonatal Sepsis Diagnosis” AND, “Predictive Analytics” OR “Artificial Intelligence” OR “Machine Learning.” Research papers were searched from the year 2014 to 2024.

All the articles were screened independently by all the researchers; however, only those articles with the main keywords in the abstract that were relevant were considered for review.

Inclusion Criteria: Further, the articles were selected based on the inclusion criteria mentioned below:

Neonates with positive blood culture before 72 h of life were considered Early-onset Neonatal Sepsis cases. Neonates with positive blood culture reports after 72 h of life were considered late neonatal sepsis cases.

Both prospective and retrospective studies that used electronic health records and vital signal measurement devices to try to figure out how to predict neonatal sepsis.

Clinical Studies using various statistical methods for predicting Neonatal Sepsis were considered.

Exclusion Criteria: The following are excluded from our study

Non-English articles, conference papers, and editorial communication

Systematic reviews of previously published studies

Meta-analysis of studies

2.2 Phase II: Conducting the review

Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 1690 articles were screened for document type and subjects, 72 from Scopus, 4 from PubMed, and 1612 from Google Scholar were considered for further evaluation. 994 articles were exported based on accessibility, out of which 924 articles were excluded and which met the inclusion and exclusion criteria defined for the study. A final set of 48 full-text articles were identified for the literature review, and 16 articles with predictive models developed and validated were analyzed.

2.3 Phase III: Reporting

Table 1 presents the review’s results and abbreviations used in the paper. Figure 1 depicts the PRISMA approach for choosing the final set of 16 relevant studies. Figure 2 presents the distribution of studies year wise, journal wise and country wise respectively. These studies are briefly described as follows:

Mani et al. [ 16 ] proposed machine learning algorithms for early diagnosis of late-onset neonatal sepsis, which include SVM, NB, Variants such as TAN, AODE, a sample-based classifier (KNN), decision tree classifiers, CART, RF, LR and LBR. Authors picked variables from a subset of NICU variables deemed relevant, aided by clinical expertise and literature evidence. They included 781 (71 X 11) temporal variables (laboratory) and 30 nontemporal (demographics). Data missing values were addressed using the LOCF approach [ 33 ]. The Gaussian single imputation method is considered superior over simple mean, median, and mode value imputation because it introduces less bias and reduces the missing values from 91 to 64%. Variables with more than 90% missing data were removed. The final dataset consisted of 93 variables and 299 instances. An ensemble of machine learning methods used included classifier algorithms such as SVM; decision support algorithms such as NB and CART, LR; KNN, TAN, AODE, RF, and finally LBR. Feature selection was done using a 5-fold nested cross-validation procedure in MATLAB. Performance was measured using the AUC since it works well independent of class size and classification threshold [ 34 ]. Since the sample size is smaller relative to the number of variables, authors used SVM algorithms such that they could select a subset of features that are highly predictive of the outcome variable. SVM algorithms have qualitative and quantitative advantages and can pick informative features quite well [ 35 ]. The treatment specificity of ML algorithms was higher than the physicians criterion measured as a prescription of an antibiotic within 12 h of phlebotomy. The authors concluded that most ML algorithms treatment sensitivity and specificity exceeded that of the physicians.

Thakur et al. [ 36 ] proposed two different prediction models for low-resource and developing countries using non-invasive and invasive parameters extracted from the MIMIC III database. The authors applied binary logistic regression to develop prediction models and used Chi-square test and Fishers exact test as goodness-of-fit tests. They extracted a total of seven parameters within a time window of 12 h, including blood culture reports, temperature, CSF culture result, HR, systolic and diastolic pressure, white blood cell count, and bands. In the derivation and validation phase, 1472 neonates were divided into two datasets in the ratio of 70/30. Binary logistic regression was used to calculate the prediction power of invasive parameters (platelets, bands, and WBC) and non-invasive parameters such as temperature, blood pressure, and heart rate. The authors concluded that both prediction models derived from invasive and non-invasive parameters performed equally well, with an AUROC of 0.777 and 0.824 in the derivation dataset and an AUROC of 0.830 and 0.824 in the validation dataset.

Lopez-Martinez et al. [ 24 ] proposed a deep learning approach to predict early neonatal sepsis. They constructed a sequence of ANNs with increasing hidden layers and nodes, trained the networks on a set of hyper parameters, and normalized the data using Gaussian normalization. The network model results show a sensitivity of 80.3%, a specificity of 90.4%, a precision value of 83.1%, and an AUC of 92.5%. The authors concluded that the neural network model could be used as an inference system to aid in detecting neonatal sepsis.

Gomez et al. [ 37 ] proposed a noninvasive machine learning algorithm for early detection of neonatal sepsis using HRV monitoring features. The study included 79 newborn babies with less than 48 h of life and a gestational age between 36 and 41 weeks. Electrocardiogram signal data was recorded, and HRV parameters were calculated. The authors developed supervised machine learning algorithms, and critical metrics such as sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and area under the ROC curve were calculated. The study results indicated an AUC of 0.94 using the adaptive boosting machine learning model, an AUC of 0.88 for the bagged trees model, and an AUC of 0.84 for random forests. The authors concluded that neonatal sepsis can be identified using HRV parameters with the use of the adaptive boosting algorithm, which promises better results

Hu et al. [ 38 ] proposed an Artificial Neural Network model for detecting late onset of neonatal sepsis. The authors placed data collectors in NICUs to gather real-time vital sign data, including HR, RR, and blood oxygen saturation (SpO2). They transformed the vital signs data into images and labeled the data as normal or sepsis category. After extracting features, they developed a 14-layer CNN. The authors concluded that they successfully demonstrated the feasibility of using a CNN for sepsis detection using vital signs. However, they suggested further work using more powerful methods such as LSTM.

Thakur et al. [ 39 ] proposed a noninvasive prediction model to detect sepsis in neonates in developing countries and compared its performance with an invasive prediction model. The study used data extracted from the MIMIC III database, with 1447 samples filtered from a sample of 7875 EHR records. Two logistic regression models were developed for invasive and noninvasive parameters separately. The results showed that the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for predicting sepsis in neonates using noninvasive parameters was 0.879 (95% CI), with a sensitivity of 74.81% (95% CI), specificity of 88.75% (95% CI), and PPV of 49.75% (95% CI). The authors concluded that both invasive and noninvasive models performed well and suggested that further improvements to these models could help frontline health workers and semi-skilled workers in the early prediction of neonatal sepsis, leading to a decrease in mortality rates in developing countries.

Masino et al. [ 15 ] developed ML models for early recognition of sepsis in the NICU using electronic health records at least 4 h before clinical manifestation. The authors conducted a retrospective control study considering 36 features derived from electronic health records and developed 8 machine learning models using 10-fold nested cross-validation. The results demonstrate that 6 out of 8 models showed a mean area under the ROC of 0.80–0.82, and by including both culture and clinically positive neonatal sepsis-identified cases, the same models achieved a mean ROC of 0.85–0.87. The authors concluded that machine learning predictive models could identify neonates with sepsis before their clinical recognition.

Goldberg et al. [ 40 ] introduced a validated prediction model for early diagnosis of late-onset neonatal sepsis. The model incorporates the clinical evaluation of the NLR and CRP. The authors conducted a retrospective case–control study, extracting data from medical files, and utilized univariate and multivariate logistic regression methods to identify the risk of sepsis. The authors concluded that the combination of clinical evaluation with NLR and CRP values can be utilized to predict LOS in neonates.

Song et al. [ 12 ] conducted a study to develop a prediction model for LONS using noninvasive vital sign data and machine learning technology. The model was designed to detect clinical sepsis 48 h before it occurred. The model’s performance was comparable to those using invasive data, with key markers being blood pressure, oxygen saturation, and body temperature. The authors confirmed that a machine learning-based LONS prediction model could be developed using vital sign data regularly measured in clinical settings.

Alvi et al. [ 41 ] developed an ANN model for early detection of neonatal sepsis. The authors utilized under-sampling and oversampling techniques to balance the dataset. They fed a set of hyperparameters to the ANN. They concluded that the model achieved a true positive rate of 98.4%, a true negative rate of 98.1%, a precision of 96.8%, an AUC of 99.8%, and an accuracy of 98.2%. The better performance of the ANN model was attributed to selecting the correct set of features based on the strength score of the dependent variable. It was also concluded that the developed ANN model helps detect positive and negative sepsis cases and can be used as a decision-support tool.

Helguera Repetto et al. [ 42 ] introduced a predictive model by training and validating an ANN algorithm using a balanced dataset that included preterm and term neonates. The authors found that the ANN model’s performance was better than physician diagnosis based on traditional scoring systems. Additionally, the model performed well compared to other advanced methods that used maternal and neonatal variables.

Alvi et al. [ 43 ] proposed a deep-learning model for predicting the early onset of neonatal sepsis using non-invasive data. The deep learning models are designed to work with time series, sequential, or image data. The authors built two neural networks, CNN and LSTM-RNN, to classify subjects and determine whether they are affected by sepsis. The study’s results indicated that with identical precision and recall percentages, CNN can predict both positive and negative cases well. The recall rate of LSTM-RNN is better, with a result of 1.0. LSTM RNN is considered good at predicting the early onset of neonatal sepsis, with an F-measure of 98.04% and an accuracy of 99.40%. The authors concluded that although CNN’s performance is lower than that of ANN and RNN, it performed better than traditional ML algorithms. LSTM RNN outperforms CNN and ANN.

Honore et al. [ 44 ] conducted a study investigating the predictive value of machine learning-assisted analysis of non-invasive, high-frequency monitoring data and demographic factors to detect neonatal sepsis. The study involved 325 infants with a total of 2866 hospitalization days. Personalized event timelines were created to monitor interventions and clinical findings. Time-domain features from heart rate, respiratory rate, and oxygen saturation values, as well as demographic factors, were analyzed. The Naive Bayes algorithm within a maximum a posteriori framework was used to predict sepsis up to 24 h before clinical suspicion. The study identified twenty cases of sepsis and found that combining multiple vital signs improved the algorithm’s performance compared to using only heart rate characteristics. This allowed for sepsis prediction with an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of 0.82 up to 24 h before clinical suspicion. Additionally, the risk of sepsis increased 150-fold 10 h before clinical suspicion. The non-invasive patient data used in the algorithm provides valuable predictive value for the early detection of neonatal sepsis. The authors concluded that the non-invasive patient data algorithm provides applicable predictive value for neonatal sepsis detection.

Van den Berg et al. [ 45 ] conducted a study to develop a predictive algorithm to assist doctors in the early detection of LOS in very preterm infants. In a meticulously designed retrospective cohort study, all consecutively admitted preterm infants (GA of 32 weeks) from 2008 until 2019 were included. The subjects were classified as LOS or control according to blood culture results, the gold standard in the field. Routine and continuously measured oxygen saturation and heart rate data with a minute-by-minute sampling rate were extracted from electronic medical records to generate features. Machine learning techniques such as generalized additive models, logistic regression, and XGBoost) were then employed to build a robust classification algorithm. Upon evaluation, the LR algorithm demonstrated a promising AUC of 0.73 (p< 0.05) at the moment of clinical suspicion (t = 0). In the longitudinal simulation, the algorithms detected LOS in at least 47% of the patients before clinical suspicion without exceeding the alarm fatigue threshold of 3 alarms per day. This suggests that the algorithm, based on routinely collected data, has the potential to significantly accelerate clinical decisions in the early detection of LOS, even with limited inputs, thereby revolutionizing the way LOS is managed in clinical practice.

Robi et al. [ 46 ] have applied a classification stacking model for neonatal diseases such as sepsis, a leading cause of neonatal deaths. The developed stacking model was rigorously compared to three related machine-learning models: XGB, RF, and SVM. The results were precise, and the proposed stacking model outperformed the other models, boasting an impressive accuracy of 97.04%. This robust performance underscores the potential of the developed predictive models in contributing to the early detection and accurate diagnosis of neonatal diseases, particularly in resource-limited health facilities.

Kallonen et al. [ 47 ] conducted a study aimed at predicting late-onset sepsis (LOS) in newborns by analyzing noninvasive biosignal measurements from NICU monitors. The authors developed a machine learning algorithm based on a CNN structure, which achieved 83% sensitivity and 73% specificity for detecting LOS 44 h before clinical suspicion. The electrocardiogram and respiratory impedance signals were crucial in improving predictive accuracy. The authors concluded that this approach offers state-of-the-art prediction performance for LOS without requiring artifact removal.

Apart from studies done using Machine Learning and Artificial Neural Networks, there are few other studies that have used traditional statistical methods by researchers to predict neonatal sepsis clinically which were summarized as below.

Selimovic et al. [ 48 ] developed a predictive score to diagnose early onset of sepsis using CBC and CRP levels. The authors concluded that the predictive score for EONS is useful in the diagnostic evaluation of neonates suspected of Early onset of neonatal sepsis.

Okascharoen et al. [ 49 ] proposed a practical, clinical prediction scoring model for the diagnosis of Late onset of Sepsis using weighted coefficients from Coxs proportional hazards model ROC analysis. The authors also validated the model which indicated a good performance.

Kuzniewicz et al. [ 50 ] proposed multivariable prediction models to estimate the risk of Early onset of sepsis in preterm as well as term neonates. The study was conducted on a cohort of infants born at Kaiser Permanente Northern California Hospital during the period 2010 to 2015 to test the use of antibiotic administration, blood culture tests, clinical outcomes, and re admissions at the hospital for early onset of sepsis. Segmented regression models were used to predict the onset of sepsis. The authors concluded that usage of the Early onset of Sepsis calculator resulted in a decrease in blood culture test from 14.5 to 4.9%, while empirical administration of antibiotic use in the first 24 h reduced from 5.0 to 2.6% and a reduction of antibiotic administration from 0.5 to 0.4% was observed between 24 and 72 h of birth. Their study clearly indicated the importance of the clinical care multi variable risk prediction model in reducing the proportion of neonates undergoing extensive laboratory testing and empirical antibiotic treatment without any adverse effects.

Goldberg et al. [ 40 ] proposed a validated prediction model for early diagnosis of late-onset neonatal sepsis with clinical evaluation of NLR and CRP. The authors conducted a retrospective case–control study with data extracted from medical files and applied univariate and multivariate logistic regression methods to identify the risk of sepsis. The authors concluded that a clinical evaluation in conjunction with NLR and CRP values could be used to predict the late onset of sepsis in Neonates.

Huang et al. [ 51 ] proposed using nomograms to predict the Late onset of sepsis in preterm infants. A development cohort of 1256 preterm infants and a validation cohort of 452 preterm infants were included, and the nomograms were built with and without thyroid function. The authors concluded that thyroid hypofunction in preterm infants may increase the incidence of sepsis.

Systematic literature review using PRISMA methodology

Distribution of papers from the literature

3 Results and discussion

Of the 16 studies selected (as per Table 1 ), 15 were retrospective, and one was conducted on prospective data. Most studies (70%) are based in developed countries such as the USA, Finland, Netherlands, Australia, Israel, Spain, etc., and few studies on neonatal sepsis diagnosis were conducted in developing countries. It was also observed that late-onset neonatal sepsis diagnosis is of significant interest in studies conducted in developed countries. Most models (62.5%) were based on non-invasive parameters without involving any blood tests. ML models such as SVM, NB Classifiers, AODE Estimators, Sample-based classifiers, Decision tree classifier, CART, RF, LR, LBR, AB, BT, GB, GP, KNN, GAM, XGBoost etc were used in majority of the studies. ANNs, CNNs, and DL techniques were used to predict sepsis in 6 studies analyzed.

3.1 Key findings

Sepsis is a severe medical condition that requires prompt diagnosis and treatment. However, traditional diagnostic methods have inherent limitations that can cause delays in recognizing the onset of sepsis. Fortunately, machine learning algorithms have proven and consistently demonstrated their high effectiveness in predicting sepsis hours before it is clinically recognized [ 15 ]. The systematic review of various studies reaffirmed these impressive results, showing better sensitivity and specificity than clinicians’ diagnosis of sepsis [ 42 ].

Both invasive and non-invasive models were equally effective in predicting sepsis, with the latter providing applicable predictive value and supporting clinical decision-making in the early diagnosis of late-onset neonatal sepsis [ 12 , 36 ]. Additionally, NLR and C-reactive protein prediction can rapidly identify neonatal sepsis’s late onset [ 40 ]. HRV is identified as one of the critical parameters for sepsis diagnosis. Among machine learning algorithms, Adaboost ML was an effective tool for predicting sepsis, and several other machine learning algorithms were used in the studies [ 37 ].

As illustrated in a few articles, ANNs, and CNN models were effectively used as an intelligent systems inference engine to enhance the detection of neonatal sepsis [ 24 ]. These models demonstrated high accuracy in predicting neonatal sepsis, with the CNN model capable of predicting its onset 24 h ahead [ 38 ]. Furthermore, ANN can accurately predict neonatal sepsis and outperform physicians’ diagnoses [ 41 ]. The LSTM RNN is the best-performing prediction model, with an accuracy of 99.40% [ 43 ]. When combined with PSD transformation, biosignals from NICU monitors provide excellent prediction performance for late-onset neonatal sepsis [ 47 ]. With its potential to support early diagnosis of neonatal sepsis, machine learning holds promise for healthcare, particularly in resource-limited facilities [ 46 ]. The performance of predictive models using non-invasive features is comparable to invasive models, offering a ray of hope for more accessible and efficient healthcare [ 45 ]. Machine learning algorithms can improve patient outcomes by predicting sepsis hours before clinical recognition [ 16 ].

3.2 Strengths and limitations

3.2.1 strengths.

The systematic review rigorously analyzed an equal proportion of studies investigating early and late-onset sepsis. It thoroughly evaluated the use of both invasive and non-invasive parameters for developing machine learning models. The study was up to date with the articles published till March 2024.

3.2.2 Limitations

While comprehensive, it is crucial to note that this review was limited to studies conducted in English, excluding a significant number of articles. Moreover, most of these studies were conducted in developed countries, leaving a need for more research in developing countries. The potential impact of predictive models in diagnosing neonatal sepsis, especially in low-resource settings, is immense. To underline the urgency and importance of this issue, it is clear that more evidence is needed. Urgent and extensive research is required in the field of neonatal sepsis detection, particularly in the context of developing countries.

4 Literature review gaps and future directions

4.1 gaps identified.

Most existing ML studies on the early prediction of neonatal sepsis are focused on the LOS from developed countries and are retrospective using EHR data ([ 15 , 16 , 18 ]). According to these studies, the essential causative organisms for EOS are Streptococcus agalactiae and Escherichia coli (in Western countries data). Studies indicate that due to a sporadic rise in AMR, neonatal mortality is also increasing, and hence, non-culture-based diagnosis needs to be encouraged. Moreover, in high-income countries, the culture-positive to culture-negative sepsis ratio ranges from 1:6 to 1:16 ([ 23 ]), and this ratio is likely skewed towards culture-negative sepsis in South Asia. Additionally, variation in pathogen profile in South Asia compared to that from high-income countries calls for localized algorithms to address the issue.

Most research in Predictive Analytics is empirical in nature; therefore, a more significant number of theoretical studies are also needed to develop the body of literature and advance academic research in the context of developing countries.

4.2 Future research directions

Research from developed countries states that early diagnosis and treatment of such critical medical conditions using predictive analytics methods reduce antibiotic use by at least 50% ([ 52 ]) and infections by 84% upon continuous use [ 23 ]. Additionally, due to low resource constraints in LMICs, there is an imperative need for applications powered by predictive analytics methods to address issues of low access to healthcare facilities

A wider academic view is, however the need of the hour to bring to the fore a better perspective of how new technologies perform or are accepted in radically different cultural contexts from the oft-tried and tested spaces of the American or European environments and encompass the sociological milieu of gender, ethnicity, and other factors that influence the adoption of novel ways and means of addressing global health, especially among healthcare providers, facilitators, and their local and global partners. The field of AI thus entails increased studies to enhance the body of literature further and necessitates independent studies to address region-specific issues with global impact.

5 Conclusions

Predictive analytics-based models can predict the early manifestation of Neonatal Sepsis. They can be used as a rapid detection tool for the early onset and late onset of Neonatal Sepsis. These methods can be valuable tools for clinicians to aid in effective decision-making and improved healthcare management of neonates, particularly in low-resource settings. Most of the prediction models were developed on clinical data sets from countries in North America, Europe, or Asian countries such as China, and their applicability to low-resource regions has seen subpar success rates. Therefore, it is imperative to develop a prediction model with localized data sets and validate their adoption with healthcare practitioners.

Data availability

There is no data used in this paper.

Abbreviations

• Artificial intelligence

Adaptive boosting

Anti-microbial resistance

Artificial neural network

Averaged one dependence estimator

Area under curve

Area under receiver operating curve

Bagged trees

Classification and regression tree

Complete blood count

Clinical decision support system

Confidence interval

Convolutional neural network

C-Reactive protein

Cerebro spinal fluid

• Deep learning

Electronic health record

Early onset of neonatal sepsis

Early onset of sepsis

Gestational age

Generalized additive model

Gradient boosting

Group B strep (streptococcus)

Gaussian process

Human immunodeficiency virus

Heart rate variability

Intensive care unit

K nearest neighbor

Lazy bayesian rules

Low and middle income countries

Last observation carried forward

Late onset of sepsis

Late onset of neonatal sepsis

Logistic regression

Long short term memory

• Machine learning

Naive bayes classifier

Neonatal intensive care unit

Meta-analysis

Positive prediction value

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta analysis

Premature rupture of membrane

Random forest

Respiratory;Rate

Recurrent neural network

Receiver operating characteristic curve

Sustainable development goal

Support vector machine

Tree augmented naive bayes

United States of America

White blood count

World Health Organization

EXtreme gradient boosting

Waters D, Jawad I, Ahmad A, Luksic I, Nair H, Zgaga L, Theodoratou E, Rudan I, Zaidi A, Campbell H. Aetiology of community-acquired neonatal sepsis in low and middle income countries. J Glob Health. 2011;1(2):154–70231981163484776.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

NHM: Child Health

Roy M, Gupta R, Sehgal R. Neonatal transport in India: from public health perspective. Med J Dr D Y Patil Univ. 2016;9(5):566. https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-2870.192156 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Sankar M, Neogi S, Sharma J, Chauhan M, Srivastava R, Prabhakar P, Khera A, Kumar R, Zodpey S, Paul V. State of newborn health in India. J Perinatol. 2016;36(3):3–8.

Laxminarayan R, Bhutta ZA. Antimicrobial resistance—a threat to neonate survival. Lancet Glob Health. 2016;4(10):676–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2214-109x(16)30221-2 .

Panigrahi P, Chandel DS, Hansen NI, Sharma N, Kandefer S, Parida S, Satpathy R, Pradhan L, Mohapatra A, Mohapatra SS, Misra PR, Banaji N, Johnson JA, Morris JG, Gewolb IH, Chaudhry R. Neonatal sepsis in rural India: timing, microbiology and antibiotic resistance in a population-based prospective study in the community setting. J Perinatol. 2017;37(8):911–21. https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2017.67 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Mfateneza E, Rutayisire PC, Biracyaza E, Musafiri S, Mpabuka WG. Application of machine learning methods for predicting infant mortality in rwanda: analysis of rwanda demographic health survey 2014–15 dataset. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-022-04699-8 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Singh M, Narang A, Bhakoo ON. Predictive perinatal score in the diagnosis of neonatal sepsis. J Trop Pediatr. 1994;40(6):365–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/tropej/40.6.365 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Gerdes JS, Polin RA. Sepsis screen in neonates with evaluation of plasma fibronectin. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1987;6(5):443–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006454-198705000-00005 .

Zaidi AKM, Thaver D, Ali SA, Khan TA. Pathogens associated with sepsis in newborns and young infants in developing countries. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2009;28(1):10–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/inf.0b013e3181958769 .

Sahu P, Raj Stanly EA, Simon Lewis LE, Prabhu K, Rao M, Kunhikatta V. Prediction modelling in the early detection of neonatal sepsis. World J Pediatr. 2022;18(3):160–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12519-021-00505-1 .

Song W, Jung SY, Baek H, Choi CW, Jung YH, Yoo S. A predictive model based on machine learning for the early detection of late-onset neonatal sepsis: development and observational study. JMIR Med Inform. 2020;8(7):15965. https://doi.org/10.2196/15965 .

Schelonka RL, Chai MK, Yoder BA, Hensley D, Brockett RM, Ascher DP. Volume of blood required to detect common neonatal pathogens. J Pediatr. 1996;129(2):275–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3476(96)70254-8 .

Hammerschlag MR, Klein JO, Herschel M, Chen FCJ, Fermin R. Patterns of use of antibiotics in two newborn nurseries. N Engl J Med. 1977;296(22):1268–9. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm197706022962206 .

Masino AJ, Harris MC, Forsyth D, Ostapenko S, Srinivasan L, Bonafide CP, Balamuth F, Schmatz M, Grundmeier RW. Machine learning models for early sepsis recognition in the neonatal intensive care unit using readily available electronic health record data. PLoS One. 2019;14(2):0212665. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212665 .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Mani S, Ozdas A, Aliferis C, Varol HA, Chen Q, Carnevale R, Chen Y, Romano-Keeler J, Nian H, Weitkamp J-H. Medical decision support using machine learning for early detection of late-onset neonatal sepsis. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21(2):326–36. https://doi.org/10.1136/amiajnl-2013-001854 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Neal PR, Kleiman MB, Reynolds JK, Allen SD, Lemons JA, Yu PL. Volume of blood submitted for culture from neonates. J Clin Microbiol. 1986;24(3):353–6. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.24.3.353-356.1986 .

Ting JY, Synnes A, Roberts A, Deshpandey A, Dow K, Yoon EW, Lee K-S, Dobson S, Lee SK, Shah PS. Association between antibiotic use and neonatal mortality and morbidities in very low-birth-weight infants without culture-proven sepsis or necrotizing enterocolitis. JAMA Pediatr. 2016;170(12):1181. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.2132 .

Laxminarayan R, Duse A, Wattal C, Zaidi AKM, Wertheim HFL, Sumpradit N, Vlieghe E, Hara GL, Gould IM, Goossens H, Greko C, So AD, Bigdeli M, Tomson G, Woodhouse W, Ombaka E, Peralta AQ, Qamar FN, Mir F, Kariuki S, Bhutta ZA, Coates A, Bergstrom R, Wright GD, Brown ED, Cars O. Antibiotic resistance—the need for global solutions. Lancet Infect Dis. 2013;13(12):1057–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1473-3099(13)70318-9 .

Kraker MEA, Stewardson AJ, Harbarth S. Will 10 million people die a year due to antimicrobial resistance by 2050? PLoS Med. 2016;13(11):1002184. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002184 .

Murray CJL, Ikuta KS, Sharara F, Swetschinski L, Robles Aguilar G, Gray A, Han C, Bisignano C, Rao P, Wool E, Johnson SC, Browne AJ, Chipeta MG, Fell F, Hackett S, Haines-Woodhouse G, Kashef Hamadani BH, Kumaran EAP, McManigal B, Achalapong S, Agarwal R, Akech S, Albertson S, Amuasi J, Andrews J, Aravkin A, Ashley E, Babin F-X, Bailey F, Baker S, Basnyat B, Bekker A, Bender R, Berkley JA, Bethou A, Bielicki J, Boonkasidecha S, Bukosia J, Carvalheiro C, Castañeda-Orjuela C, Chansamouth V, Chaurasia S, Chiurchiù S, Chowdhury F, Clotaire Donatien R, Cook AJ, Cooper B, Cressey TR, Criollo-Mora E, Cunningham M, Darboe S, Day NPJ, De Luca M, Dokova K, Dramowski A, Dunachie SJ, Duong Bich T, Eckmanns T, Eibach D, Emami A, Feasey N, Fisher-Pearson N, Forrest K, Garcia C, Garrett D, Gastmeier P, Giref AZ, Greer RC, Gupta V, Haller S, Haselbeck A, Hay SI, Holm M, Hopkins S, Hsia Y, Iregbu KC, Jacobs J, Jarovsky D, Javanmardi F, Jenney AWJ, Khorana M, Khusuwan S, Kissoon N, Kobeissi E, Kostyanev T, Krapp F, Krumkamp R, Kumar A, Kyu HH, Lim C, Lim K, Limmathurotsakul D, Loftus MJ, Lunn M, Ma J, Manoharan A, Marks F, May J, Mayxay M, Mturi N, Munera-Huertas T, Musicha P, Musila LA, Mussi-Pinhata MM, Naidu RN, Nakamura T, Nanavati R, Nangia S, Newton P, Ngoun C, Novotney A, Nwakanma D, Obiero CW, Ochoa TJ, Olivas-Martinez A, Olliaro P, Ooko E, Ortiz-Brizuela E, Ounchanum P, Pak GD, Paredes JL, Peleg AY, Perrone C, Phe T, Phommasone K, Plakkal N, Ponce-de-Leon A, Raad M, Ramdin T, Rattanavong S, Riddell A, Roberts T, Robotham JV, Roca A, Rosenthal VD, Rudd KE, Russell N, Sader HS, Saengchan W, Schnall J, Scott JAG, Seekaew S, Sharland M, Shivamallappa M, Sifuentes-Osornio J, Simpson AJ, Steenkeste N, Stewardson AJ, Stoeva T, Tasak N, Thaiprakong A, Thwaites G, Tigoi C, Turner C, Turner P, Doorn HR, Velaphi S, Vongpradith A, Vongsouvath M, Vu H, Walsh T, Walson JL, Waner S, Wangrangsimakul T, Wannapinij P, Wozniak T, Young Sharma TEMW, Yu KC, Zheng P, Sartorius B, Lopez AD, Stergachis A, Moore C, Dolecek C, Naghavi M. Global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance in 2019: a systematic analysis. The Lancet 2022;399(10325), 629–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(21)02724-0

Philip AG. Decreased use of antibiotics using a neonatal sepsis screening technique. J Pediatr. 1981;98(5):795–9.

Chaurasia S, Sivanandan S, Agarwal R, Ellis S, Sharland M, Sankar MJ. Neonatal sepsis in south Asia: huge burden and spiralling antimicrobial resistance. BMJ. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k5314 .

López-Martínez F, Núñez-Valdez ER, Lorduy Gomez J, García-Díaz V. A neural network approach to predict early neonatal sepsis. Comput Electric Eng. 2019;76:379–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compeleceng.2019.04.015 .

Lin S. A clinician’s guide to artificial intelligence (ai): Why and how primary care should lead the health care AI revolution. J Am Board Family Med. 2022;35(1):175–84. https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2022.01.210226 .

BMJ: Artificial Intelligence and covid-19

Yu M, Tang A, Brown K, Bouchakri R, St-Onge P, Wu S, Reeder J, Mullie L, Chassé M. Integrating artificial intelligence in bedside care for Covid-19 and future pandemics. BMJ. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2021-068197 .

Laï M-C, Brian M, Mamzer M-F. Perceptions of artificial intelligence in healthcare: findings from a qualitative survey study among actors in France. J Transl Med. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-019-02204-y .

BMJ: Get ready for AI in pandemic response and healthcare

Ganeshkumar P, Gopalakrishnan S. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis: understanding the best evidence in primary healthcare. J Family Med Primary Care. 2013;2(1):9. https://doi.org/10.4103/2249-4863.109934 .

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The prisma statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339(jul 211):2700–2700. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2700 .

Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P. Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br J Manag. 2003;14(3):207–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375 .

Overall JE, Tonidandel S, Starbuck RR. Last-observation-carried-forward (locf) and tests for difference in mean rates of change in controlled repeated measurements designs with dropouts. Soc Sci Res. 2009;38(2):492–503.

Fawcett T. An introduction to roc analysis. Pattern Recogn Lett. 2006;27(8):861–74.

Guyon I, Weston J, Barnhill S, Vapnik V. Gene selection for cancer classification using support vector machines. Mach Learn. 2002;46:389–422.

Thakur J, Pahuja SK, Pahuja R. Neonatal sepsis prediction model for resource-poor developing countries. In: 2018 2nd International Conference on Electronics, Materials Engineering & Nano-Technology (IEMENTech). IEEE, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1109/iementech.2018.8465268

Gomez R, Garcia N, Collantes G, Ponce F, Redon P. Development of a non-invasive procedure to early detect neonatal sepsis using hrv monitoring and machine learning algorithms. In: 2019 IEEE 32nd International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems (CBMS). IEEE, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1109/cbms.2019.00037

Hu Y, Lee VCS, Tan K. An application of convolutional neural networks for the early detection of late-onset neonatal sepsis. In: 2019 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN). IEEE, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1109/ijcnn.2019.8851683

Thakur J, Pahuja S, Pahuja R. Non-invasive prediction model for developing countries to predict sepsis in neonates. Biomed Eng. 2019;31(01):1950001.

Google Scholar  

Goldberg O, Amitai N, Chodick G, Bromiker R, Scheuerman O, Ben-Zvi H, Klinger G. Can we improve early identification of neonatal late-onset sepsis? A validated prediction model. J Perinatol. 2020;40(9):1315–22. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41372-020-0649-6 .

Alvi RH, Habibur Rahman M, Al Shaeed Khan A, Rahman RM. Predicting early neonatal sepsis using neural networks and other classifiers. In: 2020 IEEE 10th International Conference on Intelligent Systems (IS). IEEE, (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/is48319.2020.9199937

Helguera-Repetto AC, Soto-Ramírez MD, Villavicencio-Carrisoza O, Yong-Mendoza S, Yong-Mendoza A, León-Juárez M, González-y-Merchand JA, Zaga-Clavellina V, Irles C. Neonatal sepsis diagnosis decision-making based on artificial neural networks. Front Pediatr. 2020. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2020.00525 .

Alvi RH, Rahman MH, Khan AAS, Rahman RM. Deep learning approach on tabular data to predict early-onset neonatal sepsis. J Inf Telecommun. 2020;5(2):226–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/24751839.2020.1843121 .

Honoré A, Forsberg D, Adolphson K, Chatterjee S, Jost K, Herlenius E. Vital sign-based detection of sepsis in neonates using machine learning. Acta Paediatr. 2023;112(4):686–96.

Berg MAM, Medina OOAG, Loohuis IIP, Flier MM, Dudink JJ, Benders MMJNL, Bartels RRT, Vijlbrief DDC. Development and clinical impact assessment of a machine-learning model for early prediction of late-onset sepsis. Computers in Biology and Medicine 2023;163, 107156 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2023.107156

Robi YG, Sitote TM. Neonatal disease prediction using machine learning techniques. J Healthcare Eng. 2023;2023:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/3567194 .

Kallonen A, Juutinen M, Värri A, Carrault G, Pladys P, Beuchée A. Early detection of late-onset neonatal sepsis from noninvasive biosignals using deep learning: a multicenter prospective development and validation study. Int J Med Inform. 2024;184: 105366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2024.105366 .

Selimovic A, Skokic F, Bazardzanovic M, Selimovic Z, et al. The predictive score for early-onset neonatal sepsis. Turk J Pediatr. 2010;52(2):139–44.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Okascharoen C, Sirinavin S, Thakkinstian A, Kitayaporn D, Supapanachart S. A bedside prediction-scoring model for late-onset neonatal sepsis. J Perinatol. 2005;25(12):778–83.

Kuzniewicz MW, Mukhopadhyay S, Li S, Walsh EM, Puopolo KM. Time to positivity of neonatal blood cultures for early-onset sepsis. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2020;39(7):634–40.

Huang Y, Yu X, Li W, Li Y, Yang J, Hu Z, Wang Y, Chen P, Li W, Chen Y. Development and validation of a nomogram for predicting late-onset sepsis in preterm infants on the basis of thyroid function and other risk factors: Mixed retrospective and prospective cohort study. J Adv Res. 2020;24:43–51.

Divall P, Camosso-Stefinovic J, Baker R. The use of personal digital assistants in clinical decision making by health care professionals: a systematic review. Health Inform J. 2013;19(1):16–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1460458212446761 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study received no funding from any international or domestic agencies. Authors confirm that there is no financial or non-financial benefits have been received or will be received from any party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article. None of the authors were involved in the journals review of, or decisions related to this manuscript. Ethics approval was not required for systematic review.

Author information

K. V. K. L. Narasimha Rao, Pradeep Kumar Dadabada and Sanjita Jaipuria contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

Information Systems and Analytics, Indian Institute of Management, Umsawli, Shillong, Meghalaya, 793018, India

K. V. K. L. Narasimha Rao & Pradeep Kumar Dadabada

Operations and Quantitative Techniques, Indian Institute of Management, Umsawli, Shillong, Meghalaya, 793018, India

Sanjita Jaipuria

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. V. K. L. Narasimha Rao .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, 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 you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. 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-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Narasimha Rao, K.V.K.L., Dadabada, P.K. & Jaipuria, S. A systematic literature review of predictive analytics methods for early diagnosis of neonatal sepsis. Discov Public Health 21 , 96 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12982-024-00219-5

Download citation

Received : 27 May 2024

Accepted : 13 September 2024

Published : 19 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12982-024-00219-5

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

• Neonatal sepsis diagnosis
• Public health
• Predictive analytics
• Systematic literature review
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

How To Use Elicit For Literature Review: AI Research Assistant 101

Navigating the vast sea of academic research can be daunting. Fortunately, Elicit, an advanced AI-driven tool, offers a streamlined solution for conducting comprehensive literature reviews.

 This article will guide you through the step-by-step process of using Elicit to efficiently locate, analyse, and organise relevant research papers.

Whether you’re a seasoned academic or a novice researcher, understanding how to leverage Elicit’s capabilities can significantly enhance your research efficiency and effectiveness. Let’s dive into how you can make the most of this powerful tool.

How To Use Elicit For Literature Review

What Is Elicit AI (Elicit.org)?

Elicit is an AI research assistant revolutionising the way you perform literature review research. At its core, Elicit.org allows you to automate parts of the research process that traditionally consumed hours.

When you use Elicit, you start by entering a specific research question.

The system uses advanced AI to filter through millions of research articles, showing relevant papers and summaries of key information about those papers in an easy-to-use format. 

Elicit’s capabilities extend to refining search results by:

• citation count, or
• study type,

which is particularly useful for conducting a systematic review. You can even see the number of citations a paper has received, helping gauge its impact and relevance. 

Plus, the tool offers options to export data in a CSV or bib file, integrating smoothly with reference managers like Zotero, which is a boon for maintaining academic integrity.

What sets Elicit apart is its mission to automate and scale your research workflow. Whether you’re behind academia’s paywalls or exploring open access, Elicit navigates the terrain, ensuring you don’t overlook any critical piece of literature.

This makes your literature review process not only faster but also more exhaustive, leaving you free to focus on synthesis and analysis rather than the mechanics of the literature search.

Steps To Use AI For Literature Review

If you are looking for a simple step-by-step guide on how to use Elicit for literature review, here’s a guide for you to start with: 

Step 1: Start with a Specific Research Question

The first step in learning how to use Elicit would be to think of a research question .

When you log into Elicit.org, you’ll be prompted to enter a research question. This should be as specific as possible to ensure the results are directly relevant to your study.

If you’re interested in how virtual reality affects learning outcomes, your query could be “What are the impacts of virtual reality on student engagement and learning outcomes in higher education?”

Step 2: Review the Search Results

Once you submit your question, Elicit utilises AI to sift through vast databases, displaying research papers that align with your query.

The results are presented with:

• abstract summaries, and
• the number of citations,

helping you gauge the relevance and influence of each study at a glance.

Step 3: Use Filters to Refine Your Search

Elicit provides various filters to refine your results further. You can filter papers by:

• publication date,
• study type, or
• the number of citations.

This functionality is particularly helpful if you’re conducting a systematic review and need to adhere to specific criteria. Elicit will then extract the right papers, and show them to you. 

Step 4: Analyse Abstract Summaries

The abstract summaries provided by Elicit are generated using AI, offering a concise overview of each paper. You can quickly scan through to see if there are any papers that may be relevant to your work.

While these summaries are useful for quick scans, it’s crucial to access the full papers for a thorough review, ensuring the AI’s interpretation aligns with the actual content.

Step 5: Dive Deeper into Selected Papers

For papers that seem particularly relevant, click on them to see more detailed information. Elicit allows you to:

• read the full abstract,
• check the paper’s citation history, and
• view any available PDFs.

This step is vital for understanding the context and methodology of the research, ensuring it fits your review’s scope.

Step 6: Export Data for Easy Access

The next step on how to use Elicit for literature review would be to extract the data.

You can export the data you find useful directly from Elicit in formats like CSV or BibTeX, which can be imported into reference management tools like Zotero.

This feature supports maintaining an organised and accessible bibliography and references, essential for academic integrity.

Step 7: “Star” Relevant Papers

As you comb through the search results, you might find papers that warrant closer examination later. Elicit’s “star” feature allows you to bookmark these papers.

You can easily access your starred list at any point, which helps in structuring your literature review and ensuring no critical research is overlooked.

Step 8: Adjust Your Query as Needed

Based on the papers you find, you might discover new keywords or concepts to explore. Elicit allows you to modify your search terms in real-time, dynamically adjusting the displayed results.

This iterative process helps you hone in on the most pertinent information. Feel free to use this features until you have found what you needed.

Step 9: Utilize Elicit’s Additional Features

Elicit also offers advanced features like suggesting related research questions or identifying methodological critiques within studies.

These insights can provide new directions for your review or highlight potential limitations in existing research.

Step 10: Continuously Update Your Review

Literature reviews are often ongoing projects, especially in fast-evolving fields. Fortunately, Elicit can help you keep up with this. Here’s how to use Elicit to stay up to date to newest papers.

Elicit’s user-friendly interface and real-time data updates make it easy to add new research as it becomes available, ensuring your review remains current and comprehensive.

Use Generative AI Tools For Academic & Transcript Work

This is a guide on how to use Elicit to conduct literature review. By leveraging Elicit’s capabilities, you can significantly reduce the time and effort typically required for literature searches.

This AI-driven tool not only streamlines finding relevant papers but also enhances your ability to analyse and synthesise key information effectively. 

With Elicit as your research assistant, you’re well-equipped to undertake even the most complex literature reviews, making your research process more systematic and efficient. 

Dr Andrew Stapleton has a Masters and PhD in Chemistry from the UK and Australia. He has many years of research experience and has worked as a Postdoctoral Fellow and Associate at a number of Universities. Although having secured funding for his own research, he left academia to help others with his YouTube channel all about the inner workings of academia and how to make it work for you.

Thank you for visiting Academia Insider.

We are here to help you navigate Academia as painlessly as possible. We are supported by our readers and by visiting you are helping us earn a small amount through ads and affiliate revenue - Thank you!

2024 © Academia Insider

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Journal Proposal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Author Biographies
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Effects of coffee on gut microbiota and bowel functions in health and diseases: a literature review, 1. introduction, 2. effects of coffee on the gut microbiota, 2.1. effect of coffee on microbiota composition.

2.2. Effect of Coffee on Microbiota Diversity

2.3. effect of coffee on microbiota growth, 3. effect of coffee on gastrointestinal infections and immunity, 4. effects of coffee on gastrointestinal motility and secretion, 5. effect of coffee on the gut-microbiota–brain axis, 6. effect of coffee on absorption and nutrition, 7. coffee and medication interaction, 8. effect of coffee on oral microbiome, 9. summary and conclusions, author contributions, conflicts of interest.

• Grosso, G.; Godos, J.; Galvano, F.; Giovannucci, E.L. Coffee, Caffeine, and Health Outcomes: An Umbrella Review. Annu. Rev. Nutr. 2017 , 37 , 131–156. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Gokcen, B.B.; Sanlier, N. Coffee consumption and disease correlations. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2019 , 59 , 336–348. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Moeenfard, M.; Rocha, L.; Alves, A. Quantification of Caffeoylquinic Acids in Coffee Brews by HPLC-DAD. J. Anal. Methods Chem. 2014 , 2014 , 965353. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Rodrigues, P.; Bragagnolo, N. Identification and quantification of bioactive compounds in coffee brews by HPLC–DAD–MSn. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2013 , 32 , 105–115. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gaascht, F.; Dicato, M.; Diederich, M. Coffee provides a natural multitarget pharmacopeia against the hallmarks of cancer. Genes. Nutr. 2015 , 10 , 51. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pan, M.H.; Tung, Y.C.; Yang, G.; Li, S.; Ho, C.T. Molecular mechanisms of the anti-obesity effect of bioactive compounds in tea and coffee. Food Funct. 2016 , 7 , 4481–4491. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Butt, M.S.; Sultan, M.T. Coffee and its consumption: Benefits and risks. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2011 , 51 , 363–373. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ding, M.; Bhupathiraju, S.N.; Satija, A.; van Dam, R.M.; Hu, F.B. Long-term coffee consumption and risk of cardiovascular disease: A systematic review and a dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Circulation 2014 , 129 , 643–659. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ehlers, A.; Marakis, G.; Lampen, A.; Hirsch-Ernst, K.I. Risk assessment of energy drinks with focus on cardiovascular parameters and energy drink consumption in Europe. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2019 , 130 , 109–121. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• van Dam, R.M.; Hu, F.B.; Willett, W.C. Coffee, Caffeine, and Health. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020 , 383 , 369–378. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhu, B.; Wang, X.; Li, L. Human gut microbiome: The second genome of human body. Protein Cell 2010 , 1 , 718–725. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hegde, S.; Lin, Y.M.; Golovko, G.; Khanipov, K.; Cong, Y.; Savidge, T.; Fofanov, Y.; Shi, X.Z. Microbiota dysbiosis and its pathophysiological significance in bowel obstruction. Sci. Rep. 2018 , 8 , 13044. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hou, K.; Wu, Z.X.; Chen, X.Y.; Wang, J.Q.; Zhang, D.; Xiao, C.; Zhu, D.; Koya, J.B.; Wei, L.; Li, J.; et al. Microbiota in health and diseases. Signal Transduct. Target. Ther. 2022 , 7 , 135. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Sender, R.; Fuchs, S.; Milo, R. Revised Estimates for the Number of Human and Bacteria Cells in the Body. PLoS Biol. 2016 , 14 , e1002533. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Geng, Z.H.; Zhu, Y.; Li, Q.L.; Zhao, C.; Zhou, P.H. Enteric Nervous System: The Bridge between the Gut Microbiota and Neurological Disorders. Front. Aging Neurosci. 2022 , 14 , 810483. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• West, C.E.; Jenmalm, M.C.; Prescott, S.L. The gut microbiota and its role in the development of allergic disease: A wider perspective. Clin. Exp. Allergy 2015 , 45 , 43–53. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vitetta, L.; Coulson, S.; Linnane, A.W.; Butt, H. The gastrointestinal microbiome and musculoskeletal diseases: A beneficial role for probiotics and prebiotics. Pathogens 2013 , 2 , 606–626. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hrncir, T. Gut Microbiota Dysbiosis: Triggers, Consequences, Diagnostic and Therapeutic Options. Microorganisms 2022 , 10 , 578. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mills, C.E.; Tzounis, X.; Oruna-Concha, M.J.; Mottram, D.S.; Gibson, G.R.; Spencer, J.P. In vitro colonic metabolism of coffee and chlorogenic acid results in selective changes in human faecal microbiota growth. Br. J. Nutr. 2015 , 113 , 1220–1227. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tomas-Barberan, F.; Garcia-Villalba, R.; Quartieri, A.; Raimondi, S.; Amaretti, A.; Leonardi, A.; Rossi, M. In vitro transformation of chlorogenic acid by human gut microbiota. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2014 , 58 , 1122–1131. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• de Cosío-Barr´on, A.C.G.; Hern´andez-Arriaga, A.M.; Campos-Vega, R. Spent coffee ( Coffea arabica L.) grounds positively modulate indicators of colonic microbial activity. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2020 , 60 , 102286. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Benitez, V.; Rebollo-Hernanz, M.; Hernanz, S.; Chantres, S.; Aguilera, Y.; Martin-Cabrejas, M.A. Coffee parchment as a new dietary fiber ingredient: Functional and physiological characterization. Food Res. Int. 2019 , 122 , 105–113. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Perez-Burillo, S.; Rajakaruna, S.; Pastoriza, S.; Paliy, O.; Angel Rufian-Henares, J. Bioactivity of food melanoidins is mediated by gut microbiota. Food Chem. 2020 , 316 , 126309. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Farag, M.A.; von Bergen, M.; Saleh, B.M.; Homsi, M.N.; Abd El-Al, M.S. How do green and black coffee brews and bioactive interaction with gut microbiome affect its health outcomes? Mining evidence from mechanistic studies, metagenomics and clinical trials. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021 , 118 , 920–937. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Umemura, M.; Fujii, S.; Asano, I.; Hoshino, H.; Iino, H. Effect of “coffee mix drink” containing mannooligosaccharides from coffee mannan on defecation and fecal microbiota in healthy volunteer. Food Sci. Technol. Res. 2004 , 10 , 195–198. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gniechwitz, D.; Reichardt, N.; Blaut, M.; Steinhart, H.; Bunzel, M. Dietary fiber from coffee beverage: Degradation by human fecal microbiota. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2007 , 55 , 6989–6996. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jaquet, M.; Rochat, I.; Moulin, J.; Cavin, C.; Bibiloni, R. Impact of coffee consumption on the gut microbiota: A human volunteer study. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2009 , 130 , 117–121. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nishitsuji, K.; Watanabe, S.; Xiao, J.; Nagatomo, R.; Ogawa, H.; Tsunematsu, T.; Umemoto, H.; Morimoto, Y.; Akatsu, H.; Inoue, K.; et al. Effect of coffee or coffee components on gut microbiome and short-chain fatty acids in a mouse model of metabolic syndrome. Sci. Rep. 2018 , 8 , 16173. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Diamond, E.; Hewlett, K.; Penumutchu, S.; Belenky, A.; Belenky, P. Coffee Consumption Modulates Amoxicillin-Induced Dysbiosis in the Murine Gut Microbiome. Front. Microbiol. 2021 , 12 , 637282. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gu, X.; Zhang, S.; Ma, W.; Wang, Q.; Li, Y.; Xia, C.; Xu, Y.; Zhang, T.; Yang, L.; Zhou, M. The Impact of Instant Coffee and Decaffeinated Coffee on the Gut Microbiota and Depression-Like Behaviors of Sleep-Deprived Rats. Front. Microbiol. 2022 , 13 , 778512. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hegde, S.; Shi, D.W.; Johnson, J.C.; Geesala, R.; Zhang, K.; Lin, Y.M.; Shi, X.Z. Mechanistic Study of Coffee Effects on Gut Microbiota and Motility in Rats. Nutrients 2022 , 14 , 4877. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Nakayama, T.; Oishi, K. Influence of coffee ( Coffea arabica ) and galacto-oligosaccharide consumption on intestinal microbiota and the host responses. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2013 , 343 , 161–168. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Gong, D.; Gong, X.; Wang, L.; Yu, X.; Dong, Q. Involvement of Reduced Microbial Diversity in Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Gastroenterol. Res. Pr. Pract. 2016 , 2016 , 6951091. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• He, T.; Cheng, X.; Xing, C. The gut microbial diversity of colon cancer patients and the clinical significance. Bioengineered 2021 , 12 , 7046–7060. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhernakova, A.; Kurilshikov, A.; Bonder, M.J.; Tigchelaar, E.F.; Schirmer, M.; Vatanen, T.; Mujagic, Z.; Vila, A.V.; Falony, G.; Vieira-Silva, S.; et al. Population-based metagenomics analysis reveals markers for gut microbiome composition and diversity. Science 2016 , 352 , 565–569. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dai, A.; Hoffman, K.; Xu, A.A.; Gurwara, S.; White, D.L.; Kanwal, F.; Jang, A.; El-Serag, H.B.; Petrosino, J.F.; Jiao, L. The Association between Caffeine Intake and the Colonic Mucosa-Associated Gut Microbiota in Humans-A Preliminary Investigation. Nutrients 2023 , 15 , 1747. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Perez-Burillo, S.; Pastoriza, S.; Fernandez-Arteaga, A.; Luzon, G.; Jimenez-Hernandez, N.; D’Auria, G.; Francino, M.P.; Rufian-Henares, J.A. Spent Coffee Grounds Extract, Rich in Mannooligosaccharides, Promotes a Healthier Gut Microbial Community in a Dose-Dependent Manner. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2019 , 67 , 2500–2509. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Goya-Jorge, E.; Gonza, I.; Douny, C.; Scippo, M.L.; Delcenserie, V. M-Batches to Simulate Luminal and Mucosal Human Gut Microbial Ecosystems: A Case Study of the Effects of Coffee and Green Tea. Microorganisms 2024 , 12 , 236. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Backhed, F.; Crawford, P.A. Coordinated regulation of the metabolome and lipidome at the host-microbial interface. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2010 , 1801 , 240–245. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sales, A.L.; dePaula, J.; Mellinger Silva, C.; Cruz, A.; Lemos Miguel, M.A.; Farah, A. Effects of regular and decaffeinated roasted coffee ( Coffea arabica and Coffea canephora ) extracts and bioactive compounds on in vitro probiotic bacterial growth. Food Funct. 2020 , 11 , 1410–1424. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bharath, N.; Sowmya, N.K.; Mehta, D.S. Determination of antibacterial activity of green coffee bean extract on periodontogenic bacteria like Porphyromonas gingivalis, Prevotella intermedia, Fusobacterium nucleatum and Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans : An in vitro study. Contemp. Clin. Dent. 2015 , 6 , 166–169. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Carmen Monente, C.; Jimena Bravo, J.; Vitas, A.I.; Arbillaga, L.; De Peña, M.P.; Cid, C. Coffee and spent coffee extracts protect against cell mutagens and inhibit growth of food-borne pathogen microorganisms. J. Funct. Foods 2015 , 12 , 365–374. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Loftfield, E.; Shiels, M.S.; Graubard, B.I.; Katki, H.A.; Chaturvedi, A.K.; Trabert, B.; Pinto, L.A.; Kemp, T.J.; Shebl, F.M.; Mayne, S.T.; et al. Associations of Coffee Drinking with Systemic Immune and Inflammatory Markers. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2015 , 24 , 1052–1060. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Al Reef, T.; Ghanem, E. Caffeine: Well-known as psychotropic substance, but little as immunomodulator. Immunobiology 2018 , 223 , 818–825. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cardenas, C.; Quesada, A.R.; Medina, M.A. Insights on the antitumor effects of kahweol on human breast cancer: Decreased survival and increased production of reactive oxygen species and cytotoxicity. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2014 , 447 , 452–458. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Wan, F.; Zhong, R.; Wang, M.; Zhou, Y.; Chen, Y.; Yi, B.; Hou, F.; Liu, L.; Zhao, Y.; Chen, L.; et al. Caffeic Acid Supplement Alleviates Colonic Inflammation and Oxidative Stress Potentially through Improved Gut Microbiota Community in Mice. Front. Microbiol. 2021 , 12 , 784211. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Abdulfattah, A.A.; Jawkhab, H.A.; Alhazmi, A.A.; Alfaifi, N.A.; Sultan, M.A.; Alnami, R.A.; Kenani, N.Y.; Hamzi, S.A.; Abu Sharha, S.M.; Dighriri, I.M. The Association of Smoking and Coffee Consumption with Occurrence of Upper Gastrointestinal Symptoms in Patients with Active Helicobacter pylori Infection in Jazan City: A Cross-Sectional Study. Cureus 2023 , 15 , e33574. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Koochakpoor, G.; Salari-Moghaddam, A.; Keshteli, A.H.; Esmaillzadeh, A.; Adibi, P. Association of Coffee and Caffeine Intake with Irritable Bowel Syndrome in Adults. Front. Nutr. 2021 , 8 , 632469. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nehlig, A. Effects of Coffee on the Gastro-Intestinal Tract: A Narrative Review and Literature Update. Nutrients 2022 , 14 , 399. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Karaman, N.; Turkay, C.; Yonem, O. Irritable bowel syndrome prevalence in city center of Sivas. Turk. J. Gastroenterol. 2003 , 14 , 128–131. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ng, S.C.; Tang, W.; Leong, R.W.; Chen, M.; Ko, Y.; Studd, C.; Niewiadomski, O.; Bell, S.; Kamm, M.A.; de Silva, H.J.; et al. Environmental risk factors in inflammatory bowel disease: A population-based case-control study in Asia-Pacific. Gut 2015 , 64 , 1063–1071. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Black, C.J.; Ford, A.C. Global burden of irritable bowel syndrome: Trends, predictions and risk factors. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2020 , 17 , 473–486. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kim, G.H.; Lee, K.; Shim, J.O. Gut Bacterial Dysbiosis in Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Case-Control Study and a Cross-Cohort Analysis Using Publicly Available Data Sets. Microbiol. Spectr. 2023 , 11 , e0212522. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ng, Q.X.; Yau, C.E.; Yaow, C.Y.L.; Chong, R.I.H.; Chong, N.Z.; Teoh, S.E.; Lim, Y.L.; Soh, A.Y.S.; Ng, W.K.; Thumboo, J. What Has Longitudinal ‘Omics’ Studies Taught Us about Irritable Bowel Syndrome? A Systematic Review. Metabolites 2023 , 13 , 484. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ruigomez, A.; Garcia Rodriguez, L.A.; Panes, J. Risk of irritable bowel syndrome after an episode of bacterial gastroenteritis in general practice: Influence of comorbidities. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2007 , 5 , 465–469. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schwille-Kiuntke, J.; Mazurak, N.; Enck, P. Systematic review with meta-analysis: Post-infectious irritable bowel syndrome after travellers’ diarrhoea. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2015 , 41 , 1029–1037. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lee, J.Y.; Yau, C.Y.; Loh, C.Y.L.; Lim, W.S.; Teoh, S.E.; Yau, C.E.; Ong, C.; Thumboo, J.; Namasivayam, V.S.O.; Ng, Q.X. Examining the Association between Coffee Intake and the Risk of Developing Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Nutrients 2023 , 15 , 4745. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Clevers, E.; Launders, D.; Helme, D.; Nybacka, S.; Storsrud, S.; Corsetti, M.; Van Oudenhove, L.; Simren, M.; Tack, J. Coffee, Alcohol, and Artificial Sweeteners Have Temporal Associations with Gastrointestinal Symptoms. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2024 , 69 , 2522–2529. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Feldman, E.J.; Isenberg, J.I.; Grossman, M.I. Gastric acid and gastrin response to decaffeinated coffee and a peptone meal. JAMA 1981 , 246 , 248–250. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Coffey, R.J.; Go, V.L.; Zinsmeister, A.R.; DiMagno, E.P. The acute effects of coffee and caffeine on human interdigestive exocrine pancreatic secretion. Pancreas 1986 , 1 , 55–61. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Acquaviva, F.; DeFrancesco, A.; Andriulli, A.; Piantino, P.; Arrigoni, A.; Massarenti, P.; Balzola, F. Effect of regular and decaffeinated coffee on serum gastrin levels. J. Clin. Gastroenterol. 1986 , 8 , 150–153. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kidd, M.; Hauso, O.; Drozdov, I.; Gustafsson, B.I.; Modlin, I.M. Delineation of the chemomechanosensory regulation of gastrin secretion using pure rodent G cells. Gastroenterology 2009 , 137 , 231–241. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Schubert, M.L. Functional anatomy and physiology of gastric secretion. Curr. Opin. Gastroenterol. 2015 , 31 , 479–485. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Thomas, F.B.; Steinbaugh, J.T.; Fromkes, J.J.; Mekhjian, H.S.; Caldwell, J.H. Inhibitory effect of coffee on lower esophageal sphincter pressure. Gastroenterology 1980 , 79 , 1262–1266. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Van Deventer, G.; Kamemoto, E.; Kuznicki, J.T.; Heckert, D.C.; Schulte, M.C. Lower esophageal sphincter pressure, acid secretion, and blood gastrin after coffee consumption. Dig. Dis. Sci. 1992 , 37 , 558–569. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Iriondo-DeHond, A.; Uranga, J.A.; Del Castillo, M.D.; Abalo, R. Effects of Coffee and Its Components on the Gastrointestinal Tract and the Brain-Gut Axis. Nutrients 2020 , 13 , 88. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Atkinson, J. The effect of coffee and coffee components on the stomach muscle. Z. Ernahrungswiss 1976 , 15 , 156–163. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Argirova, M.D.; Stefanova, I.D.; Krustev, A.D. New biological properties of coffee melanoidins. Food Funct. 2013 , 4 , 1204–1208. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Boekema, P.J.; Lo, B.; Samsom, M.; Akkermans, L.M.; Smout, A.J. The effect of coffee on gastric emptying and oro-caecal transit time. Eur. J. Clin. Investig. 2000 , 30 , 129–134. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mehta, R.S.; Song, M.; Staller, K.; Chan, A.T. Association between Beverage Intake and Incidence of Gastroesophageal Reflux Symptoms. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2020 , 18 , 2226–2233.e2224. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brown, S.R.; Cann, P.A.; Read, N.W. Effect of coffee on distal colon function. Gut 1990 , 31 , 450–453. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Rao, S.S.; Welcher, K.; Zimmerman, B.; Stumbo, P. Is coffee a colonic stimulant? Eur. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 1998 , 10 , 113–118. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Waclawikova, B.; Codutti, A.; Alim, K.; El Aidy, S. Gut microbiota-motility interregulation: Insights from In vivo, ex vivo and in silico studies. Gut Microbes 2022 , 14 , 1997296. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Eamudomkarn, N.; Kietpeerakool, C.; Kaewrudee, S.; Jampathong, N.; Ngamjarus, C.; Lumbiganon, P. Effect of postoperative coffee consumption on gastrointestinal function after abdominal surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Sci. Rep. 2018 , 8 , 17349. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cornwall, H.L.; Edwards, B.A.; Curran, J.F.; Boyce, S. Coffee to go? The effect of coffee on resolution of ileus following abdominal surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Clin. Nutr. 2020 , 39 , 1385–1394. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, k.; Johnson, J.C.; Saygili, S.; Geesala, R.; Recharla, N.; Shi, X.Z. Mechanisms underlying the beneficial effect of coffee in postoperative ileus (Abstract). Gastroenterology 2024 , 166 , S299–S300. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Carabotti, M.; Scirocco, A.; Maselli, M.A.; Severi, C. The gut-brain axis: Interactions between enteric microbiota, central and enteric nervous systems. Ann. Gastroenterol. 2015 , 28 , 203–209. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morais, L.H.; Schreiber, H.L.T.; Mazmanian, S.K. The gut microbiota-brain axis in behaviour and brain disorders. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2021 , 19 , 241–255. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Papakonstantinou, E.; Kechribari, I.; Sotirakoglou, K.; Tarantilis, P.; Gourdomichali, T.; Michas, G.; Kravvariti, V.; Voumvourakis, K.; Zampelas, A. Acute effects of coffee consumption on self-reported gastrointestinal symptoms, blood pressure and stress indices in healthy individuals. Nutr. J. 2016 , 15 , 26. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vaccaro, A.; Kaplan Dor, Y.; Nambara, K.; Pollina, E.A.; Lin, C.; Greenberg, M.E.; Rogulja, D. Sleep Loss Can Cause Death through Accumulation of Reactive Oxygen Species in the Gut. Cell 2020 , 181 , 1307–1328.e1315. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Song, Z.; Liu, L.; Xu, Y.; Cao, R.; Lan, X.; Pan, C.; Zhang, S.; Zhao, H. Caffeine-Induced Sleep Restriction Alters the Gut Microbiome and Fecal Metabolic Profiles in Mice. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022 , 23 , 14837. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Overstreet, D.S.; Penn, T.M.; Cable, S.T.; Aroke, E.N.; Goodin, B.R. Higher habitual dietary caffeine consumption is related to lower experimental pain sensitivity in a community-based sample. Psychopharmacology 2018 , 235 , 3167–3176. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Li, M.; Liu, B.; Li, R.; Yang, P.; Leng, P.; Huang, Y. Exploration of the link between gut microbiota and purinergic signalling. Purinergic Signal 2023 , 19 , 315–327. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Uribe, G.; Villeger, R.; Bressollier, P.; Dillard, R.N.; Worthley, D.L.; Wang, T.C.; Powell, D.W.; Urdaci, M.C.; Pinchuk, I.V. Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG increases cyclooxygenase-2 expression and prostaglandin E2 secretion in colonic myofibroblasts via a MyD88-dependent mechanism during homeostasis. Cell Microbiol. 2018 , 20 , e12871. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Cowan, T.E.; Palmnas, M.S.; Yang, J.; Bomhof, M.R.; Ardell, K.L.; Reimer, R.A.; Vogel, H.J.; Shearer, J. Chronic coffee consumption in the diet-induced obese rat: Impact on gut microbiota and serum metabolomics. J. Nutr. Biochem. 2014 , 25 , 489–495. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, L.; Wang, X.J.; Chen, J.X.; Yang, J.C.; Ling, L.; Cai, X.B.; Chen, Y.S. Caffeine ameliorates the metabolic syndrome in diet-induced obese mice through regulating the gut microbiota and serum metabolism. Diabetol. Metab. Syndr. 2023 , 15 , 37. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Martinez, I.; Lattimer, J.M.; Hubach, K.L.; Case, J.A.; Yang, J.; Weber, C.G.; Louk, J.A.; Rose, D.J.; Kyureghian, G.; Peterson, D.A.; et al. Gut microbiome composition is linked to whole grain-induced immunological improvements. ISME J. 2013 , 7 , 269–280. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bhandarkar, N.S.; Mouatt, P.; Majzoub, M.E.; Thomas, T.; Brown, L.; Panchal, S.K. Coffee Pulp, a By-Product of Coffee Production, Modulates Gut Microbiota and Improves Metabolic Syndrome in High-Carbohydrate, High-Fat Diet-Fed Rats. Pathogens 2021 , 10 , 1369. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Al-Othman, A.; Al-Musharaf, S.; Al-Daghri, N.M.; Yakout, S.; Alkharfy, K.M.; Al-Saleh, Y.; Al-Attas, O.S.; Alokail, M.S.; Moharram, O.; Sabico, S.; et al. Tea and coffee consumption in relation to vitamin D and calcium levels in Saudi adolescents. Nutr. J. 2012 , 11 , 56. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Barger-Lux, M.J.; Heaney, R.P. Caffeine and the calcium economy revisited. Osteoporos. Int. 1995 , 5 , 97–102. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pécoud, A.; Donzel, P.; Schelling, J.L. Effect of foodstuffs on the absorption of zinc sulfate. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 1975 , 17 , 469–474. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Morck, T.A.; Lynch, S.R.; Cook, J.D. Inhibition of food iron absorption by coffee. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1983 , 37 , 416–420. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ulvik, A.; Vollset, S.E.; Hoff, G.; Ueland, P.M. Coffee consumption and circulating B-vitamins in healthy middle-aged men and women. Clin. Chem. 2008 , 54 , 1489–1496. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ohnaka, K.; Ikeda, M.; Maki, T.; Okada, T.; Shimazoe, T.; Adachi, M.; Nomura, M.; Takayanagi, R.; Kono, S. Effects of 16-week consumption of caffeinated and decaffeinated instant coffee on glucose metabolism in a randomized controlled trial. J. Nutr. Metab. 2012 , 207426. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kim, J.K.; Choi, M.S.; Yoo, H.H.; Kim, D.H. The Intake of Coffee Increases the Absorption of Aspirin in Mice by Modifying Gut Microbiome. Pharmaceutics 2022 , 14 , 746. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Belayneh, A.; Molla, F. The Effect of Coffee on Pharmacokinetic Properties of Drugs: A Review. Biomed. Res. Int. 2020 , 2020 , 7909703. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gallagher, J.C.; Yalamanchili, V.; Smith, L.M. The effect of vitamin D on calcium absorption in older women. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2012 , 97 , 3550–3556. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Moreno-Ceballos, M.; Arroyave, J.C.; Cortes-Mancera, F.M.; Röthlisberger, S. Chemopreventive effect of coffee against colorectal cancer and hepatocellular carcinoma. Int. J. Food Prop. 2019 , 22 , 536–555. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Anwar, S.; Bhandari, U.; Panda, B.P.; Dubey, K.; Khan, W.; Ahmad, S. Trigonelline inhibits intestinal microbial metabolism of choline and its associated cardiovascular risk. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2018 , 159 , 100–112. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Peng, J.H.; Leng, J.; Tian, H.J.; Yang, T.; Fang, Y.; Feng, Q.; Zhao, Y.; Hu, Y.Y. Geniposide and Chlorogenic Acid Combination Ameliorates Non-alcoholic Steatohepatitis Involving the Protection on the Gut Barrier Function in Mouse Induced by High-Fat Diet. Front. Pharmacol. 2018 , 9 , 1399. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Iqbal, N.; Ahmad, B.; Janbaz, K.H. The effect of caffeine on the pharmacokinetics of acetaminophen in man. Biopharm. Drug Dispos. 1995 , 16 , 481–487. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Horn, J.R.; Hansten, P.D. Caffeine and Clozapine ; Pharmacy Times: Cranbury, NJ, USA, 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Togao, M.; Tajima, S.; Kurakawa, T.; Wagai, G.; Otsuka, J.; Kado, S.; Kawakami, K. Normal variation of the gut microbiota affects hepatic cytochrome P450 activity in mice. Pharmacol. Res. Perspect. 2021 , 9 , e00893. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Poll, B.G.; Xu, J.; Jun, S.; Sanchez, J.; Zaidman, N.A.; He, X.; Lester, L.; Berkowitz, D.E.; Paolocci, N.; Gao, W.D.; et al. Acetate, a Short-Chain Fatty Acid, Acutely Lowers Heart Rate and Cardiac Contractility Along with Blood Pressure. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 2021 , 377 , 39–50. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Willis, J.R.; Gabaldon, T. The Human Oral Microbiome in Health and Disease: From Sequences to Ecosystems. Microorganisms 2020 , 8 , 308. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ogata, K.; Takeshita, T.; Shibata, Y.; Matsumi, R.; Kageyama, S.; Asakawa, M.; Yamashita, Y. Effect of coffee on the compositional shift of oral indigenous microbiota cultured in vitro. J. Oral Sci. 2019 , 61 , 418–424. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Peters, B.A.; McCullough, M.L.; Purdue, M.P.; Freedman, N.D.; Um, C.Y.; Gapstur, S.M.; Hayes, R.B.; Ahn, J. Association of Coffee and Tea Intake with the Oral Microbiome: Results from a Large Cross-Sectional Study. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2018 , 27 , 814–821. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Murugesan, S.; Al Ahmad, S.F.; Singh, P.; Saadaoui, M.; Kumar, M.; Al Khodor, S. Profiling the Salivary microbiome of the Qatari population. J. Transl. Med. 2020 , 18 , 127. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yu, K.M.; Cho, H.S.; Lee, A.M.; Lee, J.W.; Lim, S.K. Analysis of the influence of host lifestyle (coffee consumption, drinking, and smoking) on Korean oral microbiome. Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2024 , 68 , 102942. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rhee, Y.; Choi, Y.; Park, J.; Park, H.R.; Kim, K.; Kim, Y.H. Association between coffee consumption and periodontal diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Oral. Health 2022 , 22 , 272. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Struppek, J.; Walther, C.; Bunte, K.; Zyriax, B.C.; Wenzel, J.P.; Senftinger, J.; Nikorowitsch, J.; Heydecke, G.; Seedorf, U.; Beikler, T.; et al. The association between coffee consumption and periodontitis: A cross-sectional study of a northern German population. Clin. Oral. Investig. 2022 , 26 , 2421–2427. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Signoretto, C.; Bianchi, F.; Burlacchini, G.; Sivieri, F.; Spratt, D.; Canepari, P. Drinking habits are associated with changes in the dental plaque microbial community. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2010 , 48 , 347–356. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Share and Cite

Saygili, S.; Hegde, S.; Shi, X.-Z. Effects of Coffee on Gut Microbiota and Bowel Functions in Health and Diseases: A Literature Review. Nutrients 2024 , 16 , 3155. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16183155

Saygili S, Hegde S, Shi X-Z. Effects of Coffee on Gut Microbiota and Bowel Functions in Health and Diseases: A Literature Review. Nutrients . 2024; 16(18):3155. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16183155

Saygili, Sena, Shrilakshmi Hegde, and Xuan-Zheng Shi. 2024. "Effects of Coffee on Gut Microbiota and Bowel Functions in Health and Diseases: A Literature Review" Nutrients 16, no. 18: 3155. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16183155

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals