example of literature review powerpoint

• UWF Libraries

Literature Review: Conducting & Writing

• Sample Literature Reviews
• Steps for Conducting a Lit Review
• Finding "The Literature"
• Organizing/Writing
• APA Style This link opens in a new window
• Chicago: Notes Bibliography This link opens in a new window
• MLA Style This link opens in a new window

Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts

Have an exemplary literature review.

• Literature Review Sample 1
• Literature Review Sample 2
• Literature Review Sample 3

Have you written a stellar literature review you care to share for teaching purposes?

Are you an instructor who has received an exemplary literature review and have permission from the student to post?

Please contact Britt McGowan at [email protected] for inclusion in this guide. All disciplines welcome and encouraged.

• << Previous: MLA Style
• Next: Get Help! >>
• Last Updated: Mar 22, 2024 9:37 AM
• URL: https://libguides.uwf.edu/litreview

DEAN’S BOOK w/ Prof. CONNIE GRIFFIN

Honors291g-cdg’s blog, literature review/poster presentation guide.

Literature Review & Poster/Visual Presentation Guide GIVING & GETTING EFFECTIVE PRESENTATIONS PRESENTATIONS In many disciplines presentations are given at academic conferences, symposia, and other places where scholars share their work with one another (including the Massachusetts Undergraduate Research Conference).  It can be very challenging to display and communicate all of one’s research findings in a synthesized manner and short timeframe.  Following are some thoughts about both preparing your presentation and also how to maximize your experience as an audience member. I. PRESENTER’S ROLE: The overall purpose of your presentation is to share your research process and findings with the class. In all cases, whatever topic you choose for your research, the objective is to stimulate in your listeners an understanding of that topic and how you went about developing that understanding for yourself as a researcher. The purpose of your talk is to present your research. Keep that goal in mind as you consider what to include and how to organize it.. In the visual portion of your presentation, be sure to include the following:

1)    Title 2)    Your research question 3)    Examples of what you found (results) including a.    Visual and quantitative information b.    Important quotes 4)    Your conclusion

Remember to keep your presentation (and your visual material) concise. It is very easy to overwhelm an audience with too much text.  Also, be sure to use a font size that is large enough to read from several feet away. Presentation considerations. Five minutes go fast! Therefore, stick with the most important points (details can come in the Q&A session), and be sure to organize your presentation logically. Be sure to practice. Nothing will prepare you better than giving your presentation several times to an audience. Speak slowly, clearly, expressively. Make eye contact. Also make sure your visual really does support your oral presentation and aid your audience! Concluding your presentation. End your presentation with a quick summary or suggestion of what’s been gained by your research.  Then be prepared for questions. Be ready with a question of your own in case the audience needs prompting. A crucial part of your presentation is thinking about how to engage the audience. Listen closely, be sure you understand each questioner’s intent, and then answer as directly as possible. II. AUDIENCE’S ROLE: Even when not presenting, you play a crucial role in the presentation and determining its quality.  As a listener, demonstrate your interest: make eye contact with the presenter as you listen closely, and take notes so you can ask informed, pertinent, and helpful questions during the Q&A period. Putting a presenter at ease can go a long way to ensuring an effective presentation.

Got any suggestions?

We want to hear from you! Send us a message and help improve Slidesgo

Top searches

Trending searches

memorial day

12 templates

66 templates

8 templates

environmental science

36 templates

ocean theme

44 templates

49 templates

Literature Review

It seems that you like this template, literature review presentation, free google slides theme, powerpoint template, and canva presentation template.

Whether you're a student or an academic, mastering the literature review is a key skill in scholarly writing. This fully customizable Google Slides and PowerPoint template can assist you in structuring your review seamlessly. Featuring a vibrant yellow design with captivating book illustrations, this template is designed to facilitate the organization and presentation of your research. Navigate your audience through chapters, themes, and references with ease and clarity using this versatile academic tool. Utilize this tool to craft an impressive literature review that leaves a lasting impression!

Features of this template

• 100% editable and easy to modify
• 35 different slides to impress your audience
• Contains easy-to-edit graphics such as graphs, maps, tables, timelines and mockups
• Includes 500+ icons and Flaticon’s extension for customizing your slides
• Designed to be used in Google Slides, Canva, and Microsoft PowerPoint
• 16:9 widescreen format suitable for all types of screens
• Includes information about fonts, colors, and credits of the resources used

How can I use the template?

Am I free to use the templates?

How to attribute?

Attribution required If you are a free user, you must attribute Slidesgo by keeping the slide where the credits appear. How to attribute?

Related posts on our blog.

How to Add, Duplicate, Move, Delete or Hide Slides in Google Slides

How to Change Layouts in PowerPoint

How to Change the Slide Size in Google Slides

Related presentations.

Premium template

Unlock this template and gain unlimited access

Register for free and start editing online

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

literature review.pptx

Related Papers

tecnico emergencias

Learning how to effectively write a literature review is a critical tool for success for an academic, and perhaps even professional career. Being able to summarize and synthesize prior research pertaining to a certain topic not only demonstrates having a good grasp on available information for a topic, but it also assists in the learning process. Although literature reviews are important for one's academic career, they are often misunderstood and underdeveloped. This article is intended to provide both undergraduate and graduate students in the criminal justice field specifically, and social sciences more generally, skills and perspectives on how to develop and/or strengthen their skills in writing a literature review. Included in this discussion are foci on the structure , process, and art of writing a literature review. What is a Literature Review? In essence, a literature review is a comprehensive overview of prior research regarding a specific topic. The overview both shows the reader what is known about a topic, and what is not yet known, thereby setting up the rationale or need for a new investigation, which is what the actual study to which the literature review is attached seeks to do. Stated a bit differently (Creswell 1994, pp. 20, 21) explains: The literature in a research study accomplishes several purposes: (a) It shares with the reader the results of other studies that are closely related to the study being reported (Fraenkel & Wallen, 1990. (b) It relates a study to the larger, ongoing dialog in the literature about a topic, filling in gaps and extending prior studies (Marshall & Rossman, 1989). (c) It provides a framework for establishing the importance of the study. As an overview, a well done literature review includes all of the main themes and subthemes found within the general topic chosen for the study. These themes and subthemes are usually interwoven with the methods or findings of the prior research. Also, a literature review sets the stage for and JOURNAL

yakubu nawati

Abdullah Ramdhani , Tatam Chiway , Muhammad Ali Ramdhani

Rebekka Tunombili

PS: Political Science & Politics

A literature review is a critical consideration of the work by authors and researchers who have written on a particular topic. IT involves synthesising these writings so that a 'picture' of the issue under review forms. Therefore, it requires you to use summarising, analytical and evaluative skills. The effectiveness of these will, to a large extent, depend on your ability to link the work of various authors highlighting similarities, differences, strengths and weaknesses. A Literature Review is not a list describing or summarising one piece of literature after another, so avoid beginning each paragraph with the name of the researcher.

Amanda Bolderston

A literature review can be an informative, critical, and useful synthesis of a particular topic. It can identify what is known (and unknown) in the subject area, identify areas of controversy or debate, and help formulate questions that need further research. There are several commonly used formats for literature reviews, including systematic reviews conducted as primary research projects; reviews written as an introduction and foundation for a research study, such as a thesis or dissertation; and reviews as secondary data analysis research projects. Regardless of the type, a good review is characterized by the author’s efforts to evaluate and critically analyze the relevant work in the field. Published reviews can be invaluable, because they collect and disseminate evidence from diverse sources and disciplines to inform professional practice on a particular topic. This directed reading will introduce the learner to the process of conducting and writing their own literature review.

Andrew Johnson

This chapter describes the process of writing a literature review and what the product should look like

HUMANUS DISCOURSE

Humanus Discourse

The importance of literature review in academic writing of different categories, levels, and purposes cannot be overemphasized. The literature review establishes both the relevance and justifies why new research is relevant. It is through a literature review that a gap would be established, and which the new research would fix. Once the literature review sits properly in the research work, the objectives/research questions naturally fall into their proper perspective. Invariably, other chapters of the research work would be impacted as well. In most instances, scanning through literature also provides you with the need and justification for your research and may also well leave a hint for further research. Literature review in most instances exposes a researcher to the right methodology to use. The literature review is the nucleus of a research work that might when gotten right spotlights a work and can as well derail a research work when done wrongly. This paper seeks to unveil the practical guides to writing a literature review, from purpose, and components to tips. It follows through the exposition of secondary literature. It exposes the challenges in writing a literature review and at the same time recommended tips that when followed will impact the writing of the literature review.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

Literature Review PowerPoint Presentations And Google Slides

Literature Review Presentation Slides

A literature review in research is a critical and systematic analysis of existing literature, scholarly articles, books, and other relevant sources that are pertinent to a particular research topic or question. Incorporating a literature review in research is essential for contextualizing the study within existing knowledge, identifying research gaps, and guiding the research design and This Presentation simplifies complex ideas, making your presentation both engaging and informative. This Presentation is explain detailed with Literature images. This template is fully created by green based theme. The template empowers you to concisely convey the essence of your literature review, capturing attention and fostering understanding. This Presentation is fully customized and It is used for researchers, academics, students, and professionals engaged in various fields of study.

Features of the templates:

• 100% customizable slides and easy to download.
• Slides are available in different nodes & colors.
• The slide contained 16:9 and 4:3 formats.
• Easy to change the slide colors quickly.
• It is a well-crafted template with an instant download facility.
• Highly compatible with PowerPoint and Google Slides.
• Literature Review
• Review Of Literature
• Literature Survey
• Literature Reviews
• Google Slides

43+ Templates

177+ Templates

1297+ Templates

179+ Templates

Animals and birds

269+ Templates

Country Flags

46+ Templates

415+ Templates

Galaxy or Space

124+ Templates

30+ Templates

You May Also Like These PowerPoint Templates

LITERATURE REVIEW

Jul 22, 2014

2.14k likes | 6.39k Views

LITERATURE REVIEW. 2.1What is a “Literature Review”?. A literature review is an overview of research on a given topic and answers to related research questions Literature reviews are an important part of research and should be treated as such A well-written literature review:

Share Presentation

• distinguish
• related research questions
• relevant journal articles
• selective use
• low priority
• bibliographic data

Presentation Transcript

2.1What is a “Literature Review”? • A literature review is an overview of research on a given topic and answers to related research questions • Literature reviews are an important part of research and should be treated as such • A well-written literature review: • Organizes literature • Evaluates literature • Identifies patterns and trends in literature • Synthesizes literature

‘the literature’ means the works you consulted in order to understand and investigate your research problem. • A literature review involves providing a rationale for your selection of literature related to the subject studied.

The literature review familiarizes the reader with the subject and the scope of the research topic. • It helps the reader to define key concepts • Finally it establishes the body of knowledge which will be able to contribute towards the research.

2.2 Writing the Literature Review • Firstly decide what you need to read from a broad spectrum of literature available • Refer to books, periodicals, journals, and websites which will be relevant to your study.

Determine what exactly are your objectives • Provide a current and complete overview of your related topic. • Show that you have read extensively and formed a body of knowledge on the subject of field of study

Purpose of writing a literature Review Your review should be in a form of • critical decision, • showing awareness of differing arguments, theories, approaches and methodologies. It should be a synthesis and analysis of the relevant published work, linked at all times to your objective and rationale of your study.

There are several purposes on why we write a literature review: • it reviews knowledge of previous studies on the subject of research • it identifies a conceptual framework for own research • it provides directions for future research • it provides resources previously unknown to the reader • it identifies gaps in past studies

To sum up, a good literature review is: • critical of what has been written, • identifies areas of controversy, • raises questions and identifies areas which need further research.

2.3 Process of Writing a Literature Review • There are several stages in developing a literature review(Biddlek, 1997). The stages are : • Identify • Record • Relevance • Retrieve • Review • Write

Stage 1 – Identify • Compile a list of references. • Use a kind of index system either a hard copy or a software referencing system. • i)work through key catalogues, databases, indexes, bibliographies and websites for relevant resources • ii)check the references and in the articles you have read • iii)locate and use research reviews

Stage 2-Record • Make a record of any literature that relates to your topic. • You should have citation details, where it is located, and should also write a few sentences that help you remember what the article is about

Stage 3 –Relevance • i)Prioritize the literature, after having read the abstract, rank them if it should be high, medium or low priority • ii)On the website scan through the literature for relevance before you decide to download or print it out • iii) You need to focus on the literature and sources you have identified and ranked as most important, the most recent development from the periodicals. • iv) Distinguish between textbooks and research articles from journals and books. They contain different kinds of information that will be more or less relevant to your research

Stage 4 -Retrieve • i) Make hard copies of the most important literature. Print relevant journal articles from databases and photocopy articles from journals

Stage 5 –Review • Use the reading log which allows you to record different kinds of information: the bibliographic details, a description, and relationship to other readings. • Also record where the literature is located so that you can easily refer to the quotes or ideas paraphrased when you are editing. • As you are taking notes, ensure you are clear about what you are quoting and paraphrasing. You cannot risk unintentionally plagiarizing ideas.

Stage 6 -Write • Start with an introductory paragraph • Discuss the literature on the subject in a logical and coherent way • Conclude with a paragraph that is relevant to the literature of the research

2.4 Five Phases of Writing a Literature Review • Phase 1 – Specify the scope of your review • i)Ensure you have a precise topic • you must be precise about having a topic. It should not be too broad or unspecific. Look at the following topic which is too broad • Example: ‘Life and Times of Sigmund Freud” • The title below seems to be limited, but still considered too broad • Example: “Psychological Theories of Sigmund Freud • However, a more manageable and appropriate topic would be • ‘Freud’s Theory of Personality Applied to Mental Health” • If your research question is too broad or defined vaguely or abstractly, you may end up reading and compiling too much information for your literature review. However if your research question is specified too narrowly or defined concisely, you may miss out more general information

ii)Scope of the Literature Review You have to determine the precise scope of the literature review. Questions which need to be answered are as follows :- • What will I cover in my review? • How comprehensive will it be? • How current are my materials? • What type of materials/documents will be needed?

Phase 2: Locating and Accessing Information • Obtain all the necessary materials for your literature review by searching relevant bibliographies, print indexes and online databases i)Using Existing Literature Reviews • Many journals on different subject areas publish review articles. In these journals you may find commentaries on research articles. You may find these reviews relevant to your literature review.

Phase 3 Recording the Information • You can develop a systematic way of recording information through: note cards with citations • Photocopied articles with points highlighted or underlined with notes in the margins • Traditional taking down notes or in laptops

i)Tips on Recording Information • A quick skimming and scanning through the introduction and the conclusion of an article, would give you an idea of the article and general points. • a)Start with the most recent studies and work backwards. Refer to the list of references on a recent article;   • b)Read, first the report or article’s abstract - this will give you some clues about the article • c)When taking down notes, remember to write out the complete bibliographic citation for each work. It is essential you note down the page numbers as these will be necessary later for footnotes and bibliography. For internet citations note the URL • d)Write all direct quotations precisely when taking down notes. You should use quotations marks, so it can recognize as a directly quoted text and not a paraphrase. If you fail to put a direct text in quotation marks or to credit the authors, it amounts to plagiarism.

Phase 4 Evaluating the Information • After having read all the articles, you must now decide and evaluate what should be included in the review. • Be selective - you have to consider issues and themes that link different articles.

Phase 5 Organizing and Writing the Literature Review • After accessing, reading and evaluating the material, these materials need to be organized. • You may organize the selected readings by theoretical approaches, by specific concepts or issues, and by methodologies

Some tips on writing After you have located, read, analyzed and evaluated the literature, the next stage is actual writing. Here are some tips: • Keep your paragraphs short • Subheadings are essential, as it clarifies the structure. They break up the materials into more readable units • Avoid too many long direct quotations from the studies. Paraphrase other writers’ works rather than quote lengthy passages • Don’t cite references that you haven’t read

Some traps to avoid • Trying to read everything! • not to provide a summary of all the published work that relates to your research, but a survey of the most relevant and significant work. • Reading but not writing! • Writing can help you understand and find relationships between the work you’ve read, so don’t put writing off until you’ve “finished” reading. • Not keeping bibliographic information! - Source: http://www.clpd.bbk.ac.uk/students/litreview web.pdx.edu/~bertini/literature_review.pdf

Final Checklist Here is a checklist from University of Melbourne: (http://www.lib.unimelb.eduau/postgrad/litreview/finalchecklist.html) • Have you indicated the purpose of the review? • Have you ascertained the parameters of the review and are they reasonable? • Have you emphasized on recent development of the research? • Have you focused on primary sources with only selective use of secondary sources? • Is the literature selected relevant to your study? • Is your bibliographic data complete?

• More by User

Literature Review

Literature Review Taken From: University of Washington Psychology Writing Center 2 Main Approaches Choose an area of research, read all the relevant studies and organize them in a meaningful way Choose an organizing theme or a point that you want to make, the select your studies accordingly

1.18k views • 11 slides

Literature review

Literature review. IBC 464 http://library.spu.ac.th. Please answer these questions. 1 What are the criteria to be most successful in business? 2 Can business research help increase your business performance? How?. How to write a literature review. What is a literature review?

562 views • 10 slides

Using community-based participatory mixed methods research to understand Preconception Health in African American communities of Arizona Khaleel S. Hussaini 1 Ph.D. Eric Hamm MPH 2 Antoinette Means 1 MBA 1 Bureau of Women &amp; Children’s Health 150 N 18 th Ave Ste. # 320 Phoenix, AZ 85007

162 views • 1 slides

Literature review. RESEARCH METHOD FOR ACADEMIC PROJECT I. What is a literature review?. A description of the literature relevant to a particular field or topic.

623 views • 14 slides

Literature Review. What is a literature review ?. A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area, and sometimes information in a particular subject area within a certain time period.

247 views • 14 slides

Literature Review. Purpose. Foundation of ideas (classics and contemporary) Important themes and models (strands and examples) Touchstone: Meaningful work Comparison, setting the bar How does my works compare with influential works?. Two questions.

403 views • 6 slides

LITERATURE REVIEW . TAIWO ODUGUWA MBBS, FWACP Federal Neuropsychiatric Hospital Yaba Lagos. OUTLINE. INTRODUCTION/DEFINITION AIMS LITERATURE SEARCH SOURCES OF MATERIALS GUIDELINES THE WRITE UP CONCLUSION. INTRODUCTION/ DEFINITION.

755 views • 26 slides

Literature review :

DEMOCRATIZATION, QUALITY OF INSTITUTIONS AND ECONOMIC GROWTH Victor Polterovich, Vladimir Popov New Economic School, Moscow, [email protected] .

675 views • 45 slides

Technological Educational Institute (T.E.I.) of Ionian Islands Department of Environmental Technology and Ecology – Zakynthos - Greece Dionysios Koulougliotis . “Barriers to lifelong learning in Chemistry: A comparative study between adults and Chemistry teachers”. Literature Review.

294 views • 16 slides

Literature Review. Remember The Literature Review carries 40% of the Research Proposal mark! A literature review summarises and synthesises what is known about your topic in relation to your objectives. Steve Malone August 2009 [email protected].

448 views • 28 slides

Literature Review:

Literature Review:. Organizing &amp; Writing http://web.utm.my/psz/. INSPIRING CREATIVE AND INNOVATIVE MINDS. What is Literature Review. A discussion of your knowledge about the topic under study A discussion of your knowledge that is supported by the research literature

688 views • 43 slides

Literature Review. What to include. Research Process. Begins with a question Gather a bibliography Literature review Narrow your question Design methodology Gather data Draw conclusions. Literature Review. Included in all research Logic behind your research

398 views • 24 slides

Literature Review. Peter R. McNally, DO, FACP, FACG Lone Tree, Colorado. Title: Adalimumab Induction Therapy for Crohn’s Disease Previously Treated with Infliximab. Sandborn WJ, Rutgeerts P, Enns R, Hanauer SB, et al. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2007;146:829-838.

343 views • 21 slides

Literature Review. Alex Ferworn. What is a Literature Review?. According to Cooper (1988)... a literature review uses as its database reports of primary or original scholarship, does not report new primary scholarship itself...

424 views • 23 slides

Literature review. When you may write a literature review. As an assignment For a report or thesis (e.g. for senior project) As a graduate student For a technical paper. Purpose of a literature review.

357 views • 16 slides

LITERATURE REVIEW. What is LR?. A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area, and sometimes information in a particular subject area within a certain time period.

546 views • 47 slides

Literature Review. Peter R. McNally, DO, FACP, FACG University Colorado Denver School of Medicine Center for Human Simulation Aurora, Colorado 80045. Introduction. Crohn’s disease is a lifelong, disabling disorder with 2/3 rd of patients requiring surgery in their lifetime.

448 views • 37 slides

Literature Review. Xingwei Wang. What is a literature review. What is a literature review. Have thesis statement?. What is a literature review. 3 basic elements?. What is a literature review. summary of the sources a recap of the important information of the source synthesis

738 views • 22 slides

Literature Review. Xingwei Wang. What is a literature review. What is a literature review. summary of the sources a recap of the important information of the source. What is a literature review. synthesis a re-organization , or a reshuffling, of that information.

455 views • 35 slides

Literature Review. A Nondestructive Self-Reference Scheme for Spin-Transfer Torque Random Access Memory (STT-RAM) —— Yiran Chen, et al. Fengbo Ren. 09/03/2010. Background. STT-RAM: Spin Transfer Torque Random Access Memory Key memory device: magnetic tunnel junctions (MTJ)

246 views • 8 slides

Your literature review is a summary of the research you have done to study about your topic. Ondezx can help you ensure your readers have an accurate idea about your investigation through well-arranged overviews of the works you have gone through. For more info: URL: https://ondezx.com/review-paper-format-and-writing Mail: [email protected] Mob No: 91 9791191199

6 views • 1 slides

• Literature Review
• Popular Categories

Powerpoint Templates

Icon Bundle

Kpi Dashboard

Professional

Business Plans

Swot Analysis

Gantt Chart

Business Proposal

Marketing Plan

Project Management

Business Case

Business Model

Cyber Security

Business PPT

Digital Marketing

Digital Transformation

Human Resources

Product Management

Artificial Intelligence

Company Profile

Acknowledgement PPT

PPT Presentation

Reports Brochures

One Page Pitch

Interview PPT

All Categories

Powerpoint Templates and Google slides for Literature Review

Save your time and attract your audience with our fully editable ppt templates and slides..

Presenting Review Literature Research In Powerpoint And Google Slides Cpb slide which is completely adaptable. The graphics in this PowerPoint slide showcase three stages that will help you succinctly convey the information. In addition, you can alternate the color, font size, font type, and shapes of this PPT layout according to your content. This PPT presentation can be accessed with Google Slides and is available in both standard screen and widescreen aspect ratios. It is also a useful set to elucidate topics like Review Literature Research. This well structured design can be downloaded in different formats like PDF, JPG, and PNG. So, without any delay, click on the download button now.

Presenting Servant Leadership Literature Review In Powerpoint And Google Slides Cpb slide which is completely adaptable. The graphics in this PowerPoint slide showcase four stages that will help you succinctly convey the information. In addition, you can alternate the color, font size, font type, and shapes of this PPT layout according to your content. This PPT presentation can be accessed with Google Slides and is available in both standard screen and widescreen aspect ratios. It is also a useful set to elucidate topics like Servant Leadership Literature Review. This well-structured design can be downloaded in different formats like PDF, JPG, and PNG. So, without any delay, click on the download button now.

Presenting our Literature Review Research In Powerpoint And Google Slides Cpb PowerPoint template design. This PowerPoint slide showcases four stages. It is useful to share insightful information on Literature Review Research This PPT slide can be easily accessed in standard screen and widescreen aspect ratios. It is also available in various formats like PDF, PNG, and JPG. Not only this, the PowerPoint slideshow is completely editable and you can effortlessly modify the font size, font type, and shapes according to your wish. Our PPT layout is compatible with Google Slides as well, so download and edit it as per your knowledge.

Presenting our Outline Literature Review In Powerpoint And Google Slides Cpb PowerPoint template design. This PowerPoint slide showcases three stages. It is useful to share insightful information on Outline Literature Review This PPT slide can be easily accessed in standard screen and widescreen aspect ratios. It is also available in various formats like PDF, PNG, and JPG. Not only this, the PowerPoint slideshow is completely editable and you can effortlessly modify the font size, font type, and shapes according to your wish. Our PPT layout is compatible with Google Slides as well, so download and edit it as per your knowledge.

Presenting our Literature Review Matrix Ppt Powerpoint Presentation File Maker Cpb PowerPoint template design. This PowerPoint slide showcases three stages. It is useful to share insightful information on Literature Review Matrix. This PPT slide can be easily accessed in standard screen and widescreen aspect ratios. It is also available in various formats like PDF, PNG, and JPG. Not only this, the PowerPoint slideshow is completely editable and you can effortlessly modify the font size, font type, and shapes according to your wish. Our PPT layout is compatible with Google Slides as well, so download and edit it as per your knowledge.

Presenting Literature Review Job Satisfaction In Powerpoint And Google Slides Cpb slide which is completely adaptable. The graphics in this PowerPoint slide showcase four stages that will help you succinctly convey the information. In addition, you can alternate the color, font size, font type, and shapes of this PPT layout according to your content. This PPT presentation can be accessed with Google Slides and is available in both standard screen and widescreen aspect ratios. It is also a useful set to elucidate topics like Literature Review Job Satisfaction. This well-structured design can be downloaded in different formats like PDF, JPG, and PNG. So, without any delay, click on the download button now.

Presenting Brand Communities Literature Review In Powerpoint And Google Slides Cpb slide which is completely adaptable. The graphics in this PowerPoint slide showcase three stages that will help you succinctly convey the information. In addition, you can alternate the color, font size, font type, and shapes of this PPT layout according to your content. This PPT presentation can be accessed with Google Slides and is available in both standard screen and widescreen aspect ratios. It is also a useful set to elucidate topics like Brand Communities Literature Review. This well-structured design can be downloaded in different formats like PDF, JPG, and PNG. So, without any delay, click on the download button now.

Presenting Literature Review Proposal Report In Powerpoint And Google Slides Cpb slide which is completely adaptable. The graphics in this PowerPoint slide showcase four stages that will help you succinctly convey the information. In addition, you can alternate the color, font size, font type, and shapes of this PPT layout according to your content. This PPT presentation can be accessed with Google Slides and is available in both standard screen and widescreen aspect ratios. It is also a useful set to elucidate topics like Literature Review Proposal Report. This well structured design can be downloaded in different formats like PDF, JPG, and PNG. So, without any delay, click on the download button now.

Presenting this set of slides with name - Literature Review Ppt Graphics. This is a five stage process. The stages in this process are Theory, Education, Planning, Strategy.

Presenting this set of slides with name - Literature Review Ppt Summary Slide Portrait. This is a five stage process. The stages in this process are Theory.

Presenting the Research Methodology With Literature Review And Idea template. The template supports both the standard and widescreen sizes. The slide is extremely easy to download and can be saved in the popular image or document formats such as JPEG and PDF. It is having compatibility with Google Slides and other office suites. Alter the style, size, and the background of the slides. High-quality graphics ensure that pixelation does not occur.

Presenting the Research Methodology With Literature Review And Report Findings template. The template supports both the standard and widescreen sizes. The slide is extremely easy to download and can be saved in the popular image or document formats such as JPEG and PDF. It is having compatibility with Google Slides and other office suites. Alter the style, size, and the background of the slides. High-quality graphics ensure that pixelation does not occur.

Presenting this set of slides with name - Literature Review Ppt Gallery. This is a five stage process. The stages in this process are Theory.

Presenting this set of slides with name - Literature Review Ppt Slides Deck. This is a five stage process. The stages in this process are Theory, Review, Business, Management, Marketing.

Presenting this set of slides with name - Literature Review Ppt Powerpoint Presentation File Files. This is a five stage process. The stages in this process are Literature, Review, Theory, Business, Marketing.

Presenting this set of slides with name - Table Of Content With Literature Review. This is a five stage process. The stages in this process are Table Of Contents, TOC, Lists.

Presenting this set of slides with name - Literature Review Ppt Powerpoint Presentation File Gallery. This is a five stages process. The stages in this process Business, Management, Planning, Strategy, Marketing.

This is a One Pager titled Literature Review For Academic Research Proposal One Pager Sample Example Document featuring A4 size content and graphics. It is designed in PowerPoint by an expert and is 100 percent editable. You can also access it with Google Slides.

This is a reformattable One Pager titled Literature Review Dissertation Proposal One Pager Sample Example Document. It is crafted with high-quality visuals available for immediate download in A4 size. Everything that this template offers can be accessed in different formats and ratios, including Google Slides and PowerPoint.

Presenting this set of slides with name Literature Review Analysis Ppt Powerpoint Presentation Icon Graphics Download. This is a one stage process. The stages in this process are Study Analysis, Theoretical, Methodological Contributions. This is a completely editable PowerPoint presentation and is available for immediate download. Download now and impress your audience.

Presenting this set of slides with name Literature Review Weakness Ppt Powerpoint Presentation Icon Example Introduction. This is a two stage process. The stages in this process are Strength, Weakness, Research. This is a completely editable PowerPoint presentation and is available for immediate download. Download now and impress your audience.

Presenting this set of slides with name Literature Review Analysis Ppt Powerpoint Presentation Summary Portfolio. This is a three stage process. The stages in this process are Material Referred, Study Materials, Approach Research, Study Analysis. This is a completely editable PowerPoint presentation and is available for immediate download. Download now and impress your audience.

Presenting this set of slides with name Literature Review Strength Ppt Powerpoint Presentation Layouts Templates. The topics discussed in these slides are Project Problem, Previous Related Research, Strength Study, Weakness Study. This is a completely editable PowerPoint presentation and is available for immediate download. Download now and impress your audience.

Presenting this set of slides with name Literature Review Strength Ppt Powerpoint Presentation Summary Slide Download. This is a three stage process. The stages in this process are Strength Of The Study, Weakness Of The Study, Describe The Summary Of Previous Related Research On The Stated Project Problem. This is a completely editable PowerPoint presentation and is available for immediate download. Download now and impress your audience.

Presenting this set of slides with name Literature Review Of Dissertation Project Proposal Information Ppt Powerpoint Presentation Layouts. The topics discussed in these slides are Theoretical And Methodological Contributions, Material Referred, Current Study Analysis. This is a completely editable PowerPoint presentation and is available for immediate download. Download now and impress your audience.

Presenting this set of slides with name Literature Review Of Dissertation Project Proposal Strength Ppt Powerpoint Presentation Show. This is a three stage process. The stages in this process are Project Problem, Strength Study, Weakness Study. This is a completely editable PowerPoint presentation and is available for immediate download. Download now and impress your audience.

Presenting this set of slides with name Literature Review For Academic Research Proposal Ppt Powerpoint Presentation Slides. This is a three stage process. The stages in this process are Research, Strength, Weakness. This is a completely editable PowerPoint presentation and is available for immediate download. Download now and impress your audience.

Presenting this set of slides with name Icon For Data Identification Via Literature Review. This is a three stage process. The stages in this process are Icon For Data Identification Via Literature Review. This is a completely editable PowerPoint presentation and is available for immediate download. Download now and impress your audience.

Presenting this set of slides with name Literature Review For Academic Student Research Proposal L1718 Ppt Powerpoint Design. This is a three stage process. The stages in this process are Strength, Weakness, Project Problem. This is a completely editable PowerPoint presentation and is available for immediate download. Download now and impress your audience.

Presenting this set of slides with name Literature Review For Academic Student Research Proposal Ppt Powerpoint Picture Model. This is a one stage process. The stage in this process is Literature Review Academic Student Research. This is a completely editable PowerPoint presentation and is available for immediate download. Download now and impress your audience.

Presenting this set of slides with name Literature Review For Research Paper Proposal Material Referred Ppt Presentation Images. The topics discussed in these slides are Literature Review, Research Paper, Material Referred. This is a completely editable PowerPoint presentation and is available for immediate download. Download now and impress your audience.

Presenting this set of slides with name Literature Review For Research Paper Proposal Summary Previous Ppt Presentation Layout. This is a three stage process. The stages in this process are Literature Review, Research Paper, Proposal Summary, Previous. This is a completely editable PowerPoint presentation and is available for immediate download. Download now and impress your audience.

Presenting this set of slides with name Literature Review For Research Project Proposal L1582 Ppt Powerpoint Gallery Outline. This is a three stage process. The stages in this process are Research, Strength, Weakness. This is a completely editable PowerPoint presentation and is available for immediate download. Download now and impress your audience.

Presenting this set of slides with name Literature Review For Research Project Proposal Ppt Powerpoint Presentation Model. This is a three stage process. The stages in this process are Analysis, Research Work, Materials. This is a completely editable PowerPoint presentation and is available for immediate download. Download now and impress your audience.

Presenting this set of slides with name Literature Review For Thesis Research Paper Proposal Analysis Ppt Topics. This is a one stage process. The stages in this process are Literature Review For Thesis Research Paper Proposal. This is a completely editable PowerPoint presentation and is available for immediate download. Download now and impress your audience.

Presenting this set of slides with name Literature Review For Thesis Research Paper Proposal Study Ppt Outline. This is a one stage process. The stages in this process are Literature Review For Thesis Research Paper Proposal. This is a completely editable PowerPoint presentation and is available for immediate download. Download now and impress your audience.

Presenting this set of slides with name Table Of Content Literature Review Ppt Powerpoint Infographics. This is a one stage process. The stages in this process are Introduction Of Study, Problem Statement, Literature Review, Research Method Overview, Research Constraint. This is a completely editable PowerPoint presentation and is available for immediate download. Download now and impress your audience.

Presenting this set of slides with name Literature Review Study Analysis Ppt Powerpoint Presentation Professional Ideas. This is a three stage process. The stages in this process are List The Books And Study Materials, Approach Of Research Study Analysis. This is a completely editable PowerPoint presentation and is available for immediate download. Download now and impress your audience.

Review of Related Literature (RRL)

Ai generator.

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

What Is Review of Related Literature (RRL)?

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

Format of Review of Related Literature (RRL)

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

1. Introduction

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

2. Theoretical Framework

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

3. Review of Empirical Studies

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

4. Methodological Review

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

5. Synthesis and Critique

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

6. Conclusion

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

7. References

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

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

Review of Related Literature (RRL) Examples

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

Review of Related Literature Quantitative Research

More Review of Related Literature (RRL) Examples

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

Purpose of the Review of Related Literature (RRL)

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

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

How to Write Review of Related Literature (RRL)

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

1. Define the Scope and Objectives

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

2. Search for Relevant Literature

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

3. Evaluate and Select the Literature

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

4. Organize the Literature

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

5. Write the Review

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

6. Cite the Sources

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

What is an RRL?

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

Why is RRL important?

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

How do you write an RRL?

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

What sources are used in RRL?

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

How long should an RRL be?

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

What are common RRL mistakes?

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

Can an RRL include non-scholarly sources?

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

What is the difference between RRL and bibliography?

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

How often should an RRL be updated?

Regularly, especially when new relevant research is published.

Can an RRL influence research direction?

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

Text prompt

• Instructive
• Professional

10 Examples of Public speaking

20 Examples of Gas lighting

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

You are here

• Online First
• What do clinical practice guidelines say about deprescribing? A scoping review
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0509-5136 Aili Veronica Langford 1 , 2 ,
• Imaan Warriach 1 , 3 ,
• Aisling M McEvoy 1 ,
• Elisa Karaim 1 ,
• Shyleen Chand 1 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0613-108X Justin P Turner 1 ,
• Wade Thompson 4 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2388-5353 Barbara J Farrell 5 , 6 ,
• Danielle Pollock 7 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9838-3625 Frank Moriarty 8 ,
• Danijela Gnjidic 9 ,
• Nagham J Ailabouni 10 ,
• Emily Reeve 1 , 11
• 1 Centre for Medicine Use and Safety , Monash Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences , Parkville , Victoria , Australia
• 2 The University of Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health , Sydney , New South Wales , Australia
• 3 UCL School of Pharmacy , University College London , London , UK
• 4 Department of Anesthesiology, Pharmacology, and Therapeutics , The University of British Columbia Faculty of Medicine , Vancouver , British Columbia , Canada
• 5 Bruyere Research Institute , Ottawa , Ontario , Canada
• 6 Department of Family Medicine , University of Ottawa Faculty of Medicine , Ottawa , Ontario , Canada
• 7 Health Evidence Synthesis, Recommendations and Impact , School of Public Health, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide , Adelaide , South Australia , Australia
• 8 School of Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences , RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences , Dublin , Ireland
• 9 The University of Sydney School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine and Health , Sydney , New South Wales , Australia
• 10 The Pharmacy Australian Centre of Excellence (PACE) , The University of Queensland Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences , Herston , Queensland , Australia
• 11 Quality Use of Medicines and Pharmacy Research Centre, University of South Australia , Adelaide , South Australia , Australia
• Correspondence to Dr Aili Veronica Langford, Centre for Medicine Use and Safety, Monash Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Parkville, Victoria, Australia; aili.langford{at}monash.edu

Introduction Deprescribing ( medication dose reduction or cessation ) is an integral component of appropriate prescribing. The extent to which deprescribing recommendations are included in clinical practice guidelines is unclear. This scoping review aimed to identify guidelines that contain deprescribing recommendations, qualitatively explore the content and format of deprescribing recommendations and estimate the proportion of guidelines that contain deprescribing recommendations.

Methods Bibliographic databases and Google were searched for guidelines published in English from January 2012 to November 2022. Guideline registries were searched from January 2017 to February 2023. Two reviewers independently screened records from databases and Google for guidelines containing one or more deprescribing recommendations. A 10% sample of the guideline registries was screened to identify eligible guidelines and estimate the proportion of guidelines containing a deprescribing recommendation. Guideline and recommendation characteristics were extracted and language features of deprescribing recommendations including content, form, complexity and readability were examined using a conventional content analysis and the SHeLL Health Literacy Editor tool.

Results 80 guidelines containing 316 deprescribing recommendations were included. Deprescribing recommendations had substantial variability in their format and terminology. Most guidelines contained recommendations regarding for who (75%, n=60) , what (99%, n=89) and when or why (91%, n=73) to deprescribe, however, fewer guidelines (58%, n=46) contained detailed guidance on how to deprescribe. Approximately 29% of guidelines identified from the registries sample (n=14/49) contained one or more deprescribing recommendations.

Conclusions Deprescribing recommendations are increasingly being incorporated into guidelines, however, many guidelines do not contain clear and actionable recommendations on how to deprescribe which may limit effective implementation in clinical practice. A co-designed template or best practice guide, containing information on aspects of deprescribing recommendations that are essential or preferred by end-users should be developed and employed.

Trial registration number osf.io/fbex4.

• Clinical practice guidelines
• Decision support, clinical
• Evidence-based medicine
• Medication safety
• Clinical pharmacology

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ .

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017101

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC

Deprescribing is an integral component of appropriate prescribing. Additional guidance for healthcare professionals has been proposed as a mechanism to increase deprescribing in practice.

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

While deprescribing recommendations are increasingly being incorporated into guidelines, there is significant variability in their content and format. Few guidelines contain clear, comprehensive and actionable recommendations on how to deprescribe.

HOW THIS STUDY MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH, PRACTICE OR POLICY

Guideline developers need to consider deprescribing within the scope of guidelines and optimise the content, format and language of recommendations to enable ease of interpretation and implementation.

Introduction

Potentially inappropriate medicines (PIMs) are medicines where the potential harm outweighs the expected benefit. 1 2 In the UK, an estimated 10% of the 1.1 billion medicines dispensed each year are deemed potentially inappropriate, 3 contributing to undesired outcomes including drug-drug interactions, adverse drug reactions, non-adherence, falls, hospitalisations and mortality. 4 5 High rates of PIM use have been observed internationally, with one-third to a half of older adults taking one or more PIMs. 6–8

Clinical practice guidelines (guidelines) are statements containing recommendations informed by a systematic review of the evidence, intended to mitigate variation in practice and optimise patient care. 9 While guidelines play a vital role in promoting evidence-based care, they may not prompt consideration of how to optimally manage the complexities or competing demands of multimorbidity or frailty, nor take into account the potential impacts of drug-drug and drug-disease interactions. 10 11 Well-intentioned healthcare professional adherence to prescribing recommendations contained in guidelines may therefore be a driver of PIM use.

Deprescribing, an integral component of appropriate prescribing, 12 refers to the systematic process of dose reducing or discontinuing a medicine under the supervision of a healthcare professional. 13 At a societal level, deprescribing plays an important role in reducing low-value care and overtreatment, as well as avoiding preventable medicine-related harm. 14 15 At the patient level, benefits may include improved adherence, reduced medicine-related costs and burden, and resolution of adverse drug reactions. 16 17 However, implementation of deprescribing in practice remains limited due to various patient, prescriber and organisation-level barriers. 18 Specifically, limitations in healthcare professionals’ knowledge of when and how to safely and effectively deprescribe, and their perceived lack of self-efficacy to cease medications have been reported. 19 Such findings suggest that additional guidance for healthcare professionals may increase deprescribing in practice.

Guidelines have the potential to support deprescribing, yet historically, they have included limited deprescribing recommendations. 11 20 21 Over the last decade, medication-class-specific deprescribing guidelines have been developed, 22–27 but their recommendations have not yet been integrated into treatment guidelines. Additionally, despite language being recognised as a core determinant of guideline implementability, 28 29 there is limited evidence on whether the language of deprescribing recommendations is clear and actionable, facilitating safe and effective deprescribing in practice. This review aimed to identify guidelines containing deprescribing recommendations, qualitatively explore the content and format of deprescribing recommendations and estimate the proportion of guidelines that contain deprescribing recommendations.

A scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methods 30 and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews statement, 31 by researchers and healthcare professionals with expertise in deprescribing, guideline development and scoping review methodology. The review protocol is hosted on Open Science Framework. 32

Operational definitions

Clinical practice guideline: A guidance document developed by a multidisciplinary team that includes recommendations (or equivalent based on different terminology used internationally) that can be applied by a healthcare professional to inform patient care. 9 Recommendations must be informed by a systematic literature review (or termed an ‘extensive evidence review’ for National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines). For the purpose of this review, clinical practice guidelines are either;

Treatment guidelines

A clinical practice guideline that primarily focuses on the treatment of a condition and contains prescribing recommendations, but may also contain deprescribing recommendations.

Deprescribing-focused guidelines

A clinical practice guideline that primarily focuses on deprescribing medications.

Recommendations

Actionable statements contained within a clinical practice guideline, intended to optimise patient care. Recommendations can be;

Evidence-based

Guidance informed by a systematic review of the evidence in addition to an assessment of the benefits/harms of alternative treatment options. 9

Good practice statements

Guidance informed by indirect evidence outside the scope of a systematic search strategy that a guideline panel feels are important to include but are not appropriate for formal ratings of the quality of evidence. 33 Also referred to as ‘best practice statements’ or ‘practice points’. 34 35

Data sources and searches

Three search strategies were developed to identify eligible guidelines, executed in; (1) bibliographic databases, (2) Google and (3) guideline registries.

A systematic, bibliographic database search of MEDLINE via OVID, EMBASE via OVID and CINAHL Plus via EBSCOhost was conducted with results limited to the past 10 years (January 2012 to November 2022). Search terms related to ‘deprescribing’ and ‘guidelines’ were used (see online supplemental file 1 for full search strategy).

A restricted Google search was performed in February 2023 using incognito mode and the search term; ‘Guidelines (deprescribing or withdrawal or stop or discontinue or medication)’.

Four guideline registries were queried in February 2023; Guidelines International Network, Canadian Medical Association Infobase, MAGICapp and GuidelineCentral, to identify all guidelines published in English from January 2017 to February 2023. The purpose of the guideline registry search was to identify additional eligible guidelines for inclusion in the review and estimate the proportion of guidelines containing deprescribing recommendations. Restricting the registry search to the last 5 years (from the date of our initial search in November 2022) was both a pragmatic decision based on anticipation of a large number of guidelines that would be identified, and a mechanism to allow for an up-to-date estimate of the prevalence of deprescribing recommendations in current guidelines.

Supplemental material

Additional eligible guidelines were identified through citation searching of articles identified in each of the aforementioned search strategies.

Study selection

Eligibility criteria.

Guidelines were included if they met our operational definition of a clinical practice guideline (based on the Institute of Medicine’s criteria 9 ), were published in English from 2012 onwards, and contained at least one deprescribing recommendation (ie, for who, when , when not, why or how to dose reduce, cease or substitute a medication with a medication from a different class). If multiple versions of a guideline were identified, only the most recent update was used.

Guidelines that focused on acute treatment (eg, emergency department or intensive care unit settings, medicines used short term for acute conditions) or related exclusively to surgery or interventional investigations were excluded. Guidelines that only contained recommendations for pharmacological substitution to a medication within the same drug class, or suggested dose adjustments based on physiological characteristics (eg, renal or hepatic function) and those relating to treatment of substance use disorders, vaccines, blood products or illicit substances were also excluded. The full eligibility criteria are presented in online supplemental file 2 .

A piloting exercise for each search strategy was conducted prior to screening commencement.

All records identified through the bibliographic database search were imported into Covidence. Following de-duplication, two rounds of screening (title and abstract, then full text) were performed in duplicate by two independent reviewers.

For the restricted Google search, the first 200 retrieved results were extracted into an Excel spreadsheet. Two independent reviewers screened 50 results at a time, starting with the most relevant results at the top of the page. An a priori decision was made for screening to conclude when no relevant results were identified in the previous batch of 50 records.

For the registries search, all guidelines were exported into Excel, from which a 10% sample from each registry was randomly selected using the ‘Randomise Range’ function. This random 10% sample was chosen due to the large number of guidelines contained in the registries, and their limited search functionality. This sample provided a practical number of guidelines for screening and enabled an estimation of the prevalence of relevant guidelines containing at least one deprescribing recommendation. Two screening phases were performed by two independent reviewers. The first screening phase applied all eligibility criteria to the full-text guidelines, except for whether the guideline contained a deprescribing recommendation or not. The second screening phase determined whether the guidelines identified contained one or more deprescribing recommendations.

For all three search strategies, any potentially eligible guidelines identified through citation searching were screened in duplicate to determine eligibility. Disagreements regarding study inclusion were resolved through discussions between the reviewers and the first and senior author if required.

Data extraction

Data extraction was piloted and performed by two independent reviewers using a standardised data collection form ( online supplemental file 3 ). Characteristics of the guideline (eg, region and year of publication) and recommendation characteristics (eg, strength and certainty of evidence, based on an approach such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE)) 36 were extracted. Each guideline was assigned a first-level Anatomical Therapeutic Classification code, developed by the WHO, based on the physiological system that the medication(s) in the guideline targeted. This classification was used to group guidelines and explore which medical specialties routinely include deprescribing recommendations in their guidelines. The strength and certainty of the evidence for each recommendation were extracted and converted to a standardised format using methods described by Klugar, et al . 37

Data synthesis and analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the characteristics of the included guidelines and deprescribing recommendations. Frequencies and percentages were used for categorical characteristics and means with SD or medians and ranges were reported for numerical characteristics, dependent on whether the data was normally distributed.

A conventional content analysis 38 was performed to examine the language features of each deprescribing recommendation. An inductive approach was employed whereby the text of each recommendation was reviewed word by word and open coding was performed to create categories and subcategories. These were iteratively refined following group discussions between the research team. Each deprescribing recommendation was coded by two independent reviewers, then codes were compared and an agreement was reached. Inductively derived categories were then mapped to a framework, informed by Bloom and Lahey’s model for defining language which recognises three separate but intersecting language concepts influencing meaning: content , form and use . 39 As written, rather than spoken text was examined, inductively derived categories were mapped to the form and content components.

Using NVivo (V.13), 40 matrix tables were produced to explore variability in characteristics of the deprescribing recommendation language, dependent on whether the guideline was deprescribing-focused or not. The complexity and readability of recommendations were calculated using the SheLL (Sydney Health Literacy Lab) Health Literacy Editor, 41 providing a quantitative assessment of text complexity by assessing factors such as sentence length, syllables, uncommon words and acronyms. A higher value represents a greater level of complexity. A readability score was also generated, representing the grade of literacy expected for someone to be able to read/understand specific text (correlating with school grades). Complexity and readability scores were calculated to determine the ease at which a guideline end-user could comprehend the content of each deprescribing recommendation.

Search results

2866 records were identified from the bibliographic database search, 200 from the Google search, and 2023 from the registry search ( figure 1 ). Following citation searching, screening and duplicate removal, 80 guidelines containing one or more deprescribing recommendations were included.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Study selection - Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis 2020 flow diagram.

Guideline characteristics

The majority of the 80 included guidelines were developed in Europe (41%) and North America (40%), with a minority originating from Australia (6%), Asia (1%) and Africa (1%) ( online supplemental table 1 ). A general upward trend in the number of guidelines containing deprescribing recommendations was observed over the examined timeframe ( online supplemental figure 1 ). Most guidelines (90%) were treatment rather than deprescribing-focused (10%), and predominantly concerned diseases and/or medicines relating to the nervous system (38%), antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents (26%) and the alimentary tract and metabolism (13%). Less than half the guidelines (43%) contained a deprescribing recommendation for each medicine that had a prescribing recommendation. For example, a guideline on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease contained recommendations about initiating a range of medication classes including long-acting β2-agonists, long-acting muscarinic antagonists, inhaled corticosteroids and opioids for dyspnoea, yet only included a deprescribing recommendation for inhaled corticosteroids. 42

Deprescribing recommendation characteristics

The 80 guidelines contained a total of 3569 evidence-based recommendations, of which 248 pertained to deprescribing ( table 1 ). The median number of recommendations per guideline was 24.5 (range; 2–233) and the median number of evidence-based deprescribing recommendations per guideline was 2 (range; 0–14). On average, 7% (248/3569) of evidence-based recommendations identified in the guidelines pertained to deprescribing. An additional 68 deprescribing good practice statements were identified, resulting in a total of 316 deprescribing recommendations. Of these deprescribing recommendations, 9% (28/316) advised on when not to deprescribe ( table 1 ).

• View inline

The 248 evidence-based deprescribing recommendations were classified as either strong 43 (17%), or conditional/weak 43 (31%). Of the remainder, 113 (46%) did not specify the strength, and 17 (7%) self-described the recommendation as consensus-based . The certainty of the evidence informing the evidence-based deprescribing recommendations was variable, ranging from high (2%) to very low (17%). Over half (57%) did not specify the evidence certainty.

The average language complexity score (41%) and reading grade of deprescribing recommendations (17) were high ( table 1 ), with only one recommendation falling below the recommended reading grade for the public (grade 8). 41 Most readability scores were above 16, which are deemed ‘very difficult to read’. 44

Conventional content analysis

Each of the 316 deprescribing recommendations were individually coded to seven categories, with subcategories. These categories were mapped to two overarching language concepts; (1) content and (2) form ( figure 2 ). 39 The content concept comprised categories relating to the recommendation’s subject matter, specifically whether a recommendation indicated for who, what, when/why or how to deprescribe. The form concept related to the presentation of the recommendation and the terminology used.

Language framework of deprescribing recommendations.

Most guidelines contained recommendations about who may be eligible for deprescribing (ie, identifying the population of interest), what to deprescribe (ie, the medicine/drug class) and when or why to deprescribe ( table 2 ). When and why were grouped due to significant overlap between these concepts (eg, a recommendation suggesting medication cessation when a person was in disease remission encompassed both when and why to trial deprescribing). Although 91% of guidelines contained one or more recommendations about when or why to deprescribe, clarity was often lacking. For example, one recommendation stated ‘…should be minimised to less than 7.5 mg/day (prednisone equivalent) and, when possible, withdrawn’, 45 alluding to when to deprescribe, yet not providing clear directives in terms of duration of use.

Content characteristics of deprescribing recommendations identified through conventional content analysis

The how category was dichotomised into two subcategories to convey the difference in detail provided by recommendations. A brief process described recommendations that had some information about how to deprescribe (eg, ‘reduce the dose gradually’ 46 ), whereas detailed process recommendations provided additional guidance on dose reduction (eg, ‘Reduce to 75%, 50%, and 25% of the original dose on a biweekly basis before stopping’ 25 ) monitoring, counselling or the implementation of co-interventions to facilitate deprescribing. Although 68% of the 80 guidelines contained one or more recommendations about how to deprescribe, only 58% provided detailed guidance.

When comparing deprescribing-focused guidelines and treatment guidelines, deprescribing-focused guidelines consistently addressed each content category of Bloom and Lahey’s framework to a greater extent than their treatment counterparts ( table 2 ).

The syntax/structure of the 316 deprescribing recommendations was commonly a single sentence (54%), multiple sentences (22%) or as a stem-sentence with accompanying bullet points (19%) ( online supplemental table 2 ). Significant variability in the terminology used to indicate deprescribing was identified. In total, 12 deprescribing synonym subcategories were defined, with the terms discontinue , reduce , stop , withdraw and taper being the most prevalent. The term deprescribe was not used in any treatment guidelines and was only identified in three deprescribing-focused guidelines. Multiple terms were used within a single guideline, and even within individual recommendations. Similarly, an array of synonyms for the term recommend were used, with varying levels of obligation. The vocabulary of should, recommend and can or may appear most frequently, with the term suggest only used 8% of the time ( online supplemental table 2 ).

Proportion of guidelines from the registries search containing a deprescribing recommendation

The guideline registry search identified 2023 guidelines, of which a 10% sample (n=202) were screened. Of these, 49 guidelines were potentially eligible for inclusion (ie, fulfilled all eligibility criteria except the requirement to have a deprescribing recommendation). After the second screening phase, 14 guidelines were included in the review as they contained one or more deprescribing recommendations. Based on these findings, 29% (n=14/49) of relevant guidelines from the past 5 years contained at least one deprescribing recommendation.

Integration of deprescribing recommendations into clinical practice guidelines has been proposed as a mechanism to minimise potentially inappropriate medicine use and reduce medicine-related harm. 47 The large number of deprescribing recommendations identified in this review (n=316), as well as the upward trend in guidelines containing deprescribing recommendations over time, may reflect a growing awareness of the need to consider deprescribing. However, less than one-third of potentially eligible guidelines identified in the registries search contained a deprescribing recommendation and only 7% of evidence-based recommendations from the 80 included guidelines pertained to deprescribing. Additionally, less than half of these guidelines had a deprescribing recommendation for all medications with a prescribing recommendation. Such findings indicate a paucity of adequate deprescribing guidance and a need for developers to consider including deprescribing when defining the scope of guidelines and when formulating recommendations.

Internationally, guideline development handbooks and checklists stipulate that recommendations should specify core information, including the population of interest and a description of which options are appropriate in which situations. 48–51 The conventional content analysis captured these factors via the who , what and when/why categories, finding that each were commonly addressed. In contrast, insufficient information on how to deprescribe was identified, despite this being recognised as a key enabler to achieving safe and effective deprescribing in practice. 52 Lack of detailed guidance on how to deprescribe could be attributable to a range of factors, including the typical Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome format used to generate guideline questions, 50 as well as limited high-certainty evidence to inform an optimal deprescribing approach. 53 Given deprescribing studies often lack comprehensive information about interventions and relevant outcomes (eg, how long tapering took, when and what withdrawal symptoms occurred), 54–57 guideline panels may be deterred from making specific how -focused recommendations. It is also possible that how is a concept highly relevant to deprescribing, but less pertinent for prescribing recommendations as medication initiation may be more straightforward or familiar to guideline end-users. Deprescribing-focused guidelines addressed the how category more consistently than their treatment counterparts. However, deprescribing guidelines currently exist for only a limited number of medication classes 22–27 and expanding them to cover every medication class could lead to guideline fatigue and underuse. 58 As such, routine integration of deprescribing recommendations into all clinical practice guidelines may enhance both the reach and adoption of deprescribing recommendations and support changing the culture of medicine so that deprescribing is seen as a regular part of care. 47 Deprescribing recommendations can be developed using the same methods used for other recommendations. 51 However, several challenges to including deprescribing recommendations in treatment guidelines have been suggested, including additional time, funds and expertise required for development, 47 59 as well as a lack of incentives or requirements for developers to do so. 36 48–50 It could also be argued that deprescribing is not within the scope of all treatment guidelines (as they may focus only on the early stages of treatment), and there are potential benefits of standalone deprescribing guidelines, such as having the opportunity to provide detailed and comprehensive deprescribing information which may not be a priority within the broader scope of a treatment guideline.

While more comprehensive deprescribing recommendations may facilitate the implementation of deprescribing in practice, there remains a need for recommendations to be simple and digestible. Guideline language is integral to implementability 60 and recommendations should be uncomplicated, clear and persuasive. 29 The deprescribing recommendations analysed in this review were often complex and contained imprecise language, (eg, ‘reduce the dose gradually’). 46 Such guidance does not provide sufficient detail to enable the development of a specific deprescribing plan, or mitigate variation in clinicians’ practice, despite this being a key objective of guidelines. 61 Although clinician expertise and discretion can be used to bridge the gap between recommendations and practice, in the absence of clear deprescribing recommendations, there is concern that recommendations will be misapplied, leading to unintended harm. For example, in the USA, the 2016 National Centres for Disease Control Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain recommended avoiding opioid doses above defined thresholds and suggested tapering and discontinuation of opioids if the benefits did not outweigh the harms. 62 A lack of specific and actionable opioid deprescribing recommendations may have contributed to observed unintended consequences, including inappropriate tapering and termination of care. 63 64 As such, it is imperative that deprescribing recommendations are thoughtfully worded to enable them to be applied as intended. Further, as language complexity is inversely proportional to recommendation adherence, 65 66 strategies to reduce the high complexity and readability scores of recommendations may be required, even for healthcare professionals who are assumed to be able to understand information pitched at a higher reading grade than the general public.

Substantial variability in the terminology used to convey deprescribing and recommend was noted in this review, suggesting that there is no standardised approach for formatting deprescribing recommendations. Some variability in terminology is to be expected, with guideline panels likely using discipline-specific vocabulary (eg, step-down was frequently identified in rheumatology-related guidelines). However, terms with multiple meanings, such as withdraw can be unclear, referring to medication cessation but also adverse drug withdrawal reactions. The use of imprecise language runs counter to the Institute of Medicine’s charge for guidelines to use ‘unambiguous language and define terms precisely’. 9 Similarly, the GRADE group advocates for guideline developers to make explicit connections between recommendation wording and the intended level of obligation to avoid subjectivity, 67 promoting the term recommend or should for strong recommendations, and suggest or might for conditional recommendations. 68 Despite GRADE being widely available and endorsed for use in guideline development, these terms were not used uniformly. Efforts are therefore required to explore contextual considerations across disciplines, countries and cultures that may influence preferred language, as well as understand how to incentivise developers to employ consistent approaches when crafting deprescribing recommendations, recognising that multiple terms may be required to convey nuances in meaning.

Strengths and limitations

To our knowledge, this is the largest review of deprescribing recommendations in clinical practice guidelines, exploring multiple disease states and drug classes. A rigorous search of the literature was conducted, supplemented by comprehensive citation searching. Screening, data extraction and content analysis were performed in duplicate by independent reviewers and each step was piloted to ensure process consistency. A limitation was only screening a 10% sample of the guideline registries, however, this was deemed practically necessary. The estimate of prevalence obtained from this sample only considered guidelines focused on long-term treatment, therefore the overall proportion of guidelines with deprescribing recommendations is likely lower. Additionally, as this was a scoping review, we have not conducted any statistical analyses to determine trends or associations between guideline characteristics. For the content analysis, only the deprescribing recommendations were extracted and analysed. It is possible that information about deprescribing was contained in other parts of the guideline, however, we focused on the recommendations alone. A further limitation was the exclusion of guidelines that were not published in the English language, potentially limiting the number and diversity of guidelines included for analysis. This decision was intentional as the review aimed to explore the language of recommendations, and translation may not appropriately convey the meaning of the original text. Similarly, the exclusion of guidelines pertaining to acute medical conditions may have resulted in the omission of potentially relevant recommendations about deprescribing short-term medications. However, we chose to focus this review on deprescribing of chronic medications, as this is the area where the term deprescribing is most often applied, and where healthcare professionals have called for additional guidance. 19

While the majority of the 80 guidelines included in this scoping review presented one or more recommendations about for whom , what medicines and when or why to deprescribe, treatment guidelines did not routinely contain clear and actionable recommendations on how to deprescribe. Producing comprehensive deprescribing recommendations may be achieved by co-designing a template, reporting standard, or best practice guide, containing information on aspects of deprescribing recommendations that are essential, or preferred, to enable consistency of content (eg, details of how to taper) and format (terminology and presentation). Such guidance may help ensure that the intended meaning of deprescribing recommendations are adequately conveyed and that recommendations are actionable for end-users, to ultimately reduce inappropriate medicine use and improve patient care.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication.

Not applicable.

Ethics approval

Acknowledgments.

We would like to thank Matthew Garrett, Wenhao (Byron) Zhu and Mandeep Chahal for their contributions to the screening of records identified in the guideline registries and Google searches.

• Moriarty F ,
• Bennett K , et al
• Malakouti SK ,
• Javan-Noughabi J ,
• Yousefzadeh N , et al
• Department of Health and social care
• Gallagher P
• Zeng Y , et al
• Charles L ,
• Elghol E , et al
• ↵ American Geriatrics society beers criteria® update expert panel. American Geriatrics society 2023 updated AGS beers criteria® for potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults . J Am Geriatr Soc 2023 ; 71 : 2052 – 81 . doi:10.1111/jgs.18372 OpenUrl CrossRef
• Mancher M ,
• Miller Wolman D
• Boult C , et al
• Patterson A ,
• Boyd C , et al
• De Vries T ,
• Henning RH ,
• Hogerzeil HV , et al
• Gnjidic D ,
• Long J , et al
• Kouladjian O’Donnell L ,
• Fujita K , et al
• Clifford RM ,
• Potter K , et al
• Hendrix I , et al
• Turner J , et al
• Anderson K ,
• Stowasser D ,
• Freeman C , et al
• Bonner C , et al
• van der Ploeg MA ,
• Floriani C ,
• Achterberg WP , et al
• Farrell B ,
• Thompson W , et al
• Thompson W ,
• Davies S , et al
• Bjerre LM ,
• Hogel M , et al
• Langford AV ,
• Bero L , et al
• Brouwers MC ,
• Makarski J ,
• Kastner M , et al
• Kastner M ,
• Bhattacharyya O ,
• Hayden L , et al
• Godfrey CM , et al
• Tricco AC ,
• Zarin W , et al
• Langford AV
• Guyatt GH ,
• Alonso-Coello P ,
• Schünemann HJ , et al
• National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)
• Dewidar O ,
• Langendam MW , et al
• Schünemann HBJ ,
• Kantorová L ,
• Pokorná A , et al
• ↵ NVIVO [program], 2022 .
• Sydney Health Literacy Lab
• Mammen MJ ,
• Charbek E , et al
• Briss PA , et al
• Ferguson C ,
• Fanouriakis A ,
• Kostopoulou M ,
• Alunno A , et al
• The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)
• Dolovich L , et al
• Browman GP , et al
• World Health Organization (WHO)
• Rojas-Fernandez CH , et al
• Doherty AJ ,
• Reed J , et al
• Ali A , et al
• Nahas R , et al
• Schneider CR ,
• Lin C-WC , et al
• Ross, MSc candidate SB ,
• Atique, MD candidate A , et al
• Glasgow RE ,
• Carpenter CR , et al
• Petricca K , et al
• Hutchinson A , et al
• Haegerich TM ,
• Tancredi DJ , et al
• Fenton JJ ,
• Tseregounis IE , et al
• Rashidian A ,
• Eccles MP ,
• Gurses AP ,
• Marsteller JA ,
• Ozok AA , et al
• Zhang A , et al
• Andrews JC ,
• Schünemann HJ ,
• Oxman AD , et al

Supplementary materials

Supplementary data.

This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

• Data supplement 1

AVL and IW are joint first authors.

X @AiliLangford, @OptimisingRxUse, @deprescribing, @FrankMoriarty

Contributors The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted. AVL and ER are the guarantors for this article.Conception and design: AVL, IW, AMM, EK, SC, JPT, WT, BJF, DP, FM, DG, NJA, ER. Collection and assembly of data: AVL, IW, EK, SC, ER. Analysis and interpretation of the data: AVL, IW, EK, SC, JPT, ER. Drafting of the article: AVL, IW, ER. Critical revision of the article for important intellectual content: AVL, IW, AMM, EK, SC, JPT, WT, BJF, DP, FM, DG, NJA, ER. Final approval of the article: AVL, IW, AMM, EK, SC, JPT, WT, BJF, DP, FM, DG, NJA, ER.

Funding Dr Reeve is supported by a NHMRC Investigator Grant (1195460). Dr Langford is supported by a NHMRC Investigator Grant (2025289).

Competing interests ER receives royalties from UpToDate (Wolters Kluwer) for writing a chapter on deprescribing. WT has received research grants related to deprescribing from the US Deprescribing Network, Canadian Institutes for Health Research and Health Canada. AVL, ER and JPT are members of the executive committee of the Australian Deprescribing Network (ADeN).

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Read the full text or download the PDF: