studies in english literature review

• University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

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

What is a Literature Review?

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

A literature review should: 

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

From  S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

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

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

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

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

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

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

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

Meryl Brodsky : Communication and Information Studies

Hannah Chapman Tripp : Biology, Neuroscience

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

Larayne Dallas : Engineering

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

Susan Macicak : Linguistics

Imelda Vetter : Dell Medical School

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

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

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

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance articles
• Editor's Choice
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Why Publish?
• About The Review of English Studies
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Books for Review
• Dispatch Dates
• Terms and Conditions
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Colin Burrow

Juliette Atkinson

Philip Connell

Fiona Green

Daniel Wakelin

About the journal

The Review of English Studies was founded in 1925 to publish literary-historical research in all areas of English literature and the English language from the earliest period to the present …

Virtual Issues

1922 annus mirabilis virtual issue.

1922 was a turning point for modernism and to mark the centenary of  Ulysses ,  The Waste Land,  and  Jacob’s Room,    The Review of English Studies is delighted to present a collection of recent scholarship published on James Joyce, T.S. Eliot, and Virginia Woolf. Explore the collection 

Keats and Shelley Virtual Issue

Scholarship on Keats, Shelley and their circles has flourished in recent years, with major new editions and monographs alongside companions, handbooks, and other important collections of essays. In 2021-22, bicentennial celebrations of the extraordinary creative output of both poets (Keats died on 23rd February 1821, Shelley on 8 July 1822) provide an opportunity to bring together, in this Virtual Issue of the  Review of English Studies , some of the best scholarship on their writings to have been published in recent volumes of RES .

Explore the collection

Past Virtual Issues

Browse previous virtual issues published by  The Review of English Studies on the themes of:

• Dickens and the Victorian Novel
• Wordsworth and Romanticism
• English Studies and Europe
• For more previous Virtual Issues from  RES , explore the Virtual Issue Archive .

On the OUPblog

Alice Mustian’s scandalous backyard performance

Read the blog post by David McInnis, Matt Steggle and Misha Teramura.

On 4 September 1614, a Salisbury woman, named Alice Mustian, erected a stage in the backyard of her house to produce a play that she had written about her neighbours scandalous affair.

Read the original  RES article:  Alice Mustian, Playwright The Review of English Studies (2023)

Election Plays and the Culture of Elections and Electioneering in the Days of Dunny-on-the-Wold

Read the blog post by Kendra Packham

Kendra Packham analyses election plays, which presented society with images of itself, displaying key aspects of the political process, corrupt practices, abuses endemic to the electoral system, and acts of principled resistance.

Read Packham's original RES article:  The Drama of Elections: Election Plays in the Long Eighteenth Century The Review of English Studies  (2023)

Finding Jane Austen in History

Read the blog post by Kathryn Sutherland

100 years after its publication, Kathryn Sutherland examines the call to reassess the contribution made to R. W. Chapman’s OUP edition of 'The Novels of Jane Austen' by Chapman’s wife, Katharine Metcalfe. Read her original RES article:  On Looking into Chapman’s Austen: 100 Years On  by Kathryn Sutherland 

The Review of English Studies  (2022)

Resisting Slavery

Read the blog post  by Susan Valladares

Susan Valladares shifts the emphasis away from the heroic agency embodied by Obi’s eponymous ‘Three-Fingered Jack’ in order to explore the politics of black resistance activated by the minor, but important, character of ‘Jonkanoo’. Read her original RES article:

Afro-Creole Revelry and Rebellion on the British Stage: Jonkanoo in Obi; or, Three-Fingered Jack (1800) by Susan Valladares The Review of English Studies  (2019)

‘Plate III, Negres au Travail’. CC BY 4.0 via  Wellcome Collection .

The RES Essay Prize

Essay prize.

Entries to the  RES  Essay Prize will reopen from 1 April until 30 June annually.

Find out more and submit

The 2023 winner of  The Review of English Studies essay prize is '‘ Sacred to the Memory’: Thomas Hardy’s Tombstones ' by Eva Dema.

Read the article

Past winners

A selection of past winners of RES Essay prize are freely available to read online.

Latest articles

Editor's choice.

Email alerts

Register to receive table of contents email alerts as soon as new issues of The Review of English Studies are published online.

Recommend to your library

Fill out our simple online form to recommend The Review of English Studies to your library.

Recommend now

Author resources

Learn about how to submit your article, our publishing process, and tips on how to promote your article.

Find out more

Related Titles

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1471-6968
• Print ISSN 0034-6551
• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

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.

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 21 May 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.

• 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

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.

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

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

What is a literature review?

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

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

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

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

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

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

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

2. Decide on the scope of your review

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

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

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

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

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

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

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

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

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

Tips: 

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

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

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

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

Table of Contents

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

How to write a good literature review 

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

What is a literature review?

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

What is the purpose of literature review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature review example

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

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

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

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

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

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

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

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

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

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conducting a literature review

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

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

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

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

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

Select Databases for Searches:

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

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

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

Review the Literature:

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

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

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

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

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?

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

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

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

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

Frequently asked questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 

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

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

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

Related Reads:

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

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

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, how to ace grant writing for research funding..., how to write a high-quality conference paper, how paperpal’s research feature helps you develop and..., how paperpal is enhancing academic productivity and accelerating..., how to write a successful book chapter for..., academic editing: how to self-edit academic text with..., 4 ways paperpal encourages responsible writing with ai, what are scholarly sources and where can you..., how to write a hypothesis types and examples , measuring academic success: definition & strategies for excellence.

SEL Studies in English Literature 1500-1900

Logan D. Browning

Journal Details

Manuscripts submitted to  SEL Studies in English Literature 1500–1900  should be submitted online at:  http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/sel

The editorial office, editors, and specialist reviewers will use the system for communication about submissions, reports, revisions, and decisions. The online process allows us to track submission and review processes more efficiently and to streamline workflow.

Please log on the Manuscript Central website. If you are a new user, you will first need to create an account to log onto the site. After logging on, use the Author Center to guide you through the steps to upload your manuscript and any additional files. For questions and a user guide, please click the “Get Help Now” button at the top right of every screen. Additional help is available through the Manuscript Central customer support team at 1-434-964-4100 or 1-888-503-1050.

In situations where electronic submission is difficult or unavailable, the editors will accept submissions via regular mail. Please contact the  SEL  office at 713-348-4697 or  [email protected]  for specific guidelines.

Submission Guidelines

SEL  invites historical and critical essays of moderate length (ca. 7,000 words not to exceed 8,000 words including endnotes) that contribute significantly to the understanding of English literature, 1500–1900. Typescripts should be double-spaced throughout, including inset quotations and endnotes, and should be prepared in conformity with  The Chicago Manual of Style. 17th Edition . We prefer Times New Roman 12 pt. font.

We will not consider articles being simultaneously submitted elsewhere, nor will we print essays to appear in a book published within a year of scheduled publication by  SEL . We encourage authors to submit a short cover letter and an abstract of 100 words or fewer with the article in the Manuscript Central system. The Author Center will prompt you to upload files for a cover letter, an abstract, or image files.

Receipt of manuscripts will be acknowledged by email. Editorial decisions often take a minimum of four months.

SEL  only reviews books in a commissioned omnibus review that concludes each of our issues. We do not assign individual reviews.

For additional information, please feel to contact:

Leslie Marie Aguilar Managing Editor SEL Studies in English Literature 1500–1900 Rice University MS-46 407 Fondren Library 6100 Main Street Houston, TX 77005 Tel: (713) 348-4697 | Fax: (713) 348-6245 www.sel.rice.edu

The Hopkins Press Journals Ethics and Malpractice Statement can be found at the ethics-and-malpractice  page.

Peer Review Policy

SEL   Studies in English Literature 1500–1900  invites historical and critical essays of moderate length (ca. 7,000 words not to exceed 8,000 words including endnotes) that contribute significantly to the understanding of English literature, 1500–1900. Submissions should be double spaced throughout, including inset quotations and endnotes, and should be prepared in conformity with the  Chicago Manual of Style , 17th edition. We will not consider articles being simultaneously submitted elsewhere, nor will we print essays to appear in a book published within a year of scheduled publication by  SEL .

All manuscripts submitted to  SEL  should be submitted online at:  https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/sel . The editorial office, editors, and specialist reviewers will use the system for communication about submissions, reports, revisions, and decisions. The online process allows us to track submission and review processes more efficiently and to streamline workflow. Submissions are vetted both in-house and through a blind peer review process. Editorial decisions often take four months. There is no deadline for revisions, which will undergo further review, and articles are accepted on a rolling basis.

For more information, please visit our website at  www.sel.rice.edu .

Publisher and Executive Editor

Editor emeritus.

Robert L. Patten

Managing Editor

Kelly McKisson

Diana Hobby Editorial Fellows

Paul Burch   Brooke Clark   Nina Elisabeth Cook   Chaney Hill   Sophia Martinez-Abbud   Meredith McCullough   Randi McInerney Mraovic   Kelly McKisson   Rowan Thando Morar   Bren Ram   Sam Fletcher Stoeltje   Els W. Woudstra

Editorial Board

Paula Backscheider,  Auburn University    Ros Ballaster,  Mansfield College, Oxford University    Douglas S. Bruster,  University of Texas at Austin    Patrick Cheney,  Pennsylvania State University    Peter de Bolla,  King's College, Cambridge University    Heather Dubrow,  Fordham University    Katherine Eggert,  University of Colorado Boulder    Andrew Elfenbein,  University of Minnesota    Angela Esterhammer,  University of Toronto    Mary Favret,  Johns Hopkins University    Frances Ferguson,  University of Chicago    Kate Flint,  University of Southern California    Elaine Freedgood,  New York University    Barbara Fuchs,  University of California, Los Angeles    Achsah Guibbory,  Barnard College    Coppélia Kahn,  Brown University    William J. Kennedy,  Cornell University    U. C. Knoepflmacher, Emeritus,  Princeton University    Jonathan Lamb,  Vanderbilt University    David Loewenstein,  Pennsylvania State University​    Devoney Looser,  Arizona State University    Julia Reinhard Lupton , University of California-Irvine    Thomas H. Luxon,  Dartmouth College    Peter J. Manning,  State University of New York at Stony Brook    Leah S. Marcus,  Vanderbilt University    Jerome J. McGann,  University of Virginia    Michael McKeon,  Rutgers State University of New Jersey    Felicity A. Nussbaum,  University of California, Los Angele s   Daniel O'Quinn,  University of Guelph    Curtis Perry,  University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign    Adela Pinch,  University of Michigan    Anne Lake Prescott,  Barnard College    Tilottama Rajan,  University of Western Ontario    Allen Reddick,  University of Zurich    Debora K. Shuger,  University of California, Los Angeles​    Meredith Skura,  Rice University    Bruce R. Smith,  University of Southern California    Patricia M. Spacks, Emerita,  University of Virginia    Gordon Teskey,  Harvard University    Valerie J. Traub,  University of Michigan    Herbert F. Tucker,  Univeristy of Virginia    Susan Wolfson,  Princeton University

Send books for review to: SEL Studies in English Literature 1500-1900 Rice University MS-46 Fondren Library 6100 Main Street Houston TX 77005-1827

Please send book review copies to the address above. Review copies received by the Johns Hopkins University Press office will be discarded.

Abstracting & Indexing Databases

• Arts & Humanities Citation Index
• Current Contents
• Web of Science
• Dietrich's Index Philosophicus
• IBZ - Internationale Bibliographie der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Zeitschriftenliteratur
• Internationale Bibliographie der Rezensionen Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlicher Literatur
• Academic Search Alumni Edition, 1/1/1975-12/31/1998
• Academic Search Complete, 1/1/1975-12/31/1998
• Academic Search Elite, 1/1/1975-12/31/1998
• Academic Search Premier, 1/1/1975-12/31/1998
• Academic Search: Main Edition, 1/1/1985-12/31/1998
• Biography Index: Past and Present (H.W. Wilson), vol.25, 1985-vol.49, no.4, 2009
• Book Review Digest Plus (H.W. Wilson), Oct.1983-
• Current Abstracts, 1/1/2000-
• Historical Abstracts (Online), 1/1/1999-
• Humanities Index (Online), 1983/10-
• Humanities International Complete, 1/1/1975-12/31/1998
• Humanities International Index, 1/1/1975-12/31/1998
• Humanities Source, 1/1/1975-12/31/1998
• Humanities Source Ultimate, 1/1/1975-12/31/1998
• International Bibliography of Theatre & Dance with Full Text, 1/1/1999-
• Literary Reference Center, 1/1/1975-12/31/1998
• Literary Reference Center Plus, 1/1/1975-12/31/1998
• Literary Reference Center: Main Edition, 1/1/1984-12/31/1998
• MainFile, 1/1/1985-12/31/1998
• MAS Complete, 1/1/1985-12/31/1998
• MAS High Search: Main Edition, 1/1/1985-12/31/1998
• MAS Ultra - School Edition (Magazine Article Summaries), 1/1/1985-12/31/1998
• MasterFILE Complete, 1/1/1984-12/31/1998
• MasterFILE Elite, 1/1/1985-12/31/1998
• MasterFILE Premier, 1/1/1984-12/31/1998
• MasterFILE: Main Edition, 1/1/1985-12/31/1998
• MLA International Bibliography (Modern Language Association)
• Poetry & Short Story Reference Center, 1/1/1975-12/31/1998
• RILM Abstracts of Music Literature (Repertoire International de Litterature Musicale)
• Russian Academy of Sciences Bibliographies
• Social Sciences Index Retrospective: 1907-1983 (H.W. Wilson), 1965/03-1973/03
• TOC Premier (Table of Contents), 1/1/1995-12/31/1998
• Scopus, 2002-
• Academic ASAP, 01/1987-
• Book Review Index Plus
• Gale Academic OneFile, 01/1987-
• Gale Academic OneFile Select, 01/1987-
• Gale General OneFile, 01/1987-
• Gale in Context: College
• Gale in Context: Elementary
• Gale OneFile: High School Edition, 01/1987-
• InfoTrac Custom, 1/1987-
• Shakespeare Collection, 1/1987-
• Student Resources in Context, 01/1987-
• Gale In Context: Canada, 01/1987-
• Gale in Context: High School
• ArticleFirst, vol.30, no.1, 1990-vol.51, no.4, 2011
• Electronic Collections Online, vol.39, no.1, 1999-vol.51, no.4, 2011
• Periodical Abstracts, v.29, n.1, 1989-v.50, n.2, 2010
• Personal Alert (E-mail)
• Art, Design & Architecture Collection, 01/01/1989-
• Arts & Humanities Database, 01/01/1989-
• Arts Premium Collection, 1/1/1989-
• Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (Online), Selective
• Periodicals Index Online
• Professional ProQuest Central, 01/01/1989-
• ProQuest 5000, 01/01/1989-
• ProQuest Central, 01/01/1989-
• Research Library, 01/01/1989-

Abstracting & Indexing Sources

• Abstracts of English Studies   (Ceased)  (Print)
• Academic Index   (Ceased)  (Print)
• MLA Abstracts of Articles in Scholarly Journals   (Ceased)  (Print)

Source: Ulrichsweb Global Serials Directory.

0.2 (2022) 0.2 (Five-Year Impact Factor) 0.00051 (Eigenfactor™ Score) Rank in Category (by Journal Impact Factor): Note:  While journals indexed in AHCI and ESCI are receiving a JIF for the first time in June 2023, they will not receive ranks, quartiles, or percentiles until the release of 2023 data in June 2024.  

© Clarivate Analytics 2023

Published quarterly

Readers include: Scholars and students of English and Renaissance literature

Print circulation: 240

Print Advertising Rates

Full Page: (4.75 x 7.5") - $450.00

Half Page: (4.75 x 3.5") - $338.00

2 Page Spread - $675.00

Print Advertising Deadlines

February Issue - December 15

May Issue - March 15

August Issue - June 15

November Issue - September 15

Online Advertising Rates (per month)

Promotion (400x200 pixels) - $338.00

Online Advertising Deadline

Online advertising reservations are placed on a month-to-month basis.

All online ads are due on the 20th of the month prior to the reservation.

General Advertising Info

For more information on advertising or to place an ad, please visit the  Advertising page.  

"SEL, a leading journal in its field, is indispensable reading for those interested in frontier scholarship and criticism on English literature." -J. Hillis Miller Department of English & Comparative Literature University of California, Irvine

"Of the important journals in my field(s)--journals like ELR, ELH, RQ, Representations--I think SEL  is the one most committed to soliciting and printing good work by younger scholars at the graduate student and untenured faculty levels." -Harry Berger Jr. Emeritus Professor of Literature University of California

"Since my introduction to  SEL  as a graduate student I've remained a faithful (and grateful) reader. I know of no critical essays that have been of greater value to me in understanding the trajectory of literary studies than the ones in  SEL  devoted to a review of recent scholarship." -James Shapiro Professor of English and Comparative Literature Columbia University

". . . one of the few journals I consistently admire--and even read! Over these years of academic trends, it's kept its unique scholarly identity, becoming neither modish nor boring. The review essays alone are sensationally learned and helpful." -Nina Auerbach Department of English University of Pennsylvania

eTOC (Electronic Table of Contents) alerts can be delivered to your inbox when this or any Hopkins Press journal is published via your ProjectMUSE MyMUSE account. Visit the eTOC instructions page for detailed instructions on setting up your MyMUSE account and alerts.  

Also of Interest

Robert P. Marzec, Purdue University

Bruce Holsinger, University of Virginia

Adriana Craciun, Boston University

Christopher Keep, Western University

Andrea Bachner, Cornell University

Mária Minich Brewer and Daniel Brewer, University of Minnesota

Dr. Nora Gilbert, University of North Texas

Jeanne-Marie Jackson, Johns Hopkins University

Visit the Editorial Board tab for the full list of Editors.

Adam Ross, The University of the South

Maria Farland, Fordham University and Duncan Faherty, Queens College and The CUNY Graduate Center

David F. Bell, Duke University; Pierre Cassou-Noguès, Université de Paris 8; Églantine Colon, California Institute of the Arts; Marion Froger, Université de Montréal; Paul A. Harris, Loyola Marymount University; Eric Méchoulan, Université de Montréal; Thangam Ravindranathan, Brown University; and Rebecca Walkowitz, Rutgers University

Michael T. Clarke and Faye Halpern / University of Calgary

Richard J. Golsan, Texas A&M University

Hopkins Press Journals

What Is A Literature Review?

A plain-language explainer (with examples).

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

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

Literature Review 101

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

What is a literature review?

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

Reviewing the literature

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

The literature review chapter

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

What’s the purpose of a literature review?

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

Purpose #1 – Demonstrate your topic knowledge

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

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

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

Purpose #3 – Lay the foundation for your conceptual framework

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

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

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

Purpose #4 – To inform your methodology

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

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

How do I find articles for my literature review?

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

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

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

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

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

Need a helping hand?

How should I structure my literature review?

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

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

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

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

Example of a literature review

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

Wrapping Up

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

Psst… there’s more!

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

You Might Also Like:

16 Comments

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

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

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

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

Timothy T. Chol [email protected]

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

This was so useful. Thank you so much.

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

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

Great Brief Explanation, thanks

So helpful to me as a student

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

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

Well-presented overview of the literature!

This was brilliant. So clear. Thank you

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

Literature Reviews

• Getting started

What is a literature review?

Why conduct a literature review, stages of a literature review, lit reviews: an overview (video), check out these books.

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

Contact a Librarian

Ask a Librarian

Definition: A literature review is a systematic examination and synthesis of existing scholarly research on a specific topic or subject.

Purpose: It serves to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge within a particular field.

Analysis: Involves critically evaluating and summarizing key findings, methodologies, and debates found in academic literature.

Identifying Gaps: Aims to pinpoint areas where there is a lack of research or unresolved questions, highlighting opportunities for further investigation.

Contextualization: Enables researchers to understand how their work fits into the broader academic conversation and contributes to the existing body of knowledge.

tl;dr  A literature review critically examines and synthesizes existing scholarly research and publications on a specific topic to provide a comprehensive understanding of the current state of knowledge in the field.

What is a literature review NOT?

❌ An annotated bibliography

❌ Original research

❌ A summary

❌ Something to be conducted at the end of your research

❌ An opinion piece

❌ A chronological compilation of studies

The reason for conducting a literature review is to:

Literature Reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students

While this 9-minute video from NCSU is geared toward graduate students, it is useful for anyone conducting a literature review.

Writing the literature review: A practical guide

Available 3rd floor of Perkins

Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences

Available online!

So, you have to write a literature review: A guided workbook for engineers

Telling a research story: Writing a literature review

The literature review: Six steps to success

Systematic approaches to a successful literature review

Request from Duke Medical Center Library

Doing a systematic review: A student's guide

• Next: Types of reviews >>
• Last Updated: May 17, 2024 8:42 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.duke.edu/litreviews

Services for...

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

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

Studies in English Literature 1500–1900 is a journal of historical and critical studies. It is published quarterly for Rice University in Houston, Texas by Johns Hopkins University Press. Editors select learned, readable papers that contribute significantly to the understanding of British Literature from 1500 to 1900. Each issue is devoted to one of four fields:

Winter (February): The English Renaissance Spring (May): Tudor and Stuart Drama Summer (August): Restoration and Eighteenth Century Autumn (November): The Nineteenth Century

SEL was founded in 1961 at Rice University by Professor Carroll Camden to meet the demand for academic journals "devoted to the publication of English studies." Since its inception, SEL has published influential articles by leading scholars in each of the four fields it covers.

SEL is also well known for the commissioned Omnibus Review of recent studies in the field that is included in each issue. Each year, SEL 's editors select a leading scholar in each of the journal's four fields to review that year's recently published studies. Reviewers typically receive between 75 to 100 books each year from all of the major university presses. The resulting Omnibus Reviews serve to index the state of each reviewer's field and are consulted by emerging and established scholars alike. In fact, Omnibus Reviews consistently rank among the most read articles in each issue.

In 1995, SEL 's former Associate Editor, Diana P. Hobby, established the Diana P. Hobby Fellowship to provide "funds for the support of graduate student editorial trainees." The Hobby Fellowship became "the first endowed graduate fellowship established in English at Rice." The first Diana P. Hobby Fellows — Yvonne Bruce, Shannon Leonard, and Susannah Mintz — began their service with the Summer 1995 issue. Hobby Fellows are responsible for maintaining SEL 's high editorial standards and assist with copy-editing the journal's accepted articles and ordering books for each issue's Omnibus Review.

The journal is a member of the Council of Editors of Learned Journals .

For a detailed history of SEL , see the journal's Historical Timeline .

Review of Related Literature (RRL)

Ai generator.

The Review of Related Literature (RRL) is a crucial section in research that examines existing studies and publications related to a specific topic. It summarizes and synthesizes previous findings, identifies gaps, and provides context for the current research. RRL ensures the research is grounded in established knowledge, guiding the direction and focus of new studies.

What Is Review of Related Literature (RRL)?

The Review of Related Literature (RRL) is a detailed analysis of existing research relevant to a specific topic. It evaluates, synthesizes, and summarizes previous studies to identify trends, gaps, and conflicts in the literature. RRL provides a foundation for new research, ensuring it builds on established knowledge and addresses existing gaps.

Format of Review of Related Literature (RRL)

The Review of Related Literature (RRL) is a critical part of any research paper or thesis . It provides an overview of existing research on your topic and helps to establish the context for your study. Here is a typical format for an RRL:

1. Introduction

• Purpose : Explain the purpose of the review and its importance to your research.
• Scope : Define the scope of the literature reviewed, including the time frame, types of sources, and key themes.

2. Theoretical Framework

• Concepts and Theories : Present the main theories and concepts that underpin your research.
• Relevance : Explain how these theories relate to your study.

3. Review of Empirical Studies

• Sub-theme 1 : Summarize key studies, including methodologies, findings, and conclusions.
• Sub-theme 2 : Continue summarizing studies, focusing on different aspects or variables.
• Sub-theme 3 : Include any additional relevant studies.

4. Methodological Review

• Approaches : Discuss the various methodologies used in the reviewed studies.
• Strengths and Weaknesses : Highlight the strengths and weaknesses of these methodologies.
• Gaps : Identify gaps in the existing research that your study aims to address.

5. Synthesis and Critique

• Integration : Integrate findings from the reviewed studies to show the current state of knowledge.
• Critique : Critically evaluate the literature, discussing inconsistencies, limitations, and areas for further research.

6. Conclusion

• Summary : Summarize the main findings from the literature review.
• Research Gap : Clearly state the research gap your study will address.
• Contribution : Explain how your study will contribute to the existing body of knowledge.

7. References

• Citation Style : List all the sources cited in your literature review in the appropriate citation style (e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago).

Review of Related Literature (RRL) 1. Introduction This review examines research on social media’s impact on mental health, focusing on anxiety and depression across various demographics over the past ten years. 2. Theoretical Framework Anchored in Social Comparison Theory and Uses and Gratifications Theory, this review explores how individuals’ social media interactions affect their mental health. 3. Review of Empirical Studies Adolescents’ Mental Health Instagram & Body Image : Smith & Johnson (2017) found Instagram use linked to body image issues and lower self-esteem among 500 high school students. Facebook & Anxiety : Brown & Green (2016) showed Facebook use correlated with higher anxiety and depressive symptoms in a longitudinal study of 300 students. Young Adults’ Mental Health Twitter & Stress : Davis & Lee (2018) reported higher stress levels among heavy Twitter users in a survey of 400 university students. LinkedIn & Self-Esteem : Miller & White (2019) found LinkedIn use positively influenced professional self-esteem in 200 young professionals. Adult Mental Health General Social Media Use : Thompson & Evans (2020) found moderate social media use associated with better mental health outcomes, while excessive use correlated with higher anxiety and depression in 1,000 adults. 4. Methodological Review Studies used cross-sectional surveys, longitudinal designs, and mixed methods. Cross-sectional surveys provided large data sets but couldn’t infer causation. Longitudinal studies offered insights into long-term effects but were resource-intensive. Mixed methods enriched data through qualitative insights but required careful integration. 5. Synthesis and Critique The literature shows a complex relationship between social media and mental health, with platform-specific and demographic-specific effects. However, reliance on self-reported data introduces bias, and many cross-sectional studies limit causal inference. More longitudinal and experimental research is needed. 6. Conclusion Current research offers insights into social media’s mental health impact but leaves gaps, particularly regarding long-term effects and causation. This study aims to address these gaps through comprehensive longitudinal analysis. 7. References Brown, A., & Green, K. (2016). Facebook Use and Anxiety Among High School Students . Psychology in the Schools, 53(3), 257-264. Davis, R., & Lee, S. (2018). Twitter and Psychological Stress: A Study of University Students . Journal of College Student Development, 59(2), 120-135. Miller, P., & White, H. (2019). LinkedIn and Its Effect on Professional Self-Esteem . Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(1), 78-90. Smith, J., & Johnson, L. (2017). The Impact of Instagram on Teen Body Image . Journal of Adolescent Health, 60(5), 555-560. Thompson, M., & Evans, D. (2020). The Relationship Between Social Media Use and Mental Health in Adults . Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 23(4), 201-208.

Review of Related Literature (RRL) Examples

Review of related literature in research, review of related literature in research paper, review of related literature qualitative research.

Review of Related Literature Quantitative Research

More Review of Related Literature (RRL) Examples

• Impact of E-learning on Student Performance
• Effectiveness of Mindfulness in Workplace
• Green Building and Energy Efficiency
• Impact of Technology on Healthcare Delivery
• Effects of Nutrition on Cognitive Development in Children
• Impact of Employee Training Programs on Productivity
• Effects of Climate Change on Biodiversity
• Impact of Parental Involvement on Student Achievement
• Effects of Mobile Learning on Student Engagement
• Effects of Urban Green Spaces on Mental Health

Purpose of the Review of Related Literature (RRL)

The Review of Related Literature (RRL) serves several critical purposes in research:

• Establishing Context : It situates your research within the broader field, showing how your study relates to existing work.
• Identifying Gaps : It highlights gaps, inconsistencies, and areas needing further exploration in current knowledge, providing a clear rationale for your study.
• Avoiding Duplication : By reviewing what has already been done, it helps ensure your research is original and not a repetition of existing studies.
• Building on Existing Knowledge : It allows you to build on the findings of previous research, using established theories and methodologies to inform your work.
• Theoretical Foundation : It provides a theoretical basis for your research, grounding it in existing concepts and theories.
• Methodological Insights : It offers insights into the methods and approaches used in similar studies, helping you choose the most appropriate methods for your research.
• Establishing Credibility : It demonstrates your familiarity with the field, showing that you are well-informed and have a solid foundation for your research.
• Supporting Arguments : It provides evidence and support for your research questions, hypotheses, and objectives, strengthening the overall argument of your study.

How to Write Review of Related Literature (RRL)

Writing a Review of Related Literature (RRL) involves several key steps. Here’s a step-by-step guide:

1. Define the Scope and Objectives

• Determine the Scope : Decide on the breadth of the literature you will review, including specific themes, time frame, and types of sources.
• Set Objectives : Clearly define the purpose of the review. What do you aim to achieve? Identify gaps, establish context, or build on existing knowledge.

2. Search for Relevant Literature

• Identify Keywords : Use keywords and phrases related to your research topic.
• Use Databases : Search academic databases like Google Scholar, PubMed, JSTOR, etc., for relevant articles, books, and papers.
• Select Sources : Choose sources that are credible, recent, and relevant to your research.

3. Evaluate and Select the Literature

• Read Abstracts and Summaries : Quickly determine the relevance of each source.
• Assess Quality : Consider the methodology, credibility of the authors, and publication source.
• Select Key Studies : Choose studies that are most relevant to your research questions and objectives.

4. Organize the Literature

• Thematic Organization : Group studies by themes or topics.
• Chronological Organization : Arrange studies in the order they were published to show the development of ideas over time.
• Methodological Organization : Categorize studies by the methods they used.

5. Write the Review

• State the purpose and scope of the review.
• Explain the importance of the topic.
• Theoretical Framework : Present and discuss the main theories and concepts.
• Summarize key studies, including their methodologies, findings, and conclusions.
• Organize by themes or other chosen organizational methods.
• Methodological Review : Discuss the various methodologies used, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses.
• Synthesis and Critique : Integrate findings, critically evaluate the literature, and identify gaps or inconsistencies.
• Summarize the main findings from the literature review.
• Highlight the research gaps your study will address.
• State how your research will contribute to the existing knowledge.

6. Cite the Sources

• Use Appropriate Citation Style : Follow the required citation style (e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago).
• List References : Provide a complete list of all sources cited in your review.

What is an RRL?

An RRL summarizes and synthesizes existing research on a specific topic to identify gaps and guide future studies.

Why is RRL important?

It provides context, highlights gaps, and ensures new research builds on existing knowledge.

How do you write an RRL?

Organize by themes, summarize studies, evaluate methodologies, identify gaps, and conclude with relevance to current research.

What sources are used in RRL?

Peer-reviewed journals, books, conference papers, and credible online resources.

How long should an RRL be?

Length varies; typically 10-20% of the total research paper.

What are common RRL mistakes?

Lack of organization, insufficient synthesis, over-reliance on outdated sources, and failure to identify gaps.

Can an RRL include non-scholarly sources?

Primarily scholarly, but reputable non-scholarly sources can be included for context.

What is the difference between RRL and bibliography?

RRL synthesizes and analyzes the literature, while a bibliography lists sources.

How often should an RRL be updated?

Regularly, especially when new relevant research is published.

Can an RRL influence research direction?

Yes, it identifies gaps and trends that shape the focus and methodology of new research.

Text prompt

• Instructive
• Professional

10 Examples of Public speaking

20 Examples of Gas lighting

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Mark Access Health Policy
• v.11(1); 2023
• PMC10392303

Rapid literature review: definition and methodology

Beata smela.

a Assignity, Cracow, Poland

Mondher Toumi

b Public Health Department, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France

Karolina Świerk

Clement francois, małgorzata biernikiewicz.

c Studio Slowa, Wroclaw, Poland

Emilie Clay

d Clever-Access, Paris, France

Laurent Boyer

Introduction: A rapid literature review (RLR) is an alternative to systematic literature review (SLR) that can speed up the analysis of newly published data. The objective was to identify and summarize available information regarding different approaches to defining RLR and the methodology applied to the conduct of such reviews.

Methods: The Medline and EMBASE databases, as well as the grey literature, were searched using the set of keywords and their combination related to the targeted and rapid review, as well as design, approach, and methodology. Of the 3,898 records retrieved, 12 articles were included.

Results: Specific definition of RLRs has only been developed in 2021. In terms of methodology, the RLR should be completed within shorter timeframes using simplified procedures in comparison to SLRs, while maintaining a similar level of transparency and minimizing bias. Inherent components of the RLR process should be a clear research question, search protocol, simplified process of study selection, data extraction, and quality assurance.

Conclusions: There is a lack of consensus on the formal definition of the RLR and the best approaches to perform it. The evidence-based supporting methods are evolving, and more work is needed to define the most robust approaches.

Introduction

A systematic literature review (SLR) summarizes the results of all available studies on a specific topic and provides a high level of evidence. Authors of the SLR have to follow an advanced plan that covers defining a priori information regarding the research question, sources they are going to search, inclusion criteria applied to choose studies answering the research question, and information regarding how they are going to summarize findings [ 1 ].

The rigor and transparency of SLRs make them the most reliable form of literature review [ 2 ], providing a comprehensive, objective summary of the evidence for a given topic [ 3 , 4 ]. On the other hand, the SLR process is usually very time-consuming and requires a lot of human resources. Taking into account a high increase of newly published data and a growing need to analyze information in the fastest possible way, rapid literature reviews (RLRs) often replace standard SLRs.

There are several guidelines on the methodology of RLRs [ 5–11 ]; however, only recently, one publication from 2021 attempted to construct a unified definition [ 11 ]. Generally, by RLRs, researchers understand evidence synthesis during which some of the components of the systematic approach are being used to facilitate answering a focused research question; however, scope restrictions and a narrower search strategy help to make the project manageable in a shorter time and to get the key conclusions faster [ 4 ].

The objective of this research was to collect and summarize available information on different approaches to the definition and methodology of RLRs. An RLR has been run to capture publications providing data that fit the project objective.

To find publications reporting information on the methodology of RLRs, searches were run in the Medline and EMBASE databases in November 2022. The following keywords were searched for in titles and abstracts: ‘targeted adj2 review’ OR ‘focused adj2 review’ OR ‘rapid adj2 review’, and ‘methodology’ OR ‘design’ OR ‘scheme’ OR ‘approach’. The grey literature was identified using Google Scholar with keywords including ‘targeted review methodology’ OR ‘focused review methodology’ OR ‘rapid review methodology’. Only publications in English were included, and the date of publication was restricted to year 2016 onward in order to identify the most up-to-date literature. The reference lists of each included article were searched manually to obtain the potentially eligible articles. Titles and abstracts of the retrieved records were first screened to exclude articles that were evidently irrelevant. The full texts of potentially relevant papers were further reviewed to examine their eligibility.

A pre-defined Excel grid was developed to extract the following information related to the methodology of RLR from guidelines:

• Definition,
• Research question and searches,
• Studies selection,
• Data extraction and quality assessment,
• Additional information.

There was no restriction on the study types to be analyzed; any study reporting on the methodology of RLRs could be included: reviews, practice guidelines, commentaries, and expert opinions on RLR relevant to healthcare policymakers or practitioners. The data extraction and evidence summary were conducted by one analyst and further examined by a senior analyst to ensure that relevant information was not omitted. Disagreements were resolved by discussion and consensus.

Studies selection

A total of 3,898 records (3,864 articles from a database search and 34 grey literature from Google Scholar) were retrieved. After removing duplicates, titles and abstracts of 3,813 articles were uploaded and screened. The full texts of 43 articles were analyzed resulting in 12 articles selected for this review, including 7 guidelines [ 5–11 ] on the methodology of RLRs, together with 2 papers summarizing the results of the Delphi consensus on the topic [ 12 , 13 ], and 3 publications analyzing and assessing different approaches to RLRs [ 4 , 14 , 15 ].

Overall, seven guidelines were identified: from the World Health Organization (WHO) [ 5 ], National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools (NCCMT) [ 7 ], the UK government [ 8 ], the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine [ 9 ], the Cochrane group [ 6 , 11 ], and one multi-national review [ 10 ]. Among the papers that did not describe the guidelines, Gordon et al. [ 4 ] proposed 12 tips for conducting a rapid review in the right settings and discussed why these reviews may be more beneficial in some circumstances. The objective of work conducted by Tricco et al. [ 13 ] and Pandor et al. [ 12 ] was to collect and compare perceptions of rapid reviews from stakeholders, including researchers, policymakers, industry, journal editors, and healthcare providers, and to reach a consensus outlining the domains to consider when deciding on approaches for RLRs. Haby et al. [ 14 ] run a rapid review of systematic reviews and primary studies to find out the best way to conduct an RLR in health policy and practice. In Tricco et al. (2022) [ 15 ], JBI position statement for RLRs is presented.

From all the seven identified guidelines information regarding definitions the authors used for RLRs, approach to the PICOS criteria and search strategy development, studies selection, data extractions, quality assessment, and reporting were extracted.

Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group developed methods guidance based on scoping review of the underlying evidence, primary methods studies conducted, as well as surveys sent to Cochrane representative and discussion among those with expertise [ 11 ]. They analyzed over 300 RLRs or RLR method papers and based on the methodology of those studies, constructed a broad definition RLR, one that meets a minimum set of requirements identified in the thematic analysis: ‘ A rapid review is a form of knowledge synthesis that accelerates the process of conducting a traditional systematic review through streamlining or omitting a variety of methods to produce evidence in a resource-efficient manner .’ This interpretation aligns with more than 50% of RLRs identified in this study. The authors additionally provided several other definitions, depending on specific situations or requirements (e.g., when RLR is produced on stakeholder’s request). It was additionally underlined that RLRs should be driven by the need of timely evidence for decision-making purposes [ 11 ].

Rapid reviews vary in their objective, format, and methods used for evidence synthesis. This is a quite new area, and still no agreement on optimal methods can be found [ 5 ]. All of the definitions are highlighting that RLRs are completed within shorter timeframes than SLRs, and also lack of time is one of the main reasons they are conducted. It has been suggested that most rapid reviews are conducted within 12 weeks; however, some of the resources suggest time between a few weeks to no more than 6 months [ 5 , 6 ]. Some of the definitions are highlighting that RLRs follow the SLR process, but certain phases of the process are simplified or omitted to retrieve information in a time-saving way [ 6 , 7 ]. Different mechanisms are used to enhance the timeliness of reviews. They can be used independently or concurrently: increasing the intensity of work by intensifying the efforts of multiple analysts by parallelization of tasks, using review shortcuts whereby one or more systematic review steps may be reduced, automatizing review steps by using new technologies [ 5 ]. The UK government report [ 8 ] referred to two different RLRs: in the form of quick scoping reviews (QSR) or rapid evidence assessments (REA). While being less resource and time-consuming compared to standard SLRs, QSRs and REAs are designed to be similarly transparent and to minimize bias. QSRs can be applied to rather open-ended questions, e.g., ‘what do we know about something’ but both, QSRs and REAs, provide an understanding of the volume and characteristics of evidence on a specific topic, allowing answering questions by maximizing the use of existing data, and providing a clear picture of the adequacy of existing evidence [ 8 ].

Research questions and searches

The guidelines suggest creating a clear research question and search protocol at the beginning of the project. Additionally, to not duplicate RLRs, the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group encourages all people working on RLRs to consider registering their search protocol with PROSPERO, the international prospective register of reviews; however, so far they are not formally registered in most cases [ 5 , 6 ]. They also recommend involving key stakeholders (review users) to set and refine the review question, criteria, and outcomes, as well as consulting them through the entire process [ 11 ].

Regarding research questions, it is better to structure them in a neutral way rather than focus on a specific direction for the outcome. By doing so, the researcher is in a better position to identify all the relevant evidence [ 7 ]. Authors can add a second, supportive research question when needed [ 8 ]. It is encouraged to limit the number of interventions, comparators and outcomes, to focus on the ones that are most important for decision-making [ 11 ]. Useful could be also reviewing additional materials, e.g., SLRs on the topic, as well as conducting a quick literature search to better understand the topic before starting with RLRs [ 7 ]. In SLRs researchers usually do not need to care a lot about time spent on creating PICOS, they need to make sure that the scope is broad enough, and they cannot use many restrictions. When working on RLRs, a reviewer may spend more or less time defining each of the components of the study question, and the main step is making sure that PICOS addresses the needs of those who requested the rapid review, and at the same time, it is feasible within the required time frame [ 7 ]. Search protocol should contain an outline of how the following review steps are to be carried out, including selected search keywords and a full strategy, a list of data sources, precise inclusion and exclusion criteria, a strategy for data extraction and critical appraisal, and a plan of how the information will be synthesized [ 8 ].

In terms of searches running, in most cases, an exhaustive process will not be feasible. Researchers should make sure that the search is effective and efficient to produce results in a timely manner. Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group recommends involving an information specialist and conducting peer review of at least one search strategy [ 11 ]. According to the rapid review guidebook by McMaster University [ 7 ], it is important that RLRs, especially those that support policy and program decisions, are being fed by the results of a body of literature, rather than single studies, when possible. It would result in more generalizable findings applied at the level of a population and serve more realistic findings for program decisions [ 7 ]. It is important to document the search strategy, together with a record of the date and any date limits of the search, so that it can easily be run again, modified, or updated. Furthermore, the information on the individual databases included in platform services should always be reported, as this depends on organizations’ subscriptions and must be included for transparency and repeatability [ 7 , 8 ]. Good solution for RLRs is narrowing the scope or searching a limited number of databases and other sources [ 7 ]. Often, the authors use the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases. In most reviews, two or more databases are searched, and common limits are language (usually restricted to English), date, study design, and geographical area. Some RLRs include searching of grey literature; however, contact with authors is rather uncommon [ 5 , 8 ]. According to the flexible framework for restricted systematic review published by the University of Oxford, the search should be run in at least one major scientific database such as PubMed, and one other source, e.g., Google Scholar [ 9 ]. Grey literature and unpublished evidence may be particularly needed and important for intervention questions. It is related to the fact that studies that do not report the effects of interventions are less likely to be published [ 8 ]. If there is any type of evidence that will not be considered by the RLRs, e.g., reviews or theoretical and conceptual studies, it should also be stated in the protocol together with justification [ 8 ]. Additionally, authors of a practical guide published by WHO suggest using a staged search to identify existing SLRs at the beginning, and then focusing on studies with other designs [ 5 ]. If a low number of citations have been retrieved, it is acceptable to expand searches, remove some of the limits, and add additional databases and sources [ 7 ].

Searching for RLRs is an iterative process, and revising the approach is usually needed [ 7 ]. Changes should be confirmed with stakeholders and should be tracked and reflected in the final report [ 5 ].

The next step in the rapid review is the selection of studies consisting of two phases: screening of titles and abstracts, and analysis of full texts. Prior to screening initiation, it is recommended to conduct a pilot exercise using the same 30–50 abstracts and 5–10 full-texts for the entire screening team in order to calibrate and test the review form [ 11 ]. In contrast to SLRs, it can be done by one reviewer with or without verification by a second one. If verification is performed, usually the second reviewer checks only a subset of records and compares them. Cochrane Group, in contrast, recommends a stricter approach: at least 20% of references should be double-screened at titles and abstracts stage, and while the rest of the references may be screened by one reviewer, the excluded items need to be re-examined by second reviewer; similar approach is used in full-text screening [ 11 ]. This helps to ensure that bias was reduced and that the PICOS criteria are applied in a relevant way [ 5 , 8 , 9 , 11 ]. During the analysis of titles and abstracts, there is no need to report reasons for exclusion; however, they should be tracked for all excluded full texts [ 7 ].

Data extraction and quality assessment

According to the WHO guide, the most common method for data extraction in RLRs is extraction done by a single reviewer with or without partial verification. The authors point out that a reasonable approach is to use a second reviewer to check a random sample of at least 10% of the extractions for accuracy. Dual performance is more necessary for the extraction of quantitative results than for descriptive study information. In contrast, Cochrane group recommends that second reviewer should check the correctness and completeness of all data [ 11 ]. When possible, extractions should be limited to key characteristics and outcomes of the study. The same approach to data extraction is also suggested for a quality assessment process within rapid reviews [ 5 , 9 , 11 ]. Authors of the guidebook from McMaster University highlight that data extraction should be done ideally by two reviewers independently and consensus on the discrepancies should always be reached [ 7 ]. The final decision on the approach to this important step of review should depend on the available time and should also reflect the complexity of the research question [ 9 ].

For screening, analysis of full texts, extractions, and quality assessments, researchers can use information technologies to support them by making these review steps more efficient [ 5 ].

Before data reporting, a reviewer should prepare a document with key message headings, executive summary, background related to the topic and status of the current knowledge, project question, synthesis of findings, conclusions, and recommendations. According to the McMaster University guidebook, a report should be structured in a 1:2:20 format, that is, one page for key messages, two pages for an executive summary, and a full report of up to 20 pages [ 7 ]. All the limitations of the RLRs should be analyzed, and conclusions should be drawn with caution [ 5 ]. The quality of the accumulated evidence and the strength of recommendations can be assessed using, e.g., the GRADE system [ 5 ]. When working on references quoting, researchers should remember to use a primary source, not secondary references [ 7 ]. It would be worth considering the support of some software tools to automate reporting steps. Additionally, any standardization of the process and the usage of templates can support report development and enhance the transparency of the review [ 5 ].

Ideally, all the review steps should be completed during RLRs; however, often some steps may need skipping or will not be completed as thoroughly as should because of time constraints. It is always crucial to decide which steps may be skipped, and which are the key ones, depending on the project [ 7 ]. Guidelines suggest that it may be helpful to invite researchers with experience in the operations of SLRs to participate in the rapid review development [ 5 , 9 ]. As some of the steps will be completed by one reviewer only, it is important to provide them with relevant training at the beginning of the process, as well as during the review, to minimize the risk of mistakes [ 5 ].

Additional information

Depending on the policy goal and available resources and deadlines, methodology of the RLRs may be modified. Wilson et al. [ 10 ] provided extensive guidelines for performing RLR within days (e.g., to inform urgent internal policy discussions and/or management decisions), weeks (e.g., to inform public debates), or months (e.g., to inform policy development cycles that have a longer timeline, but that cannot wait for a traditional full systematic review). These approaches vary in terms of data synthesis, types of considered evidence and project management considerations.

In shortest timeframes, focused questions and subquestions should be formulated, typically to conduct a policy analysis; the report should consist of tables along with a brief narrative summary. Evidence from SLRs is often considered, as well as key informant interviews may be conducted to identify additional literature and insights about the topic, while primary studies and other types of evidence are not typically feasible due to time restrictions. The review would be best conducted with 1–2 reviewers sharing the work, enabling rapid iterations of the review. As for RLRs with longer timeline (weeks), these may use a mix of policy, systems and political analysis. Structure of the review would be similar to shorter RLRs – tabular with short narrative summary, as the timeline does not allow for comprehensive synthesis of data. Besides SLRs, primary studies and other evidence may be feasible in this timeframe, if obtained using the targeted searches in the most relevant databases. The review team should be larger, and standardized procedures for reviewing of the results and data extraction should be applied. In contrast to previous timeframe, merit review process may be feasible. For both timeframes, brief consultations with small transdisciplinary team should be conducted at the beginning and in the final stage of the review to discuss important matters.

For RLRs spanning several months, more comprehensive methodology may be adapted in terms of data synthesis and types of evidence. However, authors advise that review may be best conducted with a small review team in order to allow for more in-depth interpretation and iteration.

Studies analyzing methodology

There have been two interesting publications summarizing the results of Delphi consensus on the RLR methodology identified and included in this review [ 12 , 13 ].

Tricco et al. [ 13 ] first conducted an international survey and scoping review to collect information on the possible approaches to the running of rapid reviews, based on which, they employed a modified Delphi method that included inputs from 113 stakeholders to explore the most optimized approach. Among the six most frequent rapid review approaches (not all detailed here) being evaluated, the approach that combines inclusion of published literature only, a search of more than one database and limitations by date and language, study selection by one analyst, data extraction, and quality assessment by one analyst and one verifier, was perceived as the most feasible approach (72%, 81/113 responses) with the potentially lowest risk of bias (12%, 12/103). The approach ranked as the first one when considering timelines assumes updating of the search from a previously published review, no additional limits on search, studies selection and data extraction done by one reviewer, and no quality assessment. Finally, based on the publication, the most comprehensive RLRs can be made by moving on with the following rules: searching more than one database and grey literature and using date restriction, and assigning one reviewer working on screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment ( Table 1 ). Pandor et al. [ 12 ] introduced a decision tool for SelecTing Approaches for Rapid Reviews (STARR) that were produced through the Delphi consensus of international experts through an iterative and rigorous process. Participants were asked to assess the importance of predefined items in four domains related to the rapid review process: interaction with commissioners, understanding the evidence base, data extraction and synthesis methods, and reporting of rapid review methods. All items assigned to four domains achieved > 70% of consensus, and in that way, the first consensus-driven tool has been created that supports authors of RLRs in planning and deciding on approaches.

Six most frequent approaches to RLRs (adapted from Tricco et al. [ 13 ]).

Haby et al. [ 14 ] run searches of 11 databases and two websites and developed a comprehensive overview of the methodology of RLRs. With five SLRs and one RCT being finally included, they identified the following approaches used in RLRs to make them faster than full SLRs: limiting the number and scope of questions, searching fewer databases, limited searching of grey literature, restrictions on language and date (e.g., English only, most recent publications), updating the existing SLRs, eliminating or limiting hand searches of reference lists, noniterative search strategies, eliminating consultation with experts, limiting dual study selection, data extraction and quality assessment, minimal data synthesis with short concise conclusions or recommendations. All the SLRs included in this review were consistent in stating that no agreed definition of rapid reviews is available, and there is still no final agreement on the best methodological rules to be followed.

Gordon et al. [ 4 ] explained the advantages of performing a focused review and provided 12 tips for its conduction. They define focused reviews as ‘a form of knowledge synthesis in which the components of the systematic process are applied to facilitate the analysis of a focused research question’. The first tip presented by the authors is related to deciding if a focused review is a right solution for the considered project. RLRs will suit emerging topics, approaches, or assessments where early synthesis can support doctors, policymakers, etc., but also can direct future research. The second, third, and fourth tips highlight the importance of running preliminary searches and considering narrowing the results by using reasonable constraints taking into account the local context, problems, efficiency perspectives, and available time. Further tips include creating a team of experienced reviewers working on the RLRs, thinking about the target journal from the beginning of work on the rapid review, registering the search protocol on the PROSPERO registry, and the need for contacting authors of papers when data available in publications are missing or incongruent. The last three tips are related to the choice of evidence synthesis method, using the visual presentation of data, and considering and describing all the limitations of the focused review.

Finally, a new publication by Tricco et al. from 2022, describing JBI position statement [ 15 ] underlined that for the time being, there is no specific tool for critical appraisal of the RLR’s methodological quality. Instead, reviewers may use available tools to assess the risk of bias or quality of SLRs, like ROBIS, the JBI critical appraisal tools, or the assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR).

Inconsistency in the definitions and methodologies of RLR

Although RLR was broadly perceived as an approach to quicken the conduct of conventional SLR, there is a lack of consensus on the formal definition of the RLR, so as to the best approaches to perform it. Only in 2021, a study proposing unified definition was published; however, it is important to note that the most accurate definition was only matching slightly over 50% of papers analysed by the authors, which underlines the lack of homogeneity in the field [ 11 ]. The evidence-based supporting methods are evolving, and more evidence is needed to define the most robust approaches [ 5 ].

Diverse terms are used to describe the RLR, including ‘rapid review’, focused systematic review’, ‘quick scoping reviews’, and ‘rapid evidence assessments’. Although the general principles of conducting RLR are to accelerate the whole process, complexity was seen in the methodologies used for RLRs, as reflected in this study. Also, inconsistencies related to the scope of the questions, search strategies, inclusion criteria, study screening, full-text review, quality assessment, and evidence presentation were implied. All these factors may hamper decision-making about optimal methodologies for conducting rapid reviews, and as a result, the efficiency of RLR might be decreased. Additionally, researchers may tend to report the methodology of their reviews without a sufficient level of detail, making it difficult to appraise the quality and robustness of their work.

Advantages and weaknesses of RLR

Although RLR used simplified approaches for evidence synthesis compared with SLR, the methodologies for RLR should be replicable, rigorous, and transparent to the greatest extent [ 16 ]. When time and resources are limited, RLR could be a practical and efficient tool to provide the summary of evidence that is critical for making rapid clinical or policy-related decisions [ 5 ]. Focusing on specific questions that are of controversy or special interest could be powerful in reaffirming whether the existing recommendation statements are still appropriate [ 17 ].

The weakness of RLR should also be borne in mind, and the trade-off of using RLR should be carefully considered regarding the thoroughness of the search, breadth of a research question, and depth of analysis [ 18 ]. If allowed, SLR is preferred over RLR considering that some relevant studies might be omitted with narrowed search strategies and simplified screening process [ 14 ]. Additionally, omitting the quality assessment of included studies could result in an increased risk of bias, making the comprehensiveness of RLR compromised [ 13 ]. Furthermore, in situations that require high accuracy, for example, where a small relative difference in an intervention has great impacts, for the purpose of drafting clinical guidelines, or making licensing decisions, a comprehensive SLR may remain the priority [ 19 ]. Therefore, clear communications with policymakers are recommended to reach an agreement on whether an RLR is justified and whether the methodologies of RLR are acceptable to address the unanswered questions [ 18 ].

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

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
• Review Article
• Published: 22 May 2024

Review of evidence for treatments of acute non arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy

• Pooja Parthasarathi   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0004-0363-2940 1 &
• Heather E. Moss   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4373-447X 1 , 2  

Eye ( 2024 ) Cite this article

17 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Optic nerve diseases
• Vision disorders

To review treatment modalities that have been studied in acute non arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION).

We performed a comprehensive literature search of English language publications in the last 5 years, with human species and NAION. Articles were reviewed to identify those that described original research on treatment of acute NAION. Study type, setting, duration, interventions, and results were extracted and articles were reviewed for biases and limitations.

We identified 22 kinds of treatment varying by compound and modality. These include topical, intravitreal, and systemic drugs as well as surgical approaches. Evidence for efficacy ranges from expert opinion to randomized control trials.

Conclusions

Although several treatments are utilized in practice, none of these have high quality evidence of efficacy to improve visual outcomes.  Continued collaborative research is necessary to complete high quality studies in order identify effective therapies for this rare and blinding disease.

目的: 回顾急性非动脉炎性前部缺血性视神经病变 (NAION) 的治疗方法。

方法: 我们对过去五年的英语文献进行全面检索, 检索词包括人类物种和NAION。通过回顾文献, 以确定描述急性NAION治疗的原始研究的文献。研究提取了研究类型、研究设计、持续时间、干预措施和结果, 并审查了文章的偏倚和局限性。

结果: 我们确定了22种不同药物和治疗方法。其中包括局部、玻璃体内和全身药物以及手术方法。疗效证据包括专家意见到随机对照试验等。

结论: 虽然几种治疗方法已用于实践, 但这些方法都没有高质量的疗效证据可改善视力效果。持续的合作研究对于完成高质量的研究是必要的, 以确定这种罕见和致盲疾病的有效疗法。

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

Access options

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 18 print issues and online access

251,40 € per year

only 13,97 € per issue

Buy this article

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

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

Similar content being viewed by others

NAION or not NAION? A literature review of pathogenesis and differential diagnosis of anterior ischaemic optic neuropathies

The effects of intravitreal injections on intraocular pressure and retinal nerve fiber layer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

A systematic review of real-world evidence of the management of macular oedema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion

Hayreh SS Ischemic optic neuropathy. Prog Retinal Eye Res. 2009;28:34–62.

Article   Google Scholar  

Wu KY, Evoy F. Naion: Diagnosis and management. American Academy of Ophthalmology. 2023. https://www.aao.org/eyenet/article/naion-diagnosis-and-management . Accessed 7 Feb 2024.

Lee J-Y, Park K-A, Oh SY Prevalence and incidence of non-arteritic anterior ischaemic optic neuropathy in South Korea: a nationwide population-based study. Br J Ophthalmol. 2018;102:936–41.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Johnson LN, Arnold AC. Incidence of nonarteritic and arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy. J Neuro Ophthalmol. 1994;14. https://doi.org/10.1097/00041327-199403000-00011 .

Cestari DM, Gaier ED, Bouzika P, Blachley TS, De Lott LB, Rizzo JF, et al. Demographic, systemic, and ocular factors associated with nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy. Ophthalmology. 2016;123:2446–55.

Ischemic Optic Neuropathy Decompression Trial Study Group. Characteristics of patients with nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy eligible for the ischemic optic neuropathy decompression trial. Arch Ophthalmol. 1996;114:1366–74.

Rizzo JF, Lessell S Optic neuritis and ischemic optic neuropathy. Arch Ophthalmol. 1991;109:1668–72.

Tisavipat N, Stiebel-Kalish H, Palevski D, Bialer OY, Moss HE, Chaitanuwong P, et al. Acute optic neuropathy in older adults: differentiating between MOGAD optic neuritis and non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy. Neurology 2024;11:e200214.

Google Scholar  

Arnold A, Wang M. Ischemic optic neuropathies. In: Ophthalmology. Elsevier; 2014. p. 884–9.

Part I: Anatomy. 2020–2021 BCSC Basic and Clinical Science CourseTM. 2021. Accessed 7 Feb 2024.

Hayreh S, Podhajsky P, Zimmerman MB Role of nocturnal arterial hypotension in optic nerve head ischemic disorders. Ophthalmologica. 1999;213:76–96.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Purvin V, King R, Kawasaki A, Yee R Anterior ischemic optic neuropathy in eyes with optic disc drusen. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004;122:48–53.

Modarres M, Sanjari MS, Falavarjani KG Vitrectomy and release of presumed epipapillary vitreous traction for treatment of nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy associated with partial posterior vitreous detachment. Ophthalmology. 2007;114:340–4.

Kupersmith MJ, Sibony PA, Dave S Nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy induced retinal folds and deformations. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2017;58:4286–91.

Thompson AC, Bhatti MT, Gospe SM Spectral-domain optical coherence tomography of the vitreopapillary interface in acute nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy. Am J Ophthalmol. 2018;195:199–208.

Wheeler LA, Lai R, Woldemussie E. From the lab to the clinic: activation of an alpha-2 agonist pathway is neuroprotective in models of retinal and optic nerve injury. Eur J Ophthalmol. 1999;9. https://doi.org/10.1177/112067219900901s09 .

Wilhelm B, Lüdtke H, Wilhelm H Efficacy and tolerability of 0.2% brimonidine tartrate for the treatment of acute non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION): A 3-month, double-masked, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2005;244:551–8.

Fazzone HE Does topical brimonidine tartrate help naion? Br J Ophthalmol. 2003;87:1193–4.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Wood JPM, Schmidt KG, Melena J, Chidlow G, Allmeier H, Osborne NN The β-adrenoceptor antagonists metipranolol and timolol are retinal neuroprotectants: comparison with betaxolol. Exp Eye Res. 2003;76:505–16.

Treatment Study for Ischemic Optic Neuropathy With Ophthalmic Timolol Maleate 0.5%. ClinicalTrials.gov [Internet]. [cited 2024 Feb 5].

Leonhardt H, Grigoleit HG Effects of pentoxifylline on red blood cell deformability and blood viscosity under hyperosmolar conditions. Naunyn-Schmiedebergs Arch für Pharmakologie. 1977;299:197–200.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Dawson DL, Cutler BS, Hiatt WR, Hobson RW, Martin JD, Bortey EB, et al. A comparison of cilostazol and pentoxifylline for treating intermittent claudication. Am J Med. 2000;109:523–30.

Jull AB, Arroll B, Parag V, Waters J Pentoxifylline for treating venous leg ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;2012:CD001733.

PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Prokosch V, Thanos S Visual outcome of patients following NAION after treatment with adjunctive fluocortolone. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2014;32:381–9.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Gale J, Chu ER, Frousiakis SE, Srinivas S, Karanjia R, Tan O, et al. Effects of pentoxifylline on blood flow in patients with non-arteritic ischemic optic neuropathy. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014;55:6232.

Beck RW, Hayreh SS, Podhajsky PA, Tan ES, Moke PS Aspirin therapy in nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy. Am J Ophthalmol. 1997;123:212–7.

Newman NJ, Scherer R, Langenberg P, Kelman S, Feldon S, Kaufman D, et al. The fellow eye in NAION: report from the ischemic optic neuropathy decompression trial follow-up study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2002;134:317–28.

Botelho PJ, Johnson LN, Arnold AC The effect of aspirin on the visual outcome of nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy. Am J Ophthalmol. 1996;121:450–1.

Chauhan BC, LeVatte TL, Jollimore CA, Yu PK, Reitsamer HA, Kelly MEM, et al. Model of endothelin-1–induced chronic optic neuropathy in rat. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004;45:144–52.

Resch H, Karl K, Weigert G, Wolzt M, Hommer A, Schmetterer L, et al. Effect of dual endothelin receptor blockade on ocular blood flow in patients with glaucoma and healthy subjects. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50:358–63.

Chiquet C, Vignal C, Gohier P, Heron E, Thuret G, Rougier MB, et al. Treatment of nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy with an endothelin antagonist: ENDOTHELION (ENDOTHELin antagonist receptor in Ischemic Optic Neuropathy)—a multicentre randomised controlled trial protocol. Trials. 2022;23:916.

University Hospital, Grenoble. Effect of Bosentan in Patients With Non Arteritic Ischemic Optic Neuropathy [Internet]. clinicaltrials.gov; 2022 Jul [cited 2023 Dec 31]. Report No.: NCT02377271.

Bodis-Wollner I Visual deficits related to dopamine deficiency in experimental animals and Parkinson’s disease patients. Trends Neurosci. 1990;13:296–302.

Johnson LN, Gould TJ, Krohel GB Effect of levodopa and carbidopa on recovery of visual function in patients with nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy of longer than six months’ duration. Am J Ophthalmol. 1996;121:77–83.

Johnson LN, Guy ME, Krohel GB, Madsen RW Levodopa may improve vision loss in recent-onset, nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy. Ophthalmology. 2000;107:521–6.

Beck RW, Ferris FL Does levodopa improve visual function in NAION? Ophthalmology. 2000;107:1431–4.

2020–2021 BCSC Basic and Clinical Science CourseTM [Internet]. [cited 2023 Dec 27].

Hayreh SS Anterior ischaemic optic neuropathy. III. Treatment, prophylaxis, and differential diagnosis. Br J Ophthalmol. 1974;58:981–9.

Rebolleda G, Pérez-López M, Casas-LLera P, Contreras I, Muñoz-Negrete FJ Visual and anatomical outcomes of non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy with high-dose systemic corticosteroids. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2013;251:255–60.

Hayreh SS, Zimmerman MB Non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy: role of systemic corticosteroid therapy. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2008;246:1029–46.

Saxena R, Singh D, Sharma M, James M, Sharma P, Menon V Steroids versus no steroids in nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy: a randomized controlled trial. Ophthalmology. 2018;125:1623–7.

Pakravan M, Sanjari N, Esfandiari H, Pakravan P, Yaseri M The effect of high-dose steroids, and normobaric oxygen therapy, on recent onset non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy: a randomized clinical trial. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2016;254:2043–8.

Kaderli B, Avci R, Yucel A, Guler K, Gelisken O Intravitreal triamcinolone improves recovery of visual acuity in nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy. J Neuro-Ophthalmol. 2007;27:164–8.

Sohn BJ, Chun BY, Kwon JY The effect of an intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injection for acute nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2009;23:59–61.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Radoi C, Garcia T, Brugniart C, Ducasse A, Arndt C Intravitreal triamcinolone injections in non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2014;252:339–45.

Zhong L, Bradley J, Schubert W, Ahmed E, Adamis AP, Shima DT, et al. Erythropoietin promotes survival of retinal ganglion cells in DBA/2J Glaucoma Mice. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48:1212–8.

Pakravan M, Esfandiari H, Hassanpour K, Razavi S, Pakravan P The effect of combined systemic erythropoietin and steroid on non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy: a prospective study. Curr Eye Res. 2017;42:1079–84.

Nikkhah H, Golalipour M, Doozandeh A, Pakravan M, Yaseri M, Esfandiari H The effect of systemic erythropoietin and oral prednisolone on recent-onset non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy: a randomized clinical trial. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2020;258:2291–7.

Modarres M, Falavarjani KG, Nazari H, Sanjari MS, Aghamohammadi F, Homaii M, et al. Intravitreal erythropoietin injection for the treatment of non-arteritic anterior ischaemic optic neuropathy. Br J Ophthalmol. 2011;95:992–5.

Pece A, Querques G, Quinto A, Isola V Intravitreal ranibizumab injection for nonarteritic ischemic optic neuropathy. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2010;26:523–7.

Rootman DB, Gill HS, Margolin EA Intravitreal bevacizumab for the treatment of nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy: a prospective trial. Eye. 2013;27:538–44.

Saatci AO, Taskin O, Selver OB, Yaman A, Bajin MS Efficacy of intravitreal ranibizumab injection in acute nonarteritic ischemic optic neuropathy: a long-term follow up. Open Ophthalmol J. 2013;7:58–62.

Bennett JL, Thomas S, Olson JL, Mandava N Treatment of nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy with intravitreal bevacizumab. J Neuro Ophthalmol. 2007;27:238–40.

Mansour AM, Schwartz SG, Gregori NZ, Yehoshua Z, Freund KB, Dellatorre K, et al. Insight into 8 patients with nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy following anti-VEGF injections. J Neuro-Ophthalmol. 2012;32:193.

Liu PK, Wen YT, Lin W, Kapupara K, Tai M, Tsai RK Neuroprotective effects of low-dose G-CSF plus meloxicam in a rat model of anterior ischemic optic neuropathy. Sci Rep. 2020 ;10:10351.

Abri Aghdam K, Aghajani A, Ashraf Khorasani M, Soltan Sanjari M, Chaibakhsh S, Habibi A, et al. Intravitreal injection of the granulocyte-colony stimulating factor for the treatment of non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy: a pilot study. Semin Ophthalmol. 2021;36:649–57.

Ahmed Z, Kalinski H, Berry M, Almasieh M, Ashush H, Slager N, et al. Ocular neuroprotection by siRNA targeting caspase-2. Cell Death Dis. 2011;2:e173.

Antoszyk A, Katz B, Singh R, Gurses-Ozden R, Erlich S, Rothenstein D, et al. A phase I open label, dose escalation trial Of QPI-1007 delivered by a single intravitreal (IVT) injection to subjects with low visual acuity and acute non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION). Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54:4575.

Quark Pharmaceuticals. A Phase 2/3, Randomized, Double-Masked, Sham-Controlled Trial of QPI-1007 Delivered By Single or Multi-Dose Intravitreal Injection(s) to Subjects With Acute Nonarteritic Anterior Ischemic Optic Neuropathy (NAION) [Internet]. clinicaltrials.gov; 2020 Jul [cited 2023 Dec 31]. Report No.: NCT02341560.

Weiss JN, Levy S, Benes SC Stem Cell Ophthalmology Treatment Study: bone marrow derived stem cells in the treatment of non-arteritic ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION). Stem Cell Investig. 2017;4:94.

Pastor JC, Pastor-Idoate S, López-Paniagua M, Para M, Blazquez F, Murgui E, et al. Intravitreal allogeneic mesenchymal stem cells: a non-randomized phase II clinical trial for acute non-arteritic optic neuropathy. Stem Cell Research & Therapy [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2024 Jan 23];14. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10512539/

Rath EZ, Hazan Z, Adamsky K, Solomon A, Segal ZI, Levin LA Randomized controlled phase 2a study of RPh201 in previous nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy. J Neuro Ophthalmol. 2019;39:291–8.

Study Details | Efficacy & Safety of RPh201 Treatment in Patients With Previous Nonarteritic Anterior Ischemic Optic Neuropathy (NAION) | ClinicalTrials.gov [Internet]. [cited 2024 Feb 5].

Fibrinogen, cholesterol, and smoking as risk factors for non-arteritic anterior ischaemic optic neuropathy—PubMed [Internet]. [cited 2024 Jan 3].

Haas A, Walzl M, Jesenik F, Walzl B, Berghold A, Berglöff J, et al. Application of HELP in nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1997;235:14–9.

Tolias CM, Reinert M, Seiler R, Gilman C, Scharf A, Bullock MR Normobaric hyperoxia–induced improvement in cerebral metabolism and reduction in intracranial pressure in patients with severe head injury: a prospective historical cohort-matched study. J Neurosurg. 2004;101:435–44.

Sharifipour F, Baradaran-Rafii A, Idani E, Zamani M, Jabbarpoor Bonyadi MH Oxygen therapy for acute ocular chemical or thermal burns: a pilot study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2011;151:823–8.

Arnold AC, Hepler RS, Lieber M, Alexander JM Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy. Am J Ophthalmol. 1996;122:535–41.

Ischemic Optic Neuropathy Decompression Trial Research Group. Ischemic optic neuropathy decompression trial twenty-four–month update. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000;118:793–7

Dickersin K Optic nerve decompression surgery for nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION) is not effective and may be harmful. JAMA J Am Med Assoc. 1995;273:625.

Levin LA Lessons from the ischemic optic neuropathy decompression trial: a decade later. Arch Ophthalmol. 2007;125:1570–1.

Chen TW, Wu PY, Wen YT, Desai TD, Huang CT, Liu PK, et al. Vitamin B3 provides neuroprotection via antioxidative stress in a rat model of anterior ischemic optic neuropathy. Antioxidants. 2022;11:2422.

De Moraes CG, John SWM, Williams PA, Blumberg DM, Cioffi GA, Liebmann JM Nicotinamide and pyruvate for neuroenhancement in open-angle glaucoma: a phase 2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2022;140:11–8.

Boccaccini A, Cavaterra D, Carnevale C, Tanga L, Marini S, Bocedi A, et al. Novel frontiers in neuroprotective therapies in glaucoma: Molecular and clinical aspects. Mol Asp Med. 2023;94:101225.

Kitaoka Y, Sase K, Tsukahara C, Fujita N, Arizono I, Kogo J, et al. Axonal protection by netarsudil, a ROCK inhibitor, is linked to an AMPK-autophagy pathway in TNF-induced optic nerve degeneration. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2022;63:4.

Lawrence ECN, Guo M, Schwartz TD, Wu J, Lu J, Nikonov S, et al. Topical and systemic GLP-1R agonist administration both rescue retinal ganglion cells in hypertensive glaucoma. Front Cell Neurosci. 2023;17:1156829.

Download references

NIH P30 EY026877, Unrestricted Grant from Research to Prevent Blindness.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Ophthalmology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, 94303, USA

Pooja Parthasarathi & Heather E. Moss

Department of Neurology & Neurological Sciences, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, 94303, USA

Heather E. Moss

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

PP and HEM designed the review protocol following which PP was responsible for the literature search, extraction of data, formulation of the literature matrix, and writing of the manuscript with appropriate and timely guidance from HEM, who reviewed the manuscript and provided feedback.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pooja Parthasarathi .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary table, rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Parthasarathi, P., Moss, H.E. Review of evidence for treatments of acute non arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy. Eye (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-024-03136-8

Download citation

Received : 07 February 2024

Revised : 08 April 2024

Accepted : 07 May 2024

Published : 22 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-024-03136-8

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

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