types of articles literature review

Literature Review: Types of literature reviews

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

Types of literature reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's the difference between reviews?

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

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

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

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

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

See also the Library's  Literature Review guide.

Critical Appraised Topic (CAT)

For information on conducting a Critically Appraised Topic or CAT

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

Books on Literature Reviews

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Traditional or narrative literature reviews >>
• Last Updated: May 12, 2024 12:18 PM
• URL: https://libguides.csu.edu.au/review

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

• 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

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

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of a Good Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

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

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

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

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

II.  Development of the Literature Review

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

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

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

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

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

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

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

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

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

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

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

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

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

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

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

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

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: May 21, 2024 11:14 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

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

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

How to write a superb literature review

Andy Tay is a freelance writer based in Singapore.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

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

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

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

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

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

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

Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Updates & Corrections

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

Download references

Related Articles

• Research management

Brazil’s plummeting graduate enrolments hint at declining interest in academic science careers

Career News 21 MAY 24

How religious scientists balance work and faith

Career Feature 20 MAY 24

How to set up your new lab space

Career Column 20 MAY 24

Pay researchers to spot errors in published papers

World View 21 MAY 24

US halts funding to controversial virus-hunting group: what researchers think

News 16 MAY 24

Harassment of scientists is surging — institutions aren’t sure how to help

News Feature 21 MAY 24

I’m worried I’ve been contacted by a predatory publisher — how do I find out?

Career Feature 15 MAY 24

Assistant Professor in Plant Biology

The Plant Science Program in the Biological and Environmental Science and Engineering (BESE) Division at King Abdullah University of Science and Te...

Saudi Arabia (SA)

King Abdullah University of Science and Technology

Postdoctoral Fellow

New Orleans, Louisiana

Tulane University School of Medicine

Postdoctoral Associate - Immunology

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Postdoctoral Associate

Vice president, nature communications portfolio.

This is an exciting opportunity to play a key leadership role in the market-leading journal Nature Portfolio and help drive its overall contribution.

New York City, New York (US), Berlin, or Heidelberg

Springer Nature Ltd

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

Quick links

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

ON YOUR 1ST ORDER

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

By Laura Brown on 13th October 2023

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

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

What is Literature Review?

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

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

It serves with some specific purpose in the research.

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

4 Major Types Of Literature Review

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

1. Narrative Review

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

2. Systematic Review

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

3. Meta Analysis

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

4. Scoping Review

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

Different Types Of Literature review In Research

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

5. Critical Review

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

6. Theoretical Review

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

7. Integrative Review

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

8. Historical Review

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

9. Methodological Review

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

10. Cross-Disciplinary Review

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

11. Descriptive Review

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

12. Rapid Review

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

13. Conceptual Review

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

14. Library Research

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

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

Choosing the Ideal Literature Review Approach in Academics

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

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

Bonus Tip: Crafting an Effective Literature Review

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

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

Some Useful Tools And Resources For You

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

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

Some Common Mistakes To Avoid

Avoid these common mistakes when crafting literature reviews.

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

While Summing Up On Various Types Of Literature Review

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

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

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

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

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the parts of a lit review?

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

Introduction:

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

Conclusion:

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

How should I organize my lit review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• ScientificWorldJournal
• v.2024; 2024
• PMC10807936

Writing a Scientific Review Article: Comprehensive Insights for Beginners

Ayodeji amobonye.

1 Department of Biotechnology and Food Science, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Durban University of Technology, P.O. Box 1334, KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4000, South Africa

2 Writing Centre, Durban University of Technology, P.O. Box 1334 KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4000, South Africa

Japareng Lalung

3 School of Industrial Technology, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Gelugor 11800, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia

Santhosh Pillai

Associated data.

The data and materials that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Review articles present comprehensive overview of relevant literature on specific themes and synthesise the studies related to these themes, with the aim of strengthening the foundation of knowledge and facilitating theory development. The significance of review articles in science is immeasurable as both students and researchers rely on these articles as the starting point for their research. Interestingly, many postgraduate students are expected to write review articles for journal publications as a way of demonstrating their ability to contribute to new knowledge in their respective fields. However, there is no comprehensive instructional framework to guide them on how to analyse and synthesise the literature in their niches into publishable review articles. The dearth of ample guidance or explicit training results in students having to learn all by themselves, usually by trial and error, which often leads to high rejection rates from publishing houses. Therefore, this article seeks to identify these challenges from a beginner's perspective and strives to plug the identified gaps and discrepancies. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to serve as a systematic guide for emerging scientists and to summarise the most important information on how to write and structure a publishable review article.

1. Introduction

Early scientists, spanning from the Ancient Egyptian civilization to the Scientific Revolution of the 16 th /17 th century, based their research on intuitions, personal observations, and personal insights. Thus, less time was spent on background reading as there was not much literature to refer to. This is well illustrated in the case of Sir Isaac Newton's apple tree and the theory of gravity, as well as Gregor Mendel's pea plants and the theory of inheritance. However, with the astronomical expansion in scientific knowledge and the emergence of the information age in the last century, new ideas are now being built on previously published works, thus the periodic need to appraise the huge amount of already published literature [ 1 ]. According to Birkle et al. [ 2 ], the Web of Science—an authoritative database of research publications and citations—covered more than 80 million scholarly materials. Hence, a critical review of prior and relevant literature is indispensable for any research endeavour as it provides the necessary framework needed for synthesising new knowledge and for highlighting new insights and perspectives [ 3 ].

Review papers are generally considered secondary research publications that sum up already existing works on a particular research topic or question and relate them to the current status of the topic. This makes review articles distinctly different from scientific research papers. While the primary aim of the latter is to develop new arguments by reporting original research, the former is focused on summarising and synthesising previous ideas, studies, and arguments, without adding new experimental contributions. Review articles basically describe the content and quality of knowledge that are currently available, with a special focus on the significance of the previous works. To this end, a review article cannot simply reiterate a subject matter, but it must contribute to the field of knowledge by synthesising available materials and offering a scholarly critique of theory [ 4 ]. Typically, these articles critically analyse both quantitative and qualitative studies by scrutinising experimental results, the discussion of the experimental data, and in some instances, previous review articles to propose new working theories. Thus, a review article is more than a mere exhaustive compilation of all that has been published on a topic; it must be a balanced, informative, perspective, and unbiased compendium of previous studies which may also include contrasting findings, inconsistencies, and conventional and current views on the subject [ 5 ].

Hence, the essence of a review article is measured by what is achieved, what is discovered, and how information is communicated to the reader [ 6 ]. According to Steward [ 7 ], a good literature review should be analytical, critical, comprehensive, selective, relevant, synthetic, and fully referenced. On the other hand, a review article is considered to be inadequate if it is lacking in focus or outcome, overgeneralised, opinionated, unbalanced, and uncritical [ 7 ]. Most review papers fail to meet these standards and thus can be viewed as mere summaries of previous works in a particular field of study. In one of the few studies that assessed the quality of review articles, none of the 50 papers that were analysed met the predefined criteria for a good review [ 8 ]. However, beginners must also realise that there is no bad writing in the true sense; there is only writing in evolution and under refinement. Literally, every piece of writing can be improved upon, right from the first draft until the final published manuscript. Hence, a paper can only be referred to as bad and unfixable when the author is not open to corrections or when the writer gives up on it.

According to Peat et al. [ 9 ], “everything is easy when you know how,” a maxim which applies to scientific writing in general and review writing in particular. In this regard, the authors emphasized that the writer should be open to learning and should also follow established rules instead of following a blind trial-and-error approach. In contrast to the popular belief that review articles should only be written by experienced scientists and researchers, recent trends have shown that many early-career scientists, especially postgraduate students, are currently expected to write review articles during the course of their studies. However, these scholars have little or no access to formal training on how to analyse and synthesise the research literature in their respective fields [ 10 ]. Consequently, students seeking guidance on how to write or improve their literature reviews are less likely to find published works on the subject, particularly in the science fields. Although various publications have dealt with the challenges of searching for literature, or writing literature reviews for dissertation/thesis purposes, there is little or no information on how to write a comprehensive review article for publication. In addition to the paucity of published information to guide the potential author, the lack of understanding of what constitutes a review paper compounds their challenges. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to serve as a guide for writing review papers for journal publishing. This work draws on the experience of the authors to assist early-career scientists/researchers in the “hard skill” of authoring review articles. Even though there is no single path to writing scientifically, or to writing reviews in particular, this paper attempts to simplify the process by looking at this subject from a beginner's perspective. Hence, this paper highlights the differences between the types of review articles in the sciences while also explaining the needs and purpose of writing review articles. Furthermore, it presents details on how to search for the literature as well as how to structure the manuscript to produce logical and coherent outputs. It is hoped that this work will ease prospective scientific writers into the challenging but rewarding art of writing review articles.

2. Benefits of Review Articles to the Author

Analysing literature gives an overview of the “WHs”: WHat has been reported in a particular field or topic, WHo the key writers are, WHat are the prevailing theories and hypotheses, WHat questions are being asked (and answered), and WHat methods and methodologies are appropriate and useful [ 11 ]. For new or aspiring researchers in a particular field, it can be quite challenging to get a comprehensive overview of their respective fields, especially the historical trends and what has been studied previously. As such, the importance of review articles to knowledge appraisal and contribution cannot be overemphasised, which is reflected in the constant demand for such articles in the research community. However, it is also important for the author, especially the first-time author, to recognise the importance of his/her investing time and effort into writing a quality review article.

Generally, literature reviews are undertaken for many reasons, mainly for publication and for dissertation purposes. The major purpose of literature reviews is to provide direction and information for the improvement of scientific knowledge. They also form a significant component in the research process and in academic assessment [ 12 ]. There may be, however, a thin line between a dissertation literature review and a published review article, given that with some modifications, a literature review can be transformed into a legitimate and publishable scholarly document. According to Gülpınar and Güçlü [ 6 ], the basic motivation for writing a review article is to make a comprehensive synthesis of the most appropriate literature on a specific research inquiry or topic. Thus, conducting a literature review assists in demonstrating the author's knowledge about a particular field of study, which may include but not be limited to its history, theories, key variables, vocabulary, phenomena, and methodologies [ 10 ]. Furthermore, publishing reviews is beneficial as it permits the researchers to examine different questions and, as a result, enhances the depth and diversity of their scientific reasoning [ 1 ]. In addition, writing review articles allows researchers to share insights with the scientific community while identifying knowledge gaps to be addressed in future research. The review writing process can also be a useful tool in training early-career scientists in leadership, coordination, project management, and other important soft skills necessary for success in the research world [ 13 ]. Another important reason for authoring reviews is that such publications have been observed to be remarkably influential, extending the reach of an author in multiple folds of what can be achieved by primary research papers [ 1 ]. The trend in science is for authors to receive more citations from their review articles than from their original research articles. According to Miranda and Garcia-Carpintero [ 14 ], review articles are, on average, three times more frequently cited than original research articles; they also asserted that a 20% increase in review authorship could result in a 40–80% increase in citations of the author. As a result, writing reviews can significantly impact a researcher's citation output and serve as a valuable channel to reach a wider scientific audience. In addition, the references cited in a review article also provide the reader with an opportunity to dig deeper into the topic of interest. Thus, review articles can serve as a valuable repository for consultation, increasing the visibility of the authors and resulting in more citations.

3. Types of Review Articles

The first step in writing a good literature review is to decide on the particular type of review to be written; hence, it is important to distinguish and understand the various types of review articles. Although scientific review articles have been classified according to various schemes, however, they are broadly categorised into narrative reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses [ 15 ]. It was observed that more authors—as well as publishers—were leaning towards systematic reviews and meta-analysis while downplaying narrative reviews; however, the three serve different aims and should all be considered equally important in science [ 1 ]. Bibliometric reviews and patent reviews, which are closely related to meta-analysis, have also gained significant attention recently. However, from another angle, a review could also be of two types. In the first class, authors could deal with a widely studied topic where there is already an accumulated body of knowledge that requires analysis and synthesis [ 3 ]. At the other end of the spectrum, the authors may have to address an emerging issue that would benefit from exposure to potential theoretical foundations; hence, their contribution would arise from the fresh theoretical foundations proposed in developing a conceptual model [ 3 ].

3.1. Narrative Reviews

Narrative reviewers are mainly focused on providing clarification and critical analysis on a particular topic or body of literature through interpretative synthesis, creativity, and expert judgement. According to Green et al. [ 16 ], a narrative review can be in the form of editorials, commentaries, and narrative overviews. However, editorials and commentaries are usually expert opinions; hence, a beginner is more likely to write a narrative overview, which is more general and is also referred to as an unsystematic narrative review. Similarly, the literature review section of most dissertations and empirical papers is typically narrative in nature. Typically, narrative reviews combine results from studies that may have different methodologies to address different questions or to formulate a broad theoretical formulation [ 1 ]. They are largely integrative as strong focus is placed on the assimilation and synthesis of various aspects in the review, which may involve comparing and contrasting research findings or deriving structured implications [ 17 ]. In addition, they are also qualitative studies because they do not follow strict selection processes; hence, choosing publications is relatively more subjective and unsystematic [ 18 ]. However, despite their popularity, there are concerns about their inherent subjectivity. In many instances, when the supporting data for narrative reviews are examined more closely, the evaluations provided by the author(s) become quite questionable [ 19 ]. Nevertheless, if the goal of the author is to formulate a new theory that connects diverse strands of research, a narrative method is most appropriate.

3.2. Systematic Reviews

In contrast to narrative reviews, which are generally descriptive, systematic reviews employ a systematic approach to summarise evidence on research questions. Hence, systematic reviews make use of precise and rigorous criteria to identify, evaluate, and subsequently synthesise all relevant literature on a particular topic [ 12 , 20 ]. As a result, systematic reviews are more likely to inspire research ideas by identifying knowledge gaps or inconsistencies, thus helping the researcher to clearly define the research hypotheses or questions [ 21 ]. Furthermore, systematic reviews may serve as independent research projects in their own right, as they follow a defined methodology to search and combine reliable results to synthesise a new database that can be used for a variety of purposes [ 22 ]. Typically, the peculiarities of the individual reviewer, different search engines, and information databases used all ensure that no two searches will yield the same systematic results even if the searches are conducted simultaneously and under identical criteria [ 11 ]. Hence, attempts are made at standardising the exercise via specific methods that would limit bias and chance effects, prevent duplications, and provide more accurate results upon which conclusions and decisions can be made.

The most established of these methods is the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines which objectively defined statements, guidelines, reporting checklists, and flowcharts for undertaking systematic reviews as well as meta-analysis [ 23 ]. Though mainly designed for research in medical sciences, the PRISMA approach has gained wide acceptance in other fields of science and is based on eight fundamental propositions. These include the explicit definition of the review question, an unambiguous outline of the study protocol, an objective and exhaustive systematic review of reputable literature, and an unambiguous identification of included literature based on defined selection criteria [ 24 ]. Other considerations include an unbiased appraisal of the quality of the selected studies (literature), organic synthesis of the evidence of the study, preparation of the manuscript based on the reporting guidelines, and periodic update of the review as new data emerge [ 24 ]. Other methods such as PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols), MOOSE (Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology), and ROSES (Reporting Standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses) have since been developed for systematic reviews (and meta-analysis), with most of them being derived from PRISMA.

Consequently, systematic reviews—unlike narrative reviews—must contain a methodology section which in addition to all that was highlighted above must fully describe the precise criteria used in formulating the research question and setting the inclusion or exclusion criteria used in selecting/accessing the literature. Similarly, the criteria for evaluating the quality of the literature included in the review as well as for analysing, synthesising, and disseminating the findings must be fully described in the methodology section.

3.3. Meta-Analysis

Meta-analyses are considered as more specialised forms of systematic reviews. Generally, they combine the results of many studies that use similar or closely related methods to address the same question or share a common quantitative evaluation method [ 25 ]. However, meta-analyses are also a step higher than other systematic reviews as they are focused on numerical data and involve the use of statistics in evaluating different studies and synthesising new knowledge. The major advantage of this type of review is the increased statistical power leading to more reliable results for inferring modest associations and a more comprehensive understanding of the true impact of a research study [ 26 ]. Unlike in traditional systematic reviews, research topics covered in meta-analyses must be mature enough to allow the inclusion of sufficient homogeneous empirical research in terms of subjects, interventions, and outcomes [ 27 , 28 ].

Being an advanced form of systematic review, meta-analyses must also have a distinct methodology section; hence, the standard procedures involved in the traditional systematic review (especially PRISMA) also apply in meta-analyses [ 23 ]. In addition to the common steps in formulating systematic reviews, meta-analyses are required to describe how nested and missing data are handled, the effect observed in each study, the confidence interval associated with each synthesised effect, and any potential for bias presented within the sample(s) [ 17 ]. According to Paul and Barari [ 28 ], a meta-analysis must also detail the final sample, the meta-analytic model, and the overall analysis, moderator analysis, and software employed. While the overall analysis involves the statistical characterization of the relationships between variables in the meta-analytic framework and their significance, the moderator analysis defines the different variables that may affect variations in the original studies [ 28 , 29 ]. It must also be noted that the accuracy and reliability of meta-analyses have both been significantly enhanced by the incorporation of statistical approaches such as Bayesian analysis [ 30 ], network analysis [ 31 ], and more recently, machine learning [ 32 ].

3.4. Bibliometric Review

A bibliometric review, commonly referred to as bibliometric analysis, is a systematic evaluation of published works within a specific field or discipline [ 33 ]. This bibliometric methodology involves the use of quantitative methods to analyse bibliometric data such as the characteristics and numbers of publications, units of citations, authorship, co-authorship, and journal impact factors [ 34 ]. Academics use bibliometric analysis with different objectives in mind, which includes uncovering emerging trends in article and journal performance, elaborating collaboration patterns and research constituents, evaluating the impact and influence of particular authors, publications, or research groups, and highlighting the intellectual framework of a certain field [ 35 ]. It is also used to inform policy and decision-making. Similarly to meta-analysis, bibliometric reviews rely upon quantitative techniques, thus avoiding the interpretation bias that could arise from the qualitative techniques of other types of reviews [ 36 ]. However, while bibliometric analysis synthesises the bibliometric and intellectual structure of a field by examining the social and structural linkages between various research parts, meta-analysis focuses on summarising empirical evidence by probing the direction and strength of effects and relationships among variables, especially in open research questions [ 37 , 38 ]. However, similarly to systematic review and meta-analysis, a bibliometric review also requires a well-detailed methodology section. The amount of data to be analysed in bibliometric analysis is quite massive, running to hundreds and tens of thousands in some cases. Although the data are objective in nature (e.g., number of citations and publications and occurrences of keywords and topics), the interpretation is usually carried out through both objective (e.g., performance analysis) and subjective (e.g., thematic analysis) evaluations [ 35 ]. However, the invention and availability of bibliometric software such as BibExcel, Gephi, Leximancer, and VOSviewer and scientific databases such as Dimensions, Web of Science, and Scopus have made this type of analysis more feasible.

3.5. Patent Review

Patent reviews provide a comprehensive analysis and critique of a specific patent or a group of related patents, thus presenting a concise understanding of the technology or innovation that is covered by the patent [ 39 ]. This type of article is useful for researchers as it also enhances their understanding of the legal, technical, and commercial aspects of an intellectual property/innovation; in addition, it is also important for stakeholders outside the research community including IP (intellectual property) specialists, legal professionals, and technology-transfer officers [ 40 ]. Typically, patent reviews encompass the scope, background, claims, legal implications, technical specifications, and potential commercial applications of the patent(s). The article may also include a discussion of the patent's strengths and weaknesses, as well as its potential impact on the industry or field in which it operates. Most times, reviews are time specified, they may be regionalised, and the data are usually retrieved via patent searches on databases such as that of the European Patent Office ( https://www.epo.org/searching.html ), United States Patent and Trademark Office ( https://patft.uspto.gov/ ), the World Intellectual Property Organization's PATENTSCOPE ( https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/structuredSearch.jsf ), Google Patent ( https://www.google.com/?tbm=pts ), and China National Intellectual Property Administration ( https://pss-system.cponline.cnipa.gov.cn/conventionalSearch ). According to Cerimi et al. [ 41 ], the retrieved data and analysed may include the patent number, patent status, filing date, application date, grant dates, inventor, assignee, and pending applications. While data analysis is usually carried out by general data software such as Microsoft Excel, an intelligence software solely dedicated to patent research and analysis, Orbit Intelligence has been found to be more efficient [ 39 ]. It is also mandatory to include a methodology section in a patent review, and this should be explicit, thorough, and precise to allow a clear understanding of how the analysis was carried out and how the conclusions were arrived at.

4. Searching Literature

One of the most challenging tasks in writing a review article on a subject is the search for relevant literature to populate the manuscript as the author is required to garner information from an endless number of sources. This is even more challenging as research outputs have been increasing astronomically, especially in the last decade, with thousands of new articles published annually in various fields. It is therefore imperative that the author must not only be aware of the overall trajectory in a field of investigation but must also be cognizant of recent studies so as not to publish outdated research or review articles. Basically, the search for the literature involves a coherent conceptual structuring of the topic itself and a thorough collation of evidence under the common themes which might reflect the histories, conflicts, standoffs, revolutions, and/or evolutions in the field [ 7 ]. To start the search process, the author must carefully identify and select broad keywords relevant to the subject; subsequently, the keywords should be developed to refine the search into specific subheadings that would facilitate the structure of the review.

Two main tactics have been identified for searching the literature, namely, systematic and snowballing [ 42 ]. The systematic approach involves searching literature with specific keywords (for example, cancer, antioxidant, and nanoparticles), which leads to an almost unmanageable and overwhelming list of possible sources [ 43 ]. The snowballing approach, however, involves the identification of a particular publication, followed by the compilation of a bibliography of articles based on the reference list of the identified publication [ 44 ]. Many times, it might be necessary to combine both approaches, but irrespective, the author must keep an accurate track and record of papers cited in the search. A simple and efficient strategy for populating the bibliography of review articles is to go through the abstract (and sometimes the conclusion) of a paper; if the abstract is related to the topic of discourse, the author might go ahead and read the entire article; otherwise, he/she is advised to move on [ 45 ]. Winchester and Salji [ 5 ] noted that to learn the background of the subject/topic to be reviewed, starting literature searches with academic textbooks or published review articles is imperative, especially for beginners. Furthermore, it would also assist in compiling the list of keywords, identifying areas of further exploration, and providing a glimpse of the current state of the research. However, past reviews ideally are not to serve as the foundation of a new review as they are written from someone else's viewpoint, which might have been tainted with some bias. Fortunately, the accessibility and search for the literature have been made relatively easier than they were a few decades ago as the current information age has placed an enormous volume of knowledge right at our fingertips [ 46 ]. Nevertheless, when gathering the literature from the Internet, authors should exercise utmost caution as much of the information may not be verified or peer-reviewed and thus may be unregulated and unreliable. For instance, Wikipedia, despite being a large repository of information with more than 6.7 million articles in the English language alone, is considered unreliable for scientific literature reviews, due to its openness to public editing [ 47 ]. However, in addition to peer-reviewed journal publications—which are most ideal—reviews can also be drawn from a wide range of other sources such as technical documents, in-house reports, conference abstracts, and conference proceedings. Similarly, “Google Scholar”—as against “Google” and other general search engines—is more appropriate as its searches are restricted to only academic articles produced by scholarly societies or/and publishers [ 48 ]. Furthermore, the various electronic databases, such as ScienceDirect, Web of Science, PubMed, and MEDLINE, many of which focus on specific fields of research, are also ideal options [ 49 ]. Advancement in computer indexing has remarkably expanded the ease and ability to search large databases for every potentially relevant article. In addition to searching by topic, literature search can be modified by time; however, there must be a balance between old papers and recent ones. The general consensus in science is that publications less than five years old are considered recent.

It is important, especially in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, that the specific method of running the computer searches be properly documented as there is the need to include this in the method (methodology) section of such papers. Typically, the method details the keywords, databases explored, search terms used, and the inclusion/exclusion criteria applied in the selection of data and any other specific decision/criteria. All of these will ensure the reproducibility and thoroughness of the search and the selection procedure. However, Randolph [ 10 ] noted that Internet searches might not give the exhaustive list of articles needed for a review article; hence, it is advised that authors search through the reference lists of articles that were obtained initially from the Internet search. After determining the relevant articles from the list, the author should read through the references of these articles and repeat the cycle until saturation is reached [ 10 ]. After populating the articles needed for the literature review, the next step is to analyse them individually and in their whole entirety. A systematic approach to this is to identify the key information within the papers, examine them in depth, and synthesise original perspectives by integrating the information and making inferences based on the findings. In this regard, it is imperative to link one source to the other in a logical manner, for instance, taking note of studies with similar methodologies, papers that agree, or results that are contradictory [ 42 ].

5. Structuring the Review Article

The title and abstract are the main selling points of a review article, as most readers will only peruse these two elements and usually go on to read the full paper if they are drawn in by either or both of the two. Tullu [ 50 ] recommends that the title of a scientific paper “should be descriptive, direct, accurate, appropriate, interesting, concise, precise, unique, and not be misleading.” In addition to providing “just enough details” to entice the reader, words in the titles are also used by electronic databases, journal websites, and search engines to index and retrieve a particular paper during a search [ 51 ]. Titles are of different types and must be chosen according to the topic under review. They are generally classified as descriptive, declarative, or interrogative and can also be grouped into compound, nominal, or full-sentence titles [ 50 ]. The subject of these categorisations has been extensively discussed in many articles; however, the reader must also be aware of the compound titles, which usually contain a main title and a subtitle. Typically, subtitles provide additional context—to the main title—and they may specify the geographic scope of the research, research methodology, or sample size [ 52 ].

Just like primary research articles, there are many debates about the optimum length of a review article's title. However, the general consensus is to keep the title as brief as possible while not being too general. A title length between 10 and 15 words is recommended, since longer titles can be more challenging to comprehend. Paiva et al. [ 53 ] observed that articles which contain 95 characters or less get more views and citations. However, emphasis must be placed on conciseness as the audience will be more satisfied if they can understand what exactly the review has contributed to the field, rather than just a hint about the general topic area. Authors should also endeavour to stick to the journal's specific requirements, especially regarding the length of the title and what they should or should not contain [ 9 ]. Thus, avoidance of filler words such as “a review on/of,” “an observation of,” or “a study of” is a very simple way to limit title length. In addition, abbreviations or acronyms should be avoided in the title, except the standard or commonly interpreted ones such as AIDS, DNA, HIV, and RNA. In summary, to write an effective title, the authors should consider the following points. What is the paper about? What was the methodology used? What were the highlights and major conclusions? Subsequently, the author should list all the keywords from these answers, construct a sentence from these keywords, and finally delete all redundant words from the sentence title. It is also possible to gain some ideas by scanning indices and article titles in major journals in the field. It is important to emphasise that a title is not chosen and set in stone, and the title is most likely to be continually revised and adjusted until the end of the writing process.

5.2. Abstract

The abstract, also referred to as the synopsis, is a summary of the full research paper; it is typically independent and can stand alone. For most readers, a publication does not exist beyond the abstract, partly because abstracts are often the only section of a paper that is made available to the readers at no cost, whereas the full paper may attract a payment or subscription [ 54 ]. Thus, the abstract is supposed to set the tone for the few readers who wish to read the rest of the paper. It has also been noted that the abstract gives the first impression of a research work to journal editors, conference scientific committees, or referees, who might outright reject the paper if the abstract is poorly written or inadequate [ 50 ]. Hence, it is imperative that the abstract succinctly represents the entire paper and projects it positively. Just like the title, abstracts have to be balanced, comprehensive, concise, functional, independent, precise, scholarly, and unbiased and not be misleading [ 55 ]. Basically, the abstract should be formulated using keywords from all the sections of the main manuscript. Thus, it is pertinent that the abstract conveys the focus, key message, rationale, and novelty of the paper without any compromise or exaggeration. Furthermore, the abstract must be consistent with the rest of the paper; as basic as this instruction might sound, it is not to be taken for granted. For example, a study by Vrijhoef and Steuten [ 56 ] revealed that 18–68% of 264 abstracts from some scientific journals contained information that was inconsistent with the main body of the publications.

Abstracts can either be structured or unstructured; in addition, they can further be classified as either descriptive or informative. Unstructured abstracts, which are used by many scientific journals, are free flowing with no predefined subheadings, while structured abstracts have specific subheadings/subsections under which the abstract needs to be composed. Structured abstracts have been noted to be more informative and are usually divided into subsections which include the study background/introduction, objectives, methodology design, results, and conclusions [ 57 ]. No matter the style chosen, the author must carefully conform to the instructions provided by the potential journal of submission, which may include but are not limited to the format, font size/style, word limit, and subheadings [ 58 ]. The word limit for abstracts in most scientific journals is typically between 150 and 300 words. It is also a general rule that abstracts do not contain any references whatsoever.

Typically, an abstract should be written in the active voice, and there is no such thing as a perfect abstract as it could always be improved on. It is advised that the author first makes an initial draft which would contain all the essential parts of the paper, which could then be polished subsequently. The draft should begin with a brief background which would lead to the research questions. It might also include a general overview of the methodology used (if applicable) and importantly, the major results/observations/highlights of the review paper. The abstract should end with one or few sentences about any implications, perspectives, or future research that may be developed from the review exercise. Finally, the authors should eliminate redundant words and edit the abstract to the correct word count permitted by the journal [ 59 ]. It is always beneficial to read previous abstracts published in the intended journal, related topics/subjects from other journals, and other reputable sources. Furthermore, the author should endeavour to get feedback on the abstract especially from peers and co-authors. As the abstract is the face of the whole paper, it is best that it is the last section to be finalised, as by this time, the author would have developed a clearer understanding of the findings and conclusions of the entire paper.

5.3. Graphical Abstracts

Since the mid-2000s, an increasing number of journals now require authors to provide a graphical abstract (GA) in addition to the traditional written abstract, to increase the accessibility of scientific publications to readers [ 60 ]. A study showed that publications with GA performed better than those without it, when the abstract views, total citations, and downloads were compared [ 61 ]. However, the GA should provide “a single, concise pictorial, and visual summary of the main findings of an article” [ 62 ]. Although they are meant to be a stand-alone summary of the whole paper, it has been noted that they are not so easily comprehensible without having read through the traditionally written abstract [ 63 ]. It is important to note that, like traditional abstracts, many reputable journals require GAs to adhere to certain specifications such as colour, dimension, quality, file size, and file format (usually JPEG/JPG, PDF, PNG, or TIFF). In addition, it is imperative to use engaging and accurate figures, all of which must be synthesised in order to accurately reflect the key message of the paper. Currently, there are various online or downloadable graphical tools that can be used for creating GAs, such as Microsoft Paint or PowerPoint, Mindthegraph, ChemDraw, CorelDraw, and BioRender.

5.4. Keywords

As a standard practice, journals require authors to select 4–8 keywords (or phrases), which are typically listed below the abstract. A good set of keywords will enable indexers and search engines to find relevant papers more easily and can be considered as a very concise abstract [ 64 ]. According to Dewan and Gupta [ 51 ], the selection of appropriate keywords will significantly enhance the retrieval, accession, and consequently, the citation of the review paper. Ideally, keywords can be variants of the terms/phrases used in the title, the abstract, and the main text, but they should ideally not be the exact words in the main title. Choosing the most appropriate keywords for a review article involves listing down the key terms and phrases in the article, including abbreviations. Subsequently, a quick review of the glossary/vocabulary/term list or indexing standard in the specific discipline will assist in selecting the best and most precise keywords that match those used in the databases from the list drawn. In addition, the keywords should not be broad or general terms (e.g., DNA, biology, and enzymes) but must be specific to the field or subfield of study as well as to the particular paper [ 65 ].

5.5. Introduction

The introduction of an article is the first major section of the manuscript, and it presents basic information to the reader without compelling them to study past publications. In addition, the introduction directs the reader to the main arguments and points developed in the main body of the article while clarifying the current state of knowledge in that particular area of research [ 12 ]. The introduction part of a review article is usually sectionalised into background information, a description of the main topic and finally a statement of the main purpose of the review [ 66 ]. Authors may begin the introduction with brief general statements—which provide background knowledge on the subject matter—that lead to more specific ones [ 67 ]. It is at this point that the reader's attention must be caught as the background knowledge must highlight the importance and justification for the subject being discussed, while also identifying the major problem to be addressed [ 68 ]. In addition, the background should be broad enough to attract even nonspecialists in the field to maximise the impact and widen the reach of the article. All of these should be done in the light of current literature; however, old references may also be used for historical purposes. A very important aspect of the introduction is clearly stating and establishing the research problem(s) and how a review of the particular topic contributes to those problem(s). Thus, the research gap which the paper intends to fill, the limitations of previous works and past reviews, if available, and the new knowledge to be contributed must all be highlighted. Inadequate information and the inability to clarify the problem will keep readers (who have the desire to obtain new information) from reading beyond the introduction [ 69 ]. It is also pertinent that the author establishes the purpose of reviewing the literature and defines the scope as well as the major synthesised point of view. Furthermore, a brief insight into the criteria used to select, evaluate, and analyse the literature, as well as the outline or sequence of the review, should be provided in the introduction. Subsequently, the specific objectives of the review article must be presented. The last part of the “introduction” section should focus on the solution, the way forward, the recommendations, and the further areas of research as deduced from the whole review process. According to DeMaria [ 70 ], clearly expressed or recommended solutions to an explicitly revealed problem are very important for the wholesomeness of the “introduction” section. It is believed that following these steps will give readers the opportunity to track the problems and the corresponding solution from their own perspective in the light of current literature. As against some suggestions that the introduction should be written only in present tenses, it is also believed that it could be done with other tenses in addition to the present tense. In this regard, general facts should be written in the present tense, specific research/work should be in the past tense, while the concluding statement should be in the past perfect or simple past. Furthermore, many of the abbreviations to be used in the rest of the manuscript and their explanations should be defined in this section.

5.6. Methodology

Writing a review article is equivalent to conducting a research study, with the information gathered by the author (reviewer) representing the data. Like all major studies, it involves conceptualisation, planning, implementation, and dissemination [ 71 ], all of which may be detailed in a methodology section, if necessary. Hence, the methodological section of a review paper (which can also be referred to as the review protocol) details how the relevant literature was selected and how it was analysed as well as summarised. The selection details may include, but are not limited to, the database consulted and the specific search terms used together with the inclusion/exclusion criteria. As earlier highlighted in Section 3 , a description of the methodology is required for all types of reviews except for narrative reviews. This is partly because unlike narrative reviews, all other review articles follow systematic approaches which must ensure significant reproducibility [ 72 ]. Therefore, where necessary, the methods of data extraction from the literature and data synthesis must also be highlighted as well. In some cases, it is important to show how data were combined by highlighting the statistical methods used, measures of effect, and tests performed, as well as demonstrating heterogeneity and publication bias [ 73 ].

The methodology should also detail the major databases consulted during the literature search, e.g., Dimensions, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and PubMed. For meta-analysis, it is imperative to highlight the software and/or package used, which could include Comprehensive Meta-Analysis, OpenMEE, Review Manager (RevMan), Stata, SAS, and R Studio. It is also necessary to state the mathematical methods used for the analysis; examples of these include the Bayesian analysis, the Mantel–Haenszel method, and the inverse variance method. The methodology should also state the number of authors that carried out the initial review stage of the study, as it has been recommended that at least two reviews should be done blindly and in parallel, especially when it comes to the acquisition and synthesis of data [ 74 ]. Finally, the quality and validity assessment of the publication used in the review must be stated and well clarified [ 73 ].

5.7. Main Body of the Review

Ideally, the main body of a publishable review should answer these questions: What is new (contribution)? Why so (logic)? So what (impact)? How well it is done (thoroughness)? The flow of the main body of a review article must be well organised to adequately maintain the attention of the readers as well as guide them through the section. It is recommended that the author should consider drawing a conceptual scheme of the main body first, using methods such as mind-mapping. This will help create a logical flow of thought and presentation, while also linking the various sections of the manuscript together. According to Moreira [ 75 ], “reports do not simply yield their findings, rather reviewers make them yield,” and thus, it is the author's responsibility to transform “resistant” texts into “docile” texts. Hence, after the search for the literature, the essential themes and key concepts of the review paper must be identified and synthesised together. This synthesis primarily involves creating hypotheses about the relationships between the concepts with the aim of increasing the understanding of the topic being reviewed. The important information from the various sources should not only be summarised, but the significance of studies must be related back to the initial question(s) posed by the review article. Furthermore, MacLure [ 76 ] stated that data are not just to be plainly “extracted intact” and “used exactly as extracted,” but must be modified, reconfigured, transformed, transposed, converted, tabulated, graphed, or manipulated to enable synthesis, combination, and comparison. Therefore, different pieces of information must be extracted from the reports in which they were previously deposited and then refined into the body of the new article [ 75 ]. To this end, adequate comparison and combination might require that “qualitative data be quantified” or/and “quantitative data may be qualitized” [ 77 ]. In order to accomplish all of these goals, the author may have to transform, paraphrase, generalize, specify, and reorder the text [ 78 ]. For comprehensiveness, the body paragraphs should be arranged in a similar order as it was initially stated in the abstract or/and introduction. Thus, the main body could be divided into thematic areas, each of which could be independently comprehensive and treated as a mini review. Similarly, the sections can also be arranged chronologically depending on the focus of the review. Furthermore, the abstractions should proceed from a wider general view of the literature being reviewed and then be narrowed down to the specifics. In the process, deep insights should also be provided between the topic of the review and the wider subject area, e.g., fungal enzymes and enzymes in general. The abstractions must also be discussed in more detail by presenting more specific information from the identified sources (with proper citations of course!). For example, it is important to identify and highlight contrary findings and rival interpretations as well as to point out areas of agreement or debate among different bodies of literature. Often, there are previous reviews on the same topic/concept; however, this does not prevent a new author from writing one on the same topic, especially if the previous reviews were written many years ago. However, it is important that the body of the new manuscript be written from a new angle that was not adequately covered in the past reviews and should also incorporate new studies that have accumulated since the last review(s). In addition, the new review might also highlight the approaches, limitations, and conclusions of the past studies. But the authors must not be excessively critical of the past reviews as this is regarded by many authors as a sign of poor professionalism [ 3 , 79 ]. Daft [ 79 ] emphasized that it is more important for a reviewer to state how their research builds on previous work instead of outright claiming that previous works are incompetent and inadequate. However, if a series of related papers on one topic have a common error or research flaw that needs rectification, the reviewer must point this out with the aim of moving the field forward [ 3 ]. Like every other scientific paper, the main body of a review article also needs to be consistent in style, for example, in the choice of passive vs. active voice and present vs. past tense. It is also important to note that tables and figures can serve as a powerful tool for highlighting key points in the body of the review, and they are now considered core elements of reviews. For more guidance and insights into what should make up the contents of a good review article, readers are also advised to get familiarised with the Boote and Beile [ 80 ] literature review scoring rubric as well as the review article checklist of Short [ 81 ].

5.8. Tables and Figures

An ideal review article should be logically structured and efficiently utilise illustrations, in the form of tables and figures, to convey the key findings and relationships in the study. According to Tay [ 13 ], illustrations often take a secondary role in review papers when compared to primary research papers which are focused on illustrations. However, illustrations are very important in review articles as they can serve as succinct means of communicating major findings and insights. Franzblau and Chung [ 82 ] pointed out that illustrations serve three major purposes in a scientific article: they simplify complex data and relationships for better understanding, they minimise reading time by summarising and bringing to focus on the key findings (or trends), and last, they help to reduce the overall word count. Hence, inserting and constructing illustrations in a review article is as meticulous as it is important. However, important decisions should be made on whether the charts, figures, or tables to be potentially inserted in the manuscript are indeed needed and how best to design them [ 83 ]. Illustrations should enhance the text while providing necessary information; thus, the information described in illustrations should not contradict that in the main text and should also not be a repetition of texts [ 84 ]. Furthermore, illustrations must be autonomous, meaning they ought to be intelligible without having to read the text portion of the manuscript; thus, the reader does not have to flip back and forth between the illustration and the main text in order to understand it [ 85 ]. It should be noted that tables or figures that directly reiterate the main text or contain extraneous information will only make a mess of the manuscript and discourage readers [ 86 ].

Kotz and Cals [ 87 ] recommend that the layout of tables and figures should be carefully designed in a clear manner with suitable layouts, which will allow them to be referred to logically and chronologically in the text. In addition, illustrations should only contain simple text, as lengthy details would contradict their initial objective, which was to provide simple examples or an overview. Furthermore, the use of abbreviations in illustrations, especially tables, should be avoided if possible. If not, the abbreviations should be defined explicitly in the footnotes or legends of the illustration [ 88 ]. Similarly, numerical values in tables and graphs should also be correctly approximated [ 84 ]. It is recommended that the number of tables and figures in the manuscript should not exceed the target journal's specification. According to Saver [ 89 ], they ideally should not account for more than one-third of the manuscript. Finally, the author(s) must seek permission and give credits for using an already published illustration when necessary. However, none of these are needed if the graphic is originally created by the author, but if it is a reproduced or an adapted illustration, the author must obtain permission from the copyright owner and include the necessary credit. One of the very important tools for designing illustrations is Creative Commons, a platform that provides a wide range of creative works which are available to the public for use and modification.

5.9. Conclusion/Future Perspectives

It has been observed that many reviews end abruptly with a short conclusion; however, a lot more can be included in this section in addition to what has been said in the major sections of the paper. Basically, the conclusion section of a review article should provide a summary of key findings from the main body of the manuscript. In this section, the author needs to revisit the critical points of the paper as well as highlight the accuracy, validity, and relevance of the inferences drawn in the article review. A good conclusion should highlight the relationship between the major points and the author's hypothesis as well as the relationship between the hypothesis and the broader discussion to demonstrate the significance of the review article in a larger context. In addition to giving a concise summary of the important findings that describe current knowledge, the conclusion must also offer a rationale for conducting future research [ 12 ]. Knowledge gaps should be identified, and themes should be logically developed in order to construct conceptual frameworks as well as present a way forward for future research in the field of study [ 11 ].

Furthermore, the author may have to justify the propositions made earlier in the manuscript, demonstrate how the paper extends past research works, and also suggest ways that the expounded theories can be empirically examined [ 3 ]. Unlike experimental studies which can only draw either a positive conclusion or ambiguous failure to reject the null hypothesis, four possible conclusions can be drawn from review articles [ 1 ]. First, the theory/hypothesis propounded may be correct after being proven from current evidence; second, the hypothesis may not be explicitly proven but is most probably the best guess. The third conclusion is that the currently available evidence does not permit a confident conclusion or a best guess, while the last conclusion is that the theory or hypothesis is false [ 1 ]. It is important not to present new information in the conclusion section which has link whatsoever with the rest of the manuscript. According to Harris et al. [ 90 ], the conclusions should, in essence, answer the question: if a reader were to remember one thing about the review, what would it be?

5.10. References

As it has been noted in different parts of this paper, authors must give the required credit to any work or source(s) of information that was included in the review article. This must include the in-text citations in the main body of the paper and the corresponding entries in the reference list. Ideally, this full bibliographical list is the last part of the review article, and it should contain all the books, book chapters, journal articles, reports, and other media, which were utilised in the manuscript. It has been noted that most journals and publishers have their own specific referencing styles which are all derived from the more popular styles such as the American Psychological Association (APA), Chicago, Harvard, Modern Language Association (MLA), and Vancouver styles. However, all these styles may be categorised into either the parenthetical or numerical referencing style. Although a few journals do not have strict referencing rules, it is the responsibility of the author to reference according to the style and instructions of the journal. Omissions and errors must be avoided at all costs, and this can be easily achieved by going over the references many times for due diligence [ 11 ]. According to Cronin et al. [ 12 ], a separate file for references can be created, and any work used in the manuscript can be added to this list immediately after being cited in the text [ 12 ]. In recent times, the emergence of various referencing management software applications such as Endnote, RefWorks, Mendeley, and Zotero has even made referencing easier. The majority of these software applications require little technical expertise, and many of them are free to use, while others may require a subscription. It is imperative, however, that even after using these software packages, the author must manually curate the references during the final draft, in order to avoid any errors, since these programs are not impervious to errors, particularly formatting errors.

6. Concluding Remarks

Writing a review article is a skill that needs to be learned; it is a rigorous but rewarding endeavour as it can provide a useful platform to project the emerging researcher or postgraduate student into the gratifying world of publishing. Thus, the reviewer must develop the ability to think critically, spot patterns in a large volume of information, and must be invested in writing without tiring. The prospective author must also be inspired and dedicated to the successful completion of the article while also ensuring that the review article is not just a mere list or summary of previous research. It is also important that the review process must be focused on the literature and not on the authors; thus, overt criticism of existing research and personal aspersions must be avoided at all costs. All ideas, sentences, words, and illustrations should be constructed in a way to avoid plagiarism; basically, this can be achieved by paraphrasing, summarising, and giving the necessary acknowledgments. Currently, there are many tools to track and detect plagiarism in manuscripts, ensuring that they fall within a reasonable similarity index (which is typically 15% or lower for most journals). Although the more popular of these tools, such as Turnitin and iThenticate, are subscription-based, there are many freely available web-based options as well. An ideal review article is supposed to motivate the research topic and describe its key concepts while delineating the boundaries of research. In this regard, experience-based information on how to methodologically develop acceptable and impactful review articles has been detailed in this paper. Furthermore, for a beginner, this guide has detailed “the why” and “the how” of authoring a good scientific review article. However, the information in this paper may as a whole or in parts be also applicable to other fields of research and to other writing endeavours such as writing literature review in theses, dissertations, and primary research articles. Finally, the intending authors must put all the basic rules of scientific writing and writing in general into cognizance. A comprehensive study of the articles cited within this paper and other related articles focused on scientific writing will further enhance the ability of the motivated beginner to deliver a good review article.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of South Africa under grant number UID 138097. The authors would like to thank the Durban University of Technology for funding the postdoctoral fellowship of the first author, Dr. Ayodeji Amobonye.

Data Availability

Conflicts of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

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 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, what is academic writing: tips for students.

Types of Articles found in Scholarly Journals

• How to Limit to Empirical Articles

Literature Review Articles

• Theoretical Articles
• News, Book Reviews, Opinion, Letters to the Editor, etc.
• Video: How to Read a Scholarly Article

What if I see words often found in other articles?

Since literature reviews reference others articles, you may find the buzz words commons in theoretical and empirical articles..  Existence of these words is common in review articles.   The phrase literature review is option predominantly featured in the title or abstract. These are really great finds for your research to help you lead ahead in your research.

• Purpose of a literature review
• Key Questions for a lit review
• What does a literature review article look like
• There's a literature review in my empirical article

A literature summarizes & analyzes published work on a topic in order to

• evaluate the state of research on the topic.
• provide an overview of previous research on a topic that critically evaluates, classifies, and compares what has already been published on a particular topic.
• suggest future research and/or gaps in knowledge.
• synthesize and place into context original research and scholarly literature relevant to the topic (as in the literature review prior within an empirical research article.

A literature review should try to answer questions such as

1. Who are the key researchers on this topic?

2. What has been the focus of the research efforts so far and what is the current status?

3. How have certain studies built on prior studies? Where are the connections? Are there new interpretations of the research?

4. Have there been any controversies or debate about the research? Is there consensus? Are there any contradictions?

5. Which areas have been identified as needing further research? Have any pathways been suggested?

6. How will your topic uniquely contribute to this body of knowledge?

7. Which methodologies have researchers used and which appear to be the most productive?

8. What sources of information or data were identified that might be useful to you?

9. How does your particular topic fit into the larger context of what has already been done?

10. How has the research that has already been done help frame your current investigation?

The format  is usually a bibliographic essay; sources are briefly cited within the body of the essay, with full bibliographic citations at the end.

The introduction should define the topic and set the context for the literature review. It will include the author's perspective or point of view on the topic, how they have defined the scope of the topic (including what's not included), and how the review will be organized. It can point out overall trends, conflicts in methodology or conclusions, and gaps in the research.

The body of the review should organize the research into major topics and subtopics. These groupings may be by subject, (e.g., globalization of clothing manufacturing), type of research (e.g., case studies), methodology (e.g., qualitative), genre, chronology, or other common characteristics. Within these groups the author can then discuss the merits of each article and provide analysis and comparison of the importance of each article to similar ones.

The conclusion will summarize the main findings, make clear how this review of the literature supports (or not) the research to follow, and may point the direction for further research.

The list of references will include full citations for all of the items mentioned in the lit review.

In this context, the "literature" refers published scholarly work in a field. Literature includes journal articles, conference proceedings, technical reports, and books. 

A literature review can also be a short introductory section of a research article, report or policy paper that focuses on recent research. In the anatomy of a scholarly research article example, the literature review is a part of the introduction. Sometimes in empirical research, the literature review is its own section.

• << Previous: How to Limit to Empirical Articles
• Next: Theoretical Articles >>
• Last Updated: Apr 5, 2022 12:02 PM
• URL: https://guides.rider.edu/types

• Library Hours
• Strategic Plan
• Giving to the Libraries
• Jobs at the Libraries
• Find Your Librarian
• View All →
• Google Scholar
• Research Guides
• Textbook/Reserves
• Government Documents
• Get It For Me
• Print/Copy/Scan
• Renew Materials
• Study Rooms
• Use a Computer
• Borrow Tech Gear
• Student Services
• Faculty Services
• Users with Disabilities
• Visitors & Alumni
• Special Collections
• Find Information

Basics of Systematic Reviews

• About Systematic Review

Types of Reviews

Literature review.

Collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other

• Standard for research articles in most disciplines
• Tells the reader what is known, or not known, about a particular issue, topic, or subject
• Demonstrates knowledge and understanding of a topic
• Establishes context or background for a case or argument
• Helps develop the author’s ideas and perspective

Rapid Review

Thorough methodology but with process limitations in place to expeditethe completion of a review.

• For questions that require timely answers
• 3-4 months vs. 12-24 months
• Limitations - scope, comprehensiveness bias, and quality of appraisal
• Discusses potential effects that the limited methods may have had on results

Scoping Review

Determine the scope or coverage of a body of literature on a given topic and give clear indication of the volume of literature and studies available as well as an overview of its focus.

• Identify types of available evidence in a given field
• Clarify key concepts/definitions in the literature
• Examine how research is conducted on a certain topic or field
• Identify key factors related to a concept
• Key difference is focus
• Identify and analyze knowledge gaps

Systematic Review

Attempts to identify, appraise, and summarize all empirical evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a specific research question.

• clearly defined question with inclusion/exclusion criteria
• rigorous and systematic search of the literature
• thorough screening of results
• data extraction and management
• analysis and interpretation of results
• risk of bias assessment of included studies

Meta-Analysis

Used to systematically synthesize or merge the findings of single, independent studies, using statistical methods to calculate an overall or ‘absolute’ effect.

• Combines results from multiple empirical studies
• Requires systematic review first
• Use well recognized, systematic methods to account for differences in sample size, variability (heterogeneity) in study approach and findings (treatment effects)
• Test how sensitive their results are to their own systematic review protocol

For additional types of reviews please see these articles:

• Sutton, A., Clowes, M., Preston, L. and Booth, A. (2019), Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Info Libr J, 36: 202-222. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12276
• Grant, M.J. and Booth, A. (2009), A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26: 91-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
• << Previous: About Systematic Review
• Next: Sources >>
• Last Updated: May 17, 2024 10:04 AM
• URL: https://libguides.utsa.edu/systematicreview
• Library Locations
• Staff Directory
• 508 Compliance
• Site Search
• © The University of Texas at San Antonio
• Information: 210-458-4011
• Campus Alerts
• Required Links
• UTSA Policies
• Report Fraud

• University of Texas Libraries
• UT Libraries

Systematic Reviews & Evidence Synthesis Methods

Types of reviews.

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

Not sure what type of review you want to conduct?

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

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

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

• Last Updated: May 16, 2024 11:05 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.utexas.edu/systematicreviews

How to Write a Review Article

• Types of Review Articles
• Before Writing a Review Article
• Determining Where to Publish
• Searching the Literature
• Citation Management
• Reading a Review Article

Descriptions of Types of Reviews

Reproduced from: Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies .  Health Info Libr J . 2009 Jun;26(2):91-108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x. Review. PubMed PMID: 19490148.

Further Reading

Sutton A, Clowes M, Preston L, Booth A. Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements . Health Info Libr J. 2019;36(3):202-222. doi: 10.1111/hir.12276.

• << Previous: What is a Review Article?
• Next: Before Writing a Review Article >>

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

• Duke NetID Login
• 919.660.1100
• Duke Health Badge: 24-hour access
• Accounts & Access
• Databases, Journals & Books
• Request & Reserve
• Training & Consulting
• Request Articles & Books
• Renew Online
• Reserve Spaces
• Reserve a Locker
• Study & Meeting Rooms
• Course Reserves
• Digital Health Device Collection
• Pay Fines/Fees
• Recommend a Purchase
• Access From Off Campus
• Building Access
• Computers & Equipment
• Wifi Access
• My Accounts
• Mobile Apps
• Known Access Issues
• Report an Access Issue
• All Databases
• Article Databases
• Basic Sciences
• Clinical Sciences
• Dissertations & Theses
• Drugs, Chemicals & Toxicology
• Grants & Funding
• Interprofessional Education
• Non-Medical Databases
• Search for E-Journals
• Search for Print & E-Journals
• Search for E-Books
• Search for Print & E-Books
• E-Book Collections
• Biostatistics
• Global Health
• MBS Program
• Medical Students
• MMCi Program
• Occupational Therapy
• Path Asst Program
• Physical Therapy
• Researchers
• Community Partners

Conducting Research

• Archival & Historical Research
• Black History at Duke Health
• Data Analytics & Viz Software
• Data: Find and Share
• Evidence-Based Practice
• NIH Public Access Policy Compliance
• Publication Metrics
• Qualitative Research
• Searching Animal Alternatives

Systematic Reviews

• Test Instruments

Using Databases

• JCR Impact Factors
• Web of Science

Finding & Accessing

• COVID-19: Core Clinical Resources
• Health Literacy
• Health Statistics & Data
• Library Orientation

Writing & Citing

• Creating Links
• Getting Published
• Reference Mgmt
• Scientific Writing

Meet a Librarian

• Request a Consultation
• Find Your Liaisons
• Register for a Class
• Request a Class
• Self-Paced Learning

Search Services

• Literature Search
• Systematic Review
• Animal Alternatives (IACUC)
• Research Impact

Citation Mgmt

• Other Software

Scholarly Communications

• About Scholarly Communications
• Publish Your Work
• Measure Your Research Impact
• Engage in Open Science
• Libraries and Publishers
• Directions & Maps
• Floor Plans

Library Updates

• Annual Snapshot
• Conference Presentations
• Contact Information
• Gifts & Donations
• What is a Systematic Review?

Types of Reviews

• Manuals and Reporting Guidelines
• Our Service
• 1. Assemble Your Team
• 2. Develop a Research Question
• 3. Write and Register a Protocol
• 4. Search the Evidence
• 5. Screen Results
• 6. Assess for Quality and Bias
• 7. Extract the Data
• 8. Write the Review
• Additional Resources
• Finding Full-Text Articles

Review Typologies

There are many types of evidence synthesis projects, including systematic reviews as well as others. The selection of review type is wholly dependent on the research question. Not all research questions are well-suited for systematic reviews.

• Review Typologies (from LITR-EX) This site explores different review methodologies such as, systematic, scoping, realist, narrative, state of the art, meta-ethnography, critical, and integrative reviews. The LITR-EX site has a health professions education focus, but the advice and information is widely applicable.

Review the table to peruse review types and associated methodologies. Librarians can also help your team determine which review type might be appropriate for your project. 

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

• << Previous: What is a Systematic Review?
• Next: Manuals and Reporting Guidelines >>
• Last Updated: May 17, 2024 12:11 PM
• URL: https://guides.mclibrary.duke.edu/sysreview
• Duke Health
• Duke University
• Duke Libraries
• Medical Center Archives
• Duke Directory
• Seeley G. Mudd Building
• 10 Searle Drive
• [email protected]

We want to hear from you! Fill out the Library's User Survey and enter to win.

Pharmacy : Types of Review Articles (Literature, Scoping and Systematic)

• Pharmacy Library (Lower Level, Room 0013)
• Creating a Search Strategy
• Databases (PubMed, Embase, +more)
• Grey Literature Sources (Websites, theses, clinical trials +more)
• Electronic Journals (Browse journals, or look for a place to publish)
• Types of Review Articles (Literature, Scoping and Systematic)
• Research Methods (Designing your own research; calculating statistics)
• Indigenous Research and Resources
• Patents - Where to Search
• Finding Published Market Research
• Critical Appraisal
• Cite Using the AMA Style
• Reference (Citation) Management Programs - Zotero, RefWorks, Mendeley
• Writing Tips
• Research Data Management

Their Uniqueness, Characteristics and Differences

• Types of Review Articles

The above slides explore:

• The purpose of each type of review article
• Their methodology
• Practical examples for each article type
• Systematic Reviews, Scoping Reviews, and other Knowledge Syntheses (McGill University) Learn about the different types of knowledge syntheses and how to conduct them.
• Knowledge syntheses: Systematic & Scoping Reviews, and other review types (University of Toronto) Useful information and resources on the process of conducting various types of reviews or knowledge syntheses.
• Review Types (Temple University) Outlines other types of reviews like rapid reviews, mixed methods reviews, overview of reviews, etc. For each review, includes: definition, process, timeframe, limitations, + links to useful resources for conducting the review.
• Review Comparison Chart (Unity Health Toronto/St. Michael's Health Sciences Library) Compares the key elements of major knowledge synthesis methodologies in an infographic.
• Knowledge Synthesis Decision Tool (Unity Health Toronto/St. Michael's Health Sciences Library) This tool assists in making a decision about what type of review is right for you based on your research question(s) and the required parameters of each type of review. It is meant to be used with the comparison chart.

Systematic Review Management Software

• Covidence - a systematic review software tool Web-based software to support systematic screening and data abstraction for systematic and scoping reviews. Free for Waterloo students, faculty and researchers.
• Distiller Subscription-based, but student pricing available.
• Rayyan A free web-tool designed to manage the stages of systematic reviews and other knowledge synthesis projects.

What is the Project's Goal?

Always ask yourself:

• Do I want to systematically/comprehensively search the literature?
• Or, do I want to conduct a systematic review?

Conducting a comprehensive search of the literature involves very different methods than a systematic review. If you are unsure as to which project best meets your needs, consult the Pharmacy Liaison Librarian, Caitlin Carter at [email protected]

Writing the Protocol (Plan)

• What information should be provided in a protocol? (University of Toronto)
• JBI Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews (see 11.2, "Development of a Scoping Review Protocol")
• Template for a systematic literature review protocol (Durham University)
• Knowledge Synthesis Protocol Template (Unity Health Toronto/St. Michael's Health Sciences Library)

Avoid duplication: register your scoping or systematic review protocol (plan)

• Where to prospectively register a systematic review? A short article describing the differences between the various available registration options.
• PROSPERO Protocol registry for systematic reviews. Does not accept scoping reviews or literature reviews. Research topic must be health or social care related.
• Joanna Briggs Institute Registry Register scoping and systematic reviews (must be JBI-affiliated).
• Research Registry Register reviews, randomized controlled trials, case reports, cohort studies, etc.
• Center for Open Science Register any research type.
• Protocols.io Register any research type.
• Nature's Protocol Exchange Protocols from all areas of the natural sciences.

Literature (Narrative) Reviews

These resources offer practical insight into literature reviews:

• The literature review: A few tips on conducting it
• Literature reviews: An overview for graduate students (video)
• Health sciences literature review made easy: The matrix method
• Doing a literature review in health and social care: A practical guide
• Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: Secrets of the trade
• The four-part literature review process: breaking it down for students
• Advanced Research Skills: Conducting Literature and Systematic Reviews (free, online short course)

Scoping Reviews

These resources offer practical insight into scoping reviews:

• Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework
• Enhancing the scoping study methodology: A large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework
• Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology
• The Joanna Briggs Institute - Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews
• Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews

Systematic Reviews

These resources offer practical insight into systematic reviews:

• Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions
• Systematic Reviews: The Process (Duke University)
• Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) Find out if reviews and economic evaluations have already been done before embarking on new projects. Last batch of records was added in 2015.
• PRISMA - what to report in a systematic review
• Doing a systematic review: A student's guide Available in PRINT in Pharmacy Library, Call number: R853.S94 D65 2017
• Finding what works in health care: Standards for systematic reviews Click on "download free PDF"
• Systematic Reviews (University of Ottawa) Systematic Reviews explained using the PIECES Model: planning, identifying, evaluating, collecting and combining, explaining and summarizing.

Library Support for Systematic Reviews

• UW Library Systematic Review Support Overview of the types of UW Library support for systematic/scoping review projects.
• UW Library Systematic Review Protocol Use the "UW Library Systematic Review Protocol" to identify the various aspects of your systematic review (SR) project. This protocol will help minimize the likelihood of bias throughout the SR process, which is vital to a SR.
• << Previous: Electronic Journals (Browse journals, or look for a place to publish)
• Next: Research Methods (Designing your own research; calculating statistics) >>
• Last Updated: May 17, 2024 9:30 PM
• URL: https://subjectguides.uwaterloo.ca/pharmacy

Research guides by subject

Course reserves

My library account

Book a study room

News and events

Work for the library

Support the library

We want to hear from you. You're viewing the newest version of the Library's website. Please send us your feedback !

• Contact Waterloo
• Maps & Directions
• Accessibility

• About Covidence and systematic reviews

What are the different types of review?

Systematic literature reviews (slrs).

SLR’s attempt to collate all empirical evidence that fit pre-specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a specific clearly-formulated research question.  A SLR uses explicit and reproducible systematic methods that are selected with a view to minimizing bias, thus providing more reliable findings from which conclusions can be drawn and decisions made.

The process starts with a research question and a protocol or research plan. A review team searches for studies to answer the question using a highly sensitive search strategy. The retrieved studies are then screened for eligibility using pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria (this is done by at least two people working independently). Next, the reviewers extract the relevant data and assess the quality of the included studies. Finally, the review team synthesizes the extracted study data and presents the results. 

A SLR may contain meta-analyses (statistical analysis). A SLR which is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available is often known as a living SLR.

Rapid reviews

Rapid reviews aim to produce a rigorous synthesis quickly (due to time constraints/urgency), based on a pre-defined research question. The review process for rapid reviews is the same as for a more traditional systematic review: the emphasis is on a replicable pre-specified search, and screening methods that minimize the risk of bias, although potentially isn’t as stringent as a formal systematic review.

The process operates within pre-specified limits (for example, by restricting searches to articles published during a specific timeframe) and is usually run by a multidisciplinary team with expertise in systematic review methods.

Umbrella reviews or Overview of reviews

An umbrella review is a review of multiple systematic reviews. The process uses explicit and systematic methods to search for, and identify, systematic reviews on related research questions in the same topic area. The purpose of an umbrella review is to synthesize the results of the systematic reviews across important outcomes. 

Scoping reviews

Scoping reviews are exploratory and they typically address a broad question, compared to a systematic review that typically has a more targeted question. 

Researchers conduct scoping reviews to assess the extent of the available evidence, to organize it into groups and to highlight gaps. If a scoping review finds no studies, this might help researchers to decide that a systematic review is likely to be of limited value and that resources could be better directed elsewhere.

Literature reviews or narrative reviews

Literature, or narrative, reviews provide an overview of what is known about a particular topic. They evaluate the material, rather than simply restating it, but the methods used to do this are not usually prespecified and they are not described in detail in the review. The search might be comprehensive but it does not aim to be exhaustive. Literature reviews are often topic based  and can take the form of a discussion. Literature reviews lack precision and replicability and can  present their findings in the context of what has come before. Often, this sort of synthesis does not attempt to control for the author’s own bias. The results or conclusion of a literature review is likely to be presented in a narrative format rather than statistical methods.

Take a look at the articles about the different types of review on the Covidence blog:

• Systematic review types: meet the family
• The difference between a systematic review and a literature review
• The difference between a systematic review and a meta-analysis

Utilities for Complications Associated with Type 2 Diabetes: A Review of the Literature

• Open access
• Published: 21 May 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• William J. Valentine   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4844-6813 1 ,
• Kirsi Norrbacka 2 &
• Kristina S. Boye 3  

Introduction

Utility values are used in health economic modeling analyses of type 2 diabetes (T2D) to quantify the effect of acute and long-term complications on quality of life (QoL). For accurate modeling projections, it is important that the utility values used are up to date, accurate and representative of the simulated model cohort.

A literature review was performed to identify utility values for health states representing acute and chronic T2D-related complications including cardiovascular complications, stroke, renal disease, ophthalmic complications, neuropathy, diabetic foot, amputation and hypoglycemia. Searches were performed using the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases and limited to articles published since 2010. Supplementary searches were performed to identify data published at congresses in 2019–2023.

A total of 54 articles were identified that reported utility values for T2D-related complications. The most frequently used elicitation method/instrument was the EQ-5D ( n  = 42 studies) followed by the Short Form-6 dimensions ( n  = 6), time tradeoff ( n  = 5), the Health Utilities Index Mark 2 or Mark 3 ( n  = 2), 15D ( n  = 1), visual analog scale ( n  = 1) and standard gamble ( n  = 1). Stroke and amputation were consistently associated with the largest decrements in QoL. There is a lack of published data that distinguishes between severity of several complications including renal disease, retinopathy and neuropathy.

Conclusions

Diabetes-related complications can have a profound impact on QoL; therefore, it is important that these are captured accurately and appropriately in health economic models. Recently published utility values for diabetes-related complications that can be used to inform health economic models are summarized here.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Health state utility values provide a quantitative indication of the extent to which a particular disease, complication or treatment-related side effect influences the quality of life (QoL) of an individual. Utility values quantify QoL on a scale of 0–1, where 1 represents perfect health and 0 represents death. Some utility elicitation methods, such as the EuroQoL 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), allow negative values, which correspond to states considered to be worse than death [ 1 , 2 ]. Utility values are key inputs in health economic models that are used to project the long-term clinical and economic outcomes associated with new treatments and upon which payer and reimbursement decisions are often based. It is therefore important that these values accurately represent the QoL decrement associated with specific health states.

Individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D) are at an elevated risk for a number of acute and long-term complications including cardiovascular disease, stroke, ophthalmic complications, renal disease, diabetic foot, neuropathy and hypoglycemic events, many of which can have a considerable impact on QoL. Poor glycemic control exacerbates the risk for long-term complications, and pharmacologic treatments aimed at improving glycemic control can in turn reduce the risk for long-term complications. However, the duration of clinical trials is not sufficient to capture the effect of new treatments on the incidence of long-term complications. Consequently, long-term health economic modeling analyses represent an important component of the reimbursement decision-making process for payers and policy makers.

The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) good practice recommendations state that the use of up-to-date QoL data is an important aspect of long-term health economic analyses but also note that, in practice, many economic models use outdated utility values that may not adequately capture recent advances in treatment [ 3 ]. A previous review published by Beaudet et al. collated utility values for T2D-related complications, published over the period 1995–2012 [ 4 ]. The aim of the current review was to update and expand the previously published review by Beaudet et al. to provide a synopsis of utility values that could be utilized in future health economic models of T2D. The scope of the review was expanded to capture utility values elicited by the EQ-5D and other methods including (but not limited to) the Short Form 6 Dimensions (SF-6D), 15D, Health Utilities Index-2 or -3 (HUI-2/3), time-trade-off (TTO) and standard gamble (SG) and also to include utility/disutility values related to treatment-related attributes such as dosing frequency and timing flexibility, injection device-related attributes and unpleasant treatment-related side effects such as nausea or weight gain. The time frame of the review was also updated such that the review was limited to studies published since 2010, thereby capturing contemporary clinical practice relating to the management of people with T2D. Only findings related to T2D-related complications are presented here; summary findings of utilities for treatment-related attributes are presented separately in Part 2 of this review.

The literature review was performed using the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases. Search strategies were designed in alignment with recommendations outlined in the UK-based National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Decision Support Unit (DSU) Technical Support Document 9 [ 5 ]. Search strategies utilized high level Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms supplemented with free-text terms, and search syntax was adjusted as required for use across the different databases (full details of the search strategies used are provided in Supplementary Material, Tables 1–3). Supplementary hand searches were also performed to identify pertinent studies presented at major congresses between late 2019 and 2023( specifically the virtual meeting of the American Diabetes Association [ADA], the ISPOR Annual Congress and the 55th annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes [EASD] in 2019). Relevant abstracts presented at the 2019 ISPOR meeting have been published; therefore, relevant publications should have been captured within the literature database searches. Studies published only in abstract form prior to 2019 were excluded on the basis that study results were likely to have been subsequently published in full-text form.

The time horizon of the searches was limited to articles published since 2010, and all searches were performed in March 2020. For inclusion in the review, studies were required to be published in full-text form (except for recent abstracts as outlined above) in English and present utility or disutility values for health states related to acute or long-term T2D-related complications or treatment-related attributes or process characteristics. Complications captured in the review included cardiovascular disease (angina, myocardial infarction [MI], and congestive heart failure [CHF]), stroke, renal disease (albuminuria/proteinuria, end-stage renal disease [ESRD] and renal transplant), ophthalmic complications (retinopathy, macular edema, cataract and severe vision loss/blindness), neuropathy, diabetic foot, amputation, peripheral vascular disease, overweight/obesity, hypoglycemia and fear of hypoglycemia (FoH). Studies that were conducted in mixed populations of patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes were excluded if results were not presented according to diabetes type. Secondary studies (i.e., studies listing previously published utility values), and discrete choice experiments were also excluded.

Here, reporting of results is limited to acute and long-term complications; utility values for treatment-related attributes and process characteristics are reported in a separate review [ 6 ].

This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any new studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Literature Searches

Literature searches across the three databases yielded a total of 8566 hits, which included 1383 duplicates, therefore resulting in a total of 7183 unique hits. First-round screening of titles and abstracts was performed by one investigator and identified a total of 241 hits for full-text review (Fig.  1 ). During second-round screening, a further 176 articles were excluded, leaving a total of 65 articles detailing utilities/disutilities associated with either T2D-related complications or treatment-related attributes for inclusion. A further three articles were identified via bibliographies of included articles. Searches of meeting abstract databases identified one relevant abstract for inclusion. The final review therefore included a total of 69 studies. Of these, a total of 39 presented findings exclusively related to acute or long-term diabetes-related complications, 15 presented findings exclusively related to the influence of treatment-related attributes on QoL, and 15 captured findings on both complications and treatment attributes. In total, 54 articles presented utility/disutility values for T2D-related complications (Table  1 ); these included a total of 18 studies conducted in Asia [ 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 ], 13 conducted in Europe [ 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 ], 13 in North America [ 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 ], 2 in Latin America [ 51 , 52 ], one in the Middle East [ 53 ] and 1 in Africa [ 54 ], and 6 were multinational (or setting not stated) [ 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 ]. Nearly all identified studies were conducted in individuals with T2D, although two presented data gathered from general population samples [ 34 , 56 ].

Summary of literature searches. T2D, type 2 diabetes. Publication/study type refers to articles that were reviews, editorials, letters, case reports, secondary sources of utility values or discrete choice experiments

T2D with No Complications

Eleven studies were identified that provided baseline utility values for individuals with T2D with no complications, all of which used the EQ-5D-3L or EQ-5D-5L (where studies did not state which version of the EQ-5D was used it was assumed that the EQ-5D-3L was used) (Table  2 ) [ 7 , 14 , 16 , 22 , 24 , 28 , 35 , 36 , 38 , 44 , 49 ] with one additionally using the SF-6D [ 38 ]. Five of the identified studies were conducted in Asia [ 7 , 14 , 16 , 22 , 24 ], three in North America [ 38 , 44 , 49 ] and three in European populations [ 28 , 35 , 36 ].

Using the EQ-5D, reported mean baseline values for individuals with T2D with no complications ranged from a low of 0.76 in a community-dwelling sample in Canada aged ≥ 40 years and with HbA1c ≥ 7% [ 44 ] to a high of 0.956 in a sample in China with mean (SD) age of 64.9 (9.1) years [ 14 ]. One study conducted in Vietnam reported a median baseline value of 1.0, which corresponds to perfect health [ 16 ], and is also slightly higher than that previously reported in a general population sample in Vietnam [ 61 ]. Differences in baseline characteristics such as age, BMI and duration of disease as well as the source of utility weights may have contributed towards the differences in baseline values between the different study populations.

For economic modeling analyses, the optimal baseline utility values should be as closely representative of the simulated patient population under investigation as possible. In particular, factors such as setting, baseline age and duration of diabetes should be taken into account and, if necessary, adjustments applied to the reference population. The description of the reference population of patients with no complications varied between studies; however, one US-based study provided a comprehensive description. Zhang et al. [ 49 ] reported a baseline utility value of 0.92 for no complications with this value referring specifically to individuals that were male, non-Hispanic white, with BMI < 30 kg/m 2 and with no risk factors for cardiovascular disease, with income > USD 40,000 per annum and not treated with insulin.

Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Complications

A total of ten studies that presented disutility values for MI [ 10 , 26 , 28 , 33 , 37 , 44 , 46 , 55 , 57 , 58 ], were identified (Table  3 ) (three studies presented utility values for MI; data not shown [ 11 , 36 , 46 ]). Two further studies presented disutilities for angina [ 10 , 46 ], and nine studies were identified that presented disutility values for CHF [ 10 , 27 , 28 , 37 , 46 , 49 , 55 , 57 , 58 ]. In studies that utilized the EQ-5D, the reported disutility associated with an MI ranged from − 0.073 in a sample of individuals with T2D attending outpatient clinics in South Korea [ 10 ] to − 0.0119 in a sample of patients in Sweden [ 28 ]. One study also reported a positive value of + 0.004 in a post hoc analysis of the multinational LEADER trial [ 58 ]. However, this value was not an event-related disutility per se but specifically referred to the change in utility value reported in patients who experienced an MI at any point during the 36-month follow-up period rather than a recent MI and may therefore potentially have captured improvements in QoL in patients recovering from an MI. Indeed, in a post hoc analysis of ACCORD trial data, Shao et al. noted that the timing of the event relative to the timing of measurement of QoL was an important determinant of QoL and although the effect of an MI waned over time a degree of long-term impairment persisted [ 46 ]. More specifically, using the HUI-3, Shao et al. reported that the mean (SE) disutility associated with MI was − 0.042 (0.016) in the year of the event but − 0.011 (0.006) in subsequent years after the event.

Two studies reported disutility values associated with angina (two studies also reported utility values for patients with angina; data not shown [ 36 , 46 ]). In a South Korean study that utilized the EQ-5D, Lee et al. reported a mean (SE) disutility of − 0.0266 (0.0114) [ 10 ], while for US-based patients, Shao et al., who utilized the HUI-3, reported a disutility of − 0.032 (0.006) in the year of event but − 0.010 (0.021) in subsequent years [ 46 ].

A total of nine studies reported disutility values for CHF [ 10 , 27 , 28 , 37 , 46 , 49 , 55 , 57 , 58 ], eight of which used the EQ-5D [ 10 , 27 , 28 , 37 , 49 , 55 , 57 , 58 ], with the remaining study using the HUI-3 [ 46 ] (four studies presented utility values for patients with CHF; data not shown [ 11 , 27 , 36 , 46 ]). In studies using the EQ-5D, the mean disutility for CHF ranged from − 0.0821 in Sweden [ 28 ] to − 0.037 in a study conducted in Greece [ 37 ]. Additionally, a US-based study that used the HUI-3 reported a disutility of − 0.089 in the year of diagnosis and − 0.041 in subsequent years [ 46 ].

The interpretation of the QoL impact of stroke was complicated by the heterogeneity in the definition of stroke used between different studies. In two studies, separate disutility values were presented for stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA) [ 10 , 46 ] and one study further separated stroke into events with and without hemiplegia [ 46 ]. In comparison, other studies either did not state how stroke was defined or grouped TIA and stroke together. A total of 14 studies reported disutility values for stroke [ 10 , 24 , 26 , 28 , 33 , 35 , 37 , 44 , 46 , 49 , 54 , 55 , 57 , 58 ] (Table  4 ), and 8 studies presented utility values for stroke [ 11 , 18 , 24 , 29 , 36 , 38 , 46 , 54 ] (data not shown). Overall, stroke was typically associated with profound deficits in QoL relative to other complications. In studies that used the term stroke, disutility values ranged from − 0.59 to − 0.035 (Table  4 ). Notably, the two studies that reported the largest disutilities for stroke used the HUI-2 or HUI-3 [ 46 , 54 ], and another study reporting one of the smallest decrements of − 0.04 utilized the SF-6D [ 33 ]. When limited to studies that elicited utility values using the EQ-5D, the disutility associated with stroke ranged from − 0.135 [ 35 ] to − 0.035 [ 49 ]. Notably, the − 0.035 value reported in a US-based study by Zhang et al. did not include strokes resulting in hemiplegia; for events resulting in hemiplegia, the disutility was − 0.094 [ 49 ].

Renal Disease

Heterogeneity regarding definitions applied was also evident for studies presenting disutility values for renal complications. The literature review was initially designed to capture studies that reported utility/disutility values for the health states of microalbuminuria, macroalbuminuria, end-stage renal disease (ESRD), dialysis and renal transplant. However, few studies were identified that delineated renal disease according to this terminology, with many studies instead utilizing the overarching term of nephropathy. However, the definition of the nephropathy health state was in general poorly defined, and in instances where definitions were provided, these were inconsistent between studies. For example, Grandy et al. defined nephropathy as “self-reported diagnosis of chronic kidney disease, dialysis, ESRD, kidney transplant or proteinuria” [ 39 ]. In contrast, Luk et al. applied a more specific definition of nephropathy as “either proteinuria or chronic kidney disease (defined by the Renal Association as estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 ml/min/1.73 m [ 2 ] on at least two occasions 90 days apart with or without markers of kidney damage, which include albuminuria, hematuria, electrolyte disorders due to tubular disorders, renal histologic abnormalities, structural abnormalities evident on imaging or a history of renal transplantation” [ 62 ]) [ 12 ]. The broad definition applied in analyses such as that presented by Grandy et al. means that the term nephropathy captures both patients with microalbuminuria and ESRD, despite these states representing very different severities of renal disease.

A total of seven studies presented disutility values for the broad health state of nephropathy [ 10 , 12 , 16 , 37 , 39 , 50 , 58 ] (all of which used the EQ-5D), and a further four studies presented values for ESRD [ 44 , 46 , 49 , 57 ], three of which used the EQ-5D [ 44 , 49 , 57 ] and one used the HUI-3 (Table  5 ) [ 46 ]. The mean disutility for nephropathy ranged from − 0.08 in a sample of patients with good glycemic control (median HbA1c 6.8%) and median duration of diabetes of 7 years based in Vietnam [ 16 ] to –0.0044 in patients with a mean age of 57 years based in South Korea [ 10 ]. For individuals with ESRD, the mean disutility value in EQ-5D studies ranged from –0.049 [ 57 ] to − 0.1018 [ 44 ], while the one study that utilized the HUI-3 reported a disutility of − 0.024 [ 46 ].

Ophthalmic Complications

The review was designed to capture the QoL impact of ophthalmic complications including retinopathy (background and proliferative), macular edema, cataract and severe vision loss/blindness. However, no studies were identified that examined the effect of macular edema on QoL, and only one study that presented a disutility value for cataract was identified (Table  6 ) [ 10 ]. Additionally, none of the retinopathy studies identified distinguished in severity between background and proliferative retinopathy; however, one Chinese study did distinguish between unilateral and bilateral retinopathy [ 15 ]. Here, using the EQ-5D-5L, the mean disutilities for unilateral and bilateral retinopathy were –0.013 and − 0.019, respectively [ 15 ]. A total of nine further studies reported disutility values for retinopathy elicited using the EQ-5D [ 10 , 14 , 16 , 24 , 26 , 28 , 37 , 39 , 58 ]. These included one US-based longitudinal study that captured the decline in QoL in individuals with retinopathy over a 5-year period. Using the EQ-5D, Grandy et al. reported a decline in EQ-5D of − 0.058 over 5 years, assuming a linear rate of decline over time corresponding to an annual decline of − 0.0116 per year [ 39 ]. Excluding the longitudinal study by Grandy et al., the mean disutility associated with retinopathy, elicited using the EQ-5D, ranged from − 0.0578 in a sample of people with T2D aged > 65 years (mean [SD] age 70.3 [9.3] years) based in Germany [ 26 ] to − 0.001 in a multinational study by Nauck et al. [ 58 ]. A further study utilized the 15D questionnaire and reported a mean disutility for retinopathy of − 0.036 [ 29 ]. The same authors also noted that in their analysis both the EQ-5D and SF-6D were relatively insensitive to retinopathy.

Three further studies presented disutility values for health states defined as “impaired vision,” “severe vision loss” and “blindness” (Table  6 ), findings that collectively suggested a deterioration in QoL with increasing severity of vision loss. In a Norwegian study, visual impairment (severity not defined) was associated with a mean (EQ-5D) disutility of − 0.012 [ 35 ]. In a US-based study, severe vision loss (defined as visual acuity of < 20/200 on a Snellen chart) was associated with a mean (HUI-3) disutility of − 0.057 [ 46 ], and in a multinational study blindness was associated with a mean (EQ-5D) disutility of − 0.083 [ 57 ].

Neuropathy, Foot Ulcer and Amputation

A total of 11 studies reported disutility values for people experiencing neuropathy (Table  7 ) [ 12 , 14 , 19 , 26 , 29 , 35 , 37 , 39 , 46 , 49 , 51 ]; however, only 1 disutility study distinguished between painful and non-painful neuropathy [ 49 ] (8 studies also reported utility values for the health state of neuropathy, 1 of which distinguished between painful and non-painful neuropathy; data not shown [ 9 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 18 , 24 , 29 , 46 ]). For US-based patients, using the EQ-5D, the mean disutility for patients with non-painful neuropathy was –0.039, but for painful neuropathy the mean decrement was as expected, notably more pronounced at –0.105 [ 49 ]. Another study identified in the review compared utility (rather than disutility values) and patient characteristics for those with painful versus non-painful neuropathy [ 9 ]. Patients with painful neuropathy were slightly older and had longer duration of disease than those with non-painful neuropathy, and the mean (SD) EQ-5D score was 0.8 (0.1) for those with non-painful neuropathy compared with 0.6 (0.3) for those with painful neuropathy [ 9 ]. Allied to this, a further US-based study captured the decline in QoL over time in patients with neuropathy, which may at least partially address the issue of progression/increased severity over time. Using the EQ-5D, Grandy et al. reported a decline in QoL of − 0.061 over a period of 5 years, which corresponds to an annual decline of − 0.0122 per year assuming a linear rate of decline [ 39 ].

The magnitude of the disutility associated with neuropathy was also influenced by the elicitation method used. For patients in Greece, Kontodimopoulos et al. report a disutility for neuropathy of − 0.117 using the SF-6D, but using the EQ-5D the corresponding value was − 0.247, suggesting different sensitivities to the impact of neuropathy between the two methods used [ 29 ].

Diabetic Foot and Amputation

The definitions and terminology used for diabetic foot/foot ulcer health states were heterogenous between studies and in some instances poorly defined, thereby making it challenging to differentiate between the impact of events such as the occurrence of superficial uninfected ulcers that healed without complications and infected/gangrenous ulcer. Additionally, two studies included amputation within the overarching terms of diabetic foot [ 50 , 58 ]. Reported mean disutility values for diabetic foot/foot ulcer ranged from − 0.016 in a Norwegian study by Solli et al. [ 35 ] to − 0.206 in a Greek study by Kontodimopoulos et al. [ 29 ], with both of these values elicited using the EQ-5D (Table  7 ). The broad range of disutility values may be partly attributable to the heterogeneity and differences in severity in terms of the terminology and categorizations used between different studies. Furthermore, as with neuropathy, reported disutility values were influenced by the elicitation method used. Using both the 15D and SF-6D Kontodimopoulos et al. reported a mean disutility of − 0.093, but when the EQ-5D-3L was used the mean utility decrement was notably greater at − 0.206 [ 29 ]. Additionally, for amputation specifically, reported disutility values (elicited using the EQ-5D) ranged from − 0.122 [ 57 ] to − 0.0631 [ 44 ] (Table  7 ).

Hypoglycemia

Literature searches identified a total of 24 studies that presented either utility or disutility values for patients experiencing hypoglycemia of various severities [ 11 , 12 , 17 , 20 , 21 , 24 , 25 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 34 , 37 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 45 , 47 , 48 , 55 , 56 , 58 , 59 , 60 ] as well as three studies that examined the effect of FoH on QoL [ 34 , 35 , 47 ]. As with other complications, the terminology and categorization of hypoglycemia varied widely between studies. Some studies categorized hypoglycemic events as either non-severe or severe, with non-severe events typically defined as events that could be resolved by the individual and severe events as those requiring third-party assistance. Other investigators used the categorization of mild, moderate, severe and very severe, with mild events typically defined as events causing no interruption of activities, moderate events as those resulting in some interruption of activities, severe events as requiring the assistance of others and very severe events as events that required medical assistance [ 41 , 60 ]. Some studies employed broader terminology, presenting utility/disutility values for any symptomatic event, and several focused on historical events describing utility values according to hypoglycemia experienced in the previous 1-, 3- or 6-month period. Additionally, a total of four studies distinguished between daytime and nocturnal hypoglycemic events [ 11 , 20 , 40 , 56 ]. As with long-term complications, the EQ-5D was the most frequently used utility elicitation method employed to determine the influence of hypoglycemic events on QoL; however, a total of five studies that specifically focused on hypoglycemic events used TTO methodology to determine disutility values [ 20 , 34 , 40 , 56 , 59 ].

Three studies reported disutility values for hypoglycemic events categorized as non-severe, all three of which included values elicited from both people with T2D and general population samples using TTO methodology [ 20 , 40 , 56 ]. For people with T2D, the disutility for a daytime non-severe event ranged from − 0.0028 in a Canadian study [ 40 ] to − 0.0283 in Malaysia (Table  8 ) [ 20 ]. Similarly, for general population samples, the corresponding range was from − 0.004 in a multinational study [ 56 ] to − 0.0354 in Malaysia [ 20 ]. For people with T2D, two of the three studies reported that a nocturnal non-severe event was associated with a greater decrement compared with an event occurring during the daytime. For example, in Canada, the decrement associated with a daytime non-severe event was − 0.0028, whereas a nocturnal non-severe event was associated with a utility decrement of − 0.0076 [ 40 ].

A further two studies (both of which used the EQ-5D) categorized events as either mild or moderate and reported disutility values of − 0.009 [ 41 ] and − 0.018 [ 31 ] for mild events and − 0.055 [ 41 ] and − 0.043 [ 31 ] for moderate events, respectively. A total of 13 studies examined the effect of severe hypoglycemic events on QoL [ 11 , 20 , 24 , 31 , 34 , 37 , 40 , 41 , 43 , 46 , 56 , 58 , 60 ], including 8 that reported disutility values for severe events [ 20 , 24 , 31 , 37 , 40 , 41 , 56 , 58 ]. In people with T2D, reported mean disutility values for a severe hypoglycemic event ranged from − 0.008 in China [ 24 ] (determined using the EQ-5D-3L) to − 0.1938 (determined using TTO methods) in a cross-sectional study conducted in Malaysia [ 20 ]. Three studies distinguished between severe events occurring during the day and nocturnal severe events [ 20 , 40 , 56 ], and in people with T2D nocturnal events were consistently associated with a greater disutility than daytime events.

Additionally, in a US-based study presenting disutility values elicited using the EQ-5D, Marrett et al. [ 41 ] distinguished between severe events requiring third-party assistance and very severe events requiring medical assistance; the mean disutilities associated with severe and very severe events were − 0.131 and − 0.208, respectively.

Three further studies quantified the influence of FoH on QoL; of these, two were conducted in people with T2D in Norway [ 35 ] and the USA [ 47 ], respectively, and the third was conducted in a UK-based general population sample [ 34 ]. Both studies conducted in people with T2D used the EQ-5D, and in the US, Shi et al. [ 47 ] reported that any FoH was associated with a disutility of − 0.003. In Norway, Solli et al. [ 35 ] reported that a large FoH was associated with a disutility of − 0.078 compared with a small FoH.

It is well established that diabetes-related complications can have a profound effect on QoL. Here, a synopsis of recently published disutility values that reflect current management/treatment practices is provided, which can be used in turn to inform future health economic models and analyses of novel interventions. New treatments for T2D generally provide incremental benefits in terms of glycemic control and/or adverse event rates, in particular hypoglycemia, relative to the standard of care. Glycemic control is a key determinant of the risk for long-term complications [ 63 ]. As such, for economic models to project valid outcomes such as quality-adjusted life expectancy for diabetes interventions, it is important that the most appropriate disutility values are used to best reflect the impact of individual complications on QoL.

When selecting utility/disutility values to inform economic models, there are a number of issues that warrant consideration by model developers. These include the elicitation method used and whether utility/disutility values selected are from a population that aligns with the simulated patient cohort under investigation. The choice of elicitation method is in some instances influenced by national guidelines. For example, for economic analyses performed in Sweden or Denmark, direct methods (e.g., TTO or SG) are preferred, whereas in other jurisdictions (e.g., England, Scotland) guidelines advocate the use of utility values elicited using the EQ-5D [ 64 ]. Indeed, in national guidelines where a specific generic multi-attribute utility instrument is recommended, this is most commonly the EQ-5D, although several countries do not stipulate which instrument should be used, instead providing examples of acceptable methods [ 65 ]. In terms of population, it may also be desirable to source disutility values that are generalizable to the simulated model cohort in terms of location, baseline demographics and disease characteristics. For example, values derived from individuals with newly diagnosed T2D based in Europe may not be appropriate when modeling new interventions in a population with long-standing disease in a country in Asia such as China or Singapore. The statistical approach used and the parameters adjusted for should also be considered when selecting utility values. In some instances, disutilities were calculated simply by subtracting the mean utility value of patients with a particular complication from the mean value for those without, while in other analyses disutilities were calculated using multivariate regression models and adjusted for baseline demographics and disease characteristics. The factors controlled for should be considered when selecting sources of disutility values. For example, women were consistently shown to have lower QoL relative to men [ 14 , 24 , 28 , 33 , 46 , 49 , 53 ], so it is important to consider whether values have been adjusted according to gender and other baseline demographics and disease characteristics.

Model developers may also need to consider the best way in which to address data gaps in terms of the need to utilize disutility values from multiple different sources. Research across different therapy areas has consistently shown that, for particular health states, utility values elicited using direct methods are consistently higher than values for the same state elicited using indirect methods [ 66 , 67 ], which may potentially lead to the introduction of bias in an analysis. Allied to this, for indirect methods consistency in terms of the source of preference weights used should also be considered owing to potential differences in cultural norms and healthcare provision between different settings [ 46 ]. Two studies identified in the current review showed that the source of preference weights can have a considerable influence on baseline utility values [ 28 , 57 ]. In particular, in a Swedish analysis, Kiadaliri et al. [ 28 ] noted that when using a Swedish tariff, the mean utility value for individuals with no complications was 0.89, but when using a UK tariff the corresponding value was considerably lower at 0.79. Similarly, when using the UK tariff, the disutilities associated with MI, heart failure and stroke were approximately two-fold greater than with the Swedish tariff [ 28 ].

A few studies identified in the review documented the phenomenon of diminishing marginal disutility specifically relating to cardiovascular events. Diminishing marginal disutility has previously been demonstrated with hypoglycemic events [ 68 ] and refers to instances where subsequent events are judged to have a lesser effect on QoL than first events. Briggs et al. observed diminishing marginal disutility with a composite endpoint of major cardiovascular event [ 55 ]. Here, a first major cardiovascular event was associated with a disutility of − 0.05, but the decrement associated with a subsequent event was less at − 0.038. Similar findings were reported by Kiadaliri et al. in terms of the effect of first and subsequent MIs [ 28 ]. Shao et al. also demonstrated that while the QoL impact of events such as MIs wanes over time, an MI within the previous year was associated with a disutility of − 0.042 but the disutility associated with a history of MI was − 0.011 [ 46 ]. However, with any retrospective analysis of events, it is possible that the interval between the event and utility elicitation may influence the QoL finding owing to response shift or recall bias, the potential impact of which should be considered when interpreting results [ 69 ].

Several diabetes-related complications such as retinopathy or renal disease may be classified according to severity. However, few studies identified in the review captured differing levels of severity for complications, although the notable exception to this was hypoglycemia, where events were frequently classified as non-severe and severe, or mild, moderate, severe and very severe. For retinopathy, no studies were identified that distinguished between background retinopathy and proliferative retinopathy. The decrement associated with vision loss/blindness, which may occur as a result of proliferative retinopathy, was however captured by several investigators. Additionally, only two studies distinguished between painful and non-painful neuropathy [ 9 , 49 ]. However, a longitudinal US-based study by Grandy et al. [ 39 ] captured the decline in EQ-5D index score over a time period of 5 years for patients with various complications including retinopathy and neuropathy. Annualizing this decrement may therefore represent an alternative method of modeling progression/increasing severity of complications over time.

For most complications, the EQ-5D was the most frequently used elicitation method, with more recently published studies tending to use the EQ-5D-5L rather than EQ-5D-3L. Two studies also directly compared values derived from the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in people with T2D, with both concluding that the 5L version showed greater sensitivity and discriminative ability as well as a reduced ceiling effect relative to the 3L [ 13 , 22 ]. Although the EQ-5D was frequently used for long-term complications, three studies that focused exclusively on hypoglycemic events used TTO methodology [ 20 , 40 , 56 ], with the rationale for this being the greater sensitivity of TTO methods relative to generic instruments such as the EQ-5D. This increased sensitivity may be particularly beneficial for complications such as hypoglycemia where events are distinguished by severity as well as the time of day/night at which events occur.

As with all literature reviews, there are limitations associated with the present review. No formal assessment of study quality or critical evaluation was performed; as a result, no ranking of the data is identified. This was a deliberate approach as different modeling and country-specific approaches may lead to differential priorities for the selection of utilities in a health economic analysis. Little was reported on the management of diabetes-related complications in the studies identified in this review. Different approaches to managing these conditions could lead to different utility scores being reported by patients across studies, likely contributing to between-country variation in outcomes reported. Demographic and socio-economic factors regarding utility scores were not reported in this review, which may also influence the selection of the most appropriate utility scores for health economic analysis. The application of inclusion and exclusion criteria was limited in the present review in an effort to align the work with that of Beaudet et al. and to minimize the risk of introducing bias through study selection [ 4 ]. However, this approach also has the potential to capture studies with smaller populations and/or limited quality and imply an equal weight to their results.

The ISPOR good practice recommendations note that economic modeling analyses should utilize up-to-date utility values as these reflect contemporary clinical practices and recent advances in treatment that may influence patients’ QoL [ 3 ]. The findings presented here provide a synopsis of recently published disutility values for major complications in T2D diabetes than can be used to inform future economic modeling analyses.

EuroQol 5 dimension questionnaire. Available at: https://euroqol.org/eq-5d-instruments/ . Last accessed September 14, 2020.

Brooks R, Boye KS, Slaap B. EQ-5D: a plea for accurate nomenclature. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2020;4(1):52.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Brazier J, Ara R, Azzabi I, Busschbach J, Chevrou-Séverac H, Crawford B, Cruz L, Karnon J, Lloyd A, Paisley S, Pickard AS. Identification, review, and use of health state utilities in cost-effectiveness models: an ISPOR good practices for outcomes research task force report. Value Health. 2019;22(3):267–75.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Beaudet A, Clegg J, Thuresson PO, Lloyd A, McEwan P. Review of utility values for economic modeling in type 2 diabetes. Value Health. 2014;17(4):462–70.

Papaioannou D, Brazier J, Paisley S. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 9: the identification, review and synthesis of health state utility values from the literature. October 201. http://www.nicedsu.org.uk .

Valentine W, Norrbacka K, Boye KS. Evaluating the impact of therapy on quality of life in type 2 diabetes: a literature review of utilities associated with treatment-related attributes. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2022;12(13):97–111.

Article   Google Scholar  

Butt M, Ali AM, Bakry MM. Health-related quality of life in poorly controlled type 2 diabetes patients- association of patients’ characteristics with EQ-5D domains, mean EQ-5D scores, and visaul analog scale score. Asian J Pharm Clin Res. 2018;11(1):93–8.

Ji L, Zou D, Liu L, Qian L, Kadziola Z, Babineaux S, Zhang HN, Wood R. Increasing body mass index identifies Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus at risk of poor outcomes. J Diabetes Complicat. 2015;29(4):488–96.

Kim SS, Won JC, Kwon HS, Kim CH, Lee JH, Park TS, Ko KS, Cha BY. Prevalence and clinical implications of painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy in type 2 diabetes: results from a nationwide hospital-based study of diabetic neuropathy in Korea. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2014;103(3):522–9.

Lee WJ, Song KH, Noh JH, Choi YJ, Jo MW. Health-related quality of life using the EuroQol 5D questionnaire in Korean patients with type 2 diabetes. J Korean Med Sci. 2012;27(3):255–60.

Lin YJ, Wang CY, Cheng SW, Ko Y. Patient preferences for diabetes-related complications in Taiwan. Curr Med Res Opin. 2019;35(1):7–13.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Luk AOY, Zhang Y, Ko GTC, Brown N, Ozaki R, et al. Health-related quality of life in chinese patients with type 2 diabetes: an analysis of the Joint Asia Diabetes Evaluation (JADE) program. J Diabetes Metab. 2014;5:333.

Google Scholar  

Pan CW, Sun HP, Wang X, Ma Q, Xu Y, Luo N, Wang P. The EQ-5D-5L index score is more discriminative than the EQ-5D-3L index score in diabetes patients. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(7):1767–74.

Pan CW, Sun HP, Zhou HJ, Ma Q, Xu Y, Luo N, Wang P. Valuing health-related quality of life in type 2 diabetes patients in China. Med Decis Making. 2016;36(2):234–41.

Pan CW, Wang S, Wang P, Xu CL, Song E. Diabetic retinopathy and health-related quality of life among Chinese with known type 2 diabetes mellitus. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(8):2087–93.

Pham TB, Nguyen TT, Truong HT, Trinh CH, Du HNT, Ngo TT, Nguyen LH. Effects of diabetic complications on health-related quality of life impairment in Vietnamese patients with type 2 diabetes. J Diabetes Res. 2020;23(2020):4360804.

Pratipanawatr T, Satirapoj B, Ongphiphadhanakul B, Suwanwalaikorn S, Nitiyanant W. Impact of hypoglycemia on health-related quality of life among type 2 diabetes: a cross-sectional study in Thailand. J Diabetes Res. 2019;23(2019):5903820.

Quah JH, Luo N, Ng WY, How CH, Tay EG. Health-related quality of life is associated with diabetic complications, but not with short-term diabetic control in primary care. Ann Acad Med Singap. 2011;40(6):276–86.

Riandini T, Wee HL, Khoo EYH, Tai BC, Wang W, Koh GCH, Tai ES, Tavintharan S, Chandran K, Hwang SW, Venkataraman K. Functional status mediates the association between peripheral neuropathy and health-related quality of life in individuals with diabetes. Acta Diabetol. 2018;55(2):155–64.

Shafie AA, Ng CH, Thanimalai S, Haron N, Manocha AB. Estimating the utility value of hypoglycaemia according to severity and frequency using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and time trade-off (TTO) survey. J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2018;17(2):269–75.

Terauchi Y, Ozaki A, Zhao X, Teoh C, Jaffe D, Tajima Y, Shuto Y. Humanistic and economic burden of cardiovascular disease related comorbidities and hypoglycaemia among patients with type 2 diabetes in Japan. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2019;149:115–25.

Wang P, Luo N, Tai ES, Thumboo J. The EQ-5D-5L is more discriminative than the EQ-5D-3L in patients with diabetes in Singapore. Value Health Reg Issues. 2016;9:57–62.

Yan BP, Zhang Y, Kong AP, Luk AO, Ozaki R, Yeung R, Tong PC, Chan WB, Tsang CC, Lau KP, Cheung Y, Wolthers T, Lyubomirsky G, So WY, Ma RC, Chow FC, Chan JC, Hong Kong JADE Study Group. Borderline ankle-brachial index is associated with increased prevalence of micro- and macrovascular complications in type 2 diabetes: a cross-sectional analysis of 12,772 patients from the Joint Asia Diabetes Evaluation Program. Diab Vasc Dis Res. 2015;12(5):334–44.

Zhang Y, Wu J, Chen Y, Shi L. EQ-5D-3L decrements by diabetes complications and comorbidities in China. Diabetes Ther. 2020;11(4):939–50.

Cvetanović G, Stojiljković M. Miljković M Estimation of the influence of hypoglycemia and body mass index on health-related quality of life, in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Vojnosanit Pregl. 2017;74(9):831–9.

Hunger M, Schunk M, Meisinger C, Peters A, Holle R. Estimation of the relationship between body mass index and EQ-5D health utilities in individuals with type 2 diabetes: evidence from the population-based KORA studies. J Diabetes Complicat. 2012;26(5):413–8.

Kamradt M, Krisam J, Kiel M, Qreini M, Besier W, Szecsenyi J, Ose D. Health-related quality of life in primary care: which aspects matter in multimorbid patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in a community setting? PLoS ONE. 2017;12(1): e0170883.

Kiadaliri AA, Gerdtham UG, Eliasson B, Gudbjörnsdottir S, Svensson AM, Carlsson KS. Health utilities of type 2 diabetes-related complications: a cross-sectional study in Sweden. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014;11(5):4939–52.

Kontodimopoulos N, Pappa E, Chadjiapostolou Z, Arvanitaki E, Papadopoulos AA, Niakas D. Comparing the sensitivity of EQ-5D, SF-6D and 15D utilities to the specific effect of diabetic complications. Eur J Health Econ. 2012;13(1):111–2.

Mitchell BD, Vietri J, Zagar A, Curtis B, Reaney M. Hypoglycaemic events in patients with type 2 diabetes in the United Kingdom: associations with patient-reported outcomes and self-reported HbA1c. BMC Endocr Disord. 2013;19(13):59.

Pagkalos E, Thanopoulou A, Sampanis C, Bousboulas S, Melidonis A, Tentolouris N, Alexandrides T, Migdalis I, Karamousouli E, Papanas N. The real-life effectiveness and care patterns of type 2 diabetes management in Greece. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes. 2018;126(1):53–60.

Pettersson B, Rosenqvist U, Deleskog A, Journath G, Wändell P. Self-reported experience of hypoglycemia among adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (Exhype). Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2011;92(1):19–25.

Schunk M, Reitmeir P, Schipf S, Völzke H, Meisinger C, Ladwig KH, Kluttig A, Greiser KH, Berger K, Müller G, Ellert U, Neuhauser H, Tamayo T, Rathmann W, Holle R. Health-related quality of life in women and men with type 2 diabetes: a comparison across treatment groups. J Diabetes Complicat. 2015;29(2):203–11.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Shingler S, Fordham B, Evans M, Schroeder M, Thompson G, Dewilde S, Lloyd AJ. Utilities for treatment-related adverse events in type 2 diabetes. J Med Econ. 2015;18(1):45–55.

Solli O, Stavem K, Kristiansen IS. Health-related quality of life in diabetes: the associations of complications with EQ-5D scores. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;4(8):18.

Wermeling PR, Gorter KJ, van Stel HF, Rutten GE. Both cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular comorbidity are related to health status in well-controlled type 2 diabetes patients: a cross-sectional analysis. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2012;5(11):121.

Yfantopoulos J, Chantzaras A. Health-related quality of life and health utilities in insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: the impact of related comorbidities/complications. Eur J Health Econ. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-020-01167-y . ( Epub ahead of print ).

Sayah FA, Qiu W, Xie F, Johnson JA. Comparative performance of the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D index scores in adults with type 2 diabetes. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(8):2057–66.

Grandy S, Fox KM, SHIELD Study Group. Change in health status (EQ-5D) over 5 years among individuals with and without type 2 diabetes mellitus in the SHIELD longitudinal study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10:99.

Harris S, Mamdani M, Galbo-Jørgensen CB, Bøgelund M, Gundgaard J, Groleau D. The effect of hypoglycemia on health-related quality of life: Canadian results from a multinational time trade-off survey. Can J Diabetes. 2014;38(1):45–52.

Marrett E, Radican L, Davies MJ, Zhang Q. Assessment of severity and frequency of self-reported hypoglycemia on quality of life in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with oral antihyperglycemic agents: a survey study. BMC Res Notes. 2011;21(4):251.

McCoy RG, Van Houten HK, Ziegenfuss JY, Shah ND, Wermers RA, Smith SA. Self-report of hypoglycemia and health-related quality of life in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Endocr Pract. 2013;19(5):792–9.

Meneghini LF, Lee LK, Gupta S, Preblick R. Association of hypoglycaemia severity with clinical, patient-reported and economic outcomes in US patients with type 2 diabetes using basal insulin. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2018;20(5):1156–65.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

O’Reilly DJ, Xie F, Pullenayegum E, Gerstein HC, Greb J, Blackhouse GK, Tarride JE, Bowen J, Goeree RA. Estimation of the impact of diabetes-related complications on health utilities for patients with type 2 diabetes in Ontario, Canada. Qual Life Res. 2011;20(6):939–43.

Pawaskar M, Iglay K, Witt EA, Engel SS, Rajpathak S. Impact of the severity of hypoglycemia on health—related quality of life, productivity, resource use, and costs among US patients with type 2 diabetes. J Diabetes Complicat. 2018;32(5):451–7.

Shao H, Yang S, Fonseca V, Stoecker C, Shi L. Estimating quality of life decrements due to diabetes complications in the United States: the Health Utility Index (HUI) diabetes complication equation. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37(7):921–9.

Shi L, Shao H, Zhao Y, Thomas NA. Is hypoglycemia fear independently associated with health-related quality of life? Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;30(12):167.

Williams SA, Pollack MF, Dibonaventura M. Effects of hypoglycemia on health-related quality of life, treatment satisfaction and healthcare resource utilization in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2011;91(3):363–70.

Zhang P, Brown MB, Bilik D, Ackermann RT, Li R, Herman WH. Health utility scores for people with type 2 diabetes in US managed care health plans: results from Translating Research Into Action for Diabetes (TRIAD). Diabetes Care. 2012;35(11):2250–6.

Zhao H, McClure NS, Johnson JA, Soprovich A, Al Sayah F, Eurich DT. A longitudinal study on the association between diabetic foot disease and health-related quality of life in adults with type 2 diabetes. Can J Diabetes. 2020;44(3):280-286.e1.

da Mata AR, Álvares J, Diniz LM, da Silva MR, Alvernaz dos Santos BR, Guerra Júnior AA, Cherchiglia ML, Andrade EI, Godman B, Acurcio Fde A. Quality of life of patients with diabetes mellitus types 1 and 2 from a referal health centre in Minas Gerais, Brazil. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol. 2016;9(5):739–46.

Romero-Naranjo F, Espinosa-Uquillas C, Gordillo-Altamirano F, Barrera-Guarderas F. Which factors may reduce the health-related quality of life of ecuadorian patients with diabetes? P R Health Sci J. 2019;38(2):102–8.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Javanbakht M, Abolhasani F, Mashayekhi A, Baradaran HR, Jahangiri Noudeh Y. Health related quality of life in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in Iran: a national survey. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(8):e44526.

Adibe MO, Aguwa CN. Sensitivity and responsiveness of health utility indices (HUI2 and HUI3) among type 2 diabetes patients. Trop J Pharm Res. 2013;12(5):835–42.

Briggs AH, Bhatt DL, Scirica BM, Raz I, Johnston KM, Szabo SM, Bergenheim K, Mukherjee J, Hirshberg B, Mosenzon O. Health-related quality-of-life implications of cardiovascular events in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a subanalysis from the Saxagliptin Assessment of Vascular Outcomes Recorded in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus (SAVOR)-TIMI 53 trial. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2017;130:24–33.

Evans M, Khunti K, Mamdani M, Galbo-Jørgensen CB, Gundgaard J, Bøgelund M, Harris S. Health-related quality of life associated with daytime and nocturnal hypoglycaemic events: a time trade-off survey in five countries. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;3(11):90.

Hayes A, Arima H, Woodward M, Chalmers J, Poulter N, Hamet P, Clarke P. Changes in quality of life associated with complications of diabetes: results from the ADVANCE study. Value Health. 2016;19(1):36–41.

Nauck MA, Buse JB, Mann JFE, Pocock S, Bosch-Traberg H, Frimer-Larsen H, Ye Q, Gray A, LEADER Publication Committee for the LEADER Trial Investigators. Health-related quality of life in people with type 2 diabetes participating in the LEADER trial. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2019;21(3):525–32.

Polster M, Zanutto E, McDonald S, Conner C, Hammer M. A comparison of preferences for two GLP-1 products—liraglutide and exenatide—for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. J Med Econ. 2010;13(4):655–61.

Sheu WH, Ji LN, Nitiyanant W, Baik SH, Yin D, Mavros P, Chan SP. Hypoglycemia is associated with increased worry and lower quality of life among patients with type 2 diabetes treated with oral antihyperglycemic agents in the Asia-Pacific region. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2012.

Nguyen LH, Tran BX, Le Hoang QN, Tran TT, Latkin CA. Quality of life profile of general Vietnamese population using EQ-5D-5L. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15(1):199.

The Renal Association. Chronic kidney disease stages. Available at: https://renal.org/information-resources/the-uk-eckd-guide/ckd-stages/ . Last accessed July 29, 2020.

Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Lancet. 1998;352(9131):837–53. ( Erratum in: Lancet 1999 Aug 14;354(9178):602 ).

European Network for Health Technology Assessment. 2015. Methods for health economic evaluations. Available at: https://www.eunethta.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2018/03/Methods_for_health_economic_evaluations.pdf . Last accessed September 23, 2020.

Kennedy-Martin M, Slaap B, Herdman M, van Reenen M, Kennedy-Martin T, Greiner W, Busschbach J, Boye KS. Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines. Eur J Health Econ. 2020;21(8):1245–57.

Blieden Betts M, Gandra SR, Cheng LI, Szatkowski A, Toth PP. Differences in utility elicitation methods in cardiovascular disease: a systematic review. J Med Econ. 2018;21(1):74–84.

Arnold D, Girling A, Stevens A, Lilford R. Comparison of direct and indirect methods of estimating health state utilities for resource allocation: review and empirical analysis. BMJ. 2009;22(339): b2688.

Lauridsen JT, Lønborg J, Gundgaard J, Jensen HH. Diminishing marginal disutility of hypoglycaemic events: results from a time trade-off survey in five countries. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(9):2645–50.

McPhail S, Haines T. Response shift, recall bias and their effect on measuring change in health-related quality of life amongst older hospital patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;10(8):65.

Download references

Medical Writing and Editorial Assistance.

The authors are grateful to Jayne Smith-Palmer for medical writing support (when Dr. Palmer was an employee of Ossian). Eli Lilly and Company provided financial support to Ossian Health Economics and Communications to perform the medical writing work.

Eli Lilly and Company provided financial support to Ossian Health Economics and Communications to perform the literature review described in this paper. Eli Lilly and Company also funded the journal’s Rapid Service Fee and the Open Access Fee.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Ossian Health Economics and Communications GmbH, Bäumleingasse 20, 4051, Basel, Switzerland

William J. Valentine

Eli Lilly Finland, Helsinki, Finland

Kirsi Norrbacka

Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA

Kristina S. Boye

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

William J Valentine, Kristina Secnik Boye and Kirsi Norrbacka were involved in the concept and design of the literature review, review of the data for inclusion in the publication and review and/or drafting of the manuscript for publication.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William J. Valentine .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

William J Valentine is an employee of Ossian Health Economics and Communications. Krisi Norrbacka and Kristina Secnik Boye were both employees of Eli Lilly and Company at the time of the literature review.

Ethical Approval

Supplementary information.

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 213 KB)

Rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Valentine, W.J., Norrbacka, K. & Boye, K.S. Utilities for Complications Associated with Type 2 Diabetes: A Review of the Literature. Adv Ther (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-024-02878-x

Download citation

Received : 22 May 2023

Accepted : 17 April 2024

Published : 21 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-024-02878-x

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Diabetes-related complications
• Health state utility
• Quality of life
• Type 2 diabetes
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Liberty University
• Jerry Falwell Library
• Special Collections
• < Previous Event
• Next Event >

Home > Conferences and Events > Research Week > 2024 > Posters > 83

The relationship between Imposter syndrome, household income, and level of education

Presenter Information

Miebaka Favour Roberts , Liberty University Follow

Poster - Theoretical Proposal

Description

Background: Imposter syndrome has been documented in the literature as a challenge across all professional fields, for men and women. Imposter syndrome is defined as a state of high-performing individuals attributing achievements to luck and contingency rather than skill and merit. Those experiencing imposter syndrome often live in fear of being exposed as a fraud or losing credibility. Methods: The current study applies the Literature Matrix Method by Judith Garrad to aggregate and synthesize literature for three factors: Imposter Syndrome, household income, and educational level. Further, inclusion criteria for search terms included publication year (2019-2023), document type (Peer-reviewed), and language (English). Database searches included ProQuest Central, PubMed, and Google Scholar. Results: Initial searches were screened for inclusion criteria with only full-text articles selected for review. Several articles were excluded due to insufficient relevance to the terms: imposter syndrome AND income OR educational level. The final pool of articles was added to the Literature Matrix and patterns and themes identified to identify potential correlations between factors. Conclusion: Results indicate further research is needed to understand the correlation between education, household income, and imposter syndrome. Future research can provide insight into how to provide professional development and interventions to mitigate this concerning challenge among working professionals.

Since May 20, 2024

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately, you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.

• Collections
• Faculty Expert Gallery
• Theses and Dissertations
• Conferences and Events
• Open Educational Resources (OER)
• Explore Disciplines

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS .

Faculty Authors

• Submit Event
• Expert Gallery Login

Student Authors

• Undergraduate Submissions
• Graduate Submissions
• Honors Submissions

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright