what are the relevance of literature review

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, you can follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

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

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

 Statistics

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

Research bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved September 9, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

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

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

Table of Contents

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

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

Frequently asked questions 

What is a literature review .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature review example 

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

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to write a good literature review 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conducting a literature review 

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

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:  

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

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:  

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

Select Databases for Searches:  

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

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:  

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

Review the Literature:  

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

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:  

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

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

How to write a literature review faster with Paperpal?  

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

Here’s how to use the Research feature:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 

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

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

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

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

Related Reads:

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

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

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

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

What is the Purpose of a Literature Review?

4-minute read

• 23rd October 2023

If you’re writing a research paper or dissertation , then you’ll most likely need to include a comprehensive literature review . In this post, we’ll review the purpose of literature reviews, why they are so significant, and the specific elements to include in one. Literature reviews can:

1. Provide a foundation for current research.

2. Define key concepts and theories.

3. Demonstrate critical evaluation.

4. Show how research and methodologies have evolved.

5. Identify gaps in existing research.

6. Support your argument.

Keep reading to enter the exciting world of literature reviews!

What is a Literature Review?

A literature review is a critical summary and evaluation of the existing research (e.g., academic journal articles and books) on a specific topic. It is typically included as a separate section or chapter of a research paper or dissertation, serving as a contextual framework for a study. Literature reviews can vary in length depending on the subject and nature of the study, with most being about equal length to other sections or chapters included in the paper. Essentially, the literature review highlights previous studies in the context of your research and summarizes your insights in a structured, organized format. Next, let’s look at the overall purpose of a literature review.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

Literature reviews are considered an integral part of research across most academic subjects and fields. The primary purpose of a literature review in your study is to:

Provide a Foundation for Current Research

Since the literature review provides a comprehensive evaluation of the existing research, it serves as a solid foundation for your current study. It’s a way to contextualize your work and show how your research fits into the broader landscape of your specific area of study.  

Define Key Concepts and Theories

The literature review highlights the central theories and concepts that have arisen from previous research on your chosen topic. It gives your readers a more thorough understanding of the background of your study and why your research is particularly significant .

Demonstrate Critical Evaluation 

A comprehensive literature review shows your ability to critically analyze and evaluate a broad range of source material. And since you’re considering and acknowledging the contribution of key scholars alongside your own, it establishes your own credibility and knowledge.

Show How Research and Methodologies Have Evolved

Another purpose of literature reviews is to provide a historical perspective and demonstrate how research and methodologies have changed over time, especially as data collection methods and technology have advanced. And studying past methodologies allows you, as the researcher, to understand what did and did not work and apply that knowledge to your own research.  

Identify Gaps in Existing Research

Besides discussing current research and methodologies, the literature review should also address areas that are lacking in the existing literature. This helps further demonstrate the relevance of your own research by explaining why your study is necessary to fill the gaps.

Support Your Argument

A good literature review should provide evidence that supports your research questions and hypothesis. For example, your study may show that your research supports existing theories or builds on them in some way. Referencing previous related studies shows your work is grounded in established research and will ultimately be a contribution to the field.  

Literature Review Editing Services 

Ensure your literature review is polished and ready for submission by having it professionally proofread and edited by our expert team. Our literature review editing services will help your research stand out and make an impact. Not convinced yet? Send in your free sample today and see for yourself! 

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

5-minute read

Free Email Newsletter Template

Promoting a brand means sharing valuable insights to connect more deeply with your audience, and...

6-minute read

How to Write a Nonprofit Grant Proposal

If you’re seeking funding to support your charitable endeavors as a nonprofit organization, you’ll need...

9-minute read

How to Use Infographics to Boost Your Presentation

Is your content getting noticed? Capturing and maintaining an audience’s attention is a challenge when...

8-minute read

Why Interactive PDFs Are Better for Engagement

Are you looking to enhance engagement and captivate your audience through your professional documents? Interactive...

7-minute read

Seven Key Strategies for Voice Search Optimization

Voice search optimization is rapidly shaping the digital landscape, requiring content professionals to adapt their...

Five Creative Ways to Showcase Your Digital Portfolio

Are you a creative freelancer looking to make a lasting impression on potential clients or...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

Service update: Some parts of the Library’s website will be down for maintenance on August 11.

Secondary menu

• Log in to your Library account
• Hours and Maps
• Connect from Off Campus
• UC Berkeley Home

Search form

Conducting a literature review: why do a literature review, why do a literature review.

• How To Find "The Literature"
• Found it -- Now What?

Besides the obvious reason for students -- because it is assigned! -- a literature review helps you explore the research that has come before you, to see how your research question has (or has not) already been addressed.

You identify:

• core research in the field
• experts in the subject area
• methodology you may want to use (or avoid)
• gaps in knowledge -- or where your research would fit in

It Also Helps You:

• Publish and share your findings
• Justify requests for grants and other funding
• Identify best practices to inform practice
• Set wider context for a program evaluation
• Compile information to support community organizing

Great brief overview, from NCSU

Want To Know More?

• Next: How To Find "The Literature" >>
• Last Updated: Apr 25, 2024 1:10 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/litreview

• 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

Libraries | Research Guides

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

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

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

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

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

A Guide to Literature Reviews

Importance of a good literature review.

• Conducting the Literature Review
• Structure and Writing Style
• Types of Literature Reviews
• Citation Management Software This link opens in a new window
• Acknowledgements

A literature review is not only a summary of key sources, but  has an organizational pattern which combines both summary and synthesis, often within specific conceptual categories . A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information in a way that informs how you are planning to investigate a research problem. The analytical features of a literature review might:

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

The purpose of a literature review is to:

• Place each work in the context of its contribution to understanding the research problem being studied.
• Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration.
• Identify new ways to interpret prior research.
• Reveal any gaps that exist in the literature.
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies.
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort.
• Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research.
• Locate your own research within the context of existing literature [very important].
• << Previous: Definition
• Next: Conducting the Literature Review >>
• Last Updated: Jul 3, 2024 3:13 PM
• URL: https://libguides.mcmaster.ca/litreview

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

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

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

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

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

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

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

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

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

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

Table of contents

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

• Quick Run-through
• Step 1 & 2

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

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

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

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

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

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

Correct my document today

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

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

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

Download Word doc Download Google doc

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

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

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

Make a list of keywords

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

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

Search for relevant sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

For each publication, ask yourself:

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

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

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

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

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

Take notes and cite your sources

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

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

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

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological

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

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

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

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

Methodological

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

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

Theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you write, make sure to follow these tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, June 07). What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 9 September 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

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

What Is A Literature Review?

A plain-language explainer (with examples).

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

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

Literature Review 101

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

What is a literature review?

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

Reviewing the literature

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

The literature review chapter

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

What’s the purpose of a literature review?

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

Purpose #1 – Demonstrate your topic knowledge

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

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

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

Purpose #3 – Lay the foundation for your conceptual framework

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

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

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

Purpose #4 – To inform your methodology

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

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

How do I find articles for my literature review?

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

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

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

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

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

Need a helping hand?

How should I structure my literature review?

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

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

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

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

Example of a literature review

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

Wrapping Up

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

Psst… there’s more!

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

16 Comments

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

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

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

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

Timothy T. Chol [email protected]

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

This was so useful. Thank you so much.

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

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

Great Brief Explanation, thanks

So helpful to me as a student

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

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

Well-presented overview of the literature!

This was brilliant. So clear. Thank you

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

Literature Review - what is a Literature Review, why it is important and how it is done

What are literature reviews, goals of literature reviews, types of literature reviews, about this guide/licence.

• Strategies to Find Sources
• Evaluating Literature Reviews and Sources
• Tips for Writing Literature Reviews
• Writing Literature Review: Useful Sites
• Citation Resources
• Other Academic Writings
• Useful Resources

Help is Just a Click Away

Search our FAQ Knowledge base, ask a question, chat, send comments...

Go to LibAnswers

 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. " - Quote from Taylor, D. (n.d) "The literature review: A few tips on conducting it"

Source NC State University Libraries. This video is published under a Creative Commons 3.0 BY-NC-SA US license.

What are the goals of creating a Literature Review?

• 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.

When do you need to write a Literature Review?

• When writing a prospectus or a thesis/dissertation
• When writing a research paper
• When writing a grant proposal

In all these cases you need to dedicate a chapter in these works to showcase what have been written about your research topic and to point out how your own research will shed a new light into these body of scholarship.

Literature reviews are also written as standalone articles as a way to survey a particular research topic in-depth. This type of literature reviews look at a topic from a historical perspective to see how the understanding of the topic have change through time.

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.
• Book review essays/ Historiographical review essays : This is a type of review that focus on a small set of research books on a particular topic " to locate these books within current scholarship, critical methodologies, and approaches" in the field. - LARR
• 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 . San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing.
• 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 . Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
• 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.

Guide adapted from "Literature Review" , a guide developed by Marisol Ramos used under CC BY 4.0 /modified from original.

• Next: Strategies to Find Sources >>
• Last Updated: Jul 3, 2024 10:56 AM
• URL: https://lit.libguides.com/Literature-Review

The Library, Technological University of the Shannon: Midwest

Research Methods

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

Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

A literature review is important because it:

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

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

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

Not an essay 

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

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

A literature review serves several purposes. For example, it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Systematic review or meta-analysis?

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

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

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

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

Not all systematic reviews contain meta-analysis. 

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

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

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

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

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

Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library

• Collections
• Research Help

YSN Doctoral Programs: Steps in Conducting a Literature Review

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

What is a literature review?

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

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

Why is it important?

A literature review is important because it:

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

APA7 Style resources

APA Style Blog - for those harder to find answers

1. Choose a topic. Define your research question.

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

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

2. Decide on the scope of your review

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

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

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

Make a list of the databases you will search. 

Where to find databases:

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

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

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

Review the literature

Some questions to help you analyze the research:

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

Tips: 

• Review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.
• Create a matrix of the studies for easy analysis, and synthesis, across all of the studies.
• << Previous: Recommended Books
• Last Updated: Jun 20, 2024 9:08 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.yale.edu/YSNDoctoral

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Grad Med Educ
• v.8(3); 2016 Jul

The Literature Review: A Foundation for High-Quality Medical Education Research

a  These are subscription resources. Researchers should check with their librarian to determine their access rights.

Despite a surge in published scholarship in medical education 1 and rapid growth in journals that publish educational research, manuscript acceptance rates continue to fall. 2 Failure to conduct a thorough, accurate, and up-to-date literature review identifying an important problem and placing the study in context is consistently identified as one of the top reasons for rejection. 3 , 4 The purpose of this editorial is to provide a road map and practical recommendations for planning a literature review. By understanding the goals of a literature review and following a few basic processes, authors can enhance both the quality of their educational research and the likelihood of publication in the Journal of Graduate Medical Education ( JGME ) and in other journals.

The Literature Review Defined

In medical education, no organization has articulated a formal definition of a literature review for a research paper; thus, a literature review can take a number of forms. Depending on the type of article, target journal, and specific topic, these forms will vary in methodology, rigor, and depth. Several organizations have published guidelines for conducting an intensive literature search intended for formal systematic reviews, both broadly (eg, PRISMA) 5 and within medical education, 6 and there are excellent commentaries to guide authors of systematic reviews. 7 , 8

• A literature review forms the basis for high-quality medical education research and helps maximize relevance, originality, generalizability, and impact.
• A literature review provides context, informs methodology, maximizes innovation, avoids duplicative research, and ensures that professional standards are met.
• Literature reviews take time, are iterative, and should continue throughout the research process.
• Researchers should maximize the use of human resources (librarians, colleagues), search tools (databases/search engines), and existing literature (related articles).
• Keeping organized is critical.

Such work is outside the scope of this article, which focuses on literature reviews to inform reports of original medical education research. We define such a literature review as a synthetic review and summary of what is known and unknown regarding the topic of a scholarly body of work, including the current work's place within the existing knowledge . While this type of literature review may not require the intensive search processes mandated by systematic reviews, it merits a thoughtful and rigorous approach.

Purpose and Importance of the Literature Review

An understanding of the current literature is critical for all phases of a research study. Lingard 9 recently invoked the “journal-as-conversation” metaphor as a way of understanding how one's research fits into the larger medical education conversation. As she described it: “Imagine yourself joining a conversation at a social event. After you hang about eavesdropping to get the drift of what's being said (the conversational equivalent of the literature review), you join the conversation with a contribution that signals your shared interest in the topic, your knowledge of what's already been said, and your intention.” 9

The literature review helps any researcher “join the conversation” by providing context, informing methodology, identifying innovation, minimizing duplicative research, and ensuring that professional standards are met. Understanding the current literature also promotes scholarship, as proposed by Boyer, 10 by contributing to 5 of the 6 standards by which scholarly work should be evaluated. 11 Specifically, the review helps the researcher (1) articulate clear goals, (2) show evidence of adequate preparation, (3) select appropriate methods, (4) communicate relevant results, and (5) engage in reflective critique.

Failure to conduct a high-quality literature review is associated with several problems identified in the medical education literature, including studies that are repetitive, not grounded in theory, methodologically weak, and fail to expand knowledge beyond a single setting. 12 Indeed, medical education scholars complain that many studies repeat work already published and contribute little new knowledge—a likely cause of which is failure to conduct a proper literature review. 3 , 4

Likewise, studies that lack theoretical grounding or a conceptual framework make study design and interpretation difficult. 13 When theory is used in medical education studies, it is often invoked at a superficial level. As Norman 14 noted, when theory is used appropriately, it helps articulate variables that might be linked together and why, and it allows the researcher to make hypotheses and define a study's context and scope. Ultimately, a proper literature review is a first critical step toward identifying relevant conceptual frameworks.

Another problem is that many medical education studies are methodologically weak. 12 Good research requires trained investigators who can articulate relevant research questions, operationally define variables of interest, and choose the best method for specific research questions. Conducting a proper literature review helps both novice and experienced researchers select rigorous research methodologies.

Finally, many studies in medical education are “one-offs,” that is, single studies undertaken because the opportunity presented itself locally. Such studies frequently are not oriented toward progressive knowledge building and generalization to other settings. A firm grasp of the literature can encourage a programmatic approach to research.

Approaching the Literature Review

Considering these issues, journals have a responsibility to demand from authors a thoughtful synthesis of their study's position within the field, and it is the authors' responsibility to provide such a synthesis, based on a literature review. The aforementioned purposes of the literature review mandate that the review occurs throughout all phases of a study, from conception and design, to implementation and analysis, to manuscript preparation and submission.

Planning the literature review requires understanding of journal requirements, which vary greatly by journal ( table 1 ). Authors are advised to take note of common problems with reporting results of the literature review. Table 2 lists the most common problems that we have encountered as authors, reviewers, and editors.

Sample of Journals' Author Instructions for Literature Reviews Conducted as Part of Original Research Article a

Common Problem Areas for Reporting Literature Reviews in the Context of Scholarly Articles

Locating and Organizing the Literature

Three resources may facilitate identifying relevant literature: human resources, search tools, and related literature. As the process requires time, it is important to begin searching for literature early in the process (ie, the study design phase). Identifying and understanding relevant studies will increase the likelihood of designing a relevant, adaptable, generalizable, and novel study that is based on educational or learning theory and can maximize impact.

Human Resources

A medical librarian can help translate research interests into an effective search strategy, familiarize researchers with available information resources, provide information on organizing information, and introduce strategies for keeping current with emerging research. Often, librarians are also aware of research across their institutions and may be able to connect researchers with similar interests. Reaching out to colleagues for suggestions may help researchers quickly locate resources that would not otherwise be on their radar.

During this process, researchers will likely identify other researchers writing on aspects of their topic. Researchers should consider searching for the publications of these relevant researchers (see table 3 for search strategies). Additionally, institutional websites may include curriculum vitae of such relevant faculty with access to their entire publication record, including difficult to locate publications, such as book chapters, dissertations, and technical reports.

Strategies for Finding Related Researcher Publications in Databases and Search Engines

Search Tools and Related Literature

Researchers will locate the majority of needed information using databases and search engines. Excellent resources are available to guide researchers in the mechanics of literature searches. 15 , 16

Because medical education research draws on a variety of disciplines, researchers should include search tools with coverage beyond medicine (eg, psychology, nursing, education, and anthropology) and that cover several publication types, such as reports, standards, conference abstracts, and book chapters (see the box for several information resources). Many search tools include options for viewing citations of selected articles. Examining cited references provides additional articles for review and a sense of the influence of the selected article on its field.

Box Information Resources

• Web of Science a
• Education Resource Information Center (ERIC)
• Cumulative Index of Nursing & Allied Health (CINAHL) a
• Google Scholar

Once relevant articles are located, it is useful to mine those articles for additional citations. One strategy is to examine references of key articles, especially review articles, for relevant citations.

Getting Organized

As the aforementioned resources will likely provide a tremendous amount of information, organization is crucial. Researchers should determine which details are most important to their study (eg, participants, setting, methods, and outcomes) and generate a strategy for keeping those details organized and accessible. Increasingly, researchers utilize digital tools, such as Evernote, to capture such information, which enables accessibility across digital workspaces and search capabilities. Use of citation managers can also be helpful as they store citations and, in some cases, can generate bibliographies ( table 4 ).

Citation Managers

Knowing When to Say When

Researchers often ask how to know when they have located enough citations. Unfortunately, there is no magic or ideal number of citations to collect. One strategy for checking coverage of the literature is to inspect references of relevant articles. As researchers review references they will start noticing a repetition of the same articles with few new articles appearing. This can indicate that the researcher has covered the literature base on a particular topic.

Putting It All Together

In preparing to write a research paper, it is important to consider which citations to include and how they will inform the introduction and discussion sections. The “Instructions to Authors” for the targeted journal will often provide guidance on structuring the literature review (or introduction) and the number of total citations permitted for each article category. Reviewing articles of similar type published in the targeted journal can also provide guidance regarding structure and average lengths of the introduction and discussion sections.

When selecting references for the introduction consider those that illustrate core background theoretical and methodological concepts, as well as recent relevant studies. The introduction should be brief and present references not as a laundry list or narrative of available literature, but rather as a synthesized summary to provide context for the current study and to identify the gap in the literature that the study intends to fill. For the discussion, citations should be thoughtfully selected to compare and contrast the present study's findings with the current literature and to indicate how the present study moves the field forward.

To facilitate writing a literature review, journals are increasingly providing helpful features to guide authors. For example, the resources available through JGME include several articles on writing. 17 The journal Perspectives on Medical Education recently launched “The Writer's Craft,” which is intended to help medical educators improve their writing. Additionally, many institutions have writing centers that provide web-based materials on writing a literature review, and some even have writing coaches.

The literature review is a vital part of medical education research and should occur throughout the research process to help researchers design a strong study and effectively communicate study results and importance. To achieve these goals, researchers are advised to plan and execute the literature review carefully. The guidance in this editorial provides considerations and recommendations that may improve the quality of literature reviews.

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

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

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

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

Importance of a Good Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Thinking About Your Literature Review

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

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

The critical evaluation of each work should consider :

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

II.  Development of the Literature Review

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

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

III.  Ways to Organize Your Literature Review

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

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

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

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

IV.  Writing Your Literature Review

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

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

V.  Common Mistakes to Avoid

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

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

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

Writing Tip

Break Out of Your Disciplinary Box!

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

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

Another Writing Tip

Don't Just Review for Content!

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

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

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

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

Yet Another Writing Tip

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

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

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

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

• << Previous: Theoretical Framework
• Next: Citation Tracking >>
• Last Updated: Sep 4, 2024 9:40 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

University Libraries

Literature review.

• What is a Literature Review?
• What is Its Purpose?
• 1. Select a Topic
• 2. Set the Topic in Context
• 3. Types of Information Sources
• 4. Use Information Sources
• 5. Get the Information
• 6. Organize / Manage the Information
• 7. Position the Literature Review
• 8. Write the Literature Review

A literature review is a comprehensive summary of previous research on a topic. The literature review surveys scholarly articles, books, and other sources relevant to a particular area of research.  The review should enumerate, describe, summarize, objectively evaluate and clarify this previous research.  It should give a theoretical base for the research and help you (the author) determine the nature of your research.  The literature review acknowledges the work of previous researchers, and in so doing, assures the reader that your work has been well conceived.  It is assumed that by mentioning a previous work in the field of study, that the author has read, evaluated, and assimiliated that work into the work at hand.

A literature review creates a "landscape" for the reader, giving her or him a full understanding of the developments in the field.  This landscape informs the reader that the author has indeed assimilated all (or the vast majority of) previous, significant works in the field into her or his research. 

 "In writing the literature review, the purpose is to convey to the reader what knowledge and ideas have been established on a topic, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. The literature review must be defined by a guiding concept (eg. 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.( http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/specific-types-of-writing/literature-review )

Recommended Reading

• Next: What is Its Purpose? >>
• Last Updated: Oct 2, 2023 12:34 PM

Literature Review: Purpose of a Literature Review

• Literature Review
• Purpose of a Literature Review
• Work in Progress
• Compiling & Writing
• Books, Articles, & Web Pages
• Types of Literature Reviews
• Departmental Differences
• Citation Styles & Plagiarism
• Know the Difference! Systematic Review vs. Literature Review

The purpose of a literature review is to:

• Provide a foundation of knowledge on a topic
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication and give credit to other researchers
• Identify inconstancies: gaps in research, conflicts in previous studies, open questions left from other research
• Identify the need for additional research (justifying your research)
• Identify the relationship of works in the context of their contribution to the topic and other works
• Place your own research within the context of existing literature, making a case for why further study is needed.

Videos & Tutorials

VIDEO: What is the role of a literature review in research? What's it mean to "review" the literature? Get the big picture of what to expect as part of the process. This video is published under a Creative Commons 3.0 BY-NC-SA US license. License, credits, and contact information can be found here: https://www.lib.ncsu.edu/tutorials/litreview/

Elements in a Literature Review

• Elements in a Literature Review txt of infographic
• << Previous: Literature Review
• Next: Searching >>
• Last Updated: Sep 10, 2024 11:32 AM
• URL: https://uscupstate.libguides.com/Literature_Review

• Research Process
• Manuscript Preparation
• Manuscript Review
• Publication Process
• Publication Recognition
• Language Editing Services
• Translation Services

Literature Review in Research Writing

• 4 minute read
• 428.5K views

Table of Contents

Research on research? If you find this idea rather peculiar, know that nowadays, with the huge amount of information produced daily all around the world, it is becoming more and more difficult to keep up to date with all of it. In addition to the sheer amount of research, there is also its origin. We are witnessing the economic and intellectual emergence of countries like China, Brazil, Turkey, and United Arab Emirates, for example, that are producing scholarly literature in their own languages. So, apart from the effort of gathering information, there must also be translators prepared to unify all of it in a single language to be the object of the literature survey. At Elsevier, our team of translators is ready to support researchers by delivering high-quality scientific translations , in several languages, to serve their research – no matter the topic.

What is a literature review?

A literature review is a study – or, more accurately, a survey – involving scholarly material, with the aim to discuss published information about a specific topic or research question. Therefore, to write a literature review, it is compulsory that you are a real expert in the object of study. The results and findings will be published and made available to the public, namely scientists working in the same area of research.

How to Write a Literature Review

First of all, don’t forget that writing a literature review is a great responsibility. It’s a document that is expected to be highly reliable, especially concerning its sources and findings. You have to feel intellectually comfortable in the area of study and highly proficient in the target language; misconceptions and errors do not have a place in a document as important as a literature review. In fact, you might want to consider text editing services, like those offered at Elsevier, to make sure your literature is following the highest standards of text quality. You want to make sure your literature review is memorable by its novelty and quality rather than language errors.

Writing a literature review requires expertise but also organization. We cannot teach you about your topic of research, but we can provide a few steps to guide you through conducting a literature review:

• Choose your topic or research question: It should not be too comprehensive or too limited. You have to complete your task within a feasible time frame.
• Set the scope: Define boundaries concerning the number of sources, time frame to be covered, geographical area, etc.
• Decide which databases you will use for your searches: In order to search the best viable sources for your literature review, use highly regarded, comprehensive databases to get a big picture of the literature related to your topic.
• Search, search, and search: Now you’ll start to investigate the research on your topic. It’s critical that you keep track of all the sources. Start by looking at research abstracts in detail to see if their respective studies relate to or are useful for your own work. Next, search for bibliographies and references that can help you broaden your list of resources. Choose the most relevant literature and remember to keep notes of their bibliographic references to be used later on.
• Review all the literature, appraising carefully it’s content: After reading the study’s abstract, pay attention to the rest of the content of the articles you deem the “most relevant.” Identify methodologies, the most important questions they address, if they are well-designed and executed, and if they are cited enough, etc.

If it’s the first time you’ve published a literature review, note that it is important to follow a special structure. Just like in a thesis, for example, it is expected that you have an introduction – giving the general idea of the central topic and organizational pattern – a body – which contains the actual discussion of the sources – and finally the conclusion or recommendations – where you bring forward whatever you have drawn from the reviewed literature. The conclusion may even suggest there are no agreeable findings and that the discussion should be continued.

Why are literature reviews important?

Literature reviews constantly feed new research, that constantly feeds literature reviews…and we could go on and on. The fact is, one acts like a force over the other and this is what makes science, as a global discipline, constantly develop and evolve. As a scientist, writing a literature review can be very beneficial to your career, and set you apart from the expert elite in your field of interest. But it also can be an overwhelming task, so don’t hesitate in contacting Elsevier for text editing services, either for profound edition or just a last revision. We guarantee the very highest standards. You can also save time by letting us suggest and make the necessary amendments to your manuscript, so that it fits the structural pattern of a literature review. Who knows how many worldwide researchers you will impact with your next perfectly written literature review.

Know more: How to Find a Gap in Research .

Language Editing Services by Elsevier Author Services:

What is a Research Gap

Types of Scientific Articles

You may also like.

Descriptive Research Design and Its Myriad Uses

Five Common Mistakes to Avoid When Writing a Biomedical Research Paper

Making Technical Writing in Environmental Engineering Accessible

To Err is Not Human: The Dangers of AI-assisted Academic Writing

When Data Speak, Listen: Importance of Data Collection and Analysis Methods

Choosing the Right Research Methodology: A Guide for Researchers

Why is data validation important in research?

Writing a good review article

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

• StudySkills@Sheffield
• Academic writing skills
• Critical writing

How to write a literature review

Are you writing a literature review as part of a final year project, dissertation, or thesis, or as a standalone piece of work? This page will work through a process of organising and synthesising your sources and then writing a clear and critical final review.

What is a literature review?

A literature review is an account of the current thinking in a specific area of study. Its purpose is to introduce the reader to what has gone before and often to provide you with a foundation that you can build on with your own research. This traditional form of review is sometimes also referred to as a narrative review.

A literature review will often form a section or chapter of a larger piece of research work, such as a dissertation, thesis, or final year project.  It can also be a standalone piece of work.  

A literature review will usually do some or all of the following:

• Introduce the reader to a specific area of interest.
• Organise relevant sources thematically, starting with the more general, broader themes and narrowing towards the most specific themes.
• Introduce key theories relevant to the area of study.
• Define your understanding of important terms or language used in the research.
• Include only the most relevant, important or influential sources, carefully selected. It is about quality not quantity!
• Identify gaps or limitations in existing research.

Considering a body of scholarship as a whole (or in relation to each of your themes) will allow you to 'synthesise' multiple sources and produce an overall summary.

Developing a literature review will help you to develop a level of expertise in your chosen area. By consulting and including a unique combination of sources, you will be able to formulate an informed and original perspective.  Where relevant, this can drive forward your ongoing research.

Writing a Literature Review workshop: book here

A systematic review is a research methodology, often following a standardised and replicable search method and reporting structure that is specific to your discipline. Visit our guidance on systematic reviews for more information.

Organising your sources

As you encounter more and more relevant sources, you will face an ever-expanding amount of reading for yourself. It would take years to read through all of the literature in a specific field from start to finish.

Academic reading, and particularly the process of 'reading around' a topic, is about selective, or targeted reading. Visit our Reading and understanding information Hub to explore approaches to reading for different purposes.

Creating a Literature Matrix can help you to identify the key things that you want to take away from each source. A literature matrix is a simple spreadsheet where you select column titles to suit the aims of your literature review. Are you interested in the research methodology, the scale of the research, the main conclusions, or something else entirely?

Once you have scanned through a source and pulled out the points you are interested in, you can move onto the next source. Organising your reading in this way will also allow you to identify key themes that are emerging in your reading, which you will be able to use later on to plan your review.

You may want to use a reference management tool to help organise and produce your bibliography. Visit the University of Sheffield Library Reference Management pages here .

Make a copy of our Literature matrix template (Google Sheet) and add/delete columns based on the information you want to collect during your search.  Using a spreadsheet means that you can filter and sort your sources, for example, into chronological order, or alphabetically by author.

This downloadable example literature matrix shows how you can lay out your columns.

Synthesising your sources

Once you have a number of sources to work with, you will start to identify key themes emerging. At this point you can start to organise your sources systematically to develop and explore those themes. Can you organise your themes from the broadest to the narrowest and most specific?

A synthesis matrix will help you to identify a thematic structure for your literature review and to understand how the sources that you have found relate to one another. A synthesis matrix is a further spreadsheet that organises your sources by theme and includes a synthesis column, where you can begin to draw out comparisons between the sources. 

Once you have identified a number of sources for each theme in your matrix, you should be able to identify the following:

• Do the sources build on or develop one another? This may be a chronological process.
• Do the sources challenge or contradict one another? Do they reveal a debate within the field?
• Do the sources identify an area of particular interest or a gap in the field?
• Do the sources help to fill in gaps or complete a bigger picture?

Your synthesis column provides an opportunity for you to comment on multiple sources considered as a whole. It is a space for your critical voice and interpretation, which is a key part of writing a successful literature review.

Make a copy of our synthesis matrix (Google Sheet) to organise your themes and plan how the relevant sources can be synthesised.

Download a completed example synthesis matrix from NC State University (PDF, 34Kb)

Visit our Producing a literature review interactive tutorial - for further guidance.

Writing your review

Once you have done the background reading and organised your sources using a synthesis matrix, the job of writing your review is simply about adding flesh to the bones. You will need to write your review as a narrative account, but you can use your matrix as a framework to help you do so.

A literature review will usually follow a simple structure:

• Introduction: what is the overall topic area and how have you broken your review down into themes?
• Theme 1: the broadest, most top-level area (perhaps including some background theory that may have influenced your thinking).
• Theme 2, theme 3, theme 4, etc. Your themes should get progressively more specific and closer to the focus of your research.
• Conclusion: how has this informed your thinking and (if the review is part of a bigger project) what are your research aims and objectives? 

Your review may be broken down by section headings or be a continuous flow with themes clearly separated in a paragraph structure. Each section or paragraph will describe that theme and finish by summarising your overview of a theme (the synthesis part of the matrix above, which includes your critical analysis). 

Our web page How to structure a paragrap h has further guidance to ensure your paragraphs are clear and contain your synthesis and critical analysis.

For advice and feedback on your own review, including referencing, synthesis and academic arguments, please book a writing advisory service appointment.

Make an appointment (student login required)

• How to plan an effective information search
• How to plan a dissertation or final year project
• How to write critically

Use your mySkills portfolio to discover your skillset, reflect on your development, and record your progress.

• DOI: 10.55041/ijsrem33393
• Corpus ID: 269677556

A Systematic Literature Review of Working Capital Management in Business Organizations

• MONISHA.Y. Naidu
• Published in INTERANTIONAL JOURNAL OF… 9 May 2024

Related Papers

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

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

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

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

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

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

Original Submission Date Received: .

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

Article Menu

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

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

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

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Sustainable operations management in the energy sector: a comprehensive review of the literature from 2000 to 2024.

1. Introduction

2. methodology, 3. literature review, 3.1. closed loop supply chains (clsc), 3.2. low carbon economy (lce), 3.2.1. policies and strategies for sustainable energy transition, 3.2.2. risk management and decision-making tools, 3.3. environmental management, 3.4. innovation, 3.5. social responsibility, 4. discussion, 4.1. the evolution of som in the energy sector, 4.2. the future of som in the energy sector, 5. conclusions, author contributions, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Bettley, A.; Burnley, S. Towards sustainable operations management integrating sustainability management into operations management strategies and practices. In Handbook of Performability Engineering ; Springer: London, UK, 2008; pp. 875–904. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gunasekaran, A.; Irani, Z. Sustainable operations management: Design, modelling and analysis. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 2014 , 65 , 801–805. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kleindorfer, P.R.; Singhal, K.; Van Wassenhove, L.N. Sustainable operations management. Prod. Oper. Manag. 2005 , 14 , 482–492. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Solomon, B.D.; Krishna, K. The coming sustainable energy transition: History, strategies, and outlook. Energy Policy 2011 , 39 , 7422–7431. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Environmental Protection Agency. Global Greenhouse Gas Overview. 2023. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-overview (accessed on 25 July 2024).
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Mitigation of Climate Change, Chapter 2; IPCC, 2022. Data from IPCC (2022); Based on Global Emissions from 2019, Details on the Sectors and Individual Contributing Sources. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/ (accessed on 25 July 2024).
• Fouquet, R. The slow search for solutions: Lessons from historical energy transitions by sector and service. Energy Policy 2010 , 38 , 6586–6596. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kuzemko, C.; Lockwood, M.; Mitchell, C.; Hoggett, R. Governing for sustainable energy system change: Politics, contexts and contingency. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2016 , 12 , 96–105. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Atasu, A.; Corbett, C.J.; Huang, X.; Toktay, L.B. Sustainable operations management through the perspective of manufacturing & service operations management. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag. 2020 , 22 , 146–157. [ Google Scholar ]
• Seuring, S.; Müller, M. Core issues in sustainable supply chain management–a Delphi study. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2008 , 17 , 455–466. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rajeev, A.; Pati, R.K.; Padhi, S.S.; Govindan, K. Evolution of sustainability in supply chain management: A literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2017 , 162 , 299–314. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Touboulic, A.; Walker, H. Theories in sustainable supply chain management: A structured literature review. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2015 , 45 , 16–42. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kraus, S.; Breier, M.; Lim, W.M.; Dabić, M.; Kumar, S.; Kanbach, D.; Mukherjee, D.; Corvello, V.; Piñeiro-Chousa, J.; Liguori, E.; et al. Literature reviews as independent studies: Guidelines for academic practice. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2022 , 16 , 2577–2595. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dabić, M.; Vlačić, B.; Kiessling, T.; Caputo, A.; Pellegrini, M. Serial entrepreneurs: A review of literature and guidance for future research. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2023 , 61 , 1107–1142. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ghazanfari, A. An analysis of circular economy literature at the macro level, with a particular focus on energy markets. Energies 2023 , 16 , 1779. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Giri, B.K.; Roy, S.K. Fuzzy-random robust flexible programming on sustainable closed-loop renewable energy supply chain. Appl. Energy 2024 , 363 , 123044. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Annunziata, E.; Rizzi, F.; Frey, M. How do firms interpret extended responsibilities for a sustainable supply chain management of innovative technologies? An analysis of corporate sustainability reports in the energy sector. Sinergie Ital. J. Manag. 2019 , 37 , 57–74. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Le Luu, Q.; Longo, S.; Cellura, M.; Riva Sanseverino, E.; Cusenza, M.A.; Franzitta, V. A conceptual review on using consequential life cycle assessment methodology for the energy sector. Energies 2020 , 13 , 3076. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pender, K.; Romoli, F.; Fuller, J. Lifecycle assessment of strategies for decarbonising wind blade recycling toward net zero 2050. Energies 2024 , 17 , 3008. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yudha, S.W.; Tjahjono, B. Stakeholder mapping and analysis of the renewable energy industry in Indonesia. Energies 2019 , 12 , 602. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yudha, S.W.; Tjahjono, B.; Longhurst, P. Sustainable transition from fossil fuel to geothermal energy: A multi-level perspective approach. Energies 2022 , 15 , 7435. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ahmad, W.; Rezaei, J.; de Brito, M.P.; Tavasszy, L.A. The influence of external factors on supply chain sustainability goals of the oil and gas industry. Resour. Policy 2016 , 49 , 302–314. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Barton, J.; Davies, L.; Dooley, B.; Foxon, T.J.; Galloway, S.; Hammond, G.P.; O’Grady, A.; Robertson, E.; Thomson, M. Transition pathways for a UK low-carbon electricity system: Comparing scenarios and technology implications. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018 , 82 , 2779–2790. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Subtil Lacerda, J.; Van den Bergh, J.C. International diffusion of renewable energy innovations: Lessons from the lead markets for wind power in China, Germany and USA. Energies 2014 , 7 , 8236–8263. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Krishankumar, R.; Ramanujam, N.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Ravichandran, K.S.; Gandomi, A.H. Ranking barriers impeding sustainability adoption in clean energy supply chains: A hybrid framework with Fermatean fuzzy data. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2024 , 71 , 5506–5522. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hecht, A.D.; Miller, C.A. Perspectives on achieving sustainable energy production and use. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 2010 , 2 , 031002. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yassin, A.M.M.; Hassan, M.A.; Elmesmary, H.M. Key elements of green supply chain management drivers and barriers empirical study of solar energy companies in South Egypt. Int. J. Energy Sect. Manag. 2022 , 16 , 564–584. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Duggal, K.; Rangachari, R.; Gupta, K. Consequences of crisis and the great re-think: COVID-19’s impact on energy investment, sustainability and the future of international investment agreements. J. World Energy Law Bus. 2021 , 14 , 133–146. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rehme, J.; Nordigården, D.; Chicksand, D. Public policy and electrical-grid sector innovation. Int. J. Energy Sect. Manag. 2015 , 9 , 565–592. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vavatsikos, A.P.; Tsesmetzis, E.; Koulinas, G.; Koulouriotis, D. A robust group decision making framework using fuzzy TOPSIS and Monte Carlo simulation for wind energy projects multicriteria evaluation. Oper. Res. 2022 , 22 , 6055–6073. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Attia, A.M. A multi-objective robust optimization model for upstream hydrocarbon supply chain. Alex. Eng. J. 2021 , 60 , 5115–5127. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ziolo, M.; Bak, I.; Spoz, A. Incorporating ESG risk in companies’ business models: State of research and energy sector case studies. Energies 2023 , 16 , 1809. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gamarra, A.R.; Lechón, Y.; Escribano, G.; Lilliestam, J.; Lázaro, L.; Caldés, N. Assessing dependence and governance as value chain risks: Natural gas versus concentrated solar power plants in Mexico. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2022 , 93 , 106708. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Balaman, S.Y.; Scott, J.; Matopoulos, A.; Wright, D.G. Incentivising bioenergy production: Economic and environmental insights from a regional optimization methodology. Renew. Energy 2019 , 130 , 867–880. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sun, I.; Kim, S.Y. Energy R&D towards sustainability: A panel analysis of government budget for energy R&D in OECD countries (1974–2012). Sustainability 2017 , 9 , 617. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Papageorgiou, K.; Carvalho, G.; Papageorgiou, E.I.; Bochtis, D.; Stamoulis, G. Decision-making process for photovoltaic solar energy sector development using fuzzy cognitive map technique. Energies 2020 , 13 , 1427. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Subramanian, A.S.R.; Gundersen, T.; Adams, T.A. Modeling and simulation of energy systems: A review. Processes 2018 , 6 , 238. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jelti, F.; Allouhi, A.; Buker, M.S.; Saadani, R.; Jamil, A. Renewable power generation: A supply chain perspective. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 1271. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Generalov, O. Analysis of modern trends and opportunities in the logistics channels of energy products producers. Balt. J. Econ. Stud. 2024 , 10 , 39–43. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Halldórsson, A.; Svanberg, M. Energy resources: Trajectories for supply chain management. Supply Chain.-Manag.- Int. J. 2013 , 18 , 66–73. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Goodwin, D.; Gale, F.; Lovell, H.; Beasy, K.; Murphy, H.; Schoen, M. Sustainability certification for renewable hydrogen: An international survey of energy professionals. Energy Policy 2024 , 192 , 114231. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hasheminasab, H.; Gholipour, Y.; Kharrazi, M.; Streimikiene, D. Life cycle approach in sustainability assessment for petroleum refinery projects with fuzzy-AHP. Energy Environ. 2018 , 29 , 1208–1223. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sueyoshi, T.; Wang, D. Radial and non-radial approaches for environmental assessment by data envelopment analysis: Corporate sustainability and effective investment for technology innovation. Energy Econ. 2014 , 45 , 537–551. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Balaman, S.Y. Investment planning and strategic management of sustainable systems for clean power generation: An ϵ -constraint based multi objective modelling approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2016 , 137 , 1179–1190. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yu, J. Factors affecting return on assets in the renewable energy sector during supply chain disruptions. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2024 , 17 , 253. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mastrocinque, E.; Ramírez, F.J.; Honrubia-Escribano, A.; Pham, D.T. Industry 4.0 enabling sustainable supply chain development in the renewable energy sector: A multi-criteria intelligent approach. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2022 , 182 , 121813. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ma, J.Q.; Yuan, Y.; Zhao, S.N.; Wu, W. Research on sustainability evaluation of China’s coal supply chain from the perspective of dual circulation new development pattern. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 9129. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Smith, A.D. Alternative energy supply chain management issues: Wind generation considerations in Ohio. Int. J. Serv. Oper. Manag. 2015 , 21 , 200–216. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lundie, S.; Wiedmann, T.; Welzel, M.; Busch, T. Global supply chains hotspots of a wind energy company. J. Clean. Prod. 2019 , 210 , 1042–1050. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vilkaite-Vaitone, N.; Skackauskiene, I.; Diaz-Meneses, G. Measuring green marketing: Scale development and validation. Energies 2022 , 15 , 718. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Biswal, J.N.; Muduli, K.; Satapathy, S.; Yadav, D.K. A TISM based study of SSCM enablers: An Indian coal- fired thermal power plant perspective. Int. J. Syst. Assur. Eng. Manag. 2019 , 10 , 126–141. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xu, X.L.; Chen, H.H. Exploring the relationships between environmental management and financial sustainability in the energy industry: Linear and nonlinear effects. Energy Environ. 2020 , 31 , 1281–1300. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Matos, S.; Silvestre, B.S. Managing stakeholder relations when developing sustainable business models: The case of the Brazilian energy sector. J. Clean. Prod. 2013 , 45 , 61–73. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Okongwu, U.; Morimoto, R.; Lauras, M. The maturity of supply chain sustainability disclosure from a continuous improvement perspective. INternational J. Product. Perform. Manag. 2013 , 62 , 827–855. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ghobakhloo, M.; Fathi, M. Industry 4.0 and opportunities for energy sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2021 , 295 , 126427. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Labaran, M.J.; Masood, T. Industry 4.0 driven green supply chain management in renewable energy sector: A critical systematic literature review. Energies 2023 , 16 , 6977. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dudin, M.N.; Frolova, E.E.; Protopopova, O.V.; Mamedov, A.A.; Odintsov, S.V. Study of innovative technologies in the energy industry: Nontraditional and renewable energy sources. Entrep. Sustain. Issues 2019 , 6 , 1704–1713. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, B. Leading role of natural resources, eco-efficiency assessment, and energy transition in environmental sustainability: A depth of digital transformation. Resour. Policy 2024 , 94 , 105145. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, H.H.; Lee, A.H.; Chen, S. Strategic policy to select suitable intermediaries for innovation to promote PV solar energy industry in China. Appl. Energy 2014 , 115 , 429–437. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Annunziata, E.; Rizzi, F.; Frey, M. The supporting role of business models in the promotion of sustainable innovations in the energy sector: An explorative study in the Italian SMEs. Sinergie Ital. J. Manag. 2020 , 38 , 131–146. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Haiyun, C.; Zhixiong, H.; Yüksel, S.; Dinçer, H. Analysis of the innovation strategies for green supply chain management in the energy industry using the QFD-based hybrid interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy decision approach. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021 , 143 , 110844. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• García-Orozco, S.; Vargas-Gutiérrez, G.; Ordóñez-Sánchez, S.; Silva, R. Using multi-criteria decision making in quality function deployment for offshore renewable energies. Energies 2023 , 16 , 6533. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Masoomi, B.; Sahebi, I.G.; Ghobakhloo, M.; Mosayebi, A. Do industry 5.0 advantages address the sustainable development challenges of the renewable energy supply chain? Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2023 , 43 , 94–112. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nassani, A.A.; Hussain, H.; Condrea, E.; Grigorescu, A.; Yousaf, Z.; Haffar, M. Zero waste management: Investigation of green technology, the green supply chain, and the moderating role of CSR intentions. Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 4169. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Efthymiopoulos, N.; Makris, P.; Tsaousoglou, G.; Steriotis, K.; Vergados, D.J.; Khaksari, A.; Herre, L.; Lacort, V.; Martinez, G.; Lorente, E.L.; et al. FLEXGRID–a novel smart grid architecture that facilitates high-RES penetration through innovative flexibility markets towards efficient stakeholder interaction. Open Res. Eur. 2021 , 1 , 128. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Aziz, N.; Hanafiah, M.M.; Gheewala, S.H.; Ismail, H. Bioenergy for a cleaner future: A case study of sustainable biogas supply chain in the Malaysian energy sector. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 3213. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ibn-Mohammed, T.; Koh, S.C.L.; Reaney, I.M.; Acquaye, A.; Schileo, G.; Mustapha, K.B.; Greenough, R. Perovskite solar cells: An integrated hybrid lifecycle assessment and review in comparison with other photovoltaic technologies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017 , 80 , 1321–1344. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dobrowolski, Z. Internet of things and other e-solutions in supply chain management may generate threats in the energy sector—The quest for preventive measures. Energies 2021 , 14 , 5381. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wu, Y.; Wu, Y.; Cimen, H.; Vasquez, J.C.; Guerrero, J.M. Towards collective energy community: Potential roles of microgrid and blockchain to go beyond P2P energy trading. Appl. Energy 2022 , 314 , 119003. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cader, J.; Koneczna, R.; Smol, M. Corporate social responsibility as a significant factor of competitive advantage-a case study of energy companies in Poland. Energy Rep. 2022 , 8 , 7989–8001. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hmouda, A.M.O.; Orzes, G.; Sauer, P.C. Sustainable supply chain management in energy production: A literature review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2024 , 191 , 114085. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nair, P.U.; Thankamony, P. Social issues in supply chain sustainability–focus areas for energy and manufacturing sectors in India and USA. Eur. J. Sustain. Dev. 2021 , 10 , 495. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• AlKhars, M.; Masoud, M.; AlNasser, A.; Alsubaie, M. Sustainable practices and firm competitiveness: An empirical analysis of the Saudi Arabian energy sector. Discov. Sustain. 2024 , 5 , 146. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gardas, B.B.; Mangla, S.K.; Raut, R.D.; Narkhede, B.; Luthra, S. Green talent management to unlock sustainability in the oil and gas sector. J. Clean. Prod. 2019 , 229 , 850–862. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Afshari, H.; Agnihotri, S.; Searcy, C.; Jaber, M.Y. Social sustainability indicators: A comprehensive review with application in the energy sector. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2022 , 31 , 263–286. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Muduli, K.; Kusi-Sarpong, S.; Yadav, D.K.; Gupta, H.; Jabbour, C.J.C. An original assessment of the influence of soft dimensions on implementation of sustainability practices: Implications for the thermal energy sector in fast growing economies. Oper. Manag. Res. 2021 , 14 , 337–358. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Botnar, W.L.; Frederico, G.F. Industry 4.0 in the electric sector: Findings from a systematic review of the literature. Electr. J. 2023 , 36 , 107337. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Losada-Agudelo, M.; Souyris, S. Sustainable Operations Management in the Energy Sector: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature from 2000 to 2024. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 7999. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16187999

Losada-Agudelo M, Souyris S. Sustainable Operations Management in the Energy Sector: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature from 2000 to 2024. Sustainability . 2024; 16(18):7999. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16187999

Losada-Agudelo, Mariana, and Sebastian Souyris. 2024. "Sustainable Operations Management in the Energy Sector: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature from 2000 to 2024" Sustainability 16, no. 18: 7999. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16187999

Article Metrics

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

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

The management of retrorectal tumors – a single-center analysis of 21 cases and overview of the literature

• Open access
• Published: 14 September 2024
• Volume 409 , article number  279 , ( 2024 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• K. Fechner 1 ,
• B. Bittorf 1 ,
• M. Langheinrich 2 ,
• K. Weber 1 ,
• M. Brunner 1 ,
• R. Grützmann 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 &
• K. E. Matzel 1  

Retrorectal tumors are rare and heterogeneous. They are often asymptomatic or present with nonspecific symptoms, making management challenging. This study examines the diagnosis and treatment of retrorectal tumors.

Between 2002 and 2022, 21 patients with retrorectal tumors were treated in our department. We analyzed patient characteristics, diagnosis and treatment modalities retrospectively. Additionally, a literature review (2002–2023, “retrorectal tumors” and “presacral tumors”, 20 or more cases included) was performed.

Of the 21 patients (median age 54 years, 62% female), 17 patients (81%) suffered from benign lesions and 4 (19%) from malignant lesions. Symptoms were mostly nonspecific, with pain being the most common (11/21 (52%)). Diagnosis was incidental in eight cases. Magnetic resonance imaging was performed in 20 (95%) and biopsy was obtained in 10 (48%). Twenty patients underwent surgery, mostly via a posterior approach (14/20 (70%)). At a mean follow-up of 42 months (median 10 months, range 1–166 months), the local recurrence rate was 19%. There was no mortality. Our Pubmed search identified 39 publications.

Our data confirms the significant heterogeneity of retrorectal tumors, which poses a challenge to management, especially considering the often nonspecific symptoms. Regarding diagnosis and treatment, our data highlights the importance of MRI and surgical resection. In particular a malignancy rate of almost 20% warrants a surgical resection in case of the findings of a retrorectal tumour. A local recurrence rate of 19% supports the need for follow up.

Explore related subjects

• Medical Imaging

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Retrorectal tumors are rare and heterogeneous, with an estimated incidence of one in every 40,000 hospital admissions [ 1 , 2 , 3 ].

The retrorectal space is confined by the rectum with its mesorectal fascia anteriorly, the parietal pelvic fascia posteriorly and the peritoneum cranially. The distal end of the retrorectal space is defined by the fusion of the presacral, parietal pelvic fascia and mesorectal fascia, which cover the levator ani muscle. The parietal fascia separates the retrorectal space from the presacral space. The iliac vessels and ureters are located laterally [ 2 , 4 , 5 ].

The histologic diversity of retrorectal tumors with benign or malignant lesions results from the embryologic development, during which endo-, meso-, and ectodermal tissues undergo modifications. Tumors can be related to any of these. Retrorectal tumors are commonly categorized as congenital, neurogenic, osseous, inflammatory and miscellaneous [ 6 , 7 , 8 ].

Most tumors remain asymptomatic or present with nonspecific symptoms and are often diagnosed incidentally [ 3 ]. Occasionally, they present as a palpable mass on digital rectal examination. Clinical examination, computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are considered the gold standard for preoperative evaluation [ 1 , 9 , 10 , 11 ]. Determining the exact anatomical location is essential to the surgical approach. A biopsy can be considered, although its value remains controversial [ 8 , 12 ]. Retrorectal tumors should be completely resected, even if they are asymptomatic.

Due to their rarity and diverse clinical presentations, diagnosing and treating retrorectal tumors remain challenging. We share our 20-year experience with 21 patients, comparing it with existing literature.

Patients and methods

In our retrospective study, we identified 21 patients treated for retrorectal tumor at the Surgical Department of the University hospital Erlangen between 2002 and 2022. Of these, 20 underwent surgery. We analyzed demographic characteristics (i.e., age, gender), symptoms, diagnosis, treatment (i.e., surgical approach, resection of bone structure), postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo classification [ 13 ]), histopathology and local recurrence. Data were obtained retrospectively from the patient record.

Furthermore, in a literature review (Fig.  1 ), we performed a Pubmed search on January 6, 2023 for abstracts from 2002 to 2023 with the terms “retrorectal tumors” ( n  = 360) and “presacral tumors” ( n  = 1058). Publications with fewer than 20 cases were excluded, as were reviews, manuscripts not available in english, pediatric cases and duplications in both search terms. The remaining publications ( n  = 39) were scrutinized and data extracted to tabulate the findings according to publication year, number of patients, gender, age, histopathology, rate of malignancy, surgical approach, postoperative morbidity, follow-up and local recurrence.

Overview of literature search

Patient characteristics are presented in Table  1 . Thirteen were female (62%) and eight male (38%). The median age at operation (or, in the non-operated patient at first diagnosis) was 54 years (range 19–74 years). Thirteen patients (62%) presented with nonspecific symptoms: pain in the back, flank, pelvis, lower abdomen, anus or a feeling of anal pressure. One patient had right-sided weakened foot dorsiflexion. Eight patients (38%) were diagnosed incidentally during gynecologic examination, treatment of anal fistula, on MRI or CT for other reasons, and during a gynecologic operation.

MRI was performed in 20 (95%) patients (Fig.  2 ), CT scan in 9 (43%), endosonography in 7 (33%) and rectoscopy or colonoscopy in 17 (81%). Biopsies were obtained in 10 (48%).

58-year-old patient with a retrorectal schwannoma on preoperative MRI:  sagittal T2 ( A ),  axial T2 ( B ), and the postoperative macroscopic view of the schwannoma ( C )

Twenty patients underwent surgery (Table  2 ); one patient with choroidal melanoma metastasis (diagnosis confirmed by biopsy) underwent radio- and immunotherapy.

A posterior approach (Kraske procedure) was used in 14 patients (70%) and an anterior approach in five (25%). A combined approach was required in one patient (5%). Resection of bone structures was necessary in nine (45%).

Postoperative complications occurred in seven patients (35%): three with wound healing disturbances and one each with a voiding dysfunction, a wound seroma, a hematoma and constipation. All seven patients reported pain. According to the Clavien-Dindo classification, category I occurred in four patients (20%), II in one (5%) and III in two (10%). Four patients had a local recurrence during a median follow-up of 10 months (range 1-166 months) and a mean follow up of 42 months. Reoperation was not required. There was no mortality observed.

Histopathologic findings

Histopathologic findings varied widely (Table  3 ). Seventeen patients (81%) had a benign lesion, the most common being a tailgut cyst in 10. In one patient it remained unclear whether the lesion was a tailgut or a duplication cyst. Schwannoma was diagnosed in three cases and an osseous pseudotumor, a lipoma and a teratoma in the other three.

Four tumors were revealed to be malignant (19%): a mucinous adenocarcinoma in a tailgut cyst, a choroidal melanoma metastasis, a solid fibrotic tumor (hemangiopericytoma) and an eosinophil chordoma.

Literature search

In the 39 publications, the recorded characterics regarding number of patients, gender, age, histopathology, rate of malignancy, surgical approach, postoperative morbidity, follow-up, and local recurrence are presented in Table  4 .

This study represents a single-institution series of retrorectal tumors and demonstrates a heterogeneity comparable to other reports and few systematic reviews [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 9 , 52 , 53 ]. Its reported incidence ranges from 0.9 to 6.3 patients per year and is estimated as one in 40,000 hospital admissions [ 1 , 3 , 4 , 52 ]. In our retrospective study, we report on 21 patients treated between 2002 and 2022.

Retrorectal tumors can be divided into five categories, congenital (55–65%) being the most common [ 1 , 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 54 ]. As in our data the vast majority are benign and occur predominantly in females. Two of the four malignant tumors in our series, however, were found in male patients.

During embryologic development, a tail is formed from the endo-, meso-, and ectodermal tissues. If the tailgut does not recede, a remnant can result as a tailgut cyst [ 3 , 6 ]. Resection is recommended because of the risk of malignant transformation [ 9 , 55 ]. In our study, in accordance with published data [ 9 , 55 ], benign tailgut cysts were the most common entity, while in one patient a poorly differentiated mucinous adenocarcinoma was found in the cyst. In another patient it remained unclear whether the lesion should be classified as a tailgut or duplication cyst.

The rate of malignancy is reported to range up to 26.6% [ 9 , 56 ]. In 2022, Burke et al. described a malignancy rate of 17.3% in a large series of 144 tumors [ 16 ], which accords with our data. The highest rate of neoplasia of 26.6% was found in a systematic review comprising 196 patients [ 56 ].

The most frequent malignant retrorectal tumor is the chordoma, which results from persistence of endoderm, probably from residue of the chorda dorsalis [ 1 , 8 , 57 ]. In our study one patient presented with an eosinophilic chordoma.

With a frequency of 10-12%, neurogenic tumors are the second most common entity and are predominantly benign [ 4 ]. In various publications, schwannomas, in particular, have been described, as we found in our study (see Fig.  2 ) [ 1 , 58 ].

Another 12–16% of retrorectal tumors are miscellaneous, often rare entities [ 3 , 4 , 7 , 8 ]. In single patients, we found benign lesions (osseous pseudotumor, lipoma) as well as a malignant lesion with a solid fibrotic tumor (hemangiopericytoma), and a previously unreported metastasis of a choroidal melanoma.

The presentation can be nonspecific, even asymptomatic, and thus diagnosis is often incidental and at an advanced stage [ 1 ]. Indeed, the majority of our patients had nonspecific symptoms such as back and lower abdominal pain, and diagnosis was based on incidental findings in one quarter. Neurologic symptoms, such as the dorsiflexion of the foot seen in one, can also occur.

MRI and CT scans are considered the gold standard for evaluating these tumors beside the clinical examination. MRI can distinguish tissue properties and relations to neighboring organs [ 1 , 6 ], often allowing accurate tumor diagnosis. In our series, 95.2% of the retrorectal tumors were confirmed or detected by MRI. CT allows clear visualization of bone structures and the differentiation between solid and cystic lesions [ 1 , 6 ].

The use and value of biopsy remains controversial in current literature [ 1 , 6 , 12 , 53 ]. Glasgow and Dietz refer to the risk of infection with subsequent sepsis, such as a biopsy of an anterior sacral meningocele leading to meningitis [ 8 ]. Additionally, the risk of biopsy-related tumor cell dissemination has to be considered. If tumor categorization is not possible and the option of neoadjuvant therapy must be considered, biopsy appears to be reasonable. In our study, in 47.6% of cases a biopsy was performed. It proved to be essential to therapeutic planning (radiation and immunotherapy) in the patient with the choroidal melanoma metastasis, our only patient not undergoing surgery.

Treatment depends on the tumor entity. In most cases - including asymptomatic tumors - a complete resection is indicated because of the potential for tumor growth with increasing symptoms and risk of malignant transformation [ 8 , 52 ].

For surgical planning the location and size of the tumor and its relationship to neighbouring organs are relevant. Diagnostic and therapeutic algorithms have been proposed [ 11 , 18 , 32 , 49 ]. Surgical options are posterior, anterior or combined approaches. As described by Dozois et al. [ 59 , 60 ], a line through sacral vertebra three is helpful for decision-making. For small tumors below this line, the posterior approach may be sufficient, like that first described by Kraske in 1886 as the transcoccygeal approach for rectal cancer [ 8 , 61 ]. This is the most common approach and was used In 70% of our patients. If the tumor is above the S3 line, the anterior, abdominal approach is advisable, although large tumors may require a combined approach. In 45% of our patients, a resection of bone structures (e.g. the os coccygis) became necessary to facilitate operative access or achieve complete tumor resection.

The postoperative complications in seven patients were Clavien-Dindo classification I in most ( n  = 4 (20%)) and were comparable to other studies [ 3 , 13 , 52 ]. In four patients a local recurrence was diagnosed. With no mortality, the resection of retrorectal tumors proved a predominantly safe procedure.

This study represents a comprehensive single-institution series of retrorectal tumors. The relatively small number of patients in this study likely may owe to the the rarity of retrorectal tumors. The retrospective design may affect accurate representation of the recurrence rate, however the represented rate of recurrence support the idea of a follow-up.

Retrorectal tumors are a heterogeneous entity. Our data show that most are benign. Resection is recommened and malignant entities may require multimodal therapy. In our cohort one patient had a very rare retrorectal metastasis of a choroidal melanoma, and another had a mucinous adenocarcinoma in a tailgut cyst. Biopsy may be helpful with inconclusive MRI findings and solid tumors. Decision-making by an interdisciplinary tumor board is recommended. The choice of surgical approach is determined by the tumor’s location and size. In our series, the posterior approach was most frequent.

Data availability

The datasets generated during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request, but are not public due to privacy restrictions, as they were obtained from medical records.

Neale JA (2011) Retrorectal tumors. Clin Colon Rectal Surg, 24:149 – 60. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1285999

Oguz A, Böyük A, Turkoglu A et al (2015) Retrorectal Tumors in adults: a 10-Year retrospective study. Int Surg 100:1177–1184. https://doi.org/10.9738/INTSURG-D-15-00068.1

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Jao SW, Beart RW Jr, Spencer RJ, Reiman HM, Ilstrup DM (1985) Retrorectal tumors. Mayo Clinic experience, 1960–1979. Dis Colon Rectum 28:644–652. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02553440

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Strupas K, Poskus E, Ambrazevicius M (2011) Retrorectal tumours: literature review and vilnius university hospital santariskiu klinikos experience of 14 cases. Eur J Med Res 16:231–236. https://doi.org/10.1186/2047-783x-16-5-231

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

García-Armengol J, García-Botello S, Martinez-Soriano F, Roig JV, Lledó S (2008) Review of the anatomic concepts in relation to the retrorectal space and endopelvic fascia: Waldeyer’s fascia and the rectosacral fascia. Colorectal Dis 10:298–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2007.01472.x

Messick CA (2018) Presacral (Retrorectal) tumors: optimizing the management strategy. Dis Colon Rectum 61:151–153. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0000000000001021

Uhlig BE, Johnson RL (1975) Presacral tumors and cysts in adults. Dis Colon Rectum 18:581–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02587141

Glasgow SC, Dietz DW (2006) Retrorectal tumors. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 19:61–68. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2006-942346

Broccard SP, Colibaseanu DT, Behm KT et al (2022) Risk of malignancy and outcomes of surgically resected presacral tailgut cysts: a current review of the Mayo Clinic experience. Colorectal Dis 24:422–427. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.16030

Aflalo-Hazan V, Rousset P, Mourra N, Lewin M, Azizi L, Hoeffel C (2008) Tailgut cysts: MRI findings. Eur Radiol 18:2586–2593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-008-1028-4

Gong J, Xu Y, Zhang Y, Qiao L, Xu H, Zhu P, Yang B (2022) Primary malignant tumours and malignant transformation of cysts in the retrorectal space: MRI diagnosis and treatment outcomes. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf) 10:goac048. https://doi.org/10.1093/gastro/goac048

Merchea A, Larson DW, Hubner M, Wenger DE, Rose PS, Dozois EJ (2013) The value of preoperative biopsy in the management of solid presacral tumors. Dis Colon Rectum 56:756–760. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0b013e3182788c77

Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira et al (2009) The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250:187–196. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b13ca2

Mualem W, Ghaith AK, Rush D et al (2022) Surgical management of sacral schwannomas: a 21-year mayo clinic experience and comparative literature analysis. J Neurooncol 159:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-022-03986-w

Zhao X, Zhou S, Liu N, Li P, Chen L (2022) Is there another posterior Approach for Presacral Tumors besides the Kraske Procedure? - a study on the feasibility and safety of Surgical Resection of primary presacral tumors via Transsacrococcygeal Transverse Incision. Front Oncol 12:892027. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.892027

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Burke JR, Shetty K, Thomas O, Kowal M, Quyn A, Sagar P (2022) The management of retrorectal tumours: tertiary centre retrospective study. BJS Open 6:zrac044. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zrac044

Aubert M, Mege D, Parc Y et al (2021) Surgical Management of Retrorectal tumors: a French Multicentric experience of 270 consecutives cases. Ann Surg 274:766–772. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000005119

Gould LE, Pring ET, Corr A et al (2021) Evolution of the management of retrorectal masses: a retrospective cohort study. Colorectal Dis 23:2988–2998. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.15893

Zhang D, Sun Y, Lian L et al (2021) Long-term surgical outcomes after resection of presacral tumours and risk factors associated with recurrence. Colorectal Dis 23:2301–2310. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.15691

Li Z, Lu M (2021) Presacral Tumor: insights from a Decade’s experience of this rare and diverse disease. Front Oncol 11:639028. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.639028

Carpelan-Holmström M, Koskenvuo L, Haapamäki C, Renkonen-Sinisalo L, Lepistö A (2020) Clinical management of 52 consecutive retro-rectal tumours treated at a tertiary referral centre. Colorectal Dis 22:1279–1285. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.15080

Yalav O, Topal U, Eray İC, Deveci MA, Gencel E, Rencuzogullari A (2020) Retrorectal tumor: a single-center 10-years’ experience. Ann Surg Treat Res 99:110–117. https://doi.org/10.4174/astr.2020.99.2.110

Houdek MT, Hevesi M, Griffin AM et al (2020) Can the ACS-NSQIP surgical risk calculator predict postoperative complications in patients undergoing sacral tumor resection for chordoma? J Surg Oncol 121:1036–1041. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.25865

Zhou J, Zhao B, Qiu H et al (2020) Laparoscopic resection of large retrorectal developmental cysts in adults: single-centre experiences of 20 cases. J Minim Access Surg 16:152–159. https://doi.org/10.4103/jmas.JMAS_214_18

Sakr A, Kim HS, Han YD et al (2019) Single-center experience of 24 cases of Tailgut Cyst. Ann Coloproctol 35:268–274. https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2018.12.18

Poškus E, Račkauskas R, Danys D, Valančienė D, Poškus T, Strupas K (2019) Does a retrorectal tumour remain a challenge for surgeons? Acta Chir Belg 119:289–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/00015458.2018.1515397

Dziki Ł, Włodarczyk M, Sobolewska-Włodarczyk A et al (2019) Presacral tumors: diagnosis and treatment - a challenge for a surgeon. Arch Med Sci 15:722–729. https://doi.org/10.5114/aoms.2016.61441

Dwarkasing RS, Verschuuren SI, van Leenders GJLH, Braun LMM, Krestin GP, Schouten WR (2017) Primary cystic lesions of the Retrorectal Space: MRI evaluation and clinical Assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 209:790–796. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.17329

Maddah G, Abdollahi A, Etemadrezaie H, Ganjeifar B, Gohari B, Abdollahi M, Hassanpour M (2016) Problems in diagnosis and treatment of Retrorectal tumors: our experience in 50 patients. Acta Med Iran 54:644–650

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Buchs NC, Gosselink MP, Scarpa CR et al (2016) A multicenter experience with peri-rectal tumors: the risk of local recurrence. Eur J Surg Oncol 42:817–822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2016.02.018

Sun W, Ma XJ, Zhang F, Miao WL, Wang CR, Cai ZD (2016) Surgical Treatment of Sacral Neurogenic Tumor: a 10-year experience with 64 cases. Orthop Surg 8:162–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/os.12245

Hopper L, Eglinton TW, Wakeman C, Dobbs BR, Dixon L, Frizelle FA (2016) Progress in the management of retrorectal tumours. Colorectal Dis 18:410–417. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.13117

Gong L, Liu W, Li P, Huang X (2015) Transsacrococcygeal approach for resection of retrorectal tumors. Am Surg 81:569–572

Simpson PJ, Wise KB, Merchea A, Cheville JC, Moir C, Larson DW, Dozois EJ (2014) Surgical outcomes in adults with benign and malignant sacrococcygeal teratoma: a single-institution experience of 26 cases. Dis Colon Rectum 57:851–857. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0000000000000117

Sagar AJ, Koshy A, Hyland R, Rotimi O, Sagar PM (2014) Preoperative assessment of retrorectal tumours. Br J Surg 101:573–577. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9413

Messick CA, Hull T, Rosselli G, Kiran RP (2013) Lesions originating within the retrorectal space: a diverse group requiring individualized evaluation and surgery. J Gastrointest Surg 17:2143–2152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-013-2350-y

Chéreau N, Lefevre JH, Meurette G, Mourra N, Shields C, Parc Y, Tiret E (2013) Surgical resection of retrorectal tumours in adults: long-term results in 47 patients. Colorectal Dis 15:e476–e482. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.12255

Macafee DA, Sagar PM, El-Khoury T, Hyland R (2012) Retrorectal tumours: optimization of surgical approach and outcome. Colorectal Dis 14:1411–1417. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2012.02994.x

Du F, Jin K, Hu X, Dong X, Cao F (2012) Surgical treatment of retrorectal tumors: a retrospective study of a ten-year experience in three institutions. Hepatogastroenterology 59:1374–1377. https://doi.org/10.5754/hge11686

Li GD, Chen K, Fu D, Ma XJ, Sun MX, Sun W, Cai ZD (2011) Surgical strategy for presacral tumors: analysis of 33 cases. Chin Med J (Engl) 124:4086–4091

Lin C, Jin K, Lan H, Teng L, Lin J, Chen W (2011) Surgical management of retrorectal tumors: a retrospective study of a 9-year experience in a single institution. Onco Targets Ther 4:203–208. https://doi.org/10.2147/OTT.S25271

Gao XH, Zhang W, Fu CG, Liu LJ, Yu ED, Meng RG (2011) Local recurrence after intended curative excision of presacral lesions: causes and preventions. World J Surg 35:2134–2142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-011-1155-y

Dozois EJ, Jacofsky DJ, Billings BJ et al (2011) Surgical approach and oncologic outcomes following multidisciplinary management of retrorectal sarcomas. Ann Surg Oncol 18:983–988. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-010-1445-x

Yang BL, Gu YF, Shao WJ, Chen HJ, Sun GD, Jin HY, Zhu X (2010) Retrorectal tumors in adults: magnetic resonance imaging findings. World J Gastroenterol 16:5822–5829. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v16.i46.5822

Mathis KL, Dozois EJ, Grewal MS, Metzger P, Larson DW, Devine RM (2010) Malignant risk and surgical outcomes of presacral tailgut cysts. Br J Surg 97:575–579. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.6915

Wei G, Xiaodong T, Yi Y, Ji T (2009) Strategy of surgical treatment of sacral neurogenic tumors. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:2587–2592. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181bd4a2b

Pappalardo G, Frattaroli FM, Casciani E et al (2009) Retrorectal tumors: the choice of surgical approach based on a new classification. Am Surg 75:240–248

Grandjean JP, Mantion GA, Guinier D et al (2008) Vestigial retrorectal cystic tumors in adults: a review of 30 cases. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 32:769–778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gcb.2008.03.011

Woodfield JC, Chalmers AG, Phillips N, Sagar PM (2008) Algorithms for the surgical management of retrorectal tumours. Br J Surg 95:214–221. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.5931

Glasgow SC, Birnbaum EH, Lowney JK et al (2005) Retrorectal tumors: a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. Dis Colon Rectum 48:1581–1587. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-005-0048-2

Lev-Chelouche D, Gutman M, Goldman G et al (2003) Presacral tumors: a practical classification and treatment of a unique and heterogeneous group of diseases. Surgery 133:473–478. https://doi.org/10.1067/msy.2003.118

Baek SK, Hwang GS, Vinci A, Jafari MD, Jafari F, Moghadamyeghaneh Z, Pigazzi A (2016) Retrorectal tumors: a Comprehensive Literature Review. World J Surg 40:2001–2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-016-3501-6

Toh JW, Morgan M (2016) Management approach and surgical strategies for retrorectal tumours: a systematic review. Colorectal Dis 18:337–350. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.13232

Brown IS, Sokolova A, Rosty C, Graham RP (2023) Cystic lesions of the retrorectal space. Histopathology 82:232–241. https://doi.org/10.1111/his.14769

Wang YS, Guo QY, Zheng FH et al (2022) Retrorectal mucinous adenocarcinoma arising from a tailgut cyst: a case report and review of literature. World J Gastrointest Surg 14:1072–1081. https://doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v14.i9.1072

Nicoll K, Bartrop C, Walsh S, Foster R, Duncan G, Payne C, Carden C (2019) Malignant transformation of tailgut cysts is significantly higher than previously reported: systematic review of cases in the literature. Colorectal Dis 21:869–878. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.14628

Waisman M, Kligman M, Roffman M (1997) Posterior approach for radical excision of sacral chordoma. Int Orthop 21:181–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002640050146

Pennington Z, Reinshagen C, Ahmed AK, Barber S, Goodwin ML, Gokaslan Z, Sciubba DM (2019) Management of presacral schwannomas-a 10-year multi-institutional series. Ann Transl Med 7:228. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2019.01.66

Dozois EJ, Marcos MDH (2011) Presacral tumors, in The ASCRS textbook of colon and rectal surgery. Springer, pp 359–374 60

Dozois E, Jacofsky D, Dozois R (2007) The ASCRS textbook of colon and rectal surgery. Springer, New York, pp 501–514

Kraske P (1886) Zur Exstirpation Hochsitzender Mastdarmkrebse. Arch Klin Chir 33:563–573

Google Scholar  

Download references

This work was not supported by funding.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Surgery, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg (FAU), Krankenhausstraße 12, D-91054, Erlangen, Germany

K. Fechner, B. Bittorf, K. Weber, M. Brunner, R. Grützmann & K. E. Matzel

Department of General, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, Greifswald University, Ferdinand-Sauerbruch-Straße, Greifswald, Germany

M. Langheinrich

Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN (CCC ER-EMN), Erlangen, Germany

R. Grützmann

Comprehensive Cancer Center Alliance WERA (CCC WERA), Erlangen, Germany

Bavarian Cancer Research Center (BZKF), Erlangen, Germany

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by K. F. and M. L. The first draft of the manuscript was written by K. F. and K.E. M. and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. Fechner .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval.

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This retrospective study of clinical data describing outcome of established standard treatment without any experimental arm did not undergo IRB review as ethical approval is commonly not required for these kind of studies.

Informed consent

Patient data of this study were obtained from clinical patients files. The study is descriptive and does not involve any experimental procedures as patient consent to data collection and processing in general, additional informed consent in the specific scenario has not be obtained - for Fig. 2a, b,c informed consent has been obtained.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Fechner, K., Bittorf, B., Langheinrich, M. et al. The management of retrorectal tumors – a single-center analysis of 21 cases and overview of the literature. Langenbecks Arch Surg 409 , 279 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-024-03471-0

Download citation

Received : 12 May 2024

Accepted : 04 September 2024

Published : 14 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-024-03471-0

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

• Retrorectal tumors
• Tailgut cyst
• Presacral mass
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Open access
• Published: 11 September 2024

Adult co-creators’ emotional and psychological experiences of the co-creation process: a Health CASCADE scoping review protocol

• Lauren McCaffrey   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2524-977X 1 ,
• Bryan McCann 1 ,
• Maria Giné-Garriga 2 ,
• Qingfan An 3 ,
• Greet Cardon 4 ,
• Sebastien François Martin Chastin 1 , 4 ,
• Rabab Chrifou 4 ,
• Sonia Lippke 5 ,
• Quentin Loisel 1 ,
• Giuliana Raffaella Longworth 2 ,
• Katrina Messiha 6 ,
• Mira Vogelsang 1 ,
• Emily Whyte 1 &
• Philippa Margaret Dall 1  

Systematic Reviews volume  13 , Article number:  231 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

63 Accesses

4 Altmetric

Metrics details

There is a growing investment in the use of co-creation, reflected by an increase in co-created products, services, and interventions. At the same time, a growing recognition of the significance of co-creators’ experience can be detected but there is a gap in the aggregation of the literature with regard to experience. Therefore, the purpose of this scoping review is to uncover the breadth of existing empirical research on co-creation experience, how it has been defined and assessed, and its key emotional and psychological characteristics in the context of co-created products, services, or interventions among adults.

The development of the search strategy was guided by the research question, Arksey, and O’Malley’s scoping review methodology guidelines, and through collaboration with members of the Health CASCADE consortium. The results of the search and the study inclusion process will be reported in full and presented both narratively and by use of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping review (PRISMA-ScR) flow diagram. Comprehensive searches of relevant electronic databases (e.g. Scopus) will be conducted to identify relevant papers. Snowball searches to identify additional papers through included full-text papers will be done using the artificial intelligence tool, namely, Connected Papers. All review steps will involve at least two reviewers. Studies in English, Dutch, Chinese, Spanish, and French, published from the year 1970 onwards, will be considered. Microsoft Excel software will be used to record and chart extracted data.

The resulting scoping review could provide useful insights into adult co-creators’ experience of participating in the co-creation process. An increased understanding of the role of emotional and psychological experiences of participating in co-creation processes may help to inform the co-creation process and lead to potential benefits for the co-creators and co-created outcome.

Systematic review registration

10.5281/zenodo.7665851.

Peer Review reports

Co-creation can be defined as “any act of collective creativity that involves a broad range of relevant and affected actors in creative problem-solving that aims to produce a desired outcome” [ 1 ]. Co-creation is increasingly acknowledged as a promising approach to address complex ‘wicked’ societal problems and develop more contextually relevant interventions to improve outcomes in a variety of settings [ 2 ]. By facilitating communication across sectors, integrating diverse forms of knowledge and expertise, and enabling local ownership, co-creation can be useful in a broad range of fields including, healthcare, community, and education [ 3 ].

The co-creation process is guided by participatory methodologies [ 4 ]. The goal of participatory research is to engage all those who are the subject of the research in all stages of the research [ 5 ]. Participatory research acknowledges the value of their contribution in a practical and collaborative way [ 5 ]. Co-creation builds on these participatory methodologies, to address the power imbalances stemming from social inequities and uses empowerment approaches to address and meet the needs of citizens [ 3 ]. Co-creation is more specific than the broad concept of participation, which also refers to passive involvement [ 6 ]. The ultimate goal of co-creation is to actively involve all relevant and affected stakeholders in all aspects of the co-creation process, such as planning or conducting [ 7 ].

Whilst the co-creation behaviour of participants in a co-creation process is mostly documented in the co-creation literature, the emotional and psychological experience of participating in the co-creation process has been given less attention [ 8 , 9 ]. Co-creation behaviour is argued to comprise multiple behavioural dimensions that fall under two higher-order factors, namely, participation behaviour and citizenship behaviour [ 10 ]. The behavioural dimensions of participation behaviour include information seeking and sharing, responsible behaviour, and personal interaction. The dimensions of citizenship behaviour include feedback, advocacy, helping, and tolerance [ 10 ]. On the other hand, the co-creators’ experiences of participating in the co-creation process, hereby shortened to co-creation experience, capture co-creators’ emotional and psychological states; highlight the interactive component; and involve a continuous process as opposed to a single fixed-time event [ 9 ]. In brief, the co-creation experience, as defined for the purposes of this review, is the co-creators’ emotional and psychological states during active participation and interaction when engaging in the co-creation process [ 9 ]. Co-creation experience differs from co-creation behaviour due to its focus on the feelings and cognitions derived from the act of undertaking the co-creation behaviour [ 9 ].

Research indicates that active involvement in the co-creation process can have profound positive effects on increased health and performance outcomes, satisfaction, and well-being [ 11 , 12 ]. For example, Leask et al. [ 13 ] reported older adults having positive experiences engaging with the co-creation of a health intervention, describing that participants’ role as co-researchers made it enjoyable, interesting, and rewarding. Similar findings from Rooijen et al. [ 14 ] indicated that participants felt empowered, liked the interactive characteristic of meetings, and felt they were valued contributors with a shared responsibility for the project. Positive emotional states like happiness or gratitude can foster trust, which is important for building relationships, whereas negative emotional states, like anger, uncertainty, and frustration, can decrease trust [ 15 ]. Building relationships is an important aspect of the co-creation process, in which experiencing positive emotions helps to create new relationships [ 16 ]. Therefore, positive emotions could also contribute to the functioning of the co-creation group(s) and the successful development of products like intervention components, tools, and further actions.

There are instances when co-creators can experience the co-creation process negatively. There exists some research to indicate how failed co-created services recovered can impact co-creators in terms of future intention to co-create, role clarity, and motivation [ 17 ]. However, there might be a lack of, or a lack of visibility of, literature documenting the negative emotional and psychological experiences associated with the co-creation process because of publication bias. Individual and interpersonal experience including group dynamics are central to the creation of value and innovation and this justifies the need to study the role of human experience in the context of co-creation [ 18 , 19 ]. Figure  1 provides a visual depiction of the proposed connection between co-creation experience and the other elements of co-creation.

Suggested model of the relationship between co-creation experience, processes, behaviour, outcomes, impact, and future co-creation

However, so far, there is a gap regarding the aggregation of the literature pertaining to co-creation experience. Therefore, the purpose of this scoping review is to uncover the breadth of existing empirical research on co-creation experience, how it has been defined, and assessed and its key characteristics in the context of co-created products, services, or interventions among adults. As the focus is on the participant’s experience of the process and not the outcome, no limits have been applied to the co-creation context. Scoping reviews are exploratory in nature and systematically map available literature on a broad topic to identify key concepts, theories, sources of evidence, and research gaps [ 20 ]. A scoping review has been identified as an appropriate means to address this broad research question given that, to the authors’ knowledge, there has been no systematic review of co-creation experience literature, the phenomenon is not well understood or utilised, and studies span a wide variety of fields. The aim of the current scoping review is to deliver an evidence-based review of co-creators’ experiences of co-creating. This review will guide future research to advance evidence-based co-creation methods and inform guidance aimed at enhancing positive experiences for those participating in co-creation.

Research question

What is the current state of the science regarding adult co-creators’ emotional and psychological experiences of participating in co-creation?

The objectives of this review are to:

Determine the extent of research on co-creation experience.

Uncover the range of and key characteristics of emotional and psychological experiences documented in the literature to date.

Identify any explicit or implicit underlying psychological theories drawn upon to explain the potential mechanism of the experience of co-creation.

Document any tools or technology used during the co-creation process that impacted the experience during co-creation or to make co-creation more successful .

Methodology

This scoping review protocol is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) checklist (see Additional file 1).

Search strategy

The search strategy comprises three main stages (see Fig.  2 ). The first stage involved searching the newly created Health CASCADE Co-creation Database. This database was created by members of the Health CASCADE network and was aimed at collecting in one place the entire corpus of literature pertaining to participatory research and co-creation (1). This database was created using CINAHL, PubMed and all databases accessible via ProQuest through Glasgow Caledonian University (GCU) institutional licence (17 databases in total, APA PsycArticles®, APA PsycInfo®, Art, Design & Architecture Collection, British Periodicals, Coronavirus Research Database, Early Modern Books, Ebook Central, Entertainment Industry Magazine Archive, Humanities Index, Periodicals Archive Online, ProQuest One AcademicTrial-Limited time only, PTSDpubs, SciTech Premium Collection, Social Science Premium Collection, Sports Medicine & Education Index, The Vogue Archive, and The Women's Wear Daily Archive). The key search terms used in this search strategy are found in Table  1 . ASReview, an artificial intelligence (AI) aided platform that helps find relevant records was used for screening the records to be included in this database. The AI performs a textual analysis of the provided records, based on active learning and prioritization. Given the large volume of records retrieved from PubMed, CINAHL, and all databases available through ProQuest with GCU access, AI was necessary to speed up the screening process. There are over 13,000 records contained in this database, with all titles and abstracts containing at least one of the search terms.

Stages of search strategy

The Health CASCADE Co-creation Database was searched using free-text terms relating to co-creation experience (see Table  2 ). Search terms have been developed in reference to the research question and through consultation with members of the Health CASCADE consortium. The search will be piloted to check the appropriateness of keywords and to ensure known studies are identified.

The second stage of the search strategy is to use both sets of search terms (see Tables  1 and 2 ) in Scopus using the Boolean operator AND to combine the two sets. This is to provide additional robustness to the search. Due to the large volume of records retrieved (> 35,000) when combining the two sets of search terms, it is necessary to omit some search terms used to create the Health CASCADE Co-creation Database. Four search terms will be retained “co-creat*”, “co-production”, “co-design” and “experience-based design”. These search terms are specifically chosen because co-production and co-design are commonly used interchangeably with the term co-creation [ 21 ]. In addition, “experience-based design” is retained due to the obvious focus on the experience. We will include articles that meet our inclusion criteria for co-creation, regardless of the terminology used to describe the methodology. For pragmatic reasons, sources of unpublished empirical studies (including grey literature, theses, and dissertations) will not be searched for. The draft search strategy for Scopus is available in Additional file 2.

The final stage of the search is to employ snowballing to capture any additional articles that may be potentially missed. An artificial intelligence tool called Connected Papers [ 22 ] will be used to identify papers that (1) the included paper has cited (backward reference searching), and (2) papers that have since cited the included paper (forward reference searching).

The article selection process is considered an iterative process, whereby the search strategy will be initially broad and then refined based on abstracts retrieved and as reviewer familiarity with the literature increases. The concept of co-creation is defined differently depending on the setting and context and is often used interchangeably with similar, yet distinct concepts, but equally lacking a clear universal understanding [ 21 ]. Therefore, to account for the overlaps in terminology a broad scope will be initially implemented.

As recommended by Arksey and O’Malley [ 23 ], decisions on how to set search parameters will be made after a general scope of the field has been gained. Hence, this stage will require the reviewer(s) to engage in a reflexive way and repeat steps to ensure a comprehensive literature search with more sensitive searches [ 23 , 24 ].

Inclusion/exclusion criteria

All study participants in the included papers must be adults, described as people aged 18 years and over with no upper limit. Children/adolescents are not included in this study as research indicates that there are differences between their emotional experiences in terms of emotional intensity and stability [ 25 ].

Empirical articles (i.e. primary research studies) include any qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method research designs that include a description of the co-created product, service, or intervention and an evaluation of the co-creators’ co-creation experience. Although scoping reviews can draw on evidence from non-empirical sources, this review imposes limits to include empirical sources only as empirical sources would be most useful and appropriate for contributing to an evidence-based understanding of co-creation methods.

Any context that involves the co-creation of a product, service, or intervention will be considered.

The Health CASCADE Co-creation Database is limited to searching records between 1st January 1970 and 1st December 2021. The search in Scopus will include records from 1st January 1970 until the date of the search.

The Health CASCADE Co-creation Database is limited to only include materials that are written in English. However, for the search conducted in Scopus, publications in English, Spanish, Dutch, French, and Chinese languages will also be considered, as the research team has proficient fluency in these languages.

Data extraction

Following the database search, articles will be exported as a CSV file for removal of duplicates in Excel. The articles will be imported and screened in Rayyan. The title and abstract of all studies will be screened independently by several reviewers (LMcC, QA, QL, EW, GRL, RC, and MV) and irrelevant studies will be removed. All titles and abstracts will be double-screened. Full-text articles of studies identified as potentially relevant for inclusion will subsequently be sought and screened by several reviewers (LMcC, QA, QL, EW, GRL, RC, MV, and KM) against the agreed set of criteria. Differences of opinion regarding inclusion or exclusion will be resolved by discussion and reaching a consensus or by a third reviewer. The results of the search and the study inclusion process will be reported in full in the final scoping review and presented both narratively and by use of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping review (PRISMA-ScR) flow diagram.

To determine the extent of research on co-creation experience (objective 1), details about co-creation more generally will first be extracted. This includes:

Study’s definition of co-creation and co-creation experience (if available).

The context or setting.

Data about the participants (number, type, and characteristics of co-creators’ involved).

Description of the co-creation process undertaken (including number of sessions, level of participation).

Purpose of co-creation.

Outcome of the co-created intervention, service, or product.

The key characteristics of psychological and emotional experience including positive and negative components (objective 2) will be extracted.

The psychological theory underpinning the co-creation experience identified by the authors of the studies (objective 3) will be recorded.

Information about the technology or tools that had an impact on the co-creation experience (objective 4) will be extracted.

Additional descriptive information such as discipline and date of publication will also be extracted.

The above-extracted information will be entered into an Excel spreadsheet developed by the authors. This data extraction Excel spreadsheet may be modified and revised as necessary during the process of extracting data from the included evidence sources to ensure that key findings relevant to the review question are addressed.

Quality assessment

There exists debate as to whether a scoping review should contain an assessment of study quality [ 26 ]. A quality assessment component will be included in this review in relation to the sufficiency of reporting the process of co-creating an intervention, service, or product. This tool (see Table  3 ) has been adapted from Leask et al.’s [ 4 ] ‘checklist for reporting intervention co-creation’ and Eyles et al.’s [ 27 ] amended version of a checklist for reporting non-pharmacological interventions. The reason for including this checklist is two-fold. Firstly, the scoping review may contain a variety of study designs and the focus is not solely on the outcomes, but rather on the process [ 27 ]. Secondly, as explained above, the concept of co-creation is used interchangeably with other similar overlapping concepts, such that some processes may be described as co-creation when they are in fact not (according to the definition used in this review) or vice versa. Therefore, by incorporating this checklist, it will become clearer as to the type or extent of co-creation processes that were implemented and whether they were clearly reported within each individual source of empirical evidence. However, given that a scoping review aims to present an overview of the extant literature on a particular topic without synthesis from individual studies, no study will be excluded on the basis of the quality of reporting co-created interventions.

Strategy for data analysis

The PRISMA-ScR will be used to guide the reporting of the scoping review [ 28 ]. Whilst, the synthesis of the results from included sources of evidence is more appropriately done with a systematic review, the analysis of data in scoping reviews is generally descriptive in nature [ 29 ]. A narrative summary of extracted data will be produced along with the tabulated and/or charted results described in relation to the review question and objectives. Descriptive techniques, such as basic coding of data to particular categories, are recommended as a useful approach when the purpose is to identify concepts or key characteristics related to the concept [ 20 ]. Data will be analysed using the well-established method of thematic analysis [ 30 ]. This method is characterised by identifying and reporting recurring themes within the data and is a suitable analytic method because it allows for patterns of experience to be recorded, such as understanding adults’ experiences of participating in co-creation. We intend to extract relevant co-creation experience data from the result sections of articles, including verbatim participant quotations. For quantitative data, such as questionnaires, we will attempt to extract the item statements and code them alongside the qualitative data.

The purpose of this scoping review is to uncover the breadth of existing empirical research on co-creation experience with a focus on emotional aspects and from a psychological perspective. An increased understanding of the role of experiences of participating in co-creation processes may help to inform the development and use of co-creation processes and lead to potential benefits for the co-creators’ and co-created outcome.

This scoping review has some limitations, which reflect the balance between conducting a wide search to discover the breadth of existing literature and the pragmatic constraints of conducting the review. This scoping review searches for published peer-reviewed work from SCOPUS and the Health CASCADE Co-creation Database. Other databases could be searched but for pragmatic reasons, these two databases were selected for their breadth and relevancy. Another limitation is that it was necessary to restrict the search terms for capturing ‘co-creation’ for the search in Scopus to maintain a manageable number of records retrieved to screen by the research team. However, authors may use different terms or descriptions. For instance, variations of terms like co-creation, co-design, and co-production, whether written with a dash or space can affect the number of articles retrieved. Boundaries on the search terms relating to experience were also formed, for example, specific emotions were not included in the search string, due to the large range of possible emotions that can be experienced, which would make the search unwieldy. We also have not used any of the advanced search features of the databases, such as proximity searching, which could potentially improve the specificity.

A strength of this review is the comprehensive snowballing search strategy to capture additional relevant papers. The results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and to scientific conferences. The plan for dissemination includes digital science communication platforms and presentations.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

Artificial intelligence

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis–extension for scoping reviews

Agnello DM, Loisel QEA, An Q, et al. Establishing a health CASCADE–curated open-access database to consolidate knowledge about co-creation: novel artificial intelligence–assisted methodology based on systematic reviews. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25(1): e45059. https://doi.org/10.2196/45059 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

von Heimburg D, Cluley V. Advancing complexity-informed health promotion: a scoping review to link health promotion and co-creation. Health Promot Int. 2020;36(2):581–600.

Article   Google Scholar  

Sherriff S, Miller H, Tong A, Williamson A, Muthayya S, Sally R, et al. Building trust and sharing power for co-creation in Aboriginal health research: a stakeholder interview study. Evid Policy J Res Debate Pract. 2019.

Leask CF, Sandlund M, Skelton DA, Altenburg TM, Cardon G, Chinapaw MJM, et al. Framework, principles and recommendations for utilising participatory methodologies in the co-creation and evaluation of public health interventions. Res Involv Engagem. 2019;5(1):2.

Wright MT, Springett J, Kongats K. What is participatory health research? In: Wright MT, Kongats K, editors. Participatory Health Research. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018.

Voorberg WH, Bekkers VJJM, Tummers LG. A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Manag Rev. 2015;17(9):1333–57.

Torfing J, Sørensen E, Røiseland A. Transforming the public sector into an arena for co-creation: Barriers, drivers, benefits, and ways forward. Adm Soc. 2016;51(5):795–825.

Leclercq T, Hammedi W, Poncin I. Ten years of value cocreation: an integrative review. Rech Appl En Mark Engl Ed. 2016;31(3):26–60.

Google Scholar  

Zhang P, Meng F, So KKF. Cocreation experience in peer-to-peer accommodations: Conceptualization and scale development. J Travel Res. 2021;60(6):1333–51.

Yi Y, Gong T. Customer value co-creation behavior: scale development and validation. J Bus Res. 2012;66(9):1279–84.

Partouche-Sebban J, Rezaee Vessal S, Bernhard F. When co-creation pays off: the effect of co-creation on well-being, work performance and team resilience. J Bus Ind Mark. 2021;37(8).

Sharma S, Conduit J, Rao HS. Hedonic and eudaimonic well-being outcomes from co-creation roles: a study of vulnerable customers. J Serv Mark. 2017;31(4/5):397–411.

Leask CF, Sandlund M, Skelton DA, Chastin SF. Co-creating a tailored public health intervention to reduce older adults’ sedentary behaviour. Health Educ J. 2017;76(5):595–608.

van Rooijen M, Lenzen S, Dalemans R, Beurskens A, Moser A. Stakeholder engagement from problem analysis to implementation strategies for a patient-reported experience measure in disability care: a qualitative study on the process and experiences. Health Expect. 2021;24(1):53–65.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Dunn JR, Schweitzer ME. Feeling and believing: the influence of emotion on trust. J Personal Soc Psychol Manag Proc. 2005;88(5):736–48.

Waugh CE, Fredrickson BL. Nice to know you: positive emotions, self–other overlap, and complex understanding in the formation of a new relationship. J Posit Psychol. 2006;1(2):93–106.

Dong B, Evans KR, Zou S. The effects of customer participation in co-created service recovery. J Acad Mark Sci. 2008;36(1):123–37.

Ramaswamy V. It’s about human experiences… and beyond, to co-creation. Ind Mark Manag. 2011;40(2):195–6.

Ramaswamy V. Co-creation of value — towards an expanded paradigm of value creation. Mark Rev St Gallen. 2009;26(6):11–7.

Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020Oct;18(10):2119–26.

Halvorsrud K, Kucharska J, Adlington K, Rüdell K, Brown Hajdukova E, Nazroo J, et al. Identifying evidence of effectiveness in the co-creation of research: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the international healthcare literature. J Public Health. 2021;43(1):197–208.

Tarnavsky-Eitan, A, Smolyansky E, Knaan-Harpaz I, Perets S. Connected Papers. 2020. https://www.connectedpapers.com/about . Accessed 26 May 2022.

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

Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5(1):69.

Bailen NH, Green LM, Thompson RJ. Understanding emotion in adolescents: a review of emotional frequency, intensity, instability, and clarity. Emot Rev. 2019;11(1):63–73.

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

Eyles H, Jull A, Dobson R, Firestone R, Whittaker R, Te Morenga L, et al. Co-design of mHealth delivered interventions: a systematic review to assess key methods and processes. Curr Nutr Rep. 2016;5(3):160–7.

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

Aromataris E, Munn Z. Chapter 11: Scoping reviews. In: JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI; 2020.

Braun V, Clarke V. Thematic analysis: a practical guide. 1st ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2021.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The Health CASCADE consortium.

The PhD studies of Lauren McCaffrey are funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement n° 956501.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK

Lauren McCaffrey, Bryan McCann, Sebastien François Martin Chastin, Quentin Loisel, Mira Vogelsang, Emily Whyte & Philippa Margaret Dall

Faculty of Psychology, Education and Sport Sciences Blanquerna, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain

Maria Giné-Garriga & Giuliana Raffaella Longworth

Department of Community Medicine and Rehabilitation, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden

Department of Movement and Sports Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

Greet Cardon, Sebastien François Martin Chastin & Rabab Chrifou

Department of Psychology and Methods, Jacobs University Bremen, Bremen, Germany

Sonia Lippke

Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Katrina Messiha

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

LMcC coordinated and conceived the study. LMcC, PMD, BMcC, and MGG have made substantive contributions to developing this protocol and the review question. LMcC, PMD, BMcC, MGG, QA, QL, EW, GRL, MV, RC, and KM jointly developed the search strategy. LMcC drafted the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lauren McCaffrey .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: prisma-p 2015 checklist., additional file 2: search strategy–scopus., rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

McCaffrey, L., McCann, B., Giné-Garriga, M. et al. Adult co-creators’ emotional and psychological experiences of the co-creation process: a Health CASCADE scoping review protocol. Syst Rev 13 , 231 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02643-9

Download citation

Received : 10 August 2022

Accepted : 22 August 2024

Published : 11 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02643-9

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

• Co-creation experience
• Psychological response
• Scoping review

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053

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