a literature review helps to mcq

Research guidance, Research Journals, Top Universities

Top 20 MCQs on literature review with answers

MCQs on literature review : The primary purpose of literature review is to facilitate detailed background of the previous studies to the readers on the topic of research.

In this blog post, we have published 20 MCQs on Literature Review (Literature Review in Research) with answers.

20 Multiple Choice Questions on Literature Review

1. Literature is a

Written Record

Published Record

Unpublished Record

All of these

2. Which method of literature review involves a non-statistical method to present data having the feature of systematic Method too?

Narrative Method

Systematic Method

Meta-Analysis Method of Literature Review

Meta-Synthesis Method of Literature Review

3. Comparisons of non-statistical variables are performed under which method of literature review?

4. Literature review is not similar to

Annotated Bibliography

5. APA Style, MLA Style, Chicago Manual, Blue Book, OSCOLA are famously known as

Citation Manuals

Directories

Abbreviation Manuals

6. Literature collected is reviewed and preferably arranged

Alphabetically

Chronologically

None of these

7. Literature collected for review includes

Primary and Secondary Sources

Secondary and Tertiary Sources

Primary and Tertiary Sources

8. Literature includes

Previous Studies

Scholarly publications

Research Findings

9. No time frame is set to collect literature in which of the following method of compiling reviews?

Traditional Method

10. Which method of the literature review is more reliable for drawing conclusions of each individual researcher for new conceptualizations and interpretations?

11. The main purpose of finalization of research topics and sub-topics is

Collection of Literature

Collection of Questions

Collection of Statistics

Collection of Responses

12. Literature review is basically to bridge the gap between

Newly established facts

Previously established facts

Facts established time to time

Previous to current established facts

13. The last step in writing the literature review is

Developing a Final Essay

Developing a Coherent Essay

Developing a Collaborated Essay

Developing a Coordinated Essay

14. The primary purpose of literature review is to facilitate detailed background of

Present Studies

Previous studies

Future Studies

15. Narrative Literature Review method is also known as

Advanced Method

Scientific Method

16. Which method of literature review starts with formulating research questions?

17. Which method of literature review involves application of clinical approach based on a specific subject.

18. Which literature review involves timeline based collection of literature for review

19. Which method of literature review involves application of statistical approach?

20. Which literature review method involves conclusions in numeric/statistical form?

More MCQs Related to MCQs on Literature Review

MCQs on Qualitative Research with answers
Research Proposal MCQs with answers PDF
Solved MCQ on legal Reasoning in Research
MCQ on data analysis in research methodology
Research Report writing MCQs with answers
All Solved MCQs on Research Methodology
MCQs on Legal Research with answers
MCQs on sampling in research methodology with answers
MCQs with answers on plagiarism
MCQ on Citation and Referencing in Research
Research Ethics MCQs with answers
Solved MCQs on Sampling in research methodology
Solved MCQs on Basic Research

MCQs on literature review with answers PDF | Research methods multiple choice questions | Literature review questions and answers

Literature Review

A literature review is a written summary of the findings of a literature ________ search review proposal

Rate this question:

In the powerpoint we indicate there are three key aspects to a literature review : summarising, synthesising and ______________ referencing citing paraphrasing evaluating

Your literature review is a list of all the work published on your topic and who argues what. true or false , there are different ways to organise your literature review. tick all which apply.

Chronologically

Thematically

Methodologically

Anyway that makes sense to me; it's my work!

A visual ______ map might help you plan the structure of the literature review

When you are referencing correctly you will probably have an in-_____ citation and a bibliography/reference list. (although this might depend on which referencing style you are using).

Quiz Review Timeline +

Our quizzes are rigorously reviewed, monitored and continuously updated by our expert board to maintain accuracy, relevance, and timeliness.

Current Version
Mar 22, 2023 Quiz Edited by ProProfs Editorial Team
Feb 24, 2015 Quiz Created by Ncllibsoc

Research Methods in Early Childhood: An Introductory Guide

Student resources, multiple choice quiz.

Test your understanding of each chapter by taking the quiz below. Click anywhere on the question to reveal the answer. Good luck!

1. What is an abstract?

A short footnote in the text of your work
A chance to acknowledge those who have helped you in your research project, placed at the beginning of the written-up project
A brief resume of the study to entice the reader to read more
An introduction to the research

2. What should always be included in an introduction?

Detail of your research findings
Your interview schedule (or detail of any other research instruments)
A rationale for conducting the study and key research questions
Recommendations for early childhood practice in detail

3. What is a literature review?

A place to provide autobiographic detail
A place to outline all the reading you have done in your studies
A place to link your reading to your research findings
A place to discuss literature which helps to frame your study

4. Where is a literature review typically found in written-up research?

Before the methodology chapter
After the findings chapter
In the appendices
Integrated into the data analysis

5. What would you expect to find in a methodology chapter in a piece of empirical research?

Detail of the methodological approach taken
Detail of the methods employed
Detail of ethical considerations linked to the research project
All of the above

6. Should data and discussion of data be presented as two separate chapters?

Never. They are inappropriate for early childhood research
Always. Students tend to undertake qualitative research projects
Possibly, depending on the kind of research undertaken and tutor advice
Possibly, depending if there is time to complete two chapters as opposed to one larger chapter

7. What should a conclusion chapter contain?

A sense of the research story
A summary of the key findings
Reflection on what these findings mean
Discussion of possible implications for practice or future research

8. Having read the chapter, what do Mukherji and Albon advise in relation to using ‘I’ when writing up research?

You should always use the personal pronoun when writing up research as it reflects that it is a personal piece of work
Writing seems far too ‘chatty’ if you use ‘I’ when writing. In order to write academically use of ‘I’ should always be avoided
If talking about the decisions you made in research and your own viewpoint, it is hard to avoid use of ‘I’ and it does not necessarily mean lack of academic tone if used judiciously (but do ask your tutor!)
You could be in danger of failing a module if you use the personal pronoun in your work. You will never see academic journal articles using ‘I’

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.

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!

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

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

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

University of Texas Libraries

Literature Reviews

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

What is a Literature Review?

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

A literature review should:

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

From S age Research Methods

Purpose of a Literature Review

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

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

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

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

Limitations of a Literature Review

Some of the limitations of a literature review are:

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

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

Meryl Brodsky : Communication and Information Studies

Hannah Chapman Tripp : Biology, Neuroscience

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

Larayne Dallas : Engineering

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

Susan Macicak : Linguistics

Imelda Vetter : Dell Medical School

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

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

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

Reference management. Clean and simple.

Literature review

How to write a literature review in 6 steps

How do you write a good literature review? This step-by-step guide on how to write an excellent literature review covers all aspects of planning and writing literature reviews for academic papers and theses.

How to write a systematic literature review [9 steps]

How do you write a systematic literature review? What types of systematic literature reviews exist and where do you use them? Learn everything you need to know about a systematic literature review in this guide

What is a literature review? [with examples]

Not sure what a literature review is? This guide covers the definition, purpose, and format of a literature review.

5 Steps to Begin the Literature Review

There are five steps that one should follow before preparing to conduct the literature review :

Identify all the literature relevant to your topic of interest. Explore all the different types of literature including theoretical literature, applied literature, literature that talks about research methods, or a combination thereof.
Using multiple keywords and strategies capture the most accurate and relevant data. Conduct an extensive search in multi-disciplinary databases.
Group your findings into a detailed summary of what is known and what needs to be explored.
Identify existing gaps or any unresolved issues
Formulate broad questions that warrant further research

How to Best Critique a Research paper

For extracting maximum information from a research paper , researchers must ask the following questions!

Has the author formulated an appropriate research question based on the problem/issue?
Is the research question clearly defined in terms of its scope and relevance?
Was there an alternative or better perspective to approach the research question?
What is the author’s orientation towards the research problem – is it a critical analysis or interpretation based?
Has the author extensively evaluated the literature considering both latest and relevant articles?
How has the author defined the basic components (population, interventions, outcomes) of the study? Are the measurements valid, accurate and statistically significant? Are the conclusions based accurate interpretations of the data?
Is there an objective based, unbiased reasoning provided for the problem statement or is the author merely attempting to prove his/her preconceived beliefs and opinions?
How does this article contribute to your understanding of the research problem?
What are the strengths, limitations and shortcomings of the study?

10 Questions for a Comprehensive Literature Review

1. Do I have clearly defined research aims prior to commencing the review?

It is important to choose a focused question that can efficiently direct your search. It can assist you to create a list of keywords related to your research problem. Furthermore, it helps in identifying relevant databases to search for related journals and articles.

2. Have I correctly identified all the sources that will help me define my problem statement or research question?

Literature is not limited to journal articles, thesis, and dissertations. One should also refer to credible internet sources, conference proceedings that provide latest unpublished papers, as well as government and corporate reports. Books, although do not have latest information, can serve as a good starting point to read background information.

3. Have I considered all kinds of literature – including both qualitative and quantitative research articles?

An exhaustive literature survey helps you position your research within the context of existing literature effectively creating a case as to why further study is necessary. Your search has to be robust enough to ensure that you have browsed through all the relevant and latest articles. Rather than reading everything, researchers must refer and follow the most relevant work!

4. Do I have enough empirical or theoretical evidence to support my hypothesis?

Discovering new patterns and trends becomes easy if you gather credible evidence from earlier works. Furthermore, it helps in rationalizing the significance of your study.

5. Have I identified all the major inconsistencies or other shortcomings related to my research topic?

Researchers should not only refer to articles that present supporting evidence but also focus on those that provide inconclusive or contradictory information. It helps to identify any open questions left by researchers in previous studies.

6. Is my relationship diagram ready?

A relationship diagram is an effective way of recognizing links between different elements of a complex research topic. It is an immensely important tool that helps in clarifying and structuring research specific findings and interpretations at various stages of the project. It is an effective way of representing your current understanding of the research topic. In addition, a good relationship diagram can help you find new insights owing to a clear picture of all the probable relationships between key concepts, variables and key factors.

7. Have I gathered sufficient evidence from the literature about the accuracy and validity of the designs or methods that I plan to use in my experiments?

It is paramount to use methodologies and research techniques that have scientific reliability. Moreover, since methods especially used in qualitative research are often more subjective, it becomes crucial for researchers to reflect on the approach and explain the criteria for selecting a particular method.

8. Have I identified the purpose for which articles have been shortlisted for literature review?

You can expedite your literature writing process if you tag your articles based on its purpose of inclusion in the review report. Following are the tags that can be added to articles:

Show how latest developments or develop a theoretical base to your study
Demonstrate limitations, inconsistencies or shortcomings of previous studies
Critique or support certain methods or findings
Replicate the study in a different setting (region/population)
Indicate how the study supports or contradicts your findings
Use it as a reference to further build your research
Provide a general understanding of concerns relevant to your research topic

9. Have I recorded all the bibliographic information regarding my information sources?

Recording and cataloguing your bibliographical details and references is absolutely crucial for every researcher. You may use commercial software such as Reference manager, End Note, and Pro Cite to manage your references. Furthermore, you may also keep a record of keyword searches that you have performed.

10. Will my literature review reflect a report that is created after a through critical analysis of the literature?

An excellent literature review must be structured, logical, and coherent. It is a great opportunity to demonstrate that you have critically analyzed and understood the relevant body of literature underpinning your research. It is important to structure your literature into appropriate sections that discuss themes or presents trends. Grouping your literature helps in indicating relationships and making comparisons.

Still have more queries related to literature review and synthesis? Post your queries here and our experts will be happy to answer them! You can also visit our Q&A forum for frequently asked questions related to research writing and publishing answered by our team that comprises subject-matter experts, eminent researchers, and publication experts.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

Old Webinars
Webinar Mobile App

Improving Research Manuscripts Using AI-Powered Insights: Enago reports for effective research communication

Language Quality Importance in Academia AI in Evaluating Language Quality Enago Language Reports Live Demo…

Reporting Research

AI Assistance in Academia for Searching Credible Scholarly Sources

The journey of academia is a grand quest for knowledge, more specifically an adventure to…

Beyond spellcheck- How Copyediting guarantees an error-free submission

Beyond Spellcheck: How copyediting guarantees error-free submission

Submitting a manuscript is a complex and often an emotional experience for researchers. Whether it’s…

How to Find the Right Journal and Fix Your Manuscript Before Submission

Selection of right journal Meets journal standards Plagiarism free manuscripts Rated from reviewer's POV

Manuscripts & Grants

Research Aims and Objectives: The dynamic duo for successful research

Picture yourself on a road trip without a destination in mind — driving aimlessly, not…

Writing a Research Literature Review? — Here are tips to guide you through!

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

2000+ blog articles
50+ Webinars
10+ Expert podcasts
50+ Infographics
10+ Checklists
Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

As a researcher, what do you consider most when choosing an image manipulation detector?

An official website of the United States government

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

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

Publications
Account settings

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

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

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

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

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

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

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

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

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

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

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is pcbi.1003149.g001.jpg

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

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

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

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

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

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

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

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

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

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

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

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgments

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

Funding Statement

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

Reviewing the Literature MCQs

Business research mcqs topics.

General MCQs

Finding Your Feet in Management and Business Research MCQs

Philosophy of Management and Business Research MCQs

Designing Management and Business Research MCQs

Research Experience MCQs

Crafting Qualitative Data MCQs

Framing and Interpreting Qualitative Data MCQs

Crafting Quantitative Data MCQs

Summarizing and Making Inferences from Quantitative Data MCQs

Multivariate Analysis MCQs

Writing Management and Business Research MCQs

Research Jitters to Employer’s MCQs

Preparation, Reasoning, and Terminology MCQs

Exploring and Planning of Business Research MCQs

Creating and Conducting Business Research MCQs

Collecting, Analyzing, and Writing in Business Research MCQs

Nonexperimental Quantitative Designs MCQs

Qualitative Designs and Mixed Designs MCQs

Experimental Designs in Business Research MCQs

Reports in Business Research MCQs

Answer these Reviewing the Literature MCQs and see how sharp is your knowledge of Reviewing the Literature. Scroll down and let's start!

1: Which of the following is a reason to undertake a systematic review of the literature?

A. Being able to access important grey literature

B. Increasing the transparency of a review

C. Being able to reach older yet still important contributions

D. Enhancing creativity and intuition

2: What is the function of a Boolean operator?

A. To identify a particular type of publication

B. To broaden the scope of a search on a particular subject

C. To delineate the scope and depth of research results

D. To have a programme that can operate within the Google platform

3: Which of these is NOT an advantage of using a library?

A. To obtain print information that is available but difficult to access elsewhere

B. To access working papers ahead of print

C. To have experts to help

D. To identify adjacent material that might be of interest/use on a related topic

4: Which of the following is a scholarly database?

A. Detox

B. Protocol

C. ABI Complete

D. ReQuest

E. All of these

5: A checklist of a literature review would NOT include which of the following key items?

A. The topic and scope clearly identified

B. A clear understanding of the relevant terms and concepts

C. Material from as far back as it is possible to obtain

D. Research conceptualized/reordered in such a way that new perspectives are generated

6: Which of the following statements would NOT define a main purpose of a literature review?

A. To learn from previous research in order to be in a position to ask focused questions

B. To provide a context for the research that is to be undertaken

C. To show volume of research that has been conducted on a particular topic

D. To clearly indicate what the new research will add to what is already known

7: Which of the following questions links to the key criterion of authorship, used for evaluating sources of information?

A. When was the source created and last updated?

B. Is the source authoritative and therefore credible?

C. What motivations have led to the creation of the work?

D. Is there sufficient information/data/analysis offered to make the paper rigorous?

8: A critical literature review requires the researchers to ______.

A. Be negative about the literature they read

B. Highlight the reasons why previous research was misguided or poorly conducted

C. Select literature they find easy to criticise

D. Evaluate the contribution of previous research in the light of a new research questions

9: It can be useful to begin a literature review with a brief research statement. Of the statements below, which would you NOT expect to see?

A. What is the topic of the research?

B. How does this project relate to past research in the field?

C. What methodological approaches should be excluded?

D. Why a given body of literature is relevant to the research

10: What is a citation search?

A. It traces all the publications of a particular author over time.

B. It traces key authors of journal articles or books to previous or future related work in relation to a particular topic.

C. It traces articles on a particular topic from books as opposed to journal articles.

D. It calculates the impact factor for a journal.

List of Reviewing the Literatu...

Related reviewing the literature mcqs:, available in:, latest mcqs:.

Introduction To Business MCQs

Professional Development MCQs

What Is Organizational Behavior? MCQs

Leading Change and Stress Management MCQs

Cross-Cultural Adjustments MCQs

Popular MCQs:

Choose Your Test

Sat / act prep online guides and tips, ap english literature multiple choice: complete expert guide.

Advanced Placement (AP)

Does the thought of spending an hour answering multiple-choice questions on complex prose and poetry passages strike fear into your heart? The challenge of the AP Literature multiple-choice is enough to give even the most adept reader hives, but don't stress! This fully-updated guide will serve as your complete roadmap to success on the AP English Literature and Composition multiple-choice section.

First, we'll go over what the multiple-choice section looks like—the nuts and bolts. Then, I'll reveal the eight types of multiple-choice questions you can expect to encounter, and how to succeed on them. Next will come study tips, multiple-choice practice resources, and finally things to remember for test-day success!

AP Literature Multiple-Choice Section Overview

AP English Literature and Composition section one is the multiple-choice section. You'll have 60 minutes to answer 55 questions about four to five literary prose and poetry passages.

The date of composition of AP Lit passages could range from the 16th to the 21st century, however, you generally won't be provided with the author, date, or title for any passages (poetry being an occasional exception with respect to title). Most passages come from works originally written in English, although there might occasionally be a translated passage from a notable literary work in a foreign language.

The multiple-choice section is worth 45% of your total exam score. You receive a point for each correctly answered question. Since there's no penalty for guessing on this exam, you should answer every multiple-choice question, even if you have to guess. However, you should only guess after you eliminate any answers you know are wrong. That's the general overview. But what kinds of questions can you expect to see?

The 8 Types of Multiple-Choice AP Lit Questions

There are eight question types you may encounter on the AP Lit exam. In this section, I'll go over each question type and how to answer it. All questions are taken from the sample questions in the "AP Course and Exam Description." Passages for these questions are available there as well.

#1: Reading Comprehension

Reading comprehension questions test whether you understood what the passage was saying on a literal, concrete level. You don't need to flex your interpretation or analysis muscles here—just report what the passage is saying.

You can spot these questions because they usually use words and phrases like "according to," "asserting," and "mentioned." The best strategy for these questions is to go back and re-read the portion of the text associated with the question to make absolutely sure that you are reading it correctly. You may need to read a little before and/or after the moment mentioned to orient yourself and find the most correct answer.

Explanation:

The lines the passage is referring to say, "Spare us all word of the weapons, their force and range / The long numbers that rocket the mind / Our slow, unreckoning hearts will be left behind, / unable to fear what is too strange."

This question is asking why people won't listen to the prophet when he talks about the dangers of weapons. Which of the answers makes the most sense?

Choice (A), "human beings are interested in weapons," might be a tempting choice simply because that's a common theme and message of many works. But nowhere in the passage does it say that humans are interested in weapons! Eliminate it.

Choices (B) and (C) can also both be eliminated because this part of the passage says nothing about nature or love, even indirectly.

Choice (D) may also be tempting simply because it's another common theme in literature—that people don't listen to repeated warnings. But again, there's not really anything in the passage to support that.

This leaves (E), "people cannot comprehend abstract decisions of power." This lines up nicely with the passage, which says that the "hearts" of the people are "unable to fear what is too strange." (E) is the correct answer.

The people in this poem have hearts of stone.

#2: Inference

These questions take you one step beyond simple reading comprehension and ask you to make an inference based on the evidence in the passage—you may be asked about a character or narrator's implied opinion, the author's attitude, etc. This will be something that isn't stated directly in the passage, but that you can assume based on what is actually said in the passage. These questions generally use words like "infer" and "imply."

There are two keys to answering these questions: first, as always, go back and read the part of the passage the question is concerned with. Second, don't be tripped up by the fact that you are making an inference—the best answer will be most supported by what is actually written in the passage . Inference questions are like second-level reading comprehension questions—you need to know not just what a passage says, but what it means.

The first sentence of the passage reads, "Certainly the religious and moral ideas of the Dodson and Tullivers were of too specific a kind to be arrived at deductively from the statement that they were part of the Protest population of Great Britain."

Which choice is the most reasonable inference about the Dodson and Tulliver religious ideas based on the first sentence?

Choice (A) says "the narrator is unable to describe them with complete accuracy." This might be true, but there's nothing in the first sentence to support this inference—the narrator says that their ideas are "too specific," not they the narrator can't describe them accurately. Eliminate Choice (A).

Choice (B), "they have no real logical foundation" may also be true, but can't be inferred from the sentence, which gives no indication of whether their beliefs are logical or not.

Choice (C) may be tempting—the idea that they cannot be appreciated by anyone who doesn't share them might seem to dovetail nicely with the fact that they are "too specific" for the mainstream Protestant population. But is this the best choice that's most supported by the passage? Let's keep it in mind but consider the remaining answers.

Choice (D) posits that the beliefs of the Dodsons and Tullivers "spring from a fundamental lack of tolerance." This is a leap that is not supported by what the first sentence actually says; eliminate it.

Choice (E) says that their beliefs "are not typical of British Protestants in general." The sentence says that their beliefs are "too specific" for one to know them simply because the Dodsons and Tullivers identify as British Protestants, which implies that their beliefs in fact do not "match up" with mainstream British Protestant beliefs.

Choice (E) is the inference most supported by the passage, then—even more supported than Choice (C). So, (E) is the answer. Remember, multiple answers may seem like they could be correct, but only the best answer is the correct one.

Do you think appropriately ornate churches are also important to the Dodsons and Tullivers?

#3: Interpreting Figurative Language

These questions ask you to interpret what figurative language means in the context of the passage. They're are identifiable because they will either outright mention figurative language or a figurative device, or there will be a figurative language phrase in the question itself.

Once again, the most important thing you can do to be successful on these questions is to go back and re-read! For figurative language, the meaning is very much dependent on the phrase's context in the passage. Consider what is said around the figurative phrase and what the phrase is referring to.

This questions asks you to interpret what the figurative phrase "that live tongue" means. To orient you in the poem, these stanzas are advising the prophet to "speak of the world's own change" (13).

The poem states, "What should we be without / The dolphin's arc, the dove's return, / these things in which we have seen ourselves and spoken? Ask us, prophet, how we shall call / our natures forth when that live tongue is all / Dispelled, that glass obscured or broken."

In the context of the poem, right the narrator asks what we are without "that live tongue," the poem speaks of how we "see ourselves" in "the dolphin's arc" and "the dove's return." These are images of nature. The best interpretation of "that live tongue," then, is answer (A), as a metaphor for nature. In essence, the stanza means, "Ask us, prophet, how we shall know ourselves when nature is destroyed."

The dolphin's arc.

#4: Literary Technique

These questions ask why the author uses particular words, phrases, or structures. Essentially, what purpose do such choices serve in a literary sense? What effect is created? These questions often include words like "serves chiefly to," "effect," "evoke," and "in order to."

Of course to approach these questions, re-read the part of the passage referred to. But also ask yourself, why did the author use these particular words or this particular structure? What is being accomplished by this specific literary "move"?

This stanza containing the repetition of "ask us" reads: "Ask us, ask us whether with the worldless rose / Our hearts shall fail us; come demanding / Whether there shall be lofty or long-standing / When the bronze annals of the oak-tree close."

So what is the effect of repeating "ask us, ask us"? Choice (A) says it suggests the prophet is causing much of the world's misery. There's nothing in the stanza—or even the entire poem—to suggest this, so we can eliminate it.

Choice (B) says it represents a sarcastic challenge. This stanza doesn't read as sarcastic, though, but very serious—eliminate (B).

Choice (C) says it suggests the speaker is certain of the answer the prophet will give. This doesn't really make sense because the speaker isn't actually asking the prophet questions, but telling the prophet what questions to ask. Eliminate (C).

Choice (D) says it makes the line into perfect iambic pentameter. You can eliminate this one without even worrying about what syllables are emphasized because a perfect line of iambic pentameter has 10 syllables and this line has 11. This leaves (E)—the effect is to provide a "tone of imploring earnestness." Given that the speaker seems to be begging the prophet to ask particular questions, this fits. (E) is the correct answer.

Looking for help studying for your AP exam? Our one-on-one online AP tutoring services can help you prepare for your AP exams. Get matched with a top tutor who got a high score on the exam you're studying for!

#5: Character Analysis

Character analysis questions will ask you to identify something about a character—their opinions, attitudes, beliefs, relationships with other characters, and so on.

In many ways this is a special type of inference questions, because you are inferring broader traits of the character based on the evidence presented in the passage. As you might expect, character questions are asked much more frequently for prose passages than poetry ones.

The key here is to pay attention to everything that is directly stated about the character(s) in the relevant parts of the passage. Like in an inference question, there will be an answer that best fits with the evidence in the passage.

These lines read, "Their religion was of a simple, semi-pagan kind, but there was no heresy in it—if heresy properly means choice—for they didn't know there was any other religion except that of chapel-goers, which appeared to run in families, like asthma."

Choice (A) purports that this part of the passage draws attention to the Dodson sisters' devotion to certain rituals. No rituals are mentioned here; (A) can be eliminated.

Choice (B) says these lines point to their "untroubled complacency." The passage states that they didn't know of any other religion. If they don't know, we can reasonably infer that they are not troubled by their own religion. Keep (B) in the running.

Choice (C) purports they have "deep religious conviction." This seems like a bit of a leap; all the passage really states is that their religions if "semi-pagan," but not heretical because they simply don't know any other religion other than "chapel-goers" which seems to be tied to family lineage. We can't reasonably infer that they have strong religious conviction from this. Eliminate (C).

Choice (D) states that they have "disturbed consciences." Again, nothing in the passage makes this a reasonable conclusion; if they don't know there could be other religious traditions, why would they be disturbed by their own?

Choice (E) says they have a "sense of history and tradition." This might be a tempting choice because they point to the fact that the religion of "chapel-goers...appeared to run in families." But that's not their religion, so this isn't a well-supported inference.

Thus, Choice (B) provides the most reasonable inference about the Dodson sisters and is the correct answer.

Quite a character.

#6: Overall Passage Questions

These questions will require you to take a "bird's-eye view" of the passage and identify or describe a characteristic of the passage as a whole : its purpose, tone, genre, and so on. These can be difficult because you can't simply go back to a specific place in the passage to find the best answer; you need to consider the passage overall.

Consider the overall picture created by the tiny details. I strongly recommend marking up texts for main themes, purpose, tone, etc on the first read-through so that you can consult your margin notations for these kinds of questions.

It is clear through even a quick scan of this passage that the narrator goes on at length about the Dodsons, so we can surmise that the narrator is most concerned with something about the Dodsons. We can eliminate (B) and (C), then, as they don't say anything about the Dodsons.

So what about the Dodsons is the narrator most concerned with? The first sentence mentions their "religious and moral ideas," but then describes their "semi-pagan" but not heretical religion. We then see "the religion of the Dodsons consisted in revering whatever was customary and respectable" (22-23), followed by a long list of what that is.

The rest of the passage similarly describes what the Dodsons believe is important, from being "richer than was supposed" to doing right thing "towards kindred." It is clear, then, that the narrator is most concerned with describing the values of the Dodsons, which aligns with choice (A).

#7: Structure

These questions ask about specific structural elements of the passage. Often you'll be asked about shifts in tone, digressions, or the specific form of a poem.Sometimes these questions will point to a specific part of the passage/poem and ask you to identify what that part of the passage is accomplishing within in the larger excerpt.

This is another question type where marking the passage on your first read-through will be very helpful—be sure to mark any shifts in structure, tone, genre, etc as you read, and any structural elements that seem unusual or significant.

Lines 1-34 describe an image of the narrator playing his lute for his love. Lines 34-43 establish that the narrator is about to introduce an idle thought (yes, this is a loquacious poem). Lines 44-48 read: "And what if all of animated nature / Be but organic Harps diversely fram'd, / That tremble into thought, as o'er them sweeps / Plastic and vast, one intellectual breeze, / At once the Soul of each, and God of all?"

So what's the narrator saying here? He is wondering if "all of animated nature" (so all living things) are just harps, and thought is the strings being played. This is clearly metaphorical, and the third footnote for the passage tells us that "lute" is a synonym for "harp." So the answer is (D)—this part of the passage functions as a "metaphorical application of the image of the lute."

It's a harp! No, it's a lute! No, it's both!

#8: Grammar/Nuts & Bolts

Very rarely, you will be asked a question on the grammar of a part of a passage —like identifying what word an adjective is modifying. Very specific questions about the meter of a poem (i.e. iambic pentameter) would also fall into this category. These questions are not so much about literary artistry and more about the dry technique requisite for a fluent command of the English language.

The section of the poem concerned reads, "Of yonder hill I stretch my limbs at noon, / Whilst through my half-clos'd eye-lids I behold / The sunbeams dance, like diamond, on the main, / And tranquil muse upon tranquility."

What a mouthful! If we can untangle this sentence, figuring out what "tranquil" is modifying will be fairly easy. First, though, we can eliminate all answers that call "tranquil" an adverb, because the adverb form of "tranquil" is "tranquilly." Eliminate (B) and (E).

In the sentence, we have that the speaker ("I") is beholding the sunbeams dancing. Then we have "and" followed by another verb in "muse." How do we know "muse" is a verb here? Because otherwise the clause "and tranquil muse upon tranquility" has no verb and makes no sense. Since "muse" is a verb, it can't be modified by an adjective, so eliminate choice (D). This leaves (A) and (C). Does it make sense for "sunbeams" to muse upon tranquility? Not particularly; it makes much more sense for the speaker (I) to muse upon tranquility. Choice (A) is the correct answer.

So are these sunbeams dancing?

How to Prepare for AP Literature Multiple Choice

I have several tips on how you can best position yourself for success on the AP Lit multiple-choice section.

Read a Variety of Literary Works and Poems

Because the passages on the AP Literature multiple-choice section come from a variety of eras, genres, authors, and styles, it's important to familiarize yourself with a wide variety of English literary styles so that you will feel comfortable with the passages and able to parse what they are saying without becoming overwhelmed.

Read a lot of everything: prose of course, but poetry in particular, as many students are less familiar with poetry already and poetry can be fairly opaque and hard to analyze. As a starting place for things you could read, check out our AP Lit reading list guide.

When you start to feel comfortable with the language of many eras and styles, it's time to work on honing your close-reading skills.

Hone Your Close Reading Skills

Your ability to read closely—to read passages not just for comprehension but with an eye for how the author uses literary technique—is paramount on the multiple-choice section. You will practice on close-reading prose and poetry in class, but extra practice can only help you.

When you're doing all of your reading from different eras and genres, think about what the author is doing and why he or she is doing it. What techniques are being deployed? What motifs and themes are there? How are characters portrayed?

If you're stumped as to how to go about this, here are some prose close-reading resources:

You can get close-reading guides online from The University of Wisconsin-Madison's writing center and the Harvard College Writing Center.
The Purdue OWL also has an article on steering clear of close-reading "pitfalls."

Here are some close-reading resources for poetry:

Here's a poetry reading guide from The University of Wisconsin-Madison .
You should definitely check out this truly excellent guide to reading poetry from Poets.org, which comes complete with two poetry close-readings.

Learn Literary and Poetic Devices

You'll want to be familiar with a literary terms so that any questions that ask about them will make sense to you. Again, you'll probably learn most of these in class, but it doesn't hurt to brush up on them. Check out our guide to the 31 literary devices you need to know , complete with definitions and examples.

Complete Practice Questions and Take Practice Multiple-Choice Sections

To succeed on the multiple-choice section, practice taking multiple-choice questions! This may seem like a no-brainer but it's still very important nonetheless. Set aside time to take a sizeable number of practice questions every week.

Keep track of what kinds of questions are easy for you—do you identify the theme every time?—and which ones are hard—stumped by similes? This will help you figure out if there are any skills or concepts you need to brush up on.

You should also take a complete multiple-choice practice section at least once, twice if you are able. You could do this as part of a complete practice test (which I recommend) or do it separately. But taking a multiple-choice section under AP-like conditions will help you feel prepared, calm and collected on test day.

As prepared as a Regency belle who has snagged an officer!

AP Literature Multiple-Choice Practice Resources

There are a variety of practice resources available that you can use to hone your multiple-choice skills for the AP English Literature and Composition exam. The gold standard for the best multiple-choice practice questions is the College Board. This is because they write the AP exam, so their practice questions are the most like the real AP multiple-choice questions you'll see on test day. They offer both complete released exams and sample questions.

Even once you run out of official College Board practice questions, there are still unofficial resources you can use to hone your multiple-choice skills. In this section I'll go over both.

Official Resources

See below for three potential sources of official College Board questions.

Released College Board Exams

There are three official released College Board Exams. Each has a complete multiple-choice section of 55 questions. Here are the links!

1987 AP English Literature and Composition Exam
1999 AP English Literature and Composition Exam
2012 AP English Literature and Composition Exam

Sample Questions from the Course and Exam Description

The AP English Literature Course and Exam Description has 10 practice multiple-choice questions!

Your Teacher

Your AP teacher may also have copies of old AP exams that you can use for practice. Ask and see!

In my mind, all English teachers look like they came from the 19th century.

Unofficial Resources

In addition to the multiple-choice practice questions provided by the College Board, there are also several places online where you can get unofficial multiple-choice practice questions. However, they aren't all worth your time in terms of quality. I'll go over the best ones here. For an even more robust list, check out our complete list .

Albert AP English Literature Quizzes

Albert offers multiple-choice quizzes divided into prose, poetry, and drama categories. You are given the title, date, and author of the work--which you will not receive on the real AP exam. Like the Varsity Tutors quizzes, Albert offers questions that test similar skills as the AP exam, but the questions are worded differently . Additionally, you'll need to pay for an account to access most of the materials.

Another solid option for getting more practice multiple-choice questions is a good review book. You want to make sure it's high quality—I recommend Barron's for the AP Literature exam in particular, as their questions do resemble real AP questions in difficulty and writing style.

You will not, however, receive an atmospheric picture of the setting.

Test Day Tips for AP Lit Multiple-Choice Success

Don't rely on your memory of the passage when answering questions. Always look back at the passage, even if you think the answer is obvious!

Interact with the passages—circle, mark, underline, make notes, whatever floats your boat. This will help you retain information and actively engage with the passage. Especially mark areas where there seems to be some kind of transition or change, as it's highly likely that you will be asked questions about these transitions!

It may also be helpful for you to jot some quick notes on the overall theme or motif of the passage/poem once you reach the end. This will help you on questions about the passage overall.

If you're having trouble making sense of a passage, skip it and move on to the next one. Odds are when you come back to it later, you'll find it much easier to understand. And if you don't, at least you didn't waste too much time puzzling it out before you answered the questions about other, easier passages.

Acing the AP Lit Multiple Choice: Key Takeaways

The first section of the AP English Literature and Composition Exam is an hour-long, 55-question multiple-choice test about four-five literary and prose passages. This section is worth 45% of your total exam score.

There are eight kinds of questions you can expect to see on the multiple-choice section:

#1: Reading Comprehension #2: Inference #3: Identifying and Interpreting Figurative Language #4: Literary Technique #5: Character Analysis #6: Overall Passage Questions #7: Structure #8: Grammar/Nuts and Bolts

Here's how to best prepare to crush the multiple-choice sections:

#1 : Read a variety of literary works and poems, from all of the eras and genres covered by the test!

#2 : Hone your close-reading skills so you can identify what writers are doing and why they are doing those things.

#3 : Learn literary techniques and terms and how to identify and apply them!

#4 : Practice for the exam by taking practice sections and practice questions.

There are a variety of official and unofficial resources available to practice. The best are College-Board official, but once you run out of those, there are also high-quality unofficial resources available.

Here are some test-day tips to help you hit an English Lit home run:

#1 : Always look back at the passage when answering questions—don't rely on memory!

#2 : Interact with the passages as you read through them, including marking significant moments and structural or tonal shifts in the text.

#3 : You may also wish to write a couple of quick notes about the overall theme(s) and motifs of the passage at the end, to refer to when answering overall passage questions.

#4 : If the language of a passage is hard to parse, skip it and come back later. Odds are it will make much more sense the second time around, and if it doesn't, at least you didn't waste time that you could have spent answering easier questions.

And then you lived happily ever after.

What's Next?

Need more resources for AP English Literature? See our complete guide to the AP Literature Exam , our complete list of AP English Literature practice tests , and our AP English Literature Reading List .

Also taking AP Language and Composition? We have an expert guide to AP Lang and Comp , a comprehensive list of AP Language and Composition practice tests , and a list of 55 AP English Language terms you must know.

If you're taking other AP exams, check out our five-step AP study plan , when to start studying for AP exams , and how to find the best AP practice tests .

Want to improve your SAT score by 160 points or your ACT score by 4 points? We've written a guide for each test about the top 5 strategies you must be using to have a shot at improving your score. Download them for free now:

Ellen has extensive education mentorship experience and is deeply committed to helping students succeed in all areas of life. She received a BA from Harvard in Folklore and Mythology and is currently pursuing graduate studies at Columbia University.

Ask a Question Below

Have any questions about this article or other topics? Ask below and we'll reply!

Improve With Our Famous Guides

For All Students

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 160+ SAT Points

How to Get a Perfect 1600, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 800 on Each SAT Section:

Score 800 on SAT Math

Score 800 on SAT Reading

Score 800 on SAT Writing

Series: How to Get to 600 on Each SAT Section:

Score 600 on SAT Math

Score 600 on SAT Reading

Score 600 on SAT Writing

Free Complete Official SAT Practice Tests

What SAT Target Score Should You Be Aiming For?

15 Strategies to Improve Your SAT Essay

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 4+ ACT Points

How to Get a Perfect 36 ACT, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 36 on Each ACT Section:

36 on ACT English

36 on ACT Math

36 on ACT Reading

36 on ACT Science

Series: How to Get to 24 on Each ACT Section:

24 on ACT English

24 on ACT Math

24 on ACT Reading

24 on ACT Science

What ACT target score should you be aiming for?

ACT Vocabulary You Must Know

ACT Writing: 15 Tips to Raise Your Essay Score

How to Get Into Harvard and the Ivy League

How to Get a Perfect 4.0 GPA

How to Write an Amazing College Essay

What Exactly Are Colleges Looking For?

Is the ACT easier than the SAT? A Comprehensive Guide

Should you retake your SAT or ACT?

When should you take the SAT or ACT?

Stay Informed

Get the latest articles and test prep tips!

Looking for Graduate School Test Prep?

Check out our top-rated graduate blogs here:

GRE Online Prep Blog

GMAT Online Prep Blog

TOEFL Online Prep Blog

Holly R. "I am absolutely overjoyed and cannot thank you enough for helping me!”

Systematic Review
Open access
Published: 23 May 2024

Systematic literature review of real-world evidence for treatments in HR+/HER2- second-line LABC/mBC after first-line treatment with CDK4/6i

Veronique Lambert ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6984-0038 1 ,
Sarah Kane ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0006-9341-4836 2 na1 ,
Belal Howidi ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1166-7631 2 na1 ,
Bao-Ngoc Nguyen ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6026-2270 2 na1 ,
David Chandiwana ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0002-3499-2565 3 ,
Yan Wu ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0008-3348-9232 1 ,
Michelle Edwards ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0001-4292-3140 3 &
Imtiaz A. Samjoo ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1415-8055 2 na1

BMC Cancer volume 24 , Article number: 631 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

177 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) combined with endocrine therapy (ET) are currently recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines as the first-line (1 L) treatment for patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer (HR+/HER2- LABC/mBC). Although there are many treatment options, there is no clear standard of care for patients following 1 L CDK4/6i. Understanding the real-world effectiveness of subsequent therapies may help to identify an unmet need in this patient population. This systematic literature review qualitatively synthesized effectiveness and safety outcomes for treatments received in the real-world setting after 1 L CDK4/6i therapy in patients with HR+/ HER2- LABC/mBC.

MEDLINE®, Embase, and Cochrane were searched using the Ovid® platform for real-world evidence studies published between 2015 and 2022. Grey literature was searched to identify relevant conference abstracts published from 2019 to 2022. The review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO registration: CRD42023383914). Data were qualitatively synthesized and weighted average median real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) was calculated for NCCN/ESMO-recommended post-1 L CDK4/6i treatment regimens.

Twenty records (9 full-text articles and 11 conference abstracts) encompassing 18 unique studies met the eligibility criteria and reported outcomes for second-line (2 L) treatments after 1 L CDK4/6i; no studies reported disaggregated outcomes in the third-line setting or beyond. Sixteen studies included NCCN/ESMO guideline-recommended treatments with the majority evaluating endocrine-based therapy; five studies on single-agent ET, six studies on mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (mTORi) ± ET, and three studies with a mix of ET and/or mTORi. Chemotherapy outcomes were reported in 11 studies. The most assessed outcome was median rwPFS; the weighted average median rwPFS was calculated as 3.9 months (3.3-6.0 months) for single-agent ET, 3.6 months (2.5–4.9 months) for mTORi ± ET, 3.7 months for a mix of ET and/or mTORi (3.0–4.0 months), and 6.1 months (3.7–9.7 months) for chemotherapy. Very few studies reported other effectiveness outcomes and only two studies reported safety outcomes. Most studies had heterogeneity in patient- and disease-related characteristics.

Conclusions

The real-world effectiveness of current 2 L treatments post-1 L CDK4/6i are suboptimal, highlighting an unmet need for this patient population.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Breast cancer (BC) is the most diagnosed form of cancer in women with an estimated 2.3 million new cases diagnosed worldwide each year [ 1 ]. BC is the second leading cause of cancer death, accounting for 685,000 deaths worldwide per year [ 2 ]. By 2040, the global burden associated with BC is expected to surpass three million new cases and one million deaths annually (due to population growth and aging) [ 3 ]. Numerous factors contribute to global disparities in BC-related mortality rates, including delayed diagnosis, resulting in a high number of BC cases that have progressed to locally advanced BC (LABC) or metastatic BC (mBC) [ 4 , 5 , 6 ]. In the United States (US), the five-year survival rate for patients who progress to mBC is three times lower (31%) than the overall five-year survival rate for all stages (91%) [ 6 , 7 ].

Hormone receptor (HR) positive (i.e., estrogen receptor and/or progesterone receptor positive) coupled with negative human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2) expression is the most common subtype of BC, accounting for ∼ 60–70% of all BC cases [ 8 , 9 ]. Historically, endocrine therapy (ET) through estrogen receptor modulation and/or estrogen deprivation has been the standard of care for first-line (1 L) treatment of HR-positive/HER2-negative (HR+/HER2-) mBC [ 10 ]. However, with the approval of the cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) palbociclib in combination with the aromatase inhibitor (AI) letrozole in 2015 by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 1 L treatment practice patterns have evolved such that CDK4/6i (either in combination with AIs or with fulvestrant) are currently considered the standard of care [ 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ]. Other CDK4/6i (ribociclib and abemaciclib) in combination with ET are approved for the treatment of HR+/HER2- LABC/mBC; 1 L use of ribociclib in combination with an AI was granted FDA approval in March 2017 for postmenopausal women (with expanded approval in July 2018 for pre/perimenopausal women and for use in 1 L with fulvestrant for patients with disease progression on ET as well as for postmenopausal women), and abemaciclib in combination with fulvestrant was granted FDA approval in September 2017 for patients with disease progression following ET and as monotherapy in cases where disease progression occurs following ET and prior chemotherapy in mBC (with expanded approval in February 2018 for use in 1 L in combination with an AI for postmenopausal women) [ 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 ].

Clinical trials investigating the addition of CDK4/6i to ET have demonstrated significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and significant (ribociclib) or numerical (palbociclib and abemaciclib) improvement in overall survival (OS) compared to ET alone in patients with HR+/HER2- advanced or mBC, making this combination treatment the recommended option in the 1 L setting [ 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 ]. However, disease progression occurs in a significant portion of patients after 1 L CDK4/6i treatment [ 28 ] and the optimal treatment sequence after progression on CDK4/6i remains unclear [ 29 ]. At the time of this review (literature search conducted December 14, 2022), guidelines by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) recommend various options for the treatment of HR+/HER2- advanced BC in the second-line (2 L) setting, including fulvestrant monotherapy, mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (mTORi; e.g., everolimus) ± ET, alpelisib + fulvestrant (if phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase catalytic subunit alpha mutation positive [PIK3CA-m+]), poly-ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) including olaparib or talazoparib (if breast cancer gene/partner and localizer of BRCA2 positive [BRCA/PALB2m+]), and chemotherapy (in cases when a visceral crisis is present) [ 15 , 16 ]. CDK4/6i can also be used in 2 L [ 16 , 30 ]; however, limited data are available to support CDK4/6i rechallenge after its use in the 1 L setting [ 15 ]. Depending on treatments used in the 1 L and 2 L settings, treatment in the third-line setting is individualized based on the patient’s response to prior treatments, tumor load, duration of response, and patient preference [ 9 , 15 ]. Understanding subsequent treatments after 1 L CDK4/6i, and their associated effectiveness, is an important focus in BC research.

Treatment options for HR+/HER2- LABC/mBC continue to evolve, with ongoing research in both clinical trials and in the real-world setting. Real-world evidence (RWE) offers important insights into novel therapeutic regimens and the effectiveness of treatments for HR+/HER2- LABC/mBC. The effectiveness of the current treatment options following 1 L CDK4/6i therapy in the real-world setting highlights the unmet need in this patient population and may help to drive further research and drug development. In this study, we conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) to qualitatively summarize the effectiveness and safety of treatment regimens in the real-world setting after 1 L treatment with CDK4/6i in patients with HR+/HER2- LABC/mBC.

Literature search

An SLR was performed in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [ 31 ] and reported in alignment with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Literature Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement [ 32 ] to identify all RWE studies assessing the effectiveness and safety of treatments used for patients with HR+/HER2- LABC/mBC following 1 L CDK4/6i therapy and received subsequent treatment in 2 L and beyond (2 L+). The Ovid® platform was used to search MEDLINE® (including Epub Ahead of Print and In-Process, In-Data-Review & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid MEDLINE® Daily, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews by an experienced medical information specialist. The MEDLINE® search strategy was peer-reviewed independently by a senior medical information specialist before execution using the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) checklist [ 33 ]. Searches were conducted on December 14, 2022. The review protocol was developed a priori and registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Review (PROSPERO; CRD42023383914) which outlined the population, intervention, comparator, outcome, and study design (PICOS) criteria and methodology used to conduct the review (Table 1 ).

Search strategies utilized a combination of controlled vocabulary (e.g., “HER2 Breast Cancer” or “HR Breast Cancer”) and keywords (e.g., “Retrospective studies”). Vocabulary and syntax were adjusted across databases. Published and validated filters were used to select for study design and were supplemented using additional medical subject headings (MeSH) terms and keywords to select for RWE and nonrandomized studies [ 34 ]. No language restrictions were included in the search strategy. Animal-only and opinion pieces were removed from the results. The search was limited to studies published between January 2015 and December 2022 to reflect the time at which FDA approval was granted for the first CDK4/6i agent (palbociclib) in combination with AI for the treatment of LABC/mBC [ 35 ]. Further search details are presented in Supplementary Material 1 .

Grey literature sources were also searched to identify relevant abstracts and posters published from January 2019 to December 2022 for prespecified relevant conferences including ESMO, San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR US), and the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR). A search of ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted to validate the findings from the database and grey literature searches.

Study selection, data extraction & weighted average calculation

Studies were screened for inclusion using DistillerSR Version 2.35 and 2.41 (DistillerSR Inc. 2021, Ottawa, Canada) by two independent reviewers based on the prespecified PICOS criteria (Table 1 ). A third reviewer was consulted to resolve any discrepancies during the screening process. Studies were included if they reported RWE on patients aged ≥ 18 years with HR+/HER2- LABC/mBC who received 1 L CDK4/6i treatment and received subsequent treatment in 2 L+. Studies were excluded if they reported the results of clinical trials (i.e., non-RWE), were published in any language other than English, and/or were published prior to 2015 (or prior to 2019 for conference abstracts and posters). For studies that met the eligibility criteria, data relating to study design and methodology, details of interventions, patient eligibility criteria and baseline characteristics, and outcome measures such as efficacy, safety, tolerability, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs), were extracted (as available) using a Microsoft Excel®-based data extraction form (Microsoft Corporation, WA, USA). Data extraction was performed by a single reviewer and was confirmed by a second reviewer. Multiple publications identified for the same RWE study, patient population, and setting that reported data for the same intervention were linked and extracted as a single publication. Weighted average median real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) values were calculated by considering the contribution to the median rwPFS of each study proportional to its respective sample size. These weighted values were then used to compute the overall median rwPFS estimate.

Quality assessment

The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) for nonrandomized (cohort) studies was used to assess the risk of bias for published, full-text studies [ 36 ]. The NOS allocates a maximum of nine points for the least risk of bias across three domains: (1) Formation of study groups (four points), (2) Comparability between study groups (two points), (3) Outcome ascertainment (three points). NOS scores can be categorized in three groups: very high risk of bias (0 to 3 points), high risk of bias (4 to 6), and low risk of bias (7 to 9) [ 37 ]. Risk of bias assessment was performed by one reviewer and validated by a second independent reviewer to verify accuracy. Due to limited methodological data by which to assess study quality, risk of bias assessment was not performed on conference abstracts or posters. An amendment to the PROSPERO record (CRD42023383914) for this study was submitted in relation to the quality assessment method (specifying usage of the NOS).

The database search identified 3,377 records; after removal of duplicates, 2,759 were screened at the title and abstract stage of which 2,553 were excluded. Out of the 206 reports retrieved and assessed for eligibility, an additional 187 records were excluded after full-text review; most of these studies were excluded for having patients with mixed lines of CDK4/6i treatment (i.e., did not receive CDK4/6i exclusively in 1 L) (Fig. 1 and Table S1 ). The grey literature search identified 753 records which were assessed for eligibility; of which 752 were excluded mainly due to the population not meeting the eligibility criteria (Fig. 1 ). In total, the literature searches identified 20 records (9 published full-text articles and 11 conference abstracts/posters) representing 18 unique RWE studies that met the inclusion criteria. The NOS quality scores for the included full-text articles are provided in Table S2 . The scores ranged from four to six points (out of a total score of nine) and the median score was five, indicating that all the studies suffered from a high risk of bias [ 37 ].

Most studies were retrospective analyses of chart reviews or medical registries, and all studies were published between 2017 and 2022 (Table S3 ). Nearly half of the RWE studies (8 out of 18 studies) were conducted in the US [ 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 ], while the remaining studies included sites in Canada, China, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom [ 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 ]. Sample sizes ranged from as few as 4 to as many as 839 patients across included studies, with patient age ranging from 26 to 86 years old.

Although treatment characteristics in the 1 L setting were not the focus of the present review, these details are captured in Table S3 . Briefly, several RWE studies reported 1 L CDK4/6i use in combination with ET (8 out of 18 studies) or as monotherapy (2 out of 18 studies) (Table S3 ). Treatments used in combination with 1 L CDK4/6i included letrozole, fulvestrant, exemestane, and anastrozole. Where reported (4 out of 18 studies), palbociclib was the most common 1 L CDK4/6i treatment. Many studies (8 out of 18 studies) did not report which specific CDK4/6i treatment(s) were used in 1 L or if its administration was in combination or monotherapy.

Characteristics of treatments after 1 L CDK4/6i therapy

Across all studies included in this review, effectiveness and safety data were only available for treatments administered in the 2 L setting after 1 L CDK4/6i treatment. No studies were identified that reported outcomes for patients treated in the third-line setting or beyond after 1 L CDK4/6i treatment. All 18 studies reported effectiveness outcomes in 2 L, with only two of these studies also describing 2 L safety outcomes. The distribution of outcomes reported in these studies is provided in Table S4 . Studies varied in their reporting of outcomes for 2 L treatments; some studies reported outcomes for a group of 2 L treatments while others described independent outcomes for specific 2 L treatments (i.e., everolimus, fulvestrant, or chemotherapy agents such as eribulin mesylate) [ 42 , 45 , 50 , 54 , 55 ]. Due to the heterogeneity in treatment classes reported in these studies, this data was categorized (as described below) to align with the guidelines provided by NCCN and ESMO [ 15 , 16 ]. The treatment class categorizations for the purpose of this review are: single-agent ET (patients who exclusively received a single-agent ET after 1 L CDK4/6i treatment), mTORi ± ET (patients who exclusively received an mTORi with or without ET after 1 L CDK4/6i treatment), mix of ET and/or mTORi (patients who may have received only ET, only mTORi, and/or both treatments but the studies in this group lacked sufficient information to categorize these patients in the “single-agent ET” or “mTOR ± ET” categories), and chemotherapy (patients who exclusively received chemotherapy after 1 L CDK4/6i treatment). Despite ESMO and NCCN guidelines indicating that limited evidence exists to support rechallenge with CDK4/6i after 1 L CDK4/6i treatment [ 15 , 16 ], two studies reported outcomes for this treatment approach. Data for such patients were categorized as “ CDK4/6i ± ET ” as it was unclear how many patients receiving CDK4/6i rechallenge received concurrent ET. All other patient groups that lacked sufficient information or did not report outcome/safety data independently (i.e., grouped patients with mixed treatments) to categorize as one of the treatment classes described above were grouped as “ other ”.

The majority of studies reported effectiveness outcomes for endocrine-based therapy after 1 L CDK4/6i treatment; five studies for single-agent ET, six studies for mTORi ± ET, and three studies for a mix of ET and/or mTORi (Fig. 2 ). Eleven studies reported effectiveness outcomes for chemotherapy after 1 L CDK4/6i treatment, and only two studies reported effectiveness outcomes for CDK4/6i rechallenge ± ET. Eight studies that described effectiveness outcomes were grouped into the “other” category. Safety data was only reported in two studies: one study evaluating the chemotherapy agent eribulin mesylate and one evaluating the mTORi everolimus.

Effectiveness outcomes

Real-world progression-free survival

Median rwPFS was described in 13 studies (Tables 2 and Table S5 ). Across the 13 studies, the median rwPFS ranged from 2.5 months [ 49 ] to 17.3 months [ 39 ]. Out of the 13 studies reporting median rwPFS, 10 studies reported median rwPFS for a 2 L treatment recommended by ESMO and NCCN guidelines, which ranged from 2.5 months [ 49 ] to 9.7 months [ 45 ].

Weighted average median rwPFS was calculated for 2 L treatments recommended by both ESMO and NCCN guidelines (Fig. 3 ). The weighted average median rwPFS for single-agent ET was 3.9 months ( n = 92 total patients) and was derived using data from two studies reporting median rwPFS values of 3.3 months ( n = 70) [ 38 ] and 6.0 months ( n = 22) [ 40 ]. For one study ( n = 7) that reported outcomes for single agent ET, median rwPFS was not reached during the follow-up period; as such, this study was excluded from the weighted average median rwPFS calculation [ 49 ].

The weighted average median rwPFS for mTORi ± ET was 3.6 months ( n = 128 total patients) and was derived based on data from 3 studies with median rwPFS ranging from 2.5 months ( n = 4) [ 49 ] to 4.9 months ( n = 25) [ 54 ] (Fig. 3 ). For patients who received a mix of ET and/or mTORi but could not be classified into the single-agent ET or mTORi ± ET treatment classes, the weighted average median rwPFS was calculated to be 3.7 months ( n = 17 total patients). This was calculated based on data from two studies reporting median rwPFS values of 3.0 months ( n = 5) [ 46 ] and 4.0 months ( n = 12) [ 49 ]. Notably, one study of patients receiving ET and/or everolimus reported a median rwPFS duration of 3.0 months; however, this study was excluded from the weighted average median rwPFS calculation for the ET and/or mTORi class as the sample size was not reported [ 53 ].

The weighted average median rwPFS for chemotherapy was 6.1 months ( n = 499 total patients), calculated using data from 7 studies reporting median rwPFS values ranging from 3.7 months ( n = 249) [ 38 ] to 9.7 months ( n = 121) [ 45 ] (Fig. 3 ). One study with a median rwPFS duration of 5.6 months was not included in the weighted average median rwPFS calculation as the study did not report the sample size [ 53 ]. A second study was excluded from the calculation since the reported median rwPFS was not reached during the study period ( n = 7) [ 41 ].

Although 2 L CDK4/6i ± ET rechallenge lacks sufficient information to support recommendation by ESMO and NCCN guidelines, the limited data currently available for this treatment have shown promising results. Briefly, two studies reported median rwPFS for CDK4/6i ± ET with values of 8.3 months ( n = 302) [ 38 ] and 17.3 months ( n = 165) (Table 2 ) [ 39 ]. The remaining median rwPFS studies reported data for patients classified as “Other” (Table S5 ). The “Other” category included median rwPFS outcomes from seven studies, and included a myriad of treatments (e.g., ET, mTOR + ET, chemotherapy, CDK4/6i + ET, alpelisib + fulvestrant, chidamide + ET) for which disaggregated median rwPFS values were not reported.

Overall survival

Median OS for 2 L treatment was reported in only three studies (Table 2 ) [ 38 , 42 , 43 ]. Across the three studies, the 2 L median OS ranged from 5.2 months ( n = 3) [ 43 ] to 35.7 months ( n = 302) [ 38 ]. Due to the lack of OS data in most of the studies, weighted averages could not be calculated. No median OS data was reported for the single-agent ET treatment class whereas two studies reported median OS for the mTORi ± ET treatment class, ranging from 5.2 months ( n = 3) [ 43 ] to 21.8 months ( n = 54) [ 42 ]. One study reported 2 L median OS of 24.8 months for a single patient treated with chemotherapy [ 43 ]. The median OS data in the CDK4/6i ± ET rechallenge group was 35.7 months ( n = 302) [ 38 ].

Patient mortality was reported in three studies [ 43 , 44 , 45 ]. No studies reported mortality for the single-agent ET treatment class and only one study reported this outcome for the mTORi ± ET treatment class, where 100% of patients died ( n = 3) as a result of rapid disease progression [ 43 ]. For the chemotherapy class, one study reported mortality for one patient receiving 2 L capecitabine [ 43 ]. An additional study reported eight deaths (21.7%) following 1 L CDK4/6i treatment; however, this study did not disclose the 2 L treatments administered to these patients [ 44 ].

Other clinical endpoints

The studies included limited information on additional clinical endpoints; two studies reported on time-to-discontinuation (TTD), two reported on duration of response (DOR), and one each on time-to-next-treatment (TTNT), time-to-progression (TTP), objective response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR), and stable disease (Tables 2 and Table S5 ).

Safety, tolerability, and patient-reported outcomes

Safety and tolerability data were reported in two studies [ 40 , 45 ]. One study investigating 2 L administration of the chemotherapy agent eribulin mesylate reported 27 patients (22.3%) with neutropenia, 3 patients (2.5%) with febrile neutropenia, 10 patients (8.3%) with peripheral neuropathy, and 14 patients (11.6%) with diarrhea [ 45 ]. Of these, neutropenia of grade 3–4 severity occurred in 9 patients (33.3%) [ 45 ]. A total of 55 patients (45.5%) discontinued eribulin mesylate treatment; 1 patient (0.83%) discontinued treatment due to adverse events [ 45 ]. Another study reported that 5 out of the 22 patients receiving the mTORi everolimus combined with ET in 2 L (22.7%) discontinued treatment due to toxicity [ 40 ]. PROs were not reported in any of the studies included in the SLR.

The objective of this study was to summarize the existing RWE on the effectiveness and safety of therapies for patients with HR+/HER2- LABC/mBC after 1 L CDK4/6i treatment. We identified 18 unique studies reporting specifically on 2 L treatment regimens after 1 L CDK4/6i treatment. The weighted average median rwPFS for NCCN- and ESMO- guideline recommended 2 L treatments ranged from 3.6 to 3.9 months for ET-based treatments and was 6.1 months when including chemotherapy-based regimens. Treatment selection following 1 L CDK4/6i therapy remains challenging primarily due to the suboptimal effectiveness or significant toxicities (e.g., chemotherapy) associated with currently available options [ 56 ]. These results highlight that currently available 2 L treatments for patients with HR+/HER2- LABC/mBC who have received 1 L CDK4/6i are suboptimal, as evidenced by the brief median rwPFS duration associated with ET-based treatments, or notable side effects and toxicity linked to chemotherapy. This conclusion is aligned with a recent review highlighting the limited effectiveness of treatment options for HR+/HER2- LABC/mBC patients post-CDK4/6i treatment [ 56 , 57 ]. Registrational trials which have also shed light on the short median PFS of 2–3 months achieved by ET (i.e., fulvestrant) after 1 L CDK4/6i therapy emphasize the need to develop improved treatment strategies aimed at prolonging the duration of effective ET-based treatment [ 56 ].

The results of this review reveal a paucity of additional real-world effectiveness and safety evidence after 1 L CDK4/6i treatment in HR+/HER2- LABC/mBC. OS and DOR were only reported in two studies while other clinical endpoints (i.e., TTD, TTNT, TTP, ORR, CBR, and stable disease) were only reported in one study each. Similarly, safety and tolerability data were only reported in two studies each, and PROs were not reported in any study. This hindered our ability to provide a comprehensive assessment of real-world treatment effectiveness and safety following 1 L CDK4/6i treatment. The limited evidence may be due to the relatively short period of time that has elapsed since CDK4/6i first received US FDA approval for 1 L treatment of HR+/HER2- LABC/mBC (2015) [ 35 ]. As such, almost half of our evidence was informed by conference abstracts. Similarly, no real-world studies were identified in our review that reported outcomes for treatments in the third- or later-lines of therapy after 1 L CDK4/6i treatment. The lack of data in this patient population highlights a significant gap which limits our understanding of the effectiveness and safety for patients receiving later lines of therapy. As more patients receive CDK4/6i therapy in the 1 L setting, the number of patients requiring subsequent lines of therapy will continue to grow. Addressing this data gap over time will be critical to improve outcomes for patients with HR+/HER2- LABC/mBC following 1 L CDK4/6i therapy.

There are several strengths of this study, including adherence to the guidelines outlined in the Cochrane Handbook to ensure a standardized and reliable approach to the SLR [ 58 ] and reporting of the SLR following PRISMA guidelines to ensure transparency and reproducibility [ 59 ]. Furthermore, the inclusion of only RWE studies allowed us to assess the effectiveness of current standard of care treatments outside of a controlled environment and enabled us to identify an unmet need in this patient population.

This study had some notable limitations, including the lack of safety and additional effectiveness outcomes reported. In addition, the dearth of studies reporting PROs is a limitation, as PROs provide valuable insight into the patient experience and are an important aspect of assessing the impact of 2 L treatments on patients’ quality of life. The studies included in this review also lacked consistent reporting of clinical characteristics (e.g., menopausal status, sites of metastasis, prior surgery) making it challenging to draw comprehensive conclusions or comparisons based on these factors across the studies. Taken together, there exists an important gap in our understanding of the long-term management of patients with HR+/HER2- LABC/mBC. Additionally, the effectiveness results reported in our evidence base were informed by small sample sizes; many of the included studies reported median rwPFS based on less than 30 patients [ 39 , 40 , 41 , 46 , 49 , 51 , 60 ], with two studies not reporting the sample size at all [ 47 , 53 ]. This may impact the generalizability and robustness of the results. Relatedly, the SLR database search was conducted in December 2022; as such, novel agents (e.g., elacestrant and capivasertib + fulvestrant) that have since received FDA approval for the treatment of HR+/HER2- LABC/mBC may impact current 2 L rwPFS outcomes [ 61 , 62 ]. Finally, relative to the number of peer-reviewed full-text articles, this SLR identified eight abstracts and one poster presentation, comprising half (50%) of the included unique studies. As conference abstracts are inherently limited by how much content that can be described due to word limit constraints, this likely had implications on the present synthesis whereby we identified a dearth of real-world effectiveness outcomes in patients with HR+/HER2- LABC/mBC treated with 1 L CDK4/6i therapy.

Future research in this area should aim to address the limitations of the current literature and provide a more comprehensive understanding of optimal sequencing of effective and safe treatment for patients following 1 L CDK4/6i therapy. Specifically, future studies should strive to report robust data related to effectiveness, safety, and PROs for patients receiving 2 L treatment after 1 L CDK4/6i therapy. Future studies should also aim to understand the mechanism underlying CDK4/6i resistance. Addressing these gaps in knowledge may improve the long-term real-world management of patients with HR+/HER2- LABC/mBC. A future update of this synthesis may serve to capture a wider breadth of full-text, peer-reviewed articles to gain a more robust understanding of the safety, effectiveness, and real-world treatment patterns for patients with HR+/HER2- LABC/mBC. This SLR underscores the necessity for ongoing investigation and the development of innovative therapeutic approaches to address these gaps and improve patient outcomes.

This SLR qualitatively summarized the existing real-world effectiveness data for patients with HR+/HER2- LABC/mBC after 1 L CDK4/6i treatment. Results of this study highlight the limited available data and the suboptimal effectiveness of treatments employed in the 2 L setting and underscore the unmet need in this patient population. Additional studies reporting effectiveness and safety outcomes, in addition to PROs, for this patient population are necessary and should be the focus of future research.

PRISMA flow diagram. *Two included conference abstracts reported the same information as already included full-text reports, hence both conference abstracts were not identified as unique. Abbreviations: 1 L = first-line; AACR = American Association of Cancer Research; ASCO = American Society of Clinical Oncology; CDK4/6i = cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor; ESMO = European Society for Medical Oncology; ISPOR = Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research; n = number of studies; NMA = network meta-analysis; pts = participants; SABCS = San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; SLR = systematic literature review.

Number of studies reporting effectiveness outcomes exclusively for each treatment class. *Studies that lack sufficient information on effectiveness outcomes to classify based on the treatment classes outlined in the legend above. Abbreviations: CDK4/6i = cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor; ET = endocrine therapy; mTORi = mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor.

Weighted average median rwPFS for 2 L treatments (recommended in ESMO/NCCN guidelines) after 1 L CDK4/6i treatment. Circular dot represents weighted average median across studies. Horizontal bars represent the range of values reported in these studies. Abbreviations: CDK4/6i = cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor; ESMO = European Society for Medical Oncology; ET = endocrine therapy, mTORi = mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor; n = number of patients; NCCN = National Comprehensive Cancer Network; rwPFS = real-world progression-free survival.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files]. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023383914).

Abbreviations

Second-line

Second-line treatment setting and beyond

American Association of Cancer Research

Aromatase inhibitor

American Society of Clinical Oncology

Breast cancer

breast cancer gene/partner and localizer of BRCA2 positive

Clinical benefit rate

Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor

Complete response

Duration of response

European Society for Medical Oncology

Food and Drug Administration

Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2

Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative

Hormone receptor

Hormone receptor positive

Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research

Locally advanced breast cancer

Metastatic breast cancer

Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online

Medical subject headings

Mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor

National Comprehensive Cancer Network

Newcastle Ottawa Scale

Objective response rate

Poly-ADP ribose polymerase inhibitor

Progression-free survival

Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Study Design

Partial response

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Literature Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Patient-reported outcomes

Real-world evidence

San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium

Systematic literature review

Time-to-discontinuation

Time-to-next-treatment

Time-to-progression

United States

Łukasiewicz S, Czeczelewski M, Forma A, Baj J, Sitarz R, Stanisławek A, Breast, Cancer—Epidemiology. Risk factors, classification, prognostic markers, and current treatment Strategies—An. Updated Rev Cancers. 2021;13(17):4287.

Google Scholar

World Health Organization (WHO). Breast Cancer Facts Sheet [updated July 12 2023. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/breast-cancer .

Arnold M, Morgan E, Rumgay H, Mafra A, Singh D, Laversanne M, et al. Current and future burden of breast cancer: global statistics for 2020 and 2040. Breast. 2022;66:15–23.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Wilkinson L, Gathani T. Understanding breast cancer as a global health concern. Br J Radiol. 2022;95(1130):20211033.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Giaquinto AN, Sung H, Miller KD, Kramer JL, Newman LA, Minihan A et al. Breast Cancer Statistics, 2022. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2022;72(6):524– 41.

National Cancer Institute (NIH). Cancer Stat Facts: Female Breast Cancer [updated 2020. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html .

American Cancer Society. Key Statistics for Breast Cancer [ https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/breast-cancer/about/how-common-is-breast-cancer.html .

Zagami P, Carey LA. Triple negative breast cancer: pitfalls and progress. npj Breast Cancer. 2022;8(1):95.

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Matutino A, Joy AA, Brezden-Masley C, Chia S, Verma S. Hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: redrawing the lines. Curr Oncol. 2018;25(Suppl 1):S131–41.

Lloyd MR, Wander SA, Hamilton E, Razavi P, Bardia A. Next-generation selective estrogen receptor degraders and other novel endocrine therapies for management of metastatic hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: current and emerging role. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2022;14:17588359221113694.

Cardoso F, Senkus E, Costa A, Papadopoulos E, Aapro M, André F, et al. 4th ESO-ESMO International Consensus guidelines for advanced breast Cancer (ABC 4)†. Ann Oncol. 2018;29(8):1634–57.

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

US Food Drug Administration. Palbociclib (Ibrance) 2017 [updated March 31, 2017. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources-information-approved-drugs/palbociclib-ibrance .

US Food Drug Administration. FDA expands ribociclib indication in HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer 2018 [updated July 18. 2018. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources-information-approved-drugs/fda-expands-ribociclib-indication-hr-positive-her2-negative-advanced-or-metastatic-breast-cancer .

US Food Drug Administration. FDA approves abemaciclib for HR positive, HER2-negative breast cancer 2017 [updated Sept 28. 2017. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources-information-approved-drugs/fda-approves-abemaciclib-hr-positive-her2-negative-breast-cancer .

NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®). Breast Cancer 2022 [ https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast.pdf .

Gennari A, André F, Barrios CH, Cortés J, de Azambuja E, DeMichele A, et al. ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for the diagnosis, staging and treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2021;32(12):1475–95.

Beaver JA, Amiri-Kordestani L, Charlab R, Chen W, Palmby T, Tilley A, et al. FDA approval: Palbociclib for the Treatment of Postmenopausal Patients with estrogen Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative metastatic breast Cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2015;21(21):4760–6.

US Food Drug Administration. Ribociclib (Kisqali) [ https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources-information-approved-drugs/ribociclib-kisqali#:~:text=On%20March%2013%2C%202017%2C%20the,hormone%20receptor%20(HR)%2Dpositive%2C .

US Food Drug Administration. FDA approves new treatment for certain advanced or metastatic breast cancers [ https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-new-treatment-certain-advanced-or-metastatic-breast-cancers .

US Food Drug Administration. FDA expands ribociclib indication in HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer. 2018 [ https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources-information-approved-drugs/fda-expands-ribociclib-indication-hr-positive-her2-negative-advanced-or-metastatic-breast-cancer .

US Food Drug Administration. FDA approves abemaciclib as initial therapy for HR-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer [ https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources-information-approved-drugs/fda-approves-abemaciclib-initial-therapy-hr-positive-her2-negative-metastatic-breast-cancer .

Turner NC, Slamon DJ, Ro J, Bondarenko I, Im S-A, Masuda N, et al. Overall survival with Palbociclib and fulvestrant in advanced breast Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(20):1926–36.

Slamon DJ, Neven P, Chia S, Fasching PA, De Laurentiis M, Im SA, et al. Phase III randomized study of Ribociclib and Fulvestrant in hormone Receptor-Positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-Negative advanced breast Cancer: MONALEESA-3. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(24):2465–72.

Goetz MP, Toi M, Campone M, Sohn J, Paluch-Shimon S, Huober J, et al. MONARCH 3: Abemaciclib as initial therapy for advanced breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(32):3638–46.

Gopalan PK, Villegas AG, Cao C, Pinder-Schenck M, Chiappori A, Hou W, et al. CDK4/6 inhibition stabilizes disease in patients with p16-null non-small cell lung cancer and is synergistic with mTOR inhibition. Oncotarget. 2018;9(100):37352–66.

Watt AC, Goel S. Cellular mechanisms underlying response and resistance to CDK4/6 inhibitors in the treatment of hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2022;24(1):17.

Goetz M. MONARCH 3: final overall survival results of abemaciclib plus a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor as first-line therapy for HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer. SABCS; 2023.

Munzone E, Pagan E, Bagnardi V, Montagna E, Cancello G, Dellapasqua S, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of post-progression outcomes in ER+/HER2– metastatic breast cancer after CDK4/6 inhibitors within randomized clinical trials. ESMO Open. 2021;6(6):100332.

European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO). ESMO Metastatic Breast Cancer Living Guideline: ER-positive HER2-negative Breast Cancer [updated May 2023. https://www.esmo.org/living-guidelines/esmo-metastatic-breast-cancer-living-guideline/er-positive-her2-negative-breast-cancer .

Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Welch PM VA, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021). www.training.cochrane.org/handbook : Cochrane; 2021.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2021;18(3):e1003583.

McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:40–6.

Fraser C, Murray A, Burr J. Identifying observational studies of surgical interventions in MEDLINE and EMBASE. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6(1):41.

US Food Drug Administration. Palbociclib (Ibrance). Silver Spring, MD: US Food and Drug Administration; 2017.

Book Google Scholar

GA Wells BS, D O’Connell J, Peterson V, Welch M, Losos PT. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses [ https://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp .

Lo CK-L, Mertz D, Loeb M. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale: comparing reviewers’ to authors’ assessments. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14(1):45.

Martin JM, Handorf EA, Montero AJ, Goldstein LJ. Systemic therapies following progression on first-line CDK4/6-inhibitor treatment: analysis of real-world data. Oncologist. 2022;27(6):441–6.

Kalinsky KM, Kruse M, Smyth EN, Guimaraes CM, Gautam S, Nisbett AR et al. Abstract P1-18-37: Treatment patterns and outcomes associated with sequential and non-sequential use of CDK4 and 6i for HR+, HER2- MBC in the real world. Cancer Research. 2022;82(4_Supplement):P1-18-37-P1-18-37.

Choong GM, Liddell S, Ferre RAL, O’Sullivan CC, Ruddy KJ, Haddad TC, et al. Clinical management of metastatic hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer (MBC) after CDK 4/6 inhibitors: a retrospective single-institution study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2022;196(1):229–37.

Xi J, Oza A, Thomas S, Ademuyiwa F, Weilbaecher K, Suresh R, et al. Retrospective Analysis of Treatment Patterns and effectiveness of Palbociclib and subsequent regimens in metastatic breast Cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019;17(2):141–7.

Rozenblit M, Mun S, Soulos P, Adelson K, Pusztai L, Mougalian S. Patterns of treatment with everolimus exemestane in hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in the era of targeted therapy. Breast Cancer Res. 2021;23(1):14.

Bashour SI, Doostan I, Keyomarsi K, Valero V, Ueno NT, Brown PH, et al. Rapid breast Cancer Disease Progression following cyclin dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor discontinuation. J Cancer. 2017;8(11):2004–9.

Giridhar KV, Choong GM, Leon-Ferre R, O’Sullivan CC, Ruddy K, Haddad T, et al. Abstract P6-18-09: clinical management of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) after CDK 4/6 inhibitors: a retrospective single-institution study. Cancer Res. 2019;79:P6–18.

Article Google Scholar

Mougalian SS, Feinberg BA, Wang E, Alexis K, Chatterjee D, Knoth RL, et al. Observational study of clinical outcomes of eribulin mesylate in metastatic breast cancer after cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor therapy. Future Oncol. 2019;15(34):3935–44.

Moscetti LML, Riggi L, Sperduti I, Piacentini FOC, Toss A, Barbieri E, Cortesi L, Canino FMA, Zoppoli G, Frassoldati A, Schirone A, Dominici MECF. SEQUENCE OF TREATMENTS AFTER CDK4/6 THERAPY IN ADVANCED BREAST CANCER (ABC), A GOIRC MULTICENTER RETRO/ PROSPECTIVE STUDY. PRELIMINARY RESULTS IN THE RETROSPECTIVE SERIES OF 116 PATIENTS. Tumori. 2022;108(4S):80.

Menichetti AZE, Giorgi CA, Bottosso M, Leporati R, Giarratano T, Barbieri C, Ligorio F, Mioranza E, Miglietta F, Lobefaro R, Faggioni G, Falci C, Vernaci G, Di Liso E, Girardi F, Griguolo G, Vernieri C, Guarneri V, Dieci MV. CDK 4/6 INHIBITORS FOR METASTATIC BREAST CANCER: A MULTICENTER REALWORLD STUDY. Tumori. 2022;108(4S):70.

Marschner NW, Harbeck N, Thill M, Stickeler E, Zaiss M, Nusch A, et al. 232P Second-line therapies of patients with early progression under CDK4/6-inhibitor in first-line– data from the registry platform OPAL. Annals of Oncology. 2022;33:S643-S4

Gousis C, Lowe KMH, Kapiris M. V. Angelis. Beyond First Line CDK4/6 Inhibitors (CDK4/6i) and Aromatase Inhibitors (AI) in Patients with Oestrogen Receptor Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer (ERD MBC): The Guy’s Cancer Centre Experience. Clinical Oncology2022. p. e178.

Endo Y, Yoshimura A, Sawaki M, Hattori M, Kotani H, Kataoka A, et al. Time to chemotherapy for patients with estrogen receptor-positive breast Cancer and cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor use. J Breast Cancer. 2022;25(4):296–306.

Li Y, Li W, Gong C, Zheng Y, Ouyang Q, Xie N, et al. A multicenter analysis of treatment patterns and clinical outcomes of subsequent therapies after progression on palbociclib in HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2021;13:17588359211022890.

Amaro CP, Batra A, Lupichuk S. First-line treatment with a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor plus an aromatase inhibitor for metastatic breast Cancer in Alberta. Curr Oncol. 2021;28(3):2270–80.

Crocetti SPM, Tassone L, Marcantognini G, Bastianelli L, Della Mora A, Merloni F, Cantini L, Scortichini L, Agostinelli V, Ballatore Z, Savini A, Maccaroni E. Berardi R. What is the best therapeutic sequence for ER-Positive/HER2- Negative metastatic breast cancer in the era of CDK4/6 inhibitors? A single center experience. Tumori. 2020;106(2S).

Nichetti F, Marra A, Giorgi CA, Randon G, Scagnoli S, De Angelis C, et al. 337P Efficacy of everolimus plus exemestane in CDK 4/6 inhibitors-pretreated or naïve HR-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer patients: A secondary analysis of the EVERMET study. Annals of Oncology. 2020;31:S382

Luhn P, O’Hear C, Ton T, Sanglier T, Hsieh A, Oliveri D, et al. Abstract P4-13-08: time to treatment discontinuation of second-line fulvestrant monotherapy for HR+/HER2– metastatic breast cancer in the real-world setting. Cancer Res. 2019;79(4Supplement):P4–13.

Mittal A, Molto Valiente C, Tamimi F, Schlam I, Sammons S, Tolaney SM et al. Filling the gap after CDK4/6 inhibitors: Novel Endocrine and Biologic Treatment options for metastatic hormone receptor positive breast Cancer. Cancers (Basel). 2023;15(7).

Ashai N, Swain SM. Post-CDK 4/6 inhibitor therapy: current agents and novel targets. Cancers (Basel). 2023;15(6).

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

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.

Serdar CC, Cihan M, Yücel D, Serdar MA. Sample size, power and effect size revisited: simplified and practical approaches in pre-clinical, clinical and laboratory studies. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2021;31(1):010502.

US Food Drug Administration. FDA approves elacestrant for ER-positive, HER2-negative, ESR1-mutated advanced or metastatic breast cancer [updated January 27 2023. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources-information-approved-drugs/fda-approves-elacestrant-er-positive-her2-negative-esr1-mutated-advanced-or-metastatic-breast-cancer .

US Food Drug Administration. FDA approves capivasertib with fulvestrant for breast cancer [updated November 16 2023. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources-information-approved-drugs/fda-approves-capivasertib-fulvestrant-breast-cancer .

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Joanna Bielecki who developed, conducted, and documented the database searches.

This study was funded by Pfizer Inc. (New York, NY, USA) and Arvinas (New Haven, CT, USA).

Author information

Sarah Kane, Belal Howidi, Bao-Ngoc Nguyen and Imtiaz A. Samjoo contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

Pfizer, 10017, New York, NY, USA

Veronique Lambert & Yan Wu

EVERSANA, Burlington, ON, Canada

Sarah Kane, Belal Howidi, Bao-Ngoc Nguyen & Imtiaz A. Samjoo

Arvinas, 06511, New Haven, CT, USA

David Chandiwana & Michelle Edwards

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

VL, IAS, SK, BH, BN, DC, YW, and ME participated in the conception and design of the study. IAS, SK, BH and BN contributed to the literature review, data collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data. VL, IAS, SK, BH, BN, DC, YW, and ME contributed to the interpretation of the data and critically reviewed for the importance of intellectual content for the work. VL, IAS, SK, BH, BN, DC, YW, and ME were responsible for drafting or reviewing the manuscript and for providing final approval. VL, IAS, SK, BH, BN, DC, YW, and ME meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for this article, take responsibility for the integrity of the work, and have given their approval for this version to be published.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Imtiaz A. Samjoo .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors of this manuscript declare that the research presented was funded by Pfizer Inc. and Arvinas. While the support from Pfizer Inc. and Arvinas was instrumental in facilitating this research, the authors affirm that their interpretation of the data and the content of this manuscript were conducted independently and without bias to maintain the transparency and integrity of the research. IAS, SK, BH, and BN are employees of EVERSANA, Canada, which was a paid consultant to Pfizer in connection with the development of this manuscript.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary material 2, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Lambert, V., Kane, S., Howidi, B. et al. Systematic literature review of real-world evidence for treatments in HR+/HER2- second-line LABC/mBC after first-line treatment with CDK4/6i. BMC Cancer 24 , 631 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-024-12269-8

Download citation

Received : 26 January 2024

Accepted : 16 April 2024

Published : 23 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-024-12269-8

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

First-line CDK4/6i

ISSN: 1471-2407

Submission enquiries: [email protected]
General enquiries: [email protected]

SUGGESTED TOPICS
The Magazine
Newsletters
Managing Yourself
Managing Teams
Work-life Balance
The Big Idea
Data & Visuals
Reading Lists
Case Selections
HBR Learning
Topic Feeds
Account Settings
Email Preferences

All Business Strategies Fall into 4 Categories

Jerome Barthelemy

Some are more creative than others.

The problem with strategy frameworks is that although they can help you determine whether an opportunity is attractive or whether a given strategy is likely to work, they generally don’t help you in the task of identifying the opportunity or crafting the strategy in the first place. This article introduces a framework, built on an in-depth analysis of the creativity literature, that aims to fill that gap by providing a systematic approach to identifying potential strategies. The framework categorizes all strategies into the following four groups, from the least creative to the most creative: adapting an existing industry strategy, combining different existing industry strategies, importing strategies from other industries, and creating a brand new strategy from scratch.

The problem with strategy frameworks is that although they can help you determine whether a given opportunity is attractive or whether a particular strategy is likely to work, they generally don’t help you in the task of identifying the opportunity or crafting the strategy in the first place. As the legendary strategy expert Gary Hamel put it: “ The dirty little secret of the strategy industry is that it doesn’t have any theory of strategy creation .”

Jérôme Barthélemy is Executive Vice-President, Dean for Post Experience Programs, Corporate Programs and Relations and Professor of Strategy and Management at ESSEC Business School. He is the author of Myths of Strategy (Kogan Page, 2023)

Partner Center

IMAGES

Research Methodology MCQS
50 Smart Literature Review Templates (APA) ᐅ TemplateLab
39 Best Literature Review Examples (Guide & Samples)
How To Write A Literature Review A Step By Step Guide
Helping You in Writing a Literature Review Immaculately
How to Write a Literature Review for a Research Paper? A Complete Guide

VIDEO

#MCQ English literature for net#imp MCQ net
ICSE Eng Literature 2024: 60+ Important MCQs Revision from MOV + Poetry + Prose🔥
english literature mcqs for lecturer test
ICSE 2024 English Literature: Important MCQs Revision From MOV, Poetry & Prose
MCQ English LITERATURE| Questions on English LITERATURE By Manav sir
MCQ English LITERATURE| Questions on English LITERATURE By Manav sir

COMMENTS

Multiple choice quiz
Multiple choice quiz. Test your understanding of each chapter by taking the quiz below. Click anywhere on the question to reveal the answer. Good luck! 1. A literature review is best described as: A list of relevant articles and other published material you have read about your topic, describing the content of each source.
Top 20 MCQs on literature review with answers
11. The main purpose of finalization of research topics and sub-topics is. 12. Literature review is basically to bridge the gap between. 13. The last step in writing the literature review is. 14. The primary purpose of literature review is to facilitate detailed background of. 15.
Literature Review
Rate this question: 2 1. 5. A visual ______ map might help you plan the structure of the literature review. Correct Answer (s) mind. Explanation. A visual mind map might help you plan the structure of the literature review because it allows you to visually organize and connect different ideas and concepts.
Literature reviews Flashcards
what is a literature review. a comprehensive study and interpretation of literature that relates to a particular topic. what is the purpose of a literature review. -to identify gaps in knowledge. -place your tentative research problem in the context of your field and related fields. -gather together what is already known on a topic.
Multiple choice quiz
What is a literature review? A place to provide autobiographic detail; A place to outline all the reading you have done in your studies; A place to link your reading to your research findings; A place to discuss literature which helps to frame your study; Answer: D. 4. Where is a literature review typically found in written-up research?
Literature Review Flashcards
Overall purposes of a literature review. 1. Determines what is known and unknown about a subject, concept, or problem. 2. Determines gaps, consistencies, inconsistencies in the literature about a subject, concept, or problem. 3. Discovers conceptual traditions used to examine problems. 4.
Literature Review Quiz
20 of 20. Quiz yourself with questions and answers for Literature Review Quiz, so you can be ready for test day. Explore quizzes and practice tests created by teachers and students or create one from your course material.
Literature Review MCQ [Free PDF]
Get Literature Review Multiple Choice Questions (MCQ Quiz) with answers and detailed solutions. Download these Free Literature Review MCQ Quiz Pdf and prepare for your upcoming exams Like Banking, SSC, Railway, UPSC, State PSC. ... Understanding existing research helps you build upon prior knowledge, avoid duplication, and identify gaps in the ...
How to Write a Literature Review
Examples of literature reviews. Step 1 - Search for relevant literature. Step 2 - Evaluate and select sources. Step 3 - Identify themes, debates, and gaps. Step 4 - Outline your literature review's structure. Step 5 - Write your literature review.
Quiz & Worksheet
You will receive your score and answers at the end. question 1 of 3. Doing an internet search on a topic and looking through the results. The process of studying published research. The process of ...
Chapter 4: Multiple choice questions
c) To find out what is already known about your area of interest. d) To make sure you have a long list of references. Question 2. To read the literature critically means: a) to suggest the previous research was always poorly conducted. b) skimming through the material because most of it is just padding.
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 ...
Literature Review: The What, Why and How-to Guide
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).
What is a literature review?
A literature or narrative review is a comprehensive review and analysis of the published literature on a specific topic or research question. The literature that is reviewed contains: books, articles, academic articles, conference proceedings, association papers, and dissertations. It contains the most pertinent studies and points to important ...
Writing a literature review
Help; Guides Writing. English. English 日本語 Deutsch. Literature review. How to write a literature review in 6 steps. How do you write a good literature review? This step-by-step guide on how to write an excellent literature review covers all aspects of planning and writing literature reviews for academic papers and theses.
Literature review as a research methodology: An ...
As mentioned previously, there are a number of existing guidelines for literature reviews. Depending on the methodology needed to achieve the purpose of the review, all types can be helpful and appropriate to reach a specific goal (for examples, please see Table 1).These approaches can be qualitative, quantitative, or have a mixed design depending on the phase of the review.
Top 10 Questions for a Complete Literature Review
10. Will my literature review reflect a report that is created after a through critical analysis of the literature? An excellent literature review must be structured, logical, and coherent. It is a great opportunity to demonstrate that you have critically analyzed and understood the relevant body of literature underpinning your research.
Research Methodology MCQS
Research Methodology MCQS writing literature review requires: planning clear writing research is: lab experiment report good writing all of the above systematic ... To help in your general study; Which of the following studies is based on the qualitative research? a) A study examining client's reaction to stress after open heart surgery b) A ...
Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review
Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications .For example, compared to 1991, in 2008 three, eight, and forty times more papers were indexed in Web of Science on malaria, obesity, and biodiversity, respectively .Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every ...
Reviewing the Literature MCQs (FREE Multiple-Choice Questions)
8: A critical literature review requires the researchers to ______. A. Be negative about the literature they read. B. Highlight the reasons why previous research was misguided or poorly conducted. C. Select literature they find easy to criticise. D. Evaluate the contribution of previous research in the light of a new research questions.
Quiz & Worksheet
To learn more about test-taking strategies, review the accompanying lesson on Strategies for Literature Multiple Choice Questions. This lesson includes the following objectives: Understand the ...
AP English Literature Multiple Choice: Complete Expert Guide
AP English Literature and Composition section one is the multiple-choice section. You'll have 60 minutes to answer 55 questions about four to five literary prose and poetry passages. The date of composition of AP Lit passages could range from the 16th to the 21st century, however, you generally won't be provided with the author, date, or title ...
Systematic literature review of real-world evidence for treatments in
Understanding the real-world effectiveness of subsequent therapies may help to identify an unmet need in this patient population. This systematic literature review qualitatively synthesized effectiveness and safety outcomes for treatments received in the real-world setting after 1 L CDK4/6i therapy in patients with HR+/ HER2- LABC/mBC.
All Business Strategies Fall into 4 Categories
This article introduces a framework, built on an in-depth analysis of the creativity literature, that aims to fill that gap by providing a systematic approach to identifying potential strategies.
Enteral Nutrition in Operated-On Gastric Cancer Patients: An Update
EN also significantly helps patients undergoing neoadjuvant or adjuvant antineoplastic therapy. ... This review attempts to highlight the benefits of EN in GC patients undergoing gastrectomy and to emphasize the type of necessary nutritional management, based on current literature data. It is well established that the preoperative nutritional ...
Microorganisms
Common variable immunodeficiency (CVID) is the most common symptomatic immunodeficiency in adults. It comprises a group of syndromes whose etiology involves genetic, epigenetic, microbiota, and environmental factors. We present the case of a 46-year-old Caucasian male patient with CVID and an immune dysregulation phenotype. The particular elements of the case consisted of an atypical clinical ...
Genes
The MAF gene encodes a transcription factor in which pathogenic variants have been associated with both isolated and syndromic congenital cataracts. We aim to review the MAF variants in the C-terminal DNA-binding domain associated with non-syndromic congenital cataracts and describe a patient with a novel, disease-causing de novo missense variant. Published reports of C-terminal MAF variants ...