what are the guidelines for writing a 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.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

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 27, 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, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

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

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 This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission.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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the parts of a lit review?

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

Introduction:

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

Conclusion:

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

How should I organize my lit review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Sheridan Libraries

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

What Will You Do Differently?

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

Professor, this one's for you .

Introduction

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

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

• Next: Evaluate >>
• Last Updated: Jul 30, 2024 1:42 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.jhu.edu/lit-review

How To Write An A-Grade Literature Review

3 straightforward steps (with examples) + free template.

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

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

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

Overview: The Literature Review Process

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

But first, the “why”…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Step 1: Find the relevant literature

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

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

Method 1 – Google Scholar Scrubbing

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

Method 2 – University Database Scrounging

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

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

Method 3 – Journal Article Snowballing

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

Method 4 – Dissertation Scavenging

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

• Open Access Theses & Dissertations
• Stanford SearchWorks

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

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

Need a helping hand?

Step 2: Log, catalogue and synthesise

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

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

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

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

I’ll discuss each of these below:

2.1 – Log the reference information

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

2.2 – Build an organised catalogue

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

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

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

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

2.3 – Digest and synthesise

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

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

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

Step 3: Outline and write it up!

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

3.1 – Draw up your outline

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

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

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

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

PS – check out our free literature review chapter template…

3.2 – Get writing

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

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

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

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

Literature Review Example

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

Let’s Recap

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

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

Psst… there’s more!

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

38 Comments

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

This is awesome!

I wish I come across GradCoach earlier enough.

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

Thank you for this good job.

Keep it up!

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

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

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

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

Thank you Gradcoach.

Really agreed. Admirable effort

thank you for this beautiful well explained recap.

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

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

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

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

It is timely

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

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

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

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

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

This is super helpful thank you very much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, Stephanie 🙂

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

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

thank you so much.

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

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

Thank you excellent piece of work and great mentoring

Thanks, it was useful

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

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

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

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

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

Very timely.

I appreciate.

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

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

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

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

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

How to write a superb literature review

Andy Tay is a freelance writer based in Singapore.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

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

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

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

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

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

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

Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Updates & Corrections

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

Download references

Related Articles

• Research management

I botched my poster presentation — how do I perform better next time?

Career Feature 27 SEP 24

Researchers in Hungary raise fears of brain drain after ‘body blow’ EU funding suspension

Career News 26 SEP 24

How I apply Indigenous wisdom to Western science and nurture Native American students

Career Q&A 25 SEP 24

More measures needed to ease funding competition in China

Correspondence 24 SEP 24

Gender inequity persists among journal chief editors

The human costs of the research-assessment culture

Career Feature 09 SEP 24

Data integrity concerns flagged in 130 women’s health papers — all by one co-author

News 25 SEP 24

‘Substandard and unworthy’: why it’s time to banish bad-mannered reviews

Career Q&A 23 SEP 24

Postdoctoral Fellow in Biomedical Optics and Medical Physics

We seek skilled and enthusiastic candidates for Postdoctoral Fellow positions in the Biomedical Optical Imaging for cancer research.

Dallas, Texas (US)

UT Southwestern Medical Center, BIRTLab

Associate Professor

J. Craig Venter Institute is conducting a faculty search for Associate Professors position in Rockville, MD and San Diego, CA campuses.

Rockville, Maryland or San Diego, California

J. Craig Venter Institute

Associate Professor position (Tenure Track), Dept. of Computational & Systems Biology, U. Pittsburgh School of Medicine. Please apply by Dec. 2, 2024.

University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh

University of Pittsburgh | DCSB

Assistant Professor

Assistant Professor position (Tenure Track), Dept. of Computational & Systems Biology, U. Pittsburgh School of Medicine. Please apply by Dec. 2, 2024.

Independent Group Leader Positions in Computational and/or Experimental Medical Systems Biology

NIMSB is recruiting up to 4 Independent Group Leaders in Computational and/or Experimental Medical Systems Biology

Greater Lisbon - Portugal

NOVA - NIMSB

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

Quick links

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

Reference management. Clean and simple.

Literature review

How to write a literature review in 6 steps

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

How to write a systematic literature review [9 steps]

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

What is a literature review? [with examples]

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

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

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

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

What are Literature Reviews?

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

Goals of Literature Reviews

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

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

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

What kinds of sources require a Literature Review?

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

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

Types of Literature Reviews

What kinds of literature reviews are written?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature Reviews in the Health Sciences

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

Literature Reviews

What this handout is about.

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

Introduction

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

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

What is a literature review, then?

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

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

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

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

Why do we write literature reviews?

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

Who writes these things, anyway?

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

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

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

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

Find models

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

Narrow your topic

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

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

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

Consider whether your sources are current

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

Strategies for writing the literature review

Find a focus.

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

Convey it to your reader

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

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

Consider organization

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

First, cover the basic categories

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

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

Organizing the body

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

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

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

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

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

Sometimes, though, you might need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. Put in only what is necessary. Here are a few other sections you might want to consider:

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

Questions for Further Research: What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?

Begin composing

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

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

Use evidence

In the example above, the writers refer to several other sources when making their point. A literature review in this sense is just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence to show that what you are saying is valid.

Be selective

Select only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the review’s focus, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological.

Use quotes sparingly

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

Summarize and synthesize

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

Keep your own voice

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

Use caution when paraphrasing

When paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author’s information or opinions accurately and in your own words. In the preceding example, Falk and Mills either directly refer in the text to the author of their source, such as Hamilton, or they provide ample notation in the text when the ideas they are mentioning are not their own, for example, Gastil’s. For more information, please see our handout on plagiarism .

Revise, revise, revise

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

Works consulted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Make a Gift

• Library Homepage

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

• Literature Reviews?
• Strategies to Finding Sources
• Keeping up with Research!
• Evaluating Sources & Literature Reviews
• Organizing for Writing
• Writing Literature Review
• Other Academic Writings

Literature Review Writing Tips

Synthesize your findings. Your findings are your evaluation of the literature reviewed: what you consider the strengths and weakness of the studies reviewed; the comparison you did between studies; research trends and gaps in the research that you found while researching your topic, etc...

Across the articles that you read, pay attention to what are the:

• Common/contested findings
• Important trends
• Influential theories

Keep this in mind when writing your literature review:

• Do not over-quote:  If you only quote from every single author you found, then you are not showing any original thinking or analysis. Use quotes judiciously. Use quotes to highlight a particular passage or thought that exemplifies the research, theory or topic you are researching.
• Instead, use paraphrasing:  Restate the main ideas of a paragraph or section to highlight, in your own words, the important points made by the author.
• Summarize findings, important sections, a whole article or book: This is different from paraphrasing since you are not re-stating the author's words but summarizing the main point of what you are reading in a concise matter for your readers.
• Citation Styles by Teaching & Learning Last Updated Jul 30, 2024 10267 views this year

Literature Reviews: Useful Sites

The majority of these sites focus on literature reviews in the social sciences unless otherwise noted. For systematic literature reviews, we recommend you to contact directly your subject librarian for help.

• How to Write a Literature Review Nice and concise handout on how to write a literature review
• Six Steps to Writing a Literature Review This blog, written by a successful Ph.D., offers good advice about reviews from the point of view of an experienced professional. This blog is written by Tanya Golash-Boza, an Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of California at Merced.
• How to Write a Historiography (Literature Review for History) This is an excellent site to learn how to write this particular literature review in History.

Writing Tutorials & other Resources

• Literature Review Online Tutorial (North Carolina State University Libraries)
• Literature Review Tutorial (CQ University-Australia)
• Paraphrase: Write it in Your Own Words (OWL Purdue Writing Lab)
• Quoating and Paraphrasing (UW-Madison's Writing Center)
• How to Synthesize Excellent explanation about how to synthesize your findings for a Literature Review
• << Previous: Organizing for Writing
• Next: Other Academic Writings >>
• Last Updated: Mar 5, 2024 11:44 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.ucsb.edu/litreview

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Perspect Med Educ
• v.7(1); 2018 Feb

Writing an effective literature review

Lorelei lingard.

Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Health Sciences Addition, Western University, London, Ontario Canada

In the Writer’s Craft section we offer simple tips to improve your writing in one of three areas: Energy, Clarity and Persuasiveness. Each entry focuses on a key writing feature or strategy, illustrates how it commonly goes wrong, teaches the grammatical underpinnings necessary to understand it and offers suggestions to wield it effectively. We encourage readers to share comments on or suggestions for this section on Twitter, using the hashtag: #how’syourwriting?

This Writer’s Craft instalment is the first in a two-part series that offers strategies for effectively presenting the literature review section of a research manuscript. This piece alerts writers to the importance of not only summarizing what is known but also identifying precisely what is not, in order to explicitly signal the relevance of their research. In this instalment, I will introduce readers to the mapping the gap metaphor, the knowledge claims heuristic, and the need to characterize the gap.

Mapping the gap

The purpose of the literature review section of a manuscript is not to report what is known about your topic. The purpose is to identify what remains unknown— what academic writing scholar Janet Giltrow has called the ‘knowledge deficit’ — thus establishing the need for your research study [ 1 ]. In an earlier Writer’s Craft instalment, the Problem-Gap-Hook heuristic was introduced as a way of opening your paper with a clear statement of the problem that your work grapples with, the gap in our current knowledge about that problem, and the reason the gap matters [ 2 ]. This article explains how to use the literature review section of your paper to build and characterize the Gap claim in your Problem-Gap-Hook. The metaphor of ‘mapping the gap’ is a way of thinking about how to select and arrange your review of the existing literature so that readers can recognize why your research needed to be done, and why its results constitute a meaningful advance on what was already known about the topic.

Many writers have learned that the literature review should describe what is known. The trouble with this approach is that it can produce a laundry list of facts-in-the-world that does not persuade the reader that the current study is a necessary next step. Instead, think of your literature review as painting in a map of your research domain: as you review existing knowledge, you are painting in sections of the map, but your goal is not to end with the whole map fully painted. That would mean there is nothing more we need to know about the topic, and that leaves no room for your research. What you want to end up with is a map in which painted sections surround and emphasize a white space, a gap in what is known that matters. Conceptualizing your literature review this way helps to ensure that it achieves its dual goal: of presenting what is known and pointing out what is not—the latter of these goals is necessary for your literature review to establish the necessity and importance of the research you are about to describe in the methods section which will immediately follow the literature review.

To a novice researcher or graduate student, this may seem counterintuitive. Hopefully you have invested significant time in reading the existing literature, and you are understandably keen to demonstrate that you’ve read everything ever published about your topic! Be careful, though, not to use the literature review section to regurgitate all of your reading in manuscript form. For one thing, it creates a laundry list of facts that makes for horrible reading. But there are three other reasons for avoiding this approach. First, you don’t have the space. In published medical education research papers, the literature review is quite short, ranging from a few paragraphs to a few pages, so you can’t summarize everything you’ve read. Second, you’re preaching to the converted. If you approach your paper as a contribution to an ongoing scholarly conversation,[ 2 ] then your literature review should summarize just the aspects of that conversation that are required to situate your conversational turn as informed and relevant. Third, the key to relevance is to point to a gap in what is known. To do so, you summarize what is known for the express purpose of identifying what is not known . Seen this way, the literature review should exert a gravitational pull on the reader, leading them inexorably to the white space on the map of knowledge you’ve painted for them. That white space is the space that your research fills.

Knowledge claims

To help writers move beyond the laundry list, the notion of ‘knowledge claims’ can be useful. A knowledge claim is a way of presenting the growing understanding of the community of researchers who have been exploring your topic. These are not disembodied facts, but rather incremental insights that some in the field may agree with and some may not, depending on their different methodological and disciplinary approaches to the topic. Treating the literature review as a story of the knowledge claims being made by researchers in the field can help writers with one of the most sophisticated aspects of a literature review—locating the knowledge being reviewed. Where does it come from? What is debated? How do different methodologies influence the knowledge being accumulated? And so on.

Consider this example of the knowledge claims (KC), Gap and Hook for the literature review section of a research paper on distributed healthcare teamwork:

KC: We know that poor team communication can cause errors. KC: And we know that team training can be effective in improving team communication. KC: This knowledge has prompted a push to incorporate teamwork training principles into health professions education curricula. KC: However, most of what we know about team training research has come from research with co-located teams—i. e., teams whose members work together in time and space. Gap: Little is known about how teamwork training principles would apply in distributed teams, whose members work asynchronously and are spread across different locations. Hook: Given that much healthcare teamwork is distributed rather than co-located, our curricula will be severely lacking until we create refined teamwork training principles that reflect distributed as well as co-located work contexts.

The ‘We know that …’ structure illustrated in this example is a template for helping you draft and organize. In your final version, your knowledge claims will be expressed with more sophistication. For instance, ‘We know that poor team communication can cause errors’ will become something like ‘Over a decade of patient safety research has demonstrated that poor team communication is the dominant cause of medical errors.’ This simple template of knowledge claims, though, provides an outline for the paragraphs in your literature review, each of which will provide detailed evidence to illustrate a knowledge claim. Using this approach, the order of the paragraphs in the literature review is strategic and persuasive, leading the reader to the gap claim that positions the relevance of the current study. To expand your vocabulary for creating such knowledge claims, linking them logically and positioning yourself amid them, I highly recommend Graff and Birkenstein’s little handbook of ‘templates’ [ 3 ].

As you organize your knowledge claims, you will also want to consider whether you are trying to map the gap in a well-studied field, or a relatively understudied one. The rhetorical challenge is different in each case. In a well-studied field, like professionalism in medical education, you must make a strong, explicit case for the existence of a gap. Readers may come to your paper tired of hearing about this topic and tempted to think we can’t possibly need more knowledge about it. Listing the knowledge claims can help you organize them most effectively and determine which pieces of knowledge may be unnecessary to map the white space your research attempts to fill. This does not mean that you leave out relevant information: your literature review must still be accurate. But, since you will not be able to include everything, selecting carefully among the possible knowledge claims is essential to producing a coherent, well-argued literature review.

Characterizing the gap

Once you’ve identified the gap, your literature review must characterize it. What kind of gap have you found? There are many ways to characterize a gap, but some of the more common include:

• a pure knowledge deficit—‘no one has looked at the relationship between longitudinal integrated clerkships and medical student abuse’
• a shortcoming in the scholarship, often due to philosophical or methodological tendencies and oversights—‘scholars have interpreted x from a cognitivist perspective, but ignored the humanist perspective’ or ‘to date, we have surveyed the frequency of medical errors committed by residents, but we have not explored their subjective experience of such errors’
• a controversy—‘scholars disagree on the definition of professionalism in medicine …’
• a pervasive and unproven assumption—‘the theme of technological heroism—technology will solve what ails teamwork—is ubiquitous in the literature, but what is that belief based on?’

To characterize the kind of gap, you need to know the literature thoroughly. That means more than understanding each paper individually; you also need to be placing each paper in relation to others. This may require changing your note-taking technique while you’re reading; take notes on what each paper contributes to knowledge, but also on how it relates to other papers you’ve read, and what it suggests about the kind of gap that is emerging.

In summary, think of your literature review as mapping the gap rather than simply summarizing the known. And pay attention to characterizing the kind of gap you’ve mapped. This strategy can help to make your literature review into a compelling argument rather than a list of facts. It can remind you of the danger of describing so fully what is known that the reader is left with the sense that there is no pressing need to know more. And it can help you to establish a coherence between the kind of gap you’ve identified and the study methodology you will use to fill it.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Mark Goldszmidt for his feedback on an early version of this manuscript.

PhD, is director of the Centre for Education Research & Innovation at Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, and professor for the Department of Medicine at Western University in London, Ontario, Canada.

• Ask a Librarian

Research: Overview & Approaches

• Getting Started with Undergraduate Research
• Planning & Getting Started
• Building Your Knowledge Base
• Locating Sources
• Reading Scholarly Articles
• Creating a Literature Review

Finding and Completing a Literature Review

Intro to creating a literature review.

• Productivity & Organizing Research
• Scholarly and Professional Relationships
• Empirical Research
• Interpretive Research
• Action-Based Research
• Creative & Experimental Approaches
• Technical Support

• Palgrave's Study Guide to Carrying Out a Literature Review Your research is seen as a contribution to knowledge in the field and it needs to indicate, therefore, that there is an awareness of what that knowledge comprises. Read this guide to getting started.
• Purdue OWL's Guide to Writing a Literature Review A literature review requires the writer to perform extensive research on published work in one’s field in order to explain how one’s own work fits into the larger conversation regarding a particular topic. This task requires the writer to spend time reading, managing, and conveying information; the complexity of literature reviews can make this section one of the most challenging parts of writing about one’s research. This handout will provide some strategies for revising literature reviews.

Every time you conduct research, you will need to make it clear where you got your evidence from. This work of citing our sources is absolutely essential for a couple of reasons.

• It demonstrates to the readers of our own research that we have evidence to back up our claims.
• A complete and correct citation directs readers to the original source for them to verify our claims and learn more.
• It gives credit to the researchers whose intellectual work helped form our own research.
• << Previous: Reading Scholarly Articles
• Next: Productivity & Organizing Research >>
• Last Edited: Sep 27, 2024 8:40 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.purdue.edu/research_approaches

Loading metrics

Open Access

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliations Centre for Functional and Evolutionary Ecology (CEFE), CNRS, Montpellier, France, Centre for Biodiversity Synthesis and Analysis (CESAB), FRB, Aix-en-Provence, France

• Marco Pautasso

Published: July 18, 2013

• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149
• Reader Comments

Citation: Pautasso M (2013) Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review. PLoS Comput Biol 9(7): e1003149. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149

Editor: Philip E. Bourne, University of California San Diego, United States of America

Copyright: © 2013 Marco Pautasso. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

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

Competing interests: The author has declared that no competing interests exist.

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

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

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

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

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

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

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

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

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

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

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

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

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

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149.g001

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

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

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

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

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

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

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

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

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

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

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgments

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

• 1. Rapple C (2011) The role of the critical review article in alleviating information overload. Annual Reviews White Paper. Available: http://www.annualreviews.org/userimages/ContentEditor/1300384004941/Annual_Reviews_WhitePaper_Web_2011.pdf . Accessed May 2013.
• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 7. Budgen D, Brereton P (2006) Performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Proc 28th Int Conf Software Engineering, ACM New York, NY, USA, pp. 1051–1052. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/1134285.1134500 .
• 16. Eco U (1977) Come si fa una tesi di laurea. Milan: Bompiani.
• 17. Hart C (1998) Doing a literature review: releasing the social science research imagination. London: SAGE.
• 21. Ridley D (2008) The literature review: a step-by-step guide for students. London: SAGE.

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

University Library

Write a literature review.

• Examples and Further Information

1. Introduction

Not to be confused with a book review, a literature review surveys scholarly articles, books and other sources (e.g. dissertations, conference proceedings) relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, providing a description, summary, and critical evaluation of each work. The purpose is to offer an overview of significant literature published on a topic.

2. Components

Similar to primary research, development of the literature review requires four stages:

• Problem formulation—which topic or field is being examined and what are its component issues?
• Literature search—finding materials relevant to the subject being explored
• Data evaluation—determining which literature makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the topic
• Analysis and interpretation—discussing the findings and conclusions of pertinent literature

Literature reviews should comprise the following elements:

• An overview of the subject, issue or theory under consideration, along with the objectives of the literature review
• Division of works under review into categories (e.g. those in support of a particular position, those against, and those offering alternative theses entirely)
• 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

In assessing each piece, consideration should be given to:

• 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)?
• 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/least convincing?
• Value—Are the author's arguments and conclusions convincing? Does the work ultimately contribute in any significant way to an understanding of the subject?

3. Definition and Use/Purpose

A literature review may constitute an essential chapter of a thesis or dissertation, or may be a self-contained review of writings on a subject. In either case, its purpose is to:

• Place each work in the context of its contribution to the understanding of the subject under review
• Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration
• Identify new ways to interpret, and shed light on any gaps in, previous research
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort
• Point the way forward for further research
• Place one's original work (in the case of theses or dissertations) in the context of existing literature

The literature review itself, however, does not present new primary scholarship.

• Next: Examples and Further Information >>

Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License except where otherwise noted.

Land Acknowledgement

The land on which we gather is the unceded territory of the Awaswas-speaking Uypi Tribe. The Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, comprised of the descendants of indigenous people taken to missions Santa Cruz and San Juan Bautista during Spanish colonization of the Central Coast, is today working hard to restore traditional stewardship practices on these lands and heal from historical trauma.

The land acknowledgement used at UC Santa Cruz was developed in partnership with the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band Chairman and the Amah Mutsun Relearning Program at the UCSC Arboretum .

SOC 200 - Sims: How to Write a Lit Review

• What are Literature Reviews?
• How to Write a Lit Review
• How to Choose a Topic
• Finding the Literature

How to write a literature review

Below are the steps you should follow when crafting a lit review for your class assignment.

• It's preferable if you can select a topic that you find interesting, because this will make the work seem less like work. 
• It's also important to select a topic that many researchers have already explored. This way, you'll actually have "literature" to "review."
• Sometimes, doing a very general search and reading other literature reviews can reveal a topic or avenue of research to you. 
• It's important to gain an understanding of your topic's research history, in order to properly comprehend how and why the current (emerging) research exists.
• One trick is to look at the References (aka Bibliographies aka Works Cited pages) of any especially relevant articles, in order to expand your search for those same sources. This is because there is often overlap between works, and if you're paying attention, one source can point you to several others.
• One method is to start with the most recently-published research and then use their citations to identify older research, allowing you to piece together a timeline and work backwards. 
• Chronologically : discuss the literature in order of its writing/publication. This will demonstrate a change in trends over time, and/or detail a history of controversy in the field, and/or illustrate developments in the field.
• Thematically : group your sources by subject or theme. This will show the variety of angels from which your topic has been studied. This method works well if you are trying to identify a sub-topic that has so far been overlooked by other researchers.
• Methodologically : group your sources by methodology. For example, divide the literature into categories like qualitative versus quantitative, or by population or geographical region, etc. 
• Theoretically : group your sources by theoretical lens. Your textbook should have a section(s) dedicated to the various theories in your field. If you're unsure, you should ask your professor.
• Are there disagreements on some issues, and consensus on others?
• How does this impact the path of research and discovery?
• Many articles will have a Limitations section, or a Discussion section, wherein suggestions are provided for next steps to further the research.
• These are goldmines for helping you see a possible outlook of the situation. 
• Identifying any gaps in the literature that are of a particular interest to your research goals will help you justify why your own research should be performed. 
• Be selective about which points from the source you use. The information should be the most important and the most relevant. 
• Use direct quotes sparingly, and don't rely too heavily on summaries and paraphrasing. You should be drawing conclusions about how the literature relates to your own analysis or the other literature. 
• Synthesize your sources. The goal is not to make a list of summaries, but to show how the sources relate to one another and to your own analysis. 
• At the end, make suggestions for future research. What subjects, populations, methodologies, or theoretical lenses warrant further exploration? What common flaws or biases did you identify that could be corrected in future studies? 
• Common citation styles for sociology classes include APA and ASA.

Understanding how a literature review is structured will help you as you craft your own. 

Below is information and example articles that you should review, in order to comprehend why they are written a certain way.

Below are some very good examples of Literature Reviews:

Cyberbullying: How Physical Intimidation Influences the Way People are Bullied

Use of Propofol and Emergence Agitation in Children

Eternity and Immortality in Spinoza's 'Ethics'

As you read these, take note of the sections that comprise the main structure of each one:

• Introduction 
• Summarize sources
• Synthesize sources

Below are some articles that provide very good examples of an "Introduction" section, which includes a "Review of the Literature."

• Sometimes, there is both an Introduction section, and a separate Review of the Literature section (oftentimes, it simply depends on the publication)

Krimm, H., & Lund, E. (2021). Efficacy of online learning modules for teaching dialogic reading strategies and phonemic awareness.  Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools,  52 (4), 1020-1030.  https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_LSHSS-21-00011

Melfsen, S., Jans, T., Romanos, M., & Walitza, S. (2022). Emotion regulation in selective mutism: A comparison group study in children and adolescents with selective mutism.  Journal of Psychiatric Research,  151 , 710-715.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2022.05.040

Citation Resources

• MU Library's Citing Sources page
• Purdue OWL's APA Guide
• APA Citation Style - Quick Guide
• Purdue OWL's ASA Guide
• ASA Citation Style - Quick Tips

Suggested Reading

• How to: Conduct a Lit Review (from Central Michigan University)
• Purdue OWL Writing Lab's Advice for Writing a Lit Review

How to Read a Scholarly Article

 read:.

• Things to consider when reading a scholarly article This helpful guide, from Meriam Library at California State University in Chico, explains what a scholarly article is and provides tips for reading them.

  Watch:

• How to read a scholarly article (YouTube) This tutorial, from Western University, quickly and efficiently describes how to read a scholarly article.
• << Previous: What are Literature Reviews?
• Next: How to Choose a Topic >>
• Last Updated: Sep 27, 2024 3:57 PM
• URL: https://libguides.marshall.edu/soc200-sims

• Open access
• Published: 27 September 2024

Recommendations for developing accessible patient information leaflets for clinical trials to address English language literacy as a barrier to research participation

• Vikki Wylde   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8460-1529 1 , 2 ,
• Sharon Brennan 3 ,
• Emma Johnson 1 ,
• Kirsty Roberts 4 ,
• Andrew D. Beswick 1 , 2 &
• Catherine Jameson 1 , 2  

Trials volume  25 , Article number:  624 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Low English language literacy is a common barrier to participation in clinical trials. Patient information leaflets (PILs) used in clinical trials are often lengthy, complex and have poor readability; this is a persistent and prevalent problem common to trials across the world. Simplifying the information provided in PILs can lead to improved understanding, comprehension and knowledge.

The aim of this project was to develop recommendations for developing accessible PILs for clinical trials through a literature review of published and grey literature and co-working with marginalised communities, patients, and health and social care charities.

A literature review of MEDLINE, Embase and online resources was conducted, and recommendations for developing accessible PILs were extracted from eligible published and grey literature. Grey literature which contained insights into more inclusive forms of communication was also identified and summarised. Meetings were held with two racially marginalised community groups, two groups involving autistic adults and/or adults with learning difficulties and a patient advisory group. Examples of accessible PILs were shared and discussions held about the content and format of the PILs and suggestions for changes/improvements. National Voices, a coalition of health and social care charities in England, held a national online workshop with charities and lived experience partners. Recommendations identified from the multiple sources were coded, collated and refined to develop an overarching framework of recommendations.

The framework consists of 74 recommendations for developing accessible PILs for clinical trials. Recommendations cover the five topics of formatting, information presentation, writing style, content and accessibility.

Conclusions

This project has developed a comprehensive framework of recommendations to guide researchers in the development of accessible PILs for clinical trials. Findings from previous research and from co-working with marginalised communities, patients and health and social care charities were collated to ensure that a diverse range of voices and experiences informed the framework. These recommendations aim to support researchers to develop better study information to reduce English language literacy as a barrier to participation in clinical trials.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

It is now widely acknowledged that action needs to be taken to improve diversity and inclusion in clinical trials and health research more broadly [ 1 ]. Trial sample populations need to reflect the communities that they serve to ensure equity, scientific integrity, a full understanding of differences in treatment responses, safety of new treatments, and the translation and applicability of findings into real-world application [ 2 ]. The imperative for more inclusive practices in clinical trials was highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a widespread lack of diversity in people participating in vaccine trials despite Black and Asian ethnic groups having a higher risk of death from COVID-19 [ 3 ]. There are a number of national- and government-level initiatives focussed on addressing the underrepresentation of diverse populations in clinical trials, such as the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Innovations in Clinical Trial Design and Delivery for the underserved (INCLUDE) project [ 4 ], Trial Forge [ 5 ] and the USA Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative [ 6 ]. However, the underrepresentation of marginalised groups in health research prevails due to multi-faceted barriers to research participation. The barriers experienced vary across marginalised groups and individuals but have broadly been identified as relating to language and communication, lack of trust, eligibility criteria, attitudes and beliefs, lack of knowledge around clinical trials and logistical and practical issues [ 7 ]. Specific to language and communication, low English language literacy levels are a well-known barrier to inclusion in clinical trials [ 7 ], relevant to different marginalised groups including people with a lower education level, those who do not read written English, have a learning disability, are living with dementia or who have had a stroke.

The National Literacy Trust estimates that 7.1 million people (16% of adults) living in England have very poor literacy [ 8 ]. Numerous studies have found that patient information leaflets (PILs) used in clinical research are often lengthy, inappropriately complex and have poor readability; this is a persistent and prevalent problem common to trials across the world [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 ]. For example, an evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine trials found the mean word count of PILs was 8333 words (average reading time of 35–48 min) and the language complexity was high [ 13 ]. There are substantial concerns about the increasing length and complexity of PILs for clinical trials and the potential impact on people’s comprehension of the information provided [ 14 ]. This also can pose challenges to translation of study information into different languages. Simplifying the information provided in PILs can lead to improved understanding, comprehension and knowledge [ 15 , 16 , 17 ]. ‘Easy read’ has been defined by as information which is written using simple words supported by images [ 18 ]. Information presented in an ‘Easy read’ format aims to be easier to understand than standard documents and can be beneficial for a range of audiences.

The aim of the MAPLE ( M aking trials more A ccessible through better P atient information LE aflets) project was to develop recommendations for developing accessible PILs for clinical trials through a literature review of published and grey literature and co-working with marginalised communities, patients and health and social care charities.

The UK standards for Public Involvement in research defines it as ‘research being carried out ‘with’ or ‘by’ members of the public rather than ‘to,’ ‘about’ or ‘for’ them’ [ 19 ]. The UK National Institute for Health Research provides ‘commenting on and developing patient information leaflets or other research materials’ as an example of patient and public involvement in research [ 20 ]. This project involved working with members of the public to develop recommendations for developing accessible PILs for clinical trials, and therefore was conducted as public and community involvement and engagement (PCIE) activities, rather than research, and institutional ethics approval was not required.

This project was a partnership between academics at the University of Bristol and National Voices. National Voices ( https://www.nationalvoices.org.uk/ ) is a leading coalition of health and social care charities in England. They have more than 200 members covering a diverse range of health conditions and communities, connecting them with the experiences of hundreds of thousands of people.

Literature review of published and grey literature

As this was a literature review rather than a systematic review, the review protocol was not registered on PROSPERO.

Published literature

In designing a search strategy, we acknowledged that searching for studies relating to ‘patient information’ would be highly unspecific and identify a large quantity of irrelevant material and searches for ‘patient information leaflet’ would identify some relevant literature but may miss material addressing the issue with a broader consideration of the delivery of patient information. To address this, we applied both a search of online databases with a strategy based around patient information leaflets and a snowballing method with forward searching based on citations of key studies [ 21 ]. For a search of MEDLINE and Embase on the Ovid platform on 16th November 2023, we used a search based on textwords used in the review of Sustersic and colleagues [ 22 ] and a filter for randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical studies (see Supplementary Table 1). Risk of bias of included studies was not assessed.

To identify articles citing key publications, we used the citation tracking option in Web of Science. Initially, we focused on six key publications that we were aware of [ 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 ], and after screening of reference lists and forward citations, we tracked 22 studies [ 9 , 11 , 17 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 ]. Articles were included if they reported recommendations to inform the development of easy-read clinical trial PILs for adults. No limitations were placed on the study design. The scope of included articles was limited to recommendations focused on research; studies related to the development of PILs for clinical care were excluded. Article titles were screened in Endnote and clearly irrelevant articles were excluded. Abstracts and full text of potentially relevant articles were then screened to determine eligibility. Screening was performed by one reviewer.

Data extraction of recommendations from included articles was performed by one reviewer and comprised author, date, study design and recommendation. Recommendations were extracted verbatim, and extracted data were entered in Excel.

Grey literature

In November 2023, a search of grey literature of potential relevance was conducted through searches of online material published or catalogued by the King’s Fund, Care Quality Commission, Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership and Health Research Authority. Opengrey and Google were also searched. Grey literature identified from eligible articles was also included.

To supplement the search of the grey literature, National Voices utilised knowledge and networks of equalities-focussed charities to identify grey literature which contained insights into more inclusive forms of communication. This included reflections on the innovations that could be used to ensure people with specific communication needs have an equal opportunity to participate in clinical research, including people with sensory impairments, those with learning disabilities, autistic people, those living with dementia, and people with low or no literacy or those who do not speak English fluently. This included literature specific to clinical trial participation as well as innovative work on how to improve and create accessible communications regardless of the subject matter.

Co-working with marginalised communities, patients and health and social care charities

Marginalised communities and patient groups.

Following our co-produced guidance on inclusive involvement of community groups in health research [ 41 ], we co-worked with two racially marginalised community groups, two groups involving autistic adults and/or adults with learning disabilities and/or difficulties and one patient advisory group to generate recommendations for designing accessible PILs. An overview of the groups and meetings is provided in Table  1 . Each meeting lasted 1–4 h and was held online or in the usual venue of the group and followed each group’s preferred format, with English interpretation provided for the researchers by the community leaders/facilitators as needed. Meetings were facilitated by group leaders, with researchers in attendance. Groups were reimbursed for their involvement by their preferred format [ 41 ]. All meetings were held for the purposes of this project, with the exception of the four meetings with The Adventurers. Three of these meetings focussed on co-developing an accessible PIL for a clinical trial and the fourth meeting involved a discussion about supporting research participation; with permission, notes and learning from those meetings were used in this project.

To inform the discussion during the meetings, a selection of example accessible PILs was obtained through the Bristol Trials Centre, and consent was gained from the trial teams to share the accessible PILs with community and patient groups. For each meeting, 2–3 accessible PILs were printed, and copies were shared with members to facilitate discussion. The agenda for the meetings were informal and adapted to the preferences for working of each group, to allow people the time and space to contribute their experiences to open discussion. Discussions focussed on whether the PILs were easy to understand, what people liked/disliked about them, what would make them better, and whether more/less information should be included. A researcher took notes of the discussion during each meeting, rather than audio-recording, to ensure that the group members felt comfortable to openly share their thoughts and views with the researchers.

Health and social care charities and lived experience partners

National Voices convened and facilitated a 1-h online workshop with 18 people, comprising a mixture of professionals working in health and social care charities and people with lived experience of long-term health conditions and/or disability. Health charities represented during the workshop were The Nerve of My Multiple Sclerosis, Macular Society, TransActual, Thomas Pocklington Trust, Roma Support Group, South Asian Health Action, BHA For Equality, Blood Cancer UK, British Heart Foundation, Age UK, and Rethink Mental Illness. A further five individuals were consulted individually in follow-up conversations. The workshop focused on reviewing barriers to participation and, asking participants to identify the key information researchers would need to include in an accessible format, and identifying solutions and approaches to ensure the proposed output meets the needs of people who are underrepresented in current research. A full report of the workshop is available on the National Voices website [ 42 ].

Development of the framework of recommendations for the creation of accessible PILs was an iterative process. Extracted recommendations from articles and documents identified in the literature review were coded in Excel and grouped into topics by one researcher (VW). These preliminary codes were then reviewed by a second researcher (AB). Notes from the community and patient group meetings were then reviewed line-by-line by one researcher (VW) and coded in Excel, using the provisional framework developed from the literature review data. New codes were added as they arose, and existing codes refined during the coding process. This process was repeated for the National Voices report on inclusive communication and the report from the online workshop with health and social care charities and lived experience partners. The amalgamated matrix of coded recommendations, along with the supporting section of notes from the meetings, was then reviewed and refined by a second researcher (CJ). The overarching framework was then reviewed by all the co-authors to merge duplicate categories, review the topic categories and finalise the order of presentation of the recommendations.

A flow diagram of the literature review is provided in Fig.  1 . Database searches identified 5358 articles after duplicates were removed and another article was identified through direct discussion with the trial team. After initial screening, 4896 articles were removed as they were irrelevant and 462 were screened in-depth; of these 33 were included [ 7 , 11 , 15 , 24 , 28 , 32 , 34 , 36 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 ]. A summary of the characteristics of the included studies is provided in Supplementary Table 2 and the extracted recommendations from studies are presented in Supplementary Table 3. The grey literature search identified 32 online documents of which 9 were screened in depth and 3 were included [ 68 , 69 , 70 ]. Recommendations identified from the literature review of published and grey literature, review of grey literature by National Voices, community and patient group discussions, and the workshop with health and social care charities and lived experience partners were collated and brought together in an overarching framework of recommendations for developing accessible clinical trial PILs. This framework consists of 74 recommendations, grouped into five overarching topics of formatting, information presentation, writing style, content and accessibility. These are further divided into 31 subtopics to facilitate navigation of the framework. The recommendations are provided in full in Table  2 and summarised below.

Literature review flow diagram

Text should be left-aligned, and bullet points, lists or sections used to break up the text. Use colour, considering readability in the selection of colours. Format text and images into two columns, with images in the left column. Headings should be easily distinguishable from the body of the text, short, and structured as questions. Print PILs on low-to-no gloss paper in an appropriate-sized booklet format and make it clear if readers need to turn overleaf. Select wider typefaces in a large font size (which can be increased if needed), avoid underlining, using text that is all in capitals and italics, and only use bold type face in the main text for emphasis. Include space without text (whitespace) to help with readability.

Information presentation

Using a layered/tiered approach can help structure the provision of accessible information. Information needs to be presented in a logical order, with key/important messages first. Focus on one message at a time with related information grouped together and consider including summaries. Keep the volume of information short and avoid repetition or unnecessary information; the focus should be on the provision of enough information for people to make an informed decision about participation. Use appropriate, familiar and inclusive images that are relevant to the trial, that explain the text, support the main messages of the PIL, and/or explain a difficult concept. Limit the use of statistics, and if they are used consider how best to convey these to readers, including the use of image and analogies to explain numbers and statistical concepts.

Writing style

Work in partnership with communities to co-produce accessible PILs and ensure a writing style that will be accessible to all readers. Use familiar, appropriate and inclusive phrasing, analogies and terminology. Use clear and familiar plain language, written in a conversational and narrative style, demonstrating respect and value for the readers. Ensure the PIL is written at an appropriate reading age and test readability with online readability tools (for example https://www.thefirstword.co.uk/readabilitytest/ , https://goodcalculators.com/flesch-kincaid-calculator/ or https://www.thewriter.com/tools/readability ) and/or user testing. Avoid jargon, assumptions and patronising language. Minimise the use of abbreviations and acronyms and where they are necessary explain them immediately and clearly. Write from the reader’s perspective; approach the information to be provided from the point of view of what the reader wants and needs to know, rather than what the researchers think they need to convey. Use an active voice and short words, sentences and paragraphs. Provide context for new information and ensure consistency throughout.

If using a front page, provide a concise overview of the trial and avoid using too many logos. Explain the purpose of clinical trials and the purpose of the trial, emphasising that participation is voluntary and encourage readers to discuss with other people before deciding about participation. Describe the importance of research participation and clearly convey the existing uncertainty that underpins the need for the trial. Clearly describe eligibility criteria, treatment allocation, the treatment(s) and standard care, and any treatment side effects. Explain study processes, including how data will be collected, handled and stored. Describe the advantages and disadvantages of participation, any incentives for participation and withdrawal processes. Provide an ethics statement and contact information for the research team and an independent advisor/advocate.

Accessibility

Translate the accessible PIL into different languages and ensure communication and interpretation support is available for written and verbal information. Provide information in multiple formats e.g. braille, large print, plain text, audio, video format with voiceover/subtitles. Ensure the verbal information that is provided in any conversations with potential participants is clear, simple and culturally appropriate and offers wider support as well as information.

The MAPLE project has developed a comprehensive framework of recommendations to guide researchers in the development of accessible PILs for clinical trials. A previous literature review identified recommendations for accessible clinical research PILs and conducted work with stakeholders to support the development of patient-facing documents through expert consensus [ 24 ]. These were included in our work and extended further through working in partnership with marginalised community groups, patients and charities to ensure that a diverse range of voices and experiences informed the framework. These recommendations aim to support researchers to develop better study information to reduce English language literacy as a barrier to participation in clinical trials.

It is important to consider the strengths and limitations of this work within a broader context. A literature review was conducted rather than a systematic review, as the aim of the review was to gain an understanding of what is already known on the topic to inform the development of the recommendations framework rather than provide a definitive answer to a clinical question. While this approach was appropriate to the aim of this project, it may have led to relevant sources not being included as database searches were limited to MEDLINE and Embase. A key strength of this project was that it was conducted in partnership with diverse groups of people who may experience English language literacy as a barrier to research participation in different ways. Building trust and relationships and understanding preferred ways of working is an essential first stage to inclusive involvement in health research [ 41 ]. Based on the preferences of the groups and charities involved in this project, the discussions were not audio-recorded to ensure people felt comfortable and safe to contribute. Identifying and sharing example accessible PILs was a useful tool for promoting discussion, as many members of the community groups had not been approached about participating in a research project before and therefore had not seen a PIL. Discussions focussed on how the example accessible PILs could be improved and the reasons for the recommendations given were not explored due to time constraints. We acknowledged that the project likely did not encapsulate the views of all groups of people who may experience English language literacy as a barrier to research participation. We did not collect information on the protected characteristics of the people involved in the meetings and therefore are unable to comment on the full diversity of those involved; however, from working with community group members, they are likely at the intersection of multiple factors of marginalisation, for example, language, older age, digital exclusion, carers, multiple health conditions and disability. Also while some of our recommendations will apply across phase 1, phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials, further work is needed to develop recommendations specifically focussed on developing accessible information for first-in-human clinical trials as the information requirements differ from later phase trials.

The MAPLE recommendations provide a preliminary framework to support the development of accessible PILs for clinical trials, however further work is needed to facilitate the use of the recommendations. Regulatory authorities are perceived by researchers as the largest barrier to the use of accessible PILs due to the need to meet regulatory and legal requirements [ 71 ]. However, regulatory authorities are often supportive of improving the accessibility of research, for example, the NHS Health Research Authority recommends a layered approach to information provision [ 72 ] and has developed principles and hallmarks of people-centred clinical research which includes ensuring that clinical research is accessible and communicated well to people [ 73 ]. There are also challenges in addressing all the recommendations regarding the content of an accessible PIL while ensuring readability and keeping the PIL short. Co-production work with patients and communities supports researchers to develop accessible PILs. However, this potentially poses a high and unsustainable burden to communities to be involved in creating new accessible PILs for each clinical trial, and further work is needed to support the creation of co-developed generic content that can then be tailored to individual clinical trials. Finally, investment from health research funders is needed to ensure that the additional funding required to implement measures to facilitate accessibility is available and prioritised within grant applications.

An additional important finding from this project was that a written PIL is only one method of providing information and needs to be supplemented with alternative formats to improve accessibility, for example, videos with subtitles provided in multiple languages and interpretation at research sites. The verbal information provided by research staff and clinicians about a trial is of paramount importance and needs to be culturally appropriate and clear, and support provided to enable people from marginalised backgrounds to participate in research. System-level change in approaches to recruitment is needed to improve the accessibility of clinical research, with researchers, patients, members of the public and regulatory authorities working in partnership to provide better information.

The development of the MAPLE recommendations can support researchers to develop accessible PILs for clinical trials and contribute towards addressing equity in health research participation. Our recommendations contribute to a growing body of work that aims to improve accessibility in clinical trials. However, providing more accessible and inclusive information is only one part of the complex array of barriers to research participation which need to be addressed. Historically, researchers have misconstrued that people from marginalised communities are unwilling to participate in research [ 1 ], when the reality is that people from these communities are not invited to participate, with barriers imposed by researchers [ 74 ]. Barriers to inclusive trials are surmountable and there is a need for investment to action systemic changes across health research to improve inclusivity and minimise the perpetuation of existing health inequalities [ 1 , 6 ]. Evidence-based strategies and enablers to inclusive trials include cultural competency training, community partnerships, personalised approach, multilingual materials and staff, communication-specific strategies, increasing understanding and trust and tackling logistical barriers [ 5 , 7 , 75 ]. A multi-faceted approach, with investment from all stakeholders, is required to action and implement widespread changes to clinical trials and improve inclusion.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available as they comprise notes taken during community meetings and we do not have permission from community group members to share these notes.

Abbreviations

Innovations in Clinical Trial Design and Delivery for the underserved

Making trials more Accessible through better Patient information Leaflets

National Institute for Health Research

Public and community involvement and engagement

Patient Experience Partnership in Research

• Patient information leaflet

Bibbins-Domingo K, Helman A, Dzau VJ. The imperative for diversity and inclusion in clinical trials and health research participation. JAMA. 2022;327:2283–4. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.9083 . 2022/05/18.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Treweek S, Banister K, Bower P, et al. Developing the INCLUDE Ethnicity Framework-a tool to help trialists design trials that better reflect the communities they serve. Trials. 2021;22:337. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05276-8 . 2021/05/12.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Herieka H, Babalis D, Tzala E, et al. How inclusive were UK-based randomised controlled trials of COVID-19 vaccines? A systematic review investigating enrolment of Black adults and adult ethnic minorities. Trials. 2024;25:255. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-024-08054-4 . 2024/04/12.

Witham MD, Anderson E, Carroll C, et al. Developing a roadmap to improve trial delivery for under-served groups: results from a UK multi-stakeholder process. Trials. 2020;21:694. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-04613-7 . 2020/08/03.

Dawson S, Banister K, Biggs K, et al. Trial Forge Guidance 3: randomised trials and how to recruit and retain individuals from ethnic minority groups-practical guidance to support better practice. Trials. 2022;23:672. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06553-w . 2022/08/18.

Corneli A, Hanlen-Rosado E, McKenna K, et al. Enhancing Diversity and Inclusion in Clinical Trials. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2023;113:489–99. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.2819 . 2023/01/12.

Bodicoat DH, Routen AC, Willis A, et al. Promoting inclusion in clinical trials-a rapid review of the literature and recommendations for action. Trials. 2021;22:880. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05849-7 . 2021/12/06.

National Literacy Trust. Adult literacy rates in the UK. https://literacytrust.org.uk/parents-and-families/adult-literacy/ , (accessed 11/04/2024).

O’Sullivan L, Sukumar P, Crowley R, et al. Readability and understandability of clinical research patient information leaflets and consent forms in Ireland and the UK: a retrospective quantitative analysis. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e037994. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037994 . Article 2020/09/05.

Symons T, Davis JS. Creating concise and readable patient information sheets for interventional studies in Australia: are we there yet? Trials. 2022;23:8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06712-z . Article.

Article   Google Scholar  

Foe G, Larson EL. Reading Level and Comprehension of Research Consent Forms: An Integrative Review. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2016;11:31–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264616637483 . Review 2016/04/24.

Santel F, Bah I, Kim K, et al. Assessing readability and comprehension of informed consent materials for medical device research: a survey of informed consents from FDA’s center for devices and radiological health. Contemp Clin Trials. 2019;85:8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2019.105831 . Article.

Emanuel EJ, Boyle CW. Assessment of length and readability of informed consent documents for COVID-19 vaccine trials. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4:5. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.10843 . Article.

Bull S, Cheah PY, Lwin KM, et al. Consent and community engagement in diverse research contexts: reviewing and developing research and practice. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2013;8:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2013.8.4.1 . Article.

Benatar JR, Mortimer J, Stretton M, Stewart RAH. A booklet on participants’ rights to improve consent for clinical research: a randomized trial. PLoS One. 2012;7:7. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0047023 . Article.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Nishimura A, Carey J, Erwin PJ, et al. Improving understanding in the research informed consent process: a systematic review of 54 interventions tested in randomized control trials. BMC Med Ethics. 2013;14:15. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-14-28 . Review.

Bader M, Zheng L, Rao D, et al. Towards a more patient-centered clinical trial process: A systematic review of interventions incorporating health literacy best practices. Contemp Clin Trials. 2022;116:106733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2022.106733 . Review 2022/03/19.

NHS England. Guide to making information accessible for people with a learning disability. LearningDisabilityAccessCommsGuidance.pdf (england.nhs.uk. 2018. https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/LearningDisabilityAccessCommsGuidance.pdf .

UK Standards for Public Involvement. Definitions used in the Standards. https://sites.google.com/nihr.ac.uk/pi-standards/standards/definitions . Accessed 16th August 2024.

National Institute for Health research. Briefing notes for researchers - public involvement in NHS, health and social care research. https://www.nihr.ac.uk/documents/briefing-notes-for-researchers-public-involvement-in-nhs-health-and-social-care-research/27371 . Accessed 16th August 2024.

Lefebvre C, Glanville J, Briscoe S, Featherstone R, Littlewood A, Metzendorf M-I, Noel-Storr A, Paynter R, Rader T, Thomas J, Wieland LS. Chapter 4: Searching for and selecting studies. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.4 (updated October 2023). Cochrane. 2023. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook .

Sustersic M, Gauchet A, Foote A, Bosson JL. How best to use and evaluate Patient Information Leaflets given during a consultation: a systematic review of literature reviews. Health Exp Int J Public Particip Health Care Health Pol. 2017;20:531–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12487 . 2016/09/28.

Gillies K, Huang W, Skea Z, et al. Patient information leaflets (PILs) for UK randomised controlled trials: a feasibility study exploring whether they contain information to support decision making about trial participation. Trials. 2014;15:62. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-62 . 2014/02/20.

Coleman E, O’Sullivan L, Crowley R, et al. Preparing accessible and understandable clinical research participant information leaflets and consent forms: a set of guidelines from an expert consensus conference. Res Involv Engagem. 2021;7:31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-021-00265-2 . 2021/05/20.

Medina-Cordoba M, Cadavid S, Perez-Acosta AM, Amaya-Giraldo V. Factors that facilitate and hinder the comprehension of Patient Information Leaflets (PILs): a brief scoping review. Front Pharmacol. 2021;12:740334. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2021.740334 . Mini Review 2021/12/04.

Brierley G, Richardson R, Torgerson DJ. Using short information leaflets as recruitment tools did not improve recruitment: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65:147–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.06.005 . 2011/09/06.

Hilton P, Buckley BS, McColl E, et al. Understanding variations in patient screening and recruitment in a multicentre pilot randomised controlled trial: a vignette-based study. Trials. 2016;17:522. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1652-2 . 2016/10/27.

Flory J, Emanuel E. Interventions to improve research participants’ understanding in informed consent for research: a systematic review. JAMA. 2004;292:1593–601. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.292.13.1593 . Review 2004/10/07.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Breese PE, Burman WJ, Goldberg S, Weis SE. Education level, primary language, and comprehension of the informed consent process. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2007;2:69–79. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2007.2.4.69 . Article 2007/12/01.

Muzanyi G, Sekitoleko I, Johnson JL, et al. Level of education and preferred language of informed consent for clinical research in a multi-lingual community. Afr Health Sci. 2020;20:955–9. https://doi.org/10.4314/ahs.v20i2.51 . Article 2020/11/10.

Baiden F, Akazili J, Chatio S, et al. Should consent forms used in clinical trials be translated into the local dialects? A survey among past participants in rural Ghana. Clin Trials. 2016;13:234–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774515609290 . Article 2015/10/11.

Bonevski B, Randell M, Paul C, et al. Reaching the hard-to-reach: a systematic review of strategies for improving health and medical research with socially disadvantaged groups. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:42. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-42 . Article 2014/03/29.

Busisiwe N, Seeley J, Strode A, Parker M. Beyond translations, perspectives for researchers to consider to enhance comprehension during consent processes for health research in sub-saharan Africa: a scoping review. BMC Med Ethics. 2023;24:43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-023-00920-1 . Review 2023/06/22.

Cohn E, Larson E. Improving participant comprehension in the informed consent process. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2007;39:273–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2007.00180.x . Article 2007/09/01.

Cortes DE, Drainoni ML, Henault LE, Paasche-Orlow MK. How to achieve informed consent for research from Spanish-speaking individuals with low literacy: a qualitative report. J Health Commun. 2010;15(Suppl 2):172–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2010.499990 . Article 2010/09/29.

Hughson JA, Woodward-Kron R, Parker A, et al. A review of approaches to improve participation of culturally and linguistically diverse populations in clinical trials. Trials. 2016;17:263. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1384-3 . Review 2016/05/28.

Woodward-Kron R, Fraser C, Rashid H, et al. Perspectives of junior doctor intercultural clinical communication: Lessons for medical education. Focus Health Prof Educ. 2016;17:82–95. https://doi.org/10.11157/fohpe.v17i3.179 . Article.

Shiely F, Daly A. Trial lay summaries were not fit for purpose. J Clin Epidemiol. 2023;156:105–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.02.023 . Article 2023/03/04.

Sudore RL, Landefeld CS, Williams BA, et al. Use of a modified informed consent process among vulnerable patients: a descriptive study. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21:867–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00535.x . Article 2006/08/03.

Yu Z, Kowalkowski J, Roll AE, Lor M. Engaging underrepresented communities in health research: lessons learned. West J Nurs Res. 2021;43:915–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945920987999 . Article 2021/01/16.

Jameson C, Haq Z, Musse S, et al. Inclusive approaches to involvement of community groups in health research: the co-produced CHICO guidance. Res Involv Engagem. 2023;9:76. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-023-00492-9 . 13063_2024_8471.

National Voices. English literacy as a barrier to participation in clinical trials. https://s42139.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/English-literacy-as-a-barrier-to-participation-in-clinical-trials-MAPLE-REND-Project.pdf . 2024.

Head KJ, Hartsock JA, Bakas T, et al. Development of written materials for participants in an alzheimer’s disease and related dementias screening trial. J Patient Exp. 2022;9:7. https://doi.org/10.1177/23743735221092573 . Article.

Atwere P, McIntyre L, Carroll K, et al. Informed consent documents used in critical care trials often do not implement recommendations. Crit Care Med. 2018;46:E111–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0000000000002815 . Article.

Dellson P, Nilbert M, Carlsson C. Patient representatives’ views on patient information in clinical cancer trials. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16:5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1272-2 . Article.

Addissie A, Abay S, Feleke Y, et al. Cluster randomized trial assessing the effects of rapid ethical assessment on informed consent comprehension in a low-resource setting. BMC Med Ethics. 2016;17:12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0127-z . Article.

Eeckhout D, Aelbrecht K, Van der Straeten C. Informed consent: research staff’s perspectives and practical recommendations to improve research staff-participant communication. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2023;18:3–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646221146043 . Article.

Spellecy R, Tarima S, Denzen E, et al. Easy-to-read informed consent form for hematopoietic cell transplantation clinical trials: results from the blood and marrow transplant clinical trials network 1205 study. Biol Blood Marrow Transpl. 2018;24:2145–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbmt.2018.04.014 . Article.

Simonds VW, Garroutte EM, Buchwald D. Health literacy and informed consent materials: designed for documentation, not comprehension of health research. J Health Commun. 2017;22:682–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2017.1341565 . Article.

Lentz J, Kennett M, Perlmutter J, Forrest A. Paving the way to a more effective informed consent process: Recommendations from the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative. Contemp Clin Trials. 2016;49:65–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2016.06.005 . Article.

Lorell BH, Mikita JS, Anderson A, et al. Informed consent in clinical research: Consensus recommendations for reform identified by an expert interview panel. Clin Trials. 2015;12:692–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774515594362 . Article.

Kass NE, Taylor HA, Ali J, et al. A pilot study of simple interventions to improve informed consent in clinical research: Feasibility, approach, and results. Clin Trials. 2015;12:54–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774514560831 . Article.

Quinn SC, Garza MA, Butler J, et al. Improving informed consent with minority participants: results from researcher and community surveys. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2012;7:44–55. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2012.7.5.44 . Article.

Denzen EM, Santibáñez MEB, Moore H, et al. Easy-to-read informed consent forms for hematopoietic cell transplantation clinical trials. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2012;18:183–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbmt.2011.07.022 . Review.

Dellson P, Nilbert M, Bendahl PO, et al. Towards optimised information about clinical trials; identification and validation of key issues in collaboration with cancer patient advocates. Eur J Cancer Care. 2011;20:445–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2354.2010.01207.x . Article.

Jefford M, Moore R. Improvement of informed consent and the quality of consent documents. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9:485–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(08)70128-1 . Article.

Adams V, Miller S, Craig S, et al. Informed consent in cross-cultural perspective: Clinical research in the Tibetan Autonomous Region. PRC Cult Med Psychiatr. 2007;31:445–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11013-007-9070-2 . Article.

Corneli AL, Bentley ME, Sorenson JR, et al. Using formative research to develop a context-specific approach to informed consent for clinical trials. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2006;1:45–60. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2006.1.4.45 . Article.

Simonds VW, Buchwald D. Too Dense and Too Detailed: Evaluation of the Health Literacy Attributes of an Informed Consent Document. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2020;7:327–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-019-00661-1 . Article.

Brockhoven F, Raphael M, Currier J, et al. REPRESENT recommendations: improving inclusion and trust in cancer early detection research. Br J Cancer. 2023;129:1195–208. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-023-02414-8 . Article.

Cunningham-Erves J, Kusnoor SV, Villalta-Gil V, et al. Development and pilot implementation of guidelines for culturally tailored research recruitment materials for African Americans and Latinos. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022;22:14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01724-4 . Article.

Jilka S, Hudson G, Jansli SM, et al. How to make study documents clear and relevant: the impact of patient involvement. BJPsych Open. 2021;7:8. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2021.1040 . Article.

Burks AC, Keim-Malpass J. Health literacy and informed consent for clinical trials: a systematic review and implications for nurses. Nursing. 2019;9:31–40. https://doi.org/10.2147/nrr.S207497 . Review.

Mayers SA, Cook SK, Rantala C, et al. The RIC Recruitment & Retention Materials Toolkit - a resource for developing community-informed study materials. J Clin Transl Sci. 2023;7:e182. https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2023.607

Tait AR, Voepel-Lewis T, Malviya S, Philipson SJ. Improving the readability and processability of a pediatric informed consent document: effects on parents’ understanding. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2005;159:347–52. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.159.4.347 . 2005/04/06.

Beasant L, Realpe A, Douglas S, et al. Autistic adults' views on the design and processes within randomised controlled trials: The APRiCoT study. Autism 2023: 13623613231202432.  https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613231202432 .

Tait AR, Voepel-Lewis T, Nair VN, et al. Informing the uninformed: optimizing the consent message using a fractional factorial design. JAMA Pediatr. 2013;167:640–6. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.1385 . 2013/05/24.

US Department of Health and Human Services Centres for Disease Control and Prevention. Simply Put: A guide for creating easy-to-understand materials. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/11938 . July 2010, Third Edition.

Health Research Authority. Consent and Participant Information Guidance. https://www.hra-decisiontools.org.uk/consent/style.html , (accessed 5th January 2024).

Dunman M. Producing patient information : how to research, develop and produce effective information sources London: King's Fund; 2003 [Available from: https://archive.kingsfund.org.uk/concern/published_works/000030954?locale=en#?cv=8&xywh=191,168,1219,696 .

Solomon ED, Mozersky J, Wroblewski MP, et al. Understanding the use of optimal formatting and plain language when presenting key information in clinical trials. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2022;17:177–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646211037546 . 2021/08/20.

Health Research Authority. Applying a proportionate approach to the process of seeking consent. https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/www.hra.nhs.uk/media/documents/Proportionate_approach_to_seeking_consent_HRA_Guidance.pdf . 2019.

NHS Health Research Authority. People-Centred Clinical Research. https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and-improving-research/best-practice/people-centred-clinical-research/ , (2024, accessed 20th May 2024).

Brijnath B, Muoio R, Feldman P, et al. “We are not invited”: Australian focus group results on how to improve ethnic diversity in trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2024;170:111366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111366 2024/04/18.

Goodwin VA, Low MSA, Quinn TJ, et al. Including older people in health and social care research: best practice recommendations based on the INCLUDE framework. Age Ageing. 2023;52:afad082. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afad082 . 2023/06/01.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Dhek Bhal, My Friday Coffee Morning, Lawnmowers, PEP-R, The Adventurers, The Nerve of My Multiple Sclerosis, Macular Society, TransActual, Thomas Pocklington Trust, Roma Support Group, South Asian Health Action, BHA For Equality, Blood Cancer UK, British Heart Foundation, Age UK, and Rethink Mental Illness for being involved in this project and providing their valuable time to help improve research participation and make it more accessible for everyone. We would like to thank the following Clinical Trials Units for providing examples of their PILs and/or Easy Read documentation for this project: Bristol Trials Centre, Leeds Clinical Trials Research Unit, Cardiff Centre for Trials Research and Sheffield Clinical Trials Research Unit.

This activity was funded through the ICS Research Engagement Network (REN) development programme. This study is also supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the NHS England or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Musculoskeletal Research Unit, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

Vikki Wylde, Emma Johnson, Andrew D. Beswick & Catherine Jameson

NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust and University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

Vikki Wylde, Andrew D. Beswick & Catherine Jameson

National Voices, London, UK

Sharon Brennan

Bristol Trials Centre, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

Kirsty Roberts

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors were involved in the acquisition of funding. VW and AB performed the literature review. KR led on engagement with Trials Centres to identify examples of accessible patient information leaflets. CJ, EJ and VW were involved in the meetings with patients and community groups. SB led the work conducted by National Voices. VW led on the analysis of the data and all authors were involved in the development of the final recommendations. VW drafted the manuscript, and all authors revised the manuscript and read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vikki Wylde .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

This work included a literature review and public and community involvement and engagement (PCIE) activities and therefore research ethics and participant consent were not required.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Supplementary Information

13063_2024_8471_moesm1_esm.docx.

Supplementary Material 1: Supplementary Table 1: Scoping review’ search strategy as applied to Embase. Supplementary Table 2: Summary of included articles identified in the literature view. Supplementary Table 3: Extracted recommendations from included sources, grouped by topic.

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.

Wylde, V., Brennan, S., Johnson, E. et al. Recommendations for developing accessible patient information leaflets for clinical trials to address English language literacy as a barrier to research participation. Trials 25 , 624 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-024-08471-5

Download citation

Received : 13 June 2024

Accepted : 16 September 2024

Published : 27 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-024-08471-5

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Clinical trials
• Recommendations

ISSN: 1745-6215

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